alexa Accuracy and Reliability of Reporting Self-monitoring of Blood Glucose Results in Adults With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

Journal of Clinical Diabetes & Practice

Author(s): JeanFrancois Yale

Abstract Share this page

OBJECTIVE To determine the accuracy and reliability of reporting of selfmonitoring of blood glucose results by adults with types 1 and 2 diabetes during 2 different periods. METHODS Sixty adults (15 with type 1 diabetes on intensive management and 45 with type 2 diabetes on conventional management) who were part of separate clinical trials participated. Logbooks were compared with meter-downloaded results from the first 2 months (period 1) and last 2 months (period 2) of each trial. Reported values were categorized as clinically accurate (≤15% difference between logbook and meter), modified (>15% difference), phantom (absent in meter) or omission (absent in logbook). RESULTS Only 53% of type 1 and 59% of type 2 patients were very reliable (>90% of values clinically accurate) in their reporting by period 2. Inaccuracies consisted of phantom and omitted values but did not represent an attempt to improve the clinical profile. Individuals who were very reliable had optimal glycemic control; were more satisfied and less worried (quality of life); and were more confident (self-efficacy) in their diabetes self-management. CONCLUSIONS Relying solely on logbooks for self-management data can be misleading. Therefore, we recommend that clinicians also use meter-downloaded data to inform decision-making in the clinical care of patients with diabetes.

This article was published in CJD and referenced in Journal of Clinical Diabetes & Practice

Relevant Expert PPTs

Relevant Speaker PPTs

Relevant Topics

Peer Reviewed Journals
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version