Comparison of blood glucose monitors with and without a memory

StudyPopulationInterventionOutcomesResultsCommentsDesignEL
Halimi and Charpentier, 2001355179 adults with diabetes treated with insulin
Aged 24.4 ± 4.1, 24.6 ± 3.2 and 23.3 ± 3.4 years for the three groups, respectively
France
Monitor with memory (1. Glucotrend Premium®, n = 60)
versus
monitor with memory (2. One Touch Profile®, n = 49)
versus
diary for results of self- monitored blood glucose (no memory, n = 55)
  1. Patient preference
  2. Hypoglycaemic events
  3. Accuracy of capillary blood glucose determination compared with venous blood glucose laboratory measurement
  1. HbA1c (mean decrease ± SD): 0.9 ± 1.2 vs. 1.0 ± 1.1 vs. 0.6 ± 1.1% (end levels not given)
  2. Patient preference: 81 ± 18 vs. 77 ± 23 vs. 68 ± 24% (p = 0.02 for monitor with memory 1 and 2 vs. no memory)
  3. Hypoglycaemic events: 7.9 ± 14.0 vs. 7.6 ± 18.0 vs. 3.2 ± 5.5 (p = 0.02 for monitor 1 vs. control, p = 0.08 for monitor 2 vs. control)
  4. Accuracy of capillary blood glucose determination: not significant, no values given
Unknown the precise difference between monitor 1 and monitor 2RCTIb
Meyerhoff et al, 199435724 patients with type 1 diabetes (system introduced to 98 patients, the 24 who wanted to use the system were entered into the study)
Aged 17–50 years
Germany
Patients given memory system with meal and exercise input option attached to monitor for blood glucose and followed up. Divided into three groups:
patients who returned the system within the first 4 weeks, (mean 12 days using system, n = 8)
versus
patients who used the system for as long as it was given to them free, (mean 45 days using system, n = 8)
versus
patients who bought the system after period of loan was up (mean 33 months using system, n = 8)
Trial length: varying for each patient
  1. HbA1
  2. Blood glucose
Patients wanting to try the memory meter: 24/89
After 3 years only 5 patients continued to use the meter, none used the option to input daily meal and exercise regimen
  1. HbA1 (mean, no SD given): 11.7% vs. 10.7 %vs. 7.8%
  2. Blood glucose (mean ± SD): 161 ± 73 vs. 175 ± 88 vs. 121 ± 58 mg/dl
Patients self-selected to length of time using the equipment, bias in comparing patientsTest evaluation studyIIb
Strowig et al, 199835622 adults with type 1 diabetes
Aged 33.2 ± 8.2 years
USA
Blood glucose meter with memory (n = 22)
versus
blood glucose meter with no memory (n = 22)
Trial length: 12 months with non-memory meter then 12 months with memory meter
HbA1cHbA1c: 6.4 ± 0.10% vs. 6.9 ± 0.12% (p = 0.004)Before/after studyNon RCTIIa

From: Evidence tables

Cover of Type 1 Diabetes
Type 1 Diabetes: Diagnosis and Management of Type 1 Diabetes in Children and Young People.
NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 15.2.
National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health (UK).
London: RCOG Press; 2004 Sep.
Copyright © 2004, National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health.

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the publisher or, in the case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the terms stated here should be sent to the publisher at the UK address printed on this page.

The use of registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant laws and regulations and therefore for general use.

The rights of National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health to be identified as Author of this work have been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988.

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.