So last night I got the first spread between 2 meters with my own blood… this is pretty typical for these 2 meters and I’ve always just attributed it to the vagueries of my own blood chemistry and the specific enzyme reaction of different meters
Today I tried an experiment… granted not a perfect experiment since the control solution I have matches one brand of meter and not the other— but still I find the results highly interesting…
Which one is more accurate? Those are huge differences.
Well I’d imagine that the huge differences In the second two pics is attributable to the testing solution being designed for one type of enzyme vs the other
As for which is more accurate it’s hard to say… at normal bg, say 70 or 130 or so they seem to be reasonably close to each other… if there’s any sort of spike going on the one touch verio reads way way higher, always… which makes no sense to me… it’s pretty typical that if there’s any activity going on my cgm and any other meter might read, say, 150… while the one touch verio would invariably read over 200
I generally dislike every OneTouch meter I’ve ever used
There’s a 60 point difference in the first photo though. That’s pretty unacceptable to me. At best, your blood sugar is smack dab in the middle and they’re both off by 30. If the True2go is accurate, but you’re using the Flex then you’d overbolus by a lot and probably run low pretty often. If the Verioflex is accurate, but you’re using the True2go, then you’re probably running a little high all the time.
@Sam, I am not sure that a control solution designed for one meter is a fair trial for another. A test with the same drop of blood for both meters is the better way to go, I think.
From what I have read, both your True 2go and your One Touch Verio Flex are less than optimal meters (the True 2go less reliable than the other, but both noisy).
I haven’t seen any stats on the flex on this site. Which site have you referenced regarding accuracy? P.S. I’m currently using this meter. My insurance only covers onetouch.
@CarolynA, most of the studies I have read indicates that, of your three, the Accu-chek Aviva is the most accurate. It is very well rated by most. I would trust it more than the others.
I don’t agree with that at all. I believe the true2go was one of the best meters ever made… consumer reports thinks so too and is what led me to it years ago
(Unfortunately they no longer make it)
I agree the one touch verio is total junk
I agree that control solution designed for one is not a fair assessment of the other… it’s still interesting though… and pic #1 was taken from the same droplet of blood
That’s the thing they test reasonably well in laboratories, not stellar, but in real life with real human blood they’re just ridiculously inconsistent… test your bg 20 times in a row when it’s slightly elevated and you’ll see what I mean
@Katers87, the study referenced here rates the VerioIQ (which has the same strip-reading technology, I believe as the Verio and the Verio Flex), fairly high. But other studies published in the past 2 years and referenced on this site in several threads typically rate the Verio lower than the Contour, the Freedom and the Accu-Check Aviva and Nano.
I am working on a post to compare all studies of BG meters in one single post, so we can access them all. Hopefully I’ll have that ready in a couple of weeks.
it was rated VG by Consumer Reports, I think (like the Verio), but not Excellent. The best meters were rated Excellent. I’ll try to find this comparative table again.
In the consumer reports that led me to it it was rated second only to freestyle, and only slightly behind freestyle and the rest of the pack was way way behind… this was at least 6 years ago
I’ve paid cash for them exclusively from that point on instead of using OneTouch that my insurance provides… (until they discontinued the true test strips). Actually look at the results for the true result meter that’s the same exact meter but bigger, it uses same strips and reads exactly the same, same internal circuits —- that’s what I found first and led me to the true2go.
That’s the thing about studies, they don’t compare real world results… real world meter performance isn’t something that can be reproduced or measured in a scientific laboratory in a study…
I’m running pretty high at the moment, so I thought I’d give it a try. Tested on my Verio as 213. I pulled out my contour next and used a new drop of blood on both my Verio and contour, Verio again came back as 213 and contour came back as 218.
Maybe my blood is better than yours 
I suppose you did say “slightly elevated.” I’ll give it another try when I’m in that range.
Must be. My cgm reads 105 right now (strangely, it was calibrated with the one touch)
True2go reads 103, 97
One touch reads 122, 124
Are you rising?
Very slowly possibly
Most “machines” are designed for a certain range. It may be possible that some meters perform better, consistently, or more accurately, in either the high or the low range.
@Sam- IIRC, you mentioned that you have access to a hospital or lab for blood chemistry. How about drawing blood for BG only. Check the hospital lab results against the glucometers? My experience with OneTouch was quite forgettable. I’ve been using freestyle lite because of its consistency, accuracy, and it requires the least amount of blood. The Accuchek was eh…better than One Touch, but not a fan of its size, design…etc.
I have done that quite a number of times… at normal fasting levels, for me, the one-touch was running about 10% high each time and the true result/ true2go was pretty much right on…
I’ve only tested the true metrix (true2go replacement) compared to labs while my bg was appreciably elevated (about 200). It was within the margin of error of the lab result… was testing repeatedly bc I was trying to do an elevated bg lab draw—- it was running between about 180-210 and the lab draw came back at 198. The true metrix is nowhere near as good of a meter as the true result/ true2go that it replaced was) I am certain as I can be based on experience that the one touch would have read close to 300 at that moment, but I can’t prove it bc I didn’t actually test it
