Diabetes Care
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Parkes, J. L.
Right arrow Articles by Ginsberg, B. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Parkes, J. L.
Right arrow Articles by Ginsberg, B. H.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Diabetes Care, Vol 23, Issue 8 1143-1148, Copyright © 2000 by American Diabetes Association

ARTICLES

A new consensus error grid to evaluate the clinical significance of inaccuracies in the measurement of blood glucose

JL Parkes, SL Slatin, S Pardo and BH Ginsberg
Becton Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey 07417, USA. joan_parkes@bd.com

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were 1) to construct new error grids (EGs) for blood glucose (BG) self-monitoring by using the expertise of a large panel of clinicians and 2) to use the new EGs to evaluate the accuracy of BG measurements made by patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: To construct new EGs for type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients, a total of 100 experts of diabetes were asked to assign any error in BG measurement to 1 of 5 risk categories. We used these EGs to evaluate the accuracy of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) levels in 152 diabetic patients. The SMBG data were used to compare the new type 1 diabetes EG with a traditional EG. RESULTS: Both the type 1 and type 2 diabetes EGs divide the risk plane into 8 concentric zones with no discontinuities. The new EGs are similar to each other, but they differ from the traditional EG in several significant ways. When used to evaluate a data set of measurements made by a sample of patients experienced in SMBG, the new type 1 diabetes EG rated 98.6% of their measurements as clinically acceptable, compared with 95% for the traditional EG. CONCLUSIONS: The consensus EGs furnish a new tool for evaluating errors in the measurement of BG for patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Diabetes Diabetes Care Clinical Diabetes Diabetes Spectrum
Copyright © 2000 by the American Diabetes Association.