Variation in Monitoring: Glucose Measurement in the ICU As a Case Study to Preempt Spurious Correlations

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.