Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28756769›Full record

ReviewCritical care (London, England)2017

Continuous glucose monitoring in the ICU: clinical considerations and consensus.

James S Krinsley, J Geoffrey Chase, Jan Gunst, Johan Martensson, Marcus J Schultz, Fabio S Taccone, Jan Wernerman, Julien Bohe, Christophe De Block, Thomas Desaive and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed
10.3field-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

66 citing papers in PubMed, 144 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Diabetes Management Strategies in Intensive Care Settings.The Medical clinics of North America · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

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

12 authors at 10 institutions in 8 countries.

James S KrinsleyDivision of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Stamford Hospital, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, Stamford, CT, 06902, USA.
J Geoffrey ChaseDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Centre for Bio-Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, 8140, New Zealand.
Jan GunstClinical Division and Laboratory of Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, KU Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Johan MartenssonDepartment of Intensive Care, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, 3084, VIC, Australia.
Marcus J SchultzAcademic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Fabio S TacconeDepartment of Intensive Care, Erasme Hospital, Université libre de Bruxelles, 1070, Brussels, Belgium.
Jan WernermanKarolinska University Hospital Huddinge & Karolinska Institutet, K32 14186, Stockholm, Sweden.
Julien BoheMedical Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Lyon, Lyon, France.
Christophe De BlockDepartment of Endocrinology, Diabetology and Metabolism, Antwerp University Hospital, B-2650, Edegem, Belgium.
Thomas DesaiveGIGA-In Silico Medicine, Université de Liège, B4000, Liège, Belgium.
Pierre KalfonService de Réanimation polyvalente, Hôpital Louis Pasteur, CH de Chartres, 28000, Chartres, France.
Jean-Charles PreiserDepartment of Intensive Care, Erasme Hospital, Université libre de Bruxelles, 1070, Brussels, Belgium. Jean-Charles.Preiser@erasme.ulb.ac.be.
Karolinska University Hospital · SEUniversité Libre de Bruxelles · BEAntwerp University Hospital · BEHospices Civils de Lyon · FRKU Leuven · BELes Hôpitaux de Chartres · FRMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit · THStamford Hospital · USUniversity of Canterbury · NZUniversity of Liège · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glucose management in intensive care unit (ICU) patients has been a matter of debate for almost two decades. Compared to intermittent monitoring systems, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) can offer benefit in the prevention of severe hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia by enabling insulin infusions to be adjusted more rapidly and potentially more accurately because trends in glucose concentrations can be more readily identified. Increasingly, it is apparent that a single glucose target/range may not be optimal for all patients at all times and, as with many other aspects of critical care patient management, a personalized approach to glucose control may be more appropriate. Here we consider some of the evidence supporting different glucose targets in various groups of patients, focusing on those with and without diabetes and neurological ICU patients. We also discuss some of the reasons why, despite evidence of benefit, CGM devices are still not widely employed in the ICU and propose areas of research needed to help move CGM from the research arena to routine clinical use.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseDiabetes MellitusHumansHypoglycemiaHypoglycemic AgentsIntensive Care UnitsMonitoring, PhysiologicBlood GlucoseHypoglycemic AgentsDiabetesGlucoseInsulinMonitoringNeurointensive care

Identifiers

PMID28756769
PMCPMC5535285
OpenAlexW2740201390

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.