ArticleDiabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders2024
Evaluation of System Accuracy, Precision, Hematocrit Influence, and User Performance of Two Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems Based on ISO 15197:2013/EN ISO 15197:2015.
Article in Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Portable Electrical Response Verification System for Blood Glucose Meters Based on Dynamic Microcurrent Reproduction.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the accuracy, precision, and agreement of a glucometer compared to the standard laboratory test in diabetic and non-diabetic patients.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSufficiently high analytical quality of blood glucose monitoring systems (BGMS) is a prerequisite for efficient diabetes therapy. In this study we assessed system accuracy, measurement repeatability, intermediate measurement precision, user performance, and the influence of hematocrit on two CE-marked blood glucose monitoring systems. For one BGMS, measurement accuracy using venous samples was additionally investigated.
methodsStudy procedures were based on the International Organization of Standardization (ISO) 15197:2013/EN ISO 15197:2015 ("ISO 15197"). User performance included data from 100 subjects who used one test strip lot, whereas for all other analyses three different reagent system lots were used. For system accuracy assessment, 100 capillary samples were measured in duplicate with each of three reagent system lots per system, resulting in 600 results per system.
resultsCareSens S Fit and CareSens H Beat both fulfilled the ISO 15197 accuracy criteria with 97.5-100% of each test strip lot's results falling within ± 15 mg/dL or ± 15% of the results of the comparison method and 100% of results in consensus error grid (CEG) zone A for all three lots. User performance evaluation revealed sufficient accuracy in the hands of lay users although some handling errors were documented by study staff. Assessment of measurement repeatability and intermediate measurement precision is given by standard deviation (SD) (glucose levels < 100 mg/dL) and by coefficient of variation (CV) (glucose concentrations ≥ 100 mg/dL). SD was ≤ 4.1 mg/dL and CV ≤ 4.2% for measurement repeatability and SD was ≤ 2.2 mg/dL and CV ≤ 2.6% for intermediate measurement precision. In case of hematocrit influence, both BGMS complied with all three tested lots with the defined criteria.
conclusionBoth BGMS analyzed in this study fulfilled the required accuracy criteria of ISO 15197. They showed high precision, good performance in the hands of lay users, and the influence of hematocrit was acceptable in the labeled range.
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.