Diabetes Talking

Question:

   It still doesn’t explain why sometimes it is much lower than the    OT2. This morning I used both meters again on the same samples.    FT: 60, 104, 107    OT2: 100, 94 Well, I have found some meters (Most noticeably the ExacTech line of meters from Medisense) which tend to be what I call "Patient Sensitive"  That is one one patient they will be very consistent, Giving nearly identical readings on back to back tests (Even better than the OT2 did in your tests) and on other patients… Well you called it with your FT readings. It is also possible to get a bad sample size with ANY meter (Far as I know) and this too can throw off your readings (As someone else said) Finally the FDA allows either +/- 15% or +/- 20% (I’ve heard people saying 15 however I **THOUGHT** it was 20, Most companies I know state 15 as their corporate set tolerance levels) If the FT is giving widely varying results when the OT2 is rock steady, To me this says one thing… Stick with the OT2 it’s the one for YOU Of course, for another patient the results could be…. Different (For example, as I said, for at least two folks I know the ExacTech was basically a random number generator, For me, it gives repeating numbers (Back to backs come up with numbers like 127 and 128 (numbers made up based on reality))  We also both tested another meter (The AccuCheck Easy if memory serves) and for me, Random numbers, for them, Rock steady. It is for this reason that your pharmacist has a wide range of meters on his counter. "Nothing adds excitement like something that is none of your business" Using a Java script enabled browser go to:  http://go.compuserve.com/diabetes Anyone can read, Members can post, If you join Compuserve mention 73455,43 WQRS political Tag Line: HAYDEN SEEKS YOUR VOTE Net-Tamer V 1.08X – Registered

Response:

like this could do a diabetic harm! ….snipped Tecnique is so important.. with everything when you get older! — Dave — May 9, 1999 t2 08/98  Glucophage & Aspartame Davor’s daily aphorism: Going the speed of light is bad for your age.

Dave, LOL……technique has ALWAYS been important…. maybe that’s only something you NOTICE with age….. <g k

Response:

When I first got the Fast Take I spent days measuring with both that and the Profile.  There were some differences but in the end the speed and ease of the Fast Take won me over and now I really like it. Maureen Helinski

Response:

It still doesn’t explain why sometimes it is much lower than the OT2. This morning I used both meters again on the same samples. FT: 60, 104, 107 OT2: 100, 94 Inaccuracies like this could do a diabetic harm!

That is a common occurance with the FT if you don’t have enough blood or don’t get the drop onto the whole white spot.  If you see it "hesitate" after the drop and then start counting, you will usually see way too low numbers. I’ve found that using a decent drop (still smaller than the one I need for the AccuCheck), rather than trying to get the absolute minimim is what I need to do. —–Burton —– On the ‘net, everybody knows you’re a cat.      AND On the ‘net, everybody knows your cat.

Response:

Thanks to all who responded to my query! It certainly appears that the sample size was the problem. I guess that I was testing the 2.5 uL specified sample size. I was also taken because the OT2 is very fussy about sample size, but it tells you. You either got no reading or a reasonably accurate one(and it’s close to ten years old). I am getting very comparable results now after the whole-blood, plasma-blood conversion is done. I sure wish that I could do something about the lack of an event marker in memory. I really like the meter otherwise. Thanks again. — Later, Jim Cross —

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Does anyone have information on any accuracy testing of the One Touch Fast Take meter? I just bought one and still have the One Touch II that I have used for years. From my first few tests it appears that the meters render quite different results from the same blood samples. Which is the most accurate? The Fast Take has read about 20% higher than the OT2 on all but one test where it was 20% lower(a hypo). I tried to research the purchase and didn’t see anything bad about the Fast Take on the Web. Maybe it’s just the approximately +-20% accuracy of most glucometers that I am seeing. The OT2 has worked great for years but the smaller blood sample required by the Fast take would surely make my fingers feel better. — Later, Jim Cross

Response:

Jim, My FastTake definitely returns a low reading with a small sample. The "60" you found may be in this category. I’ve learned that the technique of applying the bood drop to the test strip is important. I make sure the drop forms a rounded surface. If I wipe the drop across the test strip, the sample is completely drawn in leaving no visible droplet above the surface of the strip, and this usually gives a false low. Given the right technique, I’ve been satisfied with the repeatability of readings. Art AD, Thanks for replying. I found that the fast take is Plasma Calibrated( Red cells removed before testing). The 1.12 multiplier over Whole Blood does explain some of the differences. It still doesn’t explain why sometimes it is much lower than the OT2. This morning I used both meters again on the same samples. FT: 60, 104, 107 OT2: 100, 94 Inaccuracies like this could do a diabetic harm!

….snipped

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Jim, My FastTake definitely returns a low reading with a small sample. The "60" you found may be in this category. I’ve learned that the technique of applying the bood drop to the test strip is important. I make sure the drop forms a rounded surface. If I wipe the drop across the test strip, the sample is completely drawn in leaving no visible droplet above the surface of the strip, and this usually gives a false low. Given the right technique, I’ve been satisfied with the repeatability of readings. Art AD, Thanks for replying. I found that the fast take is Plasma Calibrated( Red cells removed before testing). The 1.12 multiplier over Whole Blood does explain some of the differences. It still doesn’t explain why sometimes it is much lower than the OT2. This morning I used both meters again on the same samples. FT: 60, 104, 107 OT2: 100, 94 Inaccuracies like this could do a diabetic harm! ….snipped

I have to agree with Art. I have 2 FastTakes, and he’s right on when saying that you need to place a "rounded" drop on the window in the test strip. Anything less and the reading may be suspect. I find the meter very accurate when used right. Tecnique is so important.. with everything when you get older! — Dave — May 9, 1999 t2 08/98  Glucophage & Aspartame Davor’s daily aphorism: Going the speed of light is bad for your age.    http://www.newsfeeds.com       The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!

Response:

My experience with the fasttake is that it is more sensitive to insufficient blood samples than the older meters. Drop too small = low reading. BTW, it "calibrates" against my DEX (both plasma calibrated units) to +/- 5mg%. While the FT saves the last 150 readings, I think they purposely left out all the "event" stuff in favor of small size. My only beef with LifeScan is that after three phone calls, and two promises, I still do not have the computer I/F cable. Jim

My experience too although I’ve learned to gauge how much blood the FastTake needs.  I’ve recently been trying out the DEX glucometer and it’s the same way although I think it takes more blood that the FastTake.   Beanie, Type I (Humalog and Ultralente) Remove the "IE" to send email

Response:

My experience with the fasttake is that it is more sensitive to insufficient blood samples than the older meters. Drop too small = low reading. BTW, it "calibrates" against my DEX (both plasma calibrated units) to +/- 5mg%. While the FT saves the last 150 readings, I think they purposely left out all the "event" stuff in favor of small size. My only beef with LifeScan is that after three phone calls, and two promises, I still do not have the computer I/F cable. Jim – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – AD, Thanks for replying. I found that the fast take is Plasma Calibrated( Red cells removed before testing). The 1.12 multiplier over Whole Blood does explain some of the differences. It still doesn’t explain why sometimes it is much lower than the OT2. This morning I used both meters again on the same samples. FT: 60, 104, 107 OT2: 100, 94 Inaccuracies like this could do a diabetic harm! I did add a converter to my software to allow either PB or WB to be entered with both values displayed. It looks like PB is the new trend. I read somewhere that all Lifescans were Whole blood. Old Message. The last two, Fast Take and Elite(I think) are Plasma calibrated. The FT also has no way to record events. The recorded tests are very hard to statistically analyze without event markers. The time of the test is not nearly as important as if it was before lunch or 1-2 hours after lunch. At home I can input the event manually but The "Unit for Active People" fails when I need it most, on the road. I think that Lifescan also screwed up giving a 30 day money back warranty on the Fast Take. I am going back to John Mendosa’s Meter page http://www.mendosa.com/meters.htm and look at the other small, fast meters. — Later, Jim Cross The Fast Take has read about 20% higher than the OT2 on all but one test where it was 20% lower(a hypo). I tried to research the purchase and didn’t see anything bad about the Fast Take on the Web. Maybe it’s just the approximately +-20% accuracy of most glucometers that I am seeing. The OT2 has worked great for years but the smaller blood sample required by the Fast take would surely make my fingers feel better. The fast take is plasma calibrated the old meters were whole blood calibrated.  The fast take will read higher because of this.  Most of the new meters (as I understand it) are being plasma calibrated as that is how tests done in the lab are calibrated. If you check at the lifescan web and send them an email requesting information about the difference in calibration methods they will answer.  I got an answer in about 24 hours when I wrote them. Just another DeadHead Computer Nerd

Response:

Does anyone have information on any accuracy testing of the One Touch Fast Take meter? I just bought one and still have the One Touch II that I have used for years. From my first few tests it appears that the meters render quite different results from the same blood samples. Which is the most accurate? The Fast Take has read about 20% higher than the OT2 on all but one test where it was 20% lower(a hypo). I tried to research the purchase and didn’t see anything bad about the Fast Take on the Web. Maybe it’s just the approximately +-20% accuracy of most glucometers that I am seeing. The OT2 has worked great for years but the smaller blood sample required by the Fast take would surely make my fingers feel better. — Later, Jim Cross

Response:

The Fast Take has read about 20% higher than the OT2 on all but one test where it was 20% lower(a hypo). I tried to research the purchase and didn’t see anything bad about the Fast Take on the Web. Maybe it’s just the approximately +-20% accuracy of most glucometers that I am seeing. The OT2 has worked great for years but the smaller blood sample required by the Fast take would surely make my fingers feel better.

The fast take is plasma calibrated the old meters were whole blood calibrated.  The fast take will read higher because of this.  Most of the new meters (as I understand it) are being plasma calibrated as that is how tests done in the lab are calibrated.   If you check at the lifescan web and send them an email requesting information about the difference in calibration methods they will answer.  I got an answer in about 24 hours when I wrote them. Just another DeadHead Computer Nerd

Response:

AD, Thanks for replying. I found that the fast take is Plasma Calibrated( Red cells removed before testing). The 1.12 multiplier over Whole Blood does explain some of the differences. It still doesn’t explain why sometimes it is much lower than the OT2. This morning I used both meters again on the same samples. FT: 60, 104, 107 OT2: 100, 94 Inaccuracies like this could do a diabetic harm! I did add a converter to my software to allow either PB or WB to be entered with both values displayed. It looks like PB is the new trend. I read somewhere that all Lifescans were Whole blood. Old Message. The last two, Fast Take and Elite(I think) are Plasma calibrated. The FT also has no way to record events. The recorded tests are very hard to statistically analyze without event markers. The time of the test is not nearly as important as if it was before lunch or 1-2 hours after lunch. At home I can input the event manually but The "Unit for Active People" fails when I need it most, on the road. I think that Lifescan also screwed up giving a 30 day money back warranty on the Fast Take. I am going back to John Mendosa’s Meter page http://www.mendosa.com/meters.htm and look at the other small, fast meters. — Later, Jim Cross

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Fast Take has read about 20% higher than the OT2 on all but one test where it was 20% lower(a hypo). I tried to research the purchase and didn’t see anything bad about the Fast Take on the Web. Maybe it’s just the approximately +-20% accuracy of most glucometers that I am seeing. The OT2 has worked great for years but the smaller blood sample required by the Fast take would surely make my fingers feel better. The fast take is plasma calibrated the old meters were whole blood calibrated.  The fast take will read higher because of this.  Most of the new meters (as I understand it) are being plasma calibrated as that is how tests done in the lab are calibrated. If you check at the lifescan web and send them an email requesting information about the difference in calibration methods they will answer.  I got an answer in about 24 hours when I wrote them. Just another DeadHead Computer Nerd

Response: