ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2019
Head-to-head comparison of two continuous glucose monitoring systems on a cardio-surgical ICU.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Perioperative use and accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring: A systematic review.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2025Pooled it
- Accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring in critically ill patients.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2025Article
- Accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring systems in intensive care unit patients: a scoping review.Intensive care medicine · 2024Article
- Glycemic targets in critically ill adults: A mini-review.World journal of diabetes · 2021Review
- Accuracy and stability of an arterial sensor for glucose monitoring in a porcine model using glucose clamp technique.Scientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In critical illness hypo-and hyperglycemia have a negative influence on patient outcome. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) could help in early detection of hypo-and hyperglycemia. A requirement for these new methods is an acceptable accuracy and precision in clinical practice. In this pilot study we prospectively evaluated the accuracy and precision of two CGM sensors (subcutaneous sensor: Sentrino®, Medtronic and intravasal sensor: Glucoclear®, Edwards) in 20 patients on a cardio-surgical ICU in a head to head comparison. CGM data were recorded for up to 48 h and values were compared with blood-gas-analysis (BGA) values, analysed with Bland-Altman-plots and color-coded surveillance error-grids. Shown are means ± standard deviations. In total 270/255 intravasal/subcutaneous pairs with BGA-values were analysed. The average runtime of the sensors was 28.4 ± 6.4 h. Correlation with BGA values yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.76 (subcutaneous sensor) and 0.92 (intravasal sensor). The Bland Altman Plots revealed an accuracy of 2.5 mg/dl, and a precision of + 43.0 mg/dl to - 38.0 mg/dl (subcutaneous sensor) and an accuracy of - 6.0 mg/dl, and a precision of + 12.4 mg/dl to - 24.4 mg/dl (intravasal sensor). No severe hypoglycemic event, defined as BG level below 40 mg/dl, occurred during treatment. Both sensors showed good accuracy in comparison to the BGA values, however they differ regarding precision, which in case of the subcutaneous sensor is considerable high.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30421152What 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.