Got several more readings comparing my cheap True Results meter and strips (18 cents a strip) to my wife's expensive and highly rated (By Consumer Reports) One Touch Ultra Mini meter and strips ($1 a strip).
Yesterday 1-hour after VLC lunch....
- True Result Meter reading = 99
- One Touch Ultra Mini reading = 93
Yesterday 1-hour after dinner (Had strawberries and small bag of Atkins M & M's. Oops!)
- True Result Meter = 107
- One Touch Ultra Mini - 115
This morning fasted
- True Result = 98
- One Touch Ultra Mini = 101
Average difference between meters of 5.66 points.
Well within range of normal statistical variation I would think. Especially considering I poke separate holes in my finger for each reading, rather than using same finger and hole for both.
So as mentioned in one of my recent posts in this thread, I feel VERY certain that the One Touch Ultra Mini is VERY accurate and consistent. Due to multiple tests done by Consumer Reports, Men's Health Magazine, and that study I posted a link to.
Consumer Reports also rated the much cheaper True Result Meter as being excellent in accuracy, but not so in what they refer to as consistency or repeatablity.
And I think I know why...
My preliminary testing has shown me that the One Touch meter is MUCH more likely to give you that annoying "Error" message, if you don't feed it enough blood. It's a bloodthirsty critter. In fact, I went through 3 test strips this morning trying to get a reading. (I don't bleed as well in mornings for some reason)
But my True Result meter hardly ever gives me an error message if I accidentally give it a tiny bit of blood, rather than a larger amount. But that may be a BAD thing.
Why?
Because tiny blood samples apparently give FALSE READINGS.
Thus a meter which readily "accepts" tiny amounts of blood, will then obviously be more prone to giving you skewed data.
Whereas a meter, such as my wife's One Touch, which seems to be purposely programmed to REJECT tiny blood samples, will tend to give you more CONSISTENT readings, since larger blood samples result in more accurate readings.
So my strong hunch at this point is that the True Result meter, and it's very affordable 18-cent strips, is indeed very accurate.
If I provide it a LARGE blood sample it is ALWAYS within a similar range as the One Touch meter.
But if I give it a small sample, it will give me crazy readings. And will in fact, "accept" such error prone small blood samples, whereas the One Touch will NOT allow you to give it too small a sample.
So I think they are BOTH very accurate, and the occasional wildly varying readings between the two meters simply come down to the fact that the One Touch is programmed to REJECT error-prone small blood samples, and the True Result meter accepts them.
I'm finding if I give BOTH meters plenty of blood, they both give very similar readings. Such as the 98 my meter gave me this morning vs the 101 my wife's meter gave me.
This is very good news for those of us on a budget, who'd rather pay 18 cents a strip instead of a dollar.
The key is to give your meter enough blood. And make sure your hands are clean! I have found that even a bit of BBQ sauce on finger can cause a wild reading.
Last edited by coachjeff : Sat, Feb-14-15 at 08:12.
|