Erin Boyle | PubMed Health

PubMed2005

A comparison of blood glucose meters in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy and precision of the five currently available blood glucose meters in Australia. DESIGN AND SETTING: Control solutions from manufacturers were used to determine the precision for each meter. Glucose levels in capillary blood samples from 49 patients attending a diabetes clinic were measured with each meter and with a laboratory reference method. OUTCOME MEASURES: The coefficient of variation was calculated to determine precision. Bias, Error Grid analysis, and Bland-Altman plots were used to determine accuracy. RESULTS: The CVs of most meters were acceptable at <5%. Bias ranged from 4.0 to 15.5% with only 1 meter satisfying the American Diabetes Association recommendation of <5% bias. Error Grid analysis showed that 94-100% of readings were clinically accurate, and that none of the differences from the reference method would lead to clinical errors. Bland-Altman plots showed that for two meters the magnitude of the difference between the meter and the reference method increased with increasing glucose values, but did not change significantly with glucose level for the other 3 meters. CONCLUSIONS: Currently available blood glucose meters show acceptable precision, and any errors (with respect to a laboratory method) are highly unlikely to lead to clinical errors. However, only the CareSens meter achieved a bias of less than 5%.

Blood Glucose↗

PubMed2004

Depressing research.

Suppression of the publication of negative trials of serotonin-selective reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) in children (Apr 24, p 1335) is more than just a matter of "confusion, manipulation, and institutional failure". It is a crime. To blandly illustrate its severity, we can analogise the situation as follows: would you be concerned if a colleague prescribed penicillin to a child who had an uncomplicated upper respiratory tract infection of viral aetiology? Would you be more concerned if you heard that this child had a serious anaphylactic reaction to the penicillin at home? And how much more concerned would you be if you found out that the prescribing doctor was previously aware of the child's severe penicillin allergy? The latter scenario could be deemed malpractice. How, then, is it acceptable for pharmaceutical companies to suppress publication of SSRI studies that showed a lack of efficacy and an increased risk of serious adverse events in the children and adolescents in experimental trial groups (other than for fluoxetine)? Intentional concealment of these data, an accusation for which there is already public evidence, must be considered a form of corporate violence.

Adolescent↗