ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2019
Laboratory Evaluation of Linearity, Repeatability, and Hematocrit Interference With an Internet-Enabled Blood Glucose Meter.
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. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A High-Precision Screen-Printed Glucose Sensor with In Situ Impedance-Based HCT Correction and Temperature Compensation.Biosensors · 2026Article
- How conclusive is the CONCLUDE trial?Diabetologia · 2020Article
- System Accuracy Assessment of a Blood Glucose Meter With Wireless Internet Access Associated With Unusual Hypoglycemia Patterns in Clinical Trials.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2019Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Degludec Compared to Glargine 300 Units/mL in Insulin-Experienced Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Trial Protocol Amendment (NCT03078478).Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2019Article
- Postmarket Surveillance of Blood Glucose Monitor Systems Is Needed for Safety of Subjects and Accurate Determination of Effectiveness in Clinical Trials of Diabetes Drugs and Devices.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent clinical trials, use of the MyGlucoHealth blood glucose meter (BGM) and electronic diary was associated with an unusual reporting pattern of glycemic data and hypoglycemic events. Therefore, the performance of representative BGMs used by the patients was investigated to assess repeatability, linearity, and hematocrit interference in accordance with regulatory guidelines.
methodTen devices and 6 strip lots were selected using standard randomization and repeatability procedures. Venous heparinized blood was drawn from healthy subjects, immediately aliquoted and adjusted to 5 target blood glucose (BG) ranges for the repeatability and 11 BG concentrations for the linearity tests. For the hematocrit interference test, each sample within 5 target BG ranges was split into 5 aliquots and adjusted to hematocrit levels across the acceptance range. YSI 2300 STAT Plus was used as the laboratory reference method in all experiments.
resultsMeasurement repeatability or precision was acceptable across the target BG ranges for all devices and strip lots with coefficient of variation (CV) between 3.4-9.7% (mean: 5.7%). Linearity was shown by a correlation coefficient of .991; however, a positive bias was seen for BG <100 mg/dL (86% measurements did not meet ISO15197:2015 acceptance criteria). Significant hematocrit interference (up to 20%) was observed for BG >100 mg/dL (ISO15197:2015 acceptance criteria: ±10%), while the results were acceptable for BG <100 mg/dL.
conclusionsThe BGM met repeatability requirements but demonstrated a significant measurement bias in the low BG range. In addition, it failed the ISO15197:2015 criteria for hematocrit interference.
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.