ABSTRACT
Objective Health inequities can be influenced by demographic factors such as race and ethnicity, proficiency in English, and biological sex. Disparities may manifest as differential likelihood of testing which correlates directly with the likelihood of an intervention to address an abnormal finding. Our retrospective observational study evaluated the presence of variation in glucose measurements in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU).
Methods Using the MIMIC-IV database (2008-2019), a single-center, academic referral hospital in Boston (USA), we identified adult patients meeting sepsis-3 criteria. Exclusion criteria were diabetic ketoacidosis, ICU length of stay under 1 day, and unknown race or ethnicity. We performed a logistic regression analysis to assess differential likelihoods of glucose measurements on day 1. A negative binomial regression was fitted to assess the frequency of subsequent glucose readings. Analyses were adjusted for relevant clinical confounders, and performed across three disparity proxy axes: race and ethnicity, sex, and English proficiency.
Results We studied 24,927 patients, of which 19.5% represented racial and ethnic minority groups, 42.4% were female, and 9.8% had limited English proficiency. No significant differences were found for glucose measurement on day 1 in the ICU. This pattern was consistent irrespective of the axis of analysis, i.e. race and ethnicity, sex, or English proficiency. Conversely, subsequent measurement frequency revealed potential disparities. Specifically, males (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 - 1.21), patients who identify themselves as Hispanic (IRR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01 - 1.21), or Black (IRR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01 - 1.12), and patients being English proficient (IRR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 - 1.15) had higher chances of subsequent glucose readings.
Conclusion We found disparities in ICU glucose measurements among patients with sepsis, albeit the magnitude was small. Variation in disease monitoring is a source of data bias that may lead to spurious correlations when modeling health data.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. LAC is supported by the NIBIB, under R01 EB001659. JM was supported by a Fulbright / FLAD Grant, Portugal, AY 2022/2023. TS is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (P400PM_194497 / 1).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The MIMIC IV dataset has been de-identified, and the institutional review boards of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (0403000206) and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (2001-P-001699/14) both approved the use of the database for research
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
