MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Glutamine supplementation in serious illness: A systematic review of the evidence*

2002· review· en· W2036747686 on OpenAlexaff
František Novák, Daren K. Heyland, Alison Avenell, John Drover, Xiangyao Su

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsKingston General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGlutamineConfidence intervalRelative riskRandomized controlled trialEnteral administrationInternal medicineClinical trialIntensive care medicineParenteral nutritionSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between glutamine supplementation and hospital length of stay, complication rates, and mortality in patients undergoing surgery and experiencing critical illness. DATA SOURCES: Computerized search of electronic databases and search of personal files, abstract proceedings, relevant journals, and review of reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: We reviewed 550 titles, abstracts, and articles. Primary studies were included if they were randomized trials of critically ill or surgical patients that evaluated the effect of glutamine vs. standard care on clinical outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION We abstracted relevant data on the methodology and outcomes of primary studies in duplicate, independently. DATA SYNTHESIS There were 14 randomized trials comparing the use of glutamine supplementation in surgical and critically ill patients. When the results of these trials were aggregated, with respect to mortality, glutamine supplementation was associated with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-1.04). Glutamine supplementation was also associated with a lower rate of infectious complications (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.64-1.00) and a shorter hospital stay (-2.6 days; 95% CI, -4.5 to -0.7). We examined several -specified subgroups. Although there were no statistically significant subgroup differences detected, there were some important trends. With respect to mortality, the treatment benefit was observed in studies of parenteral glutamine (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.99) and high-dose glutamine (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53-1.00) compared with studies of enteral glutamine (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.57-2.01) and low-dose glutamine (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.52-2.00). With respect to hospital length of stay, all of the treatment benefit was observed in surgical patients (-3.5 days; 95% CI, -5.3 to -1.7) compared with critically ill patients (0.9 days; 95% CI, -4.9 to 6.8). CONCLUSION: In surgical patients, glutamine supplementation may be associated with a reduction in infectious complication rates and shorter hospital stay without any adverse effect on mortality. In critically ill patients, glutamine supplementation may be associated with a reduction in complication and mortality rates. The greatest benefit was observed in patients receiving high-dose, parenteral glutamine.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.010
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.354 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations718
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyFrench-language works237,207