• 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.
  • We seem to be having technical difficulties with new user accounts. If you are trying to register please check your Spam or Junk folder for your confirmation email. If you still haven't received a confirmation email, please reach out to our support inbox: support.forum@diabetes.org.uk

Decent blood glucose monitor

Status
This thread is now closed. Please contact Anna DUK, Ieva DUK or everydayupsanddowns if you would like it re-opened.
BlueArmy

BlueArmy

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
Can anyone recommend a decent BG monitor for a type 2? Brought a cheap sinocare one when diagnosed and this morning I had a high fasting reading of 8.9 which i didn’t believe as I am on low carb diet so measured again and it said 6.8 then did it again and got 7.2. Now lost all faith and trying to monitor it several times a day and recording what foods do what to me so its not fit for purpose. Price point not an issue, accuracy and repeatability primary concern.
 
Last edited:
If you really don’t care about price, the Accuchek Mobile meter is very good. It has an excellent finger pricker attached to the side too, making it easier to use one-handed. It holds 50 strips at a time, and the pricker takes a little drum of 6 lancets. I’ve always found it very accurate, but it’s not cheap and I expect the strips and lancets are also more pricey than you’re used too.

If you want cheaper than that, my other meter is a Freestyle Lite. Cheaper and close in accuracy.
 
Awesome I’ll check it out. If the accuchek has bluetooth so I can connect it straight to the Mydiabetes app, its a winner
 
Ooh, I don’t know about Bluetooth- I don’t use any apps like that. I’ll Google and see if I can find the answer. The Freestyle Lite definitely doesn’t. It’s just a small, light, reliably accurate reasonably priced meter. No frills.
 
Interestingly, I’ve just googled for meters with Bluetooth and the first one that came up is sh*te. I know that because I had it. Not accurate.

I’d prioritise accuracy over Bluetooth personally, but if you look on the AccuChek site that might have one with Bluetooth.
 
Martin.A said:
My Gluco RXq was given to me by my surgery so they clearly rate it. I'm self-funding lancets & test strips these days and buying on Amazon. Both are under £10 a box (200 lancets, 50 test strips)

Incidentally don't assume that your meter is unreliable because of the different readings. Prick each finger one after the other and you'll pretty much always get a different result for each finger.
Click to expand...
Understood, but the swing was too great and i used the same hole in the same finger - and i’m a chartered engineer so sceptical about chinese QC quite frankly
 
Can I support the final comment made by @Martin.A? A little while ago I tested all 10 fingers and thumbs one after the other to see how the results varied and reported them on here. The conclusion I reached was that when looking at variability, it is best to ignore the decimal point and you can expect a range of +/- 1 on the average reading.

So the difference between 6.8 and 7.2 is highly unlikely to be statistically significant and the difference between those readings and the 8.9 barely statistically significant. In reality there is a pretty good chance you could have got the same results from any meter meeting the standard for blood glucose meters.

Spent most of my working life measuring things and then trying to make sense of the answers and one thing you learn doing that is that sampling error can be a bigger problem than instrument error and when it comes to spot blood testing I reckon that due to its nature, sampling error will dominate any variability you find.

To be clear I am not decrying blood glucose testing, far from it. All I suggest is that anybody doing it should recognise the issues and not to read too much into what are in effect small differences in readings. The decimal point on a reader gives an illusion of a precision which is not justified.

Just seen your post...
BlueArmy said:
Understood, but the swing was too great and i used the same hole in the same finger - and i’m a chartered engineer so sceptical about chinese QC quite frankly
Click to expand...
Another interpretation is that the higher reading was due to surface contamination affecting the first blood spot and that the second two were effectively the same.

Not saying my interpretation is right and yours is wrong, just highlighting that there are different ways of looking at things and you takes your choice which you go with.

For reference, I did my 10 tests with an Accucheck Nano with strips from the same pot and completed the experiment in about 5 minutes.
 
BlueArmy said:
Understood, but the swing was too great and i used the same hole in the same finger - and i’m a chartered engineer so sceptical about chinese QC quite frankly
Click to expand...

ISO 15197:2013, the current standard for glucometers, specifies a ±20% margin of error with a 95% confidence interval for readings of 5.6 mmol/L or higher. Under that the acceptable margin of error of ±0.83 mmol/L (that number being ±15 mg/dL). Those being against a laboratory test for the same sample.

Whilst at extreme ends of it, 8.9 and 7.2 fall within that range. Any comparison would also depend on the testing conditions. Did you use the same finger each time, washing it before testing, without letting much time pass between tests? A finger could be contaminated leading to a higher result than the actual level. The first drop of blood though will have reduced any contamination for a second test immediately after. Different fingers will give different readings and levels can change relatively quickly.

A difference of 1.7 mmol/L at a level above 7 mmol/L is not that significant. The difference between 6.8 and 7.2 is virtually non-existent. I would be more shocked if I double checked a reading for them to be closer together than that.

Obviously you are free to buy and trust what you like, and more expensive meters will be designed to exceed the I.S.O. standard. But for anyone else reading is important to put this sort of detail in a proper context. There is an attitude within the medical community that testing is a bad thing for type 2 diabetics which is largely based on issues like this. That it leads to people worrying over fractional differences which have little medical significance, not treating results as part of a collection to show trends but using them as targets, and trying to manage to the decimal point.

It is important that people understand the limitation of glucometers and what they show. And so it is important anyone else reading understands that the results you gave are perfectly acceptable for a good standards compliant glucometer, and do not show a reason to be alarmed in either their device or their management of their diabetes if they experience similar readings.
 
Becka said:
ISO 15197:2013, the current standard for glucometers, specifies a ±20% margin of error with a 95% confidence interval for readings of 5.6 mmol/L or higher. Under that the acceptable margin of error of ±0.83 mmol/L (that number being ±15 mg/dL). Those being against a laboratory test for the same sample.

Whilst at extreme ends of it, 8.9 and 7.2 fall within that range. Any comparison would also depend on the testing conditions. Did you use the same finger each time, washing it before testing, without letting much time pass between tests? A finger could be contaminated leading to a higher result than the actual level. The first drop of blood though will have reduced any contamination for a second test immediately after. Different fingers will give different readings and levels can change relatively quickly.

A difference of 1.7 mmol/L at a level above 7 mmol/L is not that significant. The difference between 6.8 and 7.2 is virtually non-existent. I would be more shocked if I double checked a reading for them to be closer together than that.

Obviously you are free to buy and trust what you like, and more expensive meters will be designed to exceed the I.S.O. standard. But for anyone else reading is important to put this sort of detail in a proper context. There is an attitude within the medical community that testing is a bad thing for type 2 diabetics which is largely based on issues like this. That it leads to people worrying over fractional differences which have little medical significance, not treating results as part of a collection to show trends but using them as targets, and trying to manage to the decimal point.

It is important that people understand the limitation of glucometers and what they show. And so it is important anyone else reading understands that the results you gave are perfectly acceptable for a good standards compliant glucometer, and do not show a reason to be alarmed in either their device or their management of their diabetes if they experience similar readings.
Click to expand...
I used the same finger, same hole before it clotted, did all three tests in a minute without any other parameters changing. I highly expect a cheap chinese meter does not comply with a iso standard.
 
just checked the meter and it is not stamped as in compliance with iso standard although it is CE marked which demands compliance with european standards. Think I will still up the meter and go for a more secure brand- may not be more accurate, but I no longer trust mine so its worth a stab, so to speak. Its such an important tool, I’d like confidence in it
 
I use this one which connects to my phone via BT never had a problem with it.

www.glucorx.co.uk

GlucoRx Nexus Blue | GlucoRx

GlucoRx is the UK’s largest supplier* of innovative, ISO-conforming, quality yet cost effective management solutions for all diabetics.
www.glucorx.co.uk www.glucorx.co.uk
 
BlueArmy said:
just checked the meter and it is not stamped as in compliance.
Click to expand...

Nor does mine nor the one it replaced, but it is not something normally printed on a meter but will be given with the specifications the instruction booklet, and is often stated on the packaging.

If you did not clean you finger between the first and second test then, as you brought up engineering rigour, the first result should be completely discarded. You created a clear change to the testing environment, and the third test effectively confirmed the second reading.

Incidentally, when I am sceptical and want to verify a reading I always do my second test on the opposite hand, expecting a slight difference. Specifically to change everything about the testing environment so I can be sure of the meaning of a similar result. As this is invariably for high readings, a difference of a few whole units means the first result can be taken as a reliable indicator of the range where my levels sit. I am not sure I have ever retested for lower readings, but testing then is usually to put a number on what my body is already making quite clear!

As far as I can see, Sinocare meters do meet the current standard, though an older model may only meet ISO 15197:2003. However the change between standards was to increase the banding for greater accuracy from ending at 4.2 mmol/L to 5.6 mmol/L, so would not have changed your readings.
 
Martin.A said:
Also the WHO recommends that the first drop of blood is not tested but wiped away and the test applied to a new drop, although not sure how many do this. I don't but I do always wash my hands before testing.

I'm not overly focused on the individual readings but like to graph them to see the trend and whether my levels are rising, falling or flat over time.
Click to expand...
I agree the trend is important, however at the moment I am reliant on specific readings so I can get a feel for what foods are causing spikes ans how severe they are. Don’t expect to be testing like this in the long term, but I am on a remission mission!
 
Becka said:
Nor does mine nor the one it replaced, but it is not something normally printed on a meter but will be given with the specifications the instruction booklet, and is often stated on the packaging.

If you did not clean you finger between the first and second test then, as you brought up engineering rigour, the first result should be completely discarded. You created a clear change to the testing environment, and the third test effectively confirmed the second reading.

Incidentally, when I am sceptical and want to verify a reading I always do my second test on the opposite hand, expecting a slight difference. Specifically to change everything about the testing environment so I can be sure of the meaning of a similar result. As this is invariably for high readings, a difference of a few whole units means the first result can be taken as a reliable indicator of the range where my levels sit. I am not sure I have ever retested for lower readings, but testing then is usually to put a number on what my body is already making quite clear!

As far as I can see, Sinocare meters do meet the current standard, though an older model may only meet ISO 15197:2003. However the change between standards was to increase the banding for greater accuracy from ending at 4.2 mmol/L to 5.6 mmol/L, so would not have changed your readings.
Click to expand...
Will dismiss the first reading going forward, or at least, let it bleed for a bit wipe it away then test - wasn’t aware of the WHO recommendations, thats useful data thanks
 
Status
This thread is now closed. Please contact Anna DUK, Ieva DUK or everydayupsanddowns if you would like it re-opened.
Back
Top