Two-bag Versus One-bag Method for Adult and Pediatric Diabetic Ketoacidosis Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study objective We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the two-bag versus one-bag method in diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) management in adult and pediatric populations. Methods The study was registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, in adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A search was conducted across MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases up to March 2025, with no restrictions on study design. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for bias using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool and the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I), extracted data, and synthesized findings using RevMan software. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations tool was used to assess certainty of evidence. Main outcomes of interest were incidence of hypoglycemia and time to DKA resolution. Results Of 4,190 studies screened, 21 met inclusion criteria. These included 9 adult studies with 3,329 patient visits and 12 pediatric studies with 1,385 visits. Of these, one study was at critical risk of bias and was removed from meta-analysis. In both adult and pediatric populations, the two-bag method was associated with reduced incidence of hypoglycemia (risk ratio: 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41 to 0.59; I 2 =51.8%) and time to DKA resolution (MD: –1.76 hours; 95% CI –2.80 to –0.71; I 2 =61%). In adults only, the two-bag method was associated with a shortened duration of insulin infusion (MD: –3.74 hours, 95% CI –4.96 to –2.52; I 2 =0%) and reduced incidence of hypokalemia (risk ratio: 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.93; I 2 =47%). Conclusion The two-bag method is associated with reduced incidence of hypoglycemia and time to DKA resolution in both adult and pediatric populations.
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 | 0.021 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".