Talk:Blood glucose monitoring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Start	This page has been rated as start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents 1 Clean up template 2 Incomplete: writers needed 3 Article Bias 4 Insurance in the US

[edit] Clean up template

I added the cleanup template as the text reads like it was taken from another source and/or a dictonary, and the images need to be reconsidered, captioned, and moved to better positions in the article. You may feel diffrently. Pegasi195 08:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete: writers needed

The last three sections of this article are not complete. The information to contribute to an interesting article in available in the referenced websites, someone must still read (compare and contrast) the information there and write the sections. Please help. mbbradford 19:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Bias

The portion about continuous blood glucose monitoring is too biased in favor of the technology. The truth is that the technology right now provides some clear advantages but still has flaws. Several months ago I tried to edit this page in order to balance this somewhat, attempting to objectively state both advantages and disadvantages, but the bias toward CGM has been re-introduced. For example, it is incorrect to say that the lag time is "minimal". 5-10 minutes for a patient with a severely dropping glucose level is significant.

Also, the references to the studies should not be done in-line. It is very clunky.

Update: Have tried to balance the article a little bit. The in-line references are still there, however.

[edit] Insurance in the US

I find the following paragraph to be biased toward US interest, and wordy/not all that informative. Perhaps it should be deleted.

Currently, continuous blood glucose monitoring is not automatically covered by health insurance in the United States in the same way that most other diabetic supplies are covered (e.g. standard glucose testing supplies, insulin, and even insulin pumps). However, an increasing number of insurance companies do cover continuous glucose monitoring supplies (both the receiver and disposable sensors) on a case-by-case basis if the patient and doctor show a specific need. The lack of insurance coverage is exacerbated by the fact that disposable sensors must be frequently replaced (sensors by Dexcom and Minimed have been FDA approved for 7- and 3-day use, respectively, though some patients wear sensors for longer than the recommended period) and the receiving meters likewise have finite lifetimes (less than 2 years and as little as 6 months). This is one factor in the slow uptake in the use of sensors that have been marketed in the United States. mbbradford 00:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)