Search Results

Yes - so if all of that is correct I am left with a mystery: Why do the manufacturers specify that my control solution should read about 8.0 (and indeed it does) if it is actually 6.7? Going back to the hospital results, they showed 5.3 against my own meter's 6.3 - 6.7. That would tie in with...

So this is really interesting. It seems from all of your available data that the SD machine reads high for blood by about 1.0, but also that it reads high by the same margin for the control solution! Implication being that meters should be expected to read control solutions more or less as if...

Yes, so my comment stands. If, as with my machine, control readings are expected to be systematically high (because it is not real blood), the same expectation should hold for your machine too. So for a concentration of 2.8 it might be correct for you to get 3.5 on the control test. The real...

Ah, sorry, you calculated those tolerances yourself. This is a bit confusing. If you calculated them yourself, then it could be that the control solution is expected to read high, like mine, so you might not be able to infer from your results that the meter reads high for blood glucose. Or...

Which brings me back to the question of why your machine is expected to read control solution as if it were blood glucose, showing the actual concentration, while mine sets a completely different range of tolerances for the control (?)

This looks very opportune to me. What do others think? I just Googled the study, though, and the first thing I looked at seemed to be casting a positive light on it. http://www.theheart.org/article/1015367.do

Do you think the GP's area of required expertise might be spread too thinly? Sometimes I feel sorry for them. Maybe we need specialists instead of GPs?

Not really - as soon as someone like me gets an independent test (from the hospital) they find out that the meter is miles out. Mine was showing 6.7 when the hospital told me it was 5.3 . If that 5.3 falls below a 10% margin from their reading they are in trouble. the point is that although they...

Reminds me of the DN, when i told her I was suffering rib pains at night that kept me awake. She said that some people are more sensitive to discomfort than others ... :D What about finding someone famous who has diabetes? Or a medical website like PubMed, for example? failing that we could...

The only glitch in your theory is that they have left themselves no room for error on the downside. Would they be willing to take that risk? maybe it's just a simple human error, but i find it unbelievable that I should be the first person simply to ask what the control concentration is.

I emailed him yesterday, and got an auto-response warning me not to expect a reply! :lol:

Ok - understood. But yes, the percentage is given in terms of weight - that is specified. So it follows that % weight divided by molecular weight cancels out the weight unit. What you are left with is a simple numerical value - in mols (mmol/l). That seems to be right. it might be systematic...

These figures you provided support my own calculation, for 0.12% control solution: 0.12 x 2.8 = 6.72 mmol/l 0.05 I can't see any possible way out of this - my machine is known to systematically read over 1.0 high. The acceptable range printed on the test strip box must allow for the systematic...

I just called the Roche technical staff, and he said it was the first time anyone had asked him this question (!!!) Most users just check that their control reading falls between the limits (6.7 - 9.00) and that's that. I said I was fine about that until it occurred to me to wonder what the...

Regarding my meter, I have received and used the control solution now, and I am still confused. The solution is specified as being 0.12% (by weight) glucose, which I think translates into 6.67 mmol/l. However, the margin of error allowed for the machine testing the control solution is given...

Update: Tried a tea with another full white roll added (one of those dense, Italian type rolls). Now 11.1 after two hours (minus the error introduced by the machine, say 1.0). Have to be careful! After three hours down to 8.7

Just thinking - I have had some informal exchanges with Jonathan Amos (BBC Science Correspondent). He seems like a very clear-headed and reasonable guy. Maybe I will stick my neck out and ask him what he thinks might be the best way to go about this.

:lol: :thumbup: I'll drink to that!

Your figures make sense - actual solution midway between tolerance limits. Mine don't. I have emailed back to the Roche technicians and I'm awaiting their explanation. Actual solution - 6.7mmol/l, tolerance limits 6.7 - 9.0 ???

The tolerances relate to the testing machine's accuracy, so should be on the strips container. The control solution has to be precise.