Clinical Chemistry Link to Randox Laboratories Web Site
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 48: 979-980, 2002;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nattrass, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nattrass, M.
Related Collections
Right arrow Laboratory Management
Right arrow Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine and Test Utilization
Right arrow Endocrinology and Metabolism
(Clinical Chemistry. 2002;48:979-980.)
© 2002 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.

Editorial

Improving Results from Home Blood-Glucose Monitoring: Accuracy and Reliability Require Greater Patient Education as Well as Improved Technology

Malcolm Nattrass1

1 Diabetes Resource Centre, Selly Oak Hospital, University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust, Birmingham B29 6JD, United Kingdom

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

Clinicians often sit in their offices or surgeries and wonder why the home blood-glucose monitoring record prepared by the patient is at odds with the objective measurement of control given by hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). In this issue of the Journal, Skeie et al. (1) point to one possible facet of this discrepancy. They suggest that the performance of instruments for blood-glucose monitoring is worse in the hands of the patients than in the hands of trained laboratory personnel. Furthermore, few if any of the instruments, when used by the patients, gave performances that would meet established guidelines for quality of results (2)(3).

The final decade of the last century was crucial for diabetes management. Evidence from the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (4) in the US, which involved type 1 diabetic patients, and from the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study in the United Kingdom, which involved type 2 diabetic patients (5)(6), confirmed the long-held, but previously somewhat unsubstantiated, view that control of blood glucose was important in delaying the onset or preventing the development of complications. Obtaining and maintaining euglycemia in diabetic patients, however, remains an elusive goal for many, but importantly, the evidence suggests that improving outcome is a continuum, i.e., benefit . . . [Full Text of this Article]






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.