R Weitgasser1, B Gappmayer, M Pichler. 1. 2nd Department of Medicine, St. Johanns Spital, Salzburg General Hospital, Muellner Hauptstrasse 48, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria. R.Weitgasser@lkasbg.gv.at
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Newer glucose meters are easier to use, but direct comparisons with older instruments are lacking. We wished to compare analytical performances of four new and four previous generation meters. METHODS: On average, 248 glucose measurements were performed with two of each brand of meter on capillary blood samples from diabetic patients attending our outpatient clinic. Two to three different lots of strips were used. All measurements were performed by one experienced technician, using blood from the same sample for the meters and the comparison method (Beckman Analyzer 2). Results were evaluated by analysis of clinical relevance using the percentage of values within a maximum deviation of 5% from the reference value, by the method of residuals, by error grid analysis, and by the CVs for measurements in series. RESULTS: Altogether, 1987 blood glucose values were obtained with meters compared with the reference values. By error grid analysis, the newer devices gave more accurate results without significant differences within the group (zone A, 98-98.5%). Except for the One Touch II (zone A, 98.5%), the other older devices were less exact (zone A, 87-92.5%), which was also true for all other evaluation procedures. CONCLUSIONS: New generation blood glucose meters are not only smaller and more aesthetically appealing but are more accurate compared with previous generation devices except the One Touch II. The performance of the newer meters improved but did not meet the goals of the latest American Diabetes Association recommendations in the hands of an experienced operator.
BACKGROUND: Newer glucose meters are easier to use, but direct comparisons with older instruments are lacking. We wished to compare analytical performances of four new and four previous generation meters. METHODS: On average, 248 glucose measurements were performed with two of each brand of meter on capillary blood samples from diabeticpatients attending our outpatient clinic. Two to three different lots of strips were used. All measurements were performed by one experienced technician, using blood from the same sample for the meters and the comparison method (Beckman Analyzer 2). Results were evaluated by analysis of clinical relevance using the percentage of values within a maximum deviation of 5% from the reference value, by the method of residuals, by error grid analysis, and by the CVs for measurements in series. RESULTS: Altogether, 1987 blood glucose values were obtained with meters compared with the reference values. By error grid analysis, the newer devices gave more accurate results without significant differences within the group (zone A, 98-98.5%). Except for the One Touch II (zone A, 98.5%), the other older devices were less exact (zone A, 87-92.5%), which was also true for all other evaluation procedures. CONCLUSIONS: New generation blood glucose meters are not only smaller and more aesthetically appealing but are more accurate compared with previous generation devices except the One Touch II. The performance of the newer meters improved but did not meet the goals of the latest American Diabetes Association recommendations in the hands of an experienced operator.
Authors: David B Sacks; Mark Arnold; George L Bakris; David E Bruns; Andrea Rita Horvath; M Sue Kirkman; Ake Lernmark; Boyd E Metzger; David M Nathan Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Sheila Bornstein; Sue A Brown; Phuong T Le; Xunde Wang; Victoria DeMambro; Mark C Horowitz; Ormond MacDougald; Roland Baron; Sutada Lotinun; Gerard Karsenty; Wei Wei; Mathieu Ferron; Christopher S Kovacs; David Clemmons; Yihong Wan; Clifford J Rosen Journal: Endocrinology Date: 2014-06-10 Impact factor: 4.736
Authors: Victoria E DeMambro; Masanobu Kawai; Thomas L Clemens; Keertik Fulzele; Jane A Maynard; Caralina Marín de Evsikova; Kenneth R Johnson; Ernesto Canalis; Wesley G Beamer; Clifford J Rosen; Leah Rae Donahue Journal: J Endocrinol Date: 2009-12-23 Impact factor: 4.286
Authors: Khalid A Al-Rubeaan; Amr T M Saeb; Dhekra M AlNaqeb; Hamid M AlQumaidi; Turki A AlMogbel Journal: Saudi Med J Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 1.484