ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2010
We need tighter regulatory standards for blood glucose monitoring, but they should be for accuracy disclosure.
Article 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 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Age- and sex-related changes in fasting plasma glucose and lipoprotein in cynomolgus monkeys.Lipids in health and disease · 2016Article
- Challenges of inpatient blood glucose monitoring: standards, methods, and devices to measure blood glucose.Current diabetes reports · 2015Review
- Analytical performance of glucose monitoring systems at different blood glucose ranges and analysis of outliers in a clinical setting.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2014Article
- System accuracy evaluation of 43 blood glucose monitoring systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose according to DIN EN ISO 15197.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2012Article
- Accuracy in blood glucose measurement: what will a tightening of requirements yield?Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2012Article
- Blood glucose testing in the hospital: error sources and risk management.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Regulatory interest has focused on the accuracy of blood glucose monitoring systems. Currently, almost all systems meet the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15197 clinical standard (≥95% of the values within 20% of the reference for values above 75 mg/dl and within 15 mg/dl below that level). Should the systems have to meet one of the extended ISO standards of 15%, 10%, or even 5%? There is a wide variety of people with diabetes doing glucose monitoring, and the majority do not need better accuracy. Indeed, when selecting an insulin dose, the inaccuracy of the glucose reading has little effect compared with the inaccuracy in counting carbohydrates and the variability in insulin absorption. It might be far better to evaluate the accuracy in a standard method and provide the accuracy values on a standard label. Patients and health care providers could then select the monitoring system that best meets their needs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.