Re: BG meters and possible errors???

[Guest guest]

Roisin, unfortunately meters do have margins of error, and your generic

brand is probably fine for now. Occasionally you can find specials at

www.diabetespromotions.com or www.hocks.com on a meter or strips here and

there. Other things will affect your readings as well, like sweet stuff or

some other compound on your fingers when you prick, etc. It's best to

thoroughly wash your hands before each test. I get variations now and then

on both my meters, and one is consistently lower than the other. They are

both in the ball park, and that's what I care about. I routinely test them

with the testing solutions.

I'd suggest you read Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution. I can't tell you

how helpful it is. We also have other great resources on our website, which

url is at the bottom of each message. Website for Diabetes International:

http://www.msteri.com/diabetes-info/diabetes_int

Barb

PLEASE trim your messages, folks, and keep your subject lines current.

Thanks.

> I know people were talking earlier in the week about meters, right now I

just

> have a meter that I bought from the local pharmacy (Walgreens, it's their

own

> brand), their strips were only $45 for 100 and I didn't want to spend too

> much if it wasn't going to be necessary to use it again in the future, I'm

> not sure how accurate it is though. I have taken readings within minutes

of

> each other and got a difference of up to 20 odd points........now that's

fair

> enough if your average readings are consistently high, I suppose it tells

me

> enough to know there is something wrong (that's why I tested on hubby, I

> wanted to see if there were big discrepancies with him.....there wasn't).

Do

> you think I should purchase a better meter now

[Guest guest]

<< Occasionally you can find specials at

www.diabetespromotions.com or www.hocks.com on a meter or strips here and

there. Other things will affect your readings as well, like sweet stuff or

some other compound on your fingers when you prick, etc. It's best to

thoroughly wash your hands before each test. >>

Barb......thanks so much for this, I couldn't get through to the first site,

but I got through to Hocks and they have some great deals.

P.S. I don't think I've ever had to wash my hands so often

before....diabetics must have the cleanest hands with all that pricking going

on every day ;-)

Hugs,

Roisin (ro-sheen)

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Sometimes the Lord calms the storm;

sometimes He lets the storm rage

and calms His child.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 28-Apr-01 5:35:58 PM Central Daylight Time,

jharper@... writes:

> You might inquire of Walgreen's who made the meter you're using. Might be

> interesting to know, as it may be something very good in a different

> skin.

Jo.....It says on the back that it is a Prestige Smart System.......do you

know (or anybody else) if they are okay? They had a special offer on and I

bought 2, the meter was free if you paid for the strips which were $45 for a

100. So I now have a spare meter and 200 strips. If I thought that it was

not an accurate meter I would take one back and get a refund. I have done the

tests on it with the liquid stuff several times and that checks out fine. I'm

probably just worried over nothing!

Hugs,

Roisin (ro-sheen)

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Sometimes the Lord calms the storm;

sometimes He lets the storm rage

and calms His child.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

[Guest guest]

>Just want to make sure that I'm getting a reasonably accurate reading.

>This morning at 6am I tested and first it was 150 and within 2 minutes

>165........that's gotta be too wide a margin of error, don't you think?

Roisin,

I have a Lifescan Fast Take meter, one of the most used, and perhaps one of

the better ones on the market, though not their newest. The other night I

got 87 on the left hand, which I questioned as way too low for the

circumstances, and tested again on the other hand and got 127. Worried, I

called Lifescan (24/7 support).

They had me do some things and test again, and then said it was ok. Said

their acceptable margin for error is 16%. I thought 16% sounded

terrifically high as a margin for error, but the poor young man could only

repeat it again and say my meter was ok.

I still prefer the Lifescan, though a friend uses that newish meter that

pretty painlessly takes the blood from the arm and requires only the

tiniest drop, and is so enthusiastic about it, I've been thinking of trying

it. Can't think of the brand just now.

Lifescan has been pretty good to me, however, in terms of service and

support. Lately their strips have been hard to come by, but they hope that

is straightened out now. You'll get many different recommendations from

this list, and will be able to sort out the truly " lesser " meters,

probably, from just the personal preference differences.

You might inquire of Walgreen's who made the meter you're using. Might be

interesting to know, as it may be something very good in a different

skin. Walgreen's stuff is usually pretty solid, I think.

Just my experience, thought and opinions <s>.

jo

----------

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/2001

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 01-04-28 13:15:05 EDT, you write:

<< Just want to make sure that I'm

getting a reasonably accurate reading. This morning at 6am I tested and

first

it was 150 and within 2 minutes 165........that's gotta be too wide a margin

of error, don't you think? >>

Actually it's not. I think the error margin on all meters is 20%...I'm no

math wizard (as anyone here can tlel you, smile) but I think your numbers

fall within that range. . I've certainly found that I can test on the same

finger two minutes apart and get readings as far apart as that. The moral of

this story is...just make sure you've got enough blood on the strip for an

accurate reading. Then believe it. Oh yes...you could calibrate your meter

next time you go to your doctor's office. Compare your reading with theirs,

that'll tell you if your meter is accurate within reason.

Vicki

[Guest guest]

jo harper wrote:

> Roisin,

>

> I have a Lifescan Fast Take meter, one of the most used, and perhaps one of

> the better ones on the market, though not their newest. The other night I

> got 87 on the left hand, which I questioned as way too low for the

> circumstances, and tested again on the other hand and got 127. Worried, I

> called Lifescan (24/7 support).

>

> They had me do some things and test again, and then said it was ok. Said

> their acceptable margin for error is 16%. I thought 16% sounded

> terrifically high as a margin for error, but the poor young man could only

> repeat it again and say my meter was ok.

>

> I still prefer the Lifescan, though a friend uses that newish meter that

> pretty painlessly takes the blood from the arm and requires only the

> tiniest drop, and is so enthusiastic about it, I've been thinking of trying

> it. Can't think of the brand just now.

>

> Lifescan has been pretty good to me, however, in terms of service and

> support. Lately their strips have been hard to come by, but they hope that

> is straightened out now. You'll get many different recommendations from

> this list, and will be able to sort out the truly " lesser " meters,

> probably, from just the personal preference differences.

The Lifescan Ultra seems to be more precise than the FastTake. I've got

three of those and traded one in on the new Ultra. With the rebates it's

free.

--

Dave - 7:07:19 PM

T2 - 8/98 Glucophage, NPH, H

-

Davors Daily Aphorism:

There are 2 ways to handle women and I know neither.

--

Visit my PhotoPage:

http://zing.com/album/pictures.html?id=4292795721

[Guest guest]

Hi Jo and Roisin -

When I first started testing I had a lot of variability in my test results.

I spent a lot of time on the phone with the support line for my meters. I

now have two... a Precision QID and an In Charge. These are a few things I

learned in the first few weeks of testing:

1. Wash hands first in warm water (soap isn't really necessary, but warming

up hands helps a lot)

2. Massage the finger that I'm planning to prick a little before I prick it

so I know there's plenty of blood near the tip.

3. Set the finger pricker so that I'll get a good-sized drop of blood. If

you have to squeeze your finger to get blood, it causes water from

surrounding tissue to mix with the blood sample. The water dilutes the

blood sample and causes a false low reading.

Anne

>jo harper wrote:

> I have a Lifescan Fast Take meter, one of the most used, and

> perhaps one of the better ones on the market, though not their newest.

The

> other night I got 87 on the left hand, which I questioned as way too low

for

> the circumstances, and tested again on the other hand and got 127.

[Guest guest]

I have the same meter and have been generally pleased with it (and the

service) also... however, it's three years old now and has been Heavily Used

(generally testing about 12x a day) and I figure maybe it's time for a new

one so I've ordered an Ultra, which I've been assured is really precise and

accurate and easy to use, though I'm a little apprehensive...anyway, it's

made by Lifescan too. I'll start using the new one next week, as soon as I

finish using up the SureStep strips...Vicki

In a message dated 01-04-28 18:36:04 EDT, you write:

<<

I have a Lifescan Fast Take meter, one of the most used, and perhaps one of

the better ones on the market, though not their newest. The other night I

got 87 on the left hand, which I questioned as way too low for the

circumstances, and tested again on the other hand and got 127. Worried, I

called Lifescan (24/7 support).

>>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 01-04-28 19:55:02 EDT, you write:

<<

P.S. I don't think I've ever had to wash my hands so often

before....diabetics must have the cleanest hands with all that pricking

going

on every day ;-)

>>

Yes, I agree..and until I discovered French soap, I was going through soap

bars like crazy. Treat yourself -- all French soap is milled finer than

American or English soaps and last a LOT longer. I'm still using a bar I

started almost six months ago! (and you all know how often I test!) And it

sounds so decadent...French soap....(smile) Vicki

[Guest guest]

I use the new Glucometer Elite by Bayer. I got it free from my pharmacy

as a promotion when it first came out. I also got one of those painless

lancets that you can use other places. I love both of them. I am not sure

how expensive they are but they are good.

Tammy

At 07:11 PM 4/28/2001 -0400, you wrote:

>jo harper wrote:

>

> > Roisin,

> >

> > I have a Lifescan Fast Take meter, one of the most used, and perhaps one of

> > the better ones on the market, though not their newest. The other night I

> > got 87 on the left hand, which I questioned as way too low for the

> > circumstances, and tested again on the other hand and got 127. Worried, I

> > called Lifescan (24/7 support).

> >

> > They had me do some things and test again, and then said it was ok. Said

> > their acceptable margin for error is 16%. I thought 16% sounded

> > terrifically high as a margin for error, but the poor young man could only

> > repeat it again and say my meter was ok.

> >

> > I still prefer the Lifescan, though a friend uses that newish meter that

> > pretty painlessly takes the blood from the arm and requires only the

> > tiniest drop, and is so enthusiastic about it, I've been thinking of trying

> > it. Can't think of the brand just now.

> >

> > Lifescan has been pretty good to me, however, in terms of service and

> > support. Lately their strips have been hard to come by, but they hope that

> > is straightened out now. You'll get many different recommendations from

> > this list, and will be able to sort out the truly " lesser " meters,

> > probably, from just the personal preference differences.

>

>The Lifescan Ultra seems to be more precise than the FastTake. I've got

>three of those and traded one in on the new Ultra. With the rebates it's

>free.

>

>--

>Dave - 7:07:19 PM

>T2 - 8/98 Glucophage, NPH, H

>-

>Davors Daily Aphorism:

>There are 2 ways to handle women and I know neither.

>--

>Visit my PhotoPage:

><http://zing.com/album/pictures.html?id=4292795721>http://zing.com/album/pictur\

es.html?id=4292795721

>

>

[Guest guest]

IrishStitcher@... wrote:

> I know people were talking earlier in the week about meters, right now I just

> have a meter that I bought from the local pharmacy (Walgreens, it's their own

> brand), their strips were only $45 for 100 and I didn't want to spend too

> much if it wasn't going to be necessary to use it again in the future, I'm

> not sure how accurate it is though. I have taken readings within minutes of

> each other and got a difference of up to 20 odd points........now that's fair

> enough if your average readings are consistently high, I suppose it tells me

> enough to know there is something wrong (that's why I tested on hubby, I

> wanted to see if there were big discrepancies with him.....there wasn't). Do

> you think I should purchase a better meter now......I know there is always a

> margin of error with all of these things. I think though if it is possible, I

> would like to be able to test and then a minute later test again and at least

> get it within 5 points of each other. Just want to make sure that I'm

> getting a reasonably accurate reading. This morning at 6am I tested and first

> it was 150 and within 2 minutes 165........that's gotta be too wide a margin

> of error, don't you think?

>

> Roisin (ro-sheen)

>

I don't know about the meter you have, but this comment applies to any of them.

Are you sure that you are getting sufficient blood on the test strip each time.

A consistent and sufficient amount is important to get

reliable, repeatable readings.

You should look at the instruction sheet where the specifications are. Some

meters have a published accuracy of as high as 15% (that I

know of). If yours has a 15% spec, then your 150 reading could vary by 22

points!.

Take a look and see what you find.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 30-Apr-01 10:15:20 AM Central Daylight Time,

roger_holmen@... writes:

> Are you sure that you are getting sufficient blood on the test strip each

> time

Most definitely , I'm a good bleeder from the fingers, now my

arms....well that's a different story, but I don't have to worry about them

right now!

<< If yours has a 15% spec, then your 150 reading could vary by 22 points!.

Take a look and see what you find. >>

I searched for this, but couldn't find any % numbers anywhere. I went

yesterday and purchased a Precision QID, and I really like it. It says it's

results typically vary no more than 2.1% to 5.6%. I've been comparing it

with the Walgreens one and there is a difference averaging 20 points or more

between the two meters, with the Precision being on the lower end of the

scale. I've tested the Precision doing tests a couple of minutes apart and

so far there has only been a difference of 3 points in the readings, so I

will stick with it for now.

BS this morning was 147 on the precision and 172 on the Walgreens meter. I

was testing hubby again yesterday and was getting concerned as the Walgreens

meter was giving him very erratic readings, one minute he was around 120 and

then it was at 160!!!! Hmmm! That's when I decided a new meter might be

best.

Roisin (ro-sheen)

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Sometimes the Lord calms the storm;

sometimes He lets the storm rage

and calms His child.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~