Matching meal insulin to carbohydrate intake, blood glucose, and activity level is recommended in type 1 diabetes management. Calculating an appropriate insulin bolus size several times per day is, however, challenging and resource demanding. Accordingly, there is a need for bolus calculators to support patients in insulin treatment decisions. Currently, bolus calculators are available integrated in insulin pumps, as stand-alone devices and in the form of software applications that can be downloaded to, for example, smartphones. Functionality and complexity of bolus calculators vary greatly, and the few handfuls of published bolus calculator studies are heterogeneous with regard to study design, intervention, duration, and outcome measures. Furthermore, many factors unrelated to the specific device affect outcomes from bolus calculator use and therefore bolus calculator study comparisons should be conducted cautiously. Despite these reservations, there seems to be increasing evidence that bolus calculators may improve glycemic control and treatment satisfaction in patients who use the devices actively and as intended.

Introduction: An error grid compares measured versus reference glucose concentrations to assign clinical risk values to observed errors. Widely used error grids for blood glucose monitors (BGMs) have limited value because they do not also reflect clinical accuracy of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs). Methods: Diabetes Technology Society (DTS) convened 89 international experts in glucose monitoring to (1) smooth the borders of the Surveillance Error Grid (SEG) zones and create a user-friendly tool—the DTS Error Grid; (2) define five risk zones of clinical point accuracy (A-E) to be identical for BGMs and CGMs; (3) determine a relationship between DTS Error Grid percent in Zone A and mean absolute relative difference (MARD) from analyzing 22 BGM and nine CGM accuracy studies; and (4) create trend risk categories (1-5) for CGM trend accuracy. Results: The DTS Error Grid for point accuracy contains five risk zones (A-E) with straight-line borders that can be applied to both BGM and CGM accuracy data. In a data set combining point accuracy data from 18 BGMs, 2.6% of total data pairs equally moved from Zones A to B and vice versa (SEG compared with DTS Error Grid). For every 1% increase in percent data in Zone A, the MARD decreased by approximately 0.33%. We also created a DTS Trend Accuracy Matrix with five trend risk categories (1-5) for CGM-reported trend indicators compared with reference trends calculated from reference glucose. Conclusion: The DTS Error Grid combines contemporary clinician input regarding clinical point accuracy for BGMs and CGMs. The DTS Trend Accuracy Matrix assesses accuracy of CGM trend indicators.