Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20513329›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2010

Continuous glucose monitors and the burden of tight glycemic control in critical care: can they cure the time cost?

Matthew Signal, Christopher G Pretty, J Geoffrey Chase, Aaron Le Compte, Geoffrey M Shaw

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Blood Glucose Levels of Subelite Athletes During 6 Days of Free Living.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2016
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Untangling glycaemia and mortality in critical care.Critical care (London, England) · 2017
    Article
  11. Clinical Impact of Accurate Point-of-Care Glucose Monitoring for Tight Glycemic Control in Severely Burned Children.Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies · 2016
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Glycemic control in critically ill patients.World journal of critical care medicine · 2012
    Review
  17. Year in review 2009: Critical Care--metabolism.Critical care (London, England) · 2010
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Matthew SignalDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Christopher G Pretty
J Geoffrey Chase
Aaron Le Compte
Geoffrey M Shaw
University of Canterbury · NZChristchurch Hospital · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTight glycemic control (TGC) in critical care has shown distinct benefits but has also proven to be difficult to obtain. The risk of severe hypoglycemia (<40 mg/dl) raises significant concerns for safety. Added clinical burden has also been an issue. Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) offer frequent automated measurement and thus the possibility of using them for early detection and intervention of hypoglycemic events. Additionally, regular measurement by CGM may also be able to reduce clinical burden.

aimAn in silico study investigates the potential of CGM devices to reduce clinical effort in a published TGC protocol.

methodsThis study uses retrospective clinical data from the Specialized Relative Insulin Nutrition Titration (SPRINT) TGC study covering 20 patients from a benchmark cohort. Clinically validated metabolic system models are used to generate a blood glucose (BG) profile for each patient, resulting in 33 continuous, separate BG episodes (6881 patient hours). The in silico analysis is performed with three different stochastic noise models: two Gaussian and one first-order autoregressive. The noisy, virtual CGM BG values are filtered and used to drive the SPRINT TGC protocol. A simple threshold alarm is used to trigger glucose interventions to avert potential hypoglycemia. The Monte Carlo method was used to get robust results from the stochastic noise models.

resultsUsing SPRINT with simulated CGM noise, the BG time in an 80-110 mg/dl band was reduced no more than 4.4% to 45.2% compared to glucometer sensors. Antihypoglycemic interventions had negligible effect on time in band but eliminated all recorded hypoglycemic episodes in these simulations. Assuming 4-6 calibration measurements per day, the nonautomated clinical measurements are reduced from an average of 16 per day to as low as 4. At 2.5 min per glucometer measurement, a daily saving of approximately 25-30 min per patient could potentially be achieved.

conclusionsThis paper has analyzed in silico the use of CGM sensors to provide BG input data to the SPRINT TGC protocol. A very simple algorithm was used for early hypoglycemic detection and prevention and tested with four different-sized intravenous glucose boluses. Although a small decrease in time in band (still clinically acceptable) was experienced with the addition of CGM noise, the number of hypoglycemic events was reduced. The reduction to time in band depends on the specific CGM sensor error characteristics and is thus a trade-off for reduced nursing workload. These results justify a pilot clinical trial to verify this study.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationAgedBlood GlucoseCritical CareFemaleHumansHypoglycemiaMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicMonte Carlo MethodRetrospective StudiesTimeBlood Glucose

Identifiers

PMID20513329
PMCPMC2901040
OpenAlexW2077901625

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.