Statistical approach of assessing the reliability of glucose sensors: the GLYCENSIT procedure.

Tom Van Herpe, Kristiaan Pelckmans, Jos De Brabanter, Frizo Janssens, Bart De Moor, Greet Van den Berghe
Author Information
  1. Tom Van Herpe: Department of Electrical Engineering (ESAT-SCD), Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Heverlee (Leuven), Belgium. tom.vanherpe@esat.kuleuven.be

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In healthcare, patients with diabetes are instructed on how to apply intensified insulin therapy in an optimal manner. Tight blood glucose control is also performed on patients treated in the intensive care unit (ICU). Different blood glucose meters and glucose monitoring systems (GMSs) are used to achieve this goal, and some may lack reliability.
METHODS: The GLYCENSIT procedure is a statistical assessment tool we are proposing for evaluating the significant difference of paired glucose measurements. The performance of the GlucoDay system in the ICU is analyzed with GLYCENSIT.
RESULTS: THE GLYCENSIT ANALYSIS COMPRISES THREE PHASES: testing possible persistent measurement behavior as a function of the glycemic range, testing the number of measurement errors with respect to a standard criterion for binary assessment of glucose sensors, and computing the tolerance intervals that indicate possible test sensor deviations for new observations. The probability of the tolerance intervals directly reflects the number of samples and additionally improves current assessment techniques. The method can be tuned according to the clinician's preferences regarding significance level, tolerance level, and glycemic range cutoff values. The measurement behavior of the GlucoDay sensor is found to be persistent but inaccurate and returns wide tolerance intervals, suggesting that the GlucoDay sensor may not be sufficiently reliable for glycemia control in the ICU.
CONCLUSIONS: The GLYCENSIT procedure aims to serve as statistical guide for clinicians in the assessment of glucose sensor devices.

Keywords

References

  1. Diabetes Care. 1987 Sep-Oct;10(5):622-8 [PMID: 3677983]
  2. Diabetes Care. 1997 Jun;20(6):911-2 [PMID: 9167098]
  3. Diabetes Care. 2000 Aug;23(8):1143-8 [PMID: 10937512]
  4. Diabetes Care. 2004 Aug;27(8):1922-8 [PMID: 15277418]
  5. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2005 Oct;7(5):699-706; discussion 707-9 [PMID: 16241871]
  6. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2005 Oct;52(10):1796-8 [PMID: 16235667]
  7. Diabetes Care. 2005 Oct;28(10):2412-7 [PMID: 16186272]
  8. Diabetes Care. 1989 Mar;12(3):235-8 [PMID: 2702917]
  9. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2003;5(5):829-42 [PMID: 14633348]
  10. Diabetes Care. 1997 Jun;20(6):1034-6 [PMID: 9167120]
  11. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2008 Jan;2(1):58-66 [PMID: 19885178]
  12. Diabetes Care. 2004 Mar;27(3):834-6 [PMID: 14988313]
  13. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2003;5(4):572-86 [PMID: 14511412]
  14. Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10 [PMID: 2868172]
  15. Diabetes Care. 1988 Sep;11(8):619-29 [PMID: 3219967]
  16. N Engl J Med. 2001 Nov 8;345(19):1359-67 [PMID: 11794168]
  17. Diabetes Care. 1996 Dec;19(12):1412-5 [PMID: 8941473]
  18. N Engl J Med. 2006 Feb 2;354(5):449-61 [PMID: 16452557]
  19. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2004 Feb 10;56(2):125-44 [PMID: 14741112]
  20. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2008 Nov;2(6):932-8 [PMID: 19885282]
  21. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2005 Oct;7(5):665-72; discussion 673-4 [PMID: 16241865]
  22. Diabetes Care. 1985 Nov-Dec;8(6):529-36 [PMID: 4075939]
  23. Diabetes. 2003 Nov;52(11):2790-4 [PMID: 14578298]
  24. Diabetes Care. 1998 Apr;21(4):585-90 [PMID: 9571347]
  25. Diabetes Care. 2006 Aug;29(8):1805-11 [PMID: 16873784]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0glucosesensorGLYCENSITassessmentmeasurementtoleranceICUprocedurestatisticalGlucoDayintervalspatientsbloodcontrolmonitoringmayreliabilitytestingpossiblepersistentbehaviorglycemicrangenumberlevelglycemiaBACKGROUND:healthcarediabetesinstructedapplyintensifiedinsulintherapyoptimalmannerTightalsoperformedtreatedintensivecareunitDifferentmeterssystemsGMSsusedachievegoallackMETHODS:toolproposingevaluatingsignificantdifferencepairedmeasurementsperformancesystemanalyzedRESULTS:THEANALYSISCOMPRISESTHREEPHASES:functionerrorsrespectstandardcriterionbinarysensorscomputingindicatetestdeviationsnewobservationsprobabilitydirectlyreflectssamplesadditionallyimprovescurrenttechniquesmethodcantunedaccordingclinician'spreferencesregardingsignificancecutoffvaluesfoundinaccuratereturnswidesuggestingsufficientlyreliableCONCLUSIONS:aimsserveguidecliniciansdevicesStatisticalapproachassessingsensors:svalidationstandardizedevaluationanalysis

Similar Articles

Cited By