Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Comparison of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Accuracy Between Abdominal and Upper Arm Insertion Sites

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

DOI

  1. Cost of Treating Skin Problems in Patients with Diabetes who Use Insulin Pumps and/or Glucose Sensors

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Glucose Sensor Accuracy After Subcutaneous Glucagon Injections Near to Sensor Site

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Skin Problems Due to Treatment with Technology Are Associated with Increased Disease Burden Among Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  4. DIWHY – Motivations, barriers and retention factors of DIY artificial pancreas users in real world use

    Research output: Contribution to journalConference abstract in journalResearchpeer-review

  1. Newborn body composition after maternal bariatric surgery

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Glycaemic variability and hypoglycaemia are associated with C-peptide levels in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Psychosocial factors and HbA1c in people with insulin-pump treated type 1 diabetes: Protocol for an ongoing systematic literature review

    Research output: Contribution to conferenceConference abstract for conferenceResearchpeer-review

  4. Glucose Sensor Accuracy After Subcutaneous Glucagon Injections Near to Sensor Site

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

Background: The aim was to compare the accuracy of the Dexcom® G4 Platinum continuous glucose monitor (CGM) sensor inserted on the upper arm and the abdomen in adults. Methods: Fourteen adults with type 1 diabetes wore two CGMs, one placed on the upper arm and one placed on the abdomen. Three in-clinic visits of 5 h with YSI (2300 STAT, Yellow Springs Instrument) measurements as comparator were performed. Each visit was followed by 4 days with seven-point self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in free-living conditions. Accuracy analyses on the paired CGM-YSI and CGM-SMBG measurements of the two CGM sensors were performed. Results: Using YSI as comparator, the overall Mean Absolute Relative Difference (MARD) for the CGMabd was 12.3% and CGMarm was 12.0%. The percentage of the CGM measurements in zone A of Clarke error grid analysis for the CGMabd was 85.6% and CGMarm was 86.0%. The hypoglycemia sensitivity for the CGMabd and CGMarm was 69.3%. Using SMBG as comparator, the overall MARD for the CGMabd was 12.5% and CGMarm was 12.0%. The percentage of the CGM measurements in zone A for the CGMabd was 84.1% and the CGMarm was 85.0%. The hypoglycemia sensitivity for the CGMabd was 60.0% and the CGMarm was 71.1%. All the P-values from the comparisons between the accuracy of CGMabd and CGMarm were >0.05. Conclusion: The accuracy of a Dexcom G4 Platinum CGM sensor placed on the upper arm was not different from the accuracy of the sensor placed on the abdomen in adults with type 1 diabetes.

Original languageEnglish
JournalDiabetes Technology and Therapeutics
Volume21
Issue number5
Pages (from-to)295-302
Number of pages8
ISSN1520-9156
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2019

    Research areas

  • Abdomen, Accuracy, Arm, CGM, Continuous glucose monitoring, Insertion sites

ID: 57015210