Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Alternate site glucose testing: a crossover design.

Nancy Bennion1, Nedra K Christensen, Geoff McGarraugh

  • 1Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Utah State University, Logan, USA.

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
|May 23, 2002
PubMed
Summary

Reducing pain with alternative testing sites did not increase blood glucose monitoring frequency in well-controlled diabetes patients. While preferred, the FreeStyle meter did not significantly improve hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Providing nutrition education to recently resettled refugees: piloting a collaborative model and evaluation methods.

Journal of immigrant and minority health·2014
Same author

Attitudes toward percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement in cystic fibrosis patients.

Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition·2005
See all related articles

Area of Science:

  • Diabetes Management
  • Medical Device Technology
  • Clinical Outcome Measurement

Background:

  • Pain associated with frequent blood glucose monitoring can be a barrier to testing adherence.
  • Alternative testing sites aim to reduce pain and potentially improve patient compliance.
  • Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is a key indicator of long-term glycemic control in diabetes.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate if using alternative blood glucose testing sites reduces pain, increases testing frequency, and improves clinical outcomes (HbA1c).
  • To compare testing frequency and HbA1c levels between the FreeStyle meter and patients' original glucose meters.
  • To assess patient preference for the FreeStyle meter versus their original device.

Main Methods:

  • A crossover design study involving patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Participants used either the FreeStyle meter or their original meter for three months, then switched.
  • Testing frequency, blood glucose concentrations, and HbA1c levels were recorded throughout the study.

    • Main Results:

    • Insulin users increased testing frequency from 2.4 to 3.0 tests/day; non-insulin users' frequency remained at 1.5 tests/day.
    • No significant difference in testing frequency was observed between the FreeStyle and original meters.
    • Average HbA1c decreased from 7.4% to 6.9% by study conclusion, with no significant difference between meter types. 76% preferred the FreeStyle meter.

    Conclusions:

    • Alternative site testing did not increase testing frequency in this population with good glycemic control.
    • While preferred, the FreeStyle meter did not lead to significant improvements in HbA1c compared to original meters.
    • Further research may be needed in populations with poorer glycemic control to assess the impact of off-site monitoring.