Hi Scott, Thanks for the full explanation, I am aware of the limitations of the BG meters, I decided to ditch the Contour after nearly three years, not because of absolute accuracy, it does give “expected” results, but largely because of the cost of the strips. Full price is about £20 per 50 strips (or £12 for unknown quality from EBay), the Tee2 less than half that. Also as I mentioned above, it is consistently higher than the other 3 meters.Hi, @DianaMC and @Rustytypin , thought I'd pitch in with a few comments on bg testing and meter accuracy.
There's two ways of looking at this.
The first way is to look at technical studies comparing various meters and see how they measure up according to industry standard tests.
For example, there's a fairly recent one, linked to in this article:
https://diatribe.org/are-blood-glucose-meters-accurate-new-data-18-meters
Contour Next comes out on top as being the most accurate.
You've both mentioned that meter, and, if that was how you choose to judge it, that should be be your preferred meter.
But the other way of looking at it is this: the technical differences between all the main contenders are just that: technical differences.
In the real world, the plain truth is that no meter is really all that accurate.
All of them, no matter how fancy their marketing is, or where they are placed in technical tests, just provide broad indications of general ranges.
They are accurate enough for that purpose. I'm T1, so am looking at it from a slightly different perspective.
I'm broadly interested in knowing whether I'm sub-4, between 4 to 7, or above 9.
If I see 5.3 on the meter, and test again at 5.8, or even 6.2 or whatever, those will all be the same number to me: I'll read it as "about 5 to 6", which is good enough for my purposes, as, even though I don't know for sure where it lies after the decimal point, it doesn't matter, because I can be reasonably certain it isn't 3 and it isn't 8.
I use that approach in my T1 world. Meters don't get any more accurate when used by T2s, pre-diabetics, LADAs, or whatever: meters are meters whoever is using them.
Sorry, been waffling on a bit, the point I'm trying to make is that the decimal point accuracy which many newbies look for in bg measuring simply doesn't exist with the current technology, the best you're going to get is a broad range indication, which is actually good enough for most purposes.
I've seen posts from people who've driven themselves mad seeking an accuracy which just doesn't exist in this field.
Learn how to read them for what they are: broad indicators. Near enough is good enough. They are still very useful, despite their limitations.
One more, just agreeing with your experience. I have three. Two are store brand with inexoensive strips. The third was a test because I couldn't believe what the dr said my HbA1c was. I still don't, because then I bought a home HbA1c test kit and it was lower as well!Thank you to everyone who commented on this issue. I found all your comments helpful to hear.
I get the general idea - broad ranges rather than exact measures. That’s useful to know.
Also glad that I seem to have ended up with a meter considered to have a high level of accuracy. I didn’t know they really differed in that way. I was just wondering if one was malfunctioning. Hence the clarification is very useful. Thanks for posting that link, @Scott-C
The test strips for both my meters are costly. If I was needing to do testing all the time I’d probably consider a meter with cheaper strips, as I do have to buy all the supplies (no free scrips). But, at the moment, I’m just trying to get an idea every so often and/or with regard to specific foods. And the broad range approach probably works for what I need. So I guess these suit me for now.
Thanks again.
Thanks @zauberflote I’m fascinated that your home HBA1c test kit showed a lower level than the Dr’s one!
As long as the differences are not massive, I would not worry about it to much. However if you do find it unlikely high on multiple occasions it wont hurt to compare with another meter. Then taken into account the 15% range of accuracy, you can somewhat make a comparison.
I agree with Rustytypin on the Contour next: too high readings for me, I stopped using it.
So have mine, but they agree with my finger pricking and also with the Libre after mentally adjusting the readings because the Libre always reads slightly low for me. My surgery HbA1cs are always considerably and significantly higher. I am not alone in this.
If there is a huge difference, or a very high (or low) reading that is unexpected, my suggestion is to re-test with the same meter. They all throw out rogue readings from time to time, and bringing spare meters into play muddies the waters.
Thanks for that suggestion @Bluetit1802 - Interesting about the rogue readings! I didn't realise that.
Hi, @DianaMC and @Rustytypin , thought I'd pitch in with a few comments on bg testing and meter accuracy.
There's two ways of looking at this.
The first way is to look at technical studies comparing various meters and see how they measure up according to industry standard tests.
For example, there's a fairly recent one, linked to in this article:
https://diatribe.org/are-blood-glucose-meters-accurate-new-data-18-meters
Contour Next comes out on top as being the most accurate.
You've both mentioned that meter, and, if that was how you choose to judge it, that should be be your preferred meter.
But the other way of looking at it is this: the technical differences between all the main contenders are just that: technical differences.
In the real world, the plain truth is that no meter is really all that accurate.
All of them, no matter how fancy their marketing is, or where they are placed in technical tests, just provide broad indications of general ranges.
They are accurate enough for that purpose. I'm T1, so am looking at it from a slightly different perspective.
I'm broadly interested in knowing whether I'm sub-4, between 4 to 7, or above 9.
If I see 5.3 on the meter, and test again at 5.8, or even 6.2 or whatever, those will all be the same number to me: I'll read it as "about 5 to 6", which is good enough for my purposes, as, even though I don't know for sure where it lies after the decimal point, it doesn't matter, because I can be reasonably certain it isn't 3 and it isn't 8.
I use that approach in my T1 world. Meters don't get any more accurate when used by T2s, pre-diabetics, LADAs, or whatever: meters are meters whoever is using them.
Sorry, been waffling on a bit, the point I'm trying to make is that the decimal point accuracy which many newbies look for in bg measuring simply doesn't exist with the current technology, the best you're going to get is a broad range indication, which is actually good enough for most purposes.
I've seen posts from people who've driven themselves mad seeking an accuracy which just doesn't exist in this field.
Learn how to read them for what they are: broad indicators. Near enough is good enough. They are still very useful, despite their limitations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?