SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2026
Predictive value of different glycemic variability indicators for prognosis in critically ill patients: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Glycemic variability (GV) strongly influences prognosis in critically ill patients; however, the optimal GV metric is unclear. This meta-analysis compares the association of various GV measures with clinical outcomes. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched until June 2025 for studies linking GV metrics with prognosis in critically ill patients. The extracted GV metrics included coefficient of variation (CV), standard deviation (SD), and mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE). The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality (ACM) and major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE). Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using a random effects model (REM) or a fixed effects model (FEM). Results: A total of 31 studies on 98,946 patients were included. Elevated CV was significantly associated with increased 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year ACM. MAGE demonstrated the strongest association with 30-day ACM (HR = 1.50, 95%CI = 1.27-1.78). Elevated SD (HR = 2.45) and MAGE (HR = 2.12) were also associated with an increased risk of MACE. Subgroup analysis further revealed that the impact of an increased CV level on 30-day ACM was greater in non-diabetic (NDM) patients (HR = 1.40) than in diabetic (DM) patients (HR = 1.32). Discussion: Elevated GV, particularly MAGE and CV, independently predicted both short- and long-term ACM and MACE. MAGE showed a strong association with short-term ACM. However, whether it is superior to other GV metrics warrants further investigation since available studies were limited. Clinicians should therefore place greater emphasis on dynamic GV monitoring and individualized glucose management to improve patient outcomes. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=1071964, identifier CRD420251071964.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.