Kabadi U M, O'Connell K M, Johnson J, Kabadi M
Medical Service, Carl T. Hayden VA Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona 85012.
Diabetes Care. 1994 Oct;17(10):1110-23. doi: 10.2337/diacare.17.10.1110.
To judge how reliably patients perform capillary blood glucose testing over time with recurrent practice at home and to assess if a clinic glucose meter is an acceptable alternative to the clinical laboratory for monitoring patient performance.
We compared capillary blood glucose readings obtained by patients with their own equipment and the venous blood glucose determinations by the clinical laboratory at three biweekly visits during the initial phase in 40 subjects attending the diabetes clinic at the Veterans' Affairs Medical Center in Phoenix, Arizona. We also compared patient-generated readings using their own equipment and the readings obtained by the clinic glucose meter and strips at five weekly visits during the second phase in 11 subjects who continued further participation. Error grid analysis was used for both comparisons. Capillary blood glucose readings obtained with clinic glucose meter and strips on one hand were correlated with venous blood glucose levels determined by the clinical laboratory.
During the initial phase, 30 subjects consistently obtained clinically acceptable comparisons (zone A on the error grid, i.e., within 20% of the laboratory value) or improved over time, 9 subjects showed deterioration, and 1 subject failed to obtain zone A results on any of the visits. Three subjects who had consistently obtained zone A results during the initial phase maintained their performance, whereas eight subjects who had failed to achieve zone A values by the end of the initial phase gradually improved and ultimately achieved zone A values by the end of the study. A highly significant correlation was noted between clinic meter readings and laboratory values (r = 0.93, P < 0.00001).
Clinically acceptable user proficiency in capillary blood glucose testing can be maintained in most subjects, with recurrent intensive education during follow-up clinic visits. Therefore, we recommend that these comparisons be performed and patient's technique be observed at each visit to monitor their performance. The clinic glucose meter is a suitable alternative to a clinical laboratory for user proficiency checks.
判断患者通过在家反复练习进行毛细血管血糖检测的可靠性,并评估门诊血糖仪是否可作为临床实验室监测患者检测表现的可接受替代方案。
我们比较了40名在亚利桑那州菲尼克斯退伍军人事务医疗中心糖尿病门诊就诊的受试者在初始阶段每两周进行一次的三次就诊时,患者使用自己的设备测得的毛细血管血糖读数与临床实验室测定的静脉血糖值。我们还比较了11名继续参与研究的受试者在第二阶段每周一次的五次就诊时,患者使用自己的设备测得的读数与使用门诊血糖仪及试纸测得的读数。两种比较均采用误差网格分析。一方面,使用门诊血糖仪及试纸测得的毛细血管血糖读数与临床实验室测定的静脉血糖水平进行相关性分析。
在初始阶段,30名受试者始终获得临床可接受的比较结果(误差网格上的A区,即实验室值的20%以内)或随着时间推移有所改善,9名受试者表现变差,1名受试者在任何一次就诊中均未获得A区结果。在初始阶段始终获得A区结果的3名受试者保持了他们的表现,而在初始阶段结束时未达到A区值的8名受试者逐渐改善,最终在研究结束时达到了A区值。门诊血糖仪读数与实验室值之间存在高度显著的相关性(r = 0.93,P < 0.00001)。
通过在随访门诊就诊期间反复强化教育,大多数受试者可以保持临床可接受的毛细血管血糖检测操作熟练度。因此,我们建议每次就诊时都进行这些比较并观察患者的操作技术,以监测他们的表现。门诊血糖仪是临床实验室进行用户操作熟练度检查的合适替代方案。