Talk:Glucose meter

message: I have a some problems with the section on technology in the Glucose Meter article. In the first line it claims that  "So far all glucose meters have in some way employed the oxidation of glucose to gluconolactone catalyzed by glucose oxidase" - this is essentially not true - the largest selling meters in the USA, the Roche Accuchek, use an alternative to glucose oxidase called glucose dehydrogenase. In shorthand glucose oxidase is often called GOD and glucose dehydrogenase is often called GHD. GHD tends to be about 30 times more sensitive than GOD, weight for weight but is more subject to interfering reactions. 
The last paragraph says "Today's glucometers use a coulometric method. Test strips contain a capillary that sucks up a reproducible amount of blood and an enzyme electrode containing glucose oxidase. The enzyme is reoxidized with an excess of ferrocyanide ion. The total charge passing through the electrode is measured and is proportional to the concentration of glucose in the blood." Their are two approaches to this, the coulometric approach as described (but the alternative using GHD should be described as well) and the alternative method of estimation which is the amperometric approach. As far as I understand it, the amperometric approach (as for example used in the LifeScan One Touch Ultra and the Roche Accuchek) allows a fixed test time. The coulometric approach, as used in the Freestyle, gives a variable test time between 5 and 30 seconds. Also its worth noting that other methods than ferrocyanide are now under development for the next generation of episodic meters. 
Soarhead77 13:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: A comment: I had added the information on hyperosmolar coma to the Glucose meter article.  Although today's glucose meters do not provide specific values beyond their high — which as you indicate is <=600 — the ability to monitor very high blood sugars is important, allowing a patient to take action before they reach the point of of hyperosmolar coma (e.g. prevent the complication).  Compare to the pre-glucometer days ... I've not added the information back, but would appreciate a conversation on the point. —ERcheck @ 11:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Glucose meter]] and nonketotic hyperosmolar coma 

message: My understanding is the mg/dl unit of measurement for blood glucose is unique to the United States; Canada (where I am) and much of the rest of the world use mmol/l.
This is incorrect. The units of measure vary from country to country. There is some regional clustering, but countries vary. You can see the full extent here: http://www.abbottdiabetescare.com.au/diabetes-faq-measure-units.php
The assumption that the US is the only nation to support Mg/dL as the standard is often an artifact of the United State's position not to adopt the metric system.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.214.251.158 (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And that is clearly a systems engineering perspective. I don't mean that in a bad way, but cannot think of any real practical (i.e., clinical) advantage to units which match the degree of precision better as long as people do understand the degree of imprecision. When people get hung up over the imprecision of the meters, I remind them that a meter that accurately told them low, normal, somewhat high, quite high, and off the scale would be just as useful for nearly every significant management decision. That is a bit of an exaggeration, as newer methods of flexible insulin therapy base doses on smaller increments of blood sugar readings. alteripse 03:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mg/dl vs mmol/l 

message: A sentence in the first paragraph under 'History' reads: "It relied on a thin layer of glucose oxidase on an oxygen of oxygen consumed by the enzyme."
This is obviously wrong (what is an "oxygen of oxygen"?), but I don't know what the correct term should be - a "layer of oxygen" seems a bit strange since oxygen is a gas.
Can anybody correct it?
Ynotna......Ynotna (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Typo 

message: I think the future of the glucose meter should be in the main article for blood glucose monitoring, where many forms of BG monitoring are discussed. It should be removed from this article. mbbradford 09:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future

message: hi
this is the first time i have commented in a wikipedia article. Being a reletivly new diabetic (about 2 years) i wanted information regarding the different blood meters out in the market. But finding a source for this information is hard and i think wikipedia would be a great source for this information so could someone with the required knowlage of blood meters give a list of modern glucose meters with specifications and perhaps advantages of each meter to help diabeteics to make a choice of witch one suits them. also a list of links of the companys who make the meters would help people sourcing out more information regarding the products.
thanks 
62.30.81.85 23:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood meter sources 

message: Quite a lot of vets are keen on getting owners to monitor diabetic pets at home - for cats in particular this is hugely useful as cats get a significant hyperglycaemia when stressed.
This site ( http://www.alphatrakmeter.co.uk/alphatrak2-species-specific.html ) says that due to differences in the proportion of glucose contained in the plasma vs red blood cells, human glucometers underestimate cat and dog glucose levels.
I assume then that they measure glucose in plasma + red blood cells and multiply by 0.58 to get the plasma levels?
Only reason I ask is that you'd think that it would be easier to test the glucose levels in the plasma only.  Can anyone shed any light on this (and also explain if there is any reason one can't just multiply the result you get with a human kit by a set factor to get around the discrepancy, or whether this is just a way of putting a big markup on anything "designed for veterinary use")?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jongbray (talk • contribs) 06:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences in humans and other animals 

message: Re: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glucose_meter&oldid=661345652&diff=prev)
The CGM info is obsolete. 
This article should only be about blood meters. Other technologies are summarized and linked in the parent article, Blood_glucose_monitoring. This article shouldn't try to be redundant with that. 
Specifically, the "There are currently three CGMS" part of the section is very obsolete. There are more than 3, and the 3 listed are no longer on the market. The Paradigm RTS is replaced by the 530G with Enlite. The DexCom STS System is several generations obsolete. The currently available CGM from Dexcom is the G4 with Share. Ultimately this is irrelevant details as there's no reason to have this type of info here when CGM is talked about on the parent article. 
The rest of the section isn't as bad, but it gives details on a random few, very old technologies. It would need to be filled in with the (dozens?) of other CGM/meter prototypes to be balanced, and again, that belongs in the other two parent articles.
I suggest the section be reduced to a few sentences about the genre's of prototypes out there, followed by links to the parent articles where details are found. Google_Contact_Lens, Blood_glucose_monitoring, Noninvasive_glucose_monitor via a quick search. 
Perhaps this whole section should be moved to Blood_glucose_monitoring as well, and a link to the section here titled Future Advances would be best. There doesn't seem to be an up to date narrative anywhere on Wikipedia. Most are a list of technology taken off the market.
I don't plan to write an updated section, sorry, but this is excellent array of current info if anyone else would like to. Clicks through the links here [].
There really needs to be a dedicated CGM article.
Habanero-tan (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future section needs major overhaul or deletion 

message: Does anyone know why the FDA allows glucose meter accuracy of plus or minus 20 percent?
Hence a meter used at home by a patient may be -20% of the "real" glucose level while
a meter used in a doctor's office or medical facility may be +20% of the "real" level.
This situation has happened to me and it causes significant confusion between patients
and medical staff. Why can't glucose meters be designed for 10%, 5% or even 1% accuracy?
Obviously, the more accurate the meter and test strips, then the cost of the meter may
be priced higher.  Is this a cost issue or a design limitation?
([User:Telecom_eng])  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telecom eng (talk • contribs) 07:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: = FDA REGULATION LIMIT OF +/- 20% GLUCOSE METER ACCURACY =

message: It seems as if there is some confusion about what exactly is measured in mmol/mol in the UK. According to information from the UK NHS web site ( http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Diabetes-type2/Pages/Diagnosis.aspx ) the glycated hemoglobin is measured in mmol/mol, whereas glucose concentration is measured in mmol/l. In addition, using the unit mmol/mol for blood glucose concentration would require specification of the substances whose amount is given in the denominator. Because the reference given in the article is "UK National Health Service" without any further links, I changed the text and the table. 2A02:8070:D18D:5E00:E187:B071:C34F:5F37 (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unit mmol/mol in the UK unlikely 

message: This picture of the FreeStyle Libre system is misleading. The sensor is not part of the blood glucose monitoring system, but of the so-called "flash glucose monitoring system" (this is similar to continuous glucose monitoring, but lacks real-time data transfer from the sensor to the reader). The FreeStyle Libre system has an integrated port for blood glucose test strips (seen in the picture at the lower edge of the reader), that can be used completely independently from the displayed sensor unit.
I therefore suggest removing the picture BGM twopart.JPG. 2A02:8070:D18D:5E00:E187:B071:C34F:5F37 (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture BGM twopart.JPG of FreeStyle Libre misleading 

message: The article says "home blood glucose meters measure the glucose in whole blood", which is true enough but it then goes on to say that the measurements are of blood rather than plasma glucose. I have seen this stated elsewhere but I have my doubts. I am familiar with the Abbott Freestyle meter and this is always referred by my colleagues to as a blood glucose machine. I could not see how it could measure blood glucose without lysing the red cells in the sample and so I contacted Abbott: they confirmed that their machine measures plasma glucose, albeit on a whole blood sample.
If a meter estimates glucose concentration using a whole blood sample that has not been haemolysed then it must surely measure plasma glucose; given that plasma glucose is the more relevant measurement, why would manufacturers introduce another step into the process in order to obtain an arguably less useful measurement?
Does anyone have certain knowledge on this? Moletrouser (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood or Plasma measurement? 

message: Hi,
I don't see any mention of this fact: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/112261/blue-plaque-team-behind-diabetic-breakthrough/
BR, --Pyrog (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: in the last few months I've seen many ads for a blood glucose measuring device in the form of an electronic watch. I have not seen one in person yet. I saw a reference it said that it works on the basis of infrared and or visible red light, but I think this is a matter that should be addressed in this article. 75.164.53.14 (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  GLUCOSE measuring watches exist.