ReviewCritical care (London, England)2026
Individualising blood glucose control in ICU patients: evidence and practical implementations.
Review in Critical care (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many intensive care unit patients develop hyperglycaemia, and this is associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes. Landmark randomised controlled trials (RCTs) suggest the impact of lowering blood glucose to the healthy, age-adjusted fasting range, hereafter called tight glucose control, depends on the accuracy of the glucose control protocol and the nutritional strategy. In the context of early parenteral nutrition, a condition that induces severe, iatrogenic hyperglycaemia, tight glucose control significantly reduced morbidity and mortality compared to tolerating severe hyperglycaemia. In the absence of early parenteral nutrition, hyperglycaemia was less severe; tight glucose control, applied with a computerised protocol that avoided severe hypoglycaemia, did not impact mortality nor the duration of ICU dependency as primary endpoint in a large multicentre RCT, but was associated with a less pronounced benefit on selected morbidity outcomes. Conversely, tight glucose control, using a protocol that considerably increased the risk of severe hypoglycaemic events, concomitantly increased mortality; nevertheless, the cause of excess mortality in this trial remains unproven and other mechanisms may have contributed as well. Altogether, evidence suggests that severe and iatrogenic hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia should both be avoided. From a pathophysiologic point of view, tight glucose control may be superior in selected settings if it can be applied with a validated protocol that avoids severe hypoglycaemia. In the absence of such a protocol, the increased risk of severe hypoglycaemia may offset any benefit of preventing hyperglycaemia, and tolerating intermediate blood glucose targets is likely the default setting. In the paper, we suggest specific blood glucose targets that differ according to the clinical context. Future research should aim at strategies that further optimise the quality of blood glucose control and study whether these improve patient-centred outcomes, and investigate whether specific patient populations benefit from individualised targets.
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.