Cited by 71Hyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patientsDiabetes Management and ResearchClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control

Use of continuous glucose monitor in critically ill COVID-19 patients requiring insulin infusion: an observational study

Open access
Faulds, Eileen R, Boutsicaris, Andrew, Sumner, Lyndsey, Jones, Laureen, McNett, Molly, Smetana, Keaton S, May, Casey C, Buschur, Elizabeth +3 more·2021·The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

Abstract

Context: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created a need for remote blood glucose (BG) monitoring in the intensive care unit (ICU). Objective: To evaluate feasibility and patient safety of a hybrid monitoring strategy of point-of-care (POC) BG plus continuous glucose monitor (CGM) in the ICU. Design: Retrospective analysis. Setting: ICU of an academic medical center. Patients: Patients with COVID-19 on IV insulin. Intervention: After meeting initial validation criteria, CGM was used for IV insulin titration and POC BG was performed every 6 hours or as needed. Main Outcome Measures: Outcomes included frequency of POC BG, workflow, safety, and accuracy measures. Results: The study included 19 patients, 18 with CGM data, mean age 58 years, 89% on mechanical ventilation, 37% on vasopressors, and 42% on dialysis. The median time to CGM validation was 137 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 114-206). During IV insulin, the median number of POC values was 7 (IQR 6-16) on day 1, and declined slightly thereafter (71% reduction compared with standard of 24/day). The median number of CGM values used nonadjunctively to titrate IV insulin was 11.5 (IQR 0, 15) on day 1 and increased thereafter. Time in range 70 to 180 mg/dL was 64 ± 23% on day 1 and 72 ± 16% on days 2 through 7, whereas time <70 mg/dL was 1.5 ± 4.1% on day 1 and <1% on days 2 through 7. Conclusions: This study provides data to support that CGM using a hybrid protocol is feasible, accurate, safe, and has potential to reduce nursing and staff workload.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1210/clinem/dgab409

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Hospital CGM was successfully used in conjunction with periodic POC monitoring in hybrid protocols used for intravenous insulin titrations, decreasing the burden of hourly POC testing.

    “However, hospital CGM was successfully used in conjunction with periodic POC monitoring in hybrid protocols used for intravenous insulin titrations, decreasing the burden of hourly POC testing (54)(55)(56).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Moghissi ES, Korytkowski MT, DiNardo M, et al.; American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists; American Diabetes Association. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American Diabetes Association consensus statement on in- patient glycemic control. Endocr Pract. 2009;15(4):353-369.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Faulds, E. R., Boutsicaris, A., Sumner, L., Jones, L., McNett, M., Smetana, K. S., May, C. C., Buschur, E., Exline, M. C., Ringel, M. D., & Dungan, K.
Affiliations
  • The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • Implementation/Translation Science Core, Helene Fuld Health Trust National Institute for EBP, Columbus, OH, USA
Corresponding author
Faulds, Eileen R
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
Published
2021-06-08
Volume
106
Issue
10
Pages
e4007-e4016
ISSN
  • 0021-972X (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-7197
OpenAlex
W3167297042
Cited by
71
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 1
FWCI
9.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Ohio State University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Hyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Keywords
continuous glucose monitoring, COVID-19 pandemic, critically ill patients, intensive care unit, insulin infusion, insulin dose adjustment, time in range, hypoglycemia, nursing workload, remote glucose monitoring
MeSH terms
Glycemic Control, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Adult, Aged, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Female, Humans, Infusions, Intravenous, Insulin, Intensive Care Units, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Comorbidity, Critical Illness, Treatment Outcome, Point-of-Care Systems, Diabetes Complications

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review