Hi, I recently switched to bayer strips/meters because of an insurance change (from One Touch strips/meters used since '91) and I am very concerned about the accuracy of the readings. I have experienced wildly fluctuating readings from tests within a few seconds of each other, mostly to confirm readings which do not reflect how I actually feel. For example:
HI, then 279
LO, then 93, then 79
47, then 117, then 105
I never got HI or LO readings from my One Touch meters, so I test to confirm and the reading is wildly different!!! Is this happening to other people? Thanks.
That would make me crazy. Maybe you can see if your doctor can give a prescription for one touch with no substitutions or challenge the insurance company. I would call Bayer and see if there is a solution, new battery or something??
All systems have a testing solution. It will tell you if the meter readings are accurate. Also, remember that meters can be off up to 40 points either way. I have tested first time at 200 and immediately again at 240. (I only retest when the reading is high, so...) Bayer can probably send you the solution.
You should be able to reset the high/low settings. Call the Bayer helpline--they probably get this question hourly and will be able to help
This forum is full of people with similar observations about various meters. Some models just work better for some people, some for others. Does your insurance cover any additional options? I’d find out and give their other covered models a try first. Some people on here swear by the Bayer. I personally didn’t have consistent results with one-touch. I’d just keep looking for another option that works better for you
I definitely had large differences when I used OneTouch, but nothing like that! I've never tried Bayer.
I just switched to Accu-Chek from OneTouch because of an insurance change. I've never used anything else and it was definitely scary to change. I've found that Accu-Chek is more accurate for me than OneTouch, though. I don't get nearly as many false low readings now as I did six months ago.
Are there any other companies that your insurance company will let you use?
Just proving that different meters work for different people - I'm pretty unhappy with my Accu Check and feel I got more reliable results from my FreeStyle which my insurance no longer covers.
I've definitely noticed that its numbers are usually higher than OneTouch. I've heard that before--that OneTouch results are artificially low. And with OneTouch, I'd get a 49 and then a number in the low 100's immediately after. I ALWAYS double-checked when my OneTouch meters told me I was low. I usually do with the Accu-Chek, too, because I'm not used to it yet, but I haven't seen much variability there.
Hi, I have used Bayer Contour strips/meter for years and love them. I found them to be very accurate. When I ? Any meter results I wash my hands and test again. I hate recording numbers and love that I can download them. Did you know they offer a discount card for strips? Nancy
My One Touch was only a couple of points off from the lab, maybe you just got a bad container of strips, I'd try the control solution, see if that tests right, and if all else fails ask your Dr to contact your insurance company on your behalf regarding the strips. If the Dr can convince them of medical necessity, that you are getting widely fluctuating reading, after multiple tests. The insurance company might take that into consideration and make an exception.
One of the things I learned in testing is that there are lots of variables, ways that the test can be messed up. One way is certainly that the meter/strip system if inaccurate, most meters struggle to be +/- 20%. And your meter battery can die or your test strips can be bad.
But beyond that, there are some things that can mess up your readings big time. One of those is having contaminated fingers. Obviously, sugar on your fingers can mess things up, but there are also subtle things that you might not expect. Hand lotion (contains glycerin). Soaps (glycerin again). So I have become diligent about washing my FUT (Finger Under Test). And if I get an extreme reading requiring treatment, I will often repeat the test. But I will wash again, dry the finger and then test.
I used a onetouch for years and was able to get routine credible and repeatable tests under controlled conditions. Not +/-5%, but generally better than +/-20%. I've now switched to a Verio IQ which seems to even be a little more accurate.
My insurance doesn't provide enough strips for me so I buy the contour TS strips because they're cheaper. I find much more inconsistency with it as well. I usually test twice when I'm using the Contour and sometimes test a third time when there's a huge disparity between the first two numbers. I find it reads lower than my Freestyle meter and if my blood sugars are over 250 the contour reads higher. Frustrating
I've had many different brands/types of meters and strips in the past 31 years. You would be surprised at the state of the art 31 years ago or the controversy around bg testing back then.
Different meters have different thresholds for "HI" and "LO" vs "Error" when blood loaded into the strip with wrong position or timing. Most often these occur because the strip wasn't loaded with blood optimally.
With a lot of modern strips I still find I have to "load the blood" into/onto the strip differently for different types of strips. There's a technique I use for some strips, that simply doesn't work for other strips, and I have to change technique or I end up with bad reads/error reads. Some of my previous meters/strips, I just put a big blob of blood on the front of the strip, but my preferred strip right now (Accu-Chek compact) there's actually a little "slot" at the end where the blood is best loaded. Putting a blob of blood on the front of those strips does very little good.
One thing that initially threw me with Accu-Chek compact, is there has to be a pause for "ready" beyond just having the strip in the meter. Loading blood onto strip before the meter is ready (easy for an impatient guy like me!) was a source of problems with I first started.
If you are trying "Alternate site testing", that's a whole new ball game for me. Very little experience.
I hate to mess up this dicussion but control solutions only test meter against pure calibrated samples of glucose D only and DO NOT PROVIDE A means to claibrate a meter in face of interferors to see if any issue.
Control solutions do work but in my mind prove very little as meter probably works fine against pure testing solutions.
There really should be an addition test solution with calibrated interferors/water/oxygen/hematocrat thrown in and then check meter.
I have been here too many times and learned nothing from the test solution other than my water, oxygen, interferor sugars, my hmatocrir were probably at end of range.
Some folks should be shot over the incompetent crap peddled over how all these meters read identical. Control solutions under this environment are usually useless.
The problem one has is the insurance company et all have been convinced to support a single meter type. (one might feel conned or given absolutely sweet deal to force all its members to use.)
Unless one knows what the operating ranges a meter works against reliably - water, oxygen, hematocratic rnages as well what interferors that meter rejects and how well ( And trying to find that data on present useless spec sheets provided customer detailing more important details on the case size, strip size and battery type proves hopeless)
The honest answer is that if you are "normal" and fit in middle of the ranges and liver/gut keeps the trick sugars contained until properly digested to glucose D; you should probably not have too much fun. If in my camp, it is real pain in derrier.
The one touch in the last released specs I Saw does reject other sugars in blood stream and reports only glucose D. No all meters do this. According to reports on a FDA page showed the Accucheck as still reporting on a sum of dugars in blood stream and not just Glucose D.
The One touch and some of the meters do a better job of filtering out non glucose D . I do not accept nor believe the complaint on reading articially low and have done comparisons of those meters against my cgms that did have a molecular filter to block non glucose D and those meters claimed as reading artificially low were in fact closer to my cgms readings.
