ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2023
Accuracy and Glycemic Efficacy of Continuous Glucose Monitors in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Study.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring in critically ill patients.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2025Article
- Characterizing glucose in labor: Continuous glucose monitoring in parturients without diabetes.Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Dexcom G7 Accuracy and Reproducibility in the Intensive Care Unit.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2025Article
- Continuous glucose monitoring during intravenous insulin infusion treatment: Assessing accuracy to enable future clinical utility.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2025Observational
- Association between SARS-CoV-2 viral load and serum biomarkers with mortality in Mexican patients.Journal of education and health promotion · 2025Article
- Prospective Study on Self-Calibrating Continuous Glucose Monitoring Practicality and Accuracy in Noncritically Ill COVID-19 Hospitalized Patients.Journal of diabetes research · 2025Article
- Accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring systems in intensive care unit patients: a scoping review.Intensive care medicine · 2024Article
- Feasibility and Performance of Continuous Glucose Monitoring to Guide Computerized Insulin Infusion Therapy in Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2024Article
- Accuracy of a Continuous Glucose Monitor During Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes Inpatient Admissions.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2024Article
- A Consensus Statement for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Metrics for Inpatient Clinical Trials.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2023Article
- Continuous glucose monitoring for inpatient diabetes management: an update on current evidence and practice.Endocrine connections · 2023Review
- Continuous Glucose Monitoring Within Hospital: A Scoping Review and Summary of Guidelines From the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2023Article
- Glycemic Control in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.