4.2 Article

Relationships among different glycemic variability indices obtained by continuous glucose monitoring

期刊

PRIMARY CARE DIABETES
卷 9, 期 4, 页码 290-296

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pcd.2014.10.001

关键词

Glycemic variability; Diabetes mellitus; Continuous glucose monitoring; Standard deviation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to assess the relationships among indices of glycemic variability obtained by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). CGM was performed in 88 patients with diabetes (20 type 1 and 68 type 2 diabetes, age 59 +/- 15 years) admitted to our hospital (Keio University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan) between 2010 and 2012. Mean glucose, glucose standard deviation (SDglu) and other glycemic indices such as index of glycemic control (ICG), J-index, mean of daily differences (MODD), continuous overlapping net glycemic action 1 (CONGA1), mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE) and M value were calculated from CGM data, and the correlations among these indices were assessed. There were strong correlations between SDglu and the indices MAGE, CONGA1, MODD and M value (all r > 0.8, P < 0.05). On the other hand, mean glucose was strongly correlated with J index and M value (both r > 0.8, P < 0.05). SDglu and other glycemic variability indices were more strongly correlated with hypoglycemia than was mean glucose, and the combination of mean glucose and SDglu was useful for predicting hypoglycemia in patients with diabetes. In this study, we demonstrated the characteristics of various glycemic variability indices in relation to mean glucose and SDglu. This information will help physicians to understand the characteristics of various glycemic variability indices and to select an appropriate index for their purpose. Our results also underpin the importance of glycemic variability in relation to risk of hypoglycemia in patients with diabetes. (C) 2014 Primary Care Diabetes Europe. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据