↓ Skip to main content

Head-to-head comparison between flash and continuous glucose monitoring systems in outpatients with type 1 diabetes

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
Head-to-head comparison between flash and continuous glucose monitoring systems in outpatients with type 1 diabetes
Published in
Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40618-016-0495-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

B. Bonora, A. Maran, S. Ciciliot, A. Avogaro, G. P. Fadini

Abstract

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is being increasingly used in clinical practice. The flash glucose monitoring (FGM) and CGM are different systems of interstitial glucose recording. We aimed to determine the agreement between the factory-calibrated FGM FreeStyle Libre (FSL) and the gold-standard CGM Dexcom G4 Platinum (DG4P). We analyzed data from n = 8 outpatients with type 1 diabetes, who wore the FSL and DG4P for up to 14 days during their habitual life. We aligned FSL and DG4P recordings to obtain paired glucose measures. We calculated correlation coefficients, mean absolute relative difference (MARD), percentages in Clarke error grid areas, time spent in hyperglycaemia, target glycaemia, or hypoglycaemia, as well as glucose variability with both sensors. Comparison with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) was also performed. Patients varied in terms of age, diabetes duration, and HbA1c (from 5.9 to 9.6 %). In the pooled analysis of 10,020 paired values, there was a good correlation between FSL and DG4P (r (2) = 0.76; MARD = 18.1 ± 14.8 %) with wide variability among patients. The MARD was significantly higher during days 11-14 than in days 1-10, and during hypoglycaemia (19 %), than in normoglycaemia (16 %) or hyperglycaemia (13 %). Average glucose profiles and MARD versus SMBG were similar between the two sensors. Time spent in normo-, hyper-, or hypoglycaemia, and indexes of glucose variability was similarly estimated by the two sensors. In outpatients with type 1 diabetes, we found good agreement between the FSL and DG4P. No significant difference was detected in the estimation of clinical diagnostic parameters.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Master 13 16%
Other 13 16%
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Unspecified 10 13%
Other 19 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 56%
Unspecified 12 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Computer Science 3 4%
Sports and Recreations 2 3%
Other 11 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 March 2018.
All research outputs
#3,065,328
of 12,719,839 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Endocrinological Investigation
#78
of 807 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,080
of 372,927 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Endocrinological Investigation
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,719,839 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 807 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 372,927 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.