MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2002· review· en· W2036747686 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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