Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22768885›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2012

Tighter accuracy standards within point-of-care blood glucose monitoring: how six commonly used systems compare.

Charlotte S Robinson, Patrick Sharp

Abstract readComparative Study
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 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Validation of the HemoCueIndian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine
    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.

Charlotte S RobinsonAbbott Diabetes Care, Witney, Oxon, United Kingdom. Charlotte.S.Robinson@Abbott.com
Patrick Sharp

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BiomarkersBlood Chemical AnalysisBlood GlucoseCalibrationEquipment DesignGuideline AdherenceHematocritHumansPoint-of-Care SystemsPractice Guidelines as TopicPredictive Value of TestsReagent StripsReference StandardsReproducibility of ResultsBiomarkersBlood GlucoseReagent Strips

Identifiers

PMID22768885
PMCPMC3440041

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.