ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2013
The new glucose standard POCT12-A3 misses the mark.
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 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.
- Why the New FDA Glucose Meter POCT Guidance Is Disappointing.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2017Article
- Falsely Elevated Glucose Concentrations in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients Using Icodextrin.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
POCT12-A3 is a Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute standard for hospitals about hospital glucose meter procedures and performance standards. I have reviewed this standard based on the attributes of an ideal performance standard. POCT12-A3 has tighter limits than its predecessor for 95% of results, the limits widen for 98% of results, and there are no limits for 2% of results. It is hard to fathom that 2% of the results are unspecified and could cause life-threatening results, as glucose meters do not perform this poorly. There should be a specification for unreported results since, by definition, point-of-care-testing assays are time sensitive. POCT12-A3 provides useful advice about the glucose testing procedure but provides evaluation guidance only about analytical performance. Moreover, the recommended protocol to assess meter performance is biased and likely to underestimate the observed performance. The guideline would be improved if its specification were based on an error grid and contained evaluation protocols for user errors.
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.