Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27439710›Full record

ArticleAnnals of intensive care2016

Accuracy, reliability, feasibility and nurse acceptance of a subcutaneous continuous glucose management system in critically ill patients: a prospective clinical trial.

Tobias Wollersheim, Lilian Jo Engelhardt, Jeanne Pachulla, Rudolf Moergeli, Susanne Koch, Claudia Spies, Michael Hiesmayr, Steffen Weber-Carstens

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of intensive care, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02296372 (Pilot Observation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Critically Ill Patients Under Consideration of Accuracy, Feasibility and Acceptance by Ward Staff), which is not on this map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02296372 nacompletednot on this map

Pilot Observation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Critically Ill Patients Under Consideration of Accuracy, Feasibility and Acceptance by Ward Staff

TypeinterventionalSponsorCharite University, Berlin, GermanyRan2014 to 2016Enrolled20ConditionsGlucose Metabolism Disorders, Diabetic Blood Glucose Monitoring, Critical IllnessArmsContinuous glucose monitoring
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Hospital.Endocrinology and metabolism (Seoul, Korea) · 2021
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Glucose Management Technologies for the Critically Ill.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2019
    Review
  16. Observational
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Consensus Statement on Inpatient Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Tobias WollersheimDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Lilian Jo EngelhardtDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Jeanne PachullaDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Rudolf MoergeliDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Susanne KochDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Claudia SpiesDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Michael HiesmayrDivision Cardiac-, Thoracic-, Vascular Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Steffen Weber-CarstensDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany. steffen.weber-carstens@charite.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7405-0172
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEBerlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEMedical University of Vienna · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContinuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has not yet been implemented in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. The purpose of this study was to evaluate reliability, feasibility, nurse acceptance and accuracy of the Medtronic Sentrino(®) CGM system in critically ill patients.

methodsSensors were inserted into the subcutaneous tissue of the patient's thigh, quantifying interstitial glucose concentration for up to 72 h per sensor. Reliability and feasibility analysis included frequency of data display, data gaps and reasons for sensor removal. We surveyed nurse acceptance in a questionnaire. For the accuracy analysis, we compared sensor values to glucose values obtained via blood gas analysis. Potential benefits of CGM were investigated in intra-individual analyses of factors, such as glycemic variability or time in target range achieved with CGM compared to that achieved with intermittent glucose monitoring.

resultsThe device generated 68,655 real-time values from 31 sensors in 20 critically ill patients. 532 comparative blood glucose values were collected. Data were displayed during 32.5 h [16.0/62.4] per sensor, which is 45.1 % of the expected time of 72 h and 84.8 % of 37.9 h actual monitoring time. 21 out of 31 sensors were removed prematurely. 79.1 % of the nursing staff rated the device as not beneficial; the response rate was one-third. Mean absolute relative difference was 15.3 % (CI 13.5-17.0 %). Clarke error grid: 76.9 % zone A, 21.6 % zone B, 0.2 % zone C, 0.9 % zone D, 0.4 % zone E. Bland-Altman plot: mean bias +0.53 mg/dl, limits of agreement +64.6 and -63.5 mg/dl. Accuracy deteriorated during elevated glycemic variability and in the hyperglycemic range. There was no reduction in dysglycemic events during CGM compared to 72 h before and after CGM. If CGM was measuring accurately, it identified more hyperglycemic events when compared to intermittent measurements. This study was not designed to evaluate potential benefits of CGM on glucose control.

conclusionsThe subcutaneous CGM system did not perform with satisfactory accuracy, feasibility, or nursing acceptance when evaluated in 20 medical-surgical ICU patients. Low point accuracy and prolonged data gaps significantly limited the potential clinical usefulness of the CGM trend data. Accurate continuous data display, with a MARD < 14 %, showed potential benefits in a subgroup of our patients. Trial registration NCT02296372; Ethic vote Charité EA2/095/14.

Indexed as

AccuracyContinuous glucose monitoringCritically ill patientsEvaluationFeasibilityICUInterstitialMedtronic Sentrino®Nurse acceptanceReliabilitySubcutaneous

Identifiers

PMID27439710
PMCPMC4954792
OpenAlexW2486564845

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.