Guest guest Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 I have found the same thing to be true. My One Touch Ultra will read about 15-20 mg, higher than my Freestyle Flash sometimes. Although there are times that I have compared and there is only 2 or 3 points difference. The thing is you can use the same meter and check 2 or 3 different times and get a different reading each time as well. I wish there would be more of guarantee for accuracy as well. " Father knows best (or so the saying goes), but mother " no's " best. - Anonymous Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. - Abraham Lincoln Christy Jordan Yahoo - FussySpunkyMunky AOL - FussyOleMe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 I have found the same thing to be true. My One Touch Ultra will read about 15-20 mg, higher than my Freestyle Flash sometimes. Although there are times that I have compared and there is only 2 or 3 points difference. The thing is you can use the same meter and check 2 or 3 different times and get a different reading each time as well. I wish there would be more of guarantee for accuracy as well. " Father knows best (or so the saying goes), but mother " no's " best. - Anonymous Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. - Abraham Lincoln Christy Jordan Yahoo - FussySpunkyMunky AOL - FussyOleMe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 , I own 2 meters, but test only once per poke. Between testing and shots, if I did not heal, my fingers and stomach would be a sieve; once is enough for me. I think you would probably find similar variation if you were to poke yourself, test and the retest with the same meter from the same hole. That is just a gut feeling I have. I took a diabetes education class while urine testing was still the home method of monitoring sugar levels (I am type I since 1964) at the time the most compact blood monitor was about the size of a large microwave oven. So I look at the meter as a guide to give me an idea and not a super highly accurate instrument with repeatability. It's a whole lot better than pissin' in a cup, but I think placing too much value in any one reading versus observing the results over time would cause me to become a diabetic first, thus letting the disease run me. You are aiming to keep your BG's in a range; it is not contest where you have to have the exact number. More accurate meters will come in the future, but what we have is what we have now and satisfactory results can be obtained with it. It is strictly my own opinion, but testing twice not only means more holes in your body, it also means more cash going out of somebody's pocket, and I would have a hard time believing your going to increase the quality of your life. Regards Ted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 , I own 2 meters, but test only once per poke. Between testing and shots, if I did not heal, my fingers and stomach would be a sieve; once is enough for me. I think you would probably find similar variation if you were to poke yourself, test and the retest with the same meter from the same hole. That is just a gut feeling I have. I took a diabetes education class while urine testing was still the home method of monitoring sugar levels (I am type I since 1964) at the time the most compact blood monitor was about the size of a large microwave oven. So I look at the meter as a guide to give me an idea and not a super highly accurate instrument with repeatability. It's a whole lot better than pissin' in a cup, but I think placing too much value in any one reading versus observing the results over time would cause me to become a diabetic first, thus letting the disease run me. You are aiming to keep your BG's in a range; it is not contest where you have to have the exact number. More accurate meters will come in the future, but what we have is what we have now and satisfactory results can be obtained with it. It is strictly my own opinion, but testing twice not only means more holes in your body, it also means more cash going out of somebody's pocket, and I would have a hard time believing your going to increase the quality of your life. Regards Ted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 , I own 2 meters, but test only once per poke. Between testing and shots, if I did not heal, my fingers and stomach would be a sieve; once is enough for me. I think you would probably find similar variation if you were to poke yourself, test and the retest with the same meter from the same hole. That is just a gut feeling I have. I took a diabetes education class while urine testing was still the home method of monitoring sugar levels (I am type I since 1964) at the time the most compact blood monitor was about the size of a large microwave oven. So I look at the meter as a guide to give me an idea and not a super highly accurate instrument with repeatability. It's a whole lot better than pissin' in a cup, but I think placing too much value in any one reading versus observing the results over time would cause me to become a diabetic first, thus letting the disease run me. You are aiming to keep your BG's in a range; it is not contest where you have to have the exact number. More accurate meters will come in the future, but what we have is what we have now and satisfactory results can be obtained with it. It is strictly my own opinion, but testing twice not only means more holes in your body, it also means more cash going out of somebody's pocket, and I would have a hard time believing your going to increase the quality of your life. Regards Ted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 The main reason I want accuracy is because if I am on a sliding scale and my meter is too far off and I take insulin to cover it, then there is a chance of me bottoming out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 The main reason I want accuracy is because if I am on a sliding scale and my meter is too far off and I take insulin to cover it, then there is a chance of me bottoming out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 The main reason I want accuracy is because if I am on a sliding scale and my meter is too far off and I take insulin to cover it, then there is a chance of me bottoming out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 It is actualy not recomended to use the same " poke " to test more than once. For the exact reason that you can get a different reading. They also say to not " squeeze " too much as that can cause a " miss read " If you dont get enough blood from a poke, you need to poke again... Angelia in OR who had this discussion with her Dr. ----- Original Message ----- > Hi all, > > I was wondering about something... do many of us use TWO meters as a > matter of course and compare the readings between them? I've noticed > that I can test using my OneTouch Basic and UltraSmart using the > same blood spot and get quite different readings... I actually > prefer to trust the Basic as it uses a bigger blood sample and takes > a reassuring 45 seconds to come up with a 'magic' number. >> Does anyone else have any thoughts? > > ttfn > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2005 Report Share Posted May 14, 2005 I have checked my finger three times within five minutes from the same spot and come up with three different numbers each time. There was probably only a 5-10 point difference though. This was something that I was told would happen when I was first diabetic though, by one of my diabetes education classes.Later days, KimFrom: Ted Burzycki To: diabetes@...: Fri, 13 May 2005 07:45:44 -0700Subject: RE: Accuracy of Meters, I own 2 meters, but test only once per poke. Between testing andshots, if I did not heal, my fingers and stomach would be a sieve; once isenough for me. I think you would probably find similar variation if you were topoke yourself, test and the retest with the same meter from the same hole.That is just a gut feeling I have. I took a diabetes education class while urine testing was still thehome method of monitoring sugar levels (I am type I since 1964) at the timethe most compact blood monitor was about the size of a large microwave oven.So I look at the meter as a guide to give me an idea and not a super highlyaccurate instrument with repeatability. It's a whole lot better thanpissin' in a cup, but I think placing too much value in any one readingversus observing the results over time would cause me to become a diabeticfirst, thus letting the disease run me. You are aiming to keep your BG's in a range; it is not contest whereyou have to have the exact number. More accurate meters will come in the future, but what we have iswhat we have now and satisfactory results can be obtained with it. It is strictly my own opinion, but testing twice not only means moreholes in your body, it also means more cash going out of somebody's pocket,and I would have a hard time believing your going to increase the quality ofyour life.RegardsTedDiabetes homepage: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/diabetes/To unsubscribe to this group, send an email to: diabetes-unsubscribe Hope you come back soon! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2005 Report Share Posted May 14, 2005 I have checked my finger three times within five minutes from the same spot and come up with three different numbers each time. There was probably only a 5-10 point difference though. This was something that I was told would happen when I was first diabetic though, by one of my diabetes education classes.Later days, KimFrom: Ted Burzycki To: diabetes@...: Fri, 13 May 2005 07:45:44 -0700Subject: RE: Accuracy of Meters, I own 2 meters, but test only once per poke. Between testing andshots, if I did not heal, my fingers and stomach would be a sieve; once isenough for me. I think you would probably find similar variation if you were topoke yourself, test and the retest with the same meter from the same hole.That is just a gut feeling I have. I took a diabetes education class while urine testing was still thehome method of monitoring sugar levels (I am type I since 1964) at the timethe most compact blood monitor was about the size of a large microwave oven.So I look at the meter as a guide to give me an idea and not a super highlyaccurate instrument with repeatability. It's a whole lot better thanpissin' in a cup, but I think placing too much value in any one readingversus observing the results over time would cause me to become a diabeticfirst, thus letting the disease run me. You are aiming to keep your BG's in a range; it is not contest whereyou have to have the exact number. More accurate meters will come in the future, but what we have iswhat we have now and satisfactory results can be obtained with it. It is strictly my own opinion, but testing twice not only means moreholes in your body, it also means more cash going out of somebody's pocket,and I would have a hard time believing your going to increase the quality ofyour life.RegardsTedDiabetes homepage: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/diabetes/To unsubscribe to this group, send an email to: diabetes-unsubscribe Hope you come back soon! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2005 Report Share Posted May 14, 2005 I have checked my finger three times within five minutes from the same spot and come up with three different numbers each time. There was probably only a 5-10 point difference though. This was something that I was told would happen when I was first diabetic though, by one of my diabetes education classes.Later days, KimFrom: Ted Burzycki To: diabetes@...: Fri, 13 May 2005 07:45:44 -0700Subject: RE: Accuracy of Meters, I own 2 meters, but test only once per poke. Between testing andshots, if I did not heal, my fingers and stomach would be a sieve; once isenough for me. I think you would probably find similar variation if you were topoke yourself, test and the retest with the same meter from the same hole.That is just a gut feeling I have. I took a diabetes education class while urine testing was still thehome method of monitoring sugar levels (I am type I since 1964) at the timethe most compact blood monitor was about the size of a large microwave oven.So I look at the meter as a guide to give me an idea and not a super highlyaccurate instrument with repeatability. It's a whole lot better thanpissin' in a cup, but I think placing too much value in any one readingversus observing the results over time would cause me to become a diabeticfirst, thus letting the disease run me. You are aiming to keep your BG's in a range; it is not contest whereyou have to have the exact number. More accurate meters will come in the future, but what we have iswhat we have now and satisfactory results can be obtained with it. It is strictly my own opinion, but testing twice not only means moreholes in your body, it also means more cash going out of somebody's pocket,and I would have a hard time believing your going to increase the quality ofyour life.RegardsTedDiabetes homepage: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/diabetes/To unsubscribe to this group, send an email to: diabetes-unsubscribe Hope you come back soon! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2005 Report Share Posted May 14, 2005 Interesting thought - that even a 5-10 point difference can be enough for you to be 'hypo' or not or even enough to be dx'd or not. Like I said, given the importance that we place into our readings, I'd like to see all meters publish their accuracy in plain sight. Is the 'speedy' " smallest meter " as accurate than the slow and clunky meter? As far as I can tell, nobody in the user community really knows. And who is it that really matters here? If we can't put faith in what our meter tells us then it makes things really tricky. How many times do you stab yourself? once, twice, three times and take the average? (That was a rhetorical question) One thing that does interest me is that there seems to be a diabetic supply marketting frenzy... the number of ads for meters seems to grow every week... Each manufacturer claims that their meter is " the smallest " or " the fastest " or " the most pain-free " . But all of this is just marketting speak to get people to buy that product. Do I care about " the smallest " or " the fastest " or how much one stab hurts as much as the next??? No. The only important thing should be 'how accurate is it'. But that is information that doesn't appear to be published. If I had a meter that took a thimble full of blood and took half an hour to come up with a result but was 99% accurate then I'd use it. Sometimes I feel like we're just exploited as one more 'gravy train' by manufacturers who get away with passing off cheap junk. Higher or Lower, I've actually decided that my Basic is more reliable. Sure it needs a bigger spot and takes 45 seconds but hey, I can wait that long... it's not like I'm missing anything earth shattering in that time, in fact it gives me enough time to put the kettle on ttfn > I have checked my finger three times within five minutes from the same spot and come up with three different numbers each time. There was probably only a 5-10 point difference though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2005 Report Share Posted May 14, 2005 Interesting thought - that even a 5-10 point difference can be enough for you to be 'hypo' or not or even enough to be dx'd or not. Like I said, given the importance that we place into our readings, I'd like to see all meters publish their accuracy in plain sight. Is the 'speedy' " smallest meter " as accurate than the slow and clunky meter? As far as I can tell, nobody in the user community really knows. And who is it that really matters here? If we can't put faith in what our meter tells us then it makes things really tricky. How many times do you stab yourself? once, twice, three times and take the average? (That was a rhetorical question) One thing that does interest me is that there seems to be a diabetic supply marketting frenzy... the number of ads for meters seems to grow every week... Each manufacturer claims that their meter is " the smallest " or " the fastest " or " the most pain-free " . But all of this is just marketting speak to get people to buy that product. Do I care about " the smallest " or " the fastest " or how much one stab hurts as much as the next??? No. The only important thing should be 'how accurate is it'. But that is information that doesn't appear to be published. If I had a meter that took a thimble full of blood and took half an hour to come up with a result but was 99% accurate then I'd use it. Sometimes I feel like we're just exploited as one more 'gravy train' by manufacturers who get away with passing off cheap junk. Higher or Lower, I've actually decided that my Basic is more reliable. Sure it needs a bigger spot and takes 45 seconds but hey, I can wait that long... it's not like I'm missing anything earth shattering in that time, in fact it gives me enough time to put the kettle on ttfn > I have checked my finger three times within five minutes from the same spot and come up with three different numbers each time. There was probably only a 5-10 point difference though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2005 Report Share Posted May 14, 2005 Interesting thought - that even a 5-10 point difference can be enough for you to be 'hypo' or not or even enough to be dx'd or not. Like I said, given the importance that we place into our readings, I'd like to see all meters publish their accuracy in plain sight. Is the 'speedy' " smallest meter " as accurate than the slow and clunky meter? As far as I can tell, nobody in the user community really knows. And who is it that really matters here? If we can't put faith in what our meter tells us then it makes things really tricky. How many times do you stab yourself? once, twice, three times and take the average? (That was a rhetorical question) One thing that does interest me is that there seems to be a diabetic supply marketting frenzy... the number of ads for meters seems to grow every week... Each manufacturer claims that their meter is " the smallest " or " the fastest " or " the most pain-free " . But all of this is just marketting speak to get people to buy that product. Do I care about " the smallest " or " the fastest " or how much one stab hurts as much as the next??? No. The only important thing should be 'how accurate is it'. But that is information that doesn't appear to be published. If I had a meter that took a thimble full of blood and took half an hour to come up with a result but was 99% accurate then I'd use it. Sometimes I feel like we're just exploited as one more 'gravy train' by manufacturers who get away with passing off cheap junk. Higher or Lower, I've actually decided that my Basic is more reliable. Sure it needs a bigger spot and takes 45 seconds but hey, I can wait that long... it's not like I'm missing anything earth shattering in that time, in fact it gives me enough time to put the kettle on ttfn > I have checked my finger three times within five minutes from the same spot and come up with three different numbers each time. There was probably only a 5-10 point difference though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2005 Report Share Posted May 14, 2005 > It is actualy not recomended to use the same " poke " to test more than once. > For the exact reason that you can get a different reading. They also say to > not " squeeze " too much as that can cause a " miss read " > If you dont get enough blood from a poke, you need to poke again... > > Angelia in OR who had this discussion with her Dr. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: " S. " <smellyfrog69@y...> > > > Hi all, > > > > I was wondering about something... do many of us use TWO meters as a > > matter of course and compare the readings between them? I've > > > > ttfn > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2005 Report Share Posted May 14, 2005 > It is actualy not recomended to use the same " poke " to test more than once. > For the exact reason that you can get a different reading. They also say to > not " squeeze " too much as that can cause a " miss read " > If you dont get enough blood from a poke, you need to poke again... > > Angelia in OR who had this discussion with her Dr. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: " S. " <smellyfrog69@y...> > > > Hi all, > > > > I was wondering about something... do many of us use TWO meters as a > > matter of course and compare the readings between them? I've > > > > ttfn > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2005 Report Share Posted May 14, 2005 > It is actualy not recomended to use the same " poke " to test more than once. > For the exact reason that you can get a different reading. They also say to > not " squeeze " too much as that can cause a " miss read " > If you dont get enough blood from a poke, you need to poke again... > > Angelia in OR who had this discussion with her Dr. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: " S. " <smellyfrog69@y...> > > > Hi all, > > > > I was wondering about something... do many of us use TWO meters as a > > matter of course and compare the readings between them? I've > > > > ttfn > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2005 Report Share Posted May 14, 2005 > All meters in the US must be + or - 20%. Do not try and compare readings of different meters one may be +20% and the other -20% thus your different readings. Also at one reading the meter may read a +5% and the next reading (even using the the blood from the same spot) 5%. If your test solution checks your meter as ok it most likely is. Do not use alcohol to clean you finger for a test as alcohol contains glucose and could add to the reading. I was in calibration & repair of electronic instruments for 30 years and a diabetic for 33. I serve on the diabetic advisory board of the Milford Medical Center....Capt. > > > > > > I was wondering about something... do many of us use TWO meters > as a > > > matter of course and compare the readings between them? > > > > > > ttfn > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2005 Report Share Posted May 14, 2005 > All meters in the US must be + or - 20%. Do not try and compare readings of different meters one may be +20% and the other -20% thus your different readings. Also at one reading the meter may read a +5% and the next reading (even using the the blood from the same spot) 5%. If your test solution checks your meter as ok it most likely is. Do not use alcohol to clean you finger for a test as alcohol contains glucose and could add to the reading. I was in calibration & repair of electronic instruments for 30 years and a diabetic for 33. I serve on the diabetic advisory board of the Milford Medical Center....Capt. > > > > > > I was wondering about something... do many of us use TWO meters > as a > > > matter of course and compare the readings between them? > > > > > > ttfn > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2005 Report Share Posted May 14, 2005 > All meters in the US must be + or - 20%. Do not try and compare readings of different meters one may be +20% and the other -20% thus your different readings. Also at one reading the meter may read a +5% and the next reading (even using the the blood from the same spot) 5%. If your test solution checks your meter as ok it most likely is. Do not use alcohol to clean you finger for a test as alcohol contains glucose and could add to the reading. I was in calibration & repair of electronic instruments for 30 years and a diabetic for 33. I serve on the diabetic advisory board of the Milford Medical Center....Capt. > > > > > > I was wondering about something... do many of us use TWO meters > as a > > > matter of course and compare the readings between them? > > > > > > ttfn > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2005 Report Share Posted May 14, 2005 And this is the best they can do? If you work out the 'numbers' you can see the insanity.... let's take a reading of 85 +/- 20... so this could be as low as 68 - borderline hypo or as high as 102 which is enough to get some Doctors to diagnose you as pre-diabetic. Ah the lunacy of it all. given the high percentage of diabetics in the population is +/- 20% really reasonable? but I guess that in a consumer society meter manufacturers have a nice little earner and little incentive to actually improve the accuracy of meters when size, speed and the pain difference between one stab and another seem to be better selling points. ttfn --- In diabetes , " captyankee " <captyankee@y...> All meters in the US must be + or - 20%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2005 Report Share Posted May 14, 2005 And this is the best they can do? If you work out the 'numbers' you can see the insanity.... let's take a reading of 85 +/- 20... so this could be as low as 68 - borderline hypo or as high as 102 which is enough to get some Doctors to diagnose you as pre-diabetic. Ah the lunacy of it all. given the high percentage of diabetics in the population is +/- 20% really reasonable? but I guess that in a consumer society meter manufacturers have a nice little earner and little incentive to actually improve the accuracy of meters when size, speed and the pain difference between one stab and another seem to be better selling points. ttfn --- In diabetes , " captyankee " <captyankee@y...> All meters in the US must be + or - 20%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2005 Report Share Posted May 14, 2005 If they can be off 20 percent, how do you know how to do meds accurately. I ask this because I don't take meds yet, but may be starting as early as Monday. I have enough hypos without inaccuracies of the meters. Hugs, Jackie --------------------------------- Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM & more. Check it out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2005 Report Share Posted May 14, 2005 If they can be off 20 percent, how do you know how to do meds accurately. I ask this because I don't take meds yet, but may be starting as early as Monday. I have enough hypos without inaccuracies of the meters. Hugs, Jackie --------------------------------- Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM & more. Check it out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.