ArticleIntensive care medicine2011
Uncertainties in the measurement of blood glucose in paediatric intensive care: implications for clinical trials of tight glycaemic control.
Article in Intensive care medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The benefits of tight glycemic control in critical illness: Sweeter than assumed?Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2014Review
- Year in review in Intensive Care Medicine 2011: III. ARDS and ECMO, weaning, mechanical ventilation, noninvasive ventilation, pediatrics and miscellanea.Intensive care medicine · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn preparation for a tight glycaemic control (TGC) clinical trial we assessed the agreement between methods used to measure blood glucose in critically ill children.
methodsService evaluation comparing blood gas and main laboratory analysers with point-of-care (POC) devices PCX, ACCU-Chek and Hemocue.
resultsTwo hundred forty-five samples from 157 children measured on 2-4 devices provided 790 values. Marked variation was evident in glucose values between devices, time between tests, sample (whole blood/plasma) and source; 39% of paired values had >20% difference. The decision to start insulin at 7 mmol/L differed depending on the device used for 33% of samples. At low glucose values (<4 mmol/L), differences up to 1.8 mmol/L were evident. The blood gas analyser read lower than all POC models and the laboratory analyser (less risk of undetected hypoglycaemia). An inverse relationship was evident between haematocrit (Hct) and glucose error using POC devices. PCX values for samples with Hct <30% were higher (85%), whereas those for Hct values >38% were lower (66%). Glycolysis occurred during transfer of samples to the laboratory. Using the PCX at the bedside resulted in 0.5 mmol/L mean difference higher than laboratory values; locating the PCX in the laboratory reduced this to 0.2 mmol/L.
conclusionsDiscrepancies between measurements may mask hypoglycaemia, and the potential benefits of controlling hyperglycaemia may not be achieved. Variation introduced by different devices, sample or source may have led to misclassification of treatment decisions contributing to the conflicting results of TGC studies.
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.