Cited by 283Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Treatment and Management

Frequency of blood glucose monitoring in relation to glycaemic control: observational study with diabetes database

Open access
Evans, J. M M, Newton, R. W, Ruta, D. A, MacDonald, T. M, Stevenson, R. J, Morris, A. D·1999·BMJ

Abstract

Abstract Objectives: To investigate patterns of self monitoring of blood glucose concentration in diabetic patients who use insulin and to determine whether frequency of self monitoring is related to glycaemic control. Setting: Diabetes database, Tayside, Scotland. Subjects: Patients resident in Tayside in 1993-5 who were using insulin and were registered on the database and diagnosed with insulin dependent (type 1) or non-insulin dependent (type 2) diabetes before 1993. Main outcome measures: Number of glucose monitoring reagent strips dispensed (reagent strip uptake) derived from records of prescriptions. First recorded haemoglobin A1c concentration in the study period, and reagent strips dispensed in the previous 6 months. Results: Among 807 patients with type 1 diabetes, 128 (16%) did not redeem any prescriptions for glucose monitoring reagent strips in the 3 year study period. Only 161 (20%) redeemed prescriptions for enough reagent strips to test glucose daily. The corresponding figures for the 790 patients with type 2 diabetes who used insulin were 162 (21%; no strips) and 131 (17%; daily tests). Reagent strip uptake was influenced both by age and by deprivation category. There was a direct relation between uptake and glycaemic control for 258 patients (with recorded haemoglobin A1c concentrations) with type 1 diabetes. In a linear regression model the decrease in haemoglobin A1c concentration for every extra 180 reagent strips dispensed was 0.7%. For the 290 patients with type 2 diabetes who used insulin there was no such relation. Conclusions: Self monitoring of blood glucose concentration is associated with improved glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes. Regular self monitoring in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes is uncommon. Key messages Several studies have indicated the importance of self monitoring of blood glucose concentration for prevention of complications in patients with diabetes Uptake of reagent strips for self monitoring of blood glucose among diabetic patients who used insulin was low, with only 20% of patients with type 1 diabetes and 17% of those with type 2 diabetes obtaining enough strips to test blood glucose concentration once daily Reagent strip uptake depends on characteristics such as age and social deprivation category, and patient groups with low uptake should be identified and targeted There was a direct association between strip uptake in the previous 6 months and glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes but not in those with type 2 diabetes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.319.7202.83

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Most evidence indicates that SMBG contributes to good glycemic control among type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients.

    “Although most evidence indicates that SMBG contributes to good glycemic control among type 1 (4,5) and type 2 diabetic (6,7) patients, it remains uncertain whether SMBG use is efficacious in insulin-naïve type 2 diabetic patients.”

    From Structured Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose Significantly Reduces A1C Levels in Poorly Controlled, Noninsulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes (2011) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Blood glucose control section reports an association between self-monitoring and better control in patients with type 1 diabetes, but cautions that it may reflect other health behaviours rather than a causal effect. The same section reports no association in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes. This paper therefore does not support the claim for both types or establish that monitoring contributes causally to good control. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Consensus statement on self-monitoring of blood glucose. Diabetes Care 1987;10:95-7.
  2. Belmonte MM, Schiffrin A, Dufresne J, Suissa S, Goldman H, Polychrona- kos C. Impact of SMBG on control of diabetes as measured by HbA1. Diabetes Care 1988;11:484-8.
  3. Morris AD, MacAlpine R, Steinke DT, Boyle DIR, MacDonald TM, Jung RT, et al. Diabetes associated lower extremity amputation in the commu- nity: a retrospective cohort study. Diabetes Care 1998;21:738-43.
  4. Anonymous. Economic consequences of diabetes in the US in 1997. American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care 1998;21:296-309.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Evans, J. M. M., Newton, R. W., Ruta, D. A., MacDonald, T. M., Stevenson, R. J., & Morris, A. D.
Affiliations
  • Ninewells Hospital (GB)
  • University of Dundee (GB)
Corresponding author
Evans, J. M M
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1999-07-10
Volume
319
Issue
7202
Pages
83-86
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2100218801
Cited by
283
References
30
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 8
FWCI
9.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (submittedVersion)
  • Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (050212)
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 › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
self-monitoring of blood glucose, glycemic control, insulin therapy, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, HbA1c, social deprivation, age differences, diabetes complications prevention, prescription dispensing data, diabetes self-management education
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Humans, Insulin, Patient Compliance, Reagent Kits, Diagnostic, Socioeconomic Factors, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Databases, Factual

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