Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26067093›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Inaccuracy of Venous Point-of-Care Glucose Measurements in Critically Ill Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Adriano José Pereira, Thiago Domingos Corrêa, Francisca Pereira de Almeida, Rodrigo Octávio Deliberato, Michelle dos Santos Lobato, Nelson Akamine, Eliézer Silva, Alexandre Biasi Cavalcanti

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [S3 Guideline Sepsis-prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and aftercare : Long version].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2020
    Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Adriano José PereiraIntensive Care Unit, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil; School of Medicine, Universidade Federal de Lavras (UFLA), Lavras, MG, Brazil.
Thiago Domingos CorrêaIntensive Care Unit, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Francisca Pereira de AlmeidaIntensive Care Unit, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Rodrigo Octávio DeliberatoIntensive Care Unit, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Michelle dos Santos LobatoIntensive Care Unit, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Nelson AkamineIntensive Care Unit, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Eliézer SilvaIntensive Care Unit, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Alexandre Biasi CavalcantiResearch Institute HCor, Hospital do Coração, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein · BRHospital do Coração · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCurrent guidelines and consensus recommend arterial and venous samples as equally acceptable for blood glucose assessment in point-of-care devices, but there is limited evidence to support this recommendation. We evaluated the accuracy of two devices for bedside point-of-care blood glucose measurements using arterial, fingerstick and catheter venous blood samples in ICU patients, and assessed which factors could impair their accuracy.

methods145 patients from a 41-bed adult mixed-ICU, in a tertiary care hospital were prospectively enrolled. Fingerstick, central venous (catheter) and arterial blood (indwelling catheter) samples were simultaneously collected, once per patient. Arterial measurements obtained with Precision PCx, and arterial, fingerstick and venous measurements obtained with Accu-chek Advantage II were compared to arterial central lab measurements. Agreement between point-of-care and laboratory measurements were evaluated with Bland-Altman, and multiple linear regression models were used to investigate interference of associated factors.

resultsMean difference between Accu-chek arterial samples versus central lab was 10.7 mg/dL (95% LA -21.3 to 42.7 mg/dL), and between Precision PCx versus central lab was 18.6 mg/dL (95% LA -12.6 to 49.5 mg/dL). Accu-chek fingerstick versus central lab arterial samples presented a similar bias (10.0 mg/dL) but a wider 95% LA (-31.8 to 51.8 mg/dL). Agreement between venous samples with arterial central lab was the poorest (mean bias 15.1 mg/dL; 95% LA -51.7 to 81.9). Hyperglycemia, low hematocrit, and acidosis were associated with larger differences between arterial and venous blood measurements with the two glucometers and central lab. Vasopressor administration was associated with increased error for fingerstick measurements.

conclusionsSampling from central venous catheters should not be used for glycemic control in ICU patients. In addition, reliability of the two evaluated glucometers was insufficient. Error with Accu-chek Advantage II increases mostly with central venous samples. Hyperglycemia, lower hematocrit, acidosis, and vasopressor administration increase measurement error.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBlood Chemical AnalysisBlood GlucoseCentral Venous CathetersCritical CareCross-Sectional StudiesDimensional Measurement AccuracyFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedPoint-of-Care SystemsBlood Glucose

Identifiers

PMID26067093
PMCPMC4466904
OpenAlexW617729870

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.