JABFM
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Rapid Responses: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Alto, W. A.
Right arrow Articles by Kindig, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Alto, W. A.
Right arrow Articles by Kindig, J.

The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, Vol 15, Issue 1 1-6, Copyright © 2002 by American Board of Family Practice


ARTICLES

Assuring the accuracy of home glucose monitoring

W. A. Alto, D. Meyer, J. Schneid, P. Bryson and J. Kindig
Maine-Dartmouth Family Practice Residency, Fairfield 04937, USA.

BACKGROUND: An estimated 2.5 million diabetic patients in the United States practice self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). The validity of the glucose values they obtain is in doubt. An American Diabetes Association consensus panel reported that up to 50% of SMBG determinations might vary more than 20% from their true value. Accurate glucose values are an integral part of intensive treatment and reduction of long-term complications. The objective of this study was to determine the technical skill and accuracy of SMBG in an outpatient population. METHODS: This study was conducted in two family practice residency sites where 111 patients with type 1 and type 2 adult diabetes were observed testing their blood glucose values on their own glucose monitors. Patient-measured glucose levels were immediately compared with a laboratory value obtained from a calibrated hand-held glucose monitor. RESULTS: Fifty-three percent of patient glucose values were within 10% of the control value, 84% were within 20% of the control value, and 16% varied 20% or more from the control value. Two patients had dangerously inaccurate glucose determinations. Four glucose monitors required replacement. The patients were observed using a 13-point checklist of critical steps in calibration and operation of their glucose monitor. Only 1 patient made no errors in testing. CONCLUSIONS: Despite multiple technical errors when using SMBG, most patients obtained clinically useful values. This project can be easily introduced into a medical office.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Clin. Chem.Home page
W. E. Winter
A Rosetta Stone for Insulin Treatment: Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose
Clin. Chem., June 1, 2004; 50(6): 985 - 987.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Arch Intern MedHome page
M. J. Abrahamson
Optimal Glycemic Control in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Fasting and Postprandial Glucose in Context
Arch Intern Med, March 8, 2004; 164(5): 486 - 491.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Diabetes CareHome page
R. J. Melker
Test Strips for Blood Glucose Monitors Are Not Always Accurate
Diabetes Care, November 1, 2003; 26(11): 3190 - 3190.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 by the American Board of Family Medicine.