ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2021
Impact of High-Dose Intravenous Vitamin C for Treatment of Sepsis on Point-of-Care Blood Glucose Readings.
Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacokinetic Evaluation of Intravenous Vitamin C: A Classic Pharmacokinetic Study.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2022Trial
- High-Dose Intravenous Vitamin C in Critical Illness: A Translational Exposure-Response Framework for Biomarker-Guided Precision Therapy.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Effect of intravenous vitamin C on arterial blood gas analyser and Accu-Chek point-of-care glucose monitoring in critically ill patients.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2022Article
- Interferences With CGM Systems: Practical Relevance?Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2022Article
- Never a rose without a prick: pseudohyperglycemia when administering high-dose intravenous vitamin C.Critical care (London, England) · 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntravenous vitamin C therapy has been associated with reduced mortality in patients with sepsis. Of potential concern with this therapy are falsely elevated point-of-care (POC) blood glucose values vs laboratory analyzed (LA) readings. The purpose of this study was to compare POC and LA blood glucose measurements in patients receiving intravenous vitamin C therapy.
methodsAll adults (≥18 years old) admitted from January 2017 to December 2018 who received at least two doses of intravenous vitamin C and had at least one paired blood glucose collection were eligible for inclusion. The primary endpoint was the accuracy in paired blood glucose values determined using the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15197:2013 criteria. Paired values were assessed for clinical impact using the Parkes consensus error grid analysis. A subgroup analysis was conducted to determine the impact of impaired renal function on outcomes.
resultsFourteen patients were included for analysis with 46 paired blood glucose levels. Compliance with ISO15197:2013 criteria was met in 34 (73.9%) paired values, which did not meet the minimum criteria for accuracy. Subgroup analysis showed that the paired values from patients with impaired renal function did not meet the minimum requirements for compliance, while those from patients without impaired renal function did. The Parkes error grid showed that the variation in POC measurements likely had minimal clinical impact.
conclusionsOur study suggests that most patients receiving vitamin C for sepsis may still be monitored at POC with the glucose meter used in our study with minimal clinical impact.
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.