Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40205034›Full record

ArticleAnnals of intensive care2025

Comparison of all-cause mortality with different blood glucose control strategies in patients with diabetes in the ICU: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Xi Li, Jiahao Meng, Xingui Dai, Pan Liu, Yumei Wu, Shuhao Wang, Heng Yin, Shuguang Gao

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of intensive care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Xi Li *Department of Orthopaedics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China.
Jiahao Meng *Department of Orthopaedics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China.
Xingui DaiDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Affiliated Chenzhou Hospital (The first People's Hospital of Chenzhou), University of South China, Chenzhou, China.
Pan LiuDepartment of Orthopaedics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China.
Yumei WuDepartment of Orthopaedics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China.
Shuhao WangDepartment of Orthopaedics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China.
Heng YinDepartment of Orthopaedics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China.
Shuguang GaoDepartment of Orthopaedics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China. gaoshuguang0341@csu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1135-7876

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe optimal glucose control strategy for intensive care unit (ICU) patients with diabetes remains a topic of debate. This study aimed to compare the effects of strict glucose control, intermediate strict glucose control, liberal glucose control, and very liberal glucose control on reducing all-cause mortality in ICU patients with diabetes through a network meta-analysis.

methodsWe conducted a search in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials comparing different glucose control strategies in ICU patients with diabetes up to October 1, 2024. The primary outcome was all-cause 90-day mortality. The Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to assess bias in the included studies. Data analysis was performed using Stata (version 17).

resultsA total of 12 randomized controlled trials involving 5,297 participants were included in the final analysis. The results showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the four glucose control strategies in reducing all-cause 90-day mortality. The surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA), which was used to rank the strategies and display the probability of each strategy being ranked first, showed the following: intermediate strict control (SUCRA 88%), liberal control (SUCRA 55.3%), very liberal control (SUCRA 40.3%), and strict control (SUCRA 16.5%). The cumulative probability of each strategy's rank in reducing all-cause mortality, from best to worst, showed that the most likely ranking was intermediate strict control, liberal control, very liberal control, and strict control.

conclusionsIn ICU patients with diabetes, no significant statistical difference was observed among the four glucose control strategies in reducing all-cause 90-day mortality. The SUCRA rankings are hypothesis-generating and require further validation. Therefore, the current evidence is insufficient to definitively conclude that any one strategy is superior to the others in reducing mortality.

Indexed as

All-cause mortalityDiabetesGlucose controlIntensive care unit

Identifiers

PMID40205034
PMCPMC11982002

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.