↓ Skip to main content

Glycaemic control targets after traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
37 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Glycaemic control targets after traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Critical Care, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1883-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeroen Hermanides, Mark P. Plummer, Mark Finnis, Adam M. Deane, Jonathan P. Coles, David K. Menon

Abstract

Optimal glycaemic targets in traumatic brain injury (TBI) remain unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intensive with conventional glycaemic control in TBI requiring admission to an intensive care unit (ICU). We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to November 2016. Outcomes of interest included ICU and in-hospital mortality, poor neurological outcome, the incidence of hypoglycaemia and infective complications. Data were analysed by pairwise random effects models with secondary analysis of differing levels of conventional glycaemic control. Ten RCTs, involving 1066 TBI patients were included. Three studies were conducted exclusively in a TBI population, whereas in seven trials, the TBI population was a sub-cohort of a mixed neurocritical or general ICU population. Glycaemic targets with intensive control ranged from 4.4 to 6.7 mmol/L, while conventional targets aimed to keep glucose levels below thresholds of 8.4-12 mmol/L. Conventional versus intensive control showed no association with ICU or hospital mortality (relative risk (RR) (95% CI) 0.93 (0.68-1.27), P = 0.64 and 1.07 (0.84-1.36), P = 0.62, respectively). The risk of a poor neurological outcome was higher with conventional control (RR (95% CI) = 1.10 (1.001-1.24), P = 0.047). However, severe hypoglycaemia occurred less frequently with conventional control (RR (95% CI) = 0.22 (0.09-0.52), P = 0.001). This meta-analysis of intensive glycaemic control shows no association with reduced mortality in TBI. Intensive glucose control showed a borderline significant reduction in the risk of poor neurological outcome, but markedly increased the risk of hypoglycaemia. These contradictory findings should motivate further research.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 128 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 14%
Other 14 11%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Postgraduate 12 9%
Student > Master 12 9%
Other 37 29%
Unknown 22 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 13%
Neuroscience 6 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 2%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 27 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 December 2021.
All research outputs
#1,105,000
of 22,707,247 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#955
of 6,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,997
of 439,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#41
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,707,247 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,036 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,598 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.