Not a member of the club

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.

References

  1. Krouwer JS. Wrong thinking about glucose standards. Clin Chem, 2010;56:874-875.
  2. 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.
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: