↓ 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
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
4 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 136 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 15%
Student > Bachelor 19 14%
Other 18 13%
Student > Master 17 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 6%
Other 24 18%
Unknown 30 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 5%
Computer Science 5 4%
Sports and Recreations 5 4%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 34 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 15 July 2021.
All research outputs
#3,061,868
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Endocrinological Investigation
#142
of 1,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,160
of 360,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Endocrinological Investigation
#3
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 360,139 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.