Observational studyJournal of diabetes science and technology2022
Accuracy and Stability of a Subcutaneous Flash Glucose Monitoring System in Critically Ill Patients.
Observational study in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Flash Glucose Monitoring for Predicting Cardiogenic Shock Occurrence in Critically Ill Patients: A Retrospective Pilot Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Accuracy of Freestyle Libre continuous glucose monitoring system in critically ill patients after cardiac surgery.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Review
- Accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring systems in intensive care unit patients: a scoping review.Intensive care medicine · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFlash glucose monitoring (FGM) systems can reduce glycemic variability and facilitate blood glucose management within the target range. However, in critically ill patients, only small (
methodThis was a single-center, retrospective observational study. We included a total of 116 critically ill patients who underwent FGM for glycemic control. The accuracy of FGM was assessed as follows using blood gas glucose values as a reference: (1) numerical accuracy using the mean absolute relative difference, (2) clinical accuracy using consensus error grid analysis, and (3) stability of accuracy assessing 14-day trends in consensus error grid distribution.
resultsFGM sensors remained in situ for a median of 6 [4, 11] days. We compared 2014 pairs of measurements between the sensor and blood gas analysis. Glucose values from the sensor were consistently lower, with a mean absolute relative difference of 13.8% (±16.0%), than those from blood gas analysis. Consensus error grid analysis demonstrated 99.4% of the readings to be in a clinically acceptable accuracy zone. The accuracy of FGM was stable across the 14 days after device insertion.
conclusionsFGM had acceptable reliability and accuracy to arterial blood gas analysis in critically ill patients. In addition, the accuracy of FGM persisted for at least 14 days. Our study promotes the potential usefulness of FGM for glycemic monitoring in critically ill patients.
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.