↓ Skip to main content

Glucose meters – fit for clinical purpose

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Glucose meters – fit for clinical purpose
Published in
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, February 2013
DOI 10.1515/cclm-2013-0011
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rosy Tirimacco, George Koumantakis, Rajiv Erasmus, Andrea Mosca, Sverre Sandberg, Ian D. Watson, Barbara Goldsmith, Philippe Gillery

Abstract

Glucose meters have improved considerably since they were first introduced in 1960, but many questions are being asked about their accuracy and reliability in certain clinical situations. These questions have arisen because of the widespread use of these meters into clinical areas they have not been designed for such as critical care. The lack of understanding by some health professionals on factors that affect glucose results, such as sample type, glucose test strip methodologic limitations, calibration to recognized reference methods, and interferences, leads to misleading results that may affect patient care. Much debate continues on the quality specifications for glucose meters. Because there is an extensive use of these meters in different clinical scenarios, the setting of quality specifications will remain a challenge for regulatory and professional organizations. In this article, we have attempted to collect and provide relevant information addressing the limitations above. Pivotal to obtaining the best quality of results is education, particularly for diabetic patients monitoring their glucose. The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine through its Point-of-Care Testing Task Force and its Working Group on Glucose Point-of-Care Testing is actively working toward improving the quality of glucose results by improving education and working with the industry to improve strip performance and work toward the better standardization of strips.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 22%
Researcher 5 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 5 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 6 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 February 2013.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
#1,791
of 2,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#233,722
of 296,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
#20
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,902 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 296,590 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.