Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorArias-Rivera, S.-
dc.contributor.authorRaurell-Torredà, M.-
dc.contributor.authorFernández-Castillo, R.J.-
dc.contributor.authorCampos-Asensio, C.-
dc.contributor.authorThuissard-Vasallo, I.J.-
dc.contributor.authorAndreu-Vázquez, C.-
dc.contributor.authorRodríguez-Delgado, M.E.-
dc.identifier.citationArias-Rivera S, Raurell-Torredà M, Fernández-Castillo RJ, Campos-Asensio C, Thuissard-Vasallo IJ, Andreu-Vázquez C, et al. Blood glucose monitoring in critically ill adult patients: Type of sample and method of analysis. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Enferm Intensiva 2023.es_ES
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: The clinical guideline for the management of sepsis recommends using arterial blood samples for glycaemic control. A multicentre study in 86 Spanish intensive care units revealed that 85.4% of these used capillary puncture. Objective: To analyse the reliability of glycaemia by comparing different blood samples (arterial, venous, capillary) and instruments (glucometers, gasometers, central laboratory). Secondarily, to estimate the effect of confounding variables and the performance of measuring instruments as determined by different quality standards. Methodology: Systematic review and meta-analysis with search in PubMed, CINAHL and Embase databases in September-2021 and September-2022, with no time or language limits. Grey literature sources: DART-Europe, OpenGrey and Google Scholar. Results summarised by qualitative (description of results, study characteristics) and quantitative (meta-analysis to assess standardised mean difference) synthesis. Methodological quality of articles assessed with Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. Protocol: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/T8KYP. Results: A total of 32 articles and 5451 patients were included. No discrepancies were obtained between arterial glucometer vs. laboratory samples (bias [95%CI]: 0.01 [−0.12 to 0.14] mg/dL). In contrast, arterial samples with a gasometer did significantly overestimate (bias [95%CI]: 0.12 [0.01 to 0.24] mg/dL). The same trend is seen in capillaries with a glucometer, although not significantly (bias [95%CI]: 0.07 [−0.02 to 0.15] mg/dL). There is discrepancy between studies on the effect of haematocrit and acid-base balance. The greatest consensus is on the poor agreement of glucometer with capillary vs. laboratory samples in the presence of shock and vasopressor support, renal failure or during vitamin C treatment. Conclusions: The evidence to date recommends the use of arterial blood with a blood glucose meter for better reliability of glycaemic analysis and less effect of possible confounding variables, frequently present in the critically ill adult patient.es_ES
dc.publisherElsevier BVes_ES
dc.rightsAtribución 3.0 España*
dc.subjectPredictive value of testses_ES
dc.subjectCritical illnesses_ES
dc.subjectData accuracyes_ES
dc.subjectGlycemic controles_ES
dc.subjectIntensive care unites_ES
dc.subjectPoint-of-care testinges_ES
dc.subject.meshIntensive Care Unitses_ES
dc.subject.meshBlood Glucosees_ES
dc.subject.meshCritical Carees_ES
dc.subject.meshCritical Illnesses_ES
dc.subject.meshGlycemic Controles_ES
dc.subject.meshPoint-of-Care Testinges_ES
dc.subject.meshPoint-of-Care Systemses_ES
dc.subject.meshBlood Specimen Collectiones_ES
dc.subject.meshBlood Gas Analysises_ES
dc.subject.meshData Accuracyes_ES
dc.subject.meshReproducibility of Resultses_ES
dc.subject.meshPredictive Value of Testses_ES
dc.titleMonitorización de la glucemia en el paciente crítico adulto: tipo de muestra y método de análisis. Revisión sistemática y metanálisis. Blood glucose monitoring in critically ill adult patients: Type of sample and method of analysis. Systematic review and meta-analysises_ES
dc.identifier.journalEnfermería Intensivaes_ES
dc.identifier.journalabbreviationEnferm Intensivaes_ES
dc.contributor.authoraffiliationUnidad de investigación de enfermería, Hospital Universitario de Getafe, Getafe, Madrid, Españaes_ES
dc.contributor.authoraffiliationDepartamento de Enfermería Fundamental y Médico Quirúrgica, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Españaes_ES
dc.contributor.authoraffiliationUnidad de Cuidados Intensivos, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena; Departamento de Enfermería, Facultad de Enfermería, Fisioterapia y Podología, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Españaes_ES
dc.contributor.authoraffiliationBiblioteca Médica, Hospital Universitario de Getafe, Getafe, Madrid, Españaes_ES
dc.contributor.authoraffiliationFacultad de Ciencias Biomédicas y de la Salud, Universidad Europea de Madrid, Villaviciosa de Odón, Madrid, Españaes_ES
dc.contributor.authoraffiliationUnidad de Cuidados Intensivos, Hospital Universitario Clínico San Cecilio, Granada, Españaes_ES
Appears in Collections:Hospitales > H. U. de Getafe > Artículos

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
1-s2.0-S1130239923000238-main.pdfArtículo2.01 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
1-s2.0-S1130239923000238-mmc1.docMaterial complementario161.42 kBMicrosoft WordView/Open

This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons