[NoelD]

Ans I have to say.... it is nice. Strips out of pocket are WAY cheaper. 50 strips is $18 if you look around online. I thought it was a Canadian-only device until I saw it on American Diabetes Wholesale. It was pretty cheap too, and I notice it reads a bit higher than my Freestyle Flash, which reads a bit higher than my UltraSmart. Which one is right? Who knows. I like it so far though.

[NoelD]

Today is day 2, and it still seems to read higher than the flash, which is higher than the UltraSmart.... hmmmm

[Dewey]

I'm rather interested in this new meter myself, but...I just don't feel like spending more money on yet another meter, lol... Maybe they'll do a promotion of sorts?

[NoelD]

I know what you mean. I have 4 different ones, but I am starting to distrust my Ultrasmart. When hypo, they are all very close together. When normal (100-140) they vary from 120-180. It's hard to decide

[Crepuscular]

I was looking for info on the Keynote and came across this post so I decided to join and see if anyone out there is having problems with their Keynote as well.

A brief history:
I was diagnosed as a Type 2 last year (Presidents Day). My A1c was 9.2 when diagnosed. Since then I have all but eliminated Carbs and eat to my meter. In the past year I have tried various meters.

The OneTouch UltraSmart was my first meter and I loved it except that every 25 tests it would request a control test. The trouble was that I would insert a strip, poke myself and then start a sample without checking the display. I would end up wasting every 25th strip.

My second meter was a Freestyle Flash. The meter was free and the strips were cheaper than the UltraSmart. I liked the meter but it did not have all the bells and whistles of the UltraSmart but I rarely had to retest due to a bad reading.

I decided to try the Precision Xtra after accidentally spilling a vial of 50 strips on the ground while camping. (the Precision Xtra strips are individually wrapped). The readings were all over the place I would get an extremely high reading and then a low one one on a retest. I quickly lost confidence with it and went back to the Freestyle Flash.

On Monday I went to order more strips and saw that AmreicanDiabetesWholesale.com were now selling the WaveSense Keynote. I was interested in this meter ever since a read about it on mendosa's website. At the time it was not to the manufacturing stage yet. The price of meter and 300 strips were less than the cost of purchasing 300 Freestyle strips so I decided to try it.

I received the meter yesterday and so far I am not happy with it. The meter reads about 16 points higher than the Flash when it reads properly. The problem is trying to get two consistent readings in a row out of it.

Here is what happened:

When I received my meter I checked it using the control solution and got a reading of 134 ( right in the middle , I tried it out on myself. I took two samples within one minute ands the readings were exactly the same. I then tested with my freestyle and it read 16 points lower than the Keynote but I had read that the Keynote is more accurate and will read higher than other meters.

Later in the evening I took a reading with the Keynote and was shocked by a reading of 131. ( I eat to my meter and was expecting a much lower reading around 100 on my freestyle) I rechecked using the Keynote and got two subsequent readings of 114 and 116. This was closer to what I expected given the difference I had seen earlier between the two. I tried my Freestyle and got a reading of 96.

This morning I took a reading with the keynote when I woke up and it was 142! I retested and got a reading of 128. testing with the freestyle was 102. at ten am I did three tests with the Keynote and got the following: 130, 124, and 141.

I was concerned with the difference in the readings and contacted Agamatrix. Their response was that their meter was the most accurate on the market and the reading variability I was seeing was within the FDA allowed error range.

I decided to test using the only control solution. I put 5 drops of the control solution on a clean surface and tested them one after another. The results are as follows:129, 135, 131, 136, 143. All readings are within the normal range for the vial of strips but I am concerned about the difference between readings.

I did the same test with my Freestyle when I first got it and found a difference of 2 between the readings. Much more consistent than the Keynote.

I called back to AgaMatrix and explained what I had done and all they said is that the tests are within FDA specs.

I think that Agamatrix has some quality issues to overcome with their strips before they go bragging about having the most accurate meter.

Until then I guess I will be sticking to my Freestyle Flash.

[Who?]

That sounds about like the results I was getting with my twelve year old Accu-Chek Advantage before I decided that it had lost its mind and canned it.

I'm glad I did.

Having said all that, remember that these meters are guides only, they are not laboratory instruments. Many of them do quite well in spite of that, so it appears to be a bit of a crapshoot whether or not you get a "good" one.

[Funnygrl]

That's too bad. I was really optimistic for that meter.

[NoelD]

Yep I went back to the old Ultrasmart. The Keynote consistently read 30-50 points higher than the Ultrasmart, and about 20 higher than the freestyle. I'll keep the keynote as a backup/3rd opinion type of deal.

[nneighbour]

I find myself thinking about this subject quite a bit. And in general I find that results with my iTest (same as Wave 1/Keynote) are higher than the One Touch series. I just ran a quick differential test on my five meters (I'm a bit of a collector) and here's what I got in tests about a minute apart:

• iTest - 10.5% (3.8, 4.2)
• Flash - 7.9% (3.8, 4.1)
• Ultra - 0% (3.9, 3.9)
• UltraSmart - 16.2% (3.7, 4.3)
• Ultra 2 - 13.5% (3.7, 4.2)

Yes I know that I am low, I'll go deal with that in a few minutes. Obviously the difference will be bigger because the numbers are smaller. I'm actually quite surprised that all the results are so close between the different meters. I just wish that different companies would stop claiming that theirs is the most accurate, the results still aren't terribly good, especially when it says I'm a 4.3 and I'm really at 3.7.

[Dewey]

Originally Posted by nneighbour

I find myself thinking about this subject quite a bit. And in general I find that results with my iTest (same as Wave 1/Keynote) are higher than the One Touch series. I just ran a quick differential test on my five meters (I'm a bit of a collector) and here's what I got in tests about a minute apart:

• iTest - 10.5% (3.8, 4.2)
• Flash - 7.9% (3.8, 4.1)
• Ultra - 0% (3.9, 3.9)
• UltraSmart - 16.2% (3.7, 4.3)
• Ultra 2 - 13.5% (3.7, 4.2)

Seems to me that the only meter in the bunch that Didn't deviate from one test (on itself) to the next was the older One Touch Ultra....Makes me think very hard about switching back to my older Ultra, as I never seemed to have any problems with it.

Like Funnygrl, I too was very optimistic about the AgaMatrix meter. It can be so frustrating, cause it seems we're often let down by meter companies with regard to false accuracy claims.

[Crepuscular]

Here are the test results that AgaMatrix submitted for the FDA 510K apporval.

For concentrations between 20 and 75mg/dL

Within +/- 5mg/dL 2/6 (33 %)
Within +/- 10mg/dL 6/6 (100%)
That means that 66% of the readings are going to have an error between 5% and 10%
For concentrations between 75 and 600mg/dL

Within +/- 5% 6/48 (13%)
Within +/- 10% 19/48 (40%)
Within +/- 15% 43/48 (90%)
Within +/- 20% 48/48 (100%)
That means that 60% of the readings for are going to have an error between 10% and 20%

To view the whole doc. Use the following link and click on Decision Summary.
FDA > CDRH > CLIA Database Search Details

I couldn't find info for other meter manufacturers but if anyone else has this info it would be fun to compare.

[Funnygrl]

That's not bad at all.

[Injecto]

Originally Posted by nneighbour

the results still aren't terribly good, especially when it says I'm a 4.3 and I'm really at 3.7.

How do you know you are at 3.7 though? Perhaps the 4.3 reading is correct?

[Crepuscular]

I found a study done on the ASCENSIA® CONTOUR® which used test subjects to test their own BG levels and compared them to lab results. The results are as follows:

Less than 75mg/dL
within +/- 5mg/dL 37.5%
within +/- 10mg/dL 62.5%
within +/- 15mg/dL 87.5%
within +/- 20mg/dL 93.8%

Greater than 75mg/dL
within +/- 5mg/dL 46.0%
within +/- 10mg/dL 79.8%
within +/- 15mg/dL 92.8%
within +/- 20mg/dL 97.3%

The ASCENSIA® CONTOUR® is the meter that AgaMatrix used for their substantially equivalent comparison tests.

It looks like the ASCENSIA® CONTOUR® would be more consistent than the AgaMatrix meter although 2.7% of the readings would be way off.

Note:
This study was funded by Bayer, the makers of the ASCENSIA® CONTOUR®.
Here is a link to the PDF:
http://www.ascensia.ch/pub/de/fachpe...t_accuracy.pdf


Now if I could only find information for the Lifescan and Freestyle products.

[gettingby]

Originally Posted by Crepuscular

The OneTouch UltraSmart was my first meter and I loved it except that every 25 tests it would request a control test..

I've never had my UltraSmart to request a control test. I have had it read "check code" and then I would have to press Ok if the code was correct.