4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Rapid changes in postprandial blood glucose produce concentration differences at finger, forearm, and thigh sampling sites

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 25, 期 6, 页码 961-964

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.25.6.961

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - To compare pre- and postmeal capillary blood glucose concentrations measured at the finger, forearm, and thigh in adults with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - For phase 1, capillary blood glucose concentrations were measured at six time points (premeal and at similar to60, 90, 120, 150, and 180 min postmeal) using a blood glucose monitoring system and technician-obtained samples collected from finger, forearm, and thigh sites of 42 adults With diabetes. The finger samples were also tested with a laboratory instrument. For phase 2, similar to14 weeks later, the testing procedures were repeated with 38 subjects from the original study population. RESULTS - Meter finger results were accurate at all time points. Alternate sites tended to produce lower glucose readings compared to finger readings at times when glucose was increasing rapidly (60 and 90 min postmeal). Forearm-to-finger differences correlated with rates of glucose change (r = 0.56, P < 0.001), as did the thigh-to-finger differences (r = 0.52, P < 0.001). Other factors, such as subject age, BMI, diabetes type, and insulin dependence did not have a significant impact on site differences. When the testing procedures were repeated with the same subjects, the pattern of site differences was consistent, although individual results were variable. CONCLUSIONS - Changes in blood glucose immediately after a meal may be identified at finger sites before detection at forearm or thigh sites. Alternate site testing appears to be a useful option for routine self-monitoring before meals; however, patients and clinicians should recognize that results may be different from fingertip results when glucose levels are changing rapidly.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据