Table 2

Summary of findings tables for each outcome

OutcomeNo of studies (No of paired values)Study designFactors that may decrease certainty of evidenceEffect per 1000 patients testedTest accuracy CoE
Risk of biasIndirectnessInconsistencyImprecisionPublication biasPre-test probability of 30%
(A) Should CGM devices be used to diagnose hypoglycaemia in preterm infants?
Sensitivity0.39 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.74)Prevalence30%
Specificity0.99 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.00)
True positives (patients with hypoglycaemia)5 studies (1706 paired values)Cross-sectional (cohort type accuracy study)Serious*Not seriousNot seriousSerious†None117 (36 to 222)⨁⨁◯◯
LOW
False negatives (patients incorrectly classified as not having hypoglycaemia)183 (78 to 264)
True negatives (patients without hypoglycaemia)5 studies (1706 paired values)Cross-sectional (cohort type accuracy study)Serious*Not seriousNot seriousNot seriousNone693 (693 to 700)⨁⨁⨁◯
MODERATE
False positives (patients incorrectly classified as having hypoglycaemia)7 (0 to 7)
(B) Should CGM be used to diagnose hyperglycaemia in preterm infants?
Sensitivity0.87 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.92)Prevalence0.19
Specificity0.99 (95% CI 0.99 to 0.99)
True positives (patients with hyperglycaemia)2 studies (1339 paired values)Cross-sectional (cohort type accuracy study)Serious*Not seriousNot seriousNot seriousNone165 (154 to 175)⨁⨁⨁◯
MODERATE
False negatives (patients incorrectly classified as not having hyperglycaemia)25 (15 to 36)
True negatives (patients without hyperglycaemia)2 studies (1339 paired values)Cross-sectional (cohort type accuracy study)Serious*Not seriousNot seriousNot seriousNone802 (802 to 802)⨁⨁⨁◯
MODERATE
False positives (patients incorrectly classified as having hyperglycaemia)8 (8 to 8)
  • *Several studies used a PoC device as their reference standard which has been deemed as too inaccurate for use in neonates.

  • †One study has a very wide CI.

  • CGM, continuous glucose monitoring; PoC, point of care.