Comparative analysis of glucemia levels with portable glygosimeter versus laboratory dosage in adults and elderly
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2021 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Research, Society and Development |
Texto Completo: | https://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/14934 |
Resumo: | Objective: To analyze blood glucose levels generated by the portable glucometer, and to compare them with the levels given by the gold standard method. Methods: Search conducted in journals indexed in the MEDLINE / PUBMED, LILACS and SCIELO databases. The inclusion criteria of the analyzed studies were articles from the last 15 years (2005-2020), alteration of the glycemic profile, evaluation of other glucometers, portable and table devices, venous and capillary blood glucose. Results: The study found that the validated devices were Accu-Chek Active (Roche Diagnóstica), Accu-Chek Advantage (Roche Diagnóstica), Contour TS (Bayer) compared respectively with standard laboratory methods, unspecified, Prietest Touch (Katal), Flexor EL200 in the adult and elderly population. In order to be approved and have validation confirmed, portable glucometers need to meet the standards of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO: 15197: 2003). Conclusion: Only 3 portable glucometers were validated when compared to the gold standard. Bearing in mind that the use of medications and the adequate control of dysglycemia is closely linked to the measurements generated by glucometers, the use of invalidated devices puts the health, treatment and quality of life of diabetic users at risk. |
id |
UNIFEI_d236a16e534171163b920015c15ce276 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/14934 |
network_acronym_str |
UNIFEI |
network_name_str |
Research, Society and Development |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Comparative analysis of glucemia levels with portable glygosimeter versus laboratory dosage in adults and elderlyComparativo de niveles de glucemia con gligosímetro portátil versus dosis de laboratorio en adultos y ancianosAnálise comparativa dos níveis de glicemia com glicosímetro portátil versus dosagem laboratorial em adultos e idososGlucómetrosDiabetes MellitusValidaciónComparativo.GlucometersDiabetes MellitusValidationComparative.GlicosímetrosDiabetes MellitusValidaçãoComparativa.Objective: To analyze blood glucose levels generated by the portable glucometer, and to compare them with the levels given by the gold standard method. Methods: Search conducted in journals indexed in the MEDLINE / PUBMED, LILACS and SCIELO databases. The inclusion criteria of the analyzed studies were articles from the last 15 years (2005-2020), alteration of the glycemic profile, evaluation of other glucometers, portable and table devices, venous and capillary blood glucose. Results: The study found that the validated devices were Accu-Chek Active (Roche Diagnóstica), Accu-Chek Advantage (Roche Diagnóstica), Contour TS (Bayer) compared respectively with standard laboratory methods, unspecified, Prietest Touch (Katal), Flexor EL200 in the adult and elderly population. In order to be approved and have validation confirmed, portable glucometers need to meet the standards of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO: 15197: 2003). Conclusion: Only 3 portable glucometers were validated when compared to the gold standard. Bearing in mind that the use of medications and the adequate control of dysglycemia is closely linked to the measurements generated by glucometers, the use of invalidated devices puts the health, treatment and quality of life of diabetic users at risk.Objetivo: Analizar los niveles de glucosa en sangre generados por el glucómetro portátil y compararlos con los niveles dados por el método estándar de oro. Métodos: Búsqueda realizada en revistas indexadas en las bases de datos MEDLINE / PUBMED, LILACS y SCIELO. Los criterios de inclusión de los estudios analizados fueron artículos de los últimos 15 años (2005-2020), alteración del perfil glucémico, evaluación de otros glucómetros, dispositivos portátiles y de mesa, glucemia venosa y capilar. Resultados: El estudio encontró que los dispositivos validados fueron Accu-Chek Active (Roche Diagnóstica), Accu-Chek Advantage (Roche Diagnóstica), Contour TS (Bayer) comparados respectivamente con los métodos estándar de laboratorio, no especificados, Prietest Touch (Katal), Flexor EL200 en la población adulta y anciana. Para ser aprobados y tener la validación confirmada, los glucómetros portátiles deben cumplir con las normas de la Organización Internacional de Normalización (ISO: 15197: 2003). Conclusión: Solo se validaron 3 glucómetros portátiles en comparación con el estándar de oro. Teniendo en cuenta que el uso de medicamentos y el adecuado control de la disglucemia está íntimamente ligado a las mediciones que generan los glucómetros, el uso de dispositivos invalidados pone en riesgo la salud, el tratamiento y la calidad de vida de los usuarios diabéticos.Objetivo: Analisar níveis de glicemia gerados pelo glicosímetro portátil, e compará-los com os níveis dados pelo método padrão ouro. Métodos: Busca realizada em periódicos indexados nas bases de dados MEDLINE/PUBMED, LILACS e SCIELO. Os critérios de inclusão dos estudos analisados foram artigos dos últimos 15 anos (2005-2020), alteração de perfil glicêmico, avaliação de outros glicosímetros, aparelhos portáteis e de mesa, glicemia venosa e capilar. Resultados: O estudo verificou que os aparelhos validados foram Accu-Chek Active (Roche Diagnóstica), Accu-Chek Advantage (Roche Diagnóstica), Contour TS (Bayer) comparados respectivamente com os métodos laboratoriais padrão, não especificado, Prietest Touch (Katal), Flexor EL200 na população adulta e idosa. Para serem aprovados e terem validação confirmada, os glicosímetros portáteis necessitam se enquadrar nas normas da International Organization for Standardization (ISO: 15197:2003). Conclusão: Apenas 3 glicosímetros portáteis foram validados quando comparado ao padrão ouro. Tendo em vista que o uso de medicações e o controle adequado da disglicemia está intimamente ligado às medidas geradas pelos glicosímetros, a utilização dos aparelhos invalidados coloca em risco a saúde, o tratamento e qualidade de vida de seus usuários diabéticos.Research, Society and Development2021-05-04info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/1493410.33448/rsd-v10i5.14934Research, Society and Development; Vol. 10 No. 5; e23210514934Research, Society and Development; Vol. 10 Núm. 5; e23210514934Research, Society and Development; v. 10 n. 5; e232105149342525-3409reponame:Research, Society and Developmentinstname:Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI)instacron:UNIFEIporhttps://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/14934/13311Copyright (c) 2021 Ludmila Rosa Faria; Arthur Mineli Kuester Berto; Lizandra Karoline Silva do Monte; Mariana Barretto Pavoni; Rebeka Viana Borsoi; Washington Luiz Mariano da Silva; Geiziane Leite Rodrigues Melo; Rodrigo Vanderson Passos Neves; Thiago Santos Rosa; Milton Rocha Moraeshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessFaria, Ludmila Rosa Berto, Arthur Mineli Kuester Monte, Lizandra Karoline Silva do Pavoni, Mariana Barretto Borsoi, Rebeka Viana Silva, Washington Luiz Mariano da Melo, Geiziane Leite Rodrigues Neves, Rodrigo Vanderson Passos Rosa, Thiago Santos Moraes, Milton Rocha 2021-05-17T18:20:49Zoai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/14934Revistahttps://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/indexPUBhttps://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/oairsd.articles@gmail.com2525-34092525-3409opendoar:2024-01-17T09:35:53.308261Research, Society and Development - Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Comparative analysis of glucemia levels with portable glygosimeter versus laboratory dosage in adults and elderly Comparativo de niveles de glucemia con gligosímetro portátil versus dosis de laboratorio en adultos y ancianos Análise comparativa dos níveis de glicemia com glicosímetro portátil versus dosagem laboratorial em adultos e idosos |
title |
Comparative analysis of glucemia levels with portable glygosimeter versus laboratory dosage in adults and elderly |
spellingShingle |
Comparative analysis of glucemia levels with portable glygosimeter versus laboratory dosage in adults and elderly Faria, Ludmila Rosa Glucómetros Diabetes Mellitus Validación Comparativo. Glucometers Diabetes Mellitus Validation Comparative. Glicosímetros Diabetes Mellitus Validação Comparativa. |
title_short |
Comparative analysis of glucemia levels with portable glygosimeter versus laboratory dosage in adults and elderly |
title_full |
Comparative analysis of glucemia levels with portable glygosimeter versus laboratory dosage in adults and elderly |
title_fullStr |
Comparative analysis of glucemia levels with portable glygosimeter versus laboratory dosage in adults and elderly |
title_full_unstemmed |
Comparative analysis of glucemia levels with portable glygosimeter versus laboratory dosage in adults and elderly |
title_sort |
Comparative analysis of glucemia levels with portable glygosimeter versus laboratory dosage in adults and elderly |
author |
Faria, Ludmila Rosa |
author_facet |
Faria, Ludmila Rosa Berto, Arthur Mineli Kuester Monte, Lizandra Karoline Silva do Pavoni, Mariana Barretto Borsoi, Rebeka Viana Silva, Washington Luiz Mariano da Melo, Geiziane Leite Rodrigues Neves, Rodrigo Vanderson Passos Rosa, Thiago Santos Moraes, Milton Rocha |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Berto, Arthur Mineli Kuester Monte, Lizandra Karoline Silva do Pavoni, Mariana Barretto Borsoi, Rebeka Viana Silva, Washington Luiz Mariano da Melo, Geiziane Leite Rodrigues Neves, Rodrigo Vanderson Passos Rosa, Thiago Santos Moraes, Milton Rocha |
author2_role |
author author author author author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Faria, Ludmila Rosa Berto, Arthur Mineli Kuester Monte, Lizandra Karoline Silva do Pavoni, Mariana Barretto Borsoi, Rebeka Viana Silva, Washington Luiz Mariano da Melo, Geiziane Leite Rodrigues Neves, Rodrigo Vanderson Passos Rosa, Thiago Santos Moraes, Milton Rocha |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Glucómetros Diabetes Mellitus Validación Comparativo. Glucometers Diabetes Mellitus Validation Comparative. Glicosímetros Diabetes Mellitus Validação Comparativa. |
topic |
Glucómetros Diabetes Mellitus Validación Comparativo. Glucometers Diabetes Mellitus Validation Comparative. Glicosímetros Diabetes Mellitus Validação Comparativa. |
description |
Objective: To analyze blood glucose levels generated by the portable glucometer, and to compare them with the levels given by the gold standard method. Methods: Search conducted in journals indexed in the MEDLINE / PUBMED, LILACS and SCIELO databases. The inclusion criteria of the analyzed studies were articles from the last 15 years (2005-2020), alteration of the glycemic profile, evaluation of other glucometers, portable and table devices, venous and capillary blood glucose. Results: The study found that the validated devices were Accu-Chek Active (Roche Diagnóstica), Accu-Chek Advantage (Roche Diagnóstica), Contour TS (Bayer) compared respectively with standard laboratory methods, unspecified, Prietest Touch (Katal), Flexor EL200 in the adult and elderly population. In order to be approved and have validation confirmed, portable glucometers need to meet the standards of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO: 15197: 2003). Conclusion: Only 3 portable glucometers were validated when compared to the gold standard. Bearing in mind that the use of medications and the adequate control of dysglycemia is closely linked to the measurements generated by glucometers, the use of invalidated devices puts the health, treatment and quality of life of diabetic users at risk. |
publishDate |
2021 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2021-05-04 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/14934 10.33448/rsd-v10i5.14934 |
url |
https://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/14934 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.33448/rsd-v10i5.14934 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/14934/13311 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Research, Society and Development |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Research, Society and Development |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Research, Society and Development; Vol. 10 No. 5; e23210514934 Research, Society and Development; Vol. 10 Núm. 5; e23210514934 Research, Society and Development; v. 10 n. 5; e23210514934 2525-3409 reponame:Research, Society and Development instname:Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI) instacron:UNIFEI |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI) |
instacron_str |
UNIFEI |
institution |
UNIFEI |
reponame_str |
Research, Society and Development |
collection |
Research, Society and Development |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Research, Society and Development - Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
rsd.articles@gmail.com |
_version_ |
1797052806703611904 |