↓ Skip to main content

Continuous glucose control in the ICU: report of a 2013 round table meeting

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, June 2014
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 (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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 control in the ICU: report of a 2013 round table meeting
Published in
Critical Care, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/cc13921
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan Wernerman, Thomas Desaive, Simon Finfer, Luc Foubert, Anthony Furnary, Ulrike Holzinger, Roman Hovorka, Jeffrey Joseph, Mikhail Kosiborod, James Krinsley, Dieter Mesotten, Stanley Nasraway, Olav Rooyackers, Marcus J Schultz, Tom Van Herpe, Robert A Vigersky, Jean-Charles Preiser

Abstract

Achieving adequate glucose control in critically ill patients is a complex but important part of optimal patient management. Until relatively recently, intermittent measurements of blood glucose have been the only means of monitoring blood glucose levels. With growing interest in the possible beneficial effects of continuous over intermittent monitoring and the development of several continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, a round table conference was convened to discuss and, where possible, reach consensus on the various aspects related to glucose monitoring and management using these systems. In this report, we discuss the advantages and limitations of the different types of devices available, the potential advantages of continuous over intermittent testing, the relative importance of trend and point accuracy, the standards necessary for reporting results in clinical trials and for recognition by official bodies, and the changes that may be needed in current glucose management protocols as a result of a move towards increased use of CGM. We close with a list of the research priorities in this field, which will be necessary if CGM is to become a routine part of daily practice in the management of critically ill patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 74 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 13 16%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Postgraduate 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 9%
Other 23 29%
Unknown 4 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 58%
Engineering 9 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Computer Science 3 4%
Sports and Recreations 3 4%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 6 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 15 November 2014.
All research outputs
#3,525,920
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,746
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,901
of 243,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#40
of 148 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 243,419 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 148 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.