ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine2021
Evaluation of a continuous glucose monitoring system in neonatal foals.
Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine, 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of a subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring system in critically ill neonatal foals.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2026Article
- Saliva and plasma metabolome analysis during the five days before foaling in the mare.PloS one · 2026Article
- Glucose measurements in sheep using a long-term continuous glucose monitor designed for humans.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- Evaluation of a continuous glucose monitoring system in neonatal foals.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2021Article
- Evaluation of point-of-care capillary and venous blood glucose concentrations in hospitalized neonatal foals.Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMonitoring blood glucose concentrations is common in critically ill neonatal foals, especially septic foals and those receiving naso-esophageal feedings or IV parenteral nutrition. Glucose typically is measured using a point-of-care (POC) glucometer but requires repeated restraint and blood collections, which may cause irritation at venipuncture sites and increased demands on nursing staff. Continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGMS) may provide an accurate alternative for monitoring blood glucose concentration.
objectivesTo determine the correlation and accuracy of a CGMS to monitor neonatal foals' blood glucose concentrations as compared to a POC glucometer and laboratory chemistry analysis (CHEM). ANIMALS: Samples from 4 healthy and 4 ill neonatal foals.
methodsA CGMS was placed on each foal, and glucose measurements acquired from this device were compared to simultaneous measurements of blood glucose concentration using a POC glucometer and CHEM.
resultsTwo-hundred matched glucose measurements were collected from 8 neonatal foals. The mean bias (95% limits of agreement) between CGMS and CHEM, CGMS and POC glucometer, and POC glucometer and CHEM was 3.97 mg/dL (-32.5 to 40.4), 18.2 mg/dL (-28.8 to 65.2), and 22.18 mg/dL (-9.3 to 53.67), respectively. The Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) was significantly correlated among all devices: GCMS and CHEM (r = 0.81), CGMS and POC glucometer (r = 0.77) and POC glucometer-CHEM (r = 0.92). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Within the blood glucose concentration ranges in this study (78-212 mg/dL), CGMS measurements were significantly correlated with CHEM, suggesting that it is an acceptable method to provide meaningful, immediate, and continuous glucose concentration measurements in neonatal foals while eliminating the need for repeated restraint and blood collection.
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.