CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 261Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Management and EducationPatient Safety and Medication Errors

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reliability of blood glucose monitoring by patients with diabetes mellitus

Mazze, Roger S., Shamoon, Harry, Pasmantier, Rosemarie, Lucido, David, Murphy, Joann, Hartmann, Klaus, Kuykendall, Victor, Lopatin, William·1984·The American Journal of Medicine
DOI 10.1016/0002-9343(84)90693-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Nineteen patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus were evaluated for overall reliability of self-generated data from capillary blood glucose monitoring. For a period of 12 to 14 days, standard reflectance meters used by these subjects were replaced by meters internally modified with memory chips capable of storing all glucose readings by date and time. The subjects were not aware of this modification and were instructed to continue to test capillary blood glucose as they had been and to continue their practice of recording the meter readings in a logbook. To assess reliability of patient-generated data as recorded in the logbook, the addition, deletion, and alteration of test results were determined. A significantly lower (p less than 0.0001) mean blood glucose level was reported in the logbooks than recorded in the memory reflectance meters. Differences in logbooks and memory reflectance meters ranged from 0 to 109 mg/dl. Three fourths of the subjects had reported lower than actual mean blood glucose values. Under-reporting, or omission of memory reflectance meter readings, averaged 10 percent, whereas over-reporting or addition of phantom values averaged 40 percent. An average of 26 percent of the logbook entries were not identical to memory reflectance meter values determined at the corresponding time. Two thirds of the subjects had reported values in such a manner as to obscure hyper- and hypoglycemia, leading to misleading clinical impressions about the fluctuat…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0002-9343(84)90693-4

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 16 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–261 of 261

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Mazze, R. S., Shamoon, H., Pasmantier, R., Lucido, D., Murphy, J., Hartmann, K., Kuykendall, V., & Lopatin, W.
Corresponding author
Mazze, Roger S.
ORCID
Shamoon, Harry
Venue
The American Journal of Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1984-08
Volume
77
Issue
2
Pages
211-217
ISSN
0002-9343 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/0002-9343(84)90693-4
OpenAlex
W2171957007
Cited by
261
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
9.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • The American Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
Keywords
diabetes mellitus, type 1 diabetes, capillary blood glucose monitoring, self-monitoring of blood glucose, glycemic control, hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Female, Humans, Insulin, Male, Monitoring, Physiologic, Self Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review