Comparative analysis of glucemia levels with portable glygosimeter versus laboratory dosage in adults and elderly

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Faria, Ludmila Rosa
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: 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
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