ArticleCHEST critical care2025
The Role of Calibration Practices in Optimizing Continuous Glucose Monitor Accuracy in Critically Ill Patients.
Article in CHEST critical care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the ICU, continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) may improve glycemia and reduce the need for point-of-care blood glucose (POC BG) monitoring, but face challenges because of clinical conditions that affect accuracy. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the feasibility of using POC BG calibration to improve CGM accuracy? STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsThis feasibility study pooled data from a retrospective study of patients with COVID-19 in the ICU and a prospective single-arm clinical trial of patients in the ICU. Our sample included 110 patients receiving IV insulin monitored using a hybrid CGM plus POC BG protocol with a factory-calibrated Dexcom G6 CGM (Dexcom, Inc.). Validation was required for initial and ongoing nonadjunctive use or for standalone use and was defined as CGM ± 20% of POC BG measurement for values of ≥ 100 mg/dL or ± 20 mg/dL for values of < 100 mg/dL. In the cohort with COVID-19, calibration was performed at the nurse's discretion. In the prospective study, calibration was performed after persistent failure to achieve validation.
resultsA total of 55 patients (50%) underwent 167 calibrations. Those with a calibration had a mean age of 57.9 ± 13.6 years, 49% were male, 83% were White, and 60% had type 2 diabetes. After calibration, validation was achieved in 72.6%, 66.7%, and 77.8% of patients at 6, 12, and 24 hours after calibration, respectively. The mean absolute relative difference (MARD) was 25% at calibration, decreasing to 9.6%, 12.7%, and 13.2% at 6, 12, and 24 hours. Similar percentages were observed after eliminating pairs with multiple calibrations. Calibration was timely, within 5 minutes of the POC BG measurement in 70% and < 10 minutes in 83%. No statistical difference in MARD was found between timely and late calibrations or based on sensor rate of change at the time of calibration.
interpretationOur feasibility study demonstrated an improvement in CGM accuracy with POC BG calibrations in ICU patients. Further research is needed to understand optimal implementation strategies and impact on outcomes. CHEST Critical Care 2025; 3(4):100193.
Indexed as
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.