ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2024
Analytical performance of publicly dispensed glucometers in primary health care in a southern Brazilian city.
Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: This study aimed to assess the use of glucometers by patients and the analytical performance of glucometers provided by the primary care services. Methods: The analytical performance of 48 glucometers Accu-Chek® Active, was assessed through quintuplicate analyses of one Roche and one PNCQ (National Quality Control Program) control sample at different concentrations; 31 were also evaluated by a single proficiency testing sample. The evaluation metrics included imprecision, bias, and total error and were measured according to quality specifications based on biological variation (QSBV). Glucometer users answered a questionnaire regarding their experience. Results: Among the 48 glucometers evaluated with internal control samples, 17 met precision criteria at both control levels according to QSBV, while 24 met the criteria at only one control level. Of the 31 glucometers further evaluated through proficiency test, 11 met accuracy criteria according to QSBV, and only one device showed an unacceptable result. Out of these 31, only 15 demonstrated a total error within the acceptable maximum limits based on QSBV. Conclusions: Overall, our findings showed that patients had a good understanding of glucometer usage and suggested that some glucometers should be replaced, as they sometimes failed to meet even the manufacturer's acceptable variation limits, and/or did not meet QSBV.
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.