Saline Compared to Balanced Crystalloid in Patients With Diabetic Ketoacidosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the use of saline to balanced crystalloid for fluid resuscitation in patients with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). DATA SOURCES: We searched databases including Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane registry. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared saline to balanced crystalloid in patients with DKA. DATA EXTRACTION: We pooled estimates of effect using relative risk for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, both with 95% CIs. We assessed risk of bias for included RCTs using the modified Cochrane tool and certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. DATA SYNTHESIS: = 482 patients). Both time to DKA resolution (MD, 3.51 hr longer; 95% CI, 0.90 longer to 6.12 longer; moderate certainty) and length of hospital stay (MD, 0.89 d longer in saline group; 95% CI, 0.34 longer to 1.43 d longer; moderate certainty) are probably longer in the saline group compared with the balanced crystalloid group, although for the latter, the absolute difference (under 1 d) is small. Post-resuscitation serum chloride level may be higher (MD, 1.62 mmol/L higher; 95% CI, 0.40 lower to 3.64 higher; low certainty), and post-resuscitation serum bicarbonate is probably lower (MD, 1.50 mmol/L; 95% CI, 2.33 lower to 0.67 lower; moderate certainty) in those receiving saline. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with DKA, the use of saline may be associated with longer time to DKA resolution, higher post-resuscitation serum chloride levels, lower post-resuscitation serum bicarbonate levels, and longer hospital stay compared with balanced crystalloids. Pending further data, low to moderate certainty data support using balanced crystalloid over saline for fluid resuscitation in patients with DKA.
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 | 0.016 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".