Suppr超能文献

从药房获得的五种血糖监测系统的准确性评估:一项涉及 453 名受试者的欧洲多中心研究。

Accuracy evaluation of five blood glucose monitoring systems obtained from the pharmacy: a European multicenter study with 453 subjects.

机构信息

Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012 Apr;14(4):330-7. doi: 10.1089/dia.2011.0170. Epub 2011 Dec 16.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

This multicenter study was conducted to evaluate the performance of five recently introduced blood glucose (BG) monitoring (BGM) devices under daily routine conditions in comparison with the YSI (Yellow Springs, OH) 2300 Stat Plus glucose analyzer.

METHODS

Five hundred one diabetes patients with experience in self-monitoring of BG were randomized to use three of five different BGM devices (FreeStyle Lite® [Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Alameda, CA], FreeStyle Freedom Lite [Abbott Diabetes Care], OneTouch® UltraEasy® [LifeScan Inc., Milpitas, CA], Accu-Chek® Aviva [Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany], and Contour® [Bayer Vital GmbH, Leverkusen, Germany]) in a daily routine setting. All devices and strips were purchased from local regular distribution sources (pharmacies, four strip lots per device). The patients performed the finger prick and the glucose measurement on their own. In parallel, a healthcare professional performed the glucose assessment with the reference method (YSI 2300 Stat Plus). The primary objective was the comparison of the mean absolute relative differences (MARD). Secondary objectives were compliance with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) accuracy criteria under these routine conditions and Clarke and Parkes Error Grid analyses.

RESULTS

MARD ranged from 4.9% (FreeStyle Lite) to 9.7% (OneTouch UltraEasy). The ISO 15197:2003 requirements were fulfilled by the FreeStyle Lite (98.8%), FreeStyle Freedom Lite (97.5%), and Accu-Chek Aviva (97.0%), but not by the Contour (92.4%) and OneTouch UltraEasy (91.1%). The number of values in Zone A of the Clarke Error Grid analysis was highest for the FreeStyle Lite (98.8%) and lowest for the OneTouch Ultra Easy (90.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

FreeStyle Lite, FreeStyle Freedom Lite, and Accu-Chek Aviva performed very well in this study with devices and strips purchased through regular distribution channels, with the FreeStyle Lite achieving the lowest MARD in this investigation.

摘要

背景

本多中心研究旨在评估五种新推出的血糖仪在日常常规条件下的性能,与 YSI(俄亥俄州扬斯敦)2300 Stat Plus 血糖仪进行比较。

方法

501 名有自我监测血糖经验的糖尿病患者被随机分配使用五种不同血糖仪中的三种(Freestyle Lite®[雅培糖尿病护理公司,阿拉米达,加利福尼亚州],Freestyle Freedom Lite[雅培糖尿病护理],OneTouch®UltraEasy®[生命扫描公司,米尔皮塔斯,加利福尼亚州],Accu-Chek®Aviva[罗氏诊断公司,曼海姆,德国]和 Contour®[拜耳生命科学公司,勒沃库森,德国])在日常常规环境中。所有设备和试纸均从当地常规分销渠道(药店)购买,每台设备购买四个试纸批次。患者自行进行指尖采血和血糖测量。同时,一名医疗保健专业人员使用参考方法(YSI 2300 Stat Plus)进行血糖评估。主要目标是比较平均绝对相对差异(MARD)。次要目标是在这些常规条件下满足国际标准化组织(ISO)准确性标准的要求以及 Clarke 和 Parkes 误差网格分析。

结果

MARD 范围为 4.9%(Freestyle Lite)至 9.7%(OneTouch UltraEasy)。FreeStyle Lite(98.8%)、FreeStyle Freedom Lite(97.5%)和 Accu-Chek Aviva(97.0%)满足 ISO 15197:2003 要求,但 Contour(92.4%)和 OneTouch UltraEasy(91.1%)不满足。Clarke 误差网格分析中 A 区的值数量最多的是 FreeStyle Lite(98.8%),最少的是 OneTouch UltraEasy(90.4%)。

结论

在这项研究中,通过常规分销渠道购买设备和试纸的 FreeStyle Lite、FreeStyle Freedom Lite 和 Accu-Chek Aviva 表现非常出色,其中 FreeStyle Lite 在本研究中取得了最低的 MARD。

相似文献

3
Clinical assessment of the accuracy of blood glucose measurement devices.临床评估血糖仪的准确性。
Curr Med Res Opin. 2012 Apr;28(4):525-31. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2012.673479. Epub 2012 Mar 21.

引用本文的文献

10
Arsenic exposure induces glucose intolerance and alters global energy metabolism.砷暴露会导致葡萄糖不耐受并改变整体能量代谢。
Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2018 Feb 1;314(2):R294-R303. doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.00522.2016. Epub 2017 Nov 14.

本文引用的文献

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验