↓ 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

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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, 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 22%
Researcher 3 13%
Other 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Other 5 22%
Unknown 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Chemistry 2 9%
Psychology 1 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 7 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 02 December 2016.
All research outputs
#3,477,997
of 8,713,305 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,992
of 3,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,321
of 299,495 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#85
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,713,305 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 59th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,409 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 299,495 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 63% 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 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.