Choice of crystalloid fluid in the treatment of hyperglycemic emergencies: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and hyperglycemic hyperosmolar state (HHS) are life-threatening complications of diabetes mellitus which require prompt treatment with large volume crystalloid fluid administration. A variety of crystalloid fluids is currently available for use and differs in their composition and ion concentrations. While there are potential pros and cons for different crystalloid fluids, it remains unknown if any particular fluid confers a clinical outcome benefit over others in the treatment of hyperglycemic emergencies. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews will be conducted to identify eligible studies, which will include observational and interventional studies involving adult and pediatric patients admitted to the hospital with either DKA or HHS. The interventions will include intravenous treatment with 0.9% saline versus other buffered (Ringer's lactate, Hartmann's, etc.), and non-buffered (0.45% saline) crystalloid fluids. The primary outcome is mortality at the latest follow-up time point. Secondary outcomes will include mortality at specific time points, length of hospital stay, development of acute kidney injury, requirement for renal replacement therapy, altered level of consciousness, and the time to normalization of several serum biochemical parameters. Where appropriate, meta-analyses will be performed for the outcomes and conducted separately for adult and pediatric patient populations. DISCUSSION: DKA and HHS are dangerous complications of diabetes mellitus and account for significant morbidity and mortality. Given the importance of crystalloid fluid administration in the management of these conditions, a systematic synthesis of the existing evidence base will identify potential evidence gaps and may help guide future clinical practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".