A horse a horse my kindom for a horse/or how accurate are the readings from your blood testing machine


Having checked my blood on both machines I have two different readings which one is correct
Accu-Chek-Aviva 12.5
One touch Verio IQ 14.0
Which one is correct I know it is only 1.5 different and does it really matter both are to high but I have not taken my insulin yet or had my breakfast is there an industry standard and if there is what is it I have used the cleaning liquid so expect the readings to be closer am I worrying about nothing.
The new machine One touch Verio IQ has the facility to monitor high and low readings to give you a pattern to work to,nice idea it gets even worse when a third machine is used my daughter has a Contour one last week we took readings from all three macines and the difference was even larger I would be interested to hear from anyone who believes they get accurate readings from theire machine and what machine it is,perhaps if not already done Tu might like to take it up.
I suppose most folks would gladly go with the lower figure but is that good for you in the long run anyway friends take care keep up the good work best wishes twiddle

Views: 255

Tags: accu-chek, blood, one, readings, touch

Comment by beechbeard on February 13, 2013 at 1:25pm

Our meters do not need to be accurate. To be pedantic, the most you can hope for is that your meter is "precise." That is, that multiple readings taken under the same experimental conditions will have a small variance around the mean value. Meter readings on one device typically do not differ by a constant value from a different meter device. Typically different meter models have different "sensitivity" (slope of the response curve) at different bg levels.

At +/- 20% variance (FDA bg meter accuracy standard) you should think of you reading as a relative value. That is, "my" 90 mg/dl is lower than "my" 120 but only God knows what the "real" or "accurate" valuse might be. Most bgms are believed to be more accurate than CGMs for a variety of reasons.

Comment by TC on February 13, 2013 at 6:17pm

In the United States meters have to be accurate within +/-20% over 5.5 mmol/l and within 1 mmol/l under 5.5 mmol/l (or somewhere near here if I did the conversions correctly). Meters are getting more accurate and new standards are going to be adopted by the FDA soon to be tighter standards. If you want the most accurate strip on the market, Agamatrix (makers of the iBG star strips) appears to have that corner right now. I think they are close to +/- .5 mmol/l under 5.5 mmol/l and within 10% over 5.5 mmol. However, with any strips, the higher you get the less accurate the strip becomes. So really, your readings of 12.5 and 14 are likely within the margin of error and "good enough" to make a treatment decision. You endo can compare your meter's accuray with their internal machine which is calibrated at a higher standard.

Comment by TC on February 13, 2013 at 6:37pm

Here is an interesting article on the subject:
Accuracy in today's BG meters

Comment by TC on February 13, 2013 at 6:41pm

Last thought: When I searched for a BG meter from my son, I looked up all the meters I could. I wanted to go with an Agamatrix made strip. I called the company up and the customer service representative stated that all of their meters and strips are based on the same technology and have the same accuracy. This was several months ago, but they were the best I could find. Unfortunately, my insurance wouldn't cover them. So, we opted for Bayer Contour Next strips which were a close second. Had I unlimited funds, I'd buy the iBG star for my son.

Comment by Jorychi on February 14, 2013 at 12:08am

Mine vary wildly. I've had as much as 200 mg/dl difference between two meters on the same drop of blood. That's scary.

Comment by Brian (bsc) on February 14, 2013 at 9:05am

Meter accuracy is a huge issue for all of us. Think about it, meters only have to have most of their readings +/- 20%. So a reading of of 135 mg/dl could be either 110 mg/dl or 160 mg/dl and still be within +/- 20%. An eAG of 110 mg/dl corresponds to an A1c of 5.5%, not even diabetic. Yet an eAG of 160 mg/dl corresponds to A1c of 7.2% and that gets you labelled as an uncontrolled diabetic.

We absolutely need better meters or they will increasingly become a limiting factor in our control.

Comment by Brian Wittman on February 14, 2013 at 9:12am

i recently was hospitalized and the meter at the hospital was 20-25 points under mine. They insisted on disconnecting me from the pump and wanting to manage my diabetes with Lantus and a shot before meals and I refused. I left my pump connected, used my own meter and held my blood sugar to some low number that needed not to have them worry. I'll be discussing this issue with my endo and CDE at my appointment next week.

I think the hospital equipment is well outside the margin of error. especially if someone comes in high. If someone would be low, what would their meter read? Some number within range? I don't know!

Comment by garidan on February 14, 2013 at 1:21pm

The Verio is the right one.

Comment

You need to be a member of Diabetes community by Diabetes Hands Foundation: TuDiabetes to add comments!

Join Diabetes community by Diabetes Hands Foundation: TuDiabetes

Advertisement



REsources

From the Diabetes Hands Foundation blog...

An eye opening experience at @CWDiabetes!

Last month, I had one of the most amazing experiences I have had with technology since I have been living with diabetes. It happened at the Focus On Technology conference organized by Children With Diabetes in Los Angeles (the first Read on! →

World Diabetes Day at REALM Charter School

REALM Charter is a middle school full of amazing young people eager to learn about World Diabetes Day. Team DHF spent the day with over 300 students and taught them about the Big Blue Test and what they can do Read on! →

Diabetes Hands Foundation Team

DHF TEAM

Manny Hernandez
(Co-Founder, Editor, 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
(Development Manager, has type 2)

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

DHF VOLUNTEERS


Lead Administrator

Brian (bsc) (has type 2)


Administrators

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

Loading…

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.

© 2014   A community of people touched by diabetes, run by the Diabetes Hands Foundation.

Badges  |  Contact Us  |  Terms of Service