↓ Skip to main content

Clinical review: Consensus recommendations on measurement of blood glucose and reporting glycemic control in critically ill adults

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
166 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Clinical review: Consensus recommendations on measurement of blood glucose and reporting glycemic control in critically ill adults
Published in
Critical Care, June 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc12537
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon Finfer, Jan Wernerman, Jean-Charles Preiser, Tony Cass, Thomas Desaive, Roman Hovorka, Jeffrey I Joseph, Mikhail Kosiborod, James Krinsley, Iain Mackenzie, Dieter Mesotten, Marcus J Schultz, Mitchell G Scott, Robbert Slingerland, Greet Van den Berghe, Tom Van Herpe

Abstract

The management reporting and assessment of glycemic control lacks standardization. The use of different methods to measure the blood glucose concentration and to report the performance of insulin treatment yields major disparities and complicates the interpretation and comparison of clinical trials. We convened a meeting of 16 experts plus invited observers from industry to discuss and where possible reach consensus on the most appropriate methods to measure and monitor blood glucose in critically ill patients and on how glycemic control should be assessed and reported. Where consensus could not be reached, recommendations on further research and data needed to reach consensus in the future were suggested. Recognizing their clear conflict of interest, industry observers played no role in developing the consensus or recommendations from the meeting. Consensus recommendations were agreed for the measurement and reporting of glycemic control in clinical trials and for the measurement of blood glucose in clinical practice. Recommendations covered the following areas: How should we measure and report glucose control when intermittent blood glucose measurements are used? What are the appropriate performance standards for intermittent blood glucose monitors in the ICU? Continuous or automated intermittent glucose monitoring - methods and technology: can we use the same measures for assessment of glucose control with continuous and intermittent monitoring? What is acceptable performance for continuous glucose monitoring systems? If implemented, these recommendations have the potential to minimize the discrepancies in the conduct and reporting of clinical trials and to improve glucose control in clinical practice. Furthermore, to be fit for use, glucose meters and continuous monitoring systems must match their performance to fit the needs of patients and clinicians in the intensive care setting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 3 2%
New Zealand 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 159 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 14%
Student > Master 18 11%
Professor 15 9%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Other 48 28%
Unknown 21 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 91 54%
Engineering 18 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Chemistry 5 3%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 27 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 July 2014.
All research outputs
#6,333,477
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,631
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,879
of 210,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#28
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 210,335 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 113 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.