AI Article Synopsis

  • Flash glucose monitoring relies on user compliance, and missing data can impact the accuracy and reliability of glucose tracking, particularly when assessing glycaemic variability.
  • A study found that while mean and continuous net glycaemic action (CONGA) were largely unaffected by data loss, other metrics like standard deviation and mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions (MAGE) showed larger errors as missing data increased.
  • Researchers and clinicians should be cautious when interpreting glycaemic variability measures in nondiabetic individuals, as reliability varies with data loss; mean and CONGA remain reliable even with some missing data.

Article Abstract

Like many wearables, flash glucose monitoring relies on user compliance and is subject to missing data. As recent research is beginning to utilise glucose technologies as behaviour change tools, it is important to understand whether missing data are tolerable. Complete Freestyle Libre data files were amputed to remove 1-6 h of data both at random and over mealtimes (breakfast, lunch, and dinner). Absolute percent errors (MAPE) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to evaluate agreement and reliability. Thirty-two (91%) participants provided at least 1 complete day (24 h) of data (age: 44.8 ± 8.6 years, female: 18 (56%); mean fasting glucose: 5.0 ± 0.6 mmol/L). Mean and continuous overall net glycaemic action (CONGA) (60 min) were robust to data loss (MAPE ≤3%). Larger errors were calculated for standard deviation, coefficient of variation (CV) and mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions (MAGE) at increasing missingness (MAPE: 2%-10%, 2%-9%, and 4%-18%, respectively). ICC decreased as missing data increased, with most indicating excellent reliability (>0.9) apart from certain MAGE ICCs, which indicated good reliability (0.84-0.9). Researchers and clinicians should be aware of the potential for larger errors when reporting standard deviation, CV, and MAGE at higher rates of data loss in nondiabetic populations. But where mean and CONGA are of interest, data loss is less of a concern. As research now utilises flash glucose monitoring as behavioural change tools in nondiabetic populations, it is important to consider the influence of missing data. Glycaemic variability indices of mean and CONGA are robust to data loss, but standard deviation, CV, and MAGE are influenced at higher rates of missingness.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2020-0386DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

data loss
20
missing data
16
data
12
standard deviation
12
freestyle libre
8
variability indices
8
flash glucose
8
glucose monitoring
8
change tools
8
robust data
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!