ArticlePloS one2020
Effect of informatization-based blood glucose team management on the control of hyperglycaemia in noncritical care units.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Towards a Region-Wide Glycaemic Management System: Strategies and Applications for Glycaemic Management of Patients with Diabetes During Hospitalisation.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo provide a new system of in-hospital blood glucose team management combined with a network blood glucose monitoring system and analyse the effect on hyperglycaemic participants' blood glucose control in noncritical care units.
methodsHyperglycaemic participants in noncritical care units were divided into two groups. They underwent active intervention by the hospital's blood glucose management team or the routine consultation group. The better method, based on a shorter length of stay (LOS) and lower hospital cost, could be selected by comparing the two blood glucose management strategies.
resultsCompared with the routine consultation group, the team management group had a higher detection rate of hyperglycaemia (18.49% vs 16.17%, P<0.01) and glycosylated haemoglobin (51.53% vs 30.97%, P<0.01) and a lower incidence rate of hyperglycaemia (59.24% vs 61.59%, P<0.01), severe hyperglycaemia (3.56% vs 5.19%, P<0.01) and clinically significant hypoglycaemia (0.26% vs 0.35%, P<0.05). Simultaneously, blood glucose drift (mmol/L) (2.50 (1.83, 3.25) vs 2.76 (2.01, 3.57), P<0.01), blood glucose coefficient of variation (%) (28.86 (22.70, 34.83) vs 29.80 (23.47, 36.13), P<0.01), maximum blood glucose fluctuation (mmol/L) (9.30 (6.20, 13.10) vs 10.10 (7.00, 14.40), P<0.01) and nosocomial infection (5.42% vs 8.05%, P<0.05) were all lower among participants in the team management group. In addition, the LOS (P<0.001) and hospital costs (P<0.001) of participants were lower in the team management group.
conclusionIn-hospital blood glucose team management combined with a network blood glucose monitoring system effectively improved the blood glucose control and fluctuation levels of participants who were admitted to noncritical care units, thereby reducing LOS and hospital cost.
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.