Literature DB >> 29927663

Accuracy of five systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose in the hands of adult lay-users and professionals applying ISO 15197:2013 accuracy criteria and potential insulin dosing errors.

Nina Jendrike1, Annette Baumstark1, Stefan Pleus1, Christina Liebing1, Ulrike Kamecke1, Cornelia Haug1, Guido Freckmann1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In this study, accuracy in the hands of intended users was evaluated for five self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) systems based on ISO 15197:2013, and possibly related insulin dosing errors were calculated. In addition, accuracy was assessed in the hands of study personnel.
METHODS: For each system (Accu-Chek 1 Aviva Connect [A], Contour 2 Next One [B], FreeStyle Freedom Lite 3 [C], GlucoMen 4 areo [D] and OneTouch Verio 5 [E]) one test strip lot was evaluated as required by ISO 15197:2013, clause 8. Number and percentage of SMBG measurements within ±15 mg/dl and ±15% of the comparison measurements at glucose concentrations <100 mg/dl and ≥100 mg/dl, respectively, were calculated. In addition, data is presented in surveillance error grids, and insulin dosing errors were modeled. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03033849).
RESULTS: Four systems (A, B, C, D) fulfilled the tested reagent system lot ISO 15197:2013 accuracy criteria with the tested reagent system lot with at least 95% (lay-users) and 99.5% (study personnel) of results within the defined limits. Measurements with all five systems were within the clinically acceptable zones of the consensus error grid and the surveillance error grid. Median modeled insulin dosing errors were between -0.8 and +0.6 units for measurements performed by lay-users and between -0.7 and +0.8 units for study personnel. Frequent lay-user errors were not checking the test strips' expiry date, applying blood incorrectly and handling the device incorrectly.
CONCLUSION: In this study, the systems showed slight differences in the number of results within ISO 15197:2013 accuracy limits. Inaccurate SMBG measurements can result in insulin dosing errors and adversely affect glycemic control.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ISO 15197; Self-monitoring of blood glucose; insulin dosing error; lay-user; surveillance error grid; system accuracy; user performance

Year:  2018        PMID: 29927663     DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2018.1491832

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Med Res Opin        ISSN: 0300-7995            Impact factor:   2.580


  4 in total

1.  Laboratory Evaluation of Linearity, Repeatability, and Hematocrit Interference With an Internet-Enabled Blood Glucose Meter.

Authors:  Filiz Demircik; Valeria Kirsch; Sanja Ramljak; Mario Vogg; Anke H Pfützner; Andreas Pfützner
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2019-04-11

Review 2.  Technologies for Diabetes Self-Monitoring: A Scoping Review and Assessment Using the REASSURED Criteria.

Authors:  Jessica Hanae Zafra-Tanaka; David Beran; Beatrice Vetter; Rangarajan Sampath; Antonio Bernabe-Ortiz
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2021-03-09

3.  Capillary Triglycerides in Late Pregnancy-Challenging to Measure, Hard to Interpret: A Cohort Study of Practicality.

Authors:  Helen L Barrett; Marloes Dekker Nitert; Michael D'Emden; Barbara Lingwood; Susan de Jersey; H David McIntyre; Leonie K Callaway
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2021-04-13       Impact factor: 5.717

Review 4.  Use of continuous glucose monitoring trend arrows in the younger population with type 1 diabetes.

Authors:  Nancy Elbarbary; Othmar Moser; Saif Al Yaarubi; Hussain Alsaffar; Adnan Al Shaikh; Ramzi A Ajjan; Asma Deeb
Journal:  Diab Vasc Dis Res       Date:  2021 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.291

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.