ArticleCureus2024
Benchmarking Point-of-Care Glucometers: A Comparative Study Using the Hexokinase Test and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standards.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Smart wearable biosensors: a transformative synergy between diagnosis and treatment of disease.RSC advances · 2026Review
- Validation of Point-of-care Testing Device HemoCue® Glucose 201RT in Blood Glucose Estimation.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine · 2026Article
- Evolution of Biosensors and Current State-of-the-Art Applications in Diabetes Control.Biosensors · 2026Review
- Women's Occupational Tobacco Dust Exposure in Indonesia (T-CHARM): Protocol for a Prospective Cohort Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The International Diabetes Federation states that India accounts for one in seven of all adults with diabetes. Adherence to self-monitoring of blood glucose is essential for effective management of diabetes. Despite the wide variety of glucometers and their clinical applicability, there is a lot of ambiguity regarding their accuracy. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate if three point-of-care glucometers using three different methods for the estimation of blood glucose fulfil the minimum accuracy needed by ISO15197:2013 when compared with the gold standard hexokinase test. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted at two primary health care centers in Ernakulam district, which included 73 participants with diabetes and 73 without diabetes. We evaluated three different enzymes in the test glucometers: glucose dehydrogenase with pyrroloquinoline quinone (GDH-PQQ), glucose dehydrogenase with flavin adenine dinucleotide (GDH-FAD), and glucose oxidase (GOD). The glucometer readings were compared with the gold standard hexokinase test and ISO15197:2013 standards. To compare the accuracy of each glucometer with the reference method, the Bland-Altman plot was used and to evaluate the clinical significance of the differences between the glucometer and reference value the Clarke error grid analysis was performed. Results When compared with the gold standard hexokinase result, only 78.08% (GOD), 92.4% (GDH-PQQ), and 95.8 (GDH-FAD) of results were within the limits stipulated by ISO15197:2013. All three glucometers showed blood glucose results within zones A and B of the consensus error grid, implying that it is clinically acceptable, and the Bland-Altman plot showed that the GDH-FAD method had the narrowest range between the upper and lower limit of agreement and a minimum bias of -0.89. Conclusion Only one test glucometer with the GDH-FAD method met the ISO15197:2013 criteria. Glucometers must meet the accuracy standards for the safety of the patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.