Trial reportJournal of diabetes science and technology2016
A Comprehensive Performance Evaluation of Five Blood Glucose Systems in the Hypo-, Eu-, and Hyperglycemic Range.
Trial report in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2016. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Retrospective Analysis of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data With the Surveillance Error Grid Supports Nonadjunctive Dosing Decisions.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective was to evaluate the performance (in terms of accuracy, precision, and trueness) of 5 CE-certified and commercially available blood glucose (BG) systems (meters plus test strips) using an innovative clinical-experimental study design with a 3-step glucose clamp approach and frequent capillary BG measurements.
methodsSixteen subjects with type 1 diabetes participated in this open label, single center trial. BG was clamped at 3 levels for 60 minutes each: 60-100-200 mg/dL. Medical staff performed regular finger pricks (up to 10 per BG level) to obtain capillary blood samples for paired BG measurements with the 5 BG systems and a laboratory method as comparison.
resultsThree BG systems displayed significantly lower mean absolute relative deviations (MARD) (ACCU-Chek® Aviva Nano [5.4%], BGStar® [5.1%], iBGStar® [5.3%]) than 2 others (FreeStyle InsuLinx® [7.7%], OneTouch Verio®IQ [10.3%]). The measurement precision of all BG systems was comparable, but relative bias was also lower for the 3 systems with lower MARD (ACCU-Chek [1.3%], BGStar [-0.9%], iBGStar [1.0%]) compared with the 2 others (FreeStyle [-7.2%], OneTouch [8.9%]).
conclusionsThis 3 range glucose clamp approach enables a systematic performance evaluation of BG systems under controlled and reproducible conditions. The random error of the tested BG systems was comparable, but some showed a lower systematic error than others. These BG systems allow an accurate glucose measurement at low, normal and high BG levels.
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.