Glycaemic control for patients with severe acute brain injury: Protocol for a systematic review

Background

Hyperglycaemia is common in patients with acute brain injury admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). Many studies have found associations between development of hyperglycaemia and increased mortality in hospitalised patients. However, the optimal target for blood glucose control is unknown. We want to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis to explore the beneficial and harmful effects of restrictive versus liberal glucose control on patient outcomes in adults with severe acute brain injury.

Methods

We will systematically search medical databases including CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE and trial registries. We will search the following websites for ongoing or unpublished trials: http://www.controlled-trials.com/ , http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ , www.eudraCT.com , http://centerwatch.com/ , The Cochrane Library's CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and CINAHL. Two authors will independently review and select trials and extract data. We will include randomised trials comparing levels of glucose control in our analyses and observational studies will be included to address potential harms. The primary outcomes are defined as all-cause mortality, functional outcome and health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes include serious adverse events including hypoglycaemia, length of ICU stay and duration of mechanical ventilation, and explorative outcomes including intracranial pressure and infection. Trial Sequential Analysis will be used to investigate the risk of type I error due to repetitive testing and to further explore imprecision. Quality of trials will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.

Discussion

The results of the systematic review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication. With the review, we hope to inform future randomised clinical trials and improve clinical practice.     

Sex Disparities in Risk of Mortality Among Children With ESRD

1. Download high-res image (377KB)
2. Download full-size image

     

Surface properties of endosseous dental implants after NdYAG and CO2 laser treatment at various energies.

OBJECTIVES: Dental lasers have been used for uncovering submerged implants as well as decontaminating implant surfaces when treating peri-implantitis. The objective of this study was to compare the possible alterations of the smooth surface and resorbable blast material (RBM) surface implants after using NdYAG and CO(2) lasers at various energies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten smooth surface implants and 10 RBM surface implants were used. Two smooth surface implants and 2 RBM surface implants served as a control group that was not lased. The remaining implants were treated using NdYAG and CO(2) lasers. The surface of each implant was treated for 10 seconds on the second and third threads. The smooth surface implants (group 1) were treated using a pulsed contact NdYAG laser at power settings of 1, 2, 3.5, and 5 W, which are commonly used for soft tissue surgery; the corresponding energy and frequency were 50 mJ and 20 Hz, 100 mJ and 20 Hz, 350 mJ and 10 Hz, and 250 mJ and 20 Hz, respectively. The group 2 RBM implants were treated using a pulsed contact NdYAG laser. The group 3 smooth surface implants were treated using a pulsed wave non-contact CO(2) laser at 1, 2, 3.5, and 5 W, and the group 4 RBM implants were treated using a pulsed wave non-contact CO(2) laser. Data were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: The control surface was very regular and smooth. After NdYAG laser treatment, the implant surface showed alterations of all the surfaces. The amount of damage was proportional to the power. A remarkable finding was the similarity of the lased areas on the smooth and RBM surfaces. CO(2) laser at power settings of 1.0 or 2.0 W did not alter the implant surface, regardless of implant type. At settings of 3.5 and 5 W, there was destruction of the micromachined groove and gas formation. CONCLUSION: This study supports that CO(2) laser treatment appears more useful than NdYAG laser treatment and CO(2) laser does not damage titanium implant surface, which should be of value when uncovering submerged implants and treating peri-implantitis.