Sina Jahan; Shahram Jamshidi; Maysam Tehranisharif; Hesameddin Akbarein
Abstract
Background: Recently, tendency to use veterinary specific Portable blood glucose meter (PBGMs) has increased. However, assessment of their analytical and clinical accuracy is a matter of concern. OBJECTIVES: To assess accuracy of two veterinary (AlphaTRAK2 and CERA-PET) and one human-based (Bionime) ...
Read More
Background: Recently, tendency to use veterinary specific Portable blood glucose meter (PBGMs) has increased. However, assessment of their analytical and clinical accuracy is a matter of concern. OBJECTIVES: To assess accuracy of two veterinary (AlphaTRAK2 and CERA-PET) and one human-based (Bionime) PBGMs for canine blood samples. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a total of 160 client-owned dogs with various signalment and disease were included. Venous blood samples were obtained from a peripheral vein of each dog and blood glucose was measured with the three PBGMs. Immediately afterward, serum was harvested and sent to laboratory until analysis with reference methods. RESULTS: Blood glucose measured with the reference method was 21 to 650 mg/dl. There was a significant correlation between results of the reference method and PBGMs. Both of the veterinary specific PBGMs showed significant proportional and constant bias, nevertheless, no proportional and constant bias were recorded for human-based one. Mean deviation from reference methods was -7.4, 9.8, and -3.9 for AlphaTRAK2, CERA-PET, and Bionime respectively. Although most of the PBGMs readings lay in the calculated 95% limits of agreement, none of the devices completely satisfied the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 15197:2013) criteria. Error grid analysis revealed all measurements for AlphaTRAK2 in zone A and B, while CERA-PET demonstrates one measurement in zone D. Bionime showed two measurements in zone C and D. CONCLUSIONS: Only the result of AlphaTRAK2 could be interpreted without any hazardous outcome on medical decision making.