ArticleAnnals of intensive care2014
Accuracy and limitations of continuous glucose monitoring using spectroscopy in critically ill patients.
Article in Annals of intensive care, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Glycemic control and blood gas sampling frequency during continuous glucose monitoring in the intensive care unit: A before-and-after study.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2023Article
- Head-to-head comparison of two continuous glucose monitoring systems on a cardio-surgical ICU.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2019Article
- Glucose Management Technologies for the Critically Ill.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2019Review
- Accuracy, reliability, feasibility and nurse acceptance of a subcutaneous continuous glucose management system in critically ill patients: a prospective clinical trial.Annals of intensive care · 2016Article
- Manual versus Automated moNitoring Accuracy of GlucosE II (MANAGE II).Critical care (London, England) · 2016Article
- Associations between bolus infusion of hydrocortisone, glycemic variability and insulin infusion rate variability in critically Ill patients under moderate glycemic control.Annals of intensive care · 2015Article
- Why Have So Many Intravascular Glucose Monitoring Devices Failed?Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2015Review
- Vascular Glucose Sensor Symposium: Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems (CGMS) for Hospitalized and Ambulatory Patients at Risk for Hyperglycemia, Hypoglycemia, and Glycemic Variability.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2015Review
- Time in blood glucose range 70 to 140 mg/dl >80% is strongly associated with increased survival in non-diabetic critically ill adults.Critical care (London, England) · 2015Observational
- The impact of measurement frequency on the domains of glycemic control in the critically ill--a Monte Carlo simulation.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2015Article
- Development and validation of an app-based cell counter for use in the clinical laboratory setting.Journal of pathology informatics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOptiScanner devices, continuous glucose monitoring devices that perform automated blood draws via a central venous catheter and create plasma through centrifugation, measure plasma glucose levels through mid-infrared spectroscopy at the bedside. The objective of this study was to determine accuracy and practicality of the devices in critically ill patients attempting glycemic control.
methodsThe plasma glucose level was measured by the devices and in comparative plasma samples using Yellow Springs Instrument (YSI) plasma analyzers. After adding several previously unrecognized interferences in the interference library, we reanalyzed the mid-infrared signals and compared the resulting plasma glucose level with the reference value. Results are presented in Clarke error grids, glucose prediction errors and Bland-Altman plots and expressed as correlation coefficients.
resultsWe analyzed 463 comparative samples from 71 patients (median 6 (4 to 9) samples per patient). After calibrating the system, a Clarke error grid showed 100% of the values in zones A or B. The glucose predictor error demonstrated that 86% of the glucose values < 75 mg/dL were within ± 15 mg/dL of the YSI results and 95% ≥ 75 mg/dL were within 20% of the comparative YSI results. Bland-Altman plot showed a bias of -0.6 with limit of agreement of -24.6 to 23.3. The Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.93 and R2 was 0.87. In one third of the patients the devices had to be disconnected prematurely (that is before planned disconnection) because of repeated occlusion alarms suggesting blood draw errors.
conclusionThe devices needed calibration for several previously unrecognized interferences. Thereafter, accuracy of the device to measure plasma glucose levels in 'our cohort' of critically ill patients improved, but external validation is highly recommended. The automated blood draw system of the devices needs further improvement to make this device of value for clinical use (trial registration (Netherlands Trial Register): NTR2864).
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.