I started writing a response to another post that was complaining about the inaccuracy of meters and I decided to make a new post on it. There has been a trend here lately talking about how terrible meters are because of their variability. It drives me nuts.
Yes there is variation between readings. Your actual BG might be slightly higher or lower than what the meter shows and yes, things can improve. But the variability we're talking about is irrelevant.
Let's look at reality for a moment.
Say you have been fasting. If you're t1, your basal is perfect. Your BG is not moving.
You test at 5.7 mmol/l. You consume 15g of carbs (t1, dont take any insulin). What will your BG be in 2 hours? Can you tell me within 20%?
Or if you test high and need to correct. Say you're at 12 mmol/l and your ratio says you need 2u. Can you say within 20% what your BG will be after 4 hours?
Now combine the two. Eat 15g and take the correct ratio of insulin. What will your BG be?
The meter is far from being the limiting factor. It's as accurate as it needs to be. Knowing that the 5.7 means somewhere between 5 and 6.5 is more than close enough given the tools I have to respond to that info. More accuracy wouldn't hurt but also wouldn't help.
Hat tip to my second year physics prof who drove home the meaning of margins of error and to my carpenter dad who keeps repeating the post title to me.
Tldr: the margin of error in your meter is insignificant compared to the margin of error in your insulin response and carb response
Social Plugin