ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2018
Seven-Year Clinical Surveillance Program Demonstrates Consistent MARD Accuracy Performance of a Blood Glucose Test Strip.
Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring systems in intensive care unit patients: a scoping review.Intensive care medicine · 2024Article
- Distribution of Oxygen Partial Pressures in Native Capillary Fingertip Blood Samples From a Large Diabetes Patient Population.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2023Article
- Post-Market Surveillance Assessment of the Clinical Accuracy of a Blood Glucose Monitoring System with an Improved Algorithm for Enhanced Product Performance.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2023Article
- Evidence From a Long-Term, Systematic Post-Market Surveillance Program: Clinical Performance of a Hematocrit-Insensitive Blood Glucose Test Strip.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMARD (mean absolute relative difference) is increasingly used to describe performance of glucose monitoring systems, providing a single-value quantitative measure of accuracy and allowing comparisons between different monitoring systems. This study reports MARDs for the OneTouch Verio® glucose meter clinical data set of 80 258 data points (671 individual batches) gathered as part of a 7.5-year self-surveillance program Methods: Test strips were routinely sampled from randomly selected manufacturer's production batches and sent to one of 3 clinic sites for clinical accuracy assessment using fresh capillary blood from patients with diabetes, using both the meter system and standard laboratory reference instrument.
resultsEvaluation of the distribution of strip batch MARD yielded a mean value of 5.05% (range: 3.68-6.43% at ±1.96 standard deviations from mean). The overall MARD for all clinic data points (N = 80 258) was also 5.05%, while a mean bias of 1.28 was recorded. MARD by glucose level was found to be consistent, yielding a maximum value of 4.81% at higher glucose (≥100 mg/dL) and a mean absolute difference (MAD) of 5.60 mg/dL at low glucose (<100 mg/dL). MARD by year of manufacture varied from 4.67-5.42% indicating consistent accuracy performance over the surveillance period.
conclusionsThis 7.5-year surveillance program showed that this meter system exhibits consistently low MARD by batch, glucose level and year, indicating close agreement with established reference methods whilste exhibiting lower MARD values than continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems and providing users with confidence in the performance when transitioning to each new strip batch.
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.