Diabetes Talking

Question:

I’ve been using an Accu-Chek II for the past seven years, and I like it. However, the nurse who advises me has been telling me to replace it because it takes so long to run a test (2 minutes). Actually, I like the long test time. … …if you mis-time it by a second or two , it has less of an impact on the results. Of course the auto-start/non-wipe technology (ala E-Z) eliminates all those problems.

That depends on the particular brand of test strips you use, as well.  Boehringer Mannheim strips (Accu-Check)  are remarkably insensitive to timing variations.  A 5-second variance rarely affects the reading by more than 1 – 1.25 mmol.  (~20 mg/dl) That’s at ~200-~300 mg/dl range.  At lower BG, it’s less forgiving. (Obviously-  at 60mg/dl, a 20mg/dl variation is %33.  At 250mg/dl, a 20mg/dl variation is %13.)  Although B.M. has come out with a different test sttrip now (forget the monitor name… the color-codeed one, not the electronic reader)  I’ve no reason to believe there’s anything wrong with those either. BD strips, on the other hand — I can tell stories about those. Worst case is 75% error on a 2sec deviation.  Best case is %5 error on imperceptible deviation.  That was over 5 years ago, however. I’m sure they’ve improved. -Adam [who wishes the Canadian healthcare system would pay for a meter upgrade] — |    UNIX — where you can do anything in two keystrokes, or less…   |

Response:

  I’ve been using an Accu-Chek II for the past seven years, and I like it.   However, the nurse who advises me has been telling me to replace it   because it takes so long to run a test (2 minutes).  Actually, I like the long test time. I used an ExTech that didn’t  auto start. I think that with the manual start and/or wipe methods  the longer test time has the advantage that if you mis-time it by  a second or two , it has less of an impact on the results. Of  course the auto-start/non-wipe technology (ala E-Z) eliminates  all those problems.   Also, it does NOT   have any memory (but then that’s why God make pens and record books).     So, no memory and long test time–two things to consider.  Yeah, I always write down my results right away, but every  now and then I look back and can’t read a scribble I made  and it’s really nice to be able to get it off the meter. If  only it had *more* memory…   john streck |                                            |   unless they happen to    | |    ____   _~o            ,__o              |   be yours too.            | |       (*)/’(*)        (*)/’(*)             |   Everyone is entitled     | |                      -o-o===o–            |   to my opinion, even if   |

Response:

I’ve been using an Accu-Chek II for the past seven years, and I like it. However, the nurse who advises me has been telling me to replace it because it takes so long to run a test (2 minutes). Also, it does NOT have any memory (but then that’s why God make pens and record books). So, no memory and long test time–two things to consider. john streck

Response:

Marilyn J Miller writes:

  I have a very old (and still working) Accu-Check I which I really like.     However, as of June 30 the company is no longer making the strips for that   machine.  I purchased as many bottles of strips as I could so I could use my   meter as long as possible.  However, the stores in Columbus no longer have   these strips on their shelves and my hoard of strips is diminishing.  The   company that makes Accu-Check has said they will replace my Accu-Check I with   either an Accu-Check E-Z or an Accu-Check II – whichever I choose.  Since this   offer is for a free meter (except for a $5.00 handling fee) I am not interested   in purchasing any other brands of meters.  However, I am not sure which meter   to choose.  Has anyone out there used both the Accu-Check E-Z and the   Accu-Check II?  Which did you like best?  Also, to those who have used one of   these meters – what do you like and dislike about the meter?  Thanks in advance   for any advice you can give me.                                                      Marilyn Miller Check the Oct. 1993  issue of Diabetes Forcast, 1994 Buyer’s Guide.  They don’t list the Accu-Chek II, but they do list the Easy and the A-C III. The A-C II maybe obsolete soon. If so, go with the Easy. But look into the A-C III. There seems to be a rebate and trade-in going on for the Easy and maybe the A-C III also. Trade-ins may be only for meters of another brand. Between rebates, trade-ins and Insurance coverage, you may be able to as well if not better then their offer. Check the back of Forecast and make some phone calls. You may actually be able to make money on this deal! I like the Accu-Chek because the ChemStrips can be read visually and there are TWO color patches, which gives the meter the ability to do a redundancy check. I haven’t used either the A-C II or Easy. I went from the A-C 1 the A-C III. I *think* the A-C II doesn’t have any memory. There was an A-C IIm that did have memory. I don’t know how it differed from the A-C III. In case you don’t have a copy of the Forcast, here is a summary: Both have: 20-500 mg/dL range, memory, large display, starting            supplies, case, video tape, instruction book,            calibration solution available. III : 120s test time, last 20 tests stored in memory, strips can       can read visually Easy: 15-60s test time, 30 test memory, no wipe, auto timing, strips        CANNOT be visually read Here’s how *I* would rank them:                Reasons 1st: A-C III   Visual read, 20 test memory 2nd: Easy      Simple, no wipe, 30 test memory, NO visual read 3rd: A-C II    Visual read, possible obsolesence, no memory (?) I am in no way connected to Boehringer-Mannheim or distributers. I am just offering my humble opion. |                                            |   unless they happen to    | |    ____   _~o            ,__o              |   be yours too.            | |       (*)/’(*)        (*)/’(*)             |   Everyone is entitled     | |                      -o-o===o–            |   to my opinion, even if   |

Response: