Re [IPk] Retest results
Yes, that's just occurred to me! I'd been thinking 15.2 was over 20% lower
than 19.8 or that 19.8 was over 20% higher than 15.2, but yes, the real value
at the time could have been anything in between those 2.
And as Di says, as you get into the nether regions of (high) BGs, an exact
figure is less important as it becomes even less of an exact science bringing
that high reading down.
I think I freaked somewhat at the time about the discrepancy as I only did the
second test because I was scared of having a large correction dose for the
19.8 in the relative middle of nowhere Kent countryside with a group of people
I would feel acutely embarrassed in front of having a baaaad hypo, if by any
chance that 19.8 was way out. I knew I was high as I felt yucky and it had
been so sedentary, but that first reading felt 'wrong'. The correction dose I
gave for 15.2 worked fine, and I suspect my real BG had been closer to the
I dunno - I still find a difference of 4.6 quite a lot, even though it
probably was within the error margin allowed, and on a high reading matters
less. It just sounds a lot!
I think once we get pumping and learning to use our wonderful tools, along
with our knowledge our expectations go up. I want a meter that is far more
accurate ALL the time!! Oh let me just remember all that inaccurate urine
testing and calm down...
> CC: email @ redacted; email @ redacted
> From: email @ redacted
> Subject: Re: Re [IPk] Retest results
> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:18:03 +0000
> To: email @ redacted
> Isn't the requirement that the readings are within 20% of the true number,
not each other? So if you were 17 at the time then 15.2 would be -10% and 19.8
would be +16%. Both of these readings are inside the 20% limit.
> Sent from my iPhone
> > On 15 Jan 2014, at 22:52, Ingrid Glass <email @ redacted> wrote:
> > Hi John, a couple of months' ago I was out with my natural history group,
> > always an unknown quantity regarding how active/sedentary the day will be
> > how much energy I'll have to participate & for how long, and following
> > usual pre-emptive big basal reduction + extra carbs for brekkies, horror
> > horrors it was an extremely sedentary morning. I tested 1/2 hour before
> > and I was 19.8. I thought I'd better retest before shoving a large
> > dose in, and it was 15.2! As a result of this, I went through a period of
> > regular double testing to see how often the discrepancy was outside of the
> > 'allowable' range, and discovered far too frequently it was significantly
> > (> 20%) when outside of normal readings (say 4 - 8mmol/L). I started to
> > distrust my meter!! I have & use 3 of them - One Touch UltraEasy - so it
> > wasn't a one-off dud meter. But when I asked my DSN recently, she
> > assured me that this is one of the most accurate & reliable meters, they
> > it for 'all our pregnant ladies'. I've gone back to single testing and a
> > of forced artificial confidence (!) after DSN chat, but any highs now & I
> > double test.
> > Ingrid
> > Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 09:15:03 +0000
> > From: johnfarmitage <email @ redacted>
> > Subject: [IPk] Retest results.
> > I occasionally retest if I have an unexpected high BG result and have
> > noticed
> > that it always gives a lower reading of at least 1 mmol/L the second time.
> > must be a meter operation thing, but can anyone explain this? (Before you
> > try, let me buy some drug company shares:) )
> > .
> > Follow us at https://www.twitter.com/insulinpumpers
> > Make a long URL short at http://type1.org
for HELP or to subscribe/unsubscribe/change list versions,
Follow us at https://www.twitter.com/insulinpumpers
Make a long URL short at http://type1.org