ArticleMedicine2025
Questionnaire and analysis of the standardized use of home self-monitoring portable blood glucose meters.
Article in Medicine, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the accuracy of home self-monitoring portable blood glucose meters, we analyzed the current problems of patients using portable blood glucose meters and put forward reasonable suggestions. A self-designed questionnaire was used to survey 142 patients and 132 healthcare professionals. The questionnaire consisted of 16 items with an overall score ranging from 1 to 13 (with a higher score indicating better experience). The study included adult patients with diabetes mellitus type 1 or type 2. The patients' awareness rate for standardized use of portable blood glucose meters at home was at 31.42%. Specifically, awareness of blood collection specifications was at 15.85%, standardized operation at 42.53%, and accuracy of results at 0%. A significant majority (81.69%) scored between 0 and 5 points in home blood glucose meter use, with knowledge and practice scores consistently below 3 points. Notably, no patients conducted a formal comparison of various meters. Despite this, their confidence level in the portable blood glucose meter results was as high as 71.1%. Urgent measures are needed to educate patients on proper usage and encourage regular instrument comparisons.
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.