Assessing the performance of handheld glucose testing for critical care

Gerald J Kost, Nam Tran, Richard F. Louie, Nicole L. Gentile, Victor J. Abad

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: We assessed the performance of a point-of-care (POC) glucose meter system (GMS) with multitasking test strip by using the locally-smoothed (LS) median absolute difference (MAD) curve method in conjunction with a modified Bland-Altman difference plot and superimposed International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15197 tolerance bands. We analyzed performance for tight glycemic control (TGC). Methods: A modified glucose oxidase enzyme with a multilayer-gold, multielectrode, four-well test strip (StatStrip™, NOVA Biomedical, Waltham, MA) was used. There was no test strip calibration code. Pragmatic comparison was done of GMS results versus paired plasma glucose measurements from chemistry analyzers in clinical laboratories. Venous samples (n = 1,703) were analyzed at 35 hospitals that used 20 types of chemistry analyzers. Erroneous results were identified using the Bland-Altman plot and ISO 15197 criteria. Discrepant values were analyzed for the TGC interval of 80-110 mg/dL. Results: The GMS met ISO 15197 guidelines; 98.6% (410 of 416) of observations were within tolerance for glucose <75 mg/dL, and for ≥75 mg/dL, 100% were within tolerance. Paired differences (handheld minus reference) averaged -2.2 (SD 9.8) mg/dL; the median was -1 (range, -96 to 45) mg/dL. LS MAD curve analysis revealed satisfactory performance below 186 mg/dL; above 186 mg/dL, the recommended error tolerance limit (5 mg/dL) was not met. No discrepant values appeared. All points fell in Clarke Error Grid zone A. Linear regression showed y = 1.018x - 0.716 mg/dL, and r2 = 0.995. Conclusions: LS MAD curves draw on human ability to discriminate performance visually. LS MAD curve and ISO 15197 performance were acceptable for TGC. POC and reference glucose calibration should be harmonized and standardized.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)445-451
Number of pages7
JournalDiabetes Technology and Therapeutics
Volume10
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2008

Fingerprint

Critical Care
Glucose
Point-of-Care Systems
Calibration
Glucose Oxidase
Gold
Linear Models
Guidelines
Enzymes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Endocrinology
  • Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
  • Medical Laboratory Technology

Cite this

Assessing the performance of handheld glucose testing for critical care. / Kost, Gerald J; Tran, Nam; Louie, Richard F.; Gentile, Nicole L.; Abad, Victor J.

In: Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics, Vol. 10, No. 6, 01.12.2008, p. 445-451.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kost, Gerald J ; Tran, Nam ; Louie, Richard F. ; Gentile, Nicole L. ; Abad, Victor J. / Assessing the performance of handheld glucose testing for critical care. In: Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics. 2008 ; Vol. 10, No. 6. pp. 445-451.
@article{1b1e094bac824593a85c47805fe1c34c,
title = "Assessing the performance of handheld glucose testing for critical care",
abstract = "Background: We assessed the performance of a point-of-care (POC) glucose meter system (GMS) with multitasking test strip by using the locally-smoothed (LS) median absolute difference (MAD) curve method in conjunction with a modified Bland-Altman difference plot and superimposed International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15197 tolerance bands. We analyzed performance for tight glycemic control (TGC). Methods: A modified glucose oxidase enzyme with a multilayer-gold, multielectrode, four-well test strip (StatStrip™, NOVA Biomedical, Waltham, MA) was used. There was no test strip calibration code. Pragmatic comparison was done of GMS results versus paired plasma glucose measurements from chemistry analyzers in clinical laboratories. Venous samples (n = 1,703) were analyzed at 35 hospitals that used 20 types of chemistry analyzers. Erroneous results were identified using the Bland-Altman plot and ISO 15197 criteria. Discrepant values were analyzed for the TGC interval of 80-110 mg/dL. Results: The GMS met ISO 15197 guidelines; 98.6{\%} (410 of 416) of observations were within tolerance for glucose <75 mg/dL, and for ≥75 mg/dL, 100{\%} were within tolerance. Paired differences (handheld minus reference) averaged -2.2 (SD 9.8) mg/dL; the median was -1 (range, -96 to 45) mg/dL. LS MAD curve analysis revealed satisfactory performance below 186 mg/dL; above 186 mg/dL, the recommended error tolerance limit (5 mg/dL) was not met. No discrepant values appeared. All points fell in Clarke Error Grid zone A. Linear regression showed y = 1.018x - 0.716 mg/dL, and r2 = 0.995. Conclusions: LS MAD curves draw on human ability to discriminate performance visually. LS MAD curve and ISO 15197 performance were acceptable for TGC. POC and reference glucose calibration should be harmonized and standardized.",
author = "Kost, {Gerald J} and Nam Tran and Louie, {Richard F.} and Gentile, {Nicole L.} and Abad, {Victor J.}",
year = "2008",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1089/dia.2008.0049",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "445--451",
journal = "Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics",
issn = "1520-9156",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing the performance of handheld glucose testing for critical care

AU - Kost, Gerald J

AU - Tran, Nam

AU - Louie, Richard F.

AU - Gentile, Nicole L.

AU - Abad, Victor J.

PY - 2008/12/1

Y1 - 2008/12/1

N2 - Background: We assessed the performance of a point-of-care (POC) glucose meter system (GMS) with multitasking test strip by using the locally-smoothed (LS) median absolute difference (MAD) curve method in conjunction with a modified Bland-Altman difference plot and superimposed International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15197 tolerance bands. We analyzed performance for tight glycemic control (TGC). Methods: A modified glucose oxidase enzyme with a multilayer-gold, multielectrode, four-well test strip (StatStrip™, NOVA Biomedical, Waltham, MA) was used. There was no test strip calibration code. Pragmatic comparison was done of GMS results versus paired plasma glucose measurements from chemistry analyzers in clinical laboratories. Venous samples (n = 1,703) were analyzed at 35 hospitals that used 20 types of chemistry analyzers. Erroneous results were identified using the Bland-Altman plot and ISO 15197 criteria. Discrepant values were analyzed for the TGC interval of 80-110 mg/dL. Results: The GMS met ISO 15197 guidelines; 98.6% (410 of 416) of observations were within tolerance for glucose <75 mg/dL, and for ≥75 mg/dL, 100% were within tolerance. Paired differences (handheld minus reference) averaged -2.2 (SD 9.8) mg/dL; the median was -1 (range, -96 to 45) mg/dL. LS MAD curve analysis revealed satisfactory performance below 186 mg/dL; above 186 mg/dL, the recommended error tolerance limit (5 mg/dL) was not met. No discrepant values appeared. All points fell in Clarke Error Grid zone A. Linear regression showed y = 1.018x - 0.716 mg/dL, and r2 = 0.995. Conclusions: LS MAD curves draw on human ability to discriminate performance visually. LS MAD curve and ISO 15197 performance were acceptable for TGC. POC and reference glucose calibration should be harmonized and standardized.

AB - Background: We assessed the performance of a point-of-care (POC) glucose meter system (GMS) with multitasking test strip by using the locally-smoothed (LS) median absolute difference (MAD) curve method in conjunction with a modified Bland-Altman difference plot and superimposed International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15197 tolerance bands. We analyzed performance for tight glycemic control (TGC). Methods: A modified glucose oxidase enzyme with a multilayer-gold, multielectrode, four-well test strip (StatStrip™, NOVA Biomedical, Waltham, MA) was used. There was no test strip calibration code. Pragmatic comparison was done of GMS results versus paired plasma glucose measurements from chemistry analyzers in clinical laboratories. Venous samples (n = 1,703) were analyzed at 35 hospitals that used 20 types of chemistry analyzers. Erroneous results were identified using the Bland-Altman plot and ISO 15197 criteria. Discrepant values were analyzed for the TGC interval of 80-110 mg/dL. Results: The GMS met ISO 15197 guidelines; 98.6% (410 of 416) of observations were within tolerance for glucose <75 mg/dL, and for ≥75 mg/dL, 100% were within tolerance. Paired differences (handheld minus reference) averaged -2.2 (SD 9.8) mg/dL; the median was -1 (range, -96 to 45) mg/dL. LS MAD curve analysis revealed satisfactory performance below 186 mg/dL; above 186 mg/dL, the recommended error tolerance limit (5 mg/dL) was not met. No discrepant values appeared. All points fell in Clarke Error Grid zone A. Linear regression showed y = 1.018x - 0.716 mg/dL, and r2 = 0.995. Conclusions: LS MAD curves draw on human ability to discriminate performance visually. LS MAD curve and ISO 15197 performance were acceptable for TGC. POC and reference glucose calibration should be harmonized and standardized.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=57349154521&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=57349154521&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/dia.2008.0049

DO - 10.1089/dia.2008.0049

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 445

EP - 451

JO - Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics

JF - Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics

SN - 1520-9156

IS - 6

ER -