What do you want from a meter

[Dave37]

Change of meter was because the meter was inaccurate. My Endo said I'd get no more than 2 years out of a meter after that they become inaccurate. They change theirs on the wards every 6 months for the same reason.
I know you didn't blame me directly for poor BG just looked that way to me. I took your post the wrong way.
Endo said I have to take a step back, not try to many things at once, that's why I'm not taking advice at the moment. Taken to much advice over the last few years, so sticking to what he tells me.
As for poor advice by HCP's , I couldn't agree more. Changed GP and Endo several times.
I know how to get hypo awareness back that's why I'm trying to cut out hypos and run BG higher.
Richard Bernstein is one the top diabetes experts in the world. Buy his books or Google him.
Many of the Endo's in this country have been to his talks when he was in this country a few years ago. Some of the other posters on this forum have mentioned him in the past.
You're right I wouldn't pay £300 for a meter as I wouldn't £3000 for a pump but meters are covered by the NHS, that's how I got mine.

 

[cugila]

Cheers Dave.
Thanks for the info. I too suffered at the hands of HCP's and bad advice for years before deciding to go my own way, and then hit on a brilliant Endo/DSN. Without them I would probably be dead by now.

Like I said, if you need advice ever this place is the best place to be. You will get loads of help here.

Best of luck.

 

[Fujifilm]

You're right I wouldn't pay £300 for a meter as I wouldn't £3000 for a pump but meters are covered by the NHS, that's how I got mine.

So you would be happy for the NHS to pay £300 a meter :?

You got yours for free and want it to be 100% accurate.

I want all the things I originally posted and if I got thenm I would happily pay £300 for a meter.

 

[qrp]

Dave, I'm on your side. It can't be rocket science to produce meters better than we've got and if we don't ask, we won't get. We don't do ourselves any favours by meek acceptance of the current status quo. Like everything else, meter technology will evolve so let's try and make it move in the direction we want. That means tabling our issues and talking with a concerted voice. OK, some people may not want that, but me, I'm with you!

Having said all that, the current meters are pretty good ergonomically ie small ones, big ones etc. But for me, too, the main issue is accuracy as we have numbers to aim for eg before and after meals, at bedtime etc. These are absolute numbers, not just indications to give reassurance of where your BG is - as suggested by one of the posters here. Tight control varies from person to person, I believe, but again, I agree with you, you need to know a bit better than 20% to achieve it. Or 10%, for that matter. And here's a point I've seen made on the forum. Surely it should be possible using ANY BG meter to get readings consistent with any other meter. Try if for yourself over, say, 6 readings taken at the same time with two different meters. I get readings consistently higher with meters other than the One Touch Ultra that I use. And I take a meter reading every time I go for the routine clinic blood test and compare it with the random BG reading when the results come back. It's never more than 1 mmol/l different and not often that much. So I know the meter's accurate enough. I actually prefer for ease of use the Optium Xceed and the Contour BUT they are consistently 10% -15% above the One Touch readings. Repeat: consistently. The consultant says to use the one with the lowest readings, so I do.
I'm aiming for BGs within the 4-6 mmol/l range rather than just to know whether my BG's up or down and I don't buy the "logic" that says that that's good enough. What if you're driving and a police meter showed you under 4mmol against your meter showing over! Decent accuracy is a goal worth pursuing and we shouldn't allow ourselves to be fobbed off with meters that differ as much as they do. Are we really saying that it's ok to test with two meters and have them differ all the time by 10% or more? Sorry, not in my book so that's why I'm with you Dave. Regards qrp

 

[Dave37]

You're right I wouldn't pay £300 for a meter as I wouldn't £3000 for a pump but meters are covered by the NHS, that's how I got mine.

So you would be happy for the NHS to pay £300 a meter :?

You got yours for free and want it to be 100% accurate.

I want all the things I originally posted and if I got thenm I would happily pay £300 for a meter.

The NHS paid £5700 for the 2 pumps I've got plus almost £15000 in other set up costs so why not £300 for a more accurate meter. May be only for the people that require a more accurate meter. Pump without an accurate meter doesn't make much sense to me.
As I've said several times now I never said 100% accurate, I just said more accurate.
We all pay for the NHS, so I don't consider it free.
QRP you said what I was trying to say much better, thanks.

 

[Fujifilm]

The NHS paid £5700 for the 2 pumps I've got plus almost £15000 in other set up costs so why not £300 for a more accurate meter. May be only for the people that require a more accurate meter. Pump without an accurate meter doesn't make much sense to me.
As I've said several times now I never said 100% accurate, I just said more accurate.
We all pay for the NHS, so I don't consider it free.

What if they were 10% more accurate would that be enough? because people would then say 10% is not accurate enough. So we may as well aim for 100% accurate.

Also who is going to decide who requires a more accurate meter. Why should you get a more accurate meter above say me?

I can't have a pump because I control my BG reasonably well and I do that with the meter I have. The average it gives me is pretty close to my Hab1c result.

Anyway it matters not, the idea of the post was to ask what people want from a meter.

You say more accurate readings. :mrgreen:

So apart from roads and sewers and irrigation, what have the Romans done for us :lol:
.

 

[cugila]

We don't do ourselves any favours by meek acceptance of the current status quo.
We certainly don't. I wonder who said that then ?

we have numbers to aim for eg before and after meals, at bedtime etc. These are absolute numbers, not just indications to give reassurance of where your BG is - as suggested by one of the posters here.
Actually they are not absolute numbers, if you check they are guidelines. Basically because nobody can be that precise. You see the meters aren't that accurate so they can't be precise numbers.

And here's a point I've seen made on the forum. Surely it should be possible using ANY BG meter to get readings consistent with any other meter. Try if for yourself over, say, 6 readings taken at the same time with two different meters. I get readings consistently higher with meters other than the One Touch Ultra that I use.
Why do you think that all meters should have the same readings ? They are all different, the variable s are different. Even in a laboratory setting they get differenty readings. That's totally wrong to think they will be the same.Some meters are whole blood meters others are plasma calibrated, higher readings abound with the PC meters.

I'm aiming for BGs within the 4-6 mmol/l range rather than just to know whether my BG's up or down and I don't buy the "logic" that says that that's good enough.
4-6 mmol/l......that's not very precise for someone espousing accuracy is it ? That seems illogical ? I mean they are only meters to be used as a guide to your Bg readings, not precision instruments.I have targets that I aim for, I don't worry about a difference in readings between meter .....I stick to the same one. Any discrepancies are then the same whenever I use a meter.If the result is totally contradictory to how I feel, then I might check with a spare meter. I don't fret about readings from day to day....too stressful !

What if you're driving and a police meter showed you under 4mmol against your meter showing over!
The Police don't use Bg meters. It would have to be by means of a blood sample taken by a Medical Professional. So, whatever your meter said, it means nothing. The Lab test is the only certified accurate result. The lab machines cost thousands of pounds, even they have variables, tolerances.

Decent accuracy is a goal worth pursuing and we shouldn't allow ourselves to be fobbed off with meters that differ as much as they do. Are we really saying that it's ok to test with two meters and have them differ all the time by 10% or more? Sorry, not in my book so that's why I'm with you Dave. Regards qrp

I'm with Dave too. However, I'm not bothered about the differences with different meters. There more important thing in life. Life, frankly is just too short to get paranoid about meter accuracy and differing readings. We aren't going to be taking a vote by the way....... :wink:

 

[cugila]

Fuji Said,

What if they were 10% more accurate would that be enough? because people would then say 10% is not accurate enough. So we may as well aim for 100% accurate.

Also who is going to decide who requires a more accurate meter. Why should you get a more accurate meter above say me?

I can't have a pump because I control my BG reasonably well and I do that with the meter I have. The average it gives me is pretty close to my Hab1c result.

Anyway it matters not, the idea of the post was to ask what people want from a meter.

You say more accurate readings. :mrgreen:

So apart from roads and sewers and irrigation, what have the Romans done for us :lol:

Fuji.
I've told you before ....stop stirring it ! :wink:

 

[qrp]

Cugila, your replies on this topic leave me wondering. First, the 4-6mmol range, which you say is not very precise. On the contrary, it's very precise and means what it says ie fasting BG is to be within those limits. Similarly for the meal plus 2 hrs level (9mmol according to DiabetesUK cf Balance Issue 233). What's illogical about wanting to measure those three values accurately?
I see where you're coming from as you have made it very plain. You personally find it 'too stressful' to 'fret' about reading from day to day. Don't do a DAFNE course, then, as they want you to record readings throughout the day and review them to get carb counts and boluses right.
You give a pretty good idea of your philosophy and modus operandi. It's not one I'd recommend to a newbie Type 1 for whom the advice from clinics, consultants and even these forums is to use the meter to guide you on what to eat, how much insulin to take etc etc. It's a numbers-driven game if you want a decent HbA1c and good control of spikes. Of course, a Type 2 can rely on Phase 2 response to return BG to 'within range'. A type 1 has more to do in that regard.
Finally, back to meters. How can better meter accuracy be anything other than a worthwhile advance for all those, Type 1s especially, who do want to take the trouble to improve their control? You, evidently, don't need to and well done to you! Your pooh-poohing of the accuracy argument and closing words eg 'paranoic', 'more important things in life' etc merely indicate your personal somewhat acerbic view of this issue. "I'm with Dave, too", you said. I don't think so. Not in spirit anyway. qrp

 

[cugila]

qrp stated:
Cugila, your replies on this topic leave me wondering. First, the 4-6mmol range, which you say is not very precise. On the contrary, it's very precise and means what it says ie fasting BG is to be within those limits.

Precise means exact.....how can a range be exact ? A range means the limits between which something varies. Such as between 4 - 7 mmol/l. Not exact or precise at all.
To be exact you would have to say something like 6.5 mmol.l. Now that's exact.

Similarly for the meal plus 2 hrs level (9mmol according to DiabetesUK cf Balance Issue 233). What's illogical about wanting to measure those three values accurately?

Ah, good old Diabetes UK, actually that information is from NICE not DUK, NICE set the levels, for a T1 9 mmol/l, for a T2 8.5 mmol/l. There's nothing illogical about measuring values on your meter, it's totally illogical to get worked up because the meter might be a point out. Surely as a T1 you have good awareness and know if your Bg levels are up or down ? I certainly do. I know which mood I am in and how to deal with it.

I see where you're coming from as you have made it very plain. You personally find it 'too stressful' to 'fret' about reading from day to day.

You do ? I don't personally find it stressful at all about readings from day to day. I test something like 10 times a day at the moment.What that means is if the reading on my meter says 6 then I take it to be 6, not +-20% ! The people who do join here need to understand that meters are a guide not precision instruments which will give them as accurately as they can some numbers which are again a guide to their blood glucose levels. The only 'accurate' reading +- variables comes from a Laboratory.

Don't do a DAFNE course, then, as they want you to record readings throughout the day and review them to get carb counts and boluses right.

Why on earth would a mere Type 2 like me want to attend a DAFNE course ?

You give a pretty good idea of your philosophy and modus operandi. It's not one I'd recommend to a newbie Type 1 for whom the advice from clinics, consultants and even these forums is to use the meter to guide you on what to eat, how much insulin to take etc etc.

Really ! Do tell. Have you read any of my posts welcoming both T1's and T2's etc to this forum ? You might get a surprise when you see the advice I dish out. It looks pretty much the same as what you just posted above .......

It's a numbers-driven game if you want a decent HbA1c and good control of spikes. Of course, a Type 2 can rely on Phase 2 response to return BG to 'within range'. A type 1 has more to do in that regard.

I don't accept that, there are many T2's who struggle to get the numbers back down as their responses are not working properly any more, the Beta cells may be shot or have just packed in, hence they end up on Insulin. So it's not specific to T1's.

Finally, back to meters. How can better meter accuracy be anything other than a worthwhile advance for all those, Type 1s especially, who do want to take the trouble to improve their control

I've always said that better meter accuracy is something we could do with. Not an issue. What's the pre-occupation with T1's and meters. There are many of us T2's who are on hypo inducing drugs who also need tight control of their Bg levels. I'm one of them, I want my levels to be as good as they can, same as anybody else T1 or T2, whatever. You seem to be implying that T2's don't want to take the trouble to improve their control....I do hope I have got that one wrong !

Your pooh-poohing of the accuracy argument and closing words eg 'paranoic', 'more important things in life' etc merely indicate your personal somewhat acerbic view of this issue. "I'm with Dave, too", you said. I don't think so. Not in spirit anyway. qrp

Actually I said paranoid. Yes, there are more important things in life. So, why do you descend to personal comments when I have made none about you or anyone else for that matter. Surely we are all entitled to our own personal opinions without being branded sharp and direct......I agree with the direct. Why shouldn't I be ? Surely this is a discussion board, a conversation. If you don't like what somebody says then you move on, forget about it. You don't resort to insults !

I am with Dave ,,,,I would like to see more accurate meters. I just don't lose sleep over the supposed discrepancies. Companies are striving to produce better meters, they will arrive one day, I'm sure. However in the meantime we have to work with what we have. They work, they are reasonably accurate and they are good enough for most people unless they are perfectionists.

 

[suffolkboi61]

PLEASEEEEEEEEEEE dont introduce a new metre, my son just bought me a 2nd one to use of eBay :shock:

 

[qrp]

Cugila, I have seen a good many of your posts and the info looks well-researched, credible and trustworthy. I don't have an issue with that. But I must reply to the remark about descent to personal comment. You may not be aware of it, but your dealing of the points I, and Dave, had made about accuracy does create a didactic, finger-waggy impression. That's how it comes across to me; it feels as if my arguments are being pooh-poohed. I imagine you'll say that's my problem and not what was intended etc etc. I'm offering this comment in a spirit of brotherly co-operation as we don't get anywhere by mudslinging. Agree on that.
I'm going to finish where it began, with meters. From Dave's viewpoint and mine, it matters not that YOU personally are cat-and-cream with your meter but WE would like better. And we don't want to be put down because of it. I still think that it's outrageous that one cannot get meters from different makers to give the same average readings at the same time with the same person. That you cannot see that this is a howling nonsense, defeats me. Your bio mentions closed minds. Adieu qrp

 

[cugila]

You may not be aware of it, but your dealing of the points I, and Dave, had made about accuracy does create a didactic, finger-waggy impression. That's how it comes across to me; it feels as if my arguments are being pooh-poohed. I imagine you'll say that's my problem and not what was intended etc etc. I'm offering this comment in a spirit of brotherly co-operation as we don't get anywhere by mudslinging. Agree on that.

Didactic.......finger - waggy impression ? You mean like this ?

I thought we weren't going to do personal. Perhaps if I post my opinions to you first you can vet them and see if it is Ok for me to post. You obviously don't like anybody having a different opinion to you. I like to listen to ALL sides of the discussion. I thought you did too, perhaps I was mistaken.

OK Brother, see you around.
I've got better things to do on a Saturday. I wouldn't want to become obsessive. :wink: Would I ?

 

[Fujifilm]

This article is from the Diabetes FAQ, by Edward Reid @ paleo.org with numerous contributions by others.

Its an American article hence the unit measurement in mg/dl and not mmol/l but still an interesting read.


How accurate is my (blood glucose) meter?

bG (blood glucose) meters are not as accurate as the readings you get from
them imply. For example, you might think that 108 means 108 mg/dl, not 107 or
109. But in fact all meters made for home use have at least a 10-15% error
under ideal conditions. Thus you should interpret "108" as "probably between
100 and 120". (Similar considerations apply if you measure in units of
mmol/L.) This is a random error and will not be consistent from one
determination to the next. You cannot expect to get exactly the same reading
from two checks done one after the other, nor from two meters using the same
blood sample.

This is generally considered acceptable because variations in this range will
not make a major difference in treatment decisions. For example, the
difference between 100 and 120 may make no difference in how you treat
yourself, or at most might make a difference of one unit of insulin. With
present technology, more accurate meters would be much more expensive. This
expense is only justified in research work, where such accuracy might detect
small trends which could go undetected with less accurate measurements.

This discussion applies to ideal conditions. The error may be increased by
poor or missing calibration, temperatures outside the intended range,
outdated strips, improper technique, poor timing, insufficient sample size,
contamination, and probably other factors. Contamination is especially
serious since it can happen so easily and is likely to result in an overdose
of insulin. Glucose is found in fruits, juices, sodas, and many other foods.
Even a smidgen can seriously alter a reading.

When comparing meter readings with lab results, also note that plasma readings
are 15% higher than whole blood, and that capillary blood gives different
readings from venous blood.

Visually read strips are slightly less accurate than meters, with an error
rate around 20-25%.

For some meters, strips are available from manufacturers other than the meter
manufacturer. Some m.h.d. readers have compared the strips side-by-side and
found those from one manufacturer to read consistently lower than the strips
from another. The differences are not likely to make a significant difference
in your treatment, but are large enough to be noticeable and possibly
confusing. For this reason it is not a good idea to change strip
manufacturers without comparing the readings from one with the readings from
the other.

I've seen no such direct comparison of meters, but the possibility exists that
some meters might read consistently lower than others. Be careful when
changing meters.

By "error rate" I mean twice the standard deviation from the mean. An error
rate of 15% says that about 95% of the readings will be within 15% of the
actual value.

 

[Ceedy]

I would like acurate reading ?? :?

My main meter is the optmum Xceed I lucikly got from my Nurse .

After getting a few Emails from Bayer I filled in the "get a free meter" page and sat back .

Then probably due to a glitch in their system they sent me 2 Contour meters a week or 2 apart with 25 free strips each..

I've used both these over a period of time, and just about run out of strips , but my biggest gripe is I can test with both meters at the same time and get differing results.

My Xceed give averages around 5-6 most times now, so getting on quite well . but nothing to compare with for accuracy !

One Bayer meter shows 7 the other will show 5 or so. when tested at the same time

So really a total waste of time with this sort of error!..

no wonder they are free!!! or is that a bit cynical :lol: .

C.

 

[sugarless sue]

Ceedy, there are numerous threads on this topic on the forum. The answer, just use one meter to do your daily measurements otherwise it will drive you up the wall!!! :? :?

Do a search on the subject on the forum and, in fact, on this very thread.

 

[Fujifilm]

I would like acurate reading ?? :?

I have got a touch of Deja Vu :|

 

[cugila]

I would like acurate reading ?? :?

I have got a touch of Deja Vu :|

Fuji.....me too....... :lol:

 

[qrp]

Ceedy, join the happy band of those who would like a meter that tells the truth a bit better than they do. You can see from the responses from "those in the know" that ain't going to happen any time soon. For what it's worth, I was told by consultant to use the one that gave lowest readings - an anti-hypo ploy, I presume. Also, check your reading whenever any blood is taken for your HbA1c (or any other reason) and be sure that 'random blood glucose' is on the request form for the lab. That result and your meter will differ and tell you something. Over, say, 4 or 5 repeats, you'll know how well to trust the meter. Mine's pretty good (One Touch Ultra).
Final thought: the squeaky wheel gets the grease but nobody's doing much squeaking, just a whole lot of shrugging. qrp

 

[Fujifilm]

Why do people not read the entire post.

I think we have established that some peeps want a more accurate meter. :roll:

I think we have also established that the cost of such a meter (at present is not justifiable) :roll:

I think we have also established most peeps would not pay the cost for such a meter. :roll: