ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2026
Association of continuous glucose monitoring with in-hospital adverse outcomes among critically ill patients: a real-world propensity score-matched study.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Critically ill patients often experience substantial glycemic fluctuations, which are associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Conventional point-of-care glucose monitoring provides only intermittent measurements and may delay timely therapeutic adjustment. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) enables real-time assessment of glucose trends and may improve glycemic management in intensive care settings. Methods: This single-center, retrospective, real-world propensity score-matched cohort study included 592 critically ill adults admitted to the intensive care unit. Patients receiving CGM-guided glucose management were matched 1:1 with patients receiving standard point-of-care glucose monitoring. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included ICU length of stay, hypoglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, mechanical ventilation duration, and nosocomial infection. Outcomes were analyzed using regression models appropriate to outcome type, with adjustment for prespecified covariates. Results: After propensity score matching, 296 patients were included in the CGM group and 296 in the control group. Compared with standard point-of-care monitoring, CGM use was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (9.5% vs 15.5%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.61, 95% CI 0.38-0.98; P = 0.027) and fewer severe hypoglycemic events (4.7% vs 10.8%; aOR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.25-0.85; P = 0.009). The CGM group also had a shorter median ICU length of stay (7 days [IQR 5-10] vs 9 days [IQR 6-13]; P = 0.021) and a lower incidence of nosocomial infection (12.2% vs 17.9%; aOR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.40-0.99; P = 0.048). Conclusion: In this retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study, CGM-guided glucose management was associated with improved glycemic safety and more favorable in-hospital outcomes among critically ill adults who remained in the ICU for at least 72 hours. Because of the observational design, survivor-selection bias, residual confounding, and differences in measurement density, these findings should not be interpreted as evidence of causal benefit. Prospective multicenter studies are needed.
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.