ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2015
Advances in Patient Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose.
Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2015. 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.
- A personalized federated learning-based glucose prediction algorithm for high-risk glycemic excursion regions in type 1 diabetes.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Potential for community based surveillance of febrile diseases: Feasibility of self-administered rapid diagnostic tests in Iquitos, Peru and Phnom Penh, Cambodia.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2021Article
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
In 2 articles of the present issue, Bendini et al report about performance results obtained with 2 blood glucose monitoring systems of the Contour Next platform. Using several analysis methods, the authors demonstrate a very high accuracy, which meets all actual regulatory performance criteria. With consistent MARD results < 5% under daily routine conditions, this meter platform is finally fulfilling the accuracy request as set forth by the American Diabetes Association already in the late 1980s. This meter platform is representative for the successful effort of the device manufacturers who were consequently improving the analytical performance of blood glucose meters during the Past 2 decades, starting with an MARD of 12-15% at the end of the past century and reaching an excellent accuracy < 5% today.
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.