medigraphic.com

2002, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Bioquimia 2002; 27 (3)

Chemical Chemistry
Comparison of two dry chemistry methods for the glycemia determination: Its importance in therapeutic decisions

Aradillas C, Quibrera R, Tenorio GE, Hernández H, Torres A

Language: Spanish
References: 26
Page: 75-79
PDF size: 0. Kb.


ABSTRACT

The diabetic patient control is supported with the glucose determinations by self-analyzers, that is why we decided to estimate its precision and accuracy.
Blood glucose was determined in 30 diabetic patients, at a 25° C temperature by duplicating in both dry chemistry glucose determination devices: a) Reflotron and b) Accutrend GC. Intraclass correlation was determined, obtaining for the devices: a) 0.998 and b) 0.995. This indicated that the operator’s variation is depreciable.
The average difference between a and b is of 27.44 mg/dL. The values of t=9.18 and p=6.12 E-10 show high statistic significance for this difference.
However, the two methods show a good correlation a) r = 0.9989 and b) Accutrend r = 0.9960. Both two methods are reliable, as long as they give similar values in two repeated measurements. The correlation between the two devices is: r= 0.9898.
Nevertheless, the specificity of "b" device with regard to "a" is of 0.61.
Then, the glycemia values from "b" method are equivalents from "a" by the straight line equation calculus and the values determined by "b" are acceptable to evaluate the patient’s clinical control, only if they maintain into the reasonable limits, in this way he can continue his personal diabetes control, but, given the specificity of 0.61 between the two devices, it is recommended that the patient regularly assists to the clinical analysis laboratory since it can be an overestimate of his glucose levels routinely determined with "b" device in a 39% of cases


REFERENCES

  1. King H, Rewers M. WHO Ad Hoc Diabetes Reporting Group: Globalestimates for prevalence of diabetes and impaired glucose estimatesfor prevalence of diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance in adults.Diabetes Care 1993; 16: 157-177.

  2. Amos AF, McCarty DJ, Zimmet P. The rising global burden of diabetesand its complications: estimates and projections to the year 2010.Diabet Med 1997; 14 (suppl5): s1585.

  3. Kohner E, PatelV and Rassan MB. Role of blood flow and impaired autoregulation in the pathogenesis of diabetic retinopathy. Diabetes 1995;44: 604-7.

  4. King L, Kunisaki M, Nishio Y, Inoguchi T, Shiba T and Xia Pu.Biochemical and Molecular Mechanism in the Development of DiabeticVascular Complications. Diabetes 1999; 45: s108.

  5. American Diabetes Association: Self-monitoring of blood glucose(Consensus Statement) Diabetes Care 1994; 17: 81-6.

  6. American Diabetes Association. Tratamiento Médico de la diabetestipo II. 4ª ed; 1998.p.77-85.7.Ikeda Y, Tsuruoka A. Self-monitoring of blood glucose as a means ofself- management. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 1994; 24 (Suppl) s 269.

  7. Schiffrin A, Disrosiers M, Belmont M. Evaluation of two methods ofself blood glucose monitoring by trained insulin-dependent diabeticadolescent outside the hospital. Diabetes Care 1983; 6: 166.

  8. Techobroutsky G. Relation of diabetic control to the development ofmicrovascular complication. Diabetología 1978; 15: 143.

  9. Pirart J. Diabetes mellitus and its degenerative complications: aprospective study of 4400 patients observed between 1947 and 1973.Diabetes Care 1978; 1: 168.

  10. Cox DJ, Clarke WL, Gonder FL. Accuracy of perceiving blood glucose inIDDM. Diabetes Care 1985; 8: 529.

  11. Sonken PH, Judd SL, Lowry C. Home monitoring of blood glucose. TheLancet 1978; 1: 729.

  12. Tatterssall RB. Home Blood glucose monitoring. Diabetología 1979;16:71.

  13. Walford S, Gale E, Allison SP. Self-monitoring of blood glucose.Improvement of diabetic control. The Lancet 1978; 1: 732.

  14. Clarke W, Melton T, Sachse M. Evaluation of a new reflectanc photometerfor use in home blood glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care 1981; 4: 547.

  15. Kinghorn HA. Quality control measures in glucose monitoring. DiabetCare 1992; 15: 1824.

  16. Naito HK, Kwak YS, Cottingham C. Accuracy of the One Touch II wholblood glucose analyzer when used by analysts with diverse technicalbackgrounds. J Fam Pract 1993; 37: 153.

  17. Havlin CE, Parvin CA, Cryer PE. The accuracy of blood glucose monitordevices. Clin Diabetes 1991; 9: 92.

  18. Kishimoto M, Kawamori R, Kubota M. Clinical usefulness of a non-wiping type glucose meter in diabetic patients. Diabetes Res ClinPract 1993; 20: 47.

  19. Barnett CR, Ballanoff L. Effect of altitude on the self-monitoring ofblood glucose. Diabetes 1987; 36 (Suppl): 117a.

  20. Gregory M, Ryan F, Barnett JC. Altitude and relative humidity influenceresults produced by glucose meters using dry reagent strips. ClinChem 1988; 34: 1312.

  21. Barger N, Bernbaum M, Cleary M. Recommendation for desirable featureof glucose monitoring systems for visually impaired customers. DiabetesCare 1988; 11: 753.

  22. Michael S. Kramer. Clinical Epidemiology and Bioestatistics. A primerfor clinical investigators and decision-markers. Cap. 16; Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg: 1988.p. 204-8.

  23. Guidelines drawn up between 1998 and 1999 by the European Diabe-tes Policy Group of the IDF (Europen Region), published in DiabeticMedicine 1999; Vol 16 (September).

  24. Sonken PH, Judd SL, Lowy C. Home monitoring of blood glucose: newapproach to management of insulin-dependent diabetic patient inGreat Britain. Diabetes Care 1980; 3: 100.

  25. Price ME, Hammett SC, Kemper GB. Evaluation of glucose monitoringdevices in the hyperbaric chamber. Mil Med 1995;160: 143.

  26. Meehan CD, Bove LA, Jennings AS. Comparison of first generation andsecond generation blood glucose meters for use in a hospital setting.Diabetes Educ 1992; 18: 223.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com