The Dexcom isn’t always right though. They claim “no fingersticks” and “no calibration required” and both of those claims are complete bullshit.
Comment on Innovative Saliva-Based Glucose Sensor to Revolutionize Diabetes Monitoring
mvirts@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Lol… A bit late ya? I already have glucose readings every 5 minutes. Maybe it’ll revolutionize someone’s bank account when they market it as fingerstick free, but dexcom already does that.
zeppo@lemmy.world 1 year ago
mvirts@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Not so, I literally haven’t needed to do a fingerstick since I got the g6. They come calibrated and as long as you can go 3 hrs between sensors without testing you’re good to go. Maybe for someone with a different activity level this would change, but for some people no fingersticks is a reality.
zeppo@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I’ve had one for about 3 1/2 years and that’s not my experience, unfortunately. Some of the sensors are right on from the start and stay that way… maybe 30% of them. Some are off when they start and take 1-2 days to start reading correctly. In the meantime, it might say I’m 140 when my meters say 110, or 110 when my meters say 140, or at worst, Dexcom says 90 when I am obviously low and I check and it’s 65. Some sensors are just whacked out and unpredictable, like I’ll be hanging at 100 and it shows a quick drop to 90, 75, 65, and I’m uh, what? And check with a meter and it’s 110. Also there’s the 2 hours when I don’t have a sensor when I change them. So, sometimes I go weeks without a fingerstick, but now and then I use just as many as I would without a sensor because I can’t entirely trust it.
RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Hey friend. Pay attention to where you’re inserting it, when I roll onto mine in bed, the values drop precipitously because you’re squeezing out and preventing flow of subcutaneous fluids that the dexcom is specifically sensing.
Also of note, the dexcom doesn’t sense your blood sugar directly, the sub-q fluids are a slightly delayed version of your blood glucose. Measurements between the two are almost guaranteed if you’re a living being. (Which I presume you are right? 😋)
SmashingSquid@notyour.rodeo 1 year ago
Getting a saliva sample sounds messier than blood too. I’d rather more invasive but longer term stuff. Something implantable like eversense but more accurate and no calibrations needed ever would be better than changing a sensor every 10 days and waiting for it to be accurate.
zeppo@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I’m really sure that spitting on something is easier than stabbing yourself with a pin.
SmashingSquid@notyour.rodeo 1 year ago
I said messier, I know it’s not harder. It’s definitely less effort.
hardware26@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
Maybe accuracy could be a selling point but it isnt mentioned in the linked article (maybe mentioned in their paper?). Fingerstick-free methods which measure it from surface have relatively lower accuracy. Also what is measures is not the blood but interstitial glucose level so it is delayed. But the correlation and delay of saliva glucose levels against blood glucose levels is also not mentioned. I hope this research can pave the way for something beneficial eventually.
mvirts@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It is definitely an interesting idea. I’ve lived through failed promises of glucose readings contact lenses and watches, I’m not sure exactly why they fail but it’s made me pessimistic about things like that. I think anything new will have a hard time competing with current cgms unless it can be worn continuously for a month and/or doesn’t puncture the skin at all. For the type 1 market, patients already have to puncture the skin all the time to deliver insulin and most get used to it. The interstitial fluid measurement seems to be standard for cgms, so it’s on par in that regard.