ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2019
Comparative Accuracy Evaluation of a Blood Glucose Meter With Novel Hematocrit Correction Technology, With Three Currently Used Commercially Available Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems.
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. It is linked to trial NCT06815081 (A Study to Determine a Capillary Alternative to the Gold Standard Oral Glucose Tolerance Test), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
A Study to Determine a Capillary Alternative to the Gold Standard Oral Glucose Tolerance Test
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hematocrit is known to influence glucose values obtained on some blood glucose meters, with bias observed especially at low and high hematocrit levels. We evaluated the performance of a meter with hematocrit correction technology alongside 3 other commercially available meters. Capillary blood samples from 100 subjects were analyzed in duplicate and compared to the plasma values obtained by reference laboratory analyzer. Bias, error grid, and sensitivity to hematocrit analyses were performed for each meter. Average percentage bias was similar for all meters, however the evaluated meter performed best with respect to error grid analysis, with 100% of values falling within the "no effect on clinical action" and "no risk" categories and did not display any hematocrit associated bias.
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.