Literature DB >> 24876596

The Danger of Using Total Error Models to Compare Glucose Meter Performance.

Jan S Krouwer1.   

Abstract

Glucose meter performance specifications provide limits for 95% of results, which is the same as total error. A popular total error model is that total error equals (average) bias plus 2 times imprecision. This model has been used to specify combinations of average bias and imprecision that satisfy total error goals. But this model is incomplete and its conclusions are suspect. It is shown that when interferences occur in glucose meters as exemplified by hematocrit interference, the total error model proposed by Boyd and Bruns cannot distinguish between meters that differ in performance. The CLSI standard EP21-A, does not have this problem because it directly estimates total error bypassing the need for a model. An example illustrates these points.
© 2014 Diabetes Technology Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  glucose meter; interferences; performance standard; random bias; simulation; total error

Year:  2014        PMID: 24876596      PMCID: PMC4455412          DOI: 10.1177/1932296813518673

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


  9 in total

1.  How to improve total error modeling by accounting for error sources beyond imprecision and bias.

Authors:  J S Krouwer
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 8.327

2.  Why specifications for allowable glucose meter errors should include 100% of the data.

Authors:  Jan S Krouwer
Journal:  Clin Chem Lab Med       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 3.694

3.  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

4.  Quality specifications for glucose meters: assessment by simulation modeling of errors in insulin dose.

Authors:  J C Boyd; D E Bruns
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 8.327

5.  Criteria for judging precision and accuracy in method development and evaluation.

Authors:  J O Westgard; R N Carey; S Wold
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  1974-07       Impact factor: 8.327

6.  A simple, graphical method to evaluate laboratory assays.

Authors:  J S Krouwer; K L Monti
Journal:  Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem       Date:  1995-08

7.  Glucose meter performance criteria for tight glycemic control estimated by simulation modeling.

Authors:  Brad S Karon; James C Boyd; George G Klee
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2010-05-28       Impact factor: 8.327

8.  Monte Carlo simulation in establishing analytical quality requirements for clinical laboratory tests meeting clinical needs.

Authors:  James C Boyd; David E Bruns
Journal:  Methods Enzymol       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 1.600

9.  Problems with the National Cholesterol Education Program recommendations for cholesterol analytical performance.

Authors:  Jan S Krouwer
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 5.534

  9 in total
  1 in total

1.  The chronic injury glucose error grid: a tool to reduce diabetes complications.

Authors:  Jan S Krouwer; George S Cembrowski
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2014-10-14
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.