Cited by 12Diabetes Management and ResearchClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlElectrochemical sensors and biosensors

Individuals Achieve More Accurate Results with Meters That Are Codeless and Employ Dynamic Electrochemistry

Open access
Rao, Anoop, Wiley, Meg, Iyengar, Sridhar, Nadeau, Dan, Carnevale, Julie·2010·Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology

Abstract

Background: Studies have shown that controlling blood glucose can reduce the onset and progression of the long-term microvascular and neuropathic complications associated with the chronic course of diabetes mellitus. Improved glycemic control can be achieved by frequent testing combined with changes in medication, exercise, and diet. Technological advancements have enabled improvements in analytical accuracy of meters, and this paper explores two such parameters to which that accuracy can be attributed. Methods: Four blood glucose monitoring systems (with or without dynamic electrochemistry algorithms, codeless or requiring coding prior to testing) were evaluated and compared with respect to their accuracy. Results: Altogether, 108 blood glucose values were obtained for each system from 54 study participants and compared with the reference values. The analysis depicted in the International Organization for Standardization table format indicates that the devices with dynamic electrochemistry and the codeless feature had the highest proportion of acceptable results overall (System A, 101/103). Results were significant when compared at the 10% bias level with meters that were codeless and utilized static electrochemistry ( p = .017) or systems that had static electrochemistry but needed coding ( p = .008). Conclusions: Analytical performance of these blood glucose meters differed significantly depending on their technologic features. Meters that utilized dynamic electrochemistry and did not require coding were more accurate than meters that used static electrochemistry or required coding.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/193229681000400118

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rao, A., Wiley, M., Iyengar, S., Nadeau, D., & Carnevale, J.
Affiliations
  • AgaMatrix Inc, Salem, New Hampshire
  • HealthReach Diabetes, Endocrine and Nutrition Center, Hampton, New Hampshire
Corresponding author
Wiley, Meg
Venue
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology
Published
2010-01
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
145-150
ISSN
1932-2968 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2099919606
Cited by
12
References
1
Citations by year
2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Electrochemical sensors and biosensors
Keywords
blood glucose meters, analytical accuracy, glycemic control, diabetes mellitus, point-of-care glucose testing
MeSH terms
Electronic Data Processing, Blood Glucose, Calibration, Diabetes Mellitus, Electrochemistry, Female, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Kinetics, Male, Reference Values, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Reproducibility of Results, Biosensing Techniques, Monitoring, Ambulatory

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