
OBJECTIVE To assess the feasibility of using a disposable, self-administered, capillary blood sampling oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) device in a community setting. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Eighteen healthy and 12 type 2 diabetic volunteers underwent six 75-g OGTTs using a prototype device in the following three settings: unaided at home (twice); unaided but observed in clinic (twice); and performed by a nurse with simultaneous laboratory glucose assays of 0- and 120-min venous plasma samples (twice). The device displayed no results. A detachable data recorder returned to the clinic provided plasma-equivalent 0- and 120-min glucose values and key parameters, including test date, start and end times, and time taken to consume the glucose drink. RESULTS The device was universally popular with participants and was perceived as easy to use, and the ability to test at home was well liked. Device failures meant that 0- and 120-min glucose values were obtained for only 141 (78%) of the 180 OGTTs performed, independent of setting. Device glucose measurements showed a mean bias compared with laboratory-measured values of +0.9 at 5.0 mmol/L increasing to +4.4 at 15.0 mmol/L. Paired device glucose values were equally reproducible across settings, with repeat testing showing no training effect regardless of setting order. CONCLUSIONS Self-administered OGTTs can be performed successfully by untrained individuals in a community setting. With improved device reliability and appropriate calibration, this novel technology could be used in routine practice to screen people who might need a formal OGTT to confirm the presence of impaired glucose tolerance or diabetes.
Male, Humans, Female, Self Administration, Public Health, Glucose Tolerance Test, Middle Aged, Original Research, Aged
Male, Humans, Female, Self Administration, Public Health, Glucose Tolerance Test, Middle Aged, Original Research, Aged
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 21 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
