MARATTO

article · American Journal of Laboratory Medicine

Performance Evaluation of Point-of-Care Glucose Meter in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Evidence from North-central Nigeria

Abstract

<i>Background:</i> Accurate glucose measurement is central to effective glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). While central laboratory plasma glucose measurement remains the reference standard, point-of-care testing (POCT) glucometers are widely used in clinical practice because of their convenience and rapid turnaround time. <i>Objective:</i>This study compared the analytical performance of POCT glucose measurement with central laboratory glucose measurement among patients with T2DM. <i>Method:</i><i> </i>A cross-sectional study was conducted among 100 confirmed T2DM patients attending the diabetes clinic of Jos University Teaching Hospital, North-Central Nigeria. Fasting venous plasma glucose was measured using the hexokinase method on a Cobas c111 analyzer, while capillary glucose was simultaneously measured using a standardized On-Call Plus glucometer. Data were analyzed using Pearson correlation and Bland–Altman agreement analysis. <i>Result: </i>The mean glucose values were 9.24 ± 4.98 mmol/L for POCT and 7.40 ± 4.13 mmol/L for laboratory measurement (p < 0.0001). A strong positive correlation was observed (r = 0.91, p < 0.0001). Bland–Altman analysis showed a mean bias of 1.9 mmol/L, with limits of agreement from −2.3 to +6.1 mmol/L, indicating a tendency for POCT values to be higher. <i>Conclusion:</i><i> </i>POCT glucose measurement demonstrates good correlation with laboratory glucose but shows a positive bias. Regular quality assurance and periodic comparison with laboratory methods are essential to ensure safe clinical use.

Research topics

  • Hyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
  • Diabetes Management and Research
  • Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.11648/j.ajlm.20261101.14

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.