Accu Chek Performa Nano, accuracy called into question

[TheGreatGateway]

A relative of mine is worried that the Accu Chek Performa Nano I've been using nearly a year, may not be accurately reading my sugar levels. I'm not sure if there's a way to tell if it complies with modern standards or not?

 

[kaylz91]

May I ask what reasons they have to have this concern?

What do you mean by modern standards? All meters have their own tolerancies for readings and you test them via control solution which can be obtained by calling their customer care line - 0800 701 000 UK line
xx

 

[TheGreatGateway]

Because I accidentally damaged my original Accu Chek Performa Nano device, I had to get it replaced online. While I waited, I purchased a Kinetik Wellbeing blood glucose monitor sold at my local Asda as it was the only available local option.

While fasting, the kinetik claims my blood sugar is between 5.7 - 6.5 mmol. The Performa Nano on the other hand says my fasting sugar is between 4.9 - 5.6 mmol. Obviously there's an important difference here. One of these monitors says I'm prediabetic, almost fully diabetic, the other says I'm not. Unfortunately I have no idea which monitor reflects the truth more, and its causing me a great deal of anxiety.

 

[TheGreatGateway]

May I ask what reasons they have to have this concern?

What do you mean by modern standards? All meters have their own tolerancies for readings and you test them via control solution which can be obtained by calling their customer care line - 0800 701 000 UK line
xx

They queried it because I was tested on a Kinetik Wellbeing monitor, which claims my fasting blood glucose is considerably higher than the Performa Nano says. The Nano says between 5.0 and 5.4 mmol, the Kinetik claims between 5.7 - 6.5 mmol. An important difference, because one monitor claims I'm prediabetic, the other does not!

 

[Rokaab]

Do note that blood test meters have to be within 15% accuracy - and this is actually a fairly large amount - for example if you take the number 6, then 5.4 is 10% less than that and 6.5 is just less than 10% above that, so both are within stated accuracy levels that they have to be within if your high number was in fact 6 mmol/L.
Some meters will read lower than others but still be well within their stated range
There are some details here (at least for the UK): https://www.diabetes.co.uk/blood-glucose-meters/blood-glucose-meter-accuracy.html

 

[TheGreatGateway]

Do note that blood test meters have to be within 15% accuracy - and this is actually a fairly large amount - for example if you take the number 6, then 5.4 is 10% less than that and 6.5 is just less than 10% above that, so both are within stated accuracy levels that they have to be within if your high number was in fact 6 mmol/L.
Some meters will read lower than others but still be well within their stated range
There are some details here (at least for the UK): https://www.diabetes.co.uk/blood-glucose-meters/blood-glucose-meter-accuracy.html

Ah that's a bit annoying. So I might actually be prediabetic? And can I assume that a vein blood sample is always accurate?

 

[kaylz91]

Do you mean a hba1c test? Well then no, there are things which can alter their results too, drug use, anaemia just to name a few, a normal non d will have readings between 4-7 anyway, you think its annoying for you, well think of us that are insulin dependant but I trust my meter and have no other option

 

[Bittern]

An Hba1c will also have a tolerance which means the actual value can be above or below the value quoted but the range will be less than your meters. All measurements have a tolerance and reducing that tolerance gets increasingly expensive as the tolerance tend to zero. So what you end up with is the most economic usable accuracy.