OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were 1) to construct new error grids (EGs) for blood glucose (BG) self-monitoring by using the expertise of a large panel of clinicians and 2) to use the new EGs to evaluate the accuracy of BG measurements made by patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: To construct new EGs for type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients, a total of 100 experts of diabetes were asked to assign any error in BG measurement to 1 of 5 risk categories. We used these EGs to evaluate the accuracy of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) levels in 152 diabetic patients. The SMBG data were used to compare the new type 1 diabetes EG with a traditional EG. RESULTS: Both the type 1 and type 2 diabetes EGs divide the risk plane into 8 concentric zones with no discontinuities. The new EGs are similar to each other, but they differ from the traditional EG in several significant ways. When used to evaluate a data set of measurements made by a sample of patients experienced in SMBG, the new type 1 diabetes EG rated 98.6% of their measurements as clinically acceptable, compared with 95% for the traditional EG. CONCLUSIONS: The consensus EGs furnish a new tool for evaluating errors in the measurement of BG for patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were 1) to construct new error grids (EGs) for blood glucose (BG) self-monitoring by using the expertise of a large panel of clinicians and 2) to use the new EGs to evaluate the accuracy of BG measurements made by patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: To construct new EGs for type 1 and type 2 diabeticpatients, a total of 100 experts of diabetes were asked to assign any error in BG measurement to 1 of 5 risk categories. We used these EGs to evaluate the accuracy of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) levels in 152 diabeticpatients. The SMBG data were used to compare the new type 1 diabetes EG with a traditional EG. RESULTS: Both the type 1 and type 2 diabetes EGs divide the risk plane into 8 concentric zones with no discontinuities. The new EGs are similar to each other, but they differ from the traditional EG in several significant ways. When used to evaluate a data set of measurements made by a sample of patients experienced in SMBG, the new type 1 diabetes EG rated 98.6% of their measurements as clinically acceptable, compared with 95% for the traditional EG. CONCLUSIONS: The consensus EGs furnish a new tool for evaluating errors in the measurement of BG for patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
Authors: Susan M List; Nykole Starks; John Baum; Carmine Greene; Scott Pardo; Joan L Parkes; Holly C Schachner; Robert Cuddihy Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2011-09-01
Authors: Larry C Deeb; Joan L Parkes; Scott Pardo; Holly C Schachner; Maria T Viggiani; Jane Wallace; Timothy Bailey Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2011-09-01