Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23767816›Full record

ReviewCritical care (London, England)2013

Clinical review: Consensus recommendations on measurement of blood glucose and reporting glycemic control in critically ill adults.

Simon Finfer, Jan Wernerman, Jean-Charles Preiser, Tony Cass, Thomas Desaive, Roman Hovorka, Jeffrey I Joseph, Mikhail Kosiborod, James Krinsley, Iain Mackenzie and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care (London, England), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
16.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

80 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 204 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 13 institutions in 6 countries.

Simon Finfer
Jan Wernerman
Jean-Charles Preiser
Tony Cass
Thomas Desaive
Roman Hovorka
Jeffrey I Joseph
Mikhail Kosiborod
James Krinsley
Iain Mackenzie
Dieter Mesotten
Marcus J Schultz
Mitchell G Scott
Robbert Slingerland
Greet Van den Berghe
Tom Van Herpe
KU Leuven · BEErasmus Hospital · BEIsala · NLKarolinska University Hospital · SEQueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham · GBStamford Hospital · USThomas Jefferson University · USUniversity of Amsterdam · NLUniversity of Liège · BEUniversity of Missouri–Kansas City · USUniversity of Sydney · AUWashington University in St. Louis · USWellcome/MRC Institute of Metabolic Science · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The management reporting and assessment of glycemic control lacks standardization. The use of different methods to measure the blood glucose concentration and to report the performance of insulin treatment yields major disparities and complicates the interpretation and comparison of clinical trials. We convened a meeting of 16 experts plus invited observers from industry to discuss and where possible reach consensus on the most appropriate methods to measure and monitor blood glucose in critically ill patients and on how glycemic control should be assessed and reported. Where consensus could not be reached, recommendations on further research and data needed to reach consensus in the future were suggested. Recognizing their clear conflict of interest, industry observers played no role in developing the consensus or recommendations from the meeting. Consensus recommendations were agreed for the measurement and reporting of glycemic control in clinical trials and for the measurement of blood glucose in clinical practice. Recommendations covered the following areas: How should we measure and report glucose control when intermittent blood glucose measurements are used? What are the appropriate performance standards for intermittent blood glucose monitors in the ICU? Continuous or automated intermittent glucose monitoring - methods and technology: can we use the same measures for assessment of glucose control with continuous and intermittent monitoring? What is acceptable performance for continuous glucose monitoring systems? If implemented, these recommendations have the potential to minimize the discrepancies in the conduct and reporting of clinical trials and to improve glucose control in clinical practice. Furthermore, to be fit for use, glucose meters and continuous monitoring systems must match their performance to fit the needs of patients and clinicians in the intensive care setting.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseClinical Trials as TopicCritical IllnessGlycemic IndexHumansObservational Studies as TopicBlood Glucose

Identifiers

PMID23767816
PMCPMC3706766
OpenAlexW2011857426

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.