ReviewCurrent opinion in gastroenterology2010
Near-normal glycemia for critically ill patients receiving nutrition support: fact or folly.
Review in Current opinion in gastroenterology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine learning-based prediction of risk factors for abnormal glycemic control in diabetic cancer patients receiving nutrition support: a case-control study.Hormones (Athens, Greece) · 2023Article
- Article
- Tight glycemic control and cardiovascular effects in type 2 diabetic patients.Heart views : the official journal of the Gulf Heart AssociationReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewIn critically ill patients, nutrition support may be a life-saving intervention, but is not without risk. Adverse metabolic changes, including hypertriglyceridemia and hyperglycemia, are common. Hyperglycemia is associated with adverse outcomes, in particular, infection. Four major studies have addressed whether near-normal glycemia (80-110 mg/dl) in this clinical setting improves outcomes compared with blood sugars of approximately 150 mg/dl. The purpose of this review is to determine whether tight glycemic control is superior to moderate glycemic control (150 mg/dl) in critically ill patients receiving nutrition support. RECENT
findingsInitial data collected in postsurgical patients suggested that near-normal glycemia dramatically improved outcomes compared with moderate glycemic control. However, three recent studies were unable to duplicate these results and suggest that the benefits of tight glycemic control may be limited to postsurgical patients. Controlling hyperlipidemia and preventing overfeeding may improve outcomes more than tight control of blood sugars. Furthermore, near-normal glycemic control caused frequent hypoglycemia and, in some cases, worsened outcomes. SUMMARY: Glycemic control to approximately 150 mg/dl is not inferior to near-normal glycemia in critically ill patients requiring nutrition support and is clearly safer. Lipid changes caused by insulin infusion may improve outcomes more than glycemic control itself, and prevention of hypertriglyceridemia should be a major focus of clinical care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.