Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18302732›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2008

Glycemic penalty index for adequately assessing and comparing different blood glucose control algorithms.

Tom Van Herpe, Jos De Brabanter, Martine Beullens, Bart De Moor, Greet Van den Berghe

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT01420302 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2011, after this paper: background citation

LOGIC-Insulin Computerized Algorithm-guided Versus Nurse-directed Blood Glucose Control in Critically Ill Patients: the LOGIC-1 Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorGreet Van den BergheRan2011 to 2012Enrolled300ConditionsCritical IllnessArmsNurse directed, LOGIC-Insulin
NCT02056353 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2014, after this paper: background citation

LOGIC-Insulin Computerized Algorithm-guided Versus Nurse-directed Blood Glucose Control in Critically Ill Patients: the LOGIC-2 Multicentre Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorKU LeuvenRan2014 to 2015Enrolled1,550ConditionsCritical Illness, Hyperglycemia, HypoglycemiaArmsLOGIC-Insulin algorithm, Paper protocol
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Glucose Control in the ICU: A Continuing Story.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2016
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Tom Van HerpeKatholieke Universiteit Leuven, Department of Electrical Engineering (ESAT), Research Division SCD, Kasteelpark Arenberg 10, B-3001 Leuven (Heverlee), Belgium. tom.vanherpe@esat.kuleuven.be
Jos De Brabanter
Martine Beullens
Bart De Moor
Greet Van den Berghe

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionBlood glucose (BG) control performed by intensive care unit (ICU) nurses is becoming standard practice for critically ill patients. New (semi-automated) 'BG control' algorithms (or 'insulin titration' algorithms) are under development, but these require stringent validation before they can replace the currently used algorithms. Existing methods for objectively comparing different insulin titration algorithms show weaknesses. In the current study, a new approach for appropriately assessing the adequacy of different algorithms is proposed.

methodsTwo ICU patient populations (with different baseline characteristics) were studied, both treated with a similar 'nurse-driven' insulin titration algorithm targeting BG levels of 80 to 110 mg/dl. A new method for objectively evaluating BG deviations from normoglycemia was founded on a smooth penalty function. Next, the performance of this new evaluation tool was compared with the current standard assessment methods, on an individual as well as a population basis. Finally, the impact of four selected parameters (the average BG sampling frequency, the duration of algorithm application, the severity of disease, and the type of illness) on the performance of an insulin titration algorithm was determined by multiple regression analysis.

resultsThe glycemic penalty index (GPI) was proposed as a tool for assessing the overall glycemic control behavior in ICU patients. The GPI of a patient is the average of all penalties that are individually assigned to each measured BG value based on the optimized smooth penalty function. The computation of this index returns a number between 0 (no penalty) and 100 (the highest penalty). For some patients, the assessment of the BG control behavior using the traditional standard evaluation methods was different from the evaluation with GPI. Two parameters were found to have a significant impact on GPI: the BG sampling frequency and the duration of algorithm application. A higher BG sampling frequency and a longer algorithm application duration resulted in an apparently better performance, as indicated by a lower GPI.

conclusionThe GPI is an alternative method for evaluating the performance of BG control algorithms. The blood glucose sampling frequency and the duration of algorithm application should be similar when comparing algorithms.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsGlycemic IndexBlood GlucoseEvaluation Studies as TopicHumansHyperglycemiaHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinIntensive Care UnitsLinear ModelsNurse's RoleBlood GlucoseHypoglycemic AgentsInsulin

Identifiers

PMID18302732
PMCPMC2374580

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.