ArticleJournal of the Intensive Care Society2016
Glycaemic control in intensive care: Everything in moderation.
Article in Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Position statement: surgery and diabetes mellitus (Update 2023)].Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2023Article
- Glucose Management Technologies for the Critically Ill.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGlycaemic control is an important predictor of mortality in sepsis. Various international organizations including the Surviving Sepsis campaign recommend glycaemic control in critical illness with a glucose target between 6.1-10 mmol/L. The NICE-SUGAR Trial in 2009 was a landmark in the debate over tight versus liberal glycaemic control in the critically ill and subsequent guidelines have been adjusted to reflect a move towards moderate glycaemic control.
methodsWe conducted a nation-wide study comparing glucose targets used in intensive care units in the United Kingdom in 2007 with those used in 2014 to 2015 to see the impact of the NICE-SUGAR study and subsequent guideline changes.
resultsWe received a combined response from 81% of intensive care units in the UK. There was an increase in the average median glucose target in 2014/2015 compared with 2007 (7.8 versus 7.2;
conclusionsThere is an overall trend towards using a more moderate glucose target in critical care in the UK reflecting changes in international guidelines. However, it is likely that controversies, which still exist in the literature, are reflected in the variability of glycaemic control targets. It is possible that the advent of closed-loop or continuous glucose monitoring may have a further impact on this.
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.