Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20144384›Full record

ReviewJournal of diabetes science and technology2009

Reducing glycemic variability in intensive care unit patients: a new therapeutic target?

Moritoki Egi, Rinaldo Bellomo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Glucometrics and Insulinometrics.Current diabetes reports · 2017
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Moritoki EgiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Resuscitology, Okayama University Hospital, Shikata, Okayama, Japan. moriori@tg8.so-net.ne.jp
Rinaldo Bellomo

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acute hyperglycemia is common in critically ill patients. Strict control of blood glucose (BG) concentration has been considered important because hyperglycemia is associated independently with increased intensive care unit mortality. After intensive insulin therapy was reported to reduce mortality in selected surgical critically ill patients, lowering of BG levels was recommended as a means of improving patient outcomes. However, a large multicenter multination study has found that intensive insulin therapy increased mortality significantly. A difference in variability of BG control may be one possible explanation why the effect of intensive insulin therapy varied from beneficial to harmful. Several studies have confirmed significant associations between variability of BG levels and patient outcomes. Decreasing the variability of the BG concentration may be an important dimension of glucose management. If reducing swings in the BG concentration is a major biologic mechanism behind the putative benefits of glucose control, it may not be necessary to pursue lower glucose levels with their attendant risk of hypoglycemia.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessAcute DiseaseBlood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringCritical CareHumansHyperglycemiaHypoglycemiaHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinPredictive Value of TestsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeBlood GlucoseHypoglycemic AgentsInsulin

Identifiers

PMID20144384
PMCPMC2787030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.