PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 17076977

Assessing glucose meter accuracy.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring of blood glucose plays an important role in the management of diabetes, particularly in patients treated with insulin. Blood glucose meters must have sufficient accuracy to allow patients and clinicians to monitor glycemic control and then modify treatment accordingly. Although several standards have been proposed, a consensus about how to measure glucose meter accuracy is not available. SCOPE: An informal review of recently published articles dealing with glucose meter accuracy was conducted to provide recommendations for evaluating accuracy relevant to the practicing clinician. FINDINGS: Whether in clinical practice or in accuracy studies, the accuracy of blood glucose meters is typically determined by comparing meter results to those obtained by a clinical laboratory method on samples collected from the same patient at the same time. However, multiple sample-related, analysis-related, and data display-related factors can have an impact on accuracy determination. Clinicians need to recognize these factors and take steps to minimize their impact when assessing the accuracy of glucose meters used by their patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although modern glucose meters show variable results with respect to analytical measures of accuracy, error grid analysis demonstrates that measurements deemed clinically acceptable approach 100%.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Darius Arabadjief, James H Nichols. 2006. Assessing glucose meter accuracy.. https://doi.org/10.1185/030079906x148274

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Clinical evaluation of the eBsensor hand-held blood glucose monitoring system.

BACKGROUND: Home glucose monitoring system is increasingly recognized as an important tool for glycemic control. We evaluated the clinical performance of the eBsensor glucose monitoring system. METHODS: Fingertip capillary blood glucose concentrations from 282 subjects were measured using eBsensor glucose monitoring system and compared against predicate devices and the Yellow Springs Instruments (YSI) 2300 blood glucose analyzer. Accuracy and precision of the eBsensor glucose monitoring system were assessed using several methods. The comparative study between the eBsensor and 2 currently marketed monitoring systems was performed. RESULTS: The 282 eBsensor readings covered a wide range from 2.6 to 24.4 mmol/l. Deming regression and Pearson correlation analyses showed a linear relationship between the eBsensor readings and the YSI reference method (eBsensor=0.9496 YSI+0.4127 mmol/l; r=0.98). Error Grid analysis demonstrated that 100% of the eBsensor readings in clinically acceptable zones A and B. The CVs for the 6 lots of strips were within the satisfactory interval (<6%). The comparative study showed that the eBsensor readings correlated well with the OneTouch Ultra values (r=0.97) and the Glucocard II values (r=0.97). CONCLUSIONS: eBsensor is a reliable glucose monitoring system which provides high accurate and precise glucose readings over a wide range of glucose concentrations.

Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring↗

[Costs of diabetes mellitus type 2 and self measurement of blood glucose in Germany].

UNLABELLED: It is extremely difficult to assess the prevalence and the total costs of diabetes mellitus for the German health care system. The last sound assessment of the total costs is based on the CODE-2 study, although this study reflects the situation in 1998. METHODS: In this paper we assess again the total costs of diabetes mellitus type 2 and self measurement of blood glucose (SMBG) for the German healthcare system, based on the analysis of a recently published retrospective, multicentre trial dealing with the impact of SMBG on long-term patient outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, yearly costs for the treatment of diabetes mellitus type 2 and its complications amount to Euro 3 196,-per patient. This equals 4.6% to 8.2% of the German healthcare expenditure, in relation to the estimated prevalence of the disease in Germany. The cost difference between the cohorts with and without SMBG was not essential (Euro 290,-higher costs in the cohort with SMBG). CONCLUSIONS: From a public health standpoint, prevention of diabetes mellitus or at least prevention of its complications by optimising glucose metabolism should be given highest priority in times of limited resources for healthcare. SMBG is perhaps a valuable tool to achieve this target.

Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring↗