An in silico method to identify computerbased protocols worthy of clinical study: An insulin infusion protocol use case
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, ISSN: 1527-974X, Vol: 23, Issue: 2, Page: 283-288
2016
- 5Citations
- 34Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations5
- Citation Indexes5
- CrossRef3
- Captures34
- Readers34
- 34
Article Description
Objective: Develop an efficient non-clinical method for identifying promising computer-based protocols for clinical study. An in silico comparison can provide information that informs the decision to proceed to a clinical trial. The authors compared two existing computer-based insulin infusion protocols: eProtocol-insulin from Utah, USA, and Glucosafe from Denmark. Materials and Methods: The authors used eProtocol-insulin to manage intensive care unit (ICU) hyperglycemia with intravenous (IV) insulin from 2004 to 2010. Recommendations accepted by the bedside clinicians directly link the subsequent blood glucose values to eProtocol-insulin recommendations and provide a unique clinical database. The authors retrospectively compared in silico 18 984 eProtocol-insulin continuous IV insulin infusion rate recommendations from 408 ICU patients with those of Glucosafe, the candidate computer-based protocol. The subsequent blood glucose measurement value (low, on target, high) was used to identify if the insulin recommendation was too high, on target, or too low. Results: Glucosafe consistently provided more favorable continuous IV insulin infusion rate recommendations than eProtocol-insulin for on target (64% of comparisons), low (80% of comparisons), or high (70% of comparisons) blood glucose. Aggregated eProtocol-insulin and Glucosafe continuous IV insulin infusion rates were clinically similar though statistically significantly different (Wilcoxon signed rank test P=.01). In contrast, when stratified by low, on target, or high subsequent blood glucose measurement, insulin infusion rates from eProtocol-insulin and Glucosafe were statistically significantly different (Wilcoxon signed rank test, P<.001), and clinically different. Discussion: This in silico comparison appears to be an efficient nonclinical method for identifying promising computer-based protocols. Conclusion: Preclinical in silico comparison analytical framework allows rapid and inexpensive identification of computer-based protocol care strategies that justify expensive and burdensome clinical trials.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84963721472&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocv067; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26228765; https://academic.oup.com/jamia/article/23/2/283/2572377; https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocv067; https://academic.oup.com/jamia/article-abstract/23/2/283/2572377?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know