ArticleAcute and critical care2026
Feasibility and accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring in surgical intensive care unit patients : a single-center pilot study in South Korea.
Article in Acute and critical care, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology offers potential advantages over intermittent point-of-care testing in critically ill patients by providing real-time glucose trends and automated alerts. However, its accuracy and feasibility in intensive care settings require validation before widespread implementation. Methods: We conducted a single-center observational pilot study, evaluating CGM feasibility in 11 surgical intensive care unit (ICU) patients, including nine post-liver transplant recipients. The G6 CGM system was applied for continuous monitoring. CGM readings were paired with point-of-care glucose measurements for accuracy assessment. Performance metrics included the mean absolute relative difference (MARD), bias, standard deviation of relative differences (SDRD), Surveillance Error Grid (SEG) analysis, and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15197:2013 criteria compliance. Results: During a median monitoring period of 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3-9), we analyzed 326 paired glucose measurements. CGM demonstrated acceptable accuracy, with a MARD of 13.5% (95% CI, 11.43%-15.76%), bias of 2.79% (95% CI, -2.48 to 7.27%), and SDRD of 18.69% (95% CI, 13.75%-23.65%). SEG analysis confirmed 99.1% of readings were in clinically acceptable zones A and B. ISO 15197:2013 criteria showed 62.9% of measurements were within ±15 mg/dl or ±15%. The median patient-level mean glucose was 199.0 mg/dl (IQR, 162.0-248.0), reflecting substantial hyperglycemic exposure in patients receiving high-dose methylprednisolone despite protocolized insulin therapy targeting a range of 140-180 mg/dl. Conclusions: CGM was feasible and acceptably accurate in ICU patients. Persistent hyperglycemia despite protocolized care indicates that CGM-derived data may help to identify opportunities for future protocol improvement. Its potential impact on the time-in-target range, hypoglycemia, and clinical outcomes should be evaluated in future multicenter studies.
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.