ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2023
A Retrospective Cohort Analysis of Two Computerized Insulin Infusion Protocols.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Algorithm-guided insulin therapy in hospitalized patients: current evidence, implementation challenges, and future perspectives.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2026Review
- Technology in the management of diabetes in hospitalised adults.Diabetologia · 2024Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe primary objective of this analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of a novel computerized insulin infusion protocol (CIIP), the Lalani Insulin Infusion Protocol (LIIP), with an established CIIP, Glucommander.
methodsWe conducted a 10-month retrospective analysis of 778 patients in whom LIIP was used (August 18, 2020 to June 25, 2021) at six HonorHealth Hospitals in the Phoenix metropolitan area. These data were compared with Glucommander that was used at those same hospitals from January 1, 2018 to August 17, 2020, n = 4700. Primary end points of the project included average time to euglycemia and average time in hyperglycemia (>180 mg/dL) and hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL). Additional subgroup analysis was done to evaluate CIIP performance in patients in whom maintenance of euglycemia was more challenging.
resultsThe LIIP had a faster time to euglycemia (191 vs 222 minutes,
conclusionsThe LIIP is a safe and effective CIIP in managing intravenous insulin infusion rates. Utilization of LIIP resulted in reduced time to euglycemia,
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.