ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2009
Pilot evaluation of a prototype critical care blood glucose monitor in normal volunteers.
Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2009. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAvailability of a highly accurate in-hospital automated blood glucose (BG) monitor could facilitate implementation of intensive insulin therapy protocols through effective titration of insulin therapy, improved BG control, and avoidance of hypoglycemia. We evaluated a functional prototype BG monitor designed to perform frequent automated blood sampling for glucose monitoring.
methodsSixteen healthy adult volunteer subjects had intravenous catheter insertions in a forearm or hand vein and were studied for 8 hours. The prototype monitor consisted of an autosampling unit with a precise computer-controlled reversible syringe pump and a glucose analytical section. BG was referenced against a Yellow Springs Instrument (YSI) laboratory analyzer. Sampling errors for automated blood draws were assessed by calculating the percent of failed draws, and BG data were analyzed using the Bland and Altman technique.
resultsOut of 498 total sample draws, unsuccessful draws were categorized as follow: 11 (2.2%) were due to autosampler technical problems, 21 (4.2%) were due to catheter-related failures, and 37 (7.4%) were BG meter errors confirmed by a glucometer-generated error code. Blood draw difficulties or failures related to the catheter site (e.g., catheter occlusion or vein collapse) occurred in 6/15 (40%) subjects. Mean BG bias versus YSI was 0.20 +/- 12.6 mg/dl, and mean absolute relative difference was 10.4%.
conclusionsAutomated phlebotomy can be performed in healthy subjects using this prototype BG monitor. The BG measurement technology had suboptimal accuracy based on a YSI reference. A more accurate BG point-of-care testing meter and strip technology have been incorporated into the future version of this monitor. Development of such a monitor could alleviate the burden of frequent BG testing and reduce the risk of hypoglycemia in patients on insulin therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.