Trial reportJournal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association
Computer decision support software safely improves glycemic control in the burn intensive care unit: a randomized controlled clinical study.
Trial report in Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Effect of Electronic Prescribing Strategies on Medication Error and Harm in Hospital: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of general internal medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Effects of computerized decision support system implementations on patient outcomes in inpatient care: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018Pooled it
- Systematic review of clinical decision support interventions with potential for inpatient cost reduction.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2013Pooled it
- The effects of on-screen, point of care computer reminders on processes and outcomes of care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2009Pooled it
- Nursing informatics and patient safety outcomes in critical care settings: a systematic review.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Observational
- Inpatient and Outpatient Technologies to Assist in the Management of Insulin Dosing.Clinical diabetes : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2020Article
- Review of Intravenous and Subcutaneous Electronic Glucose Management Systems for Inpatient Glycemic Control.Current diabetes reports · 2020Review
- A Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Bedside Computer Clinical Decision Support Protocol for Hyperglycemia Is Feasible, Safe and Offers Advantages.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2017Article
- Computerized decision support in adult and pediatric critical care.World journal of critical care medicine · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The optimal method for glycemic control in the critically burned patient is unknown. The purpose of this randomized controlled study was to determine the safety and efficacy of computer decision support software (CDSS) to control serum glucose concentration in a burn intensive care unit. Eighteen adult burn/trauma patients receiving continuous insulin infusion were initially randomized to receive glucose management by a traditional paper protocol or a computer protocol (CP) for 72 hours and then crossed over to the alternate method for an additional 72 hours. Time in target glucose range (range: 80-110 mg/dl) was higher in the CP group (47 ± 17% vs 41 ± 16.6%; P ≤ .05); time over target range was not significantly reduced in the CP group (49 ± 17.8% vs 54 ± 17.1%; P = .08); and no difference was noted in time under target range of 80 mg/dl (CP: 4.5 ± 2.8%, paper protocol: 4.8 ± 3.3%; P = .8), less than 60 mg/dl (P = .7), and less than 40 mg/dl (P = 1.0). Severe hypoglycemic events (<40 mg/dl) did not differ from the CP group compared with historical controls for patients receiving no insulin (P = .6). More glucose measurements were performed in the CP group (P = .0003), and nursing staff compliance with CP recommendations was greater (P < .0001). Glycemic control using CDSS is safe and effective for the critically burned patient. Time in target range improved without increase in hypoglycemic events. CDSS enhanced consistency in practice, providing standardization among nursing staff.
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.