Diabetes Care
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jungheim, K.
Right arrow Articles by Koschinsky, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jungheim, K.
Right arrow Articles by Koschinsky, T.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Diabetes Care 25:956-960, 2002
© 2002 by the American Diabetes Association, Inc.

Clinical Care/Education/Nutrition
Original Article

Glucose Monitoring at the Arm

Risky delays of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia detection

Karsten Jungheim, MD and Theodor Koschinsky, MD

German Diabetes Research Institute, Duesseldorf, Germany


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 CONCLUSIONS
 References
 
OBJECTIVE—We have examined whether rapid changes in blood glucose (BG) result in clinically relevant differences between capillary BG values measured at the forearm and the fingertip and whether local rubbing of the skin before blood sampling can diminish such differences.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Capillary BG samples were collected every 15 min for 3–5 h from the fingertip and the forearm of 17 insulin-treated diabetic patients and analyzed with different glucose monitors (FreeStyle, One Touch Ultra, and Soft-Sense). In a subgroup of patients (n = 8), local rubbing of the forearm skin was performed before blood sampling. A rapid increase in BG was induced by oral administration of glucose, and subsequently, a rapid decrease in glucose was induced by intravenous administration of insulin.

RESULTS—In the fasting state, the BG values at the fingertip and at the forearm were similar (7.8 ± 2.4 vs. 7.2 ± 2.3 mmol/l, P = 0.06). However, during rapid increase in glucose, BG values at the fingertip were consistently higher than at the forearm (maximal difference 4.6 ± 1.2 mmol/l, P < 0.001). During rapid decrease in glucose, lower BG values were recorded at the fingertip (maximal difference to forearm 5.0 ± 1.0 mmol/l, P < 0.001). At the forearm, BG was delayed by a median of 35 min (P < 0.01) in relation to the fingertip. Rubbing of forearm skin decreased the observed differences but with a large intraindividual and interindividual variability. There were no obvious device-specific differences.

CONCLUSIONS—To avoid risky delays of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia detection, BG monitoring at the arm should be limited to situations in which ongoing rapid changes in BG can be excluded.

Abbreviations: BG, blood glucose • SMBG, self-monitoring of blood glucose


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 CONCLUSIONS
 References
 
Alternate site testing of capillary blood glucose (BG), i.e., at sites other than the fingertip, has been requested by individuals with diabetes to reduce the pain associated with finger-pricking and by their physicians to increase compliance with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). SMBG is an essential part of diabetes management, e.g., for insulin adjustments, and plays an important role in the detection of impending hypoglycemia. Blood samples for SMBG are usually obtained by pricking the fingertip, where BG closely follows arterial BG concentrations. However, pricking the fingertip is painful and uncomfortable, even with modern lancing devices.

Sampling at sites less densely innervated than the fingertip is associated with significantly reduced pain (1– 3) and is consequently an attractive alternative. So far, this has been hindered by the minute blood volume (<=3 µl) obtainable from these sites. Recently, several new SMBG devices (Accu-Check Active, Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN; AtLast, Amira, Scotts Valley, CA; FreeStyle, TheraSense, Alameda, CA; Glucometer Elite XL in combination with Microlet Vaculance, Bayer, Tarrytown, NY; One Touch Ultra, LifeScan, Milpitas, CA; Soft-Sense, Abbott, Bedford, MA) with sample volumes between 0.3 and 2.6 µl received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for alternate site testing at the forearm, upper arm, abdomen, thigh, and calf. They have been marketed with considerable efforts in Europe and America under the assumption that capillary BG measurements at alternate sites do not differ from the usual measurements at the fingertip.

We were alerted by patients with diabetes who reported discrepancies between clinical symptoms of hypoglycemia with hypoglycemic values at the finger and normoglycemic SMBG values measured at the forearm (e.g., 2.8 vs. 5.6 mmol/l) ( 4). Neither standardized quality control assessments of technical performance ( 2, 5) nor patient device handling resulted in any obvious explanation of the reported discrepancies. Because the clinical circumstances pointed to the critical role of rapid BG changes, we studied 1) whether rapid BG changes result in clinically relevant BG differences between the forearm and the fingertip, and 2) whether local rubbing of the forearm skin (recommended by some manufacturers to increase blood volume) diminishes such differences.


   RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
RESULTS
 CONCLUSIONS
 References
 
Participants
Insulin-treated patients with diabetes were consecutively recruited between December 2000 and April 2001 among in-patients from the German Diabetes Research Institute (Duesseldorf, Germany) who were undergoing routine hypoglycemia awareness testing (n = 20). Decision for hypoglycemia awareness testing was independently made by the caring physicians. Three patients refused to participate due to the required additional BG sampling. A total of 17 patients participated in the study: 2 women, 15 men; age range 20–59 years (median 38); 13 patients with type 1 diabetes, 4 patients with type 2 diabetes; duration of diabetes 2 weeks to 28 years (median 13). Diabetes-specific complications were absent in 12 patients, whereas mild microvascular complications were observed in 5 patients (retinopathy in 5, sensorimotor neuropathy in 2, microalbuminuria in 2). Five patients reported impaired awareness of hypoglycemia.

BG measurements
Capillary BG samples were analyzed with SMBG devices approved for quantitative glucose measurements in capillary blood taken from the fingertip as well as the forearm. For BG measurements, the following SMBG devices were used: FreeStyle (TheraSense, Alameda, CA) requiring a sample volume of 0.3 µl (10 patients), MediSense Soft-Sense (Abbott, Bedford, MA) requiring a sample volume of 2.6 µl (4 patients), and One Touch Ultra (LifeScan, Milpitas, CA) requiring a sample volume of 1.0 µl (3 patients).

In all patients, additional capillary whole blood samples (20 µl) from the fingertip were collected in parallel to the SMBG device samples and analyzed in our clinical chemistry laboratory by a hexokinase-based method (Gluco-quant; Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany). These laboratory values matched the respective fingertip values measured with the examined SMBG devices ( Figs. 1 and 2; Table 1). The technical performance of all BG monitors within the study was evaluated ( 6) and was within the limits expected for SMBG devices [median (quartiles) of relative glucose deviation (i.e., capillary BG from the fingertip: SMBG monitor value divided by clinical chemistry lab value) was 0.9% (-1.9; 5.8) for Free Style, 2.9% (-3.6; 7.6) for Soft-Sense, and 3.7% (-0.8; 8.9) for One Touch Ultra].



View larger version (31K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1— Representative study BG profiles from the forearm and the fingertip of six patients with diabetes. Changes in BG were induced with 75 g oral glucose (t = 0) and by intravenous insulin injection. BG was analyzed using three different BG monitors as well as a clinical chemistry laboratory (CC-lab) method.

 


View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 2— Effect of rubbing on forearm BG values: representative study BG profiles from three patients with diabetes. BG changes were induced and measured as described inFig. 1.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1— Capillary forearm BG compared with the first hypoglycemic value (BG <=3.5 mmol/l) at the fingertip

 
Procedures
After an overnight fast and on their individual basal insulin, the patients’ prebreakfast rapid-acting insulin was omitted, and the breakfast was replaced by an oral glucose load (Dextro O.G-T.; Hoffmann-LaRoche, Grenzach-Wyhlen, Germany), equivalent to 75 g glucose, to achieve BG values of 16–22 mmol/l. The glucose load was reduced to half in those patients with a baseline fingertip BG >10 mmol/l to reach comparable BG values of 16–22 mmol/l. Then, the patient’s usual short-acting insulin was injected intravenously at an individual dose (6–40 units) to induce a fast decrease in BG (>0.1 mmol · l- 1 · min-1) down to hypoglycemic values (<=3.5 mmol/l). Hypoglycemia was treated by oral administration of glucose.

Capillary blood samples were collected by a trained research nurse in parallel (within 3 min) from the fingertip (lateral pulps of fingers 2–4) and the forearm (ventral and dorsoradial surface) every 15 min. In each patient, the same BG monitor was used for capillary BG measurements at both sites. The forearm skin was not rubbed before BG sampling, as recommended by some manufacturers, to avoid any disturbance of the normal regional blood flow. In a subset of patients (n = 8), additional blood samples were collected from the other forearm after a research nurse rubbed the forearm skin area ({approx}20 cm2), which was subsequently used for lancing. The rubbing required 5–10 s and aimed to result in marked warming and redness of the skin area.

All procedures were followed in accordance with the standards of the Ethical committee at the Heinrich-Heine University (Duesseldorf, Germany), and written informed consent was obtained from each participant before the study.

Data analysis
Glucose profiles were analyzed separately for the increase part, i.e., from the ingestion of the glucose load to the BG maximum measured at the fingertip, and the decrease part, i.e., from insulin injection to the BG minimum measured at the fingertip.

Data were compared by a two-sided Wilcoxon’s matched-pairs signed-rank test. If appropriate, P values were adapted according to the Bonferroni procedure. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Time delays in forearm BG increase and decrease were determined at a BG level of 3.5, 5.5, and 14 mmol/l, respectively. Unless otherwise stated, data are expressed as median (interquartile range).


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
 RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
 References
 
With all three BG monitors, we observed similar capillary BG differences between the forearm and the fingertip during the increase part as well as the decrease part. Representative examples of all BG monitors are shown inFig. 1. For further analysis, results of all BG monitors were combined.

At baseline, no relevant differences between BG values at the finger and forearm [7.7 (2.9) vs. 6.5 (2.4) mmol/l, P = 0.06] were observed. The increase in BG at the fingertip was consistently larger than that at the forearm [11.5 (2.4) vs. 8.4 (1.9) mmol/l, P < 0.001]. The rate of increase in BG measured at the fingertip was 0.13 ± 0.03 mmol · l-1 · min- 1. An individual maximal difference in BG between forearm and finger of 4.7 mmol/l (1.3) (range 2.6–7.6) was observed 30–90 min after the ingestion of glucose. The decrease in BG at the fingertip was also consistently larger than that at the forearm [15.0 (1.6) vs. 12.1 (2.4) mmol/l, P < 0.001]. The rate of decrease in BG measured at the fingertip was 0.17 ± 0.06 mmol · l-1 · min-1. An individual maximal difference in BG between forearm and finger of 5.4 mmol/l (1.6) (range 3.4–6.6) was observed 15–75 min after administration of insulin. At the first hypoglycemic fingertip BG value (<=3.5 mmol/l), 80% of forearm BG values were >=5.0 mmol/l (Table 1).

During the increase and decrease parts, BG at the forearm was lagging behind BG at the fingertip by a median of 27 min (6–91, P < 0.001), of 35 min (22–67, P < 0.001), and of 34 min (27–35, P < 0.05) at 14.0, 5.5, and 3.5 mmol/l, respectively.

There was a large intraindividual and interindividual variation of the rubbing effect on the finger-forearm BG difference in the subset of patients (n = 8) on which a rubbing procedure was performed. In these patients, the effect ranged from virtually no change of forearm BG to the establishment of full equilibration with the fingertip BG (Fig. 2). On average, the individual maximal difference between forearm and finger was reduced during the increase part from 4.5 ± 0.7 to 3.1 ± 1.1 mmol/l (P < 0.05) and during the decrease part from 4.8 ± 1.1 to 3.0 ± 0.9 mmol/l (P < 0.01).


   CONCLUSIONS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 CONCLUSIONS
References
 
Glucose monitoring at the arm is an attractive, nearly painless alternative to the more painful fingertip site. BG values from both sites are virtually equal at metabolic steady state. Unfortunately, due to rapid BG changes, transient but clinically relevant differences between forearm BG and the fingertip BG occur. During rapid BG changes, the forearm BG is lagging behind the fingertip BG by >30 min on average. As a result, the detection of hyperglycemia as well as hypoglycemia can be delayed. Clinical relevance is obvious, as even few delays of hypoglycemia detection could cause serious adverse events in diabetic patients, especially in those with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia.

Several systems for BG testing at alternate sites have been recently approved according to the provided evidence that BG values from these sites do not differ from values measured in blood samples collected at the fingertip. These results are related to the general design of standard study protocols for the technical and clinical evaluation of SMBG devices (7). They do not specify whether BG values must be taken during periods of slow or rapid BG changes. Actually, the BG measurements used for evaluation are normally taken for insulin dose adjustments and therefore focus on fasting and preprandial values, i.e., times usually not characterized by rapid BG changes. Therefore, it is not surprising that the observed differences during rapid BG changes were overlooked. Similarly, studies comparing glucose values measured in dermal interstitial fluid with those measured in blood were either done in the fasting state or during slow or moderate BG changes ( 8– 12) and might therefore not have found significant differences.

The observed slower glucose kinetics at the forearm are most likely related to physiologically occurring site-specific differences in dermal circulation. In healthy individuals as well as those with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, dermal blood flow is 5–20 times higher at the fingertip than at the forearm ( 13– 15). This is due to the fact that arteriovenous anastomoses within the dermis are numerous in glabrous (hairless) skin (e.g., fingertip) but nearly absent in nonglabrous (hairy) skin (e.g., forearm) ( 13, 16). Therefore, the total exchange of blood within cutaneous venous plexus, from which blood obtained by skin-pricking is mainly derived ( 17), will take more time at the forearm than at the fingertip. This interpretation is supported by the ameliorating effect of local rubbing of the skin, which increases local blood flow.

Because our observations are based on physiological differences in local dermal blood flow, they presumably affect any glucose test system that relies on glucose values from the upper skin layer of the arm (18). This is in accordance with our observations in all three examined BG monitors and supported by findings of their manufacturers ( 19– 21). Test systems that measure glucose concentration within dermal interstitial fluid, such as the recently approved GlucoWatch (Cygnus, Redwood City, CA) or noninvasive optical devices such as the Diasensor 1,000 (Biocontrol Technology, Indiana, PA) might possibly detect rapid changes in BG with that significant delay. Due to the similarity of dermal blood flow, BG samples taken at other nonglabrous skin areas (e.g., upper arm, abdomen, thigh, or calf) could be affected in a similar way.

Rubbing of the forearm skin can reduce differences in BG during rapid changes in BG. However, due to the considerable intra- and interindividual variability the effect of rubbing on the forearm BG value is unpredictable. Therefore, rubbing of forearm skin cannot be regarded as a reliable compensatory action.

We conclude that BG testing at the forearm under metabolic steady-state conditions (e.g., fasting state, preprandially) can be a reliable and valuable alternative to BG testing at the usual finger site. However, during rapid changes in BG, e.g., postprandially or insulin-induced, the forearm should not be used for BG testing due to risky delays in detection of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. In addition, we would not recommend relying on BG values from the forearm if there is any concern about hypoglycemia (e.g., when driving a car). Diabetic patients and their health care providers should be informed and trained specifically in the proper use of alternate site testing at the arm. Before recommending other alternate sites for BG testing, site-specific information about the reliability of BG results during rapid BG changes should be provided. Evaluation protocols should be extended appropriately to ensure that BG is tested during periods of sufficiently rapid change in BG. There is a need for more studies covering various aspects of daily life (e.g., physical exercise or vasoactive drugs) that might change the BG equilibration process at alternate sites.


   Acknowledgments
 
We thank Dipl.-Volksw, Karsten Dannehl for help with statistical analysis, and Petra Heidkamp, Elisabeth Moll, Christa Riedel, and Hedwig Vogt for technical assistance.


   Footnotes
 
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Prof. Theodor Koschinsky, MD, German Diabetes Research Institute, Clinical Department, Auf’m Hennekamp 65, 40225 Duesseldorf, Germany. E-mail: koschins{at}neuss.netsurf.de.

Received for publication 13 August 2001 and accepted in revised form 6 March 2002.

A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances.


   References
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 CONCLUSIONS
 References
 

  1. Cunningham DD, Henning TP, Shain EB, Young DF, Elstrom TA, Taylor EJ, Schroder SM, Gatcomb PM, Tamborlane WV: Vacuum-assisted lancing of the forearm: an effective and less painful approach to blood glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther 2:541–548, 2000[Medline]
  2. Feldman B, McGarraugh G, Heller A, Bohannon N, Skyler J, DeLeeuw E, Clarke D: FreeStyleTM: a small sample electrochemical glucose sensor for home blood glucose testing. Diabetes Technol Ther 2:221–229, 2000[Medline]
  3. Fineberg SE, Bergenstal RM, Bernstein RM, Laffel LM, Schwartz SL: Use of an automated device for alternative site blood glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care 24:1217–1220, 2001[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Jungheim K, Koschinsky T: Risky delay of hypoglycemia detection by glucose monitoring at the arm. Diabetes Care 24:1303–1304, 2001[Free Full Text]
  5. Koschinsky T, Heidkamp P, Vogt H: FreeStyleTM-technical evaluation of a new blood glucose meter for off-finger testing (Abstract). Diabetes 49(Suppl. 1):A114, 2000
  6. Koschinsky T, Dannehl K, Gries FA: New approach to technical and clinical evaluation of devices for self-monitoring of blood glucose. Diabetes Care 11:619–629, 1988[Abstract]
  7. NCCLS: Method Comparison and Bias Estimation Using Patient Samples: Approved Guideline. Wayne, NCCLS, 1995 (NCCLS doc. no. EP9-A)
  8. Bantle JP, Thomas W: Glucose measurement in patients with diabetes mellitus with dermal interstitial fluid. J Lab Clin Chem 130:436–441, 1997
  9. Stout P, Pokela K, Mullins-Hirte D, Hoegh T, Hilgers M, Thorp A, Collison M, Glushko T: Site-to-site variation of glucose in interstitial fluid samples and correlation to venous plasma glucose. Clin Chem 45:1674–1675, 1999[Free Full Text]
  10. Jensen BM, Bjerring P, Christiansen JS, Orskov H: Glucose content in human skin: relationship with blood glucose levels. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 55:427–432, 1995[Medline]
  11. Svedman P, Svedman C: Skin mini-erosion sampling technique: feasibility study with regard to serial glucose measurement. Pharm Res 15:883–888, 1998[Medline]
  12. Stout PJ, Peled N, Erickson BJ, Hilgers ME, Racchini JR, Hoegh TB: Comparison of glucose levels in dermal interstitial fluid and finger capillary blood. Diabetes Technol Ther 3:81–90, 2001[Medline]
  13. Fagrell B: Microcirculation of the skin. In The Physiology and Pharmacology of the Microcirculation. 1st ed. Mortillardo NA, Ed. Orlando, Academic Press, 1984, p.133–180
  14. Rendell M, Bergman T, O’ Donnel G, Drobny E, Borgos J, Bonner RF: Microvascular blood flow, volume and velocity measured by laser doppler techniques in IDDM. Diabetes 38:819–824, 1989[Abstract]
  15. Stansberry KB, Peppard HR, Babyak LM, Popp G, McNitt P, Vinik AI: Primary nociceptive afferents mediate the blood flow dysfunction in non-glabrous (hairy) skin of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 22:1549–1554, 1999[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Bannister LH: Integumental system: skin and breasts. In Gray’s Anatomy: The Anatomical Basis of Medicine and Surgery. 38th ed. Williams PL, Ed. London, Churchill Livingstone, 1995, p. 375–424
  17. Fruhstorfer H, Mueller T, Scheer E: Capillary blood sampling: how much pain is necessary? Part 2: Relation between penetration depth and puncture pain. Pract Diabetes Int 12:184–185, 1995
  18. Koschinsky T, Heinemann L: Sensors for glucose monitoring: technical and clinical aspects. Diabete Metab Res Rev 17:113–123, 2001
  19. Ellison J, Stegmann J, Ervin K, Horwitz D: Arm and thigh capillary blood glucose as alternatives to fingertip sampling in the management of diabetes (Abstract). Diabetes 50(Suppl. 2):A111, 2001
  20. McGarraugh G: Response to Jungheim and Koschinsky: glucose monitoring at the arm. Diabetes Care 24:1304–1306, 2001[Free Full Text]
  21. McGarraugh G, Price D, Schwartz S, Weinstein R: Physiological influences on off-finger glucose testing. Diabetes Technol Ther 3:367–376, 2001[Medline]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Diabetes CareHome page
J.-P. Le Floch, B. Bauduceau, M. Levy, H. Mosnier-Pudar, C. Sachon, and B. Kakou
Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose, Cutaneous Finger Injury, and Sensory Loss in Diabetic Patients
Diabetes Care, October 1, 2008; 31(10): e73 - e73.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
M.-H. Wu, M.-Y. Fang, L.-N. Jen, H.-C. Hsiao, A. Muller, and C.-T. Hsu
Clinical Evaluation of Bionime Rightest GM310 Biosensors with a Simplified Electrode Fabrication for Alternative-Site Blood Glucose Tests
Clin. Chem., October 1, 2008; 54(10): 1689 - 1695.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 The Diabetes EducatorHome page
M. M. Austin, L. Haas, T. Johnson, C. G. Parkin, C. L. Parkin, G. Spollett, and M. T. Volpone
Self-monitoring of Blood Glucose: Benefits and Utilization
The Diabetes Educator, November 1, 2006; 32(6): 835 - 847.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J Health Syst PharmHome page
S. M. Rivers, M. P. Kane, G. Bakst, R. S. Busch, and R. A. Hamilton
Precision and accuracy of two blood glucose meters: FreeStyle Flash versus One Touch Ultra.
Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., August 1, 2006; 63(15): 1411 - 1416.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Diabetes CareHome page
S. Meguro, O. Funae, K. Hosokawa, and Y. Atsumi
Hypoglycemia Detection Rate Differs Among Blood Glucose Monitoring Sites
Diabetes Care, March 1, 2005; 28(3): 708 - 709.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Diabetes CareHome page
N. Lucidarme, C. Alberti, I. Zaccaria, E. Claude, and N. Tubiana-Rufi
Alternate-Site Testing Is Reliable in Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes, Except at the Forearm for Hypoglycemia Detection
Diabetes Care, March 1, 2005; 28(3): 710 - 711.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Diabetes CareHome page
T. C. Dunn, R. C. Eastman, and J. A. Tamada
Rates of Glucose Change Measured by Blood Glucose Meter and the GlucoWatch Biographer During Day, Night, and Around Mealtimes
Diabetes Care, September 1, 2004; 27(9): 2161 - 2165.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Diabetes CareHome page
D. E. Goldstein, R. R. Little, R. A. Lorenz, J. I. Malone, D. Nathan, C. M. Peterson, and D. B. Sacks
Tests of Glycemia in Diabetes
Diabetes Care, July 1, 2004; 27(7): 1761 - 1773.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Diabetes CareHome page
K. Arimoto, H. Sasaki, K. Ogawa, H. Yamasaki, K. Okamoto, H. Furuta, T. Hanabusa, M. Nishi, T. Nakao, and K. Nanjo
Negative Pressure Suction During Blood Sampling May Reduce the Difference in Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose Results Between Fingertip Pricking and Forearm Pricking
Diabetes Care, June 1, 2004; 27(6): 1449 - 1450.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Diabetes CareHome page
C. Stavrianos and E. Anastasiou
Oral Glucose Tolerance Test Evaluation With Forearm and Fingertip Glucose Measurements in Pregnant Women
Diabetes Care, February 1, 2004; 27(2): 627 - 628.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Diabetes CareHome page
D. M. Bina, R. L. Anderson, M. L. Johnson, R. M. Bergenstal, and D. M. Kendall
Clinical Impact of Prandial State, Exercise, and Site Preparation on the Equivalence of Alternative-Site Blood Glucose Testing
Diabetes Care, April 1, 2003; 26(4): 981 - 985.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Diabetes CareHome page
P. R. van der Valk, I. van der Schatte Olivier-Steding, K.-J. C. Wientjes, A. J. Schoonen, and K. Hoogenberg
Alternative-Site Blood Glucose Measurement at the Abdomen
Diabetes Care, November 1, 2002; 25(11): 2114 - 2115.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jungheim, K.
Right arrow Articles by Koschinsky, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jungheim, K.
Right arrow Articles by Koschinsky, T.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Diabetes Diabetes Care Clinical Diabetes Diabetes Spectrum