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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Insulin treatment guided by subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring compared to frequent point-of-care measurement in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-014-0453-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daphne T Boom, Marjolein K Sechterberger, Saskia Rijkenberg, Susanne Kreder, Rob J Bosman, Jos PJ Wester, Ilse van Stijn, J Hans DeVries, Peter HJ van der Voort |
| Abstract |
IntroductionGlucose measurement in intensive care medicine is performed intermittently with the risk of undetected hypoglycemia. The workload for the ICU nursing staff is substantial. Subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems are available and may be able to solve some of these issues in critically ill patients.MethodsIn a randomized controlled design in a mixed ICU in a teaching hospital we compared the use of subcutaneous CGM with frequent point-of-care (POC) to guide insulin treatment. Adult critically ill patients with an expected stay of more than 24 hours and in need of insulin therapy were included. All patients received subcutaneous CGM. CGM data were blinded in the control group, whereas in the intervention group these data were used to feed a computerized glucose regulation algorithm. The same algorithm was used in the control group fed by intermittent POC glucose measurements. Safety was assessed with the incidence of severe hypoglycemia (<2.2 mmol/L), efficacy with the percentage time in target range (5.0 to 9.0 mmol/L). In addition we assessed nursing workload and costs.ResultsIn this study, 87 patients were randomized to the intervention and 90 to the control group. CGM device failure resulted in 78 and 78 patients for analysis. The incidence of severe glycemia and percentage of time within target range was similar in both groups. A significant reduction in daily nursing workload for glucose control was found in the intervention group (17 versus 36 minutes; P <0.001). Mean daily costs per patient were significantly reduced with EUR 12 (95% CI ¿32 to ¿18, P¿=¿0.02) in the intervention group.ConclusionSubcutaneous CGM to guide insulin treatment in critically ill patients is as safe and effective as intermittent point-of-care measurements and reduces nursing workload and daily costs. A new algorithm designed for frequent measurements may lead to improved performance and should precede clinical implementation.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT01526044. Registered 1 February 2012. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 132 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 14% |
| Researcher | 15 | 11% |
| Other | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 29 | 21% |
| Unknown | 39 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 52 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 4% |
| Engineering | 4 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 10 | 7% |
| Unknown | 44 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 20 August 2014.
All research outputs
#4,835,465
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,282
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,450
of 246,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#38
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th 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 is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 246,917 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 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 63% of its contemporaries.