ArticleWorld journal of critical care medicine2013
Intravenous glutamine for severe acute pancreatitis: A meta-analysis.
Article in World journal of critical care medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Parenteral glutamine supplementation in critical illness: a systematic review.Critical care (London, England) · 2014Pooled it
- Targeting Oxidative Stress in Acute Pancreatitis: A Critical Review of Antioxidant Strategies.Nutrients · 2025Review
- Review
- Therapeutic benefits of glutamine: An umbrella review of meta-analyses.Biomedical reports · 2017Article
- Current concepts in the management of acute pancreatitis.Journal of family medicine and primary careReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the efficacy of intravenous glutamine on the patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP).
methodsThe Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and EBM review databases were searched up to June 2012. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared non-glutamine nutrition with intravenous glutamine supplemented nutrition in patients with SAP were included. A method recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration was used to perform a meta-analysis of those RCTs.
resultsFour RCTs involving a total of 190 participants were included. Analysis of these RCTs revealed the presence of statistical homogeneity among them. Results showed that glutamine dipeptide has a positive effect in reducing the mortality rate (OR = 0.26, 95%CI: 0.09-0.73, P = 0.01), length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference = -4.85, 95%CI: 6.67--3.03, P < 0.001), and the rate of complications (OR = 0.41, 95%CI: 0.22-0.78, P = 0.006). No serious adverse effects were found.
conclusionCurrent best evidence demonstrates that glutamine is effective for SAP. Further high quality trials are required and parameters of nutritional condition and hospital cost should be considered in future RCTs with sufficient size and rigorous design.
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.