Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30222000›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2019

Analysis of "Capillary and Venous Blood Glucose Accuracy in Blood Glucose Meters Versus Reference Standards: The Impact of Study Design on Accuracy Evaluations".

Gary H Thorpe

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 93% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Gary H Thorpe1 Gary Thorpe Associates Ltd, Birmingham, England.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The article by Macleod and coauthors outlines an accuracy study of two blood glucose monitoring systems (BGMSs) against glucose-oxidase- and hexokinase-based assays showing how the reference/comparison method and inappropriate sample comparisons can affect accuracy conclusions. The dangers of independent institutions producing inappropriate conclusions when the methodology used for product regulatory or registration accuracy requirements is not according to best practice are stressed. The authors highlight several important aspects of a multistep accuracy evaluation protocol. However, it is essential that anyone undertaking or reporting BGMS accuracy studies should have a clear understanding of each and every protocol point, best practice, and how each can influence accuracy conclusions. Claims against regulatory accuracy criteria should be made only if the detailed specified protocol design and analysis is followed.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringGlucoseGlucose OxidaseHexokinaseBlood GlucoseGlucoseGlucose OxidaseHexokinaseBGMS accuracyblood glucose monitoring systemFDA guidanceISO 15197protocol designreference/comparison glucose method

Identifiers

PMID30222000
PMCPMC6501518
OpenAlexW2890111945

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.