Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39466547›Full record

ArticleDiabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders2024

Monitoring of the Analytical Performance of Four Different Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems: A Post-market Performance Follow-Up Study.

Julia K Mader, Annette Baumstark, Johannes Tüting, Günter Sokol, Ruth Schuebel, Yuhong Tong, Julia Roetschke, Robbert J Slingerland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

8 authors.

Julia K MaderDivision of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Annette BaumstarkInstitut für Diabetes-Technologie Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft GmbH an Der Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Johannes TütingTüting Diabetologische Schwerpunktpraxis, Cloppenburg, Germany.
Günter SokolDiabetes Sokol Clinic, Vienna, Austria.
Ruth SchuebelRoche Diabetes Care GmbH, ONEMedical, Sandhofer Strasse 116, 68305, Mannheim, Germany.
Yuhong TongRoche Diabetes Care, Roche Diagnostics (Shanghai) Ltd, Shanghai, China.
Julia RoetschkeRoche Diabetes Care GmbH, ONEMedical, Sandhofer Strasse 116, 68305, Mannheim, Germany. julia.roetschke@roche.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3739-9695
Robbert J SlingerlandDepartment of Clinical Chemistry, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionA sizeable minority of commercially available blood glucose monitoring (BGM) systems fail to satisfy regulatory accuracy requirements, such as ISO 15197:2013, after approval. This study assessed whether the BGMs tested could consistently meet these ISO requirements by investigating their accuracy in a non-standardized setting.

methodsIn this 18-month post-market performance study, using the ISO criteria, healthcare professionals tested the accuracy of four CE-marked BGM systems (Roche Diabetes Care, Mannheim, Germany) on European adults with diabetes mellitus. ISO criteria included 95% of blood glucose (BG) values being within ± 15 mg/dl of a reference measurement for BG < 100 mg/dl or ± 15% for BG ≥ 100 mg/dl and, in the Parkes Consensus Error grid for type 1 diabetes comparing capillary BGM measurements versus reference method, 99% of BG values falling within zone A (no effect on clinical action or outcome) and zone B (altered clinical action with little or no effect on clinical outcome).

resultsBGM readings were obtained from 1650 participants, and the number of readings per BGM system was between 1712 and 2376. The percentage of BGM readings that fell within ISO 15197:2013 limits ranged from 99.4 to 99.9%. For all meter types, 100% of data points fell within zone A or zone B, and most data points for each meter (≥ 99.9%) were in zone A.

conclusionAll four CE-marked BGM models showed results within the accuracy limits defined by ISO 15197 in a non-standardized setting and thus consistently met regulatory accuracy requirements.

Indexed as

AccuracyBlood glucose meterFood and Drug AdministrationISO 15197Post-market performanceSafety

Identifiers

PMID39466547
PMCPMC11561228

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.