ArticleCureus2023
Application of the New "Points in Range" Metrics in the Assessment of In-Hospital Glycemic Control.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Capillary blood glucose (CBG) monitoring remains the most used testing form in hospitals and allows for "points in range (PIR)" metric calculation. This study was conceived to evaluate the metabolic control in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) at a hospital through PIR metrics. Methods This was an observational cross-sectional study conducted on October 9, 2020, that included non-critical adults admitted to Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Porto (except pregnant/postpartum women) with DM under CBG monitoring and a minimum of 24 hours of hospitalization. Glycemic control was evaluated by previous day CBG monitoring. Results The study sample consisted of 110 patients with DM (93.6% type 2) with a median number of CBG tests of 4.00 (1.00) and a median CBG of 166.20 (69.41) mg/dL, SD 41.93 ± 27.20 mg/dL, and variation coefficient of 22.56 ± 12.51%. Points below range were 0.5%, with 0% below 54 mg/dL. The points in ranges 70-140 mg/dL and 140-180 mg/dL were 32.8% and 22.0%, respectively, and the total number of patients with all points in range 70-180 mg/dL was 19 (17.3%), with only 3 (2.7%) having all points in range 140-180 mg/dL and 10 (9.1%) in range 70-140 mg/dL. Regarding points above range (PAR), 29.9% and 14.8% points were at levels 1 and 2 hyperglycemia, respectively, and 15 (13.6%) patients had all points above 180 mg/dL. Correlations were identified between PAR and the total number of CBG assessments (ρ = 0.689, p < 0.001). Conclusion We conclude that in-hospital glycemic control remains suboptimal: only few have adequate control according to the PIR metrics despite low glycemic variability. PIR metrics are a new, valuable, simple and valid way to take better advantage of CBG monitoring at no added cost.
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.