Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34911384›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2023

Reliability of Inpatient CGM: Comparison to Standard of Care.

Catherine Price, Gillian Ditton, Gregory B Russell, Joseph Aloi

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Catherine PriceDepartment of Internal Medicine, Section on Endocrinology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7555-3855
Gillian DittonDepartment of Endocrinology & Diabetes, Boulder Medical Center, Boulder, CO, USA.
Gregory B RussellDepartment of Biostatistics and Data Science, Division of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Joseph AloiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Section on Endocrinology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Wake Forest University · USUniversity of Colorado Boulder · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOptimal inpatient glycemic management targets a blood glucose (BG) of 140-180 mg/dL and is an important safety measure for hospitalized patients with hyperglycemia. Traditional barriers to appropriate insulin administration include incorrect timing of prandial insulin administration, failure to administer basal insulin to persons with insulin deficiency/type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM), and inaccurate insulin dosing or timing resulting in hypoglycemia. Given the ongoing rapid assimilation of technology to manage our patients with DM, we investigated the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the inpatient setting as a potential solution to traditional barriers to optimal hyperglycemia management for inpatient care. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of use of inpatient CGM for insulin dosing in comparison with current standard of care and whether CGM could aid in minimizing hypoglycemic events.

methodsThis study evaluated the use of Abbott professional (blinded) Freestyle Libre CGMs in participants treated with basal bolus insulin administered with subcutaneous insulin (basal bolus therapy [BBT]: n = 20) or on intravenous insulin (IVI) infusions (n =16) compared with standard point of care (POC) BG measurements. All participants on IVI were admitted with a diagnosis of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). The CGM data was not available in real time. Sensors were removed at the time of discharge and data uploaded to Libre View. Continuous BG data were aggregated for each subject and matched to POC BG or lab chemistry values within five minutes. The POC BG results were assessed for comparability (CGM vs standard BG testing). Data were further analyzed for clinical decision-making for correction insulin.

resultsThe overall mean absolute relative difference including both IVI and BBT groups was 22.3% (SD, 9.0), with a median of 20.0%. By group, the IVI arm mean was 19.6% (SD, 9.4), with a median of 16.0%; for BBT, the arm mean was 24.6% (SD, 8.1), with a median 23.4%. Using the Wilcoxon two-sample test, the means were not different (

conclusionsThese results suggest that the use of inpatient CGM arrives at similar correction insulin dosing. The routine use of CGM for inpatients would consistently underestimate the BG compared with POC BG and could aid in minimizing and predicting hypoglycemia in the hospital setting. Our data support that the model of adoption of real-time inpatient CGM technology is anticipated to have significant impact in the clinical setting in efforts to maintain adequate glycemic control targeting BG 140-180 mg/dL while minimizing the frequency of hypoglycemic events.

Indexed as

HyperglycemiaHypoglycemiaBlood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringGlucoseHumansHypoglycemic AgentsInpatientsInsulinInsulin, Regular, HumanReproducibility of ResultsStandard of CareBlood GlucoseGlucoseHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinInsulin, Regular, Humancontinuous glucose monitoringdiabetes mellitusglycemic managementhypoglycemiainsulin therapy

Identifiers

PMID34911384
PMCPMC10012376
OpenAlexW4200383651

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.