Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37081831›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2023

Nursing Perspectives on the Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Intensive Care Unit.

Eileen R Faulds, Kathleen M Dungan, Molly McNett, Laureen Jones, Norma Poindexter, Matthew Exline, Jillian Pattison, Francisco J Pasquel

Open access · greenAbstract 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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Guided Insulin Infusion in Critically Ill Patients Promotes Safety, Improves Time Efficiency, and Enhances Provider Satisfaction.Endocrine practice : official journal of the American College of Endocrinology and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Eileen R FauldsThe Ohio State University College of Nursing, Columbus, OH, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2315-1146
Kathleen M DunganThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1289-1595
Molly McNettThe Ohio State University College of Nursing, Columbus, OH, USA.
Laureen JonesCritical Care Nursing, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Norma PoindexterDivision of Critical Care, Grady Health System, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Matthew ExlineDivision of Critical Care Medicine, The Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Jillian PattisonOhio Health Endocrinology, Columbus, OH, USA.
Francisco J PasquelDivision of Endocrinology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3845-6703
The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center · USEmory University · USGrady Health System · USOhioHealth · USThe Ohio State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic necessitated rapid implementation of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the intensive care unit (ICU). Although rarely reported, perceptions from nursing staff who used the systems are critical for successful implementation and future expanded use of CGM in the inpatient setting.

methodsA 22-item survey focused on CGM use was distributed to ICU nurses at two large academic medical centers in the United States in 2022. Both institutions initiated inpatient CGM in the spring of 2020 using the same CGM+point of care (POC) hybrid protocol. The survey employed a 1- to 5-point Likert scale regarding CGM sensor insertion, accuracy, acceptability, usability, training, and perceptions on workload.

resultsOf the 71 surveys completed, 68 (96%) nurses reported they cared for an ICU patient on CGM and 53% reported they had independently performed CGM sensor insertion. The ICU nurses overwhelmingly reported that CGM was accurate, reduced their workload, provided safer patient care, and was preferred over POC glucose testing alone. Interestingly, nearly half of nurses (49%) reported that they considered trend arrows in dosing decisions although trends were not included in the CGM+POC hybrid protocol. Nurses received training through multiple modalities, with the majority (80%) of nurses reporting that CGM training was sufficient and prepared them for its use.

conclusionThese results confirm nursing acceptance and preference for CGM use within a hybrid glucose monitoring protocol in the ICU setting. These data lay a blueprint for successful implementation and training strategies for future widespread use.

Indexed as

Blood Glucose Self-MonitoringCOVID-19Blood GlucoseHumansIntensive Care UnitsPandemicsBlood Glucosecontinuous glucose monitoring (CGM)critical carehospitalimplementationnursingtraining

Identifiers

PMID37081831
PMCPMC10210097
OpenAlexW4366603328

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.