z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Investigation of the Accuracy of 18 Marketed Blood Glucose Monitors
Author(s) -
David C. Klonoff,
Joan Lee Parkes,
Boris Kovatchev,
David Kerr,
Wendy C. Bevier,
Ronald Brazg,
Mark P. Christiansen,
Timothy S. Bailey,
James H. Nichols,
Michael A. Kohn
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
diabetes care
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.636
H-Index - 363
eISSN - 1935-5548
pISSN - 0149-5992
DOI - 10.2337/dc17-1960
Subject(s) - medicine , diabetes mellitus , cardiology , endocrinology
OBJECTIVE Cleared blood glucose monitors (BGMs) for personal use may not always deliver levels of accuracy currently specified by international and U.S. regulatory bodies. This study’s objective was to assess the accuracy of 18 such systems cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration representing approximately 90% of commercially available systems used from 2013 to 2015. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A total of 1,035 subjects were recruited to have a capillary blood glucose (BG) level measured on six different systems and a reference capillary sample prepared for plasma testing at a reference laboratory. Products were obtained from consumer outlets and tested in three triple-blinded studies. Each of the three participating clinical sites tested a different set of six systems for each of the three studies in a round-robin. In each study, on average, a BGM was tested on 115 subjects. A compliant BG result was defined as within 15% of a reference plasma value (for BG ≥100 mg/dL [5.55 mmol/L]) or within 15 mg/dL (0.83 mmol/L) (for BG <100 mg/dL [5.55 mmol/L]). The proportion of compliant readings in each study was compared against a predetermined accuracy standard similar to, but more lenient than, current regulatory standards. Other metrics of accuracy included the overall compliance proportion; the proportion of extreme outlier readings differing from the reference value by >20%; modified Bland-Altman analysis including average bias, coefficient of variation, and 95% limits of agreement; and proportion of readings with no clinical risk as determined by the Surveillance Error Grid. RESULTS The different accuracy metrics produced almost identical BGM rankings. Six of the 18 systems met the predetermined accuracy standard in all three studies, 5 systems met it in two studies, and 3 met it in one study. Four BGMs did not meet the accuracy standard in any of the three studies. CONCLUSIONS Cleared BGMs do not always meet the level of analytical accuracy currently required for regulatory clearance. This information could assist patients, professionals, and payers in choosing products and regulators in evaluating postclearance performance.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom