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: System Accuracy Evaluation of Four Systems for Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose Following ISO 15197 Using a Glucose Oxidase and a Hexokinase-Based Comparison Method.
    Author: Link M, Schmid C, Pleus S, Baumstark A, Rittmeyer D, Haug C, Freckmann G.
    Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol; 2015 Apr 14; 9(5):1041-50. PubMed ID: 25872967.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The standard ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 15197 is widely accepted for the accuracy evaluation of systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Accuracy evaluation was performed for 4 SMBG systems (Accu-Chek Aviva, ContourXT, GlucoCheck XL, GlucoMen LX PLUS) with 3 test strip lots each. To investigate a possible impact of the comparison method on system accuracy data, 2 different established methods were used. METHODS: The evaluation was performed in a standardized manner following test procedures described in ISO 15197:2003 (section 7.3). System accuracy was assessed by applying ISO 15197:2003 and in addition ISO 15197:2013 criteria (section 6.3.3). For each system, comparison measurements were performed with a glucose oxidase (YSI 2300 STAT Plus glucose analyzer) and a hexokinase (cobas c111) method. RESULTS: All 4 systems fulfilled the accuracy requirements of ISO 15197:2003 with the tested lots. More stringent accuracy criteria of ISO 15197:2013 were fulfilled by 3 systems (Accu-Chek Aviva, ContourXT, GlucoMen LX PLUS) when compared to the manufacturer's comparison method and by 2 systems (Accu-Chek Aviva, ContourXT) when compared to the alternative comparison method. All systems showed lot-to-lot variability to a certain degree; 2 systems (Accu-Chek Aviva, ContourXT), however, showed only minimal differences in relative bias between the 3 evaluated lots. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, all 4 systems complied with the evaluated test strip lots with accuracy criteria of ISO 15197:2003. Applying ISO 15197:2013 accuracy limits, differences in the accuracy of the tested systems were observed, also demonstrating that the applied comparison method/system and the lot-to-lot variability can have a decisive influence on accuracy data obtained for a SMBG system.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]