↓ Skip to main content

Effects of tight computerized glucose control on neurological outcome in severely brain injured patients: a multicenter sub-group analysis of the randomized-controlled open-label CGAO-REA study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, September 2014
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 (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Effects of tight computerized glucose control on neurological outcome in severely brain injured patients: a multicenter sub-group analysis of the randomized-controlled open-label CGAO-REA study
Published in
Critical Care, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13054-014-0498-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raphaël Cinotti, Carole Ichai, Jean-Christophe Orban, Pierre Kalfon, Fanny Feuillet, Antoine Roquilly, Bruno Riou, Yvonnick Blanloeil, Karim Asehnoune, Bertrand Rozec

Abstract

IntroductionHyperglycemia is a marker of poor prognosis in severe brain injuries. There is currently little data regarding the effects of intensive insulin therapy (IIT) on neurological recovery.MethodsA sub-group analysis of the randomized-controlled CGAO-REA study (NCT01002482) in surgical intensive care units (ICU) of two university hospitals. Patients with severe brain injury, with an expected ICU length of stay ¿48 hours were included. Patients were randomized between a conventional glucose management group (blood glucose target between 5.5 and 9 mmol.L¿1) and an IIT group (blood glucose target between 4.4 and 6 mmol.L¿1). The primary outcome was the day-90 neurological outcome evaluated with the Glasgow outcome scale.ResultsA total of 188 patients were included in this analysis. In total 98 (52%) patients were randomized in the control group and 90 (48%) in the IIT group. The mean Glasgow coma score at baseline was 7 (±4). Patients in the IIT group received more insulin (130 (68 to 251) UI versus 74 (13 to 165) UI in the control group, P¿=¿0.01), had a significantly lower morning blood glucose level (5.9 (5.1 to 6.7) mmol.L¿1 versus 6.5 (5.6 to 7.2) mmol.L¿1, P <0.001) in the first 5 days after ICU admission. The IIT group experienced more episodes of hypoglycemia (P <0.0001). In the IIT group 24 (26.6%) patients had a favorable neurological outcome (good recovery or moderate disability) compared to 31 (31.6%) in the control group (P¿=¿0.4). There were no differences in day-28 mortality. The occurrence of hypoglycemia did not influence the outcome.ConclusionsIn this sub-group analysis of a large multicenter randomized trial, IIT did not appear to alter the day-90 neurological outcome or ICU morbidity in severe brain injured patients or ICU morbidity.

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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 58 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 23%
Student > Master 10 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Researcher 5 8%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 9 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 49%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Psychology 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 14 23%

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 11 September 2014.
All research outputs
#2,405,270
of 9,723,837 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,880
of 3,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,150
of 193,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#54
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,723,837 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 3,630 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 193,497 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 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 53% of its contemporaries.