Quantification of the relation between continuous glucose monitoring observation period and the estimation error in assessing long-term glucose regulation
Authors' conclusion
Although there is currently no consensus on what is an acceptable MAE, this study provides insight into how MAEs of CGM-derived metrics change according to the used observation period within a population and may thus be helpful for clinical decision-making.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with diabetes using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), DIABASE cohort (ZGT hospital, The Netherlands)
- Exposure
- CGM observation windows of 1 to 89 days vs a 90-day reference window
- Outcome
- MAE of trailing aggregates of CGM-derived metrics (TIR, time below range (TBR), glucose management indicator (GMI), glycemic variability) for window lengths of 1 to 89 days vs the 90-day reference
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
TIR estimation below a MAE threshold of 5%
Subjects with time in range (TIR) MAE <5% using 14 days of CGM data
65%
Observation period needed for 90% of subjects below a TIR MAE threshold of 5%
29 days
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Original publication
Quantification of the relation between continuous glucose monitoring observation period and the estimation error in assessing long-term glucose regulation. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. Published 26 February 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →