↓ Skip to main content

Continuous glucose monitoring in the ICU: clinical considerations and consensus

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
100 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 Mendeley
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
Continuous glucose monitoring in the ICU: clinical considerations and consensus
Published in
Critical Care, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1784-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

James S. Krinsley, J. Geoffrey Chase, Jan Gunst, Johan Martensson, Marcus J. Schultz, Fabio S. Taccone, Jan Wernerman, Julien Bohe, Christophe De Block, Thomas Desaive, Pierre Kalfon, Jean-Charles Preiser

Abstract

Glucose management in intensive care unit (ICU) patients has been a matter of debate for almost two decades. Compared to intermittent monitoring systems, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) can offer benefit in the prevention of severe hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia by enabling insulin infusions to be adjusted more rapidly and potentially more accurately because trends in glucose concentrations can be more readily identified. Increasingly, it is apparent that a single glucose target/range may not be optimal for all patients at all times and, as with many other aspects of critical care patient management, a personalized approach to glucose control may be more appropriate. Here we consider some of the evidence supporting different glucose targets in various groups of patients, focusing on those with and without diabetes and neurological ICU patients. We also discuss some of the reasons why, despite evidence of benefit, CGM devices are still not widely employed in the ICU and propose areas of research needed to help move CGM from the research arena to routine clinical use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 152 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 13%
Other 15 10%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Student > Postgraduate 13 9%
Other 34 22%
Unknown 42 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 38%
Engineering 14 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 54 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 16 April 2018.
All research outputs
#2,597,767
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,257
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,393
of 326,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#48
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
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 326,986 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.