I know that the Reli On Confirm meter is one of the top 4 or 5 for accuracy in several rankings this year. How does the Premier compare to the Confirm? I have used the Prime for a few years now and it doesn’t rank as high so I’m hoping the Premier will be more accurate with the same cost strips.
We ran an accuracy study last year for AADE. Those results showed 98.1% accuracy within +/-15% and 100% accuracy within +/-20%. Overall bias was 0.1%.
We are running another accuracy study for this year’s AADE(August).
Unlike other manufacturers, we gather strips from the stores rather than from internal inventory. This ensures that these are the same strips consumers will be using. Some of our competitors will grab particular strip lots from their internal warehouse knowing that they have tested with a better accuracy and therefore are a biased result.
I think the ReliOn Micro is very accurate for low and middle-range readings, such as anything below 130. But it starts to have a wider range when you get up a bit higher.
I know this is normal with BG meters and strips, but do you have anything that shows specifics on this? Such as accuracy within different ranges?
I do, however, it is a PDF and this forum will not allow me to send that format. I attempted to send it as a PNG and I received a message that the file was too large.
Is there something I am missing?
No, there is a file size restriction.
I think this data would be great to see.
I’ll set it up to allow PDF’s for 30 minutes or so.
Okay, try attaching the PDF now.
Thanks for the reply. I know the meter has performed very well and my own experience has been that it is as accurate as my Contour Next. Good to see the methods you are using to make it “real world” accurate.
Thanks a lot. I just looked at the file:
The Confirm Micro is great on low numbers! Definitely my favorite meter for exercise.
This is exactly what I was saying!
Scott, I wanted to ask, is the Micro still going to be available? I know sometimes companies abandon the older models when new ones come out because they think new stuff is more appealing, and they are always adding new features. But I am hoping the Micro will still be kept as an option.
I have 4 Micros now. I actually still have one of the very old ones. The older style was more square-edged, if you remember that one.
Considering we only manufacture meters and strips for Walmart, it’s their decision when to retire products.
I have not received any information about end of life for the Micro.
For this assessment of the Premier, consisting of 120 BG measurements total, there were only 11 BG readings that were below 100 mg/dL. Looking at the dots on the Clarke error grid, I see a single BG around 55 mg/dL, five points around 75 mg/dL, and the remaining five around 95.
It’s nice that all 11 of the corresponding fingersticks were within 15 mg/dL of the BG, but this doesn’t seem to be a hugely strenuous test of the performance while hypo.
I know the number of tests they showed was not very expansive, but when I mentioned that it is great on low numbers, that is based on my own personal experience. Their test matched what I expected.
In the past 6 years I have over 1,000 tests on my Micro meters when I have been below 50. It never puts out any outliers for me in those circumstances, and I never see anything unexpected. Any double BG checks are always clustered together. I trust it when it shows a low number.
I find your extensive experience much more informative than their statement about 11 data points.
What were you using for the control? Real human blood from a variety of people of different ages, races and various health and blood chemistry to be reflective of the entire human spectrum?
Or a control solution produced in a laboratory that is exactly the same every single time?
In the experiment Scott posted, they used fingertip blood drops from diabetics, and compared it to a lab grade glucose analyzer. It was not done with a control solution.
There is no information given about the ages and races of the participants, but by default those things do generally trend toward some degree of diversity, depending on where the study is performed.
I’m not so sure that the diversity of study populations are as good as you suggest. I’m accustomed to reading about findings from groups of middle-class Americans, mostly of white race; presumably these were the subjects who were easily available.
In this study, there were 120 BG measurements, taken on one day, in Minneapolis. I see no reason to believe that there were more than ten people who were measured, and I see no reason to think there is any diversification in this study population.
As a former resident of the Twin Cities, I can assure you the study was very diverse. They had a high likelihood of having people from Wisconsin, Iowa, and the Dakotas. Sure they were probably all white, but I can assure you that people from the aforementioned states are nothing like Minnesotans, well the people from the Dakotas are kind of like Minnesotans, but the cheeseheads and Iowans are different…