» Articles » PMID: 36465855

Evaluation of Three Human-Use Glucometers for Blood Glucose Measurement in Dogs

Overview
Journal Vet Med Int
Publisher Wiley
Date 2022 Dec 5
PMID 36465855
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Glucometers or portable sensors are used to quickly measure blood glucose at low cost. They are used in veterinary practice and by guardians to monitor diseases that require, as in diabetes mellitus. However, not all commercially available glucometers (human and veterinary) are suitable for this purpose. . The objective was to evaluate the analytical and clinical precision of three human-use portable glucometers. . This study evaluated 115 samples in three glycemic ranges (hypoglycemia, normoglycemia, and hyperglycemia) from 82 dogs recruited from veterinary services.

Methods: The portable glucometers are the FreeStyle Freedom Lite®, FreeStyle Optium Neo®, and On Call Plus® models. Glucometer results were compared with the enzymatic colorimetric glucose oxidase laboratory reference method. Using descriptive and comparative statistical analysis, there were correlations between these devices and the standard method, ISO 15197 : 2003 and ISO 15197 : 2013 standards, and error grid analysis.

Results: Only the Freedom Lite® device observed a statistical difference when compared with the reference method. Despite the underestimated glucose concentrations assessed with humane devices, all three tested herein showed a positive coefficient. However, none of these achieved all ISO guidelines. . Although there was wide use of portable humane devices for dog glucose measurements on routine, the results are generally inferior when compared to the reference method. The FreeStyle Optium Neo® glucometer obtained the best result and is therefore the best option among the glucometers evaluated; however, for the first attendance on veterinary routine, all three glucometers had a satisfactory glucose measurement until the reference method availability.

Citing Articles

Impact on result interpretation of correct and incorrect selection of veterinary glucometer canine and feline settings.

Pena L, Flatland B, Behrend E, Arzon-Pereira A, Cole J, Raz M J Vet Diagn Invest. 2023; 35(6):710-720.

PMID: 37608786 PMC: 10621561. DOI: 10.1177/10406387231195386.

References
1.
Bland J, Altman D . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1(8476):307-10. View

2.
Clarke W, Cox D, Gonder-Frederick L, Carter W, POHL S . Evaluating clinical accuracy of systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose. Diabetes Care. 1987; 10(5):622-8. DOI: 10.2337/diacare.10.5.622. View

3.
Brito-Casillas Y, Figueirinhas P, Wiebe J, Lopez-Rios L, Perez-Barreto D, Melian C . ISO-based assessment of accuracy and precision of glucose meters in dogs. J Vet Intern Med. 2014; 28(5):1405-13. PMC: 4895580. DOI: 10.1111/jvim.12397. View

4.
Parkes J, Slatin S, Pardo S, Ginsberg B . A new consensus error grid to evaluate the clinical significance of inaccuracies in the measurement of blood glucose. Diabetes Care. 2000; 23(8):1143-8. DOI: 10.2337/diacare.23.8.1143. View

5.
Wess G, Reusch C . Evaluation of five portable blood glucose meters for use in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2000; 216(2):203-9. DOI: 10.2460/javma.2000.216.203. View