We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Point-of-care glucose testing: effects of critical care variables, influence of reference instruments, and a modular glucose meter design.
Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine 2000 Februrary
OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical performance of glucose meter systems when used with critically ill patients.
DESIGN: Two glucose meter systems (SureStepPro and Precision G) and a modular adaptation (Immediate Response Mobile Analysis-SureStepPro) were assessed clinically using arterial samples from critically ill patients. A biosensor-based analyzer (YSI 2700) and a hospital chemistry analyzer (Synchron CX-7) were the primary and secondary reference instruments, respectively.
PATIENTS AND SETTING: Two hundred forty-seven critical care patients at the University of California, Davis, Medical Center participated in this study.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Error tolerances of +/-15 mg/dL for glucose levels </=100 mg/dL and +/-15% for glucose levels >100 mg/dL were used to evaluate glucose meter performance; 95% of glucose meter measurements should fall within these tolerances.
RESULTS: Compared to the primary reference method, 98% to 100% of SureStepPro and 91% to 95% of Precision G measurements fell within the error tolerances. Paired differences of glucose measurements versus critical care variables (Po(2), pH, Pco(2), and hematocrit) were analyzed to determine the effects of these variables on meter measurements. Po(2) and Pco(2) decreased Precision G and SureStepPro measurements, respectively, but not enough to be clinically significant based on the error tolerance criteria. Hematocrit levels affected glucose measurements on both meter systems. Modular adaptation did not affect test strip performance.
CONCLUSIONS: Glucose meter measurements correlated best with primary reference instrument measurements. Overall, both glucose meter systems showed acceptable performance for point-of-care testing. However, the effects of some critical care variables, especially low and high hematocrit values, could cause overestimated or underestimated glucose measurements.
DESIGN: Two glucose meter systems (SureStepPro and Precision G) and a modular adaptation (Immediate Response Mobile Analysis-SureStepPro) were assessed clinically using arterial samples from critically ill patients. A biosensor-based analyzer (YSI 2700) and a hospital chemistry analyzer (Synchron CX-7) were the primary and secondary reference instruments, respectively.
PATIENTS AND SETTING: Two hundred forty-seven critical care patients at the University of California, Davis, Medical Center participated in this study.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Error tolerances of +/-15 mg/dL for glucose levels </=100 mg/dL and +/-15% for glucose levels >100 mg/dL were used to evaluate glucose meter performance; 95% of glucose meter measurements should fall within these tolerances.
RESULTS: Compared to the primary reference method, 98% to 100% of SureStepPro and 91% to 95% of Precision G measurements fell within the error tolerances. Paired differences of glucose measurements versus critical care variables (Po(2), pH, Pco(2), and hematocrit) were analyzed to determine the effects of these variables on meter measurements. Po(2) and Pco(2) decreased Precision G and SureStepPro measurements, respectively, but not enough to be clinically significant based on the error tolerance criteria. Hematocrit levels affected glucose measurements on both meter systems. Modular adaptation did not affect test strip performance.
CONCLUSIONS: Glucose meter measurements correlated best with primary reference instrument measurements. Overall, both glucose meter systems showed acceptable performance for point-of-care testing. However, the effects of some critical care variables, especially low and high hematocrit values, could cause overestimated or underestimated glucose measurements.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app