Advertisement

Technical accuracy of ten self-monitoring blood glucose devices commonly used in Dhaka City of Bangladesh

  • Jannatul Nayeem
  • SM Kamaluddin
  • Hasina Akhter Chowdhury
  • Liaquat AliEmail author
Original Article
  • 2 Downloads

Abstract

Due to inadequate regulatory mechanisms, the accuracy of the self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) devices is not ensured leading to potentially serious clinical consequences in Bangladesh. The present study was undertaken to evaluate the technical accuracy of ten most commonly used SMBG devices marketed in Dhaka City of Bangladesh. Top ten SMBG devices sold in Dhaka City were studied on a group of 100 type 2 diabetes mellitus subjects. Blood glucose values estimated (at fasting and 2 h after breakfast) by SMBG devices, using a blinding technique, were compared with the corresponding laboratory values by enzymatic method using the Dimension RXLMax automated chemistry analyzer. Hematocrit was measured using the Sysmex XT 2000 hematology autoanalyzer. The mean absolute relative error (MARE, %) was used as an indicator of accuracy and precision together. A highly significant correlation was observed between the device and laboratory values. However, none of the devices showed an acceptable accuracy at 5–10% deviation from the corresponding laboratory values either at fasting or postprandial states. On pooling together data from two prandial states, even at 15% deviation limits, 70% of the devices failed to show accurate results. On calculation of MARE, 60% devices were found to be beyond 15% error limit at 95% accuracy level. Corresponding analysis with 90% accuracy level showed 30% beyond the limit. Blood glucose results from around 30% of the top ten SMBG devices sold in Dhaka City do not have even minimum level of technical accuracy, and many others are not optimum in their accuracy levels.

Keywords

Self-monitoring blood glucose devices Glucometer Glycemic control tools Technical accuracy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the study subjects with type 2 diabetes for their cooperation. We also thank the Bangladesh University of Health Sciences (BUHS) for the financial and logistic support.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Nyenwe EA, Jerkins TW, Umpierrez GE, Kitabchi AE. Management of type 2 diabetes: evolving strategies for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. Metab Clin Exp. 2011;60:1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tonyushkina K, Nichols JH. Glucose meters: a review of technical challenges to obtaining accurate results. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2009;3:971–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sacks DB, Arnold M, Bakris GL, Bruns DE, Horvath AR, Kirkman MS, et al. Guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2011;34:e61–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nayeem J, Kamaluddin SM, Chowdhury HA, Ali L. The views of Dhaka City retailers on user choice of self-monitoring blood glucose devices. Bangladesh J Med Biochem. 2018;11:22–6.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Available at: http://www.jerrydallal.com/lhsp/compare.htm on 06/01/2018.
  6. 6.
    Ginsberg BH. Factors affecting blood glucose monitoring: sources of errors in measurement. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2009;3:903–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    International Organization for Standardization. In vitro diagnostic test systems. Requirements for blood-glucose monitoring system for self-testing in managing diabetes mellitus. Reference number ISO 15197:2003 (E). Geneva: International Organization for Standardization 2003.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    International Organization for Standardization. In vitro diagnostic test systems. Requirements for blood-glucose monitoring system for self-testing in managing diabetes mellitus. Reference number ISO 15197:2013 (E). Geneva: International Organization for Standardization 2013.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    American Diabetes Association. Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2010;33:S62–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Food and Drug Administration. Self-monitoring blood glucose test systems for over-the-counter use—guidance for industry and food and drug administration staff. Food and Drug Administration: 2016. Available at http:// www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM380327.pdf. Accessed 16 Nov 2018.
  11. 11.
    Freckmann G, Schmid C, Baumstark A, Rutschmann M, Haug C, Heinemann L. Analytical performance requirements for Systems for Self-monitoring of blood glucose with focus on system accuracy: relevant differences among ISO 15197:2003, ISO 15197:2013, and current FDA recommendations. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015;9:885–94.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296815580160 Downloaded on 16 November 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stanley K. Nutritional considerations for the growing population of older adults with diabetes. Diabetes Spectrum. 2014;27(1):29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Research Society for Study of Diabetes in India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jannatul Nayeem
    • 1
  • SM Kamaluddin
    • 1
  • Hasina Akhter Chowdhury
    • 2
  • Liaquat Ali
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Applied Laboratory SciencesBangladesh University of Health Sciences (BUHS)DhakaBangladesh
  2. 2.Department of BiostatisticsBangladesh University of Health Sciences (BUHS)DhakaBangladesh
  3. 3.Department of Biochemistry and Cell BiologyBangladesh University of Health Sciences (BUHS)DhakaBangladesh

Personalised recommendations