ArticleInternational journal of clinical practice2018
Real-world practice level data analysis confirms link between variability within Blood Glucose Monitoring Strip (BGMS) and glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in Type 1 Diabetes.
Article in International journal of clinical practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The experience of blood glucose monitoring in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism · 2022Article
- Low sex hormone binding globulin: a potential predictor of future glucose dysregulation in women.Cardiovascular endocrinology & metabolism · 2021Article
- Investigation of polycystic ovarian syndrome: variation in practice and impact on the speed of diagnosis.Cardiovascular endocrinology & metabolism · 2021Article
- Applying Parkes Grid Method to Evaluate Impact of Variation in Blood Glucose Monitoring (BGM) Strip Accuracy Performance in Type 1 Diabetes Highlights the Potential for Amplification of Imprecision With Less Accurate BGM Strips.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2021Article
- Self-Reported Views on Managing Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2021Article
- Real-world practice level data analysis confirms link between variability within Blood Glucose Monitoring Strip (BGMS) and glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in Type 1 Diabetes.International journal of clinical practice · 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
10 authors at 9 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aims/hypothesisOur aim was to quantify the impact of Blood Glucose Monitoring Strips variability (BGMSV) at GP practice level on the variability of reported glycated haemoglobin (HbA1cV) levels.
methodsOverall GP Practice BGMSV and HbA1cV were calculated from the quantity of main types of BGMS being prescribed combined with the published accuracy, as % results within ±% bands from reference value for the selected strip type. The regression coefficient between the BGMSV and HbA1cV was calculated. To allow for the aggregation of estimated three tests/day over 13 weeks (ie, 300 samples) of actual Blood Glucose (BG) values up to the HbA1c, we multiplied HbA1cV coefficient by √300 to estimate an empirical value for impact of BGMSV on BGV.
resultsFour thousand five hundred and twenty-four practice years with 159 700 T1DM patient years where accuracy data were available for more than 80% of strips prescribed were included, with overall BGMSV 6.5% and HbA1c mean of 66.9 mmol/mol (8.3%) with variability of 13 mmol/mol equal to 19% of the mean. At a GP practice level, BGMSV and HbA1cV as % of mean HbA1c (in other words, the spread of HbA1c) were closely related with a regression coefficient of 0.176, P < 0.001. Thus, greater variability in the BGMS at a GP practice level resulted in a greater spread of HbA1C readings in T1DM patients. Applying this factor for BGMS to the national ISO accepted standard where 95% results must be ≤±15% from reference, revealed that for BG, 95% results would be ≤±45% from the reference value. Thus, the variation in BG is three times that of the BGMS. For a patient with BG target @10 mmol/L using the worst performing ISO standard strips, on 1/20 occasions (average 1/week) actual blood glucose value could be >±4.5 mmol/L from target, compared with the best performing BGMS with BG >±2.2 mmol/L from reference on 1/20 occasions.
conclusionUse of more variable/less accurate BGMS is associated both theoretically and in practice with a larger variability in measured BG and HbA1c, with implications for patient confidence in their day-to-day monitoring experience.
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.