• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Meter readings confusion

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.
 
Administrator said:
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/blood-glucose-meters/blood-glucose-meter-accuracy.html has been updated!
Click to expand...
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.
 

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!
 
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.
 
@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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…