Self monitoring in type 2, positive trials.

A year ago I wrote a post about accu chek probably conducting trials into it's paired testing protocol
Well they have done the trials reporting the results at EASD conference,
Their subjects were poorly controlled type 2s. There was a control group with normal US standard care including quarterly visits, Hb A1c plus available self glucose monitoring, the other group used a structured method of testing, including (this comes from the protocol released before the trial took place

1) short periods of intensive SMBG, in which data are recorded on an easy-to-view, paper-and-pencil form, performed at least quarterly; 2) patient and physician training in the effective use of SMBG data; 3) patient presentation of their SMBG data to their physicians for regular review and discussion; and 4) physician review and discussion of SMBG data with their patients, followed by recommendations for therapy change (pharmacologic and non pharmacologic) as needed. The protocol placed significant emphasis on the collaborative efforts and relationship between patients and their physicians because both play critical roles in the appropriate utilization of SMBG data. /

Click to expand...

The trial

'examined the impact of structured SMBG upon glycemic control, diabetes-specific distress and clinical depression'

Click to expand...

HbA1, pre and postgrandial levels and MAGE ( glucose peaks) were lower in the group using paired testing, both groups had an improvement in quality of life indicators but those in the structured group who had clinical depression or severe 'diabetes distress' showed greater improvements in these quality of life scores.

details
http://www.biovalley.com/content.cfm?nav=6&content=19&command=details&id=15159
he full details of the protocol
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/11/37/

My original post is here, in it is a link to the logbook used in the trial (it still works). It might help to persuade some GPS if you use this method (It's very much what many people on here do anyway, though perhaps more intensively over shorter periods. The use of a 'legitimate' tested tool may be more persuasive, particularly if the results are in a format that is easy for docs to discuss with you.
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes-forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10993&hilit=+360

I think it is important to point out that the hypothesis,procedure, and measurements of outcome were published in advance of the trials. Unless the results were falsified or you think there is something wrong with the methodology then the results are valid whoever funded the trials.
Pragmatically,anything that can serve to show the validity of glucose testing is worth a try.