ArticleCritical care (London, England)2016
Manual versus Automated moNitoring Accuracy of GlucosE II (MANAGE II).
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01720381 (Manual vs. Automated moNitoring Accuracy of GlucosE II), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Manual vs. Automated moNitoring Accuracy of GlucosE II (MANAGE II)
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Continuous Glucose Monitors and Automated Insulin Dosing Systems in the Hospital Consensus Guideline.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2020Guideline
- Glycemic control and blood gas sampling frequency during continuous glucose monitoring in the intensive care unit: A before-and-after study.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2023Article
- Machine-assisted nutritional and metabolic support.Intensive care medicine · 2022Article
- Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Hospital.Endocrinology and metabolism (Seoul, Korea) · 2021Review
- Continuous glucose monitoring: The achievement of 100 years of innovation in diabetes technology.Diabetes research and clinical practice · 2020Review
- Accuracy of Blood Glucose Measurement and Blood Glucose Targets.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2020Review
- Toward a Framework for Outcome-Based Analytical Performance Specifications: A Methodology Review of Indirect Methods for Evaluating the Impact of Measurement Uncertainty on Clinical Outcomes.Clinical chemistry · 2019Review
- Glucose Management Technologies for the Critically Ill.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2019Review
- Diabetes Technology Update: Use of Insulin Pumps and Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Hospital.Diabetes care · 2018Review
- Continuous glucose monitoring in the ICU: clinical considerations and consensus.Critical care (London, England) · 2017Review
- Don't Sugar Coat It: Glycemic Control in the Intensive Care Unit.Journal of intensive care medicineReview
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntravascular continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) may facilitate glycemic control in the intensive care unit (ICU). We compared the accuracy of a CGM device (OptiScanner®) with a standard reference method.
methodsAdult patients who had blood glucose (BG) levels >150 mg/dl and required insertion of an arterial and central venous catheter were included. The OptiScanner® was inserted into a multiple-lumen central venous catheter. Patients were treated using a dynamic-scale insulin algorithm to achieve BG values between 80 and 150 mg/dl. The BG values measured by the OptiScanner® were plotted against BG values measured using a reference analyzer. The correlation between the BG values measured using the two methods and the clinical relevance of any differences were assessed using the coefficient of determination (r
resultsThe analysis included 929 paired samples from 88 patients, monitored for a total of 2584 hours. Reference BG values ranged between 60 and 484 mg/dl. The r
conclusionsBased on the MARD, the performance of the OptiScanner® is adequate for use in ICU patients. Because recent standards for accuracy were not met, the OptiScanner® should not be used as a sole monitor. The assessment of glycemic variability is influenced by the time interval between BG determinations.
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT01720381 . Registered 31 October 2012.
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.