Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23439176›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2013

Hematocrit interference of blood glucose meters for patient self-measurement.

Sanja Ramljak, John Paul Lock, Christina Schipper, Petra B Musholt, Thomas Forst, Martha Lyon, Andreas Pfützner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Diabetes-Technology and the Environment: What Do We Have to Consider?Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Comparison of glucose concentrations in canine whole blood, plasma, and serum measured with a veterinary point-of-care glucometer.Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Monitoring of Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2020
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Comparative Accuracy of 17 Point-of-Care Glucose Meters.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sanja RamljakIKFE Institute for Clinical Research and Development, Mainz, Germany.
John Paul Lock
Christina Schipper
Petra B Musholt
Thomas Forst
Martha Lyon
Andreas Pfützner

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAbnormal hematocrit levels may interfere with glucose readings of patient self-assessment blood glucose (BG) meters. The aim of this laboratory investigation was to assess the potential influence of hematocrit variations on a variety of BG meters applying different measurement technologies.

methodsVenous heparinized blood was manipulated to contain three different BG concentrations (50-90, 120-180, and 280-350 mg/dl) and five different hematocrit levels (25%, 35%, 45%, 55%, and 65%). After careful oxygenation to normal blood oxygen pressure (65-100 mmHg), each sample was measured (eight times) with the following devices: Accu-Chek® Aviva Nano and Active, Breeze®2 and Contour®, FreeStyle Freedom Lite®, GlucoDr. auto™, Glucofix® mio Plus, GlucoLab™, GlucoMen® LX Plus, Nova Max® Link, Nova Max® Plus, OneTouch® Ultra®2 and Verio®, On Call® Plus and Platinum, Optium Xceed®, Precision Xceed®, and TaiDoc Fora TD-4227. A YSI 2300 STAT Plus™ glucose analyzer served as reference method. Stability to hematocrit influence was assumed, with <10% mean glucose result bias between the highest and lowest hematocrit levels.

resultsSix of the investigated meters showed a stable performance in this investigation: Accu-Chek Active (7%), Glucofix mio Plus (5%), GlucoMen LX Plus (4%), Nova Max Plus (4%), Nova Max Link (7%), and OneTouch Verio (3%). All other meters failed this hematocrit interference test, with FreeStyle Freedom Lite (11%), and On Call Platinum (12%) being the better devices and On Call Plus (68%), GlucoLab (51%), TaiDoc Fora TD-4227 (39%), and Breeze 2 (38%) showing the worst performance.

conclusionsHematocrit may affect BG meter performance in daily routine. In case of interference, low hematocrit values (<35%) result in too high readings. Our results encourage use of meters that are not affected by hematocrit interference.

Indexed as

ArtifactsHematocritBlood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes MellitusHumansBlood Glucose

Identifiers

PMID23439176
PMCPMC3692232

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.