Comparisons of Fifth-, Sixth-, and Seventh-Generation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems
Authors' conclusion
Adjusted MARD and %20/20 agreement rates were 9.0%/93.1% (abdomen-placed G5), 9.9%/92.3% (abdomen-placed G6), 9.1%/93.2% (abdomen-placed G7), and 8.2%/95.3% (arm-placed G7). Task analysis favored G7 over earlier systems. Favorable clinical outcomes such as hemoglobin A1c reduction and hypoglycemia avoidance seen with G5 and G6 are anticipated with G7 use.
Study context
- Comparison
- Dexcom G5 vs G6 vs G7 continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems
- Outcome
- Adjusted MARD vs YSI and %20/20 agreement rate
Methodological detailspropensity score adjustments, formal task analysis
- Propensity score adjustments
- Formal task analysis
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Values
%20/20
Further findings
Ease-of-use (task analysis)
- Task analysis favored G7 over earlier systems
Original publication
Comparisons of Fifth-, Sixth-, and Seventh-Generation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems. J Diabetes Sci Technol. Published 13 June 2022. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →