Literature DB >> 27697848

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

Laya Ekhlaspour1, Debbie Mondesir1, Norman Lautsch1, Courtney Balliro1, Mallory Hillard1, Kendra Magyar1, Laura Goergen Radocchia1, Aryan Esmaeili1, Manasi Sinha1, Steven J Russell1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The accuracy of point-of-care blood glucose (BG) meters is important for the detection of dysglycemia, calculation of insulin doses, and the calibration of continuous glucose monitors. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of commercially available glucose meters in a challenging laboratory study using samples with a wide range of reference BG and hemoglobin values.
METHODS: Fresh, discarded blood samples from a hospital STAT laboratory were either used without modification, spiked with a glucose solution, or incubated at 37°C to produce 347 samples with an even distribution across reference BG levels from 20 to 440 mg/dl and hemoglobin values from 9 to 16 g/dl. We measured the BG of each sample with 17 different commercially available glucose meters and the reference method (YSI 2300) at the same time. We determined the mean absolute relative difference (MARD) for each glucose meter, overall and stratified by reference BG and by hemoglobin level.
RESULTS: The accuracy of different meters widely, exhibiting a range of MARDs from 5.6% to 20.8%. Accuracy was lower in the hypoglycemic range, but was not consistently lower in samples with anemic blood hemoglobin levels.
CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of commercially available glucose meters varies widely. Although the sample mix in this study was much more challenging than those that would be collected under most use conditions, some meters were robust to these challenges and exhibited high accuracy in this setting. These data on relative accuracy and robustness to challenging samples may be useful in informing the choice of a glucose meter.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MARD; accuracy; blood glucose; diabetes; glucose meter; hemoglobin; plasma glucose

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27697848      PMCID: PMC5505415          DOI: 10.1177/1932296816672237

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


  37 in total

1.  Effects of different hematocrit levels on glucose measurements with handheld meters for point-of-care testing.

Authors:  Z Tang; J H Lee; R F Louie; G J Kost
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 5.534

2.  Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 1 diabetes.

Authors:  David M Nathan; Patricia A Cleary; Jye-Yu C Backlund; Saul M Genuth; John M Lachin; Trevor J Orchard; Philip Raskin; Bernard Zinman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-12-22       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 3.  Factors affecting blood glucose monitoring: sources of errors in measurement.

Authors:  Barry H Ginsberg
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2009-07-01

4.  Determination of hematocrit interference in blood samples derived from patients with different blood glucose concentrations.

Authors:  Andreas Pfützner; Christina Schipper; Sanja Ramljak; Frank Flacke; Jochen Sieber; Thomas Forst; Petra B Musholt
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2013-01-01

5.  Technical and clinical accuracy of five blood glucose meters: clinical impact assessment using error grid analysis and insulin sliding scales.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2015-06-24       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  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.

Authors:  Guido Freckmann; Stefan Pleus; Manuela Link; Annette Baumstark; Christina Schmid; Josef Högel; Cornelia Haug
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2015-05-19       Impact factor: 6.118

7.  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

8.  Evaluation of accuracy of FAD-GDH- and mutant Q-GDH-based blood glucose monitors in multi-patient populations.

Authors:  Ta-Yu Huang; Hui-Wen Chang; Mei-Fen Tsao; Shu-Ming Chuang; Chih-Chin Ni; Jun-Wei Sue; Hsiu-Chen Lin; Cheng-Teng Hsu
Journal:  Clin Chim Acta       Date:  2014-03-05       Impact factor: 3.786

9.  The accuracy of home glucose meters in hypoglycemia.

Authors:  Alper Sonmez; Zeynep Yilmaz; Gokhan Uckaya; Selim Kilic; Serkan Tapan; Abdullah Taslipinar; Aydogan Aydogdu; Mahmut Yazici; Mahmut Ilker Yilmaz; Muhittin Serdar; M Kemal Erbil; Mustafa Kutlu
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 6.118

10.  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

View more
  21 in total

1.  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

2.  Advances in Care for Insulin-Requiring Patients Without Closed Loop.

Authors:  Rayhan A Lal; Bruce Buckingham; David M Maahs
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 6.118

3.  A Simulation Study to Assess the Effect of Analytic Error on Neonatal Glucose Measurements Using the Canadian Pediatric Society Position Statement Action Thresholds.

Authors:  Mark Inman; Kayla Parker; Lannae Strueby; Andrew W Lyon; Martha E Lyon
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2019-11-06

Review 4.  The screening and management of newborns at risk for low blood glucose.

Authors:  Michael R Narvey; Seth D Marks
Journal:  Paediatr Child Health       Date:  2019-12-09       Impact factor: 2.253

5.  Diagnosis of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Will Be Flawed until We Can Measure Glucose.

Authors:  David E Bruns; Boyd E Metzger; David B Sacks
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2020-02-01       Impact factor: 8.327

6.  How conclusive is the CONCLUDE trial?

Authors:  Stefano Del Prato
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2020-01-16       Impact factor: 10.122

7.  Factory-Calibrated Continuous Glucose Monitoring: How and Why It Works, and the Dangers of Reuse Beyond Approved Duration of Wear.

Authors:  Gregory P Forlenza; Taisa Kushner; Laurel H Messer; R Paul Wadwa; Sriram Sankaranarayanan
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2019-02-28       Impact factor: 6.118

8.  Hospital Diabetes Meeting 2022.

Authors:  Jingtong Huang; Andrea M Yeung; Kevin T Nguyen; Nicole Y Xu; Jean-Charles Preiser; Robert J Rushakoff; Jane Jeffrie Seley; Guillermo E Umpierrez; Amisha Wallia; Andjela T Drincic; Roma Gianchandani; M Cecilia Lansang; Umesh Masharani; Nestoras Mathioudakis; Francisco J Pasquel; Signe Schmidt; Viral N Shah; Elias K Spanakis; Andreas Stuhr; Gerlies M Treiber; David C Klonoff
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2022-07-29

9.  Impact of Two Different Reference Measurement Procedures on Apparent System Accuracy of 18 CE-Marked Current-Generation Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems.

Authors:  Guido Freckmann; Annette Baumstark; Nina Jendrike; Jochen Mende; Sebastian Schauer; Manuela Link; Stefan Pleus; Cornelia Haug
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2020-08-19

10.  Time in Range in Pregnancy: Is There a Role?

Authors:  Jennifer A Wyckoff; Florence M Brown
Journal:  Diabetes Spectr       Date:  2021-05-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.