2006
DOI: 10.1016/s1499-2671(06)03006-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
28
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
3
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This error pattern is consistent with previous reports [5,8]. However, at 7.6% of total recordings this is substantially lower than previous logbook studies which found phantom/absent rates of up to 44% [8,9]. If a frequent event, phantom readings have a number of potential consequences: they may have implications for overall glycaemic control, as more frequent testing has been linked to lower HbA1c values [13]; additionally, fabrication of results may cause inappropriate insulin adjustments, which may be harmful.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 94%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This error pattern is consistent with previous reports [5,8]. However, at 7.6% of total recordings this is substantially lower than previous logbook studies which found phantom/absent rates of up to 44% [8,9]. If a frequent event, phantom readings have a number of potential consequences: they may have implications for overall glycaemic control, as more frequent testing has been linked to lower HbA1c values [13]; additionally, fabrication of results may cause inappropriate insulin adjustments, which may be harmful.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 94%
“…In 1984, the first study revealed 26% of self-reported values were not concordant with the meter-downloaded values, and 75% of subjects modified their reports to a significantly lower value [5]. These findings have been confirmed in three additional papers in adults [6-8], and one in an adolescent population [9]. One further study in 19 adolescents explored the reliability of self-reported frequency of daily glucose monitoring.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While the majority of articles explored all the discrepancies in their population's diaries, some set a minimum level below which an ‘error’ was not counted. The value used varied between studies from 0.55 mmol/l to 2.78 mmol/l , or a difference of ≤ 15% between meter and diary . No rationale was given for the values chosen and setting a limit like this will mean that their level of discrepancies will appear less than in those studies where every ‘error’ was counted no matter how small.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The amount of under‐reporting was very consistent in adults with Type 1 diabetes, except for Kalergis et al . at their first time point. This decreased significantly so it was in line with that of the other articles at time point two .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation