Trial reportJournal of diabetes science and technology2012
Data entry errors and design for model-based tight glycemic control in critical care.
Trial report in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving data quality in observational research studies: Report of the Cure Glomerulonephropathy (CureGN) network.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2021Article
- Assessment of Glycemic Control Protocol (STAR) Through Compliance Analysis Amongst Malaysian ICU Patients.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2020Article
- Stochastic targeted (STAR) glycemic control: design, safety, and performance.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTight glycemic control (TGC) has shown benefits but has been difficult to achieve consistently. Model-based methods and computerized protocols offer the opportunity to improve TGC quality but require human data entry, particularly of blood glucose (BG) values, which can be significantly prone to error. This study presents the design and optimization of data entry methods to minimize error for a computerized and model-based TGC method prior to pilot clinical trials.
methodTo minimize data entry error, two tests were carried out to optimize a method with errors less than the 5%-plus reported in other studies. Four initial methods were tested on 40 subjects in random order, and the best two were tested more rigorously on 34 subjects. The tests measured entry speed and accuracy. Errors were reported as corrected and uncorrected errors, with the sum comprising a total error rate. The first set of tests used randomly selected values, while the second set used the same values for all subjects to allow comparisons across users and direct assessment of the magnitude of errors. These research tests were approved by the University of Canterbury Ethics Committee.
resultsThe final data entry method tested reduced errors to less than 1-2%, a 60-80% reduction from reported values. The magnitude of errors was clinically significant and was typically by 10.0 mmol/liter or an order of magnitude but only for extreme values of BG < 2.0 mmol/liter or BG > 15.0-20.0 mmol/liter, both of which could be easily corrected with automated checking of extreme values for safety.
conclusionsThe data entry method selected significantly reduced data entry errors in the limited design tests presented, and is in use on a clinical pilot TGC study. The overall approach and testing methods are easily performed and generalizable to other applications and protocols.
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.