Applying Parkes Grid Method to Evaluate Impact of Variation in Blood Glucose Monitoring (BGM) Strip Accuracy Performance in Type 1 Diabetes Highlights the Potential for Amplification of Imprecision With Less Accurate BGM Strips. (January 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Stedman, Michael; Rea, Rustam; Duff, Christopher J.; Livingston, Mark; Moreno, Gabriela; Gadsby, Roger; Lunt, Helen; Fryer, Anthony A.; Heald, Adrian H.
• Is Part Of: Journal of diabetes science and technology. Volume 15:Number 1(2021)
• Page Start: 76
• Page End: 81
• Publication Date: 2021-01
• Subjects: blood glucose -- monitoring -- HbA1c -- outcome; Diabetes -- Periodicals; Medical technology -- Periodicals; Diabetes Mellitus -- Periodicals; 616.462005
• DOI: 10.1177/1932296820905880
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1932-2968

Abstract

Background: The National Health Service spends £170 million on blood glucose monitoring (BGM) strips each year and there are pressures to use cheaper less accurate strips. Technology is also being used to increase test frequency with less focus on accuracy. Previous modeling/real-world data analysis highlighted that actual blood glucose variability can be more than twice blood glucose meter reported variability (BGMV). We applied those results to the Parkes error grid to highlight potential clinical impact. Method: BGMV is defined as the percent of deviation from reference that contains 95% of results. Four categories were modeled: laboratory (<5%), high accuracy strips (<10%), ISO 2013 (<15%), and ISO 2003 (<20%) (includes some strips still used). The Parkes error grid model with its associated category of risk including "alter clinical decision" and "affect clinical outcomes" was used, with the profile of frequency of expected results fitted into each BGM accuracy category. Results: Applying to single readings, almost all strip accuracy ranges derived in a controlled setting fell within the category: clinically accurate/no effect on outcomes areas. However modeling the possible blood glucose distribution in more detail, 30.6% of longer term results of the strips with current ISO accuracy would fall into the "alter clinical action" category. For previous ISO strips, this rose to 44.1%, and for the latest higher accuracy strips, this fell to 12.8%. Conclusion: There is a minimum standard of accuracy needed to ensure that clinical outcomes are not put at risk. This study highlights the potential for amplification of imprecision with less accurate BGM strips.