ArticleScientific reports2025
Long-term real-world performance of the Bayer Contour TS point-of-care testing glucose meters.
Article in Scientific 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess the real-world analytical performance of Bayer Contour TS (Bayer) Point-of-Care Testing (POCT) glucose meters in long-term actual clinical settings. Based on the ISO 15197:2013, EN ISO 15197:2015, and CLSI POCT12-A3 standards, the analytical performance of 202 Bayer POCT glucose meters was evaluated using 2,931 paired glucose comparative results compared to the central laboratory biochemical analyzer over a continuous five-year period (2020-2024) in a tertiary teaching hospital. The coefficients of variation (CV) of Bayer POCT glucose meters were 2.0%, 2.1%, and 1.6% at the glucose concentration of 3.28 mmol/L, 5.84 mmol/L, and 11.20 mmol/L, respectively. The glucose results of Bayer POCT meters showed good correlation with the central laboratory results (r = 0.996, p < 0.001) with an overall mean bias of -5.20% (p < 0.001). Stratified analysis revealed good correlations in both low (1.71-3.28 mmol/L; r = 0.940, p < 0.001) and medium (3.29-6.59 mmol/L; r = 0.970, p < 0.001) glucose ranges, with corresponding measurement bias of -2.03% (p < 0.001) and - 4.79% (p < 0.001). Notably, 100% (2,931/2,931) of the results met the ISO 15197:2013 standards, 95.87% (2,810/2,931) met CLSI POCT12-A3:2013 standards. The Bayer POCT glucose meters exhibited stable and accurate performance in rapid glucose testing, rendering them suitable for clinical application. However, the minus bias measurements of Bayer POCT glucose meters compared with the central laboratory analyzer in the low glucose concentration range observed in this real-world context requires further investigation.
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.