Variability among five over-the-counter blood glucose monitors

Kimberly, Mary M.; Vesper, Hubert W.; Caudill, Samuel P.; Ethridge, Steven F.; Archibold, Enada; Porter, Kimberly H.; Myers, Gary L.

doi:10.1016/j.cca.2005.07.027

Cited by 51 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…10,11 Important advances have taken place in recent years to improve the ease of use of metres and to reduce the possibility of operator error. 12,13 These include easier calibration through insertion of code or chip, smaller blood volume requirement (0.6-5 mL) and reduced measurement time from 5 to 30 s, improved memory capacity to store several hundred results with a facility for downloading, the generation of basic statistics, e.g. average glucose concentration.…”

Section: Self-monitoring Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-monitoring of blood glucose in diabetes: is it worth it?

O’Kane¹,

Pickup

2009

Ann Clin Biochem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is advocated as a valuable aid in the management of diabetes. The volume and cost of monitoring continues to increase. SMBG has a number of theoretical advantages/disadvantages which might impact on treatment, outcome and wellbeing. Investigating and quantifying the effect of self-monitoring in a condition where selfmanagement plays a central role poses major methodological difficulties because of the need to minimize confounding factors. Despite the absence of definitive evidence, some situations where monitoring is generally accepted to be beneficial include patients on insulin, during pregnancy, in patients with hypoglycaemia unawareness and while driving. An area of controversy is the role of monitoring in non-insulin-requiring type-2 diabetes where observational and controlled studies give conflicting results. The available evidence does not support the general use of monitoring by all patients with type-2 diabetes, although further research is needed to identify specific subgroups of patients or specific situations where monitoring might be useful. The best use of SMBG in patients with type-2 diabetes might be for those receiving insulin and those on sulphonylurea drugs. The impact of monitoring on patient wellbeing must also be considered, with some studies suggesting adverse psychological effects. Given the large increase in the prevalence of type-2 diabetes, it will be important to define the role of SMBG so that resources can be used appropriately. Presently, the widespread use of SMBG ( particularly in type-2 diabetes patients) is a good example of self-monitoring that was adopted in advance of robust evidence of its clinical efficacy.

show abstract

Section: Self-monitoring Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-monitoring of blood glucose in diabetes: is it worth it?

O’Kane¹,

Pickup

2009

Ann Clin Biochem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Worse, the diagnostic sensitivity of finger-stick testing for identifying abnormal hs-CRP concentrations was Ͻ75% (12 ). Another study evaluated finger-stick hemoglobin measurements and found diagnostic sensitivities between 25% and 72% for identifying women with low hemoglobin concentrations (13 ). Diagnostic sensitivity was even lower for men (12 ).…”

Section: Finger-stick Testing Inaccuraciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One study reported variation of 5.7%-32% in glucose measurements for Ͼ50% of side-byside comparisons of 5 over-the-counter blood glucose monitors (13 ). Another study demonstrated that 6 of 8 commercially available finger-stick devices for Hb A 1c testing do not meet widely accepted Hb A 1c testing standards (14 ).…”

Section: Finger-stick Testing Inaccuraciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Direct-to-Consumer Disease Screening with Finger-Stick Testing: Online Patient Safety Risks

Lovett¹,

Liang

2012

Clinical Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…9 Further, several studies describe variability of monitor results due to lot-to-lot variability of the test strips. [10][11][12] Some manufacturers address this problem by readjusting their monitor for each strip lot through manual or automated coding systems. 13 Certainly, further studies are needed to better understand these sources of variability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The lack of common calibration of monitors may explain the differences in results observed among monitors. 18,19 Accuracy problems caused by calibration to different points of reference, such as different routine laboratory methods, are commonly minimized through standardization or harmonization efforts. These efforts use reference methods to assess the accuracy of testing systems, which allows establishing metrological traceability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Approaches for Improving Glucose Monitor Measurements for Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose: From Measurement Harmonization to External Quality Assessment Programs

Vesper

Myers

2007

J Diabetes Sci Technol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abbreviations: (ADA) American Diabetes Association; (EQA) external quality assessment; (ISO) International Organization for Standardization; (SMBG) self-monitoring of blood glucose Keywords: calibration, device handling, EQA components, external quality assessment, factors affecting measurement variability, harmonization, measurement variability, self-monitoring of blood glucose, specimen collection, standardization AbstractSelf-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is an important component in diabetes management, helping patients to achieve and maintain normal blood glucose levels. The benefit of SMBG depends on the quality of the measurement performed. Therefore, it is important to know the factors affecting the measurements and to assure that the quality of SMBG measurements is at the highest achievable level possible. To accomplish this, all aspects of the measurement procedure need to be taken into consideration. Sources of variability can be related to the monitor itself, its calibration and use, including blood collection. Improving the variability caused by each source requires specifically designed and targeted efforts. Variability related to the monitor can be assessed in studies that minimize other sources of variability. Variability related to monitor calibration can be assessed and minimized through harmonization or standardization programs, while variability related to the use of the monitors can be addressed through patient-oriented assessment and training. The latter may follow procedures similar to external quality assessment (EQA) programs used in clinical laboratory medicine. However, to obtain an optimal impact on patient care, such programs need to have a wide reach and the social and cultural competency to work efficiently with all patients. The EQA approach or approaches that would provide the most benefit to the patient remain to be determined.

show abstract

Variability among five over-the-counter blood glucose monitors

Cited by 51 publications

References 19 publications

Self-monitoring of blood glucose in diabetes: is it worth it?

Self-monitoring of blood glucose in diabetes: is it worth it?

Direct-to-Consumer Disease Screening with Finger-Stick Testing: Online Patient Safety Risks

Approaches for Improving Glucose Monitor Measurements for Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose: From Measurement Harmonization to External Quality Assessment Programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About