Jump to content

Blood glucose monitoring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Dextro stick)

"SMBG" redirects here. For the ICAO code, see Bakhuys Airstrip.
Blood glucose monitoring
Blood glucose testing, showing the size of blood drop required by most modern meters.
MeSHD015190

Blood glucose monitoring is the use of a glucose meter for testing the concentration of glucose in the blood (glycemia). Particularly important in diabetes management, a blood glucose test is typically performed by piercing the skin (typically, via fingerstick) to draw blood, then applying the blood to a chemically active disposable 'test-strip'. The other main option is continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Different manufacturers use different technology, but most systems measure an electrical characteristic and use this to determine the glucose level in the blood. Skin-prick methods measure capillary blood glucose (i.e., the level found in capillary blood), whereas CGM correlates interstitial fluid glucose level to blood glucose level. Measurements may occur after fasting or at random nonfasting intervals (random glucose tests), each of which informs diagnosis or monitoring in different ways.

Healthcare professionals advise patients with diabetes mellitus on the appropriate monitoring regimen for their condition. Most people with type 2 diabetes test at least once per day. The Mayo Clinic generally recommends that diabetics who use insulin (all type 1 diabetics and many type 2 diabetics) test their blood sugar more often (4–8 times per day for type 1 diabetics, 2 or more times per day for type 2 diabetics),[1] both to assess the effectiveness of their prior insulin dose and to help determine their next insulin dose.

Purpose

[edit]

Blood glucose monitoring reveals individual patterns of blood glucose changes, and helps in the planning of meals, activities, and at what time of day to take medications.[2]

Also, testing allows for a quick response to high blood sugar (hyperglycemia) or low blood sugar (hypoglycemia). This might include diet adjustments, exercise, and insulin (as instructed by the health care provider).[2]

Blood glucose meters

[edit]
Main article: Glucose meter
Four generations of blood glucose meter, c. 1991–2005. Sample sizes vary from 30 to 0.3 μl. Test times vary from 5 seconds to 2 minutes (modern meters typically require less than 15 seconds).

A blood glucose meter is an electronic device for measuring the blood glucose level. A relatively small drop of blood is placed on a disposable test strip which interfaces with a digital meter. Within several seconds, the level of blood glucose will be shown on the digital display. Needing only a small drop of blood for the meter means that the time and effort required for testing are reduced and the compliance of diabetic people to their testing regimens is improved significantly. Blood glucose meters provide results in various units such as eAG (mg/dL) and eAG (mmol/L), and may also estimate A1C levels. These measurements can aid in classifying blood glucose levels as normal, prediabetic, or diabetic, facilitating effective diabetes management for users. While some models offer interpretative features that indicate the health status based on these results, not all meters provide this functionality, focusing instead on providing raw glucose measurements. Users of blood glucose meters without interpretative features can utilize online calculators to determine their blood glucose status based on measured values. [3] The cost of using blood glucose meters is believed to be a cost-benefit relative to the avoided medical costs of the complications of diabetes.[4]

Recent advances include:[5]

  • alternative site testing, the use of blood drops from places other than the fingertips, usually the palm or forearm. This alternative site testing uses the same test strips and meter, is practically pain-free, and gives the fingertips a needed break if they become sore. The disadvantage of this technique is that there is usually less blood flow to alternative sites, which prevents the reading from being accurate when the blood sugar level is changing.
  • no coding systems. Older systems required 'coding' of the strips to the meter. This carried a risk of 'miscoding', which can lead to inaccurate results. Two approaches have resulted in systems that no longer require coding. Some systems are 'autocoded', where technology is used to code each strip to the meter. And some are manufactured to a 'single code', thereby avoiding the risk of miscoding.
  • multi-test systems. Some systems use a cartridge or a disc containing multiple test strips. This has the advantage that the user doesn't have to load individual strips each time, which is convenient and can enable quicker testing.
  • downloadable meters. Most newer systems come with software that allows the user to download meter results to a computer. This information can then be used, together with health care professional guidance, to enhance and improve diabetes management. The meters usually require a connection cable, unless they are designed to work wirelessly with an insulin pump, are designed to plug directly into the computer, or use a radio (Bluetooth, for example) or infrared connection.

Continuous glucose monitoring

[edit]
See also: Flash glucose monitoring

A continuous glucose monitor determines glucose levels on a continuous basis (every few minutes).[6] A typical system consists of:

  • a disposable glucose sensor placed just under the skin, which is worn for a few days until replacement
  • a link from the sensor to a non-implanted transmitter which communicates to a radio receiver
  • an electronic receiver is worn like a pager (or insulin pump) that displays glucose levels with nearly continuous updates, as well as monitors rising and falling trends.[7]

Continuous glucose monitors measure the concentration of glucose in a sample of interstitial fluid. Shortcomings of CGM systems due to this fact are:

  • continuous systems must be calibrated with a traditional blood glucose measurement (using current technology) and therefore require both the CGM system and occasional "fingerstick"
  • glucose levels in interstitial fluid lag behind blood glucose values

Patients, therefore, require traditional fingerstick measurements for calibration (typically twice per day) and are often advised to use fingerstick measurements to confirm hypo- or hyperglycemia before taking corrective action.

The lag time discussed above has been reported to be about 5 minutes.[8][9][10] Anecdotally, some users of the various systems report lag times of up to 10–15 minutes. This lag time is insignificant when blood sugar levels are relatively consistent. However, blood sugar levels, when changing rapidly, may read in the normal range on a CGM system while in reality the patient is already experiencing symptoms of an out-of-range blood glucose value and may require treatment. Patients using CGM are therefore advised to consider both the absolute value of the blood glucose level given by the system as well as any trend in the blood glucose levels. For example, a patient using CGM with a blood glucose of 100 mg/dl on their CGM system might take no action if their blood glucose has been consistent for several readings, while a patient with the same blood glucose level but whose blood glucose has been dropping steeply in a short period of time might be advised to perform a fingerstick test to check for hypoglycemia.[citation needed]

Continuous monitoring allows examination of how the blood glucose level reacts to insulin, exercise, food, and other factors. The additional data can be useful for setting correct insulin dosing ratios for food intake and correction of hyperglycemia. Monitoring during periods when blood glucose levels are not typically checked (e.g. overnight) can help to identify problems in insulin dosing (such as basal levels for insulin pump users or long-acting insulin levels for patients taking injections). Monitors may also be equipped with alarms to alert patients of hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia so that a patient can take corrective action(s) (after fingerstick testing, if necessary) even in cases where they do not feel symptoms of either condition. While the technology has its limitations, studies have demonstrated that patients with continuous sensors experience a smaller number of hyperglycemic and hypoglycemic events, a reduction in their glycated hemoglobin levels and a decrease in glycemic variability.[11][12][13][14][15] Compared to intermittent testing, it is likely to help reduce hypertensive complications during pregnancy.[16] In a recent systematic review with meta-analysis about glycaemia monitoring in critical patients[17] who are haemodynamically unstable and require intensive monitoring of glycaemia it concluded that should be undertaken using arterial blood samples and POC blood gas analysers, as this is more reliable and is not affected by the variability of different confusion factors. Determining glycaemia in capillary blood using glucometry may be suitable in stable patients or when close monitoring of glycaemia is not required.

Continuous blood glucose monitoring is not automatically covered by health insurance in the United States in the same way that most other diabetic supplies are covered (e.g. standard glucose testing supplies, insulin, and insulin pumps). However, an increasing number of insurance companies do cover continuous glucose monitoring supplies (both the receiver and disposable sensors) on a case-by-case basis if the patient and doctor show a specific need. The lack of insurance coverage is exacerbated by the fact that disposable sensors must be frequently replaced. Some sensors have been U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for 7- and 3-day use, (although some patients wear sensors for longer than the recommended period) and the receiving meters likewise have finite lifetimes (less than 2 years and as little as 6 months). This is one factor in the slow uptake in the use of sensors that have been marketed in the United States.[citation needed]

The principles, history and recent developments of operation of electrochemical glucose biosensors are discussed in a chemical review by Joseph Wang.[18]

Glucose sensing bio-implants

[edit]

Investigations on the use of test strips have shown that the required self-injury acts as a psychological barrier restraining the patients from sufficient glucose control.[19] As a result, secondary diseases are caused by excessive glucose levels. A significant improvement of diabetes therapy might be achieved with an implantable sensor that would continuously monitor blood sugar levels within the body and transmit the measured data outside. The burden of regular blood testing would be taken from the patient, who would instead follow the course of their glucose levels on an intelligent device like a laptop or a smartphone.[citation needed]

Glucose concentrations do not necessarily have to be measured in blood vessels, but may also be determined in the interstitial fluid, where the same levels prevail – with a time lag of a few minutes – due to its connection with the capillary system. However, the enzymatic glucose detection scheme used in single-use test strips is not directly suitable for implants. One main problem is caused by the varying supply of oxygen, by which glucose is converted to glucono lactone and H2O2 by glucose oxidase. Since the implantation of a sensor into the body is accompanied by growth of encapsulation tissue,[20] the diffusion of oxygen to the reaction zone is continuously diminished. This decreasing oxygen availability causes the sensor reading to drift, requiring frequent re-calibration using finger-sticks and test strips.

One approach to achieving long-term glucose sensing is to measure and compensate for the changing local oxygen concentration.[21] Other approaches replace the troublesome glucose oxidase reaction with a reversible sensing reaction, known as an affinity assay. This scheme was originally put forward by Schultz & Sims in 1978.[22][23] A number of different affinity assays have been investigated,[24][25][26] with fluorescent assays proving most common.[27][28][29] MEMS technology has recently allowed for smaller and more convenient alternatives to fluorescent detection, via measurement of viscosity.[30] Investigation of affinity-based sensors has shown that encapsulation by body tissue does not cause a drift of the sensor signal, but only a time lag of the signal compared to the direct measurement in blood.[31] A new implantable continuous glucose monitor based on affinity principles and fluorescence detection is the Eversense device manufactured by Senseonics Inc. This device has been approved by the FDA for 90 day implantation.[32][33]

Non-invasive technologies

[edit]
Main article: Noninvasive glucose monitor

Some new technologies to monitor blood glucose levels will not require access to blood to read the glucose level. Non-invasive technologies include microwave/RF sensing,[34][35] near IR detection,[36] ultrasound[37] and dielectric spectroscopy.[38] These may free the person with diabetes from finger sticks to supply the drop of blood for blood glucose analysis.[citation needed]

Most[citation needed] of the non-invasive methods under development are continuous glucose monitoring methods and offer the advantage of providing additional information to the subject between the conventional finger stick, blood glucose measurements, and overtime periods where no finger stick measurements are available (i.e. while the subject is sleeping).

Effectiveness

[edit]

For patients with diabetes mellitus type 2, the importance of monitoring and the optimal frequency of monitoring are not clear. A 2011 study found no evidence that blood glucose monitoring leads to better patient outcomes in actual practice.[39] Randomized controlled trials found that self-monitoring of blood glucose did not improve glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) among "reasonably well controlled non-insulin treated patients with type 2 diabetes"[40] or lead to significant changes in quality of life.[41] However a recent meta-analysis of 47 randomized controlled trials encompassing 7677 patients showed that self-care management intervention improves glycemic control in diabetics, with an estimated 0.36% (95% CI, 0.21–0.51) reduction in their glycated hemoglobin values.[42] Furthermore, a recent study showed that patients described as being "Uncontrolled Diabetics" (defined in this study by HbA1C levels >8%) showed a statistically significant decrease in the HbA1C levels after a 90-day period of seven-point self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) with a relative risk reduction (RRR) of 0.18% (95% CI, 0.86–2.64%, p<.001).[43] Regardless of lab values or other numerical parameters, the purpose of the clinician is to improve quality of life and patient outcomes in diabetic patients. A recent study included 12 randomized controlled trials and evaluated outcomes in 3259 patients. The authors concluded through a qualitative analysis that SMBG on quality of life showed no effect on patient satisfaction or the patients' health-related quality of life. Furthermore, the same study identified that patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus diagnosed greater than one year prior to initiation of SMBG, who were not on insulin, experienced a statistically significant reduction in their HbA1C of 0.3% (95% CI, -0.4 – -0.1) at six months follow up, but a statistically insignificant reduction of 0.1% (95% CI, -0.3 – 0.04) at twelve months follow up. Conversely, newly diagnosed patients experienced a statistically significant reduction of 0.5% (95% CI, -0.9 – -0.1) at 12 months follow up.[44] A recent study found that a treatment strategy of intensively lowering blood sugar levels (below 6%) in patients with additional cardiovascular disease risk factors poses more harm than benefit.[45] For type 2 diabetics who are not on insulin, exercise and diet are the best tools.[citation needed] Blood glucose monitoring is, in that case, simply a tool to evaluate the success of diet and exercise. Insulin-dependent type 2 diabetics do not need to monitor their blood sugar as frequently as type 1 diabetics.[46] In a recent systematic review with meta-analysis, about glycaemia monitoring in critical patients who are haemodynamically unstable and require intensive monitoring of glycaemia it concluded that should be undertaken using arterial blood samples and POC blood gas analysers, as this is more reliable and is not affected by the variability of different confusion factors. Determining glycaemia in capillary blood using glucometry may be suitable in stable patients or when close monitoring of glycaemia is not required.

Recommendations

[edit]

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), UK released updated diabetes recommendations on 30 May 2008, which recommend that self-monitoring of plasma glucose levels for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes must be integrated into a structured self-management education process.[47] The recommendations have been updated in August 2015 for children and young adults with type 1 diabetes.[48]

The American Diabetes Association (ADA), which produces guidelines for diabetes care and clinical practice recommendations, recently updated its "Standards of Medical Care" in January 2019 to acknowledge that routine self-monitoring of blood glucose in people who are not using insulin is of limited additional clinical benefit.[49] A randomized controlled trial evaluated once-daily self-monitoring that included tailored patient messaging and did not show that this strategy led to significant changes in A1C after a year.[41]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "Blood sugar testing: Why, when and how". mayoclinic.org. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Retrieved 27 April 2017.
  2. ^ a b MedlinePlus > Blood glucose monitoring Archived 22 January 2010 at the Wayback Machine Update Date: 6/17/2008. Updated by: Elizabeth H. Holt, MD, PhD. In turn citing: American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes" Diabetes Care 2008; 31: S12–54.
  3. ^ "Blood Sugar Calculator by Age and Meal Type". Sugar Defender. 30 May 2024. Retrieved 16 June 2024.
  4. ^ Li R, Zhang P, Barker LE, Chowdhury FM, Zhang X (August 2010). "Cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent and control diabetes mellitus: a systematic review". Diabetes Care. 33 (8): 1872–94. doi:10.2337/dc10-0843. PMC 2909081. PMID 20668156.
  5. ^ Seery C (15 January 2019). "Continuous Glucose Monitoring - What is CGM, Control, How To Get a CGM". Diabetes. Retrieved 18 June 2024.
  6. ^ Aussedat B, Dupire-Angel M, Gifford R, Klein JC, Wilson GS, Reach G (April 2000). "Interstitial glucose concentration and glycemia: implications for continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring". American Journal of Physiology. Endocrinology and Metabolism. 278 (4): E716-28. doi:10.1152/ajpendo.2000.278.4.e716. PMID 10751207. S2CID 19509504.
  7. ^ "Continuous Glucose Monitoring | NIDDK". National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Retrieved 11 January 2023.
  8. ^ Wentholt IM, Vollebregt MA, Hart AA, Hoekstra JB, DeVries JH (December 2005). "Comparison of a needle-type and a microdialysis continuous glucose monitor in type 1 diabetic patients". Diabetes Care. 28 (12): 2871–6. doi:10.2337/diacare.28.12.2871. PMID 16306547.
  9. ^ Steil GM, Rebrin K, Mastrototaro J, Bernaba B, Saad MF (2003). "Determination of plasma glucose during rapid glucose excursions with a subcutaneous glucose sensor". Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics. 5 (1): 27–31. doi:10.1089/152091503763816436. PMID 12725704.
  10. ^ Wilhelm B, Forst S, Weber MM, Larbig M, Pfützner A, Forst T (April 2006). "Evaluation of CGMS during rapid blood glucose changes in patients with type 1 diabetes". Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics. 8 (2): 146–55. doi:10.1089/dia.2006.8.146. PMID 16734545.
  11. ^ Hirsch IB (August 2015). "Glycemic Variability and Diabetes Complications: Does It Matter? Of Course It Does!". Diabetes Care. 38 (8): 1610–1614. doi:10.2337/dc14-2898. ISSN 0149-5992. PMID 26207054.
  12. ^ Garg S, Zisser H, Schwartz S, Bailey T, Kaplan R, Ellis S, Jovanovic L (January 2006). "Improvement in glycemic excursions with a transcutaneous, real-time continuous glucose sensor: a randomized controlled trial". Diabetes Care. 29 (1): 44–50. doi:10.2337/diacare.29.01.06.dc05-1686. PMID 16373894.
  13. ^ Deiss D, Bolinder J, Riveline JP, Battelino T, Bosi E, Tubiana-Rufi N, Kerr D, Phillip M (December 2006). "Improved glycemic control in poorly controlled patients with type 1 diabetes using real-time continuous glucose monitoring". Diabetes Care. 29 (12): 2730–2. doi:10.2337/dc06-1134. PMID 17130215. S2CID 27141532.
  14. ^ Mastrototaro JJ, Cooper KW, Soundararajan G, Sanders JB, Shah RV (September–October 2006). "Clinical experience with an integrated continuous glucose sensor/insulin pump platform: A feasibility study". Advances in Therapy. 23 (5): 725–732. doi:10.1007/BF02850312. PMID 17142207. S2CID 34836239.
  15. ^ Garg S, Jovanovic L (December 2006). "Relationship of fasting and hourly blood glucose levels to HbA1c values: safety, accuracy, and improvements in glucose profiles obtained using a 7-day continuous glucose sensor". Diabetes Care. 29 (12): 2644–9. doi:10.2337/dc06-1361. PMID 17130198.
  16. ^ Jones LV, Ray A, Moy FM, Buckley BS, et al. (Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group) (May 2019). "Techniques of monitoring blood glucose during pregnancy for women with pre-existing diabetes". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 5 (6): CD009613. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009613.pub4. PMC 6532756. PMID 31120549.
  17. ^ Arias-Rivera S (2024). "Blood glucose monitoring in critically ill adult patients: type of sample and method of analysis. Systematic review and meta-analysis". Enfermeria Intensiva. 35 (1): 45–72. doi:10.1016/j.enfie.2023.02.002. PMID 37474427. This article incorporates text from this source, which is available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
  18. ^ Wang J (February 2008). "Electrochemical glucose biosensors". Chemical Reviews. 108 (2): 814–25. doi:10.1021/cr068123a. PMID 18154363. S2CID 9105453.
  19. ^ Reach G (2015). "The Mental Mechanisms of Patient Adherence to Long-Term Therapies". Philosophy and Medicine. Philosophy and Medicine 118. 118. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-12265-6. ISBN 978-3-319-12264-9. ISSN 0376-7418. S2CID 79106629.
  20. ^ Frost M, Meyerhoff ME (November 2006). "In vivo chemical sensors: tackling biocompatibility". Analytical Chemistry. 78 (21): 7370–7. doi:10.1021/ac069475k. PMID 17128516.
  21. ^ Gough DA, Kumosa LS, Routh TL, Lin JT, Lucisano JY (July 2010). "Function of an implanted tissue glucose sensor for more than 1 year in animals". Science Translational Medicine. 2 (42): 42ra53. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3001148. PMC 4528300. PMID 20668297.
  22. ^ Schultz JS, Mansouri S, Goldstein IJ (1979). "Affinity sensor: a new technique for developing implantable sensors for glucose and other metabolites". Diabetes Care. 5 (3): 245–53. doi:10.2337/diacare.5.3.245. PMID 6184210. S2CID 20186661.
  23. ^ Schultz J, Sims G (1979). "Affinity sensors for individual metabolites". Biotechnol Bioeng Symp. 9 (9): 65–71. PMID 94999.
  24. ^ Ballerstädt R, Ehwald R (1994). "Suitability of aqueous dispersions of dextran and Concanavalin A for glucose sensing in different variants of the affinity sensor". Biosens. Bioelectron. 9 (8): 557–67. doi:10.1016/0956-5663(94)80048-0.
  25. ^ Zhao Y, Li S, Davidson A, Yang B, Wang Q, Lin Q (2007). "A MEMS viscometric sensor for continuous glucose monitoring". J. Micromech. Microeng. 17 (12): 2528–37. Bibcode:2007JMiMi..17.2528Z. doi:10.1088/0960-1317/17/12/020. S2CID 17572337.
  26. ^ Ballerstadt R, Kholodnykh A, Evans C, Boretsky A, Motamedi M, Gowda A, McNichols R (September 2007). "Affinity-based turbidity sensor for glucose monitoring by optical coherence tomography: toward the development of an implantable sensor". Analytical Chemistry. 79 (18): 6965–74. doi:10.1021/ac0707434. PMID 17702528.
  27. ^ Meadows DL, Schultz JS (1993). "Design, manufacture and characterization of an optical fiber glucose affinity sensor based on an homogeneous fluorescence energy transfer assay system" (PDF). Anal. Chim. Acta. 280 (1): 21–30. Bibcode:1993AcAC..280...21M. doi:10.1016/0003-2670(93)80236-E. hdl:2027.42/30643.
  28. ^ Ballerstadt R, Polak A, Beuhler A, Frye J (March 2004). "In vitro long-term performance study of a near-infrared fluorescence affinity sensor for glucose monitoring". Biosensors & Bioelectronics. 19 (8): 905–14. doi:10.1016/j.bios.2003.08.019. PMID 15128110.
  29. ^ Nielsen JK, Christiansen JS, Kristensen JS, Toft HO, Hansen LL, Aasmul S, Gregorius K (January 2009). "Clinical evaluation of a transcutaneous interrogated fluorescence lifetime-based microsensor for continuous glucose reading". Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology. 3 (1): 98–109. doi:10.1177/193229680900300111. PMC 2769858. PMID 20046654.
  30. ^ Birkholz M, Ehwald KE, Basmer T, Kulse P, Reich C, Drews J, Genschow D, Haak U, Marschmeyer S, Matthus E, Schulz K, Wolansky D, Winkler W, Guschauski T, Ehwald R (June 2013). "Sensing glucose concentrations at GHz frequencies with a fully embedded Biomicro-electromechanical system (BioMEMS)". Journal of Applied Physics. 113 (24): 244904–244904–8. Bibcode:2013JAP...113x4904B. doi:10.1063/1.4811351. PMC 3977869. PMID 25332510.
  31. ^ Diem P, Kalt L, Haueter U, Krinelke L, Fajfr R, Reihl B, Beyer U (December 2004). "Clinical performance of a continuous viscometric affinity sensor for glucose". Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics. 6 (6): 790–9. doi:10.1089/dia.2004.6.790. PMID 15684631.
  32. ^ Kropff J, Choudhary P, Neupane S, Barnard K, Bain SC, Kapitza C, et al. (January 2017). "Accuracy and Longevity of an Implantable Continuous Glucose Sensor in the PRECISE Study: A 180-Day, Prospective, Multicenter, Pivotal Trial". Diabetes Care. 40 (1): 63–68. doi:10.2337/dc16-1525. PMID 27815290.
  33. ^ "How a US Patent Protects You, and Does Your Project Qualify for a US Patent?". World Patent Information. 19 (3): 239. September 1997. doi:10.1016/s0172-2190(97)90099-5. ISSN 0172-2190.
  34. ^ Huang SY, Yoshida Y, Inda AJ, Xavier CX, Mu WC, Meng YS, Yu W (15 January 2019). "Microstrip Line - based Glucose Sensor for Non-invasive Continuous Monitoring using Main Field for Sensing and Multi-variable Crosschecking". IEEE Sensors Journal. 19 (2): 535–547. Bibcode:2019ISenJ..19..535H. doi:10.1109/JSEN.2018.2877691. S2CID 56719208.
  35. ^ Yu W, Huang SY (October 2018). "T−shaped Patterned Microstrip Line for Non-invasive Continuous Glucose Sensing". IEEE Microwave and Wireless Components Letters. 28 (10): 942–944. doi:10.1109/LMWC.2018.2861565. S2CID 52932653.
  36. ^ "Non-invasive blood glucose monitoring using near-infrared spectroscopy". 16 October 2013.
  37. ^ "Ultrasound could provide lancet-less method for measuring blood glucose". Diabets.co.uk. Diabetes Digital Media Ltd. November 2013. Retrieved 27 April 2017.
  38. ^ Donimirska M. "Non-Invasive Blood Glucose Monitoring Devices Market Volume Analysis, size, share and Key Trends 2017–2027". military-technologies.net. BlackBird. Archived from the original on 28 April 2017. Retrieved 27 April 2017.
  39. ^ Sidorenkov G, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, de Zeeuw D, Bilo H, Denig P (June 2011). "Review: relation between quality-of-care indicators for diabetes and patient outcomes: a systematic literature review" (PDF). Medical Care Research and Review. 68 (3): 263–89. doi:10.1177/1077558710394200. hdl:11370/e1e98ce8-dc04-4fa2-b068-eed2f639b0c3. PMID 21536606. S2CID 22438556.
  40. ^ Farmer A, Wade A, Goyder E, Yudkin P, French D, Craven A, Holman R, Kinmonth AL, Neil A (July 2007). "Impact of self monitoring of blood glucose in the management of patients with non-insulin treated diabetes: open parallel group randomised trial". BMJ. 335 (7611): 132. doi:10.1136/bmj.39247.447431.BE. PMC 1925177. PMID 17591623.
  41. ^ a b Young LA, Buse JB, Weaver MA, Vu MB, Mitchell CM, Blakeney T, Grimm K, Rees J, Niblock F, Donahue KE (July 2017). "Glucose Self-monitoring in Non-Insulin-Treated Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in Primary Care Settings: A Randomized Trial". JAMA Internal Medicine. 177 (7): 920–929. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.1233. PMC 5818811. PMID 28600913.
  42. ^ Minet L, Møller S, Vach W, Wagner L, Henriksen JE (July 2010). "Mediating the effect of self-care management intervention in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of 47 randomised controlled trials". Patient Education and Counseling. 80 (1): 29–41. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.033. PMID 19906503.
  43. ^ Khamseh ME, Ansari M, Malek M, Shafiee G, Baradaran H (March 2011). "Effects of a structured self-monitoring of blood glucose method on patient self-management behavior and metabolic outcomes in type 2 diabetes mellitus". Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology. 5 (2): 388–93. doi:10.1177/193229681100500228. PMC 3125933. PMID 21527110.
  44. ^ Malanda UL, Welschen LM, Riphagen II, Dekker JM, Nijpels G, Bot SD (January 2012). Malanda UL (ed.). "Self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are not using insulin" (PDF). The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 1: CD005060. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005060.pub3. hdl:1871/48558. PMID 22258959. S2CID 205176936.
  45. ^ Gerstein HC, Miller ME, Byington RP, Goff DC, Bigger JT, Buse JB, Cushman WC, Genuth S, Ismail-Beigi F, Grimm RH, Probstfield JL, Simons-Morton DG, Friedewald WT (June 2008). "Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes". The New England Journal of Medicine. 358 (24): 2545–59. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0802743. PMC 4551392. PMID 18539917.
  46. ^ "My Site - Chapter 9: Monitoring Glycemic Control". guidelines.diabetes.ca. Archived from the original on 12 April 2022. Retrieved 25 January 2021.
  47. ^ "Find guidance". NICE.
  48. ^ "Overview | Diabetes (type 1 and type 2) in children and young people: diagnosis and management | Guidance | NICE". www.nice.org.uk. August 2015. Retrieved 25 April 2019.
  49. ^ "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2019". Diabetes Care. 42 (Suppl 1): S4–S6. January 2019. doi:10.2337/dc19-Srev01. PMID 30559226.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blood_glucose_monitoring&oldid=1246710056"