Limits...
Comparison of glucose monitoring methods during steady-state exercise in women.

Herrington SJ, Gee DL, Dow SD, Monosky KA, Davis E, Pritchett KL - Nutrients (2012)

Bottom Line: It was found that the CGM system overestimated mean VPG (mean absolute difference 17.4 mg/dL (0.97 mmol/L)) and mean CPG (mean absolute difference 15.5 mg/dL (0.86 mmol/L)).Bland-Altman analysis displayed wide limits of agreement (95% confidence interval) of 44.3 mg/dL (2.46 mmol/L) (VPG compared with CGM) and 41.2 mg/dL (2.29 mmol/L) (CPG compared with CGM).Results from the current study support that data from CGM did not meet accuracy standards from the 15197 International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Nutrition, Exercise, and Health Sciences, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA 98926, USA. sjherr21@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Data from Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) systems may help improve overall daily glycemia; however, the accuracy of CGM during exercise remains questionable. The objective of this single group experimental study was to compare CGM-estimated values to venous plasma glucose (VPG) and capillary plasma glucose (CPG) during steady-state exercise. Twelve recreationally active females without diabetes (aged 21.8 ± 2.4 years), from Central Washington University completed the study. CGM is used by individuals with diabetes, however the purpose of this study was to first validate the use of this device during exercise for anyone. Data were collected between November 2009 and April 2010. Participants performed two identical 45-min steady-state cycling trials (~60% P(max)) on non-consecutive days. Glucose concentrations (CGM-estimated, VPG, and CPG values) were measured every 5 min. Two carbohydrate gel supplements along with 360 mL of water were consumed 15 min into exercise. A product-moment correlation was used to assess the relationship and a Bland-Altman analysis determined error between the three glucose measurement methods. It was found that the CGM system overestimated mean VPG (mean absolute difference 17.4 mg/dL (0.97 mmol/L)) and mean CPG (mean absolute difference 15.5 mg/dL (0.86 mmol/L)). Bland-Altman analysis displayed wide limits of agreement (95% confidence interval) of 44.3 mg/dL (2.46 mmol/L) (VPG compared with CGM) and 41.2 mg/dL (2.29 mmol/L) (CPG compared with CGM). Results from the current study support that data from CGM did not meet accuracy standards from the 15197 International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Limits of agreement between venous plasma glucose and continuous glucose monitoring-estimated values during 45 min of steady-state moderate-intensity cycling and 15 min of recovery (r = 0.5) performed by healthy females in a study to determine the comparability of three glucose monitoring methods. 4.4% of values outside the limits of agreement fell above the upper limit.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3475238&req=5

nutrients-04-01282-f002: Limits of agreement between venous plasma glucose and continuous glucose monitoring-estimated values during 45 min of steady-state moderate-intensity cycling and 15 min of recovery (r = 0.5) performed by healthy females in a study to determine the comparability of three glucose monitoring methods. 4.4% of values outside the limits of agreement fell above the upper limit.

Mentions: There was moderate positive correlation between VPG and CGM-estimated glucose values for 271 paired samples (r = 0.6, P < 0.05). Similar findings were found between CPG and CGM-estimated glucose values for 285 paired samples (r = 0.6, P < 0.05). Bland-Altman analysis suggested unsatisfactory agreement between VPG and CGM-estimated values (r = 0.5; mean difference 4.0 ± 22.6 mg/dL; 0.22 ± 1.25 mmol/L) (Figure 2) and between CPG and CGM-estimated values (r = 0.4; mean difference 3.0 ± 21.0 mg/dL; 0.17 ± 1.17 mmol/L). See Figure 2 for similar representation of CPG compared to CGM-estimated values.


Comparison of glucose monitoring methods during steady-state exercise in women.

Herrington SJ, Gee DL, Dow SD, Monosky KA, Davis E, Pritchett KL - Nutrients (2012)

Limits of agreement between venous plasma glucose and continuous glucose monitoring-estimated values during 45 min of steady-state moderate-intensity cycling and 15 min of recovery (r = 0.5) performed by healthy females in a study to determine the comparability of three glucose monitoring methods. 4.4% of values outside the limits of agreement fell above the upper limit.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3475238&req=5

nutrients-04-01282-f002: Limits of agreement between venous plasma glucose and continuous glucose monitoring-estimated values during 45 min of steady-state moderate-intensity cycling and 15 min of recovery (r = 0.5) performed by healthy females in a study to determine the comparability of three glucose monitoring methods. 4.4% of values outside the limits of agreement fell above the upper limit.
Mentions: There was moderate positive correlation between VPG and CGM-estimated glucose values for 271 paired samples (r = 0.6, P < 0.05). Similar findings were found between CPG and CGM-estimated glucose values for 285 paired samples (r = 0.6, P < 0.05). Bland-Altman analysis suggested unsatisfactory agreement between VPG and CGM-estimated values (r = 0.5; mean difference 4.0 ± 22.6 mg/dL; 0.22 ± 1.25 mmol/L) (Figure 2) and between CPG and CGM-estimated values (r = 0.4; mean difference 3.0 ± 21.0 mg/dL; 0.17 ± 1.17 mmol/L). See Figure 2 for similar representation of CPG compared to CGM-estimated values.

Bottom Line: It was found that the CGM system overestimated mean VPG (mean absolute difference 17.4 mg/dL (0.97 mmol/L)) and mean CPG (mean absolute difference 15.5 mg/dL (0.86 mmol/L)).Bland-Altman analysis displayed wide limits of agreement (95% confidence interval) of 44.3 mg/dL (2.46 mmol/L) (VPG compared with CGM) and 41.2 mg/dL (2.29 mmol/L) (CPG compared with CGM).Results from the current study support that data from CGM did not meet accuracy standards from the 15197 International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Nutrition, Exercise, and Health Sciences, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA 98926, USA. sjherr21@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Data from Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) systems may help improve overall daily glycemia; however, the accuracy of CGM during exercise remains questionable. The objective of this single group experimental study was to compare CGM-estimated values to venous plasma glucose (VPG) and capillary plasma glucose (CPG) during steady-state exercise. Twelve recreationally active females without diabetes (aged 21.8 ± 2.4 years), from Central Washington University completed the study. CGM is used by individuals with diabetes, however the purpose of this study was to first validate the use of this device during exercise for anyone. Data were collected between November 2009 and April 2010. Participants performed two identical 45-min steady-state cycling trials (~60% P(max)) on non-consecutive days. Glucose concentrations (CGM-estimated, VPG, and CPG values) were measured every 5 min. Two carbohydrate gel supplements along with 360 mL of water were consumed 15 min into exercise. A product-moment correlation was used to assess the relationship and a Bland-Altman analysis determined error between the three glucose measurement methods. It was found that the CGM system overestimated mean VPG (mean absolute difference 17.4 mg/dL (0.97 mmol/L)) and mean CPG (mean absolute difference 15.5 mg/dL (0.86 mmol/L)). Bland-Altman analysis displayed wide limits of agreement (95% confidence interval) of 44.3 mg/dL (2.46 mmol/L) (VPG compared with CGM) and 41.2 mg/dL (2.29 mmol/L) (CPG compared with CGM). Results from the current study support that data from CGM did not meet accuracy standards from the 15197 International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus