Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26252319›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2015

Glutamine Supplementation in Intensive Care Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Massimo Oldani, Marta Sandini, Luca Nespoli, Sara Coppola, Davide Paolo Bernasconi, Luca Gianotti

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Therapeutic targeting of metabolic alterations in acute respiratory distress syndrome.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2020
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Effects of Early Enteral Glutamine Supplementation on Intestinal Permeability in Critically Ill Patients.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2019
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Is the glutamine story over?Critical care (London, England) · 2016
    Review
  14. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Massimo OldaniFrom the Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, Milano-Bicocca University, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza (MO, MS, LN, LG); Department of Surgery, Humanitas Gavazzeni, Bergamo (SC); and Department of Health Sciences, Center of Biostatistics for Clinical Epidemiology, Milano-Bicocca University, Monza, Italy (DPB).
Marta Sandini
Luca Nespoli
Sara Coppola
Davide Paolo Bernasconi
Luca Gianotti
Deutscher Psoriasis Bund · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The role of glutamine (GLN) supplementation in critically ill patients is controversial. Our aim was to analyze its potential effect in patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU).We performed a systematic literature review through Medline, Embase, Pubmed, Scopus, Ovid, ISI Web of Science, and the Cochrane-Controlled Trials Register searching for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published from 1983 to 2014 and comparing GLN supplementation to no supplementation in patients admitted to ICU. A random-effect meta-analysis for each outcome (hospital and ICU mortality and rate of infections) of interest was carried out. The effect size was estimated by the risk ratio (RR).Thirty RCTs were analyzed with a total of 3696 patients, 1825 (49.4%) receiving GLN and 1859 (50.6%) no GLN (control groups). Hospital mortality rate was 27.6% in the GLN patients and 28.6% in controls with an RR of 0.93 (95% CI = 0.81-1.07; P = 0.325, I = 10.7%). ICU mortality was 18.0 % in the patients receiving GLN and 17.6% in controls with an RR of 1.01 (95% CI = 0.86-1.19; P = 0.932, I = 0%). The incidence of infections was 39.7% in GLN group versus 41.7% in controls. The effect of GLN was not significant (RR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.76-1.03; P = 0.108, I = 56.1%).These results do not allow to recommend GLN supplementation in a generic population of critically ills. Further RCTs are needed to explore the effect of GLN in more specific cohort of patients.

Indexed as

Critical CareDietary SupplementsCritical IllnessGlutamineHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicGlutamine

Identifiers

PMID26252319
PMCPMC4616616
OpenAlexW2221786516

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.