Search

Background: Newer glucose meters are easier to use, but direct comparisons with older instruments are lacking. We wished to compare analytical performances of four new and four previous generation meters.Methods: On average, 248 glucose measurements were performed with two of each brand of meter on capillary blood samples from diabetic patients attending our outpatient clinic. Two to three different lots of strips were used. All measurements were performed by one experienced technician, using blood from the same sample for the meters and the comparison method (Beckman Analyzer 2). Results were evaluated by analysis of clinical relevance using the percentage of values within a maximum deviation of 5% from the reference value, by the method of residuals, by error grid analysis, and by the CVs for measurements in series.Results: Altogether, 1987 blood glucose values were obtained with meters compared with the reference values. By error grid analysis, the newer devices gave more accurate results without significant differences within the group (zone A, 98–98.5%). Except for the One Touch II (zone A, 98.5%), the other older devices were less exact (zone A, 87–92.5%), which was also true for all other evaluation procedures.Conclusions: New generation blood glucose meters are not only smaller and more aesthetically appealing but are more accurate compared with previous generation devices except the One Touch II. The performance of the newer meters improved but did not meet the goals of the latest American Diabetes Association recommendations in the hands of an experienced operator.

Continuous glucose measurement systems are an established tool to support diabetes therapy. Because of different technical solutions one can propose different potential limitations in daily practice. So we tried to identify the accuracy of two different devices head to head in daily routine to point out individual characteristics.We included 24 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus to wear the GlucoDay and the MiniMed continuous glucose measurement system at the same time for 48 h. We examined the mean differences in simultaneous glucose measurements, the confidence intervals were calculated by standard methods based on the t-distribution.Comparison of glucose levels of both continuous glucose measurement systems showed that there was a tendency for higher glucose levels measured by the GlucoDay device. These differences were dependent on the time of the day. The absolute difference between two consecutive glucose measurements was higher for the GlucoDay system what means a somehow higher fluctuation of the GlucoDay measurements.The differences in intraindividual comparison of the GlucoDay and the MiniMed continuous glucose measurement systems in type 2 diabetic patients may be taken into account when using different systems for detection of nocturnal hypoglycemia and the observation of trends used for therapeutic decisions.

Background: Patients and medical personnel are eager to use blood glucose meters that are easy to handle and fast acting. We questioned whether accuracy and precision of these new, small and light weight devices would meet analytical laboratory standards and tested four meters with the above mentioned conditions. Methods: Approximately 300 capillary blood samples were collected and tested using two devices of each brand and two different types of glucose test strips. Blood from the same samples was used for comparison. Results were evaluated using maximum deviation of 5% and 10% from the comparative method, the error grid analysis, the overall deviation of the devices, the linear regression analysis as well as the CVs for measurement in series. Results: Of all 1196 measurements a deviation of less than 5% resp. 10% from the reference method was found for the FreeStyle (FS) meter in 69.5% and 96%, the Glucocard X Meter (GX) in 44% and 75%, the One Touch Ultra (OT) in 29% and 60%, the Wellion True Track (WT) in 28.5% and 58%. The error grid analysis gave 99.7% for FS, 99% for GX, 98% for OT and 97% for WT in zone A. The remainder of the values lay within zone B. Linear regression analysis resembled these results. CVs for measurement in series showed higher deviations for OT and WT compared to FS and GX. Conclusions: The four new, small and fast acting glucose meters fulfil clinically relevant analytical laboratory requirements making them appropriate for use by medical personnel. However, with regard to the tight and restrictive limits of the ADA recommendations, the devices are still in need of improvement. This should be taken into account when the devices are used by primarily inexperienced persons and is relevant for further industrial development of such devices.