Comments on: Wayback Wednesday: Standard Deviation Buzz

By: » FDA Cracking Down on Accuracy of Glucose Monitors - DiabetesMine: the all things diabetes blog

Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:49:20 +0000

[...] Wayback Wednesday: Standard Deviation Buzz [...]

By: Anthony Holmes

Anthony Holmes — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:16:26 +0000

Hi there,

I’ve been tracking my Standard Deviation for a couple of years now.

I’ve had type 1 for 33 years.

My results are better than the majority of the world who don’t obsess about results (and read blogs on diabetes), but there are some who manage better than me. Here’s what I do:

I currently use a spreadsheet produced by Kevin on the Parenthetic (diabetic) blog. (If anybody’s interested, google it and ask him for a copy.)

With the spreadsheet, together with approximately 20 tests per day (thankfully strips get a very large subsidy in Australia), and following the DAFNE principles for control (a program for measuring food and doses taught in the UK, Germany and Australia), … I manage an average glucose reading of 6.0 mmol/l (108mg/dl) and an SD of around 2.0 (36), and an HbA1C of 5.4. Having the SD target of one third of the blood glucose average gives me a very valuable goal. I’d like to get the SD a little lower. When continuous glucose monitoring gets a little more reliable/robust/usable/cost effective/subsidised in this country, then I expect it will be the tool that lets me effectively reduce my SD further. I’m conscious that reducing my carbohydrate consumption might also help.

By: Viranth

Viranth — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 16:53:37 +0000

Thanks for giving us ANOTHER thing to get paranoid about.

By: DAN F

DAN F — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:53:56 +0000

Llloyd says his avg BG is 95 and his SD is 14.

With all due respect, not even a non-diabetic is likely to be able to produce those numbers. That means that his readings are typically between 81 and 109.

If one can actually acieve an avg BG of say 120, it will still be a good effort to have one’s readings range between 60-180, which would mean the SD would be HALF the avg BG. That is at least do-able.

By: Jesmi

Jesmi — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:21:05 +0000

Very interesting post!
Diabetics should aim for an SD of one-third of their mean blood sugar. The standard deviation is actually more important, because it has more to do with what people think of when they talk about control.

By: lauren H

lauren H — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:52:45 +0000

Our President has promised to defeat diabetes, poverty, and global warming and I believe he will. He said this in Denver and I was there. I hope he sees this CGM as a beginning to his defeat of diabetes.

By: Lloyd

Lloyd — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:13:34 +0000

My average glucose is 95, and my SD is 14.
Thats a ratio of 18%

-Lloyd

By: Michael Pain

Michael Pain — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:06:38 +0000

Diabetes is a disease that is gradually increasing in America, and many people do not have sufficient means to fight this disease, so it is advisable to indicate to people that are fed information that can fight without much cost, I recommended this findrxonline and find different themes and many options for this disease.

By: CB

CB — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:22:36 +0000

I’ve used Dr. Hirsch’s stnd. deviation “formula” since you first posted it. I calculate it on a monthly basis – statistically, you need a fair number of measurements (BG results) to have any statistic, including your BG average and SD, mean anything – I’d say at least 30 or so measurements. And yes it does help me evaluate how I’ve done on the BG control front. Calculating your BG SD isn’t really a new technology, it’s just another way of seeing you much your individual BG test results vary from your average over some period of time. Not surprisingly, I’ve found it quite challenging to get my BG SD ratio below 33%. Also, it’s hard to relate your BG results to their effect on the SD. So for me it’s a useful but second-order measure of my control.

By: CALpumper

CALpumper — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:24:46 +0000

Whoa way back.
The more things change the more they seem, uh, insanely the same.
Hmmmm.

As far as the in the Fall — health insurance for all PWDs. America can learn a lot from those across the pond. Not actually technology related but if one cannot afford insurance based on the way things are currently set here in America, how the heck they gonna afford any New technology???

Go to the root of the problem and things will get fixed. I am a realist, it Will take time. I know this. But come on. Enough with the darn technology already! Most can’t afford the basics Now!