Meters are not that accurate with current standards. They get worse if one moves onto the proposed standards. From,
"Accuracy of Self Monitoring Blood Glucose Systems in a Clinical Setting: Application of New Planned ISO - Standards" (2013):
Results:
Evaluating GM results according to the current ISO criteria, all GMs reached the minimum acceptable system accuracy criteria. Analysing GM results according to the more stringent planned ISO standard criteria, only 8 of 19 GMs reached the minimum acceptable accuracy criteria, i.e. ≥ 95% of the individual glucose results fell within ± 15 mg/dL of the results of the reference value at glucose concentrations < 100 mg /dL and within ± 15% at glucose concentrations ≥ 100 mg/dL. When results obtained in BG ranges < and ≥ 100 mg/dL were separately analysed, readings of 10 and 8 GMs, respectively, fell in the area of acceptable accuracy.
Conclusions:
The study shows that more than half of the tested GMs would fail the proposed tighter ISO criteria. Most GMs reveal similar accuracy in BG measurement when compared at lower and higher BG ranges.
http://www.clin-lab-publications.com/fi ... lacher.pdf
Note: ± 15 mg/dL is more or less 1.0 mmol/L
From,
'System Accuracy Evaluation of 43 Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems for Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose according to DIN EN ISO 15197' (2012):
Results:
Complete assessment according to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard was performed for 34 out of 43 systems, and 27 (79.4%) meet the requirements of the standard, i.e., ≥95% of their results showed at least the minimum acceptable accuracy. For 9 of the 43 systems, complete accuracy assessment was not performed due to an oxygen sensitivity (manufacturer’s labeling). The bias (according to Bland and Altman) of all 43 evaluated systems ranged from -14.1% to +12.4%.
Conclusions:
From the 34 systems completely assessed, 7 systems did not fulfill the minimal accuracy requirements of the ISO standard. The CE mark apparently does not guarantee that all BG systems provide accuracy according to the standard. Because inaccurate systems bear the risk of false therapeutic decisions, regular and standardized evaluation of BG meters and test strips should be requested in order to ensure adherence to quality standards.
http://www.journalofdst.org/September20 ... CKMANN.pdf
If you stick to one meter, you can at least tell if your BG is going up or down depending on what you eat but, the result is not likely to be an accurate result. I did read one study which stated that out of all their tests, not a single reading was accurate but the average of them was. It is probably not worth anyone's while in developing a very accurate system because your BG varies according to your blood flow and that is changing all the time. It's very much a rough guide to how you are doing.
)...it is so easy to get the blood droplet for a good test, the strips are inexpensive and it gives a reading in the same parish as the Accuchek and is very consistent.
