It generally seems to be the case that the medical community will not change its routine practices until there have been studies published in peer-reviewed academic journals.
Obviously these trials cost money, but I wonder if one or more meter manufacturers would fund such a study?
Sure, there would be the usual charge of bias being introduced into the study, but that is not uncommon (think of funding for drug trials) and studies are usually designed to minimise that effect.
Perhaps it takes a few GPs sympathetic to self-monitoring of T2s (and perhaps also pre-Ds?) - I'm sure they would have no trouble at all attracting a big enough cohort of patients for a statistically valid trial - they probably wouldn't need to look outside this this forum!
Meter manufacturers would probably fall over themselves to fund such a study.
How to measure outcome after, say, 3 years? A1c is an obvious choice together with the usual biochemical markers. But retinopathy (lack of) is something else that is easily quantifiable and testing for it already forms a routine part of diabetic management.
Further, if a reduction in retinopathy outcome *were* shown, if would be a gold-standard for funding self-testing, bearing in mind how the cost to the state goes up to support people who go - unnecessarily and preventably - blind.
Likewise strokes and cardiovasculaer events - costly when they happen, so even a modest reduction from better self-management would probably be cost-effective.
Anyway, just a thought or three before I walk off to work in the cold winter sunshine!
MarkD