[Previous Months][Date Index][Thread Index][Join - Register][Login]
[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: [IP] Comparison of Lifescan One Touch Ultra to One Touch Profile

Thanks for the excellent analysis. I traveled the same
road and came to the exact same conclusions as you
did. Especially the one you mentioned about testing in
dim light. The Ultra is much less forgiving in terms
of getting the blood to the right place in 5 seconds.
And I was also relieved to find that the two meters
were very close in test results, sometimes to the
point of identical results. I felt very comfortable in
making the switch to the Ultra as my main meter. 
--- Andrew Aronoff <email @ redacted> wrote:
> I've used the One Touch Profile for over 6 years. I
> have been extremely 
> satisfied with its performance. It has consistently
> provided readings that 
> confirm how I feel when I'm at extremes -- if I feel
> high, it measures high 
> and vice versa. This is of _critical_ importance,
> since I can depend on the 
> meter to reliably assist me to determine the dosage
> of appropriate 
> treatment -- insulin, food, or activity. I've used
> other meters (no longer 
> marketed) that did not "measure what I felt".(*) So,
> I'm VERY cautious when 
> it comes to changing my blood glucose analyzer.
> I was intrigued by the short analysis time and small
> sample size announced 
> for the One Touch Ultra. I decided to purchase one
> and compare it to the 
> Profile. I performed over a hundred simultaneous
> measurements on the two 
> analyzers over several weeks, always using a single
> lancet site to supply 
> blood to the two test strips. (The test results are
> available in an Excel 
> file to anyone that wants to perform additional
> analyses -- e-mail me 
> privately.)
> I found major advantages to the Ultra. I also found
> some (minor) 
> disadvantages. My conclusions follow. I'm now using
> the Ultra exclusively.
> Ultra Advantages (in priority order)
> 1. The Ultra closely tracks the Profile (linear
> regression coefficient = 
> 0.9926, n=132, Ultra = Profile x 0.9234 + 5.90).
> Note that this does NOT 
> mean that either the Profile or the Ultra is as good
> as a lab test. It 
> simply means that a measurement on one will be close
> to a measurement on 
> the other. Results on my Ultra are slightly less
> than those on my Profile, 
> a difference of 10 mg/dl at 200 mg/dl on the Profile
> and 25 mg/dl at 400 
> mg/dl on the Profile. This is what I found on *my*
> two meters. Your meters 
> will NOT necessarily show the same difference.
> I have, in fact, two Profile meters. One is the
> primary day-to-day meter; 
> the other is a less-frequently-used (but "trusted")
> backup. I decided to 
> compare the performance of the two Profiles, using a
> single lancet site to 
> supply samples to two test strips. The results were
> very similar to those 
> comparing the Profile to the Ultra. The two Profiles
> had a linear 
> regression coefficient of 0.9972, n = 42, Profile
> (backup) = Profile 
> (primary) x 1.0583 - 4.984. Results on my backup are
> slightly higher than 
> those on my primary, a difference of 7 mg/dl at 200
> mg/dl on the primary 
> Profile and 18 mg/dl at 400 mg/dl on the primary
> Profile. The difference 
> between my two Profiles is comparable to the
> difference between my primary 
> Profile and my Ultra.
> Since the Profile has been very reliable for me,
> it's reassuring to know 
> that the Ultra should provide comparable measurement
> performance.
> 2. Ultra analysis time is 5 seconds, a sharp
> reduction from the Profile 
> analysis time of 45 seconds. At 45 seconds per test
> and 6 tests/day, I wait 
> over 1 day/year in front of the Profile for the
> results. At 5 seconds per 
> test, the annual wait is reduced to only 3 hours.
> 3. The Ultra requires a *much* smaller sample size.
> Most any lancet 
> puncture should now work.
> 4. The Ultra carrying case has lots of pockets,
> inside and out.
> Ultra Disadvantages (in priority order)
> 1. For diabetics on MDI, the Ultra cannot record the
> insulin dose.
> 2. The Ultra has a memory of 150 tests; the Profile
> stores 300 tests. At 6 
> tests per day, Profile results could be downloaded
> to the PC monthly, but 
> Ultra results will have to be more downloaded more
> frequently. (Hey, 
> Lifescan, memory's pretty cheap. How about capacity
> for 500 total tests? 
> I'd be glad to pay even $10 extra for this feature.)
> 3. The only way to download Ultra results to the PC
> is via In Touch 1.3.2 
> (or later). The commands to download to the PC over
> the serial cable 
> connection are undocumented. (For the Profile, "dmi"
> and "dmp" sent to the 
> meter's RS-232 port initiates download of
> glucose+insulin results and 
> glucose results, respectively.)
> 4. Checking results in memory on the Ultra requires
> an onerous wait through 
> the display of the time, 14-day and 30-day averages.
> It would have been 
> better to make such display optional.
> 5. Sample application via capillary action takes
> some practice. It's 
> particularly difficult to do with a small sample
> drop in dim light. IOW, 
> you have to actually see what you're doing to use
> the Ultra. ;-)
> P.S.: I have absolutely NO connection with Lifescan.
> I own no shares of 
> Johnson & Johnson. I won't get even a single Ultra
> strip for this testimonial.
> (*) Way back in January 1991, I wrote a letter, cc'd
> to the FDA, about one 
> analyser, which I found had measurement
> discrepancies "large enough to 
> interfere with blood sugar control by failing to
> reveal high blood sugar 
> levels requiring the administration of additional
> insulin."
> for HELP or to subscribe/unsubscribe, contact:
> HELP@insulin-pumpers.org
> send a DONATION

Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
for HELP or to subscribe/unsubscribe, contact: HELP@insulin-pumpers.org
send a DONATION http://www.Insulin-Pumpers.org/donate.shtml