Comparison of the Numerical and Clinical Accuracy of Four Continuous Glucose Monitors | Zendy

Boris Kovatchev | Zendy; Stacey M. Anderson | Zendy; Lutz Heinemann | Zendy; William L. Clarke | Zendy

AI Assistant Blog Pricing

Home ZAIA Blog

Open Access

Comparison of the Numerical and Clinical Accuracy of Four Continuous Glucose Monitors

Author(s) -

Boris Kovatchev,

Stacey M. Anderson,

Lutz Heinemann,

William L. Clarke

Publication year - 2008

Publication title -

diabetes care

Language(s) - English

Resource type - Journals

SCImago Journal Rank - 6.636

H-Index - 363

eISSN - 1935-5548

pISSN - 0149-5992

DOI - 10.2337/dc08-1303

Subject(s) - medicine , continuous glucose monitoring , diabetes mellitus , endocrinology , type 1 diabetes

In their comments on our assessment of the accuracy of four continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensors, Brauker and Matsubara (1) correctly point out that our presented studies employed hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic and hypoglycemic clamps, which tested the four devices (Guardian, DexCom 3-day sensor, Navigator, and Glucoday) close to the limits of their stated glucose range. We agree that such a test goes beyond evaluation of the devices per their …

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.

Having issues? You can contact us here

Accelerating Research