Large-scale performance evaluation of Accu-Chek inform II point-of-care glucose meters

References

• St. John A, Price CP. Existing and emerging technologies for point-of-care testing. Clin Biochem Rev 2014;35:155–67.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Robinson CS, Sharp P. Tighter accuracy standards within point-of-care blood glucose monitoring: how six commonly used systems compare. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2012;6:547–54.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lee-Lewandrowski E, Corboy D, Lewandrowski K, Sinclair J, McDermot S, Benzer TI. Implementation of a point-of-care satellite laboratory in the emergency department of an academic medical center: impact on the test turnaround time and the length of stay of the patient in the emergency department. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2003;127:456–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polonsky WH, Fisher L, Schikman CH, Hinnen DA, Parkin CG, Jelsovsky Z, Petersen B, Schweitzer M, Wagner RS. Structured self-monitoring of blood glucose significantly reduces a1c levels in poorly controlled, non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: results of the structured testing program study. Diabetes Care 2011;34:262–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Berghe G, Wouters P, Weekers F, Verwaest C, Bruyninckx F, Schetz M, Vlasselaers D, Ferdinande P, Lauwers P, Bouillon R. Intensive insulin therapy in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 2001;345:1359–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CLSI. Point-of-Care Blood Glucose Testing in Acute and Chronic Care Facilities; Approved Guideline-Third Edition. CLSI document POCT12-A3. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• ISO. In vitro diagnostic test systems: Requirements for blood-glucose monitoring systems for self-testing in managing diabetes mellitus. ISO 15197:2013. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Solnica B, Kusnierz-Cabala B, Slowinska-Solnica K, Witek P, Cempa A, Malecki MT. Evaluation of the analytical performance of the coulometry-based optium omega blood glucose meter. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2011;5:1612–17.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Katz LB, Macleod K, Grady M, Cameron H, Pfutzner A, Setford S. A comprehensive evaluation of strip performance in multiple blood glucose monitoring systems. Expert Rev Med Devices 2015;12:263–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freckmann G, Schmid C, Baumstark A, Pleus S, Link M, Haug C. System accuracy evaluation of 43 blood glucose monitoring systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose according to DIN EN ISO 15197. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2012;6:1060–75.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Freckmann G, Baumstark A, Schmid C, Pleus S, Link M, Haug C. Evaluation of 12 blood glucose monitoring systems for self-testing: system accuracy and measurement reproducibility. Diabetes Technol Ther 2014;16:113–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank J, Wallace JF, Pardo S, Parkes JL. Performance of the CONTOUR® TS blood glucose monitoring system. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2011;5:198–205.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Flore KM, Fiers T, Delanghe JR. Critical evaluation of connectivity-based point of care testing systems of glucose in a hospital environment. Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:1763–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sachse D, Bolstad N, Jonsson M, Saeves I, Johansson CB, Delezuch W, Hagve M, Hardang IM, Isaksson HS, Ivarsson A, Lehto L, Keikkala E, Mattsson N, Ranta JK, Stavelin A, Sudmann AA, Varsi K. The Accu-Chek Mobile blood glucose monitoring system used under controlled conditions meets ISO 15197 standards in the hands of diabetes patients. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2012;72:374–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CLSI. Evaluation of Precision Performance of Quantitative Measurement Methods: Approved Guideline-Second Edition. CLSI document EP05-A2. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• CLSI. Evaluation of the Linearity of Quantitative Measurement Procedures: A Statistical Approach; Approved Guideline. CLSI document EP06-A. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• CLSI. Method Comparison and Bias Estimation Using Patient Samples; Approved Guideline-Second Edition (Interim Revision). CLSI document EP09-A2-IR. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• CLSI. Evaluation of Precision Performance of Quantitative Measurement Procedures: Approved Guideline-Third Edition. CLSI document EP05-A3. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Food and Drug Administration: Blood glucose monitoring test systems for prescription point-of-care use; 2014. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM380325.pdf [last accessed September 2015].
   Google Scholar
• Mitsios JV, Ashby LA, Haverstick DM, Bruns DE, Scott MG. Analytic evaluation of a new glucose meter system in 15 different critical care settings. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2013;7:1282–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sacks DB, Arnold M, Bakris GL, Bruns DE, Horvath AR, Kirkman MS, Lernmark A, Metzger BE, Nathan DM. Guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2011;34:e61–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skeie S, Thue G, Sandberg S. Patient-derived quality specifications for instruments used in self-monitoring of blood glucose. Clin Chem 2001;47:67–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parkes JL, Slatin SL, Pardo S, Ginsberg BH. A new consensus error grid to evaluate the clinical significance of inaccuracies in the measurement of blood glucose. Diabetes Care 2000;23:1143–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar