Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2016 Nov 1;10(6):1324-1332.
doi: 10.1177/1932296816659307. Print 2016 Nov.

A Comprehensive Evaluation of a Novel Color Range Indicator in Multiple Blood Glucose Meters Demonstrates Improved Glucose Range Interpretation and Awareness in Subjects With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

Mike Grady  1 , Laurence B Katz  2 , Hilary Cameron  3 , Brian L Levy  2
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

A Comprehensive Evaluation of a Novel Color Range Indicator in Multiple Blood Glucose Meters Demonstrates Improved Glucose Range Interpretation and Awareness in Subjects With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

Mike Grady et al. J Diabetes Sci Technol. .

Abstract

Aims: We previously demonstrated that people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) can improve their ability to categorize blood glucose (BG) results into low, in range, or high glycemic ranges after experiencing a color range indicator (CRI or ColorSure™ Technology) in a single meter. This study examined whether a CRI was effective in people with type 1 (T1) or T2DM when used in 3 glucose meters.

Methods: A total of 179 subjects (139 T2DM and 40 T1DM) classified BG values as low, in range, or high based on individual current knowledge. Subjects then experienced the CRI which showed whether different BG values were low, in range, or high. After CRI interaction, subjects repeated the classification.

Results: Following interaction with the CRI, subjects significantly improved their ability to categorize BG results into low, in range, and high glycemic ranges by 27.9% (T2DM) and 27.2% (T1DM) (each P < .001). Improvement was not accompanied by an increase in time spent categorizing results. There was no difference in classification ability between subjects with T1 or T2DM. There was also no correlation between HbA1c, numeracy level, test frequency, or duration of diabetes and the ability to correctly classify results. Subjects agreed the CRI feature helped them easily interpret glucose values and improved their awareness of glucose ranges.

Conclusion: Interaction with a CRI improved the ability of subjects with T1 and T2DM to interpret and categorize BG values into recommended glycemic ranges, irrespective of the glucose meter providing the CRI insights.

Keywords: blood glucose monitor; color range indicator (ColorSure™ Technology); glucose ranges; numeracy; progress notes; self-monitoring of blood glucose.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: MG and HC are employees of LifeScan Scotland, Ltd. LBK and BLL are employees of LifeScan, Inc.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
BGM color range indicator (CRI) and progress notes screens. (A) OneTouch Select Plus, CRI; (B) OneTouch Verio Flex, CRI; (C) OneTouch Verio, CRI; (D) OneTouch Verio, Progress Notes.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Change in glucose result classification scores. Each bar represents an individual subject.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Subjective Numeracy Scale scores in T1DM (n = 40) and T2DM (n = 139) subjects. The 8-question scale has 6 items per question, with a maximum score of 48 representing highest subjective numeracy evaluation. Numbers represent the number of subjects scoring in the range shown.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Success determining number of in-range results after reviewing a paper logbook or viewing a BGM progress note. Scores are percentage success rate correctly identifying that 7 of 10 BG results were in range (3.9-10.0 mmol/l).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Standards of medical care in diabetes. Glycemic targets. Diabetes Care. 2016;39(suppl 1):S39-S47. - PubMed
    1. AACE/ACE consensus statement on the comprehensive type 2 diabetes management algorithm. Endocr Pract. 2016;22(1):84-113. - PubMed
    1. Moreland EC, Volkening LK, Laffel LM. Use of a BGM manual to enhance monitoring adherence in adults with diabetes. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(6):689-695. - PubMed
    1. Clar C, Barnard K, Cummins E. Self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes: systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(12),. - PubMed
    1. Evans JMM, Mackison D, Vivien Swanson V. Self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes: patients’ perceptions of “high” readings. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2013;102:e5-e7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2013.07.011. - DOI - PubMed