Glucose Monitoring Devices

2020 ◽  
Sensors ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (17) ◽  
pp. 3757 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejandro José Laguna Sanz ◽  
José Luis Díez ◽  
Marga Giménez ◽  
Jorge Bondia

Current Continuous Glucose Monitors (CGM) exhibit increased estimation error during periods of aerobic physical activity. The use of readily-available exercise monitoring devices opens new possibilities for accuracy enhancement during these periods. The viability of an array of physical activity signals provided by three different wearable devices was considered. Linear regression models were used in this work to evaluate the correction capabilities of each of the wearable signals and propose a model for CGM correction during exercise. A simple two-input model can reduce CGM error during physical activity (17.46% vs. 13.8%, p < 0.005) to the magnitude of the baseline error level (13.61%). The CGM error is not worsened in periods without physical activity. The signals identified as optimal inputs for the model are “Mets” (Metabolic Equivalent of Tasks) from the Fitbit Charge HR device, which is a normalized measurement of energy expenditure, and the skin temperature reading provided by the Microsoft Band 2 device. A simpler one-input model using only “Mets” is also viable for a more immediate implementation of this correction into market devices.


2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric L. Johnson ◽  
Eden Miller

The ability of patients and health care providers to use various forms of technology for general health has significantly increased in the past several years with the expansion of telehealth, digital applications, personal digital devices, smartphones, and other Internet-connected platforms and devices. For individuals with diabetes, this also includes connected blood glucose meters, continuous glucose monitoring devices, and insulin delivery systems. In this article, the authors outline several steps to facilitate the acquisition, management, and meaningful use of digital diabetes data that can enable successful implementation of both diabetes technology and telehealth services in primary care clinics.


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 255-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yushi Hirota ◽  
Masao Toyoda ◽  
Takashi Murata ◽  
Junnosuke Miura

2004 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amber L. Briggs ◽  
Susan Cornell

In 2002, the cost of diabetes in the United States reached $132 billion. There is a well-established relationship between blood glucose control and the risk of diabetes-related complications. Tight blood glucose control, through intensive diabetes therapy, reduces the risk and delays the onset of diabetesrelated microvascular complications. Regular and consistent self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is and should be a part of all diabetes disease state management programs. Pharmacists can truly increase the numbers of patients who use SMBG by being aware and familiar with the monitoring devices available to patients and identifying the physical and psychological issues surrounding SMBG. Results from SMBG and hemoglobin A1C are the basis formost of the medical decisions made for patients with diabetes. This review discusses the best time for patients to test their blood glucose, information regarding blood glucose monitoring devices, alternative site testing, and the newest technology available in glucose monitoring.


2003 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. 749-768 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen T. Chen ◽  
James H. Nichols ◽  
Show-Hong Duh ◽  
Glen Hortin

Diabetes Care ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 423-424 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. H. Piepmeier ◽  
C. Hammett-Stabler ◽  
M. E. Price ◽  
G. B. Kemper ◽  
M. G. Davis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Perlmutter ◽  
Mehdi Benchoufi ◽  
Philippe Ravaud ◽  
Viet-Thi Tran

BACKGROUND Biometric monitoring devices (BMDs) are wearable or environmental trackers and devices with embedded sensors that can remotely collect high-frequency objective data on patients’ physiological, biological, behavioral, and environmental contexts (for example, fitness trackers with accelerometer). The real-world effectiveness of interventions using biometric monitoring devices depends on patients’ perceptions of these interventions. OBJECTIVE We aimed to systematically review whether and how recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions using BMDs assessed patients’ perceptions toward the intervention. METHODS We systematically searched PubMed (MEDLINE) from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018, for RCTs evaluating interventions using BMDs. Two independent investigators extracted the following information: (1) whether the RCT collected information on patient perceptions toward the intervention using BMDs and (2) if so, what precisely was collected, based on items from questionnaires used and/or themes and subthemes identified from qualitative assessments. The two investigators then synthesized their findings in a schema of patient perceptions of interventions using BMDs. RESULTS A total of 58 RCTs including 10,071 participants were included in the review (the median number of randomized participants was 60, IQR 37-133). BMDs used in interventions were accelerometers/pedometers (n=35, 60%), electrochemical biosensors (eg, continuous glucose monitoring; n=18, 31%), or ecological momentary assessment devices (eg, carbon monoxide monitors for smoking cessation; n=5, 9%). Overall, 26 (45%) trials collected information on patient perceptions toward the intervention using BMDs and allowed the identification of 76 unique aspects of patient perceptions that could affect the uptake of these interventions (eg, relevance of the information provided, alarm burden, privacy and data handling, impact on health outcomes, independence, interference with daily life). Patient perceptions were unevenly collected in trials. For example, only 5% (n=3) of trials assessed how patients felt about privacy and data handling aspects of the intervention using BMDs. CONCLUSIONS Our review showed that less than half of RCTs evaluating interventions using BMDs assessed patients’ perceptions toward interventions using BMDs. Trials that did assess perceptions often only assessed a fraction of them. This limits the extrapolation of the results of these RCTs to the real world. We thus provide a comprehensive schema of aspects of patient perceptions that may affect the uptake of interventions using BMDs and which should be considered in future trials. CLINICALTRIAL PROSPERO CRD42018115522; https://tinyurl.com/y5h8fjgx


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 352-357
Author(s):  
F.O. Ushanova ◽  
◽  
T.Yu. Demidova ◽  

Currently, the management of pregnant women with carbohydrate metabolism disorders is challenging due to the high risk of unfavorable events both for the mother and the child even in insignificant deviations from the target value. In addition to the conventional methods of self-monitoring, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is an important tool to control diabetes. CGM in pregnant women provides the detailed information on the type and trends of the changes in blood glucose levels and the fluctuations of glucose levels and also identifies the episodes of latent nocturnal hypoglycemia and postprandial hyperglycemia. The analysis of CGM data allows for correcting insulin therapy, taking a decision on its initiation, and modifying diet and exercise plan. Multiple studies demonstrate the efficacy of CGM in terms of compensating manifest diabetes. As to gestational diabetes, the eligibility of modern glucose monitoring technologies for the prevention of various complications is still controversial. Further studies on the potential use of these devices in gestational diabetes could provide a basis for increasing their application in routine clinical practice. This will improve the management of pregnant women with carbohydrate metabolism disorders.KEYWORDS: diabetes, gestational diabetes, continuous glucose monitoring, flash monitoring, pregnancy, macrosomia, self-monitoring.FOR CITATION: Ushanova F.O., Demidova T.Yu. Potentialities of modern glucose monitoring devices during pregnancy. Russian Medical Inquiry. 2020;4(6):352–357. DOI: 10.32364/2587-6821-2020-4-6-352-357.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document