Comparing patient generated blood glucose diary records with meter memory in type 2 diabetes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aim: To assess agreement between meter and diary self monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG)records, over a year, in a sample of patients with type 2 diabetes.Methods: Meter and diary records were available, for 95 individuals, who took part in theEfficacy of self monitoring of blood glucose in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetesstudy.Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to explore the relationships between the typesof error. Maximum likelihood estimation was used to explore changes over time through astructural equation modelling approach. Paired samples t-tests were used to determine ifthe presence of errors led to a significant difference between the mean diary and meterSMBG concentrations or coefficients of variation. Multiple regression was used to explorepossible predictors of the error indices.Results: Mean over-reporting, under-reporting, concordance and overall reliability were8.4%, 10.0%, 83.5% and 71.3%, respectively. The first week of monitoring had significantlymore under-reporting, over-reporting and less concordance and overall reliability thansubsequent weeks. The majority of concordance errors were not clinically significant. Thosethat were, tended to occur during the first three months of monitoring. Participants’ at onetrial site were significantly more likely to have recording errors than those at the largest site.Conclusions: Error levels were similar to those described previously in type 1 diabetes andthere was a suggestion of an initial learning curve for record keeping. For some individualsdiary records would not be considered acceptable if held to the same standards as bloodglucose meters.
LanguageEnglish
Pages358-362
Number of pages5
JournalDiabetes Research and Clinical Practice
Volume104
Issue number3
Early online date11 Mar 2014
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2014

Fingerprint

Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Blood Glucose
Learning Curve
Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

Keywords

  • Blood glucose
  • Type 2 diabetes
  • Measurement
  • Validity
  • Medical records

Cite this

@article{14d7d0f80d14474d980397d4e89dab50,
title = "Comparing patient generated blood glucose diary records with meter memory in type 2 diabetes",
abstract = "Aim: To assess agreement between meter and diary self monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG)records, over a year, in a sample of patients with type 2 diabetes.Methods: Meter and diary records were available, for 95 individuals, who took part in theEfficacy of self monitoring of blood glucose in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetesstudy.Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to explore the relationships between the typesof error. Maximum likelihood estimation was used to explore changes over time through astructural equation modelling approach. Paired samples t-tests were used to determine ifthe presence of errors led to a significant difference between the mean diary and meterSMBG concentrations or coefficients of variation. Multiple regression was used to explorepossible predictors of the error indices.Results: Mean over-reporting, under-reporting, concordance and overall reliability were8.4{\%}, 10.0{\%}, 83.5{\%} and 71.3{\%}, respectively. The first week of monitoring had significantlymore under-reporting, over-reporting and less concordance and overall reliability thansubsequent weeks. The majority of concordance errors were not clinically significant. Thosethat were, tended to occur during the first three months of monitoring. Participants’ at onetrial site were significantly more likely to have recording errors than those at the largest site.Conclusions: Error levels were similar to those described previously in type 1 diabetes andthere was a suggestion of an initial learning curve for record keeping. For some individualsdiary records would not be considered acceptable if held to the same standards as bloodglucose meters.",
keywords = "Blood glucose, Type 2 diabetes, Measurement, Validity, Medical records",
author = "Joanne Given and Maurice O'Kane and Vivien Coates and Adrian Moore and Brendan Bunting",
year = "2014",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1016/j.diabres.2014.03.003",
language = "English",
volume = "104",
pages = "358--362",
journal = "Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice",
issn = "0168-8227",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing patient generated blood glucose diary records with meter memory in type 2 diabetes

AU - Given, Joanne

AU - O'Kane, Maurice

AU - Coates, Vivien

AU - Moore, Adrian

AU - Bunting, Brendan

PY - 2014/6

Y1 - 2014/6

N2 - Aim: To assess agreement between meter and diary self monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG)records, over a year, in a sample of patients with type 2 diabetes.Methods: Meter and diary records were available, for 95 individuals, who took part in theEfficacy of self monitoring of blood glucose in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetesstudy.Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to explore the relationships between the typesof error. Maximum likelihood estimation was used to explore changes over time through astructural equation modelling approach. Paired samples t-tests were used to determine ifthe presence of errors led to a significant difference between the mean diary and meterSMBG concentrations or coefficients of variation. Multiple regression was used to explorepossible predictors of the error indices.Results: Mean over-reporting, under-reporting, concordance and overall reliability were8.4%, 10.0%, 83.5% and 71.3%, respectively. The first week of monitoring had significantlymore under-reporting, over-reporting and less concordance and overall reliability thansubsequent weeks. The majority of concordance errors were not clinically significant. Thosethat were, tended to occur during the first three months of monitoring. Participants’ at onetrial site were significantly more likely to have recording errors than those at the largest site.Conclusions: Error levels were similar to those described previously in type 1 diabetes andthere was a suggestion of an initial learning curve for record keeping. For some individualsdiary records would not be considered acceptable if held to the same standards as bloodglucose meters.

AB - Aim: To assess agreement between meter and diary self monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG)records, over a year, in a sample of patients with type 2 diabetes.Methods: Meter and diary records were available, for 95 individuals, who took part in theEfficacy of self monitoring of blood glucose in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetesstudy.Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to explore the relationships between the typesof error. Maximum likelihood estimation was used to explore changes over time through astructural equation modelling approach. Paired samples t-tests were used to determine ifthe presence of errors led to a significant difference between the mean diary and meterSMBG concentrations or coefficients of variation. Multiple regression was used to explorepossible predictors of the error indices.Results: Mean over-reporting, under-reporting, concordance and overall reliability were8.4%, 10.0%, 83.5% and 71.3%, respectively. The first week of monitoring had significantlymore under-reporting, over-reporting and less concordance and overall reliability thansubsequent weeks. The majority of concordance errors were not clinically significant. Thosethat were, tended to occur during the first three months of monitoring. Participants’ at onetrial site were significantly more likely to have recording errors than those at the largest site.Conclusions: Error levels were similar to those described previously in type 1 diabetes andthere was a suggestion of an initial learning curve for record keeping. For some individualsdiary records would not be considered acceptable if held to the same standards as bloodglucose meters.

KW - Blood glucose

KW - Type 2 diabetes

KW - Measurement

KW - Validity

KW - Medical records

UR - https://pure.ulster.ac.uk/en/searchAll/index/?search=11458127&pageSize=25&showAdvanced=false&allConcepts=true&inferConcepts=true&searchBy=PartOfNameOrTitle

U2 - 10.1016/j.diabres.2014.03.003

DO - 10.1016/j.diabres.2014.03.003

M3 - Article

VL - 104

SP - 358

EP - 362

JO - Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice

T2 - Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice

JF - Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice

SN - 0168-8227

IS - 3

ER -