Things Are Changing!

The migration of TuDiabetes has begun

Content created between now and the launch of our new site on April 20th will NOT be moved to that new home, but our community values and Terms of Service still apply during this time.We are not accepting new members during this transition period. If you want to join the TuDiabetes community please send an e-mail to We will send you an invitation to join after the migration is completed.

Read about the migration and see images of the new site!

So I took up the Accu-chek offer and got a free Aviva meter and strips.

It is reading anywhere from 10-30 mg/dl higher than my two Ultras (one is an Ultra 2, one is a plain Ultra.) So I'm either 118 (Aviva) or 90 (ultra 2) or 85 (Ultra) .

Not a trivial difference!

Both meters test fine with control solution and the Ultra 2 is, as usual, right in the middle of the given range. Both the Ultras are old but I have bought them new batteries recently.

The last time I had an Aviva it read 240 mg/dl when I tested at 203 mg/dl at the lab (this was back when I was trying to convince my doctor I was diabetic.) At that point I ditched it. My ultras were close to the lab result when I tested.

My A1cs are always higher than I expect based on the Ultra readings so it isn't out of the range of possibility I'm running higher than I think. But the Ultra has a good rep and is consistent.

So which one to believe? My doctor no longer orders fasting tests for me, so I can't check the meters against lab.

I REALLY hate distrusting my meter this way.

Any one else run into this problem? Has anyone here lab compared the Aviva and seen a good match?

Views: 148

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I just posted a very similar thing on flickr.... I was WAY different on 3 meters and a sensor:

it is very frustrating and confusing
I have not had this experience except when I used to compare my CGM reading to my meter reading. That way lies madness. They are two different things.

My thoughts are this -

First, use the system you are comfortable with but pick ONE to avoid driving yourself nuts AND to have a consistent approach to your blood sugar management.

Second. If your A1cs were consistently higher than the Ultra readings would indicate, it suggests that the Ultra readings tend to be low. That would mean the Aviva is likely closer to the mark.

Third, a difference of 37 (240-203) between the meter and the lab is big BUT that's years ago and compares a home test to a (hopefully) more sophisticated lab test. Unless you've compare the Ultra results to Lab results I wouldn't give much weight to this data.

Fourth, consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds but essential to controlling your BGs, so pick ONE system and treat accordingly.

My two cents.

I too had the same problem with my Aviva..I got it free online and LOVED it!! but it unfortunately gave me a reading consistantly 20pts higher! So for instance I was not treating lows when I should have been and was treating highs when I really wasn't..which resulted in LOWS! I confirmed this 2 times; once with a fasting lab of 46: my Aviva gave me a 69 ..another was in the Dr.'s office: their One Touch gave a 180's , my Aviva gave a 200+ ( which I would normally treat with an extra unit of insulin) I have since gone back to my One Touch Ultra and feel my readings are more accurate..I don't seem to have so many highs/lows..I Trust the results of my One Touch more than I do the Accu-Check Aviva.
I also had this same experience with the Aviva, and, I too got mine from the free offer!

When one is using insulin, 30 points can be the difference between being right where you should be and going low!! Not a good compromise!

The OneTouch meters are proven accurate! Also the Ascencia Contour (but NOT the Breeze!!!) is proven accurate, as well as the FreeStyle Lite. (all tested by me, all with in about a 10 pt range) I'm a tried and true OneTouch Ultra/Ultra2/Ultra Smart girl (UltraSmart being my fav), but because I'm getting free test strips for the Countour, I'm currently using it. So, I will use one of those three meters (Ultra/Contour/FreeStyle Lite), known for accuracy. The Aviva, nope, ain't gonna use it. At least until they get their act together and have an accurate product!

As to the difference between your A1c and your meter averages. We aren't continuously checking our BG, so there are times we might be higher than we realize, hence a higher A1c.
Aviva meters have an URGENT PRODUCT RECALL on meters with serial #'s 52500000000 through 52510999999 because of the potential for electronic malfunction that can cause an erroneous result. I also have this meter but have not tested with my others, but will do so now.

I owned one of the recalled meters which were sold 3 years ago. They replaced it with one that was just as inaccurate.

Today the Accu-chek read the SAME as my Ultra. My faith in it is waning.

The 118 vs 85 was a fasting bg and since I use basal/bolus insulin shots the difference is NOT trivial.

Three years ago when I was first starting insulin I got the new Accu-chek and ended up with a nightmare since my doctor started me at what turned out to be 3 times the dose of Lantus I should have been using, because he thought I was a Type 2.

I was not using fast acting insulin, and getting "great numbers" as long as I ate carby meals, but at night I was being aweakened out of a sound sleep with an intense heartbeat and after a few days I had a continually pounding pulse.

Since the meter always read in the 90s or 100s the doctor decided my high pulse was a heart condition and sent me to a cardiologist who prescribed a beta blocker! No one ever thought that I might be hypoing because of the normal Aviva meter reading. When the lab results came back with that 40 mg/dl gap I was able to figure out what the real problem was, and on the advice of people online I switched to the Ultra. It took weeks after I stopped the Lantus for my pulse to drop back to normal.

When I called Accu-Chek about the 40 mg/dl difference on the Aviva years ago, the customer service person insisted that this was within the allowable range of error--which it is not--and then tried to get me to say on tape that I was not harmed by the meter reading. When I would not do that, the company went into panic mode and transferred me up the management ladder where more pressure was applied. VERY unpleasant. The company made it clear their only interest was to protect itself from a lawsuit.

The new Aviva doesn't seem to be any better. It is very similar to the cheap drugstore brand/Wal-mart meters whose strips cost less than 1/2 what Aviva charges.


Interesting. I applied for a free Ultra Mini and will save my Aviva strips to test against it. My ultras are old but I replaced the batteries a few months ago and haven't seen anything that made me suspect they were off, especially since they are usually pretty close to each other the few times I checked.
Dear Jenny.

You have hit on a problem that is very serious.

How do you know it is not your Ultra reading too low. If your HA1c is higher one of the many reasons could be the Ultra is reading too low.

All the new meters that now use a 5 seconds measurement time are lousy. 10 years ago I had an Ascentia that was always 5% below the lab comparaison, below always not above and below, great accuracy. Moreover triplicate measurements were within 3% so very precise. So it was both accurate and precise. To achieve this great performance it took 60 seconds to do a measurement. The meters work by adding up (integrating) an electrochemical current from a reaction between the glucose and some specific to glucose only reagent (hopefully) . If the meter is late or early by 0.5 second in starting to count the current you have a 10% error for a 5 second measurement time and only a 0.8% measurement error for a 60 seconds measurement time.

This is a disaster and could be the reason that I messed up my attempt at weight loss. I may of have over insulinated because the readings were high I was using an Aviva. But you can't tell anymore for sure.

Look at my post postings. I have urged all bloggers to do 3 measurements with their meters at the same time as they have a lab test done. And to report the 4 measurements on this site. With a lot of data we may find some meter that is less bad than all the others. But I suspect that all is S==T.

Not only is the ADA criminal. The FDA does not care about meter accuracy when it is certainly possible to make accurate meters as was shown 10 years ago. The EPA did not inforce gas mileage and as a result car companies need a lot of tax payer dollars. The SEC did not keep an eye on the Wall Street crooks and may have caused the comming depression. The common denominator of all of these agencies is lobbyists and G. Bush. One of the problems is gone. The lobbyists probably need another American revolution.

This makes nonsense out of tight control that you are preaching.
I have read a study with 112 patients (not that much I must admit) about the reliability of glucose meters. One fourth of the meters with mean age of 2,7 years showed derivations of 20% from the reference measurement. Derivations are to expect since they are based on encymatic processes. But more interesting is that the mean derivation from the reference measurement (short MAD) increased with the age of the devices. The devices with a mean age of 2,7 years had an increased MAD of 5% compared to new devices. Their conclusion was that meters need to be verified in regular intervals.

I would recommend to compare the lab result with the results of both meters on your next appointment.




From the Diabetes Hands Foundation blog...

DHF Joins Diabetes Advocacy Alliance

Diabetes Hands Foundation is incredibly honored to join the Diabetes Advocacy Alliance, an organization with the drive and potential to affect a powerful, positive impact on diabetes and healthcare policy. Diabetes Advocacy Alliance is a 20-member coalition of leading professional Read on! →

Helmsley Charitable Trust Renews Support for DHF

HELMSLEY CHARITABLE TRUST GRANTS SUPPORT TO DIABETES HANDS FOUNDATION FOR FOURTH YEAR  Funding in 2015 to support major transitions in programs and leadership at Diabetes Hands Foundation BERKELEY, CA: February 18, 2015 – The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Read on! →

Diabetes Hands Foundation Team


Melissa Lee
(Interim Executive Director, Editor, has type 1)

Manny Hernandez
(Co-Founder, has LADA)

Emily Coles (Head of Communities, has type 1)

Mila Ferrer
(EsTuDiabetes Community Manager, mother of a child with type 1)

Mike Lawson
(Head of Experience, has type 1)

Corinna Cornejo
(Director of Operations and Development, has type 2)

Desiree Johnson  (Administrative and Programs Assistant, has type 1)


Lead Administrator

Brian (bsc) (has type 2)


Lorraine (mother of type 1)
Marie B (has type 1)

DanP (has Type 1)

Gary (has type 2)

David (has type 2)


LIKE us on Facebook

Spread the word


This website is certified by Health On the Net Foundation. Click to verify. This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information: verify here.

© 2015   A community of people touched by diabetes, run by the Diabetes Hands Foundation.

Badges  |  Contact Us  |  Terms of Service