Cited by 8Diabetes Management and ResearchClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlHyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients

Evaluation of Hematocrit Influence on Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose Based on ISO 15197:2013: Comparison of a Novel System With Five Systems With Different Hematocrit Ranges

Open access
Hattemer, Andrew, Wardat, Sami·2018·Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology

Abstract

Introduction: ISO 15197:2013 recommends testing procedures and acceptance criteria for the evaluation of influence quantities such as hematocrit on measurement results with systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). In this study, hematocrit influence was evaluated for a novel SMBG system (system A) and five other systems with different hematocrit ranges based on ISO 15197:2013. Methods: Test procedures were performed with one test strip lot for each system. Each system was tested within the hematocrit range indicated in the manufacturer’s labeling (system A: 10-65%, B: 15-65%, C: 20-60%, D: 35-60%, E: 30-60%, F: 30-55%). According to ISO 15197:2013, clause 6.4.2, venous blood samples were used for the evaluation of hematocrit influence. The evaluation was performed for three glucose concentration categories (30-50 mg/dL, 96-144 mg/dL, and 280-420 mg/dL). For each glucose concentration category, at least five different hematocrit levels were investigated. Results: The novel system A and systems B, E, and F complied with the tested lot with the defined criteria and showed ≤10 mg/dL and ≤10% difference between the test sample and the respective control sample with a hematocrit value of 42% ± 2% for BG concentrations <100 mg/dL and ≥100 mg/dL, respectively. Two systems showed >10% difference at glucose concentrations ≥100 mg/dL. Conclusions: Remarkable hematocrit influence within the labeled hematocrit range was obtained in two systems with the tested reagent system lot. Adequate SMBG systems should be carefully chosen by patients and their health care professionals, particularly for patients with increased and decreased hematocrit values.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1932296818757550

Cites

20 of 20 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
Hattemer, A., & Wardat, S.
Affiliations
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH (Germany) (DE)
Corresponding author
Hattemer, Andrew
Venue
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology
Published
2018-01-29
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
333-340
ISSN
1932-2968 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2786868463
Cited by
8
References
20
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Roche Diabetes Care
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Hyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
Keywords
self-monitoring of blood glucose, hematocrit, ISO 15197:2013, influence quantities, venous blood
MeSH terms
Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Hematocrit, Humans, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring

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