 |  |
 |  |  | |||||||
|
--- Accu-Chek test strips -- Help
God... your U.S insurance companies have far too much power.. buggers shouldn't be allowed to do this. The Ultra is one of the most popular machines in the UK; I see it as giving a more accurate reading at all temperatures than the Accuchek Active. However, the Active is also a very big seller (of course we don't have to worry about strip costs). I have both machines. The Accuchek active is a good machine and uses a totally different test strip that requires a greater amount of blood. It works differently and will give readings about 7% lower than your Ultra machine due to its method of working. I think that the "chromo" method refers to the fact that it passes a light through the sample and measures the change in colour to determine the glucose content. The Ultra works differently but is believed more accurate. Certainly if you keep control using your Ultra then your control will be that little bit tighter. I actually prefer the Active in general use, it is reliable and easy to get on with. I notice it gets through batteries faster than the Ultra though...Luckily they are free in the UK. I wouldn't worry at all...just remember the reading is just a little bit lower than you would normally expect. Martin "M. Pann" news:3FBFA6ED.8030609@secret.com... > My insurance company, under the belief that they know best, have > informed me that they will no longer pay for One Touch Ultra strips but > will pay for any of the Accu-Chek strips. > > I must convert. > > Looking at the Accu-Chek offerings I saw their Active machine. It claims > to measure in 5 to 10 seconds and use only 1 microliter blood. However, > they say that they use "chromo" technique, which is different from the > OneTouch Ultra. > > Is anyone here either using now or have used in the past the Active > Accu-Chek strips? Are (were) you happy with it? Was it reliable? Any > other gotcha's I should know? > > Meir > "When people are least sure, they are often most dogmatic" > John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-) > -- > Meir Pann > "Management reorganizes the company whenever they need to create the > illusion of progress." >
Martin wrote: > God... your U.S insurance companies have far too much power.. buggers > shouldn't be allowed to do this. Couldn't agree more. > The Ultra is one of the most popular machines in the UK; I see it as giving > a more accurate reading at all temperatures than the Accuchek Active. > However, the Active is also a very big seller (of course we don't have to > worry about strip costs). > > I have both machines. The Accuchek active is a good machine and uses a > totally different test strip that requires a greater amount of blood. It > works differently and will give readings about 7% lower than your Ultra > machine due to its method of working. I think that the "chromo" method > refers to the fact that it passes a light through the sample and measures > the change in colour to determine the glucose content. The Ultra works > differently but is believed more accurate. Certainly if you keep control > using your Ultra then your control will be that little bit tighter. Since I asked for help, I have done my own experimenting and measurements. I have used both machines for a week, taking a reading on both machines at the same time from the same blood, switching who's first and who's second every time. In all I had 26 measurements. I computed a statistical correlation (spearman's R) of the resulting numbers, and it came out to be .96. That is an extremely, extremely high correlation. A correlation of .96 means that there is no difference between the reliability of these two machines. The active did bring in numbers that, on the average, were 5.5% lower than the Ultra. However, when in the past I have checked the Ultra against the lab's results and the Ultra tended to be a little high. All in all, I think the Active is a little more reliable, perhaps by a gnat's hair. > > I actually prefer the Active in general use, it is reliable and easy to get > on with. Also, the Active is made so it's easy to test from other sites, not just the fingertips. You can take the strip out of the machine, get the blood on it from the alternative site, and put it back in the machine. In that case the wait time doubles from the regular 5 seconds to 10 seconds. > I notice it gets through batteries faster than the Ultra > though...Luckily they are free in the UK. > > I wouldn't worry at all...just remember the reading is just a little bit > lower than you would normally expect. > > Martin > > > > > "M. Pann" > news:3FBFA6ED.8030609@secret.com... > >>My insurance company, under the belief that they know best, have >>informed me that they will no longer pay for One Touch Ultra strips but >>will pay for any of the Accu-Chek strips. >> >>I must convert. >> >>Looking at the Accu-Chek offerings I saw their Active machine. It claims >>to measure in 5 to 10 seconds and use only 1 microliter blood. However, >>they say that they use "chromo" technique, which is different from the >>OneTouch Ultra. >> >>Is anyone here either using now or have used in the past the Active >>Accu-Chek strips? Are (were) you happy with it? Was it reliable? Any >>other gotcha's I should know? >> -- M. Pann "Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day; Give him religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish." Related Discussion: Has anyone here heard of Immunics? (3 posts) help with gout question (8 posts) TED ROSENBERG (3 posts) Diabetes Drug Reduces Artery Re-Clogging (1 posts) Top Discussions From Our Archives Re: Happiness may stave off old-age frailty, research finds What's the best source of info on Acid/Alkaline affects of food? software for One Touch blood glucose monitor Re: money for every email address this chain letter is forwarded to Other Discussion Categories Diabetes Symptoms Health Care Policy Health Care Providers HMO Arthritis Symptoms Oops!!! Unexpected Error While Reading the Feed
|
| ||||||||
 |  |
