Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19049373›Full record

ArticleDiabetes technology & therapeutics2008

Assessing the performance of handheld glucose testing for critical care.

Gerald J Kost, Nam K Tran, Richard F Louie, Nicole L Gentile, Victor J Abad

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Diabetes technology & therapeutics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Utility of point-of-care vs reference laboratory testing for the evaluation of glucose levels.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2019
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Computing the surveillance error grid analysis: procedure and examples.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2014
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Analytical and clinical performance of blood glucose monitors.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2010
    Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gerald J KostPoint-of-Care Testing Center for Teaching and Research and the University of California Davis-Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Center for Point-of-Care Technology, University of Califorina, Davis, Davis, California, USA. gjkost@ucdavis.edu
Nam K Tran
Richard F Louie
Nicole L Gentile
Victor J Abad
University of California, Davis · USThe Epsilon Group · US

Funding

Rapid Multipathogen Detection for POCT and National Diaster ReadinessU54EB007959 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI KOST, GERALD JOSEPH · 2007 to 2011
$8.5M
NIBIB NIH HHS 1U54 EB007959-01NIBIB NIH HHS U54 EB007959
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe assessed the performance of a point-of-care (POC) glucose meter system (GMS) with multitasking test strip by using the locally-smoothed (LS) median absolute difference (MAD) curve method in conjunction with a modified Bland-Altman difference plot and superimposed International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15197 tolerance bands. We analyzed performance for tight glycemic control (TGC).

methodsA modified glucose oxidase enzyme with a multilayer-gold, multielectrode, four-well test strip (StatStriptrade mark, NOVA Biomedical, Waltham, MA) was used. There was no test strip calibration code. Pragmatic comparison was done of GMS results versus paired plasma glucose measurements from chemistry analyzers in clinical laboratories. Venous samples (n = 1,703) were analyzed at 35 hospitals that used 20 types of chemistry analyzers. Erroneous results were identified using the Bland-Altman plot and ISO 15197 criteria. Discrepant values were analyzed for the TGC interval of 80-110 mg/dL.

resultsThe GMS met ISO 15197 guidelines; 98.6% (410 of 416) of observations were within tolerance for glucose <75 mg/dL, and for > or =75 mg/dL, 100% were within tolerance. Paired differences (handheld minus reference) averaged -2.2 (SD 9.8) mg/dL; the median was -1 (range, -96 to 45) mg/dL. LS MAD curve analysis revealed satisfactory performance below 186 mg/dL; above 186 mg/dL, the recommended error tolerance limit (5 mg/dL) was not met. No discrepant values appeared. All points fell in Clarke Error Grid zone A. Linear regression showed y = 1.018x - 0.716 mg/dL, and r2 = 0.995.

conclusionsLS MAD curves draw on human ability to discriminate performance visually. LS MAD curve and ISO 15197 performance were acceptable for TGC. POC and reference glucose calibration should be harmonized and standardized.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseCalibrationCritical CareHumansLeast-Squares AnalysisPoint-of-Care SystemsPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityBlood Glucose

Identifiers

PMID19049373
PMCPMC2693242
OpenAlexW2127449773

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.