Dysglycemia in Children with Severe Acute Malnutrition: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dysglycemia is a common complication of severe acute malnutrition (SAM) in children. Its prevalence and impact on short- and long-term outcomes are not well described. This systematic review was undertaken to review the available evidence on dysglycemia (either hypo- or hyperglycemia) in hospitalized children with SAM. The 2 primary objectives of this systematic review were to understand the prevalence of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia in children with SAM. A secondary objective was to understand the relation between dysglycemia and clinical outcomes like mortality in children with SAM. MEDLINE was searched with terms related to children, SAM, and dysglycemia. A meta-analysis of proportions was completed to determine the hypoglycemia prevalence and a standard meta-analysis was done to determine the relation between hypoglycemia and mortality. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. A total of 2148 articles were identified in the database search of which 16 met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review based on screening done by multiple reviewers. The overall prevalence of hypoglycemia in SAM across studies based on the meta-analysis of proportions was 9% (95% CI: 7%, 12%; I2 = 92%). Meta-analysis results showed that hypoglycemia was associated with a higher chance of mortality during hospitalization in children with SAM (OR: 4.29; 95% CI: 3.04, 6.05; I2 = 0%). According to the GRADE evaluation, the certainty of the evidence for the prevalence of hypoglycemia was low and for hyperglycemia was very low. For the relation between hypoglycemia and mortality, the certainty of the evidence was moderate. A meta-analysis was not carried out for the prevalence of hyperglycemia due to the wide range of definitions used for across studies, but the prevalence ranged from 2% to 38% in the literature. This systematic review highlights the need for further work in this area to include serial glucose measurements to understand the clinical importance of dysglycemia during hospitalization in children with SAM.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".