Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20167171›Full record

ReviewJournal of diabetes science and technology2010

Analytical and clinical performance of blood glucose monitors.

Suzanne Austin Boren, William L Clarke

Abstract readEvaluation StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. The surveillance error grid.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2014
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The need for clinical accuracy guidelines for blood glucose monitors.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2012
    Article
  13. Blood glucose measurements in critically ill patients.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2012
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Regulatory controversies surround blood glucose monitoring devices.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2010
    Article
  18. 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

2 authors.

Suzanne Austin BorenHealth Services Research and Development, Harry S. Truman Memorial Veterans' Hospital, Columbia, Missouri, USA.
William L Clarke

Funding

ZACOPRIDE VS METOCLOPRAMIDE--EFFECT ON LOWER ESOPHAGEAL SPHINCTERM01RR000847 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE · PI BRETON, MARC D · 1985 to 2010
$48.1M
SEVERE HYPOGLYCEMIA--RISKS AND PREVENTIONR01DK028288 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE · PI COX, DANIEL JOSEPH · 1986 to 2012
$6.4M
NCRR NIH HHS M01 RR00847NIDDK NIH HHS R01DK28288NIDDK NIH HHS R01DK5162
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe objective of this study was to understand the level of performance of blood glucose monitors as assessed in the published literature.

methodsMedline from January 2000 to October 2009 and reference lists of included articles were searched to identify eligible studies. Key information was abstracted from eligible studies: blood glucose meters tested, blood sample, meter operators, setting, sample of people (number, diabetes type, age, sex, and race), duration of diabetes, years using a glucose meter, insulin use, recommendations followed, performance evaluation measures, and specific factors affecting the accuracy evaluation of blood glucose monitors.

resultsThirty-one articles were included in this review. Articles were categorized as review articles of blood glucose accuracy (6 articles), original studies that reported the performance of blood glucose meters in laboratory settings (14 articles) or clinical settings (9 articles), and simulation studies (2 articles). A variety of performance evaluation measures were used in the studies. The authors did not identify any studies that demonstrated a difference in clinical outcomes. Examples of analytical tools used in the description of accuracy (e.g., correlation coefficient, linear regression equations, and International Organization for Standardization standards) and how these traditional measures can complicate the achievement of target blood glucose levels for the patient were presented. The benefits of using error grid analysis to quantify the clinical accuracy of patient-determined blood glucose values were discussed.

conclusionsWhen examining blood glucose monitor performance in the real world, it is important to consider if an improvement in analytical accuracy would lead to improved clinical outcomes for patients. There are several examples of how analytical tools used in the description of self-monitoring of blood glucose accuracy could be irrelevant to treatment decisions.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes ComplicationsDiagnostic EquipmentEfficiencyHumansHypoglycemiaMonitoring, AmbulatoryBlood Glucose

Identifiers

PMID20167171
PMCPMC2825628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.