Comparison of Computational Statistical Packages for the Analysis of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data with a Reference Software, “Ambulatory Glucose Profile,” in Type 1 Diabetes
Authors' conclusion
CGM analysis programs reported CGM metrics statistically differently, but these differences may not be applicable in clinical practice. The equivalence test also confirmed that the differences are negligible for TIR and mean glucose, while they can be important for hyperglycemic ranges and CV.
Study context
- Population
- Adults with T1D using the same continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and AID system; CGM data up to 90 days
- Participants
- 152 adults
- Comparison
- 6 CGM analysis programs vs ambulatory glucose profile (AGP) and Dexcom Clarity
- Outcome
- Equivalence of CGM metrics (mean glucose ±2 mg/dL, TIR ±2%, TAR, TAR1, TAR2 and CV ±1%) vs AGP and DC
Methodological detailsequivalence testing (two one-sided t-tests)
- Equivalence testing (two one-sided t-tests)
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Equivalence of CGM metrics
- Most packages had statistically significant differences for at least some metrics
- All tools equivalent to AGP for mean glucose, time in range (TIR), time above range (TAR), TAR1 and TAR2
- CDGA, Glyculator, cgmanalysis and iglu not equivalent to AGP for coefficient of variation (CV) within ±1%
- All tools equivalent to Dexcom Clarity (DC) for mean glucose, TIR and TAR2
- Glyculator not equivalent to DC for TAR1, TAR and CV
- CGDA, cgmanalysis and iglu not equivalent to DC for TAR1 and TAR
- EasyGV and GLU not equivalent to DC for TAR within ±1%
Original publication
Comparison of Computational Statistical Packages for the Analysis of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data with a Reference Software, “Ambulatory Glucose Profile,” in Type 1 Diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. Published 8 November 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →