ArticleBMJ open2026
What is the ideal glucose range for a patient with sepsis in the ICU? A retrospective analysis of MIMIC-IV.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
importanceClinical trials have produced inconclusive results regarding the optimal glucose range for a patient with sepsis in the intensive care unit (ICU) receiving insulin treatment.
objectiveTo investigate the optimal glucose range in patients with sepsis in the ICU independent of confounding covariates.
designTargeted trial emulation of glucose ranges using causal inference targeted maximum likelihood estimation and longitudinal mixed-effects models combined with survival models.
settingSingle-centre, academic referral hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
participantsAdults fulfilling sepsis 3 criteria with at least three glucose readings and insulin treatment from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-IV database (2008-2019). EXPOSURE: Five predefined glucose distributions with means at 100, 130, 160 (baseline), 190 and 220 mg/dL mimicking current guidelines' recommendations (140-180 mg/dL). MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Modified counterfactual treatment-policy risks across distinct time-weighted glucose ranges were estimated.
resultsOf 73 181 eligible patients, 8002 patients with a median age of 66 years (41% women, 67% white ethnicity, 57% diabetes) were included. There was a U-shaped curve between glucose range and mortality in patients without diabetes, but overall, this association was not significant (mean glucose at 100 mg/dL with 21% mortality and mean glucose at 220 mg/dL with 26% mortality, p-for-trend 0.26). Mortality was lowest at 17%, with mean glucose between 130 and 160 mg/dL. Hypoglycaemic events (<80 mg/dL) became increasingly more frequent with tighter glucose control 16% at 220 mg/dL compared with 77% at 100 mg/dL (p-for-trend 0.01). Joint modelling corroborated these results and did not identify covariates that would favour lower glucose ranges in subsets of patients. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Our data suggest a U-shaped association of glucose and mortality with an optimal average glucose between 160 and 190 mg/dL. These results confirm current guideline recommendations. Together with recent results from randomised controlled trials, intensivists should aim for a liberal glucose range in most patients.
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.