Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Prediabetes
Different meters different readings
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Scott-C" data-source="post: 2032439" data-attributes="member: 374531"><p>Hi, [USER=488381]@DianaMC[/USER] and [USER=344185]@Rustytypin[/USER] , thought I'd pitch in with a few comments on bg testing and meter accuracy.</p><p></p><p>There's two ways of looking at this.</p><p></p><p>The first way is to look at technical studies comparing various meters and see how they measure up according to industry standard tests. </p><p></p><p>For example, there's a fairly recent one, linked to in this article:</p><p></p><p><a href="https://diatribe.org/are-blood-glucose-meters-accurate-new-data-18-meters" target="_blank">https://diatribe.org/are-blood-glucose-meters-accurate-new-data-18-meters</a></p><p></p><p>Contour Next comes out on top as being the most accurate.</p><p></p><p>You've both mentioned that meter, and, if that was how you choose to judge it, that should be be your preferred meter.</p><p></p><p>But the other way of looking at it is this: the technical differences between all the main contenders are just that: technical differences.</p><p></p><p>In the real world, the plain truth is that no meter is really all that accurate. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>They are accurate enough for that purpose. I'm T1, so am looking at it from a slightly different perspective. </p><p></p><p>I'm broadly interested in knowing whether I'm sub-4, between 4 to 7, or above 9. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>I've seen posts from people who've driven themselves mad seeking an accuracy which just doesn't exist in this field. </p><p></p><p>Learn how to read them for what they are: broad indicators. Near enough is good enough. They are still very useful, despite their limitations.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Scott-C, post: 2032439, member: 374531"] Hi, [USER=488381]@DianaMC[/USER] and [USER=344185]@Rustytypin[/USER] , 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: [URL]https://diatribe.org/are-blood-glucose-meters-accurate-new-data-18-meters[/URL] 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. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Prediabetes
Different meters different readings
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…