rickst29
06-21-2007, 04:44 PM
This device is capable of continuous measurement, although the current version is a fairly large "box" connected to a device which compresses your finger while doing the measurement.
I'm GUESSING that this device has no usage of "disposable consumables". If that guess is right, then this is huge. But their accuracy data doesn't look all that great. The pretty graph on their website appears to be for only one person with exceptionally good results, it's got only about 100 data points. :mad:) I've seen "pretty graphs" on websites for non-invasive bG measurement technology before, and the technology has never worked, the devices have never been approved or sold. But this one has CE approval, that's impressive and, frankly, implies that it actually works! :D
"The trial was conducted at the Sheba Medical center and in an outpatient clinic representing a home-like setting. The trial served to demonstrate the NBM-200G's reliability and patient compliance. Twenty eight subjects with diabetes type I or II participated in the trail, with 1 to 8 sessions of glucose measurements for up to 24 hours. In the 150 sessions collected in the trial, reference blood glucose ranged from 40 to 496 mg/dL. The Median Relative Absolute Error (MRAE) of the evaluated glucose was 10.1%, and the correlation was r = 0.84. A Clarke grid analysis yielded 95.3% of all points in the A+B zones (69.0% A, 26.4% B) and no points in the E zone.
An abstract containing data from clinical trails demonstrating the reliability of NBM-200G was accepted for a poster presentation (number 442-P) entitled "A Non-Invasive Prospective Continuous Glucose Monitoring System" by Amir et. al. at the 67th Scientific Session of the American Diabetes Association (ADA), taking place on June 22-26 in Chicago. In addition, clinical trails results have been accepted for publication at the 4th issue of Diabetes Science and Technology (July, 2007) in a paper entitled "Continuous Non-Invasive Glucose Monitoring Technology Based on "Occlusion Spectroscopy".
Without raw data, I can't exactly compare this MRAE value against a Coefficient of Variance. (The latter places much more penalty on readings which are far form the "true value", by using the SQUARE of the difference, and places much less penalty on readings which are "close".) But I'll guess that since the square root of 10.1 is 3.17, this probably isn't as good as high-quality finger-stick device (such as my One-Touch Ultra). And since you calibrate it using a finger-stick meter, not a YSI, the Orsense errors compound on top of whatever error the finger-stick reading had.
But if you can get CGMS without paying and arm and a leg for Sensors, or making your Insurance pay an arm and a leg for Sensors, this would be really great-- even if you do have to confirm the Orsense reading with a "regular" bG meter before proceeding with any actual treatment. (Heck, all of us CGMS users are SUPPOSED to do that already ;))
I have no idea how uncomfortable the "squeezing" action is, and whether it would wake you up every time it happens. This technology, unlike many failed non-invasive technologies, stops blood flow while subjecting your finger to the measurements. And, because you wearing the compression ring device in the same place for every test (that's a guess), it avoides a lot of the tissue variability which those other "technologies" could never handle.
I'm hoping to see more about this after the Chicago ADA presentation, and hope that one of our 'big shots' can attend the Session. (Jeff, Judith, Ellen....)
I'm GUESSING that this device has no usage of "disposable consumables". If that guess is right, then this is huge. But their accuracy data doesn't look all that great. The pretty graph on their website appears to be for only one person with exceptionally good results, it's got only about 100 data points. :mad:) I've seen "pretty graphs" on websites for non-invasive bG measurement technology before, and the technology has never worked, the devices have never been approved or sold. But this one has CE approval, that's impressive and, frankly, implies that it actually works! :D
"The trial was conducted at the Sheba Medical center and in an outpatient clinic representing a home-like setting. The trial served to demonstrate the NBM-200G's reliability and patient compliance. Twenty eight subjects with diabetes type I or II participated in the trail, with 1 to 8 sessions of glucose measurements for up to 24 hours. In the 150 sessions collected in the trial, reference blood glucose ranged from 40 to 496 mg/dL. The Median Relative Absolute Error (MRAE) of the evaluated glucose was 10.1%, and the correlation was r = 0.84. A Clarke grid analysis yielded 95.3% of all points in the A+B zones (69.0% A, 26.4% B) and no points in the E zone.
An abstract containing data from clinical trails demonstrating the reliability of NBM-200G was accepted for a poster presentation (number 442-P) entitled "A Non-Invasive Prospective Continuous Glucose Monitoring System" by Amir et. al. at the 67th Scientific Session of the American Diabetes Association (ADA), taking place on June 22-26 in Chicago. In addition, clinical trails results have been accepted for publication at the 4th issue of Diabetes Science and Technology (July, 2007) in a paper entitled "Continuous Non-Invasive Glucose Monitoring Technology Based on "Occlusion Spectroscopy".
Without raw data, I can't exactly compare this MRAE value against a Coefficient of Variance. (The latter places much more penalty on readings which are far form the "true value", by using the SQUARE of the difference, and places much less penalty on readings which are "close".) But I'll guess that since the square root of 10.1 is 3.17, this probably isn't as good as high-quality finger-stick device (such as my One-Touch Ultra). And since you calibrate it using a finger-stick meter, not a YSI, the Orsense errors compound on top of whatever error the finger-stick reading had.
But if you can get CGMS without paying and arm and a leg for Sensors, or making your Insurance pay an arm and a leg for Sensors, this would be really great-- even if you do have to confirm the Orsense reading with a "regular" bG meter before proceeding with any actual treatment. (Heck, all of us CGMS users are SUPPOSED to do that already ;))
I have no idea how uncomfortable the "squeezing" action is, and whether it would wake you up every time it happens. This technology, unlike many failed non-invasive technologies, stops blood flow while subjecting your finger to the measurements. And, because you wearing the compression ring device in the same place for every test (that's a guess), it avoides a lot of the tissue variability which those other "technologies" could never handle.
I'm hoping to see more about this after the Chicago ADA presentation, and hope that one of our 'big shots' can attend the Session. (Jeff, Judith, Ellen....)