Performance of the Fifth Generation of a 16-Day Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in Adults with Diabetes
Authors' conclusion
The system demonstrated accurate glucose measurements across the 16-day wear period, irrespective of sensor placement site or glucose concentration.
Study context
- Population
- Adults with T1D or T2D, three clinical sites in China287 sensors
- Participants
- 72 adults
- Comparison
- Anytime 5Pro continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) vs venous blood glucose
- Outcome
- MARD; proportion of CGM values within ±20%/±20 mg/dL of reference values; % of paired points in Zones A and B of the consensus error grids
- Follow-up
- 16-day period
Methodological detailsmulticentre, factory-calibrated real-time CGM, 16-day wear, Participants randomly assigned to one of three 7-hour clinic sessions on days 1 or 2, days 7, 8 or 9, and day 16
- Multicentre
- Factory-calibrated real-time CGM
- 16-day wear
- Participants randomly assigned to one of three 7-hour clinic sessions on days 1 or 2, days 7, 8 or 9, and day 16
Performance
As reported in the abstract
MARD; CGM values within ±20%/±20 mg/dL of reference; paired points in consensus error grid Zones A and B · 16-day wear period
Overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD)
8.58%
CGM values within ±20%/±20 mg/dL criteria
96.59%
Points in consensus error grid Zones A and B
99.99%
Further findings
Accuracy by sensor placement
- Arm: MARD
- 8.58%
- Arm: ±20%/±20 mg/dL agreement
- 97.03%
- Abdomen: MARD
- 8.58%
- Abdomen: ±20%/±20 mg/dL agreement
- 96.16%
- Similar accuracy between arm and abdomen sensor placements
Accuracy over the 16-day wear period · up to 16 days
- MARD range
- 8.30%-8.88%
- ±20%/±20 mg/dL agreement rates remained above 95%
Safety
- Serious adverse events
- 0
Original publication
Performance of the Fifth Generation of a 16-Day Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in Adults with Diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. Published 23 January 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →