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
Get Involved
Book and Product Reviews
GlucoRx system
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="AlcalaBob" data-source="post: 175271" data-attributes="member: 30529"><p>Yes, I'm aware of the testing methodologies and the only reason I currently accept the OneTouch in preference to the Rx is because it agreed accurately with lab tests in the past. Of course, that might be coincidence given the stated accuracy of only +/-20%. The same would apply to three or more meters. Choosing arbitrarily between one or the other is, as you point out, pointless and I wouldn't do that.</p><p></p><p>Testing against a known test solution would be OK providing I could accurately produce one of my own but I don't have access to lab equipment. The supplied solutions only indicate an acceptable range of readings for the meters which are fairly wide. They don't give me a specific concentration so I can see a specific error. That's unfortunately the case with some of the published accuracy data as well - it just says x% of the readings were in the +/-20% range, so claiming 100% simply means no better than +/-20% which isn't very good. In any case, whole blood is quite different from a test solution which is why they only suggest a range: the haematocrit value can make a big difference as can a number of other factors.</p><p></p><p>A voting system wouldn't work in the case where the error range is greater than the spread of readings. It's a pragmatic solution which really only detects malfunction and is fine for checking equipment which has already been certified to a certain standard. In the case of these BG meters, that standard is so low that often the error range is greater than the differences we are interested in.</p><p></p><p>For example, if we tested with five meters, giving a range of 6.0 to 8.0, it's possible that the top two have a positive bias and should be discounted and so the true value ought to be much lower, perhaps 6.5. Or the reverse could be true, we just don't know without the data. Ruling out the extremes is making an assumption that might not fit the data. I've already seen some data that shows bias even when the spread of error is quite low.</p><p></p><p>In addition, there are some meters where the errors do not spread much at higher glucose levels, i.e. their accuracy doesn't decline much across the range of readings. Accu-Check meters seem to be good in this respect. Others seem to be much more variable.</p><p></p><p>It is these problems that motivate me to try and get some data from the manufacturers and try to assess them critically. The Rx guys have so far been very cooperative and are taking the questions seriously.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AlcalaBob, post: 175271, member: 30529"] Yes, I'm aware of the testing methodologies and the only reason I currently accept the OneTouch in preference to the Rx is because it agreed accurately with lab tests in the past. Of course, that might be coincidence given the stated accuracy of only +/-20%. The same would apply to three or more meters. Choosing arbitrarily between one or the other is, as you point out, pointless and I wouldn't do that. Testing against a known test solution would be OK providing I could accurately produce one of my own but I don't have access to lab equipment. The supplied solutions only indicate an acceptable range of readings for the meters which are fairly wide. They don't give me a specific concentration so I can see a specific error. That's unfortunately the case with some of the published accuracy data as well - it just says x% of the readings were in the +/-20% range, so claiming 100% simply means no better than +/-20% which isn't very good. In any case, whole blood is quite different from a test solution which is why they only suggest a range: the haematocrit value can make a big difference as can a number of other factors. A voting system wouldn't work in the case where the error range is greater than the spread of readings. It's a pragmatic solution which really only detects malfunction and is fine for checking equipment which has already been certified to a certain standard. In the case of these BG meters, that standard is so low that often the error range is greater than the differences we are interested in. For example, if we tested with five meters, giving a range of 6.0 to 8.0, it's possible that the top two have a positive bias and should be discounted and so the true value ought to be much lower, perhaps 6.5. Or the reverse could be true, we just don't know without the data. Ruling out the extremes is making an assumption that might not fit the data. I've already seen some data that shows bias even when the spread of error is quite low. In addition, there are some meters where the errors do not spread much at higher glucose levels, i.e. their accuracy doesn't decline much across the range of readings. Accu-Check meters seem to be good in this respect. Others seem to be much more variable. It is these problems that motivate me to try and get some data from the manufacturers and try to assess them critically. The Rx guys have so far been very cooperative and are taking the questions seriously. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Get Involved
Book and Product Reviews
GlucoRx system
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.…