↓ Skip to main content

Manual versus Automated moNitoring Accuracy of GlucosE II (MANAGE II)

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Manual versus Automated moNitoring Accuracy of GlucosE II (MANAGE II)
Published in
Critical Care, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1547-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cláudia Righy Shinotsuka, Alexandre Brasseur, David Fagnoul, Timothy So, Jean-Louis Vincent, Jean-Charles Preiser

Abstract

Intravascular continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) may facilitate glycemic control in the intensive care unit (ICU). We compared the accuracy of a CGM device (OptiScanner®) with a standard reference method. Adult patients who had blood glucose (BG) levels >150 mg/dl and required insertion of an arterial and central venous catheter were included. The OptiScanner® was inserted into a multiple-lumen central venous catheter. Patients were treated using a dynamic-scale insulin algorithm to achieve BG values between 80 and 150 mg/dl. The BG values measured by the OptiScanner® were plotted against BG values measured using a reference analyzer. The correlation between the BG values measured using the two methods and the clinical relevance of any differences were assessed using the coefficient of determination (r (2)) and the Clarke error grid, respectively; bias was assessed by the mean absolute relative difference (MARD). Three different standards of glucose monitoring were used to assess accuracy. Glycemic control was assessed using the time in range (TIR). Six indices of glycemic variability were calculated. The analysis included 929 paired samples from 88 patients, monitored for a total of 2584 hours. Reference BG values ranged between 60 and 484 mg/dl. The r (2) value was 0.89. The percentage of BG values within zones A and B of the Clarke error grid was 99.9%; the MARD was 7.7%. Using the ISO 15197 standard and Food and Drug Administration and consensus standards, respectively, 80.4% of measurements were within 15 mg/dl and 88.2% within 15% of reference values, 40% of measurements were within 7 mg/dl and 72.5% within 10% of reference values, and 65.2% of measurements were within 10 mg/dl and 82.7% within 12.5% of reference values. The TIR was slightly lower with the OptiScanner® than with the reference method. The J-index, standard deviation and maximal glucose change were the indices of glycemic variability least affected by the measurement device. Based on the MARD, the performance of the OptiScanner® is adequate for use in ICU patients. Because recent standards for accuracy were not met, the OptiScanner® should not be used as a sole monitor. The assessment of glycemic variability is influenced by the time interval between BG determinations. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01720381 . Registered 31 October 2012.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 8 25%
Unknown 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Chemistry 2 6%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 28%
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 05 April 2021.
All research outputs
#6,275,904
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,610
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,049
of 416,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#66
of 92 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 75th 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 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 416,155 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 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.