Literature DB >> 23063033

Lot-to-lot variability of test strips and accuracy assessment of systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose according to ISO 15197.

Annette Baumstark1, Stefan Pleus, Christina Schmid, Manuela Link, Cornelia Haug, Guido Freckmann.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Accurate and reliable blood glucose (BG) measurements require that different test strip lots of the same BG monitoring system provide comparable measurement results. Only a small number of studies addressing this question have been published.
METHODS: In this study, four test strip lots for each of five different BG systems [Accu-Chek® Aviva (system A), FreeStyle Lite® (system B), GlucoCheck XL (system C), Pura™/mylife™ Pura (system D), and OneTouch® Verio™ Pro (system E)] were evaluated with procedures according to DIN EN ISO 15197:2003. The BG system measurement results were compared with the manufacturer's measurement procedure (glucose oxidase or hexokinase method). Relative bias according to Bland and Altman and system accuracy according to ISO 15197 were analyzed. A BG system consists of the BG meter itself and the test strips.
RESULTS: The maximum lot-to-lot difference between any two of the four evaluated test strip lots per BG system was 1.0% for system E, 2.1% for system A, 3.1% for system C, 6.9% for system B, and 13.0% for system D. Only two systems (systems A and B) fulfill the criteria of DIN EN ISO 15197:2003 with each test strip lot.
CONCLUSIONS: Considerable lot-to-lot variability between test strip lots of the same BG system was found. These variations add to other sources of inaccuracy with the specific BG system. Manufacturers should regularly and effectively check the accuracy of their BG meters and test strips even between different test strip lots to minimize risk of false treatment decisions.
© 2012 Diabetes Technology Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23063033      PMCID: PMC3570841          DOI: 10.1177/193229681200600511

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol        ISSN: 1932-2968


  23 in total

1.  Effect of ambient temperature on analytical performance of self-monitoring blood glucose systems.

Authors:  Kari Nerhus; Pål Rustad; Sverre Sandberg
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 6.118

2.  System accuracy evaluation of 43 blood glucose monitoring systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose according to DIN EN ISO 15197.

Authors:  Guido Freckmann; Christina Schmid; Annette Baumstark; Stefan Pleus; Manuela Link; Cornelia Haug
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2012-09-01

3.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Accuracy and precision evaluation of seven self-monitoring blood glucose systems.

Authors:  Chih-Yi Kuo; Cheng-Teng Hsu; Cheng-Shiao Ho; Ting-En Su; Ming-Hsun Wu; Chau-Jong Wang
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2011-03-15       Impact factor: 6.118

5.  The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  D M Nathan; S Genuth; J Lachin; P Cleary; O Crofford; M Davis; L Rand; C Siebert
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1993-09-30       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Plasma glucose measurement with the Yellow Springs Glucose 2300 STAT and the Olympus AU640.

Authors:  P J Twomey
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 3.411

7.  Instruments for self-monitoring of blood glucose: comparisons of testing quality achieved by patients and a technician.

Authors:  Svein Skeie; Geir Thue; Kari Nerhus; Sverre Sandberg
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 8.327

8.  Glucose monitoring after fruit peeling: pseudohyperglycemia when neglecting hand washing before fingertip blood sampling: wash your hands with tap water before you check blood glucose level.

Authors:  Takahisa Hirose; Tomoya Mita; Yoshio Fujitani; Ryuzo Kawamori; Hirotaka Watada
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2011-01-31       Impact factor: 19.112

9.  Structured self-monitoring of blood glucose significantly reduces A1C levels in poorly controlled, noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes: results from the Structured Testing Program study.

Authors:  William H Polonsky; Lawrence Fisher; Charles H Schikman; Deborah A Hinnen; Christopher G Parkin; Zhihong Jelsovsky; Bettina Petersen; Matthias Schweitzer; Robin S Wagner
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 19.112

10.  Self-monitoring of blood glucose: the use of the first or the second drop of blood.

Authors:  Johanna Hortensius; Robbert J Slingerland; Nanne Kleefstra; Susan J J Logtenberg; Klaas H Groenier; Sebastiaan T Houweling; Henk J G Bilo
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2011-02-02       Impact factor: 19.112

View more
  35 in total

1.  In response to Teodorczyk and coauthors: System accuracy of blood glucose monitoring devices according to the current and proposed ISO 15197 standards.

Authors:  Guido Freckmann; Christina Schmid; Annette Baumstark; Stefan Pleus; Manuela Link; Cornelia Haug
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2013-11-01

2.  System accuracy of blood glucose monitoring devices according to the current and proposed ISO 15197 standards.

Authors:  Maria Teodorczyk; Santhanagopalan Nandagopalan; Patricia Maguire; Janet Stegmann
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2013-05-01

3.  Blood glucose meter market: this world is undergoing drastic changes.

Authors:  Lutz Heinemann; David C Klonoff
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2013-05-01

4.  Freedom of speech and science: can companies force us to withdraw data they don't like?

Authors:  Lutz Heinemann; David C Klonoff
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2013-09-01

5.  6(th) Annual Symposium on Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose (SMBG) applications and beyond, April 25-27, 2013, Riga, Latvia.

Authors:  Aus Alzaid; Christof Schlaeger; Rolf Hinzmann
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2013-09-28       Impact factor: 6.118

6.  Performance variability of seven commonly used self-monitoring of blood glucose systems: clinical considerations for patients and providers.

Authors:  Ronald L Brazg; Leslie J Klaff; Christopher G Parkin
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2013-01-01

7.  Variability of blood glucose meters for patient self-testing: analysis of the article by Brazg and coauthors.

Authors:  Andreas Pfützner
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2013-01-01

Review 8.  Analytical Performance Requirements for Systems for Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose With Focus on System Accuracy: Relevant Differences Among ISO 15197:2003, ISO 15197:2013, and Current FDA Recommendations.

Authors:  Guido Freckmann; Christina Schmid; Annette Baumstark; Malte Rutschmann; Cornelia Haug; Lutz Heinemann
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2015-04-14

9.  Comparative Accuracy of 17 Point-of-Care Glucose Meters.

Authors:  Laya Ekhlaspour; Debbie Mondesir; Norman Lautsch; Courtney Balliro; Mallory Hillard; Kendra Magyar; Laura Goergen Radocchia; Aryan Esmaeili; Manasi Sinha; Steven J Russell
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2016-10-03

10.  Evaluation of Analytical Performance of Three Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems: System Accuracy, Measurement Repeatability, and Intermediate Measurement Precision.

Authors:  Stefan Pleus; Nina Jendrike; Annette Baumstark; Jochen Mende; Cornelia Haug; Guido Freckmann
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2018-10-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.