Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30168887›Full record

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.

Adrian H Heald, Mark Livingston, Anthony Fryer, Gabriela Cortes, Simon G Anderson, Roger Gadsby, Ian Laing, Mark Lunt, Robert J Young, Mike Stedman

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Self-Reported Views on Managing Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 9 institutions in 3 countries.

Adrian H HealdThe School of Medicine and Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9537-4050
Mark LivingstonDepartment of Blood Sciences, Walsall Manor Hospital, Walsall, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6878-0769
Anthony FryerInstitute for Applied Clinical Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Gabriela CortesHead of Medical Department, High Speciality Regional Hospital of Ixtapaluca, Mexico City, Mexico.
Simon G AndersonInstitute of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Roger GadsbyWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Wiltshire, UK.
Ian LaingDepartment of Diabetes and Endocrinology, Salford Royal Hospital, Salford, UK.
Mark LuntThe School of Medicine and Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Robert J YoungNational Diabetes Audit, Leeds, UK.
Mike StedmanRES Consortium, Andover, UK.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBConcord Consortium · USKeele University · GBNational Audit Office · GBSalford Royal Hospital · GBUniversidad México Contemporáneo · MXUniversity of Manchester · GBUniversity of Warwick · GBWalsall Manor Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Blood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringData AnalysisDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1General PracticeGlycated HemoglobinHumansReference ValuesBlood GlucoseGlycated Hemoglobin

Identifiers

PMID30168887
PMCPMC6766879
OpenAlexW2888835303

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.