The CONTOUR™PLUS system is not only ready to test out of the box, but gives you that second chance you deserve when testing, to help prevent wasted strips and money.
- Simple to use
- Ready to test out of the box†
- Second-Chance™ Sampling feature: Can reduce frustration about having to re-lance1
- Highly accurate2 results. The CONTOUR™PLUS blood glucose monitoring system has demonstrated accuracy, even after applying more blood to the same strip3
Why choose CONTOUR™PLUS?
Test in a simple and intuitive way
No initial set up. Large display and easy to use buttons.
One strip. Two chances.
The Second-Chance™ sampling feature prompts you to apply more blood to the same test strip when the first sample is not enough, with no need to re-pick your finger.4
Not all blood glucose meters offer the same acccuracy.5 The CONTOUR™PLUS system has been shown to deliver a ± 10 mg/dl or ± 10% error margin in the overall range.*2
How to use†
You are only 3 steps away from a remarkably accurate1 result.
*Results from an analysis of the CONTOUR™PLUS system demonstrated that 100% (198/198) of the results for samples with glucose concentrations <5.55 mmol/L were within ±10 mg/dL of the YSI result and 99.5% (400/402) of the results for samples with glucose concentrations ≥5.55 mmol/L were within ±10% of the YSI result.2
†Before use please see the CONTOUR™PLUS user guide for full instructions.
1. Market Research Ascensia Diabetes Care, Hall & Partners online market research, conducted April/May 2015.
2. Caswell M et al. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015 Mar;17(3):152-8.
3. Wu H-P et al. Performance of a New Algorithm for Sample Re-application During Blood Glucose Test Strip Underfill Conditions. Poster presented at the 15th Annual Canadian Diabetes Association, October 10–13, 2012, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
4. CONTOUR™PLUS BMGS User Guide, July 2018.
5. G Freckmann et al. User Performance Evaluation of Four Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems Applying ISO 15197:2013 Accuracy Criteria and Calculation of Insulin Dosing Errors Diabetes Ther (2018) 9:683–697
There are no reviews yet.