Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29479638›Full record

ReviewCurrent diabetes reports2018

Critical Care Management of Stress-Induced Hyperglycemia.

Ilse Vanhorebeek, Jan Gunst, Greet Van den Berghe

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current diabetes reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  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. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ilse VanhorebeekClinical Division and Laboratory of Intensive Care Medicine, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. ilse.vanhorebeek@kuleuven.be.
Jan GunstClinical Division and Laboratory of Intensive Care Medicine, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Greet Van den BergheClinical Division and Laboratory of Intensive Care Medicine, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
KU Leuven · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewWe discuss key studies that have set the scene for the debate on the efficacy and safety of tight glycemic control in critically ill patients, highlighting important differences among them, and describe the ensuing search towards strategies for safer glucose control. RECENT

findingsDifferences in level of glycemic control, glucose measurement and insulin administration, expertise, and nutritional management may explain the divergent outcomes of the landmark studies on tight glycemic control in critical illness. Regarding strategies towards safer glucose control, several computerized algorithms have shown promise, but lack validation in adequately powered outcome studies. Real-time continuous glucose monitoring and closed loop blood glucose control systems are not up to the task yet due to technical challenges, though recent advances are promising. Alternatives for insulin have only been investigated in small feasibility studies. Severe hyperglycemia in critically ill patients generally is not tolerated anymore, but the optimal blood glucose target may depend on the specific patient and logistic context.

Indexed as

Critical CareBlood GlucoseHumansHyperglycemiaStress, PsychologicalBlood GlucoseClinical outcomeCritical illnessHyperglycemiaHypoglycemiaInsulinIntensive care

Identifiers

PMID29479638
OpenAlexW2793728335

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.