Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Technologies for Diabetes Self-Monitoring: A Scoping Review and Assessment Using the REASSURED Criteria

  • Jessica Hanae Zafra-Tanaka(corresponding author)
    ,
  • David Beran
    ,
  • Beatrice Vetter
    ,
  • Rangarajan Sampath
    ,
*Corresponding author for this work
  • Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia
    ,
  • University of Geneva, Sciences III
    ,
  • Foundation for Innovative and New Diagnostics
    ,
Research Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Open access

Publication Information

Output type

Research Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Original language

English

Pages from-to (Number of pages)

Pages 962-970 (9 pages)

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology (Volume 16, Issue 4)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 07/2022

Publication status

Published - 07/2022

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 85102240559
  • PubMed: 33686875

Abstract

Background: Self-management is an important pillar for diabetes control and to achieve it, glucose self-monitoring devices are needed. Currently, there exist several different devices in the market and many others are being developed. However, whether these devices are suitable to be used in resource constrained settings is yet to be evaluated. Aims: To assess existing glucose monitoring tools and also those in development against the REASSURED which have been previously used to evaluate diagnostic tools for communicable diseases. Methods: We conducted a scoping review by searching PubMed for peer-review articles published in either English, Spanish or Portuguese in the last 5 years. We selected papers including information about devices used for self-monitoring and tested on humans with diabetes; then, the REASSURED criteria were used to assess them. Results: We found a total of 7 continuous glucose monitoring device groups, 6 non-continuous, and 6 devices in development. Accuracy varied between devices and most of them were either invasive or minimally invasive. Little to no evidence is published around robustness, affordability and delivery to those in need. However, when reviewing publicly available prices, none of the devices would be affordable for people living in low- and middle-income countries. Conclusions: Available devices cannot be considered adapted for use in self-monitoring in resource constraints settings. Further studies should aim to develop less-invasive devices that do not require a large set of components. Additionally, we suggest some improvement in the REASSURED criteria such as the inclusion of patient-important outcomes to increase its appropriateness to assess non-communicable diseases devices.

Funding Details

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) through funding from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
FundersFunding numbers
FIND
-
Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics
-
Swiss Agency for Development
-

Publication metrics

Metrics

Scopus
Citations

PlumX, opens in new tab

Citations
4
Captures
52

Sustainable Development Goals

  • SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well