1. Get the Diabetes Forum App for your phone - available on iOS and Android.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the Diabetes Forum Survey 2021 »
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Diabetes Forum should not be used in an emergency and does not replace your healthcare professional relationship. Posts can be seen by the public.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Guest, stay home, stay safe, save the NHS. Stay up to date with information about keeping yourself and people around you safe here and GOV.UK: Coronavirus (COVID-19). Think you have symptoms? NHS 111 service is available here.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Join the community »

Meter readings confusion

Discussion in 'Blood Glucose Monitoring' started by magicaxeman58, Dec 17, 2015.

  1. dannyw

    dannyw Type 1 · BANNED

    Messages:
    430
    Likes Received:
    1,239
    Trophy Points:
    158
    Although I completely agree with this the fact that certain meters read consistently high or low does make a difference if on insulin and are a driver. We are all aware of the DVLA guidelines and how strict they are ( as they should be ) so a meter that read lower than it should can make a difference.
    I too look for trends though rather than worry too much about single readings and hopefully with technology moving so fast, the margins of error will reduce even further in the future.
    Again, I agree. My point was the other way around though really. If say, you had a meter that read consistency lower than another, it may affect your freedom to drive. If you tested your blood and were between 4 & 4.5, you'd need to snack and increase levels whereas your actual readings may be over 5. OK, not going to make much of a difference to most people but if you kept your numbers tight, it could occasionally be a pain.
     
  2. Administrator

    Administrator Family member · Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    1,530
    Likes Received:
    1,028
    Trophy Points:
    198
  3. Oldvatr

    Oldvatr Type 2 · Expert

    Messages:
    5,943
    Likes Received:
    3,404
    Trophy Points:
    198
    OOPS! The figures are not what I expected. The first chart is titled ISO 2003, but the second is for 2013.which is the new ISO coming into effect in 2016 hopefully (confused?)

    Again a quick check of the 10 mmol/L and 20 mmol/L rows, does not tie in with my understanding of error, and does not match either 20% (2013) or 15% (2016) I was expecting it to be<< + / - percentage of reading>> but it clearly is not in these tables. I have scoured the web for a chart to compare against, but have not found one. However, the examples given in the text of an ADA report has the same interpretation that I do.
     
  4. Administrator

    Administrator Family member · Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    1,530
    Likes Received:
    1,028
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Ah, the ISO standard was actually agreed in 2013 and that may be where the confusion lies. In regards to the readings, will send to the editor. Be back soon on this!
     
  5. AloeSvea

    AloeSvea Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,508
    Likes Received:
    1,691
    Trophy Points:
    178
    Even though I am a T2, and not on medication, I have experimented extensively with diet and exercise's influence on my BG - and I am seriously much happier doing that when the BG readings seem more aligned to fact! Especially when keeping an eye on BG in order to keep an eye on organ health - thinking of what Jenny Ruhl and Dr Bernstein write about 'safe levels' to aim for before organ damage really sets in.

    I see from this thread, and reading the linked articles, that I may be expecting the unexpectable at the mo'? ie accuracy. (Very interesting to know it's probably the test strips, and not the meter.) What a shame! I really like it when all the numbers match up in a logical way (ie Home meter BG readings, with average home meter BG readings, with HBA1c and lab BG readings.) And I hate having to muck around with numbers anymore than I have to!

    Bring on greater accuracy!

    Thanks heaps again for the links in this thread.
     
  6. Oldvatr

    Oldvatr Type 2 · Expert

    Messages:
    5,943
    Likes Received:
    3,404
    Trophy Points:
    198
  7. Oldvatr

    Oldvatr Type 2 · Expert

    Messages:
    5,943
    Likes Received:
    3,404
    Trophy Points:
    198
    @Administrator Hi I see the tables on the DCUK site for meter accuracy wrt ISO standards still appear to be incorrect Where do the figures come from? Surely the error is +/- n % of reading?
     
  • Meet the Community

    Find support, connect with others, ask questions and share your experiences with people with diabetes, their carers and family.

    Did you know: 7 out of 10 people improve their understanding of diabetes within 6 months of being a Diabetes Forum member. Get the Diabetes Forum App and stay connected on iOS and Android

    Grab the app!
  • Tweet with us

  • Like us on Facebook