ArticleEndocrinology, diabetes & metabolism case reports2025
Accuracy validation and user performance analysis of two new self-monitoring blood glucose systems.
Article in Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism case reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Summary: Patients with diabetes require regular blood glucose monitoring. We evaluated the precision and user performance of two blood glucose monitoring systems, the accuracy results of GlucoTeq BGM200 and DiaRite BGM300, adhering to the EN_ISO 15197:2015 standards, which require blood glucose ≥100 mg/dL, >95% of the data within ±15% difference, and when blood glucose <100 mg/dL, >95% of the data within ±15 mg/dL. This study assessed their conformity with the YSI analyzer and other leading systems. Participants (n = 101), 18 years of age were included, covering a diverse demographic. Accuracy was determined using the YSI analyzer as the standard, employing linear regression, a consensus error grid and Bland-Altman analyses. The performance of both system users showed 100% conformity within zone A of the consensus error grid, high linear regression coefficients and minimal bias in the Bland-Altman analysis. Subjective satisfaction analyses showed average scores of 4.59 and 4.62 for BGM200 and BGM300, respectively. Comparison with other systems revealed high regression coefficients (CONTOUR®PLUS; R 2 = 0.9960, BGM200; R 2 = 0.9927, BGM300; R 2 = 0.9915, Accu-Chek® Guide; R 2 = 0.9910). Both systems demonstrated reasonable accuracy and user performance comparable to competitors' products and met international standards. Their reliability in real-world scenarios and high user satisfaction make them valuable tools for diabetes management. Learning points: Reasonable accuracy: GlucoTeq BGM200 and DiaRite BGM300 complied with EN ISO 15197:2015 standards, achieving >95% accuracy validated against the reference method the YSI analyzer. High user satisfaction: both systems scored highly (4.59-4.62/5), reflecting ease of use, reliable operation and clear result interpretation. Competitive performance: comparable to leading devices such as CONTOUR®PLUS, with strong correlation coefficients (>0.99). Regulatory compliance: the trial met stringent international standards with a diverse participant group and robust methodology. Broad applicability: reliable for clinical and home use, supporting effective diabetes management.
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.