In every post I’ve read so far about meter accuracy and the current standard allowable amount of +/-20%, I’ve seen examples of a 100mg/dl given and the variance there being 80-120. But what if we look at it from another angle?
What if that 100 was on the lower end of that given allowance? After all, it would still be “within” the range. What if our actual exact blood sugar was 120, with the minimum allowable amount being 96 and the upper allowable amount being 144?
Sort of makes you think deeper, huh? No? What about another example…
Your meter is saying your glucose is now 280. It would be the general consensus that the reading would be the smack-dab middle of the range, right?
What if that reading is actually on the higher end of the spectrum. What if the bg’s middle number was actually 235, with a 20% range of 188-282. That 280 would be considered “allowable” given these standards.
I could dose off of that 280, and even possibly have a true BG of 190, and end up passing my target of 120 and end up in the 40’s or 30’s later.
While this example is very extreme, it’s possible. Which is why we need stricter accuracy standards… even more so than what is being set forth now. I want a meter that will be accurate within a maximum of 5%. While we have much better technology than what we had a long time ago, it’s still not enough. With the microdosing we have to do now with pumps as well as the pressure put on us by the medical profession to have tight control, we need to have much better accuracy standards for the tools we use. After all, what’s the use in using these tools for tight control if they can’t provide us the tight accuracy we need?
A cake is only as good as the ingredients you put into it. If we are to be better diabetics, we need better
ingredients…I mean… tools.
Help us. Take the quiz. Write a letter. Be a part of the campaign.