Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Insulina para el control de la glucemia en el accidente cerebrovascular isquémico agudo

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005346.pub4Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 23 enero 2014see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Accidentes cerebrovasculares

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2014 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • M Fernanda Bellolio

    Correspondencia a: Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA

    [email protected]

  • Rachel M Gilmore

    Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA

  • Latha Ganti

    NFSG Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Gainesville, USA

Contributions of authors

MF Bellolio wrote the background section, collected the data, did the analyses and wrote the results and conclusion of the full review and the updated review.
RM Gilmore wrote the background section, collected the data, wrote the results and conclusion of the full review, and abstracted data and quality measurements for the updated review.
LG Stead devised the initial review and wrote the original protocol.
MFB and RMG updated this version of the review.

The authors approve and take full responsibility for the contents of this systematic review.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Mayo Clinic, USA.

    Protected time for research to the principal investigator

External sources

  • No sources of support supplied

Declarations of interest

None of the authors has any conflicts of interest to disclose.

Acknowledgements

To Hazel Fraser and the Cochrane Stroke Group for their continuous support, and to Daniel Cabrera for his support in selecting articles and preparing the manuscript.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2014 Jan 23

Insulin for glycaemic control in acute ischaemic stroke

Review

M Fernanda Bellolio, Rachel M Gilmore, Latha Ganti

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005346.pub4

2011 Sep 07

Insulin for glycaemic control in acute ischaemic stroke

Review

M Fernanda Bellolio, Rachel M Gilmore, Latha G Stead

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005346.pub3

2008 Apr 23

Insulin for glycaemic control in acute ischaemic stroke

Protocol

M Fernanda Bellolio, Rachel M Gilmore, Latha G Stead

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005346.pub2

2005 Jul 20

Interventions for controlling hyperglycaemia in acute ischaemic stroke

Protocol

Latha Stead, Rachel M Gilmore, Nisant Anand, Amy L Weaver

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005346

Keywords

MeSH

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Study flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Comparison 1 Dependency or death, Outcome 1 Dependency or death at the end of the follow‐up.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Dependency or death, Outcome 1 Dependency or death at the end of the follow‐up.

Comparison 1 Dependency or death, Outcome 2 Death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Dependency or death, Outcome 2 Death.

Comparison 1 Dependency or death, Outcome 3 Diabetes mellitus versus no diabetes mellitus.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Dependency or death, Outcome 3 Diabetes mellitus versus no diabetes mellitus.

Comparison 1 Dependency or death, Outcome 4 Less than 30 days versus 90 days of follow‐up.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Dependency or death, Outcome 4 Less than 30 days versus 90 days of follow‐up.

Comparison 2 Functional neurological outcome, Outcome 1 NIHSS or ESS at the end of the follow‐up.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Functional neurological outcome, Outcome 1 NIHSS or ESS at the end of the follow‐up.

Comparison 2 Functional neurological outcome, Outcome 2 Independent in daily activities.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Functional neurological outcome, Outcome 2 Independent in daily activities.

Comparison 2 Functional neurological outcome, Outcome 3 Diabetes mellitus versus no diabetes mellitus.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Functional neurological outcome, Outcome 3 Diabetes mellitus versus no diabetes mellitus.

Comparison 2 Functional neurological outcome, Outcome 4 Less than 30 days versus 90 days of follow‐up.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Functional neurological outcome, Outcome 4 Less than 30 days versus 90 days of follow‐up.

Comparison 3 Hypoglycaemia, Outcome 1 Symptomatic hypoglycaemia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Hypoglycaemia, Outcome 1 Symptomatic hypoglycaemia.

Comparison 3 Hypoglycaemia, Outcome 2 Hypoglycaemia (with or without symptoms).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Hypoglycaemia, Outcome 2 Hypoglycaemia (with or without symptoms).

Comparison 4 Mean glucose level, Outcome 1 Mean glucose level.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Mean glucose level, Outcome 1 Mean glucose level.

Table 1. Risk of bias summary

Study

Generation of randomisation

Allocation concealment

Blinding:

participants and physicians

Blinding:

outcome to allocation group

Lost to follow‐up (%)

Vinychuk 2005

Low risk

Low risk

High risk

High risk

0

GIST‐UK 2007

Low risk

Low risk

High risk

Low risk

7.4

Staszewski 2011

Low risk

High risk

High risk

Low risk

0

THIS 2008

Low risk

Low risk

High risk

Low risk

0

Walters 2006

Low risk

Low risk

High risk

High risk

0

GRASP 2009

Low risk

Low risk

High risk

Low risk

1.4

Kreisel 2009

Low risk

Unclear risk

High risk

High risk

10

McCormick 2010

Low risk

Unclear risk

Unclear risk

High risk

Not reported

INSULINFARCT 2012

Low risk

Low risk

High risk

High risk

2.2

Vriesendorp 2009

High risk

High risk

High risk

High risk

15.2

Azevedo 2009

Low risk

Unclear risk

High risk

High risk

Not reported

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Risk of bias summary
Comparison 1. Dependency or death

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Dependency or death at the end of the follow‐up Show forest plot

9

1516

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.79, 1.23]

2 Death Show forest plot

9

1422

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.09 [0.85, 1.41]

3 Diabetes mellitus versus no diabetes mellitus Show forest plot

8

1482

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.77, 1.21]

3.1 Diabetes mellitus

3

194

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.66 [0.35, 1.24]

3.2 No diabetes mellitus

6

1288

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.81, 1.30]

4 Less than 30 days versus 90 days of follow‐up Show forest plot

9

1516

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.79, 1.23]

4.1 30 days

5

289

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.43, 1.25]

4.2 90 days

4

1227

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.05 [0.82, 1.34]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Dependency or death
Comparison 2. Functional neurological outcome

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 NIHSS or ESS at the end of the follow‐up Show forest plot

8

1432

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.09 [‐0.19, 0.01]

2 Independent in daily activities Show forest plot

9

1224

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.81, 1.32]

3 Diabetes mellitus versus no diabetes mellitus Show forest plot

8

1432

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.07 [‐0.18, 0.03]

3.1 Diabetes mellitus

3

146

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.06 [‐0.43, 0.31]

3.2 No diabetes mellitus

6

1286

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.08 [‐0.19, 0.03]

4 Less than 30 days versus 90 days of follow‐up Show forest plot

8

1432

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.09 [‐0.19, 0.01]

4.1 30 days

5

273

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.47 [‐0.72, ‐0.23]

4.2 90 days

3

1159

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.00 [‐0.12, 0.11]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Functional neurological outcome
Comparison 3. Hypoglycaemia

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Symptomatic hypoglycaemia Show forest plot

10

1455

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

14.60 [6.62, 32.21]

2 Hypoglycaemia (with or without symptoms) Show forest plot

10

1455

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

18.41 [9.09, 37.27]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Hypoglycaemia
Comparison 4. Mean glucose level

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mean glucose level Show forest plot

8

1398

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.63 [‐0.80, ‐0.46]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. Mean glucose level