Lindner Nicole, Kuwabara Aya, Holt Tim
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Department of Family Medicine, University of Marburg, Karl-von Frisch-Straße 4, 35043, Marburg, Germany.
Syst Rev. 2021 May 10;10(1):145. doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01644-2.
The use of minimally and non-invasive monitoring systems (including continuous glucose monitoring) has increased rapidly over recent years. Up to now, it remains unclear how accurate devices can detect hypoglycaemic episodes. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the diagnostic accuracy of minimally and non-invasive hypoglycaemia detection in comparison to capillary or venous blood glucose in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.
Clinical Trials.gov, Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus and Web of Science were systematically searched. Two authors independently screened the articles, extracted data using a standardised extraction form and assessed methodological quality using a review-tailored quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2). The diagnostic accuracy of hypoglycaemia detection was analysed via meta-analysis using a bivariate random effects model and meta-regression with regard to pre-specified covariates.
We identified 3416 nonduplicate articles. Finally, 15 studies with a total of 733 patients were included. Different thresholds for hypoglycaemia detection ranging from 40 to 100 mg/dl were used. Pooled analysis revealed a mean sensitivity of 69.3% [95% CI: 56.8 to 79.4] and a mean specificity of 93.3% [95% CI: 88.2 to 96.3]. Meta-regression analyses showed a better hypoglycaemia detection in studies indicating a higher overall accuracy, whereas year of publication did not significantly influence diagnostic accuracy. An additional analysis shows the absence of evidence for a better performance of the most recent generation of devices.
Overall, the present data suggest that minimally and non-invasive monitoring systems are not sufficiently accurate for detecting hypoglycaemia in routine use.
PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018104812.
近年来,微创和非侵入性监测系统(包括连续血糖监测)的使用迅速增加。到目前为止,尚不清楚这些设备检测低血糖发作的准确性如何。在这项系统评价和荟萃分析中,我们评估了与1型或2型糖尿病患者的毛细血管或静脉血糖相比,微创和非侵入性低血糖检测的诊断准确性。
系统检索了ClinicalTrials.gov、Cochrane图书馆、Embase、PubMed、ProQuest、Scopus和Web of Science。两位作者独立筛选文章,使用标准化提取表提取数据,并使用针对诊断准确性研究的综述定制质量评估工具(QUADAS-2)评估方法学质量。通过使用双变量随机效应模型的荟萃分析和针对预先指定协变量的荟萃回归分析低血糖检测的诊断准确性。
我们识别出3416篇非重复文章。最终,纳入了15项研究,共733例患者。使用了40至100mg/dl范围内不同的低血糖检测阈值。汇总分析显示平均灵敏度为69.3%[95%CI:56.8至79.4],平均特异性为93.3%[95%CI:88.2至96.3]。荟萃回归分析显示,在总体准确性较高的研究中,低血糖检测效果更好,而发表年份对诊断准确性没有显著影响。进一步分析表明,没有证据表明最新一代设备的性能更好。
总体而言,目前的数据表明,微创和非侵入性监测系统在常规使用中检测低血糖的准确性不足。
PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018104812