↓ Skip to main content

Point accuracy and reliability of an interstitial continuous glucose-monitoring device in critically ill patients: a prospective study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Point accuracy and reliability of an interstitial continuous glucose-monitoring device in critically ill patients: a prospective study
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-0757-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roosmarijn TM van Hooijdonk, Jan Hendrik Leopold, Tineke Winters, Jan M Binnekade, Nicole P Juffermans, Janneke Horn, Johan C Fischer, Edmée C van Dongen-Lases, Marcus J Schultz

Abstract

IntroductionThere is need for continuous glucose monitoring in critically ill patients. The objective of this trial was to determine the point accuracy and reliability of a device designed for continuous monitoring of interstitial glucose levels in intensive care unit patients.MethodsWe evaluated point accuracy by comparing device readings with glucose measurements in arterial blood using blood gas analyzers. Analytical and clinical accuracy was expressed in Bland¿Altman plots, glucose prediction errors, and Clarke error grids. We used a linear mixed model to determine which factors affect the point accuracy. In addition, we determined the reliability, including duration of device start¿up and calibration, skips in data acquisition, and premature disconnections of sensors.ResultsWe included 50 patients in whom we used 105 sensors. Five patients from whom we could not collect the predefined minimum number of four consecutive comparative blood draws were excluded from the point accuracy analysis. Therefore, we had 929 comparative samples from 100 sensors in 45 patients (11 (7 to 28) samples per patient) during 4,639 hours (46 (27 to 134) hours per patient and 46 (21 to 69) hours per sensor) for the accuracy analysis. Point accuracy did not meet the ISO14971 standard for insulin dosing accuracy, but improved with increasing numbers of calibrations, and was better in patients who did not have a history of diabetes. Out of 105 sensors, 60 were removed prematurely for a variety of reasons. The device start¿up time was 49 (43 to 58) minutes. The number of skips in data acquisition was low, resulting in availability of real¿time data during 95 (89 to 98) % of the connection time per sensor.ConclusionsThe point accuracy of a device designed for continuous real¿time monitoring of interstitial glucose levels was relatively low in critically ill patients. The device had few down times, but one third of the sensors were removed prematurely because of unresolved sensor ¿ or device related problems.Trial registration numberNetherlands Trial Register, NTR3827. 30 January 2013.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 18%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Other 5 9%
Student > Master 5 9%
Other 15 26%
Unknown 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Engineering 3 5%
Psychology 3 5%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 10 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 28 July 2015.
All research outputs
#7,959,659
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,224
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,391
of 395,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#370
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th 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 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 395,397 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.