Back

Non-invasive glucose monitoring vs iCGM: a systematic review and meta-analysis of accuracy and methodological challenges

Zhang, H.; Dromard, E.; Tsang, K. C. H.; Guemes, A.; Guo, Z.; Baldeweg, S. E.; Li, K.

2026-04-27 endocrinology
10.64898/2026.04.24.26351680 medRxiv
Show abstract

Non-invasive glucose monitoring (NIGM) has been pursued for decades, yet no device has achieved regulatory approval despite numerous studies reporting high accuracy. This systematic review and meta-analysis of 32 studies (38 cohorts: 20 NIGM, 18 iCGM; N = 1,693) investigated methodological factors underlying this accuracy-regulatory gap. The pooled Mean Absolute Relative Difference (MARD) for NIGM (10.21%; 95% CI: 8.73-11.69%) showed no significant difference from iCGM (11.82%; 95% CI: 10.36-13.29%; p = 0.13), with extreme heterogeneity (I{superscript 2} = 95.2%). Meta-regression revealed that study duration was the strongest predictor of NIGM accuracy ({beta} = 3.94, p < 0.001), with MARD degrading from 8.7% in short-term to 15.2% in long-term studies, while iCGM accuracy remained stable. Only 15% of NIGM cohorts validated in the hypoglycemia range, compared to 89% of iCGM studies (p < 0.001). These findings suggest that reported NIGM accuracy is substantially influenced by methodological asymmetries.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.