期刊文献+

A meta-analysis of tight versus conventional glycemia control in critically ill brain-injured adults 被引量:1

A meta-analysis of tight versus conventional glycemia control in critically ill brain-injured adults
下载PDF
导出
摘要 Objective: To evaluate the benefits and risks of tight glycemia control (TGC) versus conventional glucose control (CGC) in critically ill brain-injured adults. Methods: We performed meta-analysis by systematically searching PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and CQVIP databases to retrieve RCTs in any languages. We used Review Manager to perform meta-analysis. Odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in analyses. Results: Twenty-six RCTs with a total of 3,759 participants were included in this meta-analysis. In-hospital mortality showed significant dissimilarity between TGC and CGC groups with OR of 0.76 (95%CI 0.58, 0.99). However, in terms of overall mortality and long-term neurological severity outcome, it didn't show differences with ORs of 0.93 (95%CI 0.79, 1.10) and 1.15 (95%CI 0.96, 1.37). There were also discrepancies in infection rate and ICU length of stay with OR of 0.51 (95%CI 0.42, 0.62) and WMD of -2.37 (95%CI -2.99, -1.74). Significances were observed in hypoglycemia events with ORs of 6.24 (95%CI 4.83, 8.07) and 2.73 (95%CI 2.56, 2.91) using two methods. Conclusion: In critically ill brain injury, TGC did not show beneficial effects on reducing overall mortality and long term neurological outcome, but it increased the risk of hypoglycemia. Objective: To evaluate the benefits and risks of tight glycemia control (TGC) versus conventional glucose control (CGC) in critically ill brain-injured adults. Methods: We performed meta-analysis by systematically searching PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and CQVIP databases to retrieve RCTs in any languages. We used Review Manager to perform meta-analysis. Odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in analyses. Results: Twenty-six RCTs with a total of 3,759 participants were included in this meta-analysis. In-hospital mortality showed significant dissimilarity between TGC and CGC groups with OR of 0.76 (95%CI 0.58, 0.99). However, in terms of overall mortality and long-term neurological severity outcome, it didn't show differences with ORs of 0.93 (95%CI 0.79, 1.10) and 1.15 (95%CI 0.96, 1.37). There were also discrepancies in infection rate and ICU length of stay with OR of 0.51 (95%CI 0.42, 0.62) and WMD of -2.37 (95%CI -2.99, -1.74). Significances were observed in hypoglycemia events with ORs of 6.24 (95%CI 4.83, 8.07) and 2.73 (95%CI 2.56, 2.91) using two methods. Conclusion: In critically ill brain injury, TGC did not show beneficial effects on reducing overall mortality and long term neurological outcome, but it increased the risk of hypoglycemia.
出处 《Journal of Medical Colleges of PLA(China)》 CAS 2012年第1期20-37,共18页 中国人民解放军军医大学学报(英文版)
关键词 低血糖 脑损伤 控制 成人 大规模杀伤性武器 随机对照试验 中国期刊 数据库检索 Glycemia Brain injury Critical care Meta-analysis
  • 相关文献

参考文献5

二级参考文献45

共引文献35

同被引文献1

引证文献1

二级引证文献1

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部