Identifying Variables Associated With Inaccurate Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose: Proposed Guidelines to Improve Accuracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was conducted to evaluate patients' proficiency in self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). METHODS: Diabetes nurse educators in 4 suburban Minneapolis clinic sites surveyed the SMBG training/cure practices of 280 patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Participant SMBG technique was measured by direct observation. Participants performed a finger puncture and used their own meters to measure the first blood sample. A second sample was measured on the HemoCue B Glucose analyzer, and a third sample was used to measure hemoglobin. The series of tests were then repeated. If either of the 2 glucose tests was more than 15% from the HemoCue value, participants were reeducated about the manufacturer's suggested procedure. RESULTS: Of the 280 participants, 19% had blood glucose test results greater than the 15% limit for meter accuracy. After reeducation, 69% of those who had initially failed achieved acceptable results. The most significant problems were lack of periodic meter technique evaluation, difficulty using wipe meters, incorrect use of control solutions, lack of hand washing even when observed, and unclean meters. CONCLUSIONS: As a result of the study, guidelines were subsequently developed to evaluate meter accuracy in an outpatient setting. Further effort is needed to establish standards for evaluating SMBG.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.039 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".