SynthesisActa anaesthesiologica Scandinavica2026
Effects of Continuous Versus Intermittent Glucose Monitoring in Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionGlucose management in intensive care unit (ICU) patients often relies on point of care (POC) blood glucose measurements. An increasing number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have investigated continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) compared to POC, but effects on patient-important outcomes are uncertain.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL and Web of Science. All reporting was done according to the PRISMA guideline. We included RCTs in ICU patients comparing the effects of CGM versus POC on glycemic and clinical outcomes. We performed meta-analyses, Trial Sequential Analysis, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
resultsWe identified 1271 records and included 18 RCTs comparing CGM versus POC with a total of 2027 participants; 15 trials with 1600 participants reported on mortality (relative risk 0.61, 95% CI 0.35-1.04; very low certainty evidence) and 14 trials with 1515 participants on hypoglycemia (relative risk 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.82; very low certainty evidence). None of our remaining secondary outcomes were reported in the trials. We identified potential benefits of CGM versus POC on glycemic process outcomes; however, we did not evaluate certainty of evidence.
conclusionsCGM used for glucose management in ICU patients may reduce mortality and hypoglycemia, but the evidence is very uncertain. Sufficiently powered trials at low risk of bias are needed to confirm potential beneficial effects. EDITORIAL COMMENT: This meta-analysis reports the available literature on continuous versus intermittent monitoring of blood glucose in critically ill patients. The authors found that the available evidence was very uncertain, although continuous monitoring might improve outcomes. It is likely that this is partially due to lack of standardization of measurements and different management strategies. It is possible that the question is best answered with a larger trial with a well-defined treatment protocol.
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.