What kind of meter does everyone use for calibration - I am getting frustrated with my Aviva meter. I have a Ping that uses One Touch strips but I have seen people complain about those so only used the free vial of 10 that came with those. I know I need something fairly accurate for calibrations so wondering what other people use.
I use a FreeStyle Lite. I used to use a OneTouch. I really only switched because the FreeStyle requires less blood for testing.
I currently use a One Touch but plan on moving to a Wavesense Presto for calibration… Theres been some good experience with people using the Wavesense meters to calibrate the Dex and some have seemed to found their Dex is a little more accurate as a result…Iv had some days where im pretty sure the OT was off more than id like…
I am an analytical chemist by training and I have had lots of experience with chemical test equipment. I have been a diabetic for over 30 years and run thousands of BG tests with several different generations of meters. The true accuracy of any meter can only be determined by running tests against known standard solutions provided by the makers of the meters and strips. To verify the performance of my testing, I run the standards everytime I get a new 90 day supply of test strips. I also bring my meter with me for my quarterly doctor visit and test at the time I provide a blood sample. This way I can compare my test result with the professional laboratory test. Currently I use the Accu-Check Compact Plus. It is accurate enough. I can’t say it is the best. I like the fact that the lancet is attached to the meter, the meter holds drums with 17 strips, and there is an infrared link to transfer results to my computer for analysis.
We take an unjustified leap of faith when we rely on any single test result. No single test can be deemed to be accurate by itself. No meter is reliably accurate for every test. There are variations in meter performance, test strip performance and testing routines.
So if one wants to evaluate any meter, obtain a fresh standard test soultion, fresh test strips, learn what the expected results should be for the standard solution and then run a series of tests using the standard. This way one is able to evaluate the entire system, (i.e. the meter, the test strips and one’s personal skills in running the tests). The expected results for a series of tests conducted with the same standard would be a cluster of slightly different readings. The tighter the cluster of results the more reproducable the testing. The closer the cluster of results is to the value expected for the standard, the more accurate is the test method. I suspect that most of the meters on the market today will return good results provided the person performing the tests uses the correct procedures and performs the test in a consistant manner.
That said, I’m sure some meters may yield more consistant results, however unless the meters are tested against known standards and the variences analysed statistically, it would not be possible to identify the most accurate systems.
I agree with AaronM. I work in health care. Look at any lab slip and it has a range for normals. Also, if you ask a lab chemistry tech, they will tell you all values from a lab are +/- some amount. The same is true of BG meters. Aaron, help me out but I have seen most are +/- 20%.
This is the reason the Dex says to do two strips on calibration. I poke once and use two strips as fast as I can before the hole clots off. I see times when the two strips are the same and other times they have the +/- 20% spread.
I like the One Touch strips and my Ping meter.
jay
Personally, I use two seperate finger sticks for the first DexCom sensor calibration. My experience supports the fact that testing technique is a very important factor. It is necessary to get a consistant size blood drop, bring the strip to the blood drop in a consistant manner and have the strip take up the sample in a consistant manner. If any of these conditions is not just so I get readings that are off. So when I sense an issue with any of these test conditions, I repeat the test. If the two are far apart, I do a thrid test. Usually I can reject the out lying result and recognize which testing condition was off. When I test against the standard solutions, I get much better than +/- 20% spread. I think the +/- 20% spread is related to technique and can be improved upon.
I use the FreeStyle meter built into my OmniPod PDM.
Hi Kelly,
The current ISO 15197 standard (last updated in 2003) approximates to the often quoted +/- 20% accuracy.
There is a more stringent standard than the 20% ISO standard. It is the TNO 15%
standard which only a few meters were able to meet. The Bayer, Accuchek and
Freestyle meters meet this standard. Wavesense say they also have received
approval after the last TNO testing date. Note the OneTouch meters are not on the
list.
See the meters that meet TNO standards on the TNO web site.: (I used Google translate to read the page in english)
http://www.tnokeur.nl/connect/home.do
Even easier, I found that a member on another forum succinctly summarized the state of current BG meter accuracy in this post:
http://www.diabetesdaily.com/forum/testing-blood-sugar/40712-blood-…
Regarding the Avivas, my trial with their system showed them to be consistently 10 - 20 points higher than my actual BG. I could get readings of 65 on the OneTouch or Freestyle and feel the hypo symptoms, but the Aviva would say 75 - 85.
I currently use the Freestyle strips due to their certified 15% accuracy. I also do the dual test procedure described by AaronM, with a third referee test if necessary.
PS to AaronM: Good to meet another degreed chemist, even though I no longer work in the chemistry field.
I use Accuchek Aviva. The best meter is the one that has the best insurance coverage, IMHO. For me, it’s Accuchek although in the past I’ve used One Touch and liked that alot. I got a free One Touch Ultramini which is great, but when the free vial runs out I will not be using it anymore.
I use the WaveSense Presto model meter. Aga-Matrix, the manufacturer, claims that this meter meets standard ISO 15197. Aga-Matrix published a white paper that details these results.
According to this white paper, 206 capillary blood results were plotted against the average results of a highly accurate lab standard equipment called YSI. All 206 of the results fell into “Zone A.” This zone is defined as result that will have “no effect on clinical outcome.” I take that to mean that if you rely on the result and use it to make decisions regarding insulin dosage adjustments or for adding food to correct a low, then that reliance will not produce a bad clinical outcome.
The study also revealed that for samples that test less than or equal to 75 mg/dl, 27 of 28 samples or 96.4% were within 10 mg/dl of the lab standard. For samples great than 75 mg/dl, 166 of 178 samples or 93.3% were within plus or minus 10% of the lab standard.
Thanks for bringing up this topic as it caused me to review the accuracy of the meter than I use to calibrate my Dex. It’s interesting to read the responses of others with a professional chemistry and testing background. I have no such professional expertise; I’m simply an interested consumer. I’m hoping that we see much more accurate BG testing technology in the future.
Hello, I also left chemistry. Worked with computers and then retired in 2005. As you know, any test equipment that provides a consistant, known error is still useful as you can apply a correction to get the true result.