ArticleDiabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders2015
Accuracy Evaluation of CONTOUR(®)PLUS Compared With Four Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems.
Article in Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01714232 (Evaluation of Blood Glucose Meter Systems - Contour® PLUS Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 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.
Evaluation of Blood Glucose Meter Systems - Contour® PLUS Study
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Accuracy of capillary blood glucose for 50-g glucose challenge test for gestational diabetes screening.Diabetology international · 2022Article
- Electronic dashboard-based remote glycemic management program reduces length of stay and readmission rate among hospitalized adults.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2021Article
- The prevalence of metabolic syndrome and its association with body fat distribution in middle-aged individuals from Indonesia and the Netherlands: a cross-sectional analysis of two population-based studies.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2020Article
- Analysis of "Capillary and Venous Blood Glucose Accuracy in Blood Glucose Meters Versus Reference Standards: The Impact of Study Design on Accuracy Evaluations".Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2019Article
- Continuous Glucose Monitoring: A Perspective on Its Past, Present, and Future Applications for Diabetes Management.Clinical diabetes : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2017Article
- The Quantitative Relationship Between ISO 15197 Accuracy Criteria and Mean Absolute Relative Difference (MARD) in the Evaluation of Analytical Performance of Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose (SMBG) Systems.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of 5 blood glucose monitoring systems (BGMSs; CONTOUR(®)PLUS [CP], Accu-Chek(®) Active [ACA], Accu-Chek(®) Performa [ACP], FreeStyle Freedom™ [FF], OneTouch(®) SelectSimple™ [OTSS]).
methodsStudy staff tested fingerstick samples from 106 subjects aged ≥18 years using the 5 BGMSs. Some samples were modified to achieve blood glucose concentrations throughout the measuring range. The primary endpoint was comparison of the mean absolute relative difference (MARD) from the reference value (Yellow Springs Instruments [YSI]) across the overall tested glucose range. Other endpoints were MARD in the low (≤80 mg/dL [≤4.4 mmol/L]), middle (81-180 mg/dL [4.5-10.0 mmol/L]), and high (>180 mg/dL [>10.0 mmol/L]) glucose ranges, and MARD for unmodified samples in the overall glucose range.
resultsCONTOUR(®)PLUS had a statistically significantly lower MARD than all BGMSs across the overall tested range (27-460 mg/dL [1.5-25.5 mmol/L]) and in the high glucose range. In the low glucose range, CP had a lower MARD than all BGMSs, which was statistically significant except for ACP. For unmodified samples across the overall tested range, CP had a lower MARD than all BGMSs and was statistically significantly lower except for ACA.
conclusionsCONTOUR(®)PLUS had the lowest mean difference from the reference values (by MARD) when compared with other BGMSs across multiple glucose ranges with modified and unmodified samples.
fundingBayer HealthCare LLC, Diabetes Care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01714232.
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.