The NACB (National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry) has published guidelines for glucose meters (subscription may be required). Of the 378 references, my Letter (1) and our review article on glucose meter standards (2) didn’t make it. Not like these two references are not on topic or in obscure journals.
One of the points we make is that standards should account for 100% of the data (by using an error grid). But the NACB still recommends limits for 95% of the data. So our publications were essentially ignored. Being ignored doesn’t mean you’re wrong, it just means you’re not a member of the club.
- Krouwer JS. Wrong thinking about glucose standards. Clin Chem, 2010;56:874-875.
- Krouwer JS and Cembrowski GS. A review of standards and statistics used to describe blood glucose monitor performance. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 2010;4:75-83.