Uruguay
El objetivo de este estudio fue determinar la utilidad de glucómetros en relación al método de laboratorio estándar (MEL) en muestras sanguíneas: saludables, diabéticas, eritrociticas y anémicas. Los glucómetros (GM) evaluados fueron ACCU CHEK Active en sus dos procedimientos (ACCU I y ACCU II), ONE TOUCH Ultra (ONETu) y TRUEread fácil (TRUEf). Se utilizó el análisis de varianza ANOVA, p<0.005. De 54 muestras saludables con hematocrito 49±4, ONETu no expuso diferencia significativa con MEL, ACCU I, ACCU II y TRUEf expusieron diferencias significativas, siendo TRUEf el que reveló mayor diferencia con valores sobreestimados en más de 30 mg/dL. De 60 muestras diabéticas con hematocrito 48±8, no hubo diferencias significativas entre los GM y MEL, sin embargo se detectaron resultados incongruentes de 2 a 3 veces sobreestimados (13%) y de 2 a 3 veces infravalorados (12%) con los GM ONETu y TRUEf; ACCU I y ACCU II expusieron incongruencias leves. De 54 muestras eritrociticas con hematocrito 66±6, se detectaron valores infravalorados en 20 mg/dL con ONETu y TRUEf (10%), ACCU I (18%); ACCU II reporto valores sobreestimados entre 15-25 mg/dL (40%) con diferencia estadística significativa. De 40 muestras anémicas con hematocrito 29±9, se reportó valores sobreestimados, 20% (ONETu), 35% (TRUEf), 45% (ACCU II) y 55% (ACCU I), con una diferencia mayor a 20 mg/dL. Los GM evaluados presentan diferentes grados de interferencia por muestras diabéticas, anémicas y eritrociticas, en el caso de muestras eritrociticas se observan valores infravalorados, en muestras anémicas valores sobrevalorados, estos datos deben ser considerados para un mejor uso de los GM.
The objective of this study was to determine the usefulness of glucometers in relation to the standard laboratory method (MEL) in blood samples: healthy, diabetic, erythrocytic and anemic. The glucometers (GM) evaluated were ACCU CHEK Active in its two procedures (ACCU I and ACCU II), ONE TOUCH Ultra (ONETu) and Easy TRUEread (TRUEf). The ANOVA analysis of variance, p<0.005, was used. Of 54 healthy samples with hematocrit 49±4, ONETu did not show a significant difference with MEL, ACCU I, ACCU II and TRUEf showed significant differences, being TRUEf the one that revealed the greatest difference with over-estimated values in more than 30 mg / dL. Of 60 diabetic samples with hematocrit 48 ± 8, there were no significant differences between GM and MEL, however incongruous results were detected 2 to 3 times overestimated (13%) and 2 to 3 times undervalued (12%) with GM ONETu and TRUEf; ACCU I and ACCU II exposed slight inconsistencies. Of 54 erythrocyte samples with hematocrit 66 ± 6, underestimated values were detected in 20 mg / dL with ONETu and TRUEf (10%), ACCU I (18%); ACCU II reported overestimated values between 15-25 mg / dL (40%) with significant statistical difference. Of 40 anemic samples with hematocrit 29 ± 9, overestimated values were reported, 20% (ONETu), 35% (TRUEf), 45% (ACCU II) and 55% (ACCU I), with a difference greater than 20 mg / dL. The GM evaluated present different degrees of interference by diabetic, anemic and erythrocytic samples, in the case of erythrocytic samples, undervalued values are observed, in anemic samples overvalued values, these data should be considered for a better use of GM.
© 2001-2024 Fundación Dialnet · Todos los derechos reservados