Abstract
Aim This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived metrics, particularly those related to glycemic variability, in the presence of missing data. It systematically examines the effects of different missing data patterns and imputation strategies on both standard glycemic metrics and complex variability metrics.
Methods The analysis modeled and compared the effects of three types of missing data patterns—missing completely at random (MCAR), segmental gaps, and blockwise gaps—with proportions ranging from 5% to 50% on CGM metrics derived from 14-day profiles of individuals with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Six imputation strategies were assessed: data removal, linear interpolation, mean imputation, piecewise cubic Hermite interpolation, temporal alignment imputation (TAI) and random forest-based imputation.
Results A total of 933 14-day CGM profiles from 468 individuals with diabeteswere analyzed. Across all metrics, the coefficient of determination (R2) improved as the proportion of missing data decreased, regardless of the missing data pattern. The impact of missing data on the agreement between imputed and reference metrics varied depending on the missing data pattern. To achieve high accuracy (R2 > 0.95) in representing true metrics, at least 80% of the CGM data was required. While no imputation strategy fully compensated for high levels of missing data, simple removal and TAI outperformed others in certain scenarios.
Conclusion This study highlights the significant impact of missing data and imputation strategies on CGM-derived metrics, particularly glycemic variability and time below range (TBR) estimates. The findings underscore the necessity of rigorous data handling practices to ensure reliable assessments of glycemic control and variability.
Competing Interest Statement
SLC received research funding from i-SENS, Inc. MHJ has received consultant fees from Abbott.
Funding Statement
None to report
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical Approval: the study DiaMont was approved by the Regional Ethical Committee of North Jutland, Denmark (N-20200068).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data utilized (DiaMont study) in this study are not publicly available due to the inclusion of sensitive patient information, which is subject to strict confidentiality and privacy regulations. Access to the data is restricted to ensure compliance with ethical guidelines and to protect patient privacy. Requests for additional information or collaboration may be considered on a case-by-case basis, subject to appropriate ethical approval and data-sharing agreements.
