Comparison of Lancing Devices for Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose regarding Lancing Pain

Kocher, Serge; Tshiananga, J. K. Tshiang; Koubek, Richard J.

doi:10.1177/193229680900300517

Cited by 21 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given the elasticity of the skin, the minor and transient nature of the wound, and the natural tendency of skin to immediately close after lancing, it is challenging to achieve a blood drop on the skin (regardless of depth) without some postlancing technique to encourage blood to the surface. [19][20][21][22] Following each lancing event, each patient scored his or her perceived pain using the Gracely pain scale. The results indicated that there was no direct relationship between the blood volume collected and pain, with less than 0.01% of the data variance attributed to this relationship.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Clinical Evaluation of Routine Blood Sampling Practices in Patients With Diabetes

Grady

Pineau²,

Pynes³

et al. 2014

J Diabetes Sci Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

These results provide evidence across 8 lancing systems that challenge the current perceptions that patients with diabetes struggle to produce sufficient blood samples to fill most test strips, including those with 1-µL fill requirements, and that obtaining larger volumes of blood is more painful. These results are consistent with the previous literature suggesting that patients derive no real benefits from very low strip volumes and generally prefer a blood drop size that enables them to confidently fill their test strip.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Clinical Evaluation of Routine Blood Sampling Practices in Patients With Diabetes

Grady

Pineau²,

Pynes³

et al. 2014

J Diabetes Sci Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A few head-to-head studies have been performed comparing different lancing devices, showing considerable differences in pain. [5][6][7][8][9] Interestingly, no systematic review about lancing has ever been published, which is in sharp contrast to the considerable number of reviews about SMBG in general.…”

Section: Diagnostic Companiesmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…Lancing pain is determined by several factors: depth of penetration, speed of penetration, overall lancet trajectory, lancet geometry, skin surface, skin fixation, 5 and anatomic location on the finger tip. Considerable progress with regards to lancet quality has been achieved by most manufacturers i.e., better precision of holding specifications, tip quality, effective polishing, and coating for smooth gliding motion into the skin.…”

Section: How To Reduce Pain?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Lancing: Quo Vadis?

Heinemann

Boecker²

2011

J Diabetes Sci Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…88 Problem solving techniques 15 and motivational interviewing are useful strategies to increase adherence with SMBG. 89 Minimizing pain with alternative lancing devices, 90 alternative site testing, 91,92 or flash glucose monitoring systems, 93 may encourage testing. Encouraging patients to view results as "high" rather than "bad" increases testing frequency and improves HbA1c in adults and young people.…”

Section: Addressing Barriers To Technology Use and Strategies To Optimentioning

confidence: 99%

Influences on Technology Use and Efficacy in Type 1 Diabetes

Franklin

2016

J Diabetes Sci Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 1921 technology has existed to replace insulin and treat diabetes. Although a definitive link was established between HbA1c and complication risk over 20 years ago, 1 only a minority achieve HbA1c targets despite intensified insulin regimens and new technologies. 2 This narrative review focuses on how psychosocial functioning affects uptake and use of technologies and the impact of technology on psychosocial outcomes in adults and children with type 1 diabetes and their caregivers. It examines evidence from large meta-analyses to small qualitative studies which provide detailed insight into technology use. Self Monitoring of Blood GlucoseFrequent blood glucose testing should be a routine part of diabetes self-care 3,4 as it is integral to intensive insulin therapy 1 and improves glycemic control. 5 However, studies of adult patients reveal low testing frequency, 6,7 which is influenced by psychosocial factors, with increased testing in patients of older age, female gender, longer diabetes duration, on basal bolus therapy compared with less intensive regimens, with decreased hypoglycemic awareness, higher "fear of hypoglycemia" and positive self-care personality traits 6 and less testing in ethnic minorities, smokers, those with low education, 8 low income and language barriers. 7 In adolescents, testing is more frequent in younger age groups, higher social status, and higher self-efficacy and less frequent in those with lower self-esteem, high-stress life events, lower parental support, 9,10 from single parent, lower-income, and ethnic minorities, and when given self-care autonomy before reaching cognitive and social maturity.11 In children, family functioning 12 and parental education 13 predict adherence to diabetes self-management and glycemic control.Qualitative studies in adults show that some perceive selfmonitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) as a tool to achieve good control and a normal life, but others see SMBG as a 639315D STXXX10.1177/1932296816639315Journal of Diabetes Science and TechnologyFranklin AbstractThe majority of people with type 1 diabetes have suboptimal glycemic control, increasing their complication risk. Technology to support diabetes self-care has advanced significantly and includes self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), insulin pump therapy (IPT), continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and sensor-augmented pump therapy (SAPT), which are stepping stones toward the "artificial pancreas" using closed-loop technology. Use of these technologies improves clinical outcomes for patients with the appropriate skills and motivation. This review addresses the psychosocial factors that influence both technology provision and clinical outcome and also how technology impacts on psychological outcomes. Optimal use of the various diabetes self-management technologies is influenced by previous self-care behaviors, demographic and psychological factors. Provision of IPT is also influenced by the same factors. Despite technology increasing the complexity of treatment, the lack of evidence for adverse...

show abstract

Comparison of Lancing Devices for Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose regarding Lancing Pain

Cited by 21 publications

References 12 publications

A Clinical Evaluation of Routine Blood Sampling Practices in Patients With Diabetes

A Clinical Evaluation of Routine Blood Sampling Practices in Patients With Diabetes

Lancing: Quo Vadis?

Influences on Technology Use and Efficacy in Type 1 Diabetes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About