International clinical opinion on transparency, standardisation, and calibration alignment in the performance evaluation of systems for continuous glucose monitoring

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is now central to diabetes management, yet variation in how respective medical products are evaluated limits meaningful comparison between CGM systems. Three barriers currently constrain reliable interpretation of glucose-derived measures. The first is limited transparency: in several regulatory settings, particularly those using Conformité Européenne marking, clinical-study reports, reference-method information and analytical documentation required for market authorisation are not publicly accessible. The second barrier is heterogeneity in study procedures. Existing evaluations use different reference-glucose methods, sampling strategies, glucose-manipulation protocols and participant characteristics, leading to accuracy estimates that cannot be interpreted consistently across systems. The third barrier is calibration alignment. Even with full transparency and aligned procedures, CGM systems may differ because their calibration algorithms are trained on distinct reference-glucose datasets, influencing reported glucose ranges, automated insulin-delivery behaviour and interpretation during device transitions. A modified Delphi process involving clinicians, laboratory scientists, and researchers identified these issues as the principal determinants of comparability. During this process, the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine released a validated framework for performance evaluation of CGM systems, providing a unified approach to reference-method selection, dynamic in-clinic testing, and structured reporting. Adoption would reduce procedural variability but does not resolve calibration-alignment differences. This international clinical opinion proposes a pathway towards internationally interpretable CGM evaluation: immediate transparency of clinical evidence, routine declaration of calibration alignment, and progressive adoption of validated standardised procedures. These steps provide a foundation for reliable interpretation and globally comparable assessment of CGM technologies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism
Published
2026-01-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.70460
Primary Topic
Diabetes Management and Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

International clinical opinion on transparency, standardisation, and calibration alignment in the performance evaluation of systems for continuous glucose monitoring

Emma G. Wilmot, Othmar Moser, Julia Katharina Mader, P. Kar et al.
Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism
Diabetes Management and Research
article

International clinical opinion on transparency, standardisation, and calibration alignment in the performance evaluation of systems for continuous glucose monitoring

Emma G. Wilmot, Othmar Moser, Julia Katharina Mader, P. Kar, Lutz Heinemann, Alistair N. Lumb, Helen R. Murphy, Robert Andrews, Chantal Mathieu, EM Scott, Jennifer L. Sherr, Carmel E. Smart, Viswanathan Mohan, Tadej Battelino, Thomas Danne, John S. Pemberton, Katharine Barnard‐Kelly, Martin Tauschmann
article en

Abstract

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is now central to diabetes management, yet variation in how respective medical products are evaluated limits meaningful comparison between CGM systems. Three barriers currently constrain reliable interpretation of glucose-derived measures. The first is limited transparency: in several regulatory settings, particularly those using Conformité Européenne marking, clinical-study reports, reference-method information and analytical documentation required for market authorisation are not publicly accessible. The second barrier is heterogeneity in study procedures. Existing evaluations use different reference-glucose methods, sampling strategies, glucose-manipulation protocols and participant characteristics, leading to accuracy estimates that cannot be interpreted consistently across systems. The third barrier is calibration alignment. Even with full transparency and aligned procedures, CGM systems may differ because their calibration algorithms are trained on distinct reference-glucose datasets, influencing reported glucose ranges, automated insulin-delivery behaviour and interpretation during device transitions. A modified Delphi process involving clinicians, laboratory scientists, and researchers identified these issues as the principal determinants of comparability. During this process, the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine released a validated framework for performance evaluation of CGM systems, providing a unified approach to reference-method selection, dynamic in-clinic testing, and structured reporting. Adoption would reduce procedural variability but does not resolve calibration-alignment differences. This international clinical opinion proposes a pathway towards internationally interpretable CGM evaluation: immediate transparency of clinical evidence, routine declaration of calibration alignment, and progressive adoption of validated standardised procedures. These steps provide a foundation for reliable interpretation and globally comparable assessment of CGM technologies.

Diabetes Obesity and MetabolismVol. 28(4)
University of East Anglia (GB), University of Leeds (GB), University of Nottingham (GB), University of Ljubljana (SI), Medical University of Graz (AT), University of Derby (GB), University of Exeter (GB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven (BE), Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Ljubljana University Medical Centre (SI), East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Yale University (US), Graz University of Technology (AT), Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust (GB), Madras Diabetes Research Foundation (IN), Breakthrough (US), NIHR Exeter Clinical Research Facility (GB), Stanford Medicine (US), Dr. Mohan's Diabetes Specialities Centre (IN), John Hunter Children's Hospital (AU), Oxford BioMedica (United Kingdom) (GB), Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust (GB), University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Deutsches Diabetes-Zentrum e.V. (DE), Birmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust (GB), NHS England, Barnardo's (GB), Medical University of Vienna (AT), Stanford University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 78%
Diabetes Management and Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.