Dávila-Ruales Valentina, Gilón Laura F, Gómez Ana M, Muñoz Oscar M, Serrano María N, Henao Diana C
Department of Internal Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Hospital Universitario San Ignacio, Carrera 7 # 40-62, Chapinero, Bogotá 110231, Colombia.
Department of Internal Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Hospital Universitario San Ignacio, Bogotá, Colombia.
Ther Adv Endocrinol Metab. 2024 Dec 11;15:20420188241304459. doi: 10.1177/20420188241304459. eCollection 2024.
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) with minimally invasive devices plays a key role in the assessment of daily diabetes management by detecting and alerting to potentially dangerous trends in glucose levels, improving quality of life, and treatment adherence. However, there is still uncertainty as to whether CGMs are accurate enough to replace self-monitoring of blood glucose, especially in detecting episodes of hypoglycemia.
Evaluate clinical, numerical accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the CGM devices commercially available when compared to the reference standard of arterial or venous blood glucose.
We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and LILACS databases. The quality was assessed with the Quality Assessment Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Clinical and numerical accuracy data were extracted. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated using Review Manager software. Heterogeneity was assessed by visual examination of forest plot and summary receiver operating characteristic curves.
Twenty-two studies with a total of 2294 patients were included. The average mean absolute relative difference for overall diagnostic accuracy was 9.4%. None of the devices evaluated with ISO 15197:2013 criteria achieved values ⩾95% of measurements in the stipulated ranges in hypoglycemia (±15 mg/dL), but two devices did achieve it in hyperglycemia (±15%; Dexcom G6 and G7). Most of the devices evaluated with consensus error grids reached values above 99% in zones A and B only in overall accuracy and hyperglycemia. For hypoglycemia, the average sensitivity was 85.7% and specificity 95.33%, and for hyperglycemia was 97.45% and 96% respectively.
Currently available CGM devices have adequate accuracy for euglycemia and hyperglycemia; however, it is still inadequate for hypoglycemia, although it has improved over time.
Prospero registration ID CRD42023399767.
使用微创设备进行的连续血糖监测(CGM)通过检测并警示血糖水平的潜在危险趋势、改善生活质量以及提高治疗依从性,在日常糖尿病管理评估中发挥着关键作用。然而,CGM是否足够准确以取代自我血糖监测仍存在不确定性,尤其是在检测低血糖发作方面。
与动脉或静脉血糖的参考标准相比,评估市面上可用的CGM设备的临床、数值准确性、敏感性和特异性。
我们检索了Cochrane图书馆、PubMed、EMBASE和LILACS数据库。使用质量评估诊断准确性研究(QUADAS - 2)工具评估质量。提取临床和数值准确性数据。使用Review Manager软件计算敏感性和特异性。通过森林图和汇总接受者操作特征曲线的视觉检查评估异质性。
纳入了22项研究,共2294名患者。总体诊断准确性的平均平均绝对相对差异为9.4%。根据ISO 15197:2013标准评估的设备中,没有一种在低血糖(±15 mg/dL)规定范围内达到测量值的⩾95%,但有两种设备在高血糖(±15%;德康G6和G7)时达到了。根据共识误差网格评估的大多数设备仅在总体准确性和高血糖时在A区和B区达到99%以上的值。对于低血糖,平均敏感性为85.7%,特异性为95.33%,对于高血糖分别为97.45%和96%。
目前可用的CGM设备对于正常血糖和高血糖具有足够的准确性;然而,尽管随着时间推移有所改善,但对于低血糖仍然不足。
Prospero注册ID CRD42023399767。