ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2013
Evaluation of the effects of insufficient blood volume samples on the performance of blood glucose self-test meters.
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 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Dynamic Interference Testing-Unexpected Results Obtained with the Abbott Libre 2 and Dexcom G6 Continuous Glucose Monitoring Devices.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Finger-Actuated Micropump of Constant Flow Rate without Backflow.Micromachines · 2023Article
- Comparison of a human portable blood glucose meter and automated chemistry analyser for measurement of blood glucose concentrations in healthy dogs.Veterinary medicine and science · 2021Article
- Radio-Frequency Biosensors for Real-Time and Continuous Glucose Detection.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Comparison of Fingertip vs Palm Site Sampling on Pain Perception, and Variation in Capillary Blood Glucose Level among Patients with Diabetes Mellitus.Journal of caring sciences · 2020Article
- Design of an ELC resonator-based reusable RF microfluidic sensor for blood glucose estimation.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- System accuracy evaluation of 18 CE-marked current-generation blood glucose monitoring systems based on EN ISO 15197:2015.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccuracy of blood glucose readings is (among other things) dependent on the test strip being completely filled with sufficient sample volume. The devices are supposed to display an error message in case of incomplete filling. This laboratory study was performed to test the performance of 31 commercially available devices in case of incomplete strip filling.
methodsSamples with two different glucose levels (60-90 and 300-350 mg/dl) were used to generate three different sample volumes: 0.20 µl (too low volume for any device), 0.32 µl (borderline volume), and 1.20 µl (low but supposedly sufficient volume for all devices). After a point-of-care capillary reference measurement (StatStrip, NovaBiomedical), the meter strip was filled (6x) with the respective volume, and the response of the meters (two devices) was documented (72 determinations/meter type). Correct response was defined as either an error message indicating incomplete filling or a correct reading (±20% compared with reference reading).
resultsOnly five meters showed 100% correct responses [BGStar and iBGStar (both Sanofi), ACCU-CHEK Compact+ and ACCU-CHEK Mobile (both Roche Diagnostics), OneTouch Verio (LifeScan)]. The majority of the meters (17) had up to 10% incorrect reactions [predominantly incorrect readings with sufficient volume; Precision Xceed and Xtra, FreeStyle Lite, and Freedom Lite (all Abbott); GlucoCard+ and GlucoMen GM (both Menarini); Contour, Contour USB, and Breeze2 (all Bayer); OneTouch Ultra Easy, Ultra 2, and Ultra Smart (all LifeScan); Wellion Dialog and Premium (both MedTrust); FineTouch (Terumo); ACCU-CHEK Aviva (Roche); and GlucoTalk (Axis-Shield)]. Ten percent to 20% incorrect reactions were seen with OneTouch Vita (LifeScan), ACCU-CHEK Aviva Nano (Roche), OmniTest+ (BBraun), and AlphaChek+ (Berger Med). More than 20% incorrect reactions were obtained with Pura (Ypsomed), GlucoCard Meter and GlucoMen LX (both Menarini), Elite (Bayer), and MediTouch (Medisana).
conclusionsIn summary, partial and incomplete blood filling of glucose meter strips is often associated with inaccurate reading. These findings underline the importance of appropriate patient education on this aspect of blood glucose self-monitoring.
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.