ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2012
Tighter accuracy standards within point-of-care blood glucose monitoring: how six commonly used systems compare.
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 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Seven-Year Surveillance of the Clinical Performance of a Blood Glucose Test Strip Product.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2017Article
- The association of hyperglycaemia with prevalent tuberculosis: a population-based cross-sectional study.BMC infectious diseases · 2016Article
- Analytical Performance Evaluation of Infopia Element™ Auto-coding Blood Glucose Monitoring System for Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2016Article
- The Quantitative Relationship Between ISO 15197 Accuracy Criteria and Mean Absolute Relative Difference (MARD) in the Evaluation of Analytical Performance of Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose (SMBG) Systems.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2016Article
- Diabetes mellitus in Zambia and the Western Cape province of South Africa: Prevalence, risk factors, diagnosis and management.Diabetes research and clinical practice · 2016Article
- Perioperative Management of Patients with Diabetes and Hyperglycemia Undergoing Elective Surgery.Current diabetes reports · 2016Review
- Update on a Quality Initiative to Standardize Perioperative Care for Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Therapy.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2015Article
- Challenges of inpatient blood glucose monitoring: standards, methods, and devices to measure blood glucose.Current diabetes reports · 2015Review
- Point-of-care blood glucose testing for diabetes care in hospitalized patients: an evidence-based review.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2014Review
- Existing and Emerging Technologies for Point-of-Care Testing.The Clinical biochemist. Reviews · 2014Review
- Statistical transformation and the interpretation of inpatient glucose control data from the intensive care unit.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2014Article
- Validation of the HemoCueIndian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social MedicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBlood glucose monitoring systems (BGMS) are used in the hospital environment to manage blood glucose levels in patients at the bedside. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15197:2003 standard is currently used by regulatory bodies as a minimum requirement for the performance of BGMS, specific to self-testing. There are calls for the tightening of accuracy requirements and implementation of a standard specifically for point-of-care (POC) BGMS.
methodsThe accuracy of six commonly used BGMS was assessed in a clinical setting, with 108 patients' finger stick capillary samples. Using the accuracy criteria from the existing standard and a range of tightened accuracy criteria, system performance was compared. Other contributors to system performance have been measured, including hematocrit sensitivity and meter error rates encountered in the clinical setting. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Five of the six BGMS evaluated met current accuracy criteria within the ISO 15197 standard. Only the Optium Xceed system had >95% of all readings within a tightened criteria of ±12.5% from the reference at glucose levels ≥72 mg/dl (4 mmol/liter) and ±9 mg/dl (0.5 mmol/liter) at glucose levels <72 mg/dl (4 mmol/liter). The Nova StatStrip Xpress had the greatest number of error messages observed; Optium Xceed the least. OneTouch Ultra2, Nova StatStrip Xpress, Accu-Chek Performa, and Contour TS products were all significantly influenced by blood hematocrit levels.
conclusionsFrom evidence obtained during this clinical evaluation, the Optium Xceed system is most likely to meet future anticipated accuracy standards for POC BGMS. In this clinical study, the results demonstrated the Optium Xceed product to have the highest level of accuracy, to have the lowest occurrence of error messages, and to be least influenced by blood hematocrit levels.
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.