Performance of Three Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes
Authors' conclusion
Performance results of all CGM systems varied depending on the comparator method. However, across comparators FL3 and DG7 tended to be more accurate compared with MSP. All CGM systems showed a lower accuracy compared with previous studies
Study context
- Population
- Adults with T1D wearing one sensor of each continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system in parallel for up to 15 days
- Participants
- 24 adults
- Comparison
- FreeStyle Libre 3 vs Dexcom G7 vs Medtronic Simplera
- Outcome
- Accuracy as MARD vs comparator methods (YSI venous, Integra (INT) venous, Contour Next (CNX) capillary)
Methodological detailshead-to-head, sensors worn in parallel, induced glucose excursions, Three 7-hour sessions with 15-minute comparator measurements on days 2, 5 and 15; Dexcom G7 (DG7) and Medtronic Simplera (MSP) sensors exchanged on days 5 and 8
- Head-to-head
- Sensors worn in parallel
- Induced glucose excursions
- Three 7-hour sessions with 15-minute comparator measurements on days 2, 5 and 15; DG7 and MSP sensors exchanged on days 5 and 8
Performance
As reported in the abstract
MARD vs YSI
Further findings
MARD vs INT
MARD vs CNX
Accuracy by glycemic range
- FL3 and DG7 more accurate in normoglycemic and hyperglycemic range; MSP better in hypoglycemic range
Original publication
Performance of Three Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. Published 4 February 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →