Intensive versus conventional insulin therapy: A randomized controlled trial in medical and surgical critically ill patients*

Arabi, Yaseen M.; Dabbagh, Ousama; Tamim, Hani; Al-Shimemeri, Abdullah; Memish, Ziad A.; Haddad, Samir H.; Syed, Sofia; Giridhar, Hema; Rishu, Asgar; Al-Daker, Mouhamad O.; Kahoul, Salim; Britts, Riette J.; Sakkijha, Maram

doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e31818f21aa

Cited by 418 publications

(297 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

273

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Since these studies [446,447] appeared, several RCTs [448][449][450][451][452][453][454][455] and meta-analyses [456][457][458][459][460][461][462] of intensive insulin therapy have been performed. The RCTs studied mixed populations of surgical and medical ICU patients and found that intensive insulin therapy did not significantly decrease mortality, whereas the NICE-SUGAR trial demonstrated an increased mortality [451].…”

Section: We Suggest the Use Of Arterial Blood Rather Than Capillary Bmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012". Design:A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. Methods:The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable.

show abstract

Section: We Suggest the Use Of Arterial Blood Rather Than Capillary Bmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our analysis included 14,495 patients from 27 studies 128, 330, 331, 332, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359. None of the studies were especially prone to bias.…”

Section: Cq14: Blood Glucose Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J‐SSCG2016)

Nishida

Ogura

Egi

et al. 2018

Acute Medicine & Surgery

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and PurposeThe Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J‐SSCG 2016), a Japanese‐specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in February 2017 in Japanese. An English‐language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese‐language version.MethodsMembers of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine were selected and organized into 19 committee members and 52 working group members. The guidelines were prepared in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (Minds) creation procedures. The Academic Guidelines Promotion Team was organized to oversee and provide academic support to the respective activities allocated to each Guideline Creation Team. To improve quality assurance and workflow transparency, a mutual peer review system was established, and discussions within each team were open to the public. Public comments were collected once after the initial formulation of a clinical question (CQ), and twice during the review of the final draft. Recommendations were determined to have been adopted after obtaining support from a two‐thirds (>66.6%) majority vote of each of the 19 committee members.ResultsA total of 87 CQs were selected among 19 clinical areas, including pediatric topics and several other important areas not covered in the first edition of the Japanese guidelines (J‐SSCG 2012). The approval rate obtained through committee voting, in addition to ratings of the strengths of the recommendation and its supporting evidence were also added to each recommendation statement. We conducted meta‐analyses for 29 CQs. Thirty seven CQs contained recommendations in the form of an expert consensus due to insufficient evidence. No recommendations were provided for 5 CQs.ConclusionsBased on the evidence gathered, we were able to formulate Japanese‐specific clinical practice guidelines that are tailored to the Japanese context in a highly transparent manner. These guidelines can easily be used not only by specialists, but also by non‐specialists, general clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, clinical engineers, and other healthcare professionals.

show abstract

“…Overall, 28 articles were excluded ( Figure 1). We included 26 trials [8][9][10][11][12][13]18,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] in the meta-analysis.…”

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intensive insulin therapy and mortality among critically ill patients: a meta-analysis including NICE-SUGAR study data

Griesdale¹,

Souza²,

Dam³

et al. 2009

Canadian Medical Association Journal

963

619

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intensive versus conventional insulin therapy: A randomized controlled trial in medical and surgical critically ill patients*

Abstract: Current Controlled Trials registry (ISRCTN07413772) http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN07413772/07413772; 2005.

Cited by 418 publications

References 23 publications

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J‐SSCG2016)

Intensive insulin therapy and mortality among critically ill patients: a meta-analysis including NICE-SUGAR study data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About