量化长期血糖调节评估中连续血糖监测观察期与估计误差之间的关系。

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q2 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Stennie Zoet, Thomas Urgert, Anouk Veldhuis, Bert-Jan van Beijnum, Gozewijn D Laverman
{"title":"量化长期血糖调节评估中连续血糖监测观察期与估计误差之间的关系。","authors":"Stennie Zoet, Thomas Urgert, Anouk Veldhuis, Bert-Jan van Beijnum, Gozewijn D Laverman","doi":"10.1136/bmjdrc-2024-004768","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The integration of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) into clinical practice has rapidly emerged in the last decade, changing the evaluation of long-term glucose regulation in patients with diabetes. When using CGM-derived metrics to evaluate long-term glucose regulation, it is essential to determine the minimal observation period necessary for a reliable estimate. The approach of this study was to calculate mean absolute errors (MAEs) for varying window lengths, with the goal of demonstrating how the CGM observation period influences the accuracy of the estimation of 90-day glycemic control.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>CGM data were collected from the DIABASE cohort (ZGT hospital, The Netherlands). Trailing aggregates (TAs) were calculated for four CGM-derived metrics: time in range (TIR), time below range (TBR), glucose management indicator (GMI) and glycemic variability (GV). Arbitrary MAEs for each patient were compared between the TAs of window lengths from 1 to 89 days and a reference TA of 90 days, which is assumed to reflect long-term glycemic regulation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Using 14 days of CGM data resulted in 65% of subjects having their TIR estimation being below a MAE threshold of 5%. In order to have 90% of the subjects below a TIR MAE threshold of 5%, the observation period needs to be 29 days.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although there is currently no consensus on what is an acceptable MAE, this study provides insight into how MAEs of CGM-derived metrics change according to the used observation period within a population and may thus be helpful for clinical decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":9151,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11865789/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantification of the relation between continuous glucose monitoring observation period and the estimation error in assessing long-term glucose regulation.\",\"authors\":\"Stennie Zoet, Thomas Urgert, Anouk Veldhuis, Bert-Jan van Beijnum, Gozewijn D Laverman\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjdrc-2024-004768\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The integration of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) into clinical practice has rapidly emerged in the last decade, changing the evaluation of long-term glucose regulation in patients with diabetes. When using CGM-derived metrics to evaluate long-term glucose regulation, it is essential to determine the minimal observation period necessary for a reliable estimate. The approach of this study was to calculate mean absolute errors (MAEs) for varying window lengths, with the goal of demonstrating how the CGM observation period influences the accuracy of the estimation of 90-day glycemic control.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>CGM data were collected from the DIABASE cohort (ZGT hospital, The Netherlands). Trailing aggregates (TAs) were calculated for four CGM-derived metrics: time in range (TIR), time below range (TBR), glucose management indicator (GMI) and glycemic variability (GV). Arbitrary MAEs for each patient were compared between the TAs of window lengths from 1 to 89 days and a reference TA of 90 days, which is assumed to reflect long-term glycemic regulation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Using 14 days of CGM data resulted in 65% of subjects having their TIR estimation being below a MAE threshold of 5%. In order to have 90% of the subjects below a TIR MAE threshold of 5%, the observation period needs to be 29 days.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although there is currently no consensus on what is an acceptable MAE, this study provides insight into how MAEs of CGM-derived metrics change according to the used observation period within a population and may thus be helpful for clinical decision-making.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9151,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11865789/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2024-004768\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2024-004768","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导论:近十年来,将连续血糖监测(CGM)整合到临床实践中迅速兴起,改变了对糖尿病患者长期血糖调节的评估。当使用cgm衍生的指标来评估长期血糖调节时,必须确定可靠估计所需的最小观察期。本研究的方法是计算不同窗口长度的平均绝对误差(MAEs),目的是证明CGM观察期如何影响90天血糖控制估计的准确性。研究设计和方法:CGM数据收集自DIABASE队列(荷兰ZGT医院)。根据四种cgm衍生指标计算尾集(TAs):范围内时间(TIR)、范围下时间(TBR)、葡萄糖管理指标(GMI)和血糖变异性(GV)。将每个患者的任意MAEs在窗口长度为1 ~ 89天的TA和90天的参考TA之间进行比较,假设参考TA反映了长期的血糖调节。结果:使用14天的CGM数据导致65%的受试者的TIR估计值低于5%的MAE阈值。为了使90%的受试者低于5%的TIR MAE阈值,观察期需要为29天。结论:尽管目前对于什么是可接受的MAE尚未达成共识,但本研究提供了cgm衍生指标的MAE如何根据人群中使用的观察期而变化的见解,从而可能有助于临床决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quantification of the relation between continuous glucose monitoring observation period and the estimation error in assessing long-term glucose regulation.

Introduction: The integration of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) into clinical practice has rapidly emerged in the last decade, changing the evaluation of long-term glucose regulation in patients with diabetes. When using CGM-derived metrics to evaluate long-term glucose regulation, it is essential to determine the minimal observation period necessary for a reliable estimate. The approach of this study was to calculate mean absolute errors (MAEs) for varying window lengths, with the goal of demonstrating how the CGM observation period influences the accuracy of the estimation of 90-day glycemic control.

Research design and methods: CGM data were collected from the DIABASE cohort (ZGT hospital, The Netherlands). Trailing aggregates (TAs) were calculated for four CGM-derived metrics: time in range (TIR), time below range (TBR), glucose management indicator (GMI) and glycemic variability (GV). Arbitrary MAEs for each patient were compared between the TAs of window lengths from 1 to 89 days and a reference TA of 90 days, which is assumed to reflect long-term glycemic regulation.

Results: Using 14 days of CGM data resulted in 65% of subjects having their TIR estimation being below a MAE threshold of 5%. In order to have 90% of the subjects below a TIR MAE threshold of 5%, the observation period needs to be 29 days.

Conclusions: Although there is currently no consensus on what is an acceptable MAE, this study provides insight into how MAEs of CGM-derived metrics change according to the used observation period within a population and may thus be helpful for clinical decision-making.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care Medicine-Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
CiteScore
9.30
自引率
2.40%
发文量
123
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care is an open access journal committed to publishing high-quality, basic and clinical research articles regarding type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and associated complications. Only original content will be accepted, and submissions are subject to rigorous peer review to ensure the publication of high-quality — and evidence-based — original research articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信