Translating CGM Regulatory Performance Metrics Into Clinical Interpretation: An Exploratory Expert Consensus Framework
5 affiliations
- 1Clínica Las Américas, AUNA and Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellín, Colombia
- 2Endocrinology Department, Hospital Universitario San Ignacio and Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia
- 3Endocrinology Department, Fundación Valle de Lili and Universidad ICESI, Cali, Colombia
- 4Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira, Pereira, Colombia
- 5Internal Medicine Departement, Endocrinology Section, Hospital Pablo Tobón Uribe and Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia
Abstract
Background: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) performance is characterized by technical metrics that are inconsistently standardized across regulatory frameworks and variably connected to clinically meaningful outcomes, complicating interpretation and cross-device comparison.
Objectives: To develop an exploratory framework translating CGM performance characteristics and derived metrics into clinically interpretable domains while distinguishing empirical evidence from expert judgment.
Methods: Candidate metrics were extracted from contemporary clinical, technical, and regulatory sources and organized into six functional domains. Targeted PubMed searches in ambulatory adults with diabetes evaluated domain-specific technical-to-clinical questions. Evidence was classified as direct device-performance, direct between-device comparative, or indirect/contextual. Five experts participated in two private voting rounds using a virtual Nominal Group Technique and prespecified RAND/UCLA agreement criteria. The study was conducted from November 2025 to January 2026.
Results: More than 30 metrics and attributes were mapped across analytical accuracy and performance, glycemic exposure, glycemic variability, clinical safety, adherence and device use, and device reliability. Direct evidence was most clearly identified for device-level analytical performance and between-device differences in analytical accuracy and glycemic exposure; evidence in other domains was predominantly indirect, contextual, or device-specific. Twenty-four of 25 statements achieved consensus after round 1 and all 25 after round 2. The panel considered dynamic accuracy, alert functionality when available, and monitoring continuity potentially clinically meaningful, but these ratings did not establish category-wide superiority of FDA-designated integrated CGM systems.
Conclusion: The framework provides an exploratory structure for interpreting CGM technical performance and derived metrics. Regulatory designation and individual device characteristics should be considered separately, and purpose-designed comparative studies are required to determine whether specific attributes produce reproducible clinical benefits.
Related
- Reporting and interpretation of respiratory metagenomic results in clinical practice: a systematic review and consensus guidelines from the UK NHS Respiratory Metagenomics Network
- Implausible 100-400 m Performance Times and Inadequate Testing Distances Compromise the Estimation and Interpretation of Critical Velocity. Comment on Amara et al. Relationships Between Dry-Land Load-Velocity Parameters and In-Water Bioenergetic Performance in Competitive Swimmers. Sports 2026, 14, 11.
- CT-Referenced Diagnostic Performance and Complementary Error Patterns of Artificial Intelligence Versus a Single Emergency Physician in Chest Radiograph Interpretation: A Retrospective Paired Diagnostic Accuracy Study
- Baseline and 7-Day Dynamic Changes of T Helper 17/Regulatory T Cells Ratio and Their Association with Renal Recovery and Prognosis in Sepsis-Induced Acute Kidney Injury: An Exploratory Analysis.
- Predicting 1-year outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction from preoperative physical performance using machine learning: an exploratory study
BibTeX
@article{ramirezrincon2026translating,
title = {{Translating CGM Regulatory Performance Metrics Into Clinical Interpretation: An Exploratory Expert Consensus Framework}},
author = {Alex Ramírez-Rincón and Ana M. Gómez and Carlos A. Yepes-Cortés and Karen Feriz-Bonelo and Alejandro Marín-Sánchez and Carlos E. Builes-Montaño},
journal = {Clinical Medicine Insights. Endocrinology and Diabetes},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.1177/11795514261490268},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/11795514261490268},
note = {CC BY-NC 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Translating CGM Regulatory Performance Metrics Into Clinical Interpretation: An Exploratory Expert Consensus Framework
AU - Alex Ramírez-Rincón
AU - Ana M. Gómez
AU - Carlos A. Yepes-Cortés
AU - Karen Feriz-Bonelo
AU - Alejandro Marín-Sánchez
AU - Carlos E. Builes-Montaño
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/17
JO - Clinical Medicine Insights. Endocrinology and Diabetes
DO - 10.1177/11795514261490268
UR - https://doi.org/10.1177/11795514261490268
AB - Background: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) performance is characterized by technical metrics that are inconsistently standardized across regulatory frameworks and variably connected to clinically meaningful outcomes, complicating interpretation and cross-device comparison. Objectives: To develop an exploratory framework translating CGM performance characteristics and derived metrics into clinically interpretable domains while distinguishing empirical evidence from expert judgment. Methods: Candidate metrics were extracted from contemporary clinical, technical, and regulatory sources and organized into six functional domains. Targeted PubMed searches in ambulatory adults with diabetes evaluated domain-specific technical-to-clinical questions. Evidence was classified as direct device-performance, direct between-device comparative, or indirect/contextual. Five experts participated in two private voting rounds using a virtual Nominal Group Technique and prespecified RAND/UCLA agreement criteria. The study was conducted from November 2025 to January 2026. Results: More than 30 metrics and attributes were mapped across analytical accuracy and performance, glycemic exposure, glycemic variability, clinical safety, adherence and device use, and device reliability. Direct evidence was most clearly identified for device-level analytical performance and between-device differences in analytical accuracy and glycemic exposure; evidence in other domains was predominantly indirect, contextual, or device-specific. Twenty-four of 25 statements achieved consensus after round 1 and all 25 after round 2. The panel considered dynamic accuracy, alert functionality when available, and monitoring continuity potentially clinically meaningful, but these ratings did not establish category-wide superiority of FDA-designated integrated CGM systems. Conclusion: The framework provides an exploratory structure for interpreting CGM technical performance and derived metrics. Regulatory designation and individual device characteristics should be considered separately, and purpose-designed comparative studies are required to determine whether specific attributes produce reproducible clinical benefits.
SN - 1179-5514
ER -