…and this morning, a 150 and a 127, both on the one touch, and 102 on the dexcom. Oy.
Jrt, I was going to say that at least your pump meter meter matches the dex more closely, which is good, because its your pump. Most the time differences there can chocked up to cgm delay. This morning looks like a bigger delay that needs to be calibrated, I think I’d take two off the lower meter, then calibrate. 
Was going to say the same.'
And then move on and forget it.
Emily yeah, I’m just going to stick with the ping meter. I waited an hour, did ONE fs and calibrated.
The expected deviation is stated in the documentation of the strips. It is around +/-15% from strip to strip. With 100mg/dl in your blood you can measure extreme values of 115 or 85. But normally you are in between. The FDA and regulatory commisions in other countries could change that. But so far they just appealed to the manufacturers to improve their products.
Couple of thoughts: Yes meters aren’t all that accurate. They’re only required to be within 20% of the real lab number, not 20 mg/dl, which means that the higher you go, the wider the discrepancy. Unfortunately, they’re all we’ve got, and better than it was 50 years ago, when all there was were strips to pee on and find out what your BG WAS.
The way I would look at test results like yours is that it really wouldn’t change what I would do with the information. I’d take enough insulin to bring me down by 20 mag/dl, which would make 83 with the OT, 102 with the Aviva and 89 with the Dex. All of them are well within my goal.
It seems to me that you get used to the way your particular meter works and adjust from there. For example, my CGM typically reads 20-30% low when I’m below 120, so I KNOW not to freak out when it says 50 or 60. On the other hand, it reads about the same amount high when I’m above 180, so if it says 250, I know that I DO have to correct, but I correct to the meter. When I’m between 120 and 180, it’s usually spot on, and I have been known to correct from the CGM without bothering to fingerstick.
I have an Aviva and really like it, and I also like the Multiclix. But I will admit, I have always had a hard time changing meters – I’ve always tested them against each other, just like you did. But I eventually just decide to go with the newest one, and revert back to my own knowledge of my own body, and so far, I’ve done really well.
I appreciate your angst, but you’ll figure it out!
I bet if the standards were tightened, perhaps in increments over several years, the manufactures would meet them. Presently they are just doing the minimum required, which is all you can really expect of them.
I was in the same boat. Wanted to use the Bayer Contour USB because it was soooo cool, but found that it didn’t match the readings on my OneTouch. Got so frustrated i did a side by side for a month. Found that the Countour USB liked to read around 110 or so and seemed to not like to vary as much from that average. Given that I run, I needed a meter that would accurately measure my lows more than my highs (which aren’t much of an issue for me). So when I felt and read in the 60s on my OneTouch, the Contour would be reading in the 80s or 90s. When I was high, my One Touch seemed to read too high. So my conclusion was that if you are a Type 2, the Contour would seem better for you, but as a Type one, the OneTouch will do a better job of keeping you off the floor. Both meters had issues varying against themselves, but I just gave up and figured, even if they are flawed, it beats the alternatives. Frustrating as all getout that they are allowed to be so far from accurate by the agencies. Don’t even get me started on the Bayer A1c tests…