-
Please Remember: Members are only permitted to share their own experiences. Members are not qualified to give medical advice. Additionally, everyone manages their health differently. Please be respectful of other people's opinions about their own diabetes management.
BG monitors (finger prick)
- Thread starter Alan44
- Start date
All home finger prick meters need to comply with the same accuracy standard.
This is good enough for calculating the dose of insulin (a potentially deadly medication).
Those that are recommended as the best value for money will be fine - there is no need to pay more for extra accuracy.
This is good enough for calculating the dose of insulin (a potentially deadly medication).
Those that are recommended as the best value for money will be fine - there is no need to pay more for extra accuracy.
rebrascora
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 1
- Pronouns
- She/Her
I believe @PerSpinasAdAstra is doing some experimenting on this but I wonder if it may come down to individual "body chemistry" in the same way that Libre/Dexcom work slightly differently for different people. I believe the Contour Next are considered one of the best for "accuracy" but I am still not quite sure how you assess that for any individual using them.
I too wonder why you are interested in this?
I think too much store is put on "accuracy" by some people and as has been mentioned many times, the decimal place quoted on BG meter results gives an unrealistic impression of their accuracy, when we should really just consider the result as rounded up or down to the nearest whole number and then perhaps think of it as +/-1.
Even the cheapest BG meters are good enough to dose insulin from and considering that there are many factors which we have no control over, which impact BG levels, worrying about accuracy is our meter is probably not significantly relevant, in my opinion.
I too wonder why you are interested in this?
I think too much store is put on "accuracy" by some people and as has been mentioned many times, the decimal place quoted on BG meter results gives an unrealistic impression of their accuracy, when we should really just consider the result as rounded up or down to the nearest whole number and then perhaps think of it as +/-1.
Even the cheapest BG meters are good enough to dose insulin from and considering that there are many factors which we have no control over, which impact BG levels, worrying about accuracy is our meter is probably not significantly relevant, in my opinion.
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 1
- Pronouns
- He/Him
In ‘bench tests’ some meters seem to use far more of the allowable range of results than others. And some don’t necessarily perform within the standards in lab tests.
Typically Contour Next (XT strips), Freestyle, and Roche Accu-Chek meters seem to perform reliably well, while others vary much more.
There’s a comparison of 17 meters here which may help, though it’s getting a bit old, and I think several mentioned may only be available in the US?
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Typically Contour Next (XT strips), Freestyle, and Roche Accu-Chek meters seem to perform reliably well, while others vary much more.
There’s a comparison of 17 meters here which may help, though it’s getting a bit old, and I think several mentioned may only be available in the US?
Comparative Accuracy of 17 Point-of-Care Glucose Meters - PMC
The accuracy of point-of-care blood glucose (BG) meters is important for the detection of dysglycemia, calculation of insulin doses, and the calibration of continuous glucose monitors. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
I also wonder whether "accuracy" depends upon what you take as your baseline. Without access to a laboratory to do the testing, you wouldn't know what the correct BG value was from which to calculate the accuracy.
Proud to be erratic
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 3c
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I know the question was about best as in accuracy, but I agree with all the responses above. Accuracy is not important for me.
However best in ease of use, with least no of failed tests are also 2 very important criteria. I find the AccuChek mobile meter excellent, particularly with its clip-on lancing device. It is very forgiving in the size of blood droplet needed and the built in disposable cassette which allows 50 tests makes the fp process easy. When I used the 4 Sure meter with its strips that needed bringing to the droplet at "the correct angle and correct proximity", I had a lot of wasted strips and it became stressful. Alas the AccuChek mobile meter has been discontinued (cassettes are still available) and I'm quietly dreading when I will have to return to strips and awkward to hold meters.
However best in ease of use, with least no of failed tests are also 2 very important criteria. I find the AccuChek mobile meter excellent, particularly with its clip-on lancing device. It is very forgiving in the size of blood droplet needed and the built in disposable cassette which allows 50 tests makes the fp process easy. When I used the 4 Sure meter with its strips that needed bringing to the droplet at "the correct angle and correct proximity", I had a lot of wasted strips and it became stressful. Alas the AccuChek mobile meter has been discontinued (cassettes are still available) and I'm quietly dreading when I will have to return to strips and awkward to hold meters.
Martin.A
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- In remission from Type 2
Just as an aside, the test solution range on my tub of test strips is 6.2 - 8.4, and if you take the midway point (7.3) 8.4 is 15% above that and 6.2 is 15% below that. That would seem to tie in with the requirement for results to be accurate to within 15%.
PerSpinasAdAstra
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
- Pronouns
- He/Him
This is the most recent independent study of finger stick meter accuracy I know of (from 2020) where 18 meters are compared to two different laboratory assay methods:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
The Contour Next One came out on top. There are plots published in the study which illustrate the characteristics of each meter compared to each laboratory reference. All meters have to conform to the same basic standards - ISO in most countries and a slightly different standard in the US. For practical reasons meters that are sold internationally should conform to both sets of standards. There is a very prevalent myth however that manufacturers intentionally design and manufacture meters that are as bad as the basic standards.
Imagine there was a basic standard for measuring tapes. The standard states that each marking on the measuring tape must be accurate to within plus or minus 15%, 95% of the time. Imagine you're the boss of a company that wants to manufacture and sell measuring tapes. You tell your engineers 'I want a measuring tape that conforms exactly to this standard. Each marking on the tape must be inaccurate, with a different degree of inaccuracy for each marking, up to 15% either way. One in 20 markings must be less accurate than that, because the standard says that's fine.
Would you buy that measuring tape? Is this how it would work in the real world? Or would you try to design the most accurate tape you can while also keeping affordability in mind? Whether a person feels they need the most accurate meter or not is one thing. The notion that they're all the same is a myth. For my purposes, trying to use CGMs as a kind of digital HbA1c test while I experiment with food and exercise, accuracy is quite important.
Impact of Two Different Reference Measurement Procedures on Apparent System Accuracy of 18 CE-Marked Current-Generation Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems - PMC
Measurement accuracy has been assessed for many different blood glucose monitoring systems (BGMS) over the years by different study groups. However, the choice of the comparison measurement procedure may impact the apparent level of accuracy found ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
The Contour Next One came out on top. There are plots published in the study which illustrate the characteristics of each meter compared to each laboratory reference. All meters have to conform to the same basic standards - ISO in most countries and a slightly different standard in the US. For practical reasons meters that are sold internationally should conform to both sets of standards. There is a very prevalent myth however that manufacturers intentionally design and manufacture meters that are as bad as the basic standards.
Imagine there was a basic standard for measuring tapes. The standard states that each marking on the measuring tape must be accurate to within plus or minus 15%, 95% of the time. Imagine you're the boss of a company that wants to manufacture and sell measuring tapes. You tell your engineers 'I want a measuring tape that conforms exactly to this standard. Each marking on the tape must be inaccurate, with a different degree of inaccuracy for each marking, up to 15% either way. One in 20 markings must be less accurate than that, because the standard says that's fine.
Would you buy that measuring tape? Is this how it would work in the real world? Or would you try to design the most accurate tape you can while also keeping affordability in mind? Whether a person feels they need the most accurate meter or not is one thing. The notion that they're all the same is a myth. For my purposes, trying to use CGMs as a kind of digital HbA1c test while I experiment with food and exercise, accuracy is quite important.