Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 1, 2026
Simple Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Freely Moving Mice
Published on: February 24, 2023
Comparative Accuracy Analysis of a Real-time and an Intermittent-Scanning Continuous Glucose Monitoring System
Manuela Link1, Ulrike Kamecke1, Delia Waldenmaier1
1Institut für Diabetes-Technologie Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Background:
Currently, two different types of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems are available: real time (rt) CGM systems that continuously provide glucose values and intermittent-scanning (is) CGM systems. This study compared accuracy of an rtCGM and an isCGM system when worn in parallel.
Methods:
Dexcom G5 Mobile (DG5) and FreeStyle Libre (FL) were worn in parallel by 27 subjects for 14 days including two clinic sessions with induced glucose excursions. The percentage of CGM values within ±20% or ±20 mg/dL of the laboratory comparison method results (YSI 2300 STAT Plus, YSI Inc., Yellow Springs, OH, United States; glucose oxidase based) or blood glucose meter values and mean absolute relative difference (MARD) were calculated. Consensus error grid and continuous glucose error grid analyses were performed to assess clinical accuracy.
Results:
Both systems displayed clinically accurate readings. Compared to laboratory comparison method results during clinic sessions, DG5 had 91.5% of values within ±20%/20 mg/dL and a MARD of 9.5%; FL had 82.5% of scanned values within ±20%/20 mg/dL and an MARD of 13.6%. Both systems showed a lower level of performance during the home phase and when using the blood glucose meter as reference.
Conclusion:
The two systems tested in this study represent two different principles of CGM. DG5 generally provided higher accordance with laboratory comparison method results than FL.
