ArticleJournal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS2016
Accuracy of Human and Veterinary Point-of-Care Glucometers for Use in Rhesus Macaques (Macaca mulatta), Sooty Mangabeys (Cercocebus atys), and Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes).
Article in Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Accuracy of 5 Point-of-Care Glucometers in C57BL/6J Mice.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2018Article
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
Abstract
Handheld, point-of-care glucometers are commonly used in NHP for clinical and research purposes, but whether these devices are appropriate for use in NHP is unknown. Other animal studies indicate that glucometers should be species-specific, given differences in glucose distribution between RBC and plasma; in addition, Hct and sampling site (venous compared with capillary) influence glucometer readings. Therefore, we compared the accuracy of 2 human and 2 veterinary glucometers at various Hct ranges in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta), sooty mangabeys (Cercocebus atys), and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) with that of standard laboratory glucose analysis. Subsequent analyses assessed the effect of hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and sampling site on glucometer accuracy. The veterinary glucometers overestimated blood glucose (BG) values in all species by 26 to 75 mg/dL. The mean difference between the human glucometers and the laboratory analyzer was 7 mg/dL or less in all species. The human glucometers overestimated BG in hypoglycemic mangabeys by 4 mg/dL and underestimated BG in hyperglycemic mangabeys by 11 mg/dL; similar patterns occurred in rhesus macaques. Hct did not affect glucometer accuracy, but all samples were within the range at which glucometers generally are accurate in humans. BG values were significantly lower in venous than capillary samples. The current findings show that veterinary glucometers intended for companion-animal species are inappropriate for use in the studied NHP species, whereas the human glucometers showed clinically acceptable accuracy in all 3 species. Finally, potential differences between venous and capillary BG values should be considered when comparing and evaluating results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27177571PMC4865699What 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.