Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35876258›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2023

Accuracy and Glycemic Efficacy of Continuous Glucose Monitors in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Study.

Schafer Boeder, Emily Kobayashi, Gautam Ramesh, Brittany Serences, Kristen Kulasa, Amit R Majithia

Open access · hybridAbstract read
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
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring in critically ill patients.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Schafer BoederDivision of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Emily KobayashiBioinformatics and Systems Biology Graduate Program, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9041-5167
Gautam RameshSchool of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4064-3353
Brittany SerencesDepartment of Nursing Education, Development and Research, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Kristen KulasaDivision of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3559-5046
Amit R MajithiaDivision of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9978-2644
University of California San Diego · US

Funding

Diabetes-Docs: Physician-Scientist Career Development Program (DiabDocs)K12DK133995 · NIDDK · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI LINDA A DIMEGLIO, David Matthew Maahs · 2022 to 2026
$16.0M
GRADUATE TRAINING PROGRAM IN BIONFORMATICST32GM008806 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI BAFNA, VINEET, REN, BING · 2001 to 2020
$6.2M
NIDDK NIH HHS K12 DK133995NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM008806
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContinuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is approved for insulin dosing decisions in the ambulatory setting, but not currently for inpatients. CGM has the capacity to reduce patient-provider contact in inpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), thus potentially reducing in hospital virus transmission. However, there are sparse data on the accuracy and efficacy of CGM to titrate insulin doses in inpatients.

methodsUnder an emergency use protocol, CGM (Dexcom G6) was used alongside standard point-of-care (POC) glucose measurements in patients critically ill from complications of COVID-19 requiring intravenous (IV) insulin. Glycemic control during IV insulin therapy was retrospectively assessed comparing periods with and without adjunctive CGM use. Accuracy metrics were computed and Clarke Error Grid analysis performed comparing CGM glucose values with POC measurements.

resultsTwenty-four critically ill patients who met criteria for emergency use of CGM resulted in 47 333 CGM and 5677 POC glucose values. During IV insulin therapy, individuals' glycemic control improved when CGM was used (mean difference -30.7 mg/dL). Among 2194 matched CGM: POC glucose pairs, a high degree of concordance was observed with a mean absolute relative difference of 14.8% and 99.5% of CGM: POC pairs falling in Zones A and B of the Clarke Error Grid.

conclusionsContinuous glucose monitoring use in critically ill COVID-19 patients improved glycemic control during IV insulin therapy. Continuous glucose monitoring glucose data were highly concordant with POC glucose during IV insulin therapy in critically ill patients suggesting that CGM could substitute for POC measurements in inpatients thus reducing patient-provider contact and mitigating infection transmission.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseCOVID-19Blood Glucose Self-MonitoringCritical IllnessGlucoseHumansInsulinInsulin, Regular, HumanRetrospective StudiesBlood GlucoseGlucoseInsulinInsulin, Regular, Humanaccuracycontinuous glucose monitoringcoronavirus disease 2019glycemic controlICUinsulin titration

Identifiers

PMID35876258
PMCPMC10159791
OpenAlexW4287307656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.