Ziegler O, Kolopp M, Got I, Genton P, Debry G, Drouin P
Service de Médecine G, de l'Université de Nancy I, Hôpital Jeanne d'Arc, Toul, France.
Diabetes Care. 1989 Mar;12(3):184-8. doi: 10.2337/diacare.12.3.184.
The reliability of patient-generated data from self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) was studied in 14 patients with type I (insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus treated by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) (7 women, 7 men). The reflectance meters (Glucometer I, Ames, Elkhart, IN) used by the patients were replaced for a period of 21 days by memory-reflectance meters; patients were unaware of the memory capacity of the new meters and were instructed to continue their practice of recording the meter readings in their logbook. This study compares the data recorded in the memory-reflectance meters with those reported in the logbook. The number of SMBG measurements was different in 11 patients (differences ranging from 2 to 66). Mean glycemia was similar (8.23 +/- 0.36 mM in logbook vs. 8.49 +/- 0.48 mM in memory-reflectance meters), but both the M value and mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE) index were lower when calculated from logbook data (38 +/- 5 vs. 48 +/- 7 mM, P less than .05 and 6.91 +/- 0.43 vs. 7.72 +/- 0.52 mM, respectively; P less than .05). Overreporting (addition of phantom values in logbook) and underreporting (omission of SMBG measurements from logbook) indexes were 19 +/- 7 and 12 +/- 3%, respectively. Precision (percent of identical values in logbook and in memory-reflectance meters at the corresponding time) was 77 +/- 6.8%. The number of SMBG measurements recorded in the memory-reflectance meter was negatively correlated with glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c; (r = -.85, P less than .001)], whereas overreporting was positively correlated with HbA1c (r = .76, P less than .01).
对14例接受持续皮下胰岛素输注（CSII）治疗的I型（胰岛素依赖型）糖尿病患者（7名女性，7名男性）自我血糖监测（SMBG）产生的患者数据的可靠性进行了研究。患者使用的反射式血糖仪（Glucometer I，Ames，埃尔克哈特，印第安纳州）在21天内被记忆反射式血糖仪取代；患者不知道新血糖仪的记忆功能，并被指示继续在日志中记录血糖仪读数。本研究将记忆反射式血糖仪记录的数据与日志中报告的数据进行了比较。11例患者的SMBG测量次数不同（差异范围为2至66次）。平均血糖水平相似（日志中为8.23±0.36 mM，记忆反射式血糖仪中为8.49±0.48 mM），但根据日志数据计算时，M值和血糖波动平均幅度（MAGE）指数均较低（分别为38±5与48±7 mM，P<0.05；6.91±0.43与7.72±0.52 mM，P<0.05）。过度报告（日志中添加虚构值）和漏报（日志中遗漏SMBG测量值）指数分别为19±7%和12±3%。精密度（日志和记忆反射式血糖仪在相应时间相同值的百分比）为77±6.8%。记忆反射式血糖仪记录的SMBG测量次数与糖化血红蛋白[HbA1c；（r = -0.85，P<0.001）]呈负相关，而过度报告与HbA1c呈正相关（r = 0.76, P<0.01）。
