Literature DB >> 26062008

Accuracy Evaluation of Four Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems in Unaltered Blood Samples in the Low Glycemic Range and Blood Samples in the Concentration Range Defined by ISO 15197.

Guido Freckmann1, Stefan Pleus1, Manuela Link1, Annette Baumstark1, Christina Schmid1, Josef Högel2, Cornelia Haug1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) are expected to be accurate enough to provide reliable measurement results. Especially in the low glycemic range, adequate therapeutic decisions based on reliable results can alleviate complications associated with hypoglycemia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The accuracy of four SMBG systems (system 1 was the ACCU-CHEK(®) Aviva [Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany], system 2 was the Contour(®) XT [Bayer Consumer Care AG, Basel, Switzerland], system 3 was the GlucoCheck XL [aktivmed GmbH, Augsberg, Germany], and system 4 was the GlucoMen(®) LX PLUS [A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., Florence, Italy]) with three test-strip lots each was evaluated by calculating mean absolute relative differences (MARDs). Two datasets were evaluated: (1) 100 samples with blood glucose concentrations <70 mg/dL and (2) 100 samples distributed following International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard 15197. Each sample was measured twice with each test-strip lot of each SMBG system. Comparison measurement results were obtained with a glucose oxidase method and a hexokinase method, both traceable according to ISO 17511. Analysis of variance of the MARD between the SMBG system and the comparison method was performed.
RESULTS: MARD values ranged from 4.4% to 13.4% (<70 mg/dL) and 4.8% to 8.9% (ISO 15197-distributed) and differed significantly, with systems 1 and 2 showing lower MARDs than systems 3 and 4. MARD values deviated by up to 2.5% (corresponding to a relative deviation of approximately 40%) between the two comparison methods.
CONCLUSIONS: The investigated SMBG systems showed a significant variation of accuracy (measured by MARD), especially with higher MARD values in the low glycemic range. The selected comparison method had an impact on the MARD and therefore on the apparent accuracy of the SMBG systems. Sufficient measurement accuracy in the low glycemic range is required to enable users to react adequately to hypoglycemia.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26062008     DOI: 10.1089/dia.2015.0043

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther        ISSN: 1520-9156            Impact factor:   6.118


  13 in total

1.  System Accuracy Evaluation of Four Systems for Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose Following ISO 15197 Using a Glucose Oxidase and a Hexokinase-Based Comparison Method.

Authors:  Manuela Link; Christina Schmid; Stefan Pleus; Annette Baumstark; Delia Rittmeyer; Cornelia Haug; Guido Freckmann
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2015-04-14

2.  Seven-Year Clinical Surveillance Program Demonstrates Consistent MARD Accuracy Performance of a Blood Glucose Test Strip.

Authors:  Steven Setford; Mike Grady; Stephen Mackintosh; Robert Donald; Brian Levy
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2018-05-30

3.  Performance of a Blood Glucose Monitoring System in a Point-of-Care Setting.

Authors:  Cornelia Ottiger; Nicole Gygli; Andreas R Huber; Beatriz Fernandez-Tresguerres; Scott Pardo; Thorsten Petruschke
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2016-06-28

4.  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

Review 5.  Measures of Accuracy for Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Blood Glucose Monitoring Devices.

Authors:  Guido Freckmann; Stefan Pleus; Mike Grady; Steven Setford; Brian Levy
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2018-11-19

6.  A Multicenter Performance Evaluation of a Blood Glucose Monitoring System in 21 Leading Hospitals in Spain.

Authors:  José Luis Bedini; Jane F Wallace; Thorsten Petruschke; Scott Pardo
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2015-08-07

7.  Requirements for Successful Adoption of a Glucose Measurement System Into a Hospital POC Program.

Authors:  Anna K Füzéry; George S Cembrowski
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2016-06-28

8.  Flash Glucose Monitoring: Differences Between Intermittently Scanned and Continuously Stored Data.

Authors:  Stefan Pleus; Ulrike Kamecke; Manuela Link; Cornelia Haug; Guido Freckmann
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2017-10-08

9.  Performance Evaluation of Three Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems Using ISO 15197: 2013 Accuracy Criteria, Consensus and Surveillance Error Grid Analyses, and Insulin Dosing Error Modeling in a Hospital Setting.

Authors:  José Luis Bedini; Jane F Wallace; Scott Pardo; Thorsten Petruschke
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2015-10-07

10.  The Quantitative Relationship Between ISO 15197 Accuracy Criteria and Mean Absolute Relative Difference (MARD) in the Evaluation of Analytical Performance of Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose (SMBG) Systems.

Authors:  Scott Pardo; David A Simmons
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2016-08-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.