重症监护室糖尿病患者血糖控制的严格与宽松:随机对照试验的 Meta 分析。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Journal of Intensive Care Medicine Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-16 DOI:10.1177/08850666241255671
Maria L R Defante, Beatriz Ximenes Mendes, Mariana de Moura de Souza, Beatriz Austregésilo de Athayde De Hollanda Morais, Otávio Cosendey Martins, Vitória Martins Prizão, Salma Ali El Chab Parolin
{"title":"重症监护室糖尿病患者血糖控制的严格与宽松:随机对照试验的 Meta 分析。","authors":"Maria L R Defante, Beatriz Ximenes Mendes, Mariana de Moura de Souza, Beatriz Austregésilo de Athayde De Hollanda Morais, Otávio Cosendey Martins, Vitória Martins Prizão, Salma Ali El Chab Parolin","doi":"10.1177/08850666241255671","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> Glycemia is an important factor among critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). There is conflicting evidence on the preferred strategy of blood glucose control among patients with diabetes in the ICU. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis comparing tight with liberal blood glucose in critically ill patients with diabetes in the ICU. <b>Methods:</b> We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tight versus liberal blood glucose control in critically ill patients with diabetes from inception to December 2023. We pooled odds-ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) with a random-effects model for binary endpoints. We used the Review Manager 5.17 and R version 4.3.2 for statistical analyses. Risk of bias assessment was performed with the Cochrane tool for randomized trials (RoB2). <b>Results:</b> Eight RCTs with 4474 patients were included. There was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.95-1.28; <i>P</i> = .18; I² = 0%) between a tight and liberal blood glucose control. RoB2 identified all studies at low risk of bias and funnel plot suggested no evidence of publication bias. <b>Conclusion:</b> In patients with diabetes in the ICU, there was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality between a tight and liberal blood glucose control. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023485032.</p>","PeriodicalId":16307,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1250-1255"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tight Versus Liberal Blood Glucose Control in Patients With Diabetes in the ICU: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Maria L R Defante, Beatriz Ximenes Mendes, Mariana de Moura de Souza, Beatriz Austregésilo de Athayde De Hollanda Morais, Otávio Cosendey Martins, Vitória Martins Prizão, Salma Ali El Chab Parolin\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08850666241255671\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> Glycemia is an important factor among critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). There is conflicting evidence on the preferred strategy of blood glucose control among patients with diabetes in the ICU. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis comparing tight with liberal blood glucose in critically ill patients with diabetes in the ICU. <b>Methods:</b> We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tight versus liberal blood glucose control in critically ill patients with diabetes from inception to December 2023. We pooled odds-ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) with a random-effects model for binary endpoints. We used the Review Manager 5.17 and R version 4.3.2 for statistical analyses. Risk of bias assessment was performed with the Cochrane tool for randomized trials (RoB2). <b>Results:</b> Eight RCTs with 4474 patients were included. There was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.95-1.28; <i>P</i> = .18; I² = 0%) between a tight and liberal blood glucose control. RoB2 identified all studies at low risk of bias and funnel plot suggested no evidence of publication bias. <b>Conclusion:</b> In patients with diabetes in the ICU, there was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality between a tight and liberal blood glucose control. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023485032.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16307,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1250-1255\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08850666241255671\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08850666241255671","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介血糖是重症监护室(ICU)重症患者的一个重要因素。关于重症监护室糖尿病患者首选的血糖控制策略,目前存在相互矛盾的证据。我们旨在进行一项荟萃分析,比较重症监护室糖尿病重症患者血糖控制的严格与宽松。方法:我们在 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane Central 系统检索了从开始到 2023 年 12 月期间在糖尿病重症患者中比较严格血糖控制与宽松血糖控制的随机对照试验(RCT)。我们采用随机效应模型对二元终点的几率比(OR)和 95% 置信区间(CI)进行了汇总。我们使用Review Manager 5.17和R版本4.3.2进行统计分析。偏倚风险评估采用 Cochrane 随机试验工具 (RoB2) 进行。结果共纳入 8 项随机试验,4474 名患者。严格和宽松的血糖控制在全因死亡率方面没有明显的统计学差异(OR 1.11;95% CI 0.95-1.28;P = .18;I² = 0%)。RoB2 确定了所有偏倚风险较低的研究,漏斗图显示没有证据表明存在发表偏倚。结论在重症监护室的糖尿病患者中,严格和宽松的血糖控制在全因死亡率方面没有统计学意义上的显著差异。PROSPERO 注册:CRD42023485032。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Tight Versus Liberal Blood Glucose Control in Patients With Diabetes in the ICU: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Introduction: Glycemia is an important factor among critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). There is conflicting evidence on the preferred strategy of blood glucose control among patients with diabetes in the ICU. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis comparing tight with liberal blood glucose in critically ill patients with diabetes in the ICU. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tight versus liberal blood glucose control in critically ill patients with diabetes from inception to December 2023. We pooled odds-ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) with a random-effects model for binary endpoints. We used the Review Manager 5.17 and R version 4.3.2 for statistical analyses. Risk of bias assessment was performed with the Cochrane tool for randomized trials (RoB2). Results: Eight RCTs with 4474 patients were included. There was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.95-1.28; P = .18; I² = 0%) between a tight and liberal blood glucose control. RoB2 identified all studies at low risk of bias and funnel plot suggested no evidence of publication bias. Conclusion: In patients with diabetes in the ICU, there was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality between a tight and liberal blood glucose control. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023485032.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
3.20%
发文量
107
期刊介绍: Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (JIC) is a peer-reviewed bi-monthly journal offering medical and surgical clinicians in adult and pediatric intensive care state-of-the-art, broad-based analytic reviews and updates, original articles, reports of large clinical series, techniques and procedures, topic-specific electronic resources, book reviews, and editorials on all aspects of intensive/critical/coronary care.
期刊最新文献
Update on Management and Outcomes of Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia. Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist Versus Pressure Support Ventilation: A Comprehensive Review. Tight Versus Liberal Blood Glucose Control in Patients With Diabetes in the ICU: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Evaluation of Gram Stain-Guided Antibiotic Therapy for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Pneumonia in Intensive Care Unit Patients. Prognostic Value of Sublingual Microcirculation in Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1