ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2012
Interference testing: why following standards is not always the right thing to do.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dynamic Interference Testing-Unexpected Results Obtained with the Abbott Libre 2 and Dexcom G6 Continuous Glucose Monitoring Devices.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Analytical Performances of the Biolabo SOLEA 100 Optical Coagulometer and Comparison with the Stago STA-R MAX Analyser in the Determination of PT, APTT, and Fibrinogen.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lucarelli and colleagues in this issue of Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology describe the results of interference testing for a continuous glucose monitoring system. The authors follow the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute guideline EP7-A2, including their conclusions, in which the concepts of a statistically significant interfering substance and a clinically important interference have been combined in a way whereby information from the experiment has been lost and could be misleading. A better way to treat the data is presented, including a simulation method to evaluate the effects of interferences.
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.