Talk:Blood glucose monitoring

Clean up template

I added the cleanup template as the text reads like it was taken from another source and/or a dictonary, and the images need to be reconsidered, captioned, and moved to better positions in the article.You may feel diffrentlyPegasi195 08:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC) 082-02-2258-4859

Incomplete: writers needed

The last three sections of this article are not complete. The information to contribute to an interesting article in available in the referenced websites, someone must still read (compare and contrast) the information there and write the sections. Please help. mbbradford 18:00, 30, agust 2008

Article Bias

The portion about continuous blood glucose monitoring is too biased in favor of the technology. The truth is that the technology right now provides some clear advantages but still has flaws. Several months ago I tried to edit this page in order to balance this somewhat, attempting to objectively state both advantages and disadvantages, but the bias toward CGM has been re-introduced. For example, it is incorrect to say that the lag time is "minimal". 8-25 minutes for a patient with a severely dropping glucose level is significant.

Also, the references to the studies should not be done in-line.

Update: Have tried to balance the article a little bit. The in-line references are still there, however.

It's still biased, and misleading people about activities/lives of diabetics to promote the adoption of using insulin drugs, and monitoring technology.--184.101.254.250 (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Insurance in the US

I find the following paragraph to be biased toward US interest, and wordy/not all that informative. Perhaps it should be deleted.

Currently, continuous blood glucose monitoring is not automatically covered by health insurance in the United States in the same way that most other diabetic supplies are covered (e.g. standard glucose testing supplies, insulin, and even insulin pumps). However, an increasing number of insurance companies do cover continuous glucose monitoring supplies (both the receiver and disposable sensors) on a case-by-case basis if the patient and doctor show a specific need.The lack of insurance coverage is exacerbated by the fact that disposable sensors must be frequently replaced (sensors by Dexcom and Minimed have been FDA approved for 7- and 3-day use, respectively, though some patients wear sensors for longer than the recommended period) and the receiving meters likewise have finite lifetimes (less than 2 years and as little as 6 months). This is one factor in the slow uptake in the use of sensors that have been marketed in the United States. mbbradford 16:30 october 2008- (UTC)

Section on history needed

This article could do with a section on the history of this (I believe I have a book stating that home blood glucose monitoring for diabetics started in 1977, but I shall need to check that). As it is, it is in danger of getting tagged as being too much like an advertisement, which very few Wikipedians would want to see. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A removed section of Visually Read Test Strips

I found the text in box below was removed some time in the last ~8 months. Is there any major issues with it, or could it perhaps be used in Glucose meter? Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Visually Read Test Strips Visual test strips' are a medium cost method for monitoring blood glucose. A drop of blood (≈20µl), usually taken from the fingertip, is placed on a test zone which is located at one end of a strip of plastic. The test zone contains chemicals which react with the sugar (glucose) in the blood, changing color according the concentration of glucose, which can then be read by comparing the color with a chart on the side of the test strip container. These strips are suitable for people who are occasionally monitoring their blood glucose level (prediabetic or type 2) and are not using insulin. They are also useful for people who can't afford test strips that are used in electronic meters, and for people who dislike electronic meters or who need a back up for their meter. The Betachek Diabetes Test Strips Pamphlet for Use of Chemical Test Strips

Continuous glucose monitoring

IMO the header "continuous blood glucose monitoring" is a bit misleading. CGM stands for "continuous glucose monitoring" (without "blood") for a reason: CGM can take place in the blood (e.g. by intravenous sensors) or, as stated in the article, in the interstitial fluid, which is not blood. The lag time, which is estimated at 5 minutes in the article, is depending on the exact method used for fluid sampling, glucose measurement and data processing. Keenan and colleagues published some data in 2009, although this article may be biased as all of the authors were Medtronic employees at that time (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2769894/?tool=pubmed Delays in Minimally Invasive Continuous Glucose Monitoring Devices: A Review of Current Technology D. Barry Keenan, Ph.D.,1 John J. Mastrototaro, Ph.D.,1 Gayane Voskanyan, Ph.D.,1 and Garry M. Steil, Ph.D.2) -- 134.60.85.174 (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Calling the process "continuous blood glucose monitoring" is inaccurate. I've updated the section accordingly. - JeffJonez (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The manufacturer calls it a CGM. https://www.freestylelibre.us/ Bruce A. WIlliamson (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Products under development list

This is just a list of commercial links. Can anyone not directly related to one or more of the products featured make a reasonable argument for it's continued inclusion? - JeffJonez (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's Lying

"Most people with Type 2 diabetes test at least once per day. Diabetics who use insulin (all Type 1 diabetes and many Type 2s) usually test their blood sugar more often (3 to 10 times per day)" < All Type II Diabetics do, and daily? Really? Loads of Diabetics have never been diagnosed, and many don't even know, or suspect they are. Many who know they are, and/or are officially diagnosed also do not check daily (if they check at all), and/or do not use insulin drugs. Insulin drugs are linked to obesity, and worsening the health of Diabetics. And, this stuff is intended for Diabetics who don't/won't change their diets to keep it under control, and/or who aren't observant enough of their bodies to notice signs of low, and high blood sugar. Also, it's always referred to as "blood sugar," so why is this called "insulin monitoring?" It's blood sugar checking, so WTF? That incorrect title in itself is an advertisement for harmful, unnecessary drugs. I also doubt those who do use these things all check 3-10 times a day. Of course, the claims lack references, because it's a horrible exaggeration to mislead people, and encourage a harmful path people profit off instead of things like changing one's diet. --184.101.254.250 (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right--using a term like "most" can be misleading; some diabetics test themselves multiple times per day, others don't test at all (due to a refusal to follow their doctor's recommendations, because they can't afford the test strips, etc). I've changed the statement to clarify the testing with a "recommendation," rather than a sweeping generalization about all (insulin-using) diabetics. Biochemistry&Love (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I am not the first to bring it up, but that person did not follow protocol. This is to properly follow protocol. That person's point was that it favors technology too much. Mine is that it promotes the sell of both that technology, and insulin drugs, and literally lies to do it. (I cover this in the It's Lying section of this Talk page.) It has no interest in facts, alternative methods of gauging blood sugar levels, or of dietary changes to keep sugar down instead of drug use. It also focuses on Diabetes, leaving out Hypoglycemia. Probably because Hypoglycemics do not use insulin, and instead use dietary changes to keep things in check, often just eating a candy bar, food in general, or one of those prescription candy tablets (the big, orange sugar tablets - which are in fact literally pieces of candy to raise blood sugar). When listening to the Rockefeller quack doctors, Hypoglycemics are told to monitor their blood sugar the same as Diabetics, in the same possible ways of doing so, and are sold those prescription candies instead that likely cost more than candy bars knowing how that "medical" system works, and with both obviously cutting into insurance money without it being necessary (just as it's unnecessary with diabetes if one is willing to make the changes one should (my guess is they're focus on Type 2 Diabetics "all checking at least once a day" is prejudice against those who got Diabetic via having harmful diets, despite they're just as capable of changing their diets, capable of curing themselves (unlike those of us with Type I), and have no more difficulty in making those changes than Type I Diabetics have (being skinny does not mean it was easy to lower sugar in my diet! We do not have some dislike of sugary, and/or starchy things, or less like of it than obese people! And, I doubt obese folks want to be implied as having less self-control! The fact is that we naturally like sugar, and sugary (and starchy) foods, and drinks, making this challenging for anyone! And, the sugar levels in modern foods, and drinks are insane, making it more challenging to balance out one's diet in this area!)). Anyways... So, this wikipedia article has a very clear-cut POV, and is trying to be a drug-pusher/drug advertisement. --184.101.254.250 (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

separate CGM article needed

Floyd M. Bunsen (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blood glucose monitoring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100122232739/http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003438.htm to http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003438.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Continuous glucose monitoring

There is an article about CGM which doesnt seem consistent with what is said here. Neither are very well referenced.Rathfelder (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

"Clinistrip" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Clinistrip has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 21 § Clinistrip until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)