These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Accuracy evaluation of five blood glucose monitoring systems obtained from the pharmacy: a European multicenter study with 453 subjects.
    Author: Tack C, Pohlmeier H, Behnke T, Schmid V, Grenningloh M, Forst T, Pfützner A.
    Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther; 2012 Apr; 14(4):330-7. PubMed ID: 22176154.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: This multicenter study was conducted to evaluate the performance of five recently introduced blood glucose (BG) monitoring (BGM) devices under daily routine conditions in comparison with the YSI (Yellow Springs, OH) 2300 Stat Plus glucose analyzer. METHODS: Five hundred one diabetes patients with experience in self-monitoring of BG were randomized to use three of five different BGM devices (FreeStyle Lite® [Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Alameda, CA], FreeStyle Freedom Lite [Abbott Diabetes Care], OneTouch® UltraEasy® [LifeScan Inc., Milpitas, CA], Accu-Chek® Aviva [Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany], and Contour® [Bayer Vital GmbH, Leverkusen, Germany]) in a daily routine setting. All devices and strips were purchased from local regular distribution sources (pharmacies, four strip lots per device). The patients performed the finger prick and the glucose measurement on their own. In parallel, a healthcare professional performed the glucose assessment with the reference method (YSI 2300 Stat Plus). The primary objective was the comparison of the mean absolute relative differences (MARD). Secondary objectives were compliance with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) accuracy criteria under these routine conditions and Clarke and Parkes Error Grid analyses. RESULTS: MARD ranged from 4.9% (FreeStyle Lite) to 9.7% (OneTouch UltraEasy). The ISO 15197:2003 requirements were fulfilled by the FreeStyle Lite (98.8%), FreeStyle Freedom Lite (97.5%), and Accu-Chek Aviva (97.0%), but not by the Contour (92.4%) and OneTouch UltraEasy (91.1%). The number of values in Zone A of the Clarke Error Grid analysis was highest for the FreeStyle Lite (98.8%) and lowest for the OneTouch Ultra Easy (90.4%). CONCLUSIONS: FreeStyle Lite, FreeStyle Freedom Lite, and Accu-Chek Aviva performed very well in this study with devices and strips purchased through regular distribution channels, with the FreeStyle Lite achieving the lowest MARD in this investigation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]