Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32172590›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2021

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.

Michael Stedman, Rustam Rea, Christopher J Duff, Mark Livingston, Gabriela Moreno, Roger Gadsby, Helen Lunt, Anthony A Fryer, Adrian H Heald

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

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

9 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.

Michael StedmanRes Consortium, Andover, Hampshire, UK.
Rustam ReaOxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Oxford, UK.
Christopher J DuffDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, UK.
Mark LivingstonBlack Country Pathology Services, Walsall Manor Hospital, UK.
Gabriela MorenoHigh Specialty Regional Hospital of Ixtapaluca, Mexico.
Roger GadsbyWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Helen LuntUniversity of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Anthony A FryerDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, UK.
Adrian H HealdThe School of Medicine and Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9537-4050
University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust · GBHampshire County Council · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBOxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism · GBUniversidad México Contemporáneo · MXUniversity of Otago · NZUniversity of Warwick · GBWalsall Manor Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe National Health Service spends £170 million on blood glucose monitoring (BGM) strips each year and there are pressures to use cheaper less accurate strips. Technology is also being used to increase test frequency with less focus on accuracy.Previous modeling/real-world data analysis highlighted that actual blood glucose variability can be more than twice blood glucose meter reported variability (BGMV). We applied those results to the Parkes error grid to highlight potential clinical impact.

methodBGMV is defined as the percent of deviation from reference that contains 95% of results. Four categories were modeled: laboratory (<5%), high accuracy strips (<10%), ISO 2013 (<15%), and ISO 2003 (<20%) (includes some strips still used).The Parkes error grid model with its associated category of risk including "alter clinical decision" and "affect clinical outcomes" was used, with the profile of frequency of expected results fitted into each BGM accuracy category.

resultsApplying to single readings, almost all strip accuracy ranges derived in a controlled setting fell within the category: clinically accurate/no effect on outcomes areas.However modeling the possible blood glucose distribution in more detail, 30.6% of longer term results of the strips with current ISO accuracy would fall into the "alter clinical action" category. For previous ISO strips, this rose to 44.1%, and for the latest higher accuracy strips, this fell to 12.8%.

conclusionThere is a minimum standard of accuracy needed to ensure that clinical outcomes are not put at risk. This study highlights the potential for amplification of imprecision with less accurate BGM strips.

Indexed as

Blood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1Blood GlucoseHumansState MedicineBlood Glucoseblood glucoseHbA1cmonitoringoutcome

Identifiers

PMID32172590
PMCPMC7783004
OpenAlexW3011402370

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.