Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22538160›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2012

New Criteria for Assessing the Accuracy of Blood Glucose Monitors meeting, October 28, 2011.

John Walsh, Ruth Roberts, Robert A Vigersky, Frank Schwartz

Open access · bronzeAbstract readConference Proceedings
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Accuracy Evaluation of CONTOUR(®)PLUS Compared With Four Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2015
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

John WalshAdvanced Metabolic Care and Research, Escondido, California 92026, USA. jwalsh@diabetesnet.com
Ruth Roberts
Robert A Vigersky
Frank Schwartz
AMCR Institute · USOhio University · USWalter Reed National Military Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glucose meters (GMs) are routinely used for self-monitoring of blood glucose by patients and for point-of-care glucose monitoring by health care providers in outpatient and inpatient settings. Although widely assumed to be accurate, numerous reports of inaccuracies with resulting morbidity and mortality have been noted. Insulin dosing errors based on inaccurate GMs are most critical. On October 28, 2011, the Diabetes Technology Society invited 45 diabetes technology clinicians who were attending the 2011 Diabetes Technology Meeting to participate in a closed-door meeting entitled New Criteria for Assessing the Accuracy of Blood Glucose Monitors. This report reflects the opinions of most of the attendees of that meeting. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the public, and several medical societies are currently in dialogue to establish a new standard for GM accuracy. This update to the FDA standard is driven by improved meter accuracy, technological advances (pumps, bolus calculators, continuous glucose monitors, and insulin pens), reports of hospital and outpatient deaths, consumer complaints about inaccuracy, and research studies showing that several approved GMs failed to meet FDA or International Organization for Standardization standards in postapproval testing. These circumstances mandate a set of new GM standards that appropriately match the GMs' analytical accuracy to the clinical accuracy required for their intended use, as well as ensuring their ongoing accuracy following approval. The attendees of the New Criteria for Assessing the Accuracy of Blood Glucose Monitors meeting proposed a graduated standard and other methods to improve GM performance, which are discussed in this meeting report.

Indexed as

BiomarkersBlood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringCalibrationEquipment DesignHumansPoint-of-Care SystemsPractice Guidelines as TopicPredictive Value of TestsQuality ControlReference StandardsReproducibility of ResultsTransducersBiomarkersBlood Glucose

Identifiers

PMID22538160
PMCPMC3380793
OpenAlexW2076979079

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.