ABSTRACT Objective: The optimal target for blood glucose concentration in critically ill patients is unclear. We will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis with aggregated and individual patient data from randomized controlled trials, comparing intensive glucose control with liberal glucose control in critically ill adults. Data sources: MEDLINE®, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, and clinical trials registries (World Health Organization, clinical trials.gov). The authors of eligible trials will be invited to provide individual patient data. Published trial-level data from eligible trials that are not at high risk of bias will be included in an aggregated data meta-analysis if individual patient data are not available. Methods: Inclusion criteria: randomized controlled trials that recruited adult patients, targeting a blood glucose of ≤ 120mg/dL (≤ 6.6mmol/L) compared to a higher blood glucose concentration target using intravenous insulin in both groups. Excluded studies: those with an upper limit blood glucose target in the intervention group of > 120mg/dL (> 6.6mmol/L), or where intensive glucose control was only performed in the intraoperative period, and those where loss to follow-up exceeded 10% by hospital discharge. Primary endpoint: In-hospital mortality during index hospital admission. Secondary endpoints: mortality and survival at other timepoints, duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive agents, and renal replacement therapy. A random effect Bayesian meta-analysis and hierarchical Bayesian models for individual patient data will be used. Discussion: This systematic review with aggregate and individual patient data will address the clinical question, ‘what is the best blood glucose target for critically ill patients overall?’ Protocol version 0.4 - 06/26/2023 PROSPERO registration: CRD42021278869 Objective unclear metaanalysis meta analysis adults sources MEDLINE MEDLINE® Embase Trials World Organization trials.gov. trialsgov trials.gov . gov trials.gov) triallevel trial level available Methods criteria 120mgdL mgdL 120mg dL mg ( 6.6mmol/L 66mmolL mmolL 6 6mmol L mmol groups studies 6.6mmol/L, , period followup follow up 10 discharge endpoint Inhospital In admission endpoints timepoints ventilation agents therapy used Discussion question what overall overall? 04 0 4 0. 06262023 06 26 2023 06/26/202 registration CRD CRD4202127886 1 0626202 2 202 06/26/20 CRD420212788 062620 20 06/26/2 CRD42021278 06262 06/26/ CRD4202127 0626 06/26 CRD420212 062 06/2 CRD42021 06/ CRD4202 CRD420 CRD42 CRD4

RESUMO Objetivo: Não está claro qual é a meta ideal de concentração de glicose no sangue em pacientes em estado grave. Realizaremos uma revisão sistemática e uma metanálise com dados agregados e de pacientes individuais de estudos controlados e randomizados, comparando o controle intensivo da glicose com o controle liberal da glicose em adultos em estado grave. Fontes de dados: MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials e registros de ensaios clínicos (Organização Mundial da Saúde, clinical trials.gov). Os autores dos estudos qualificados serão convidados a fornecer dados individuais de pacientes. Os dados publicados em nível de ensaio qualificado que não apresentem alto risco de viés serão incluídos em uma metanálise de dados agregados se os dados individuais de pacientes não estiverem disponíveis. Métodos: Critérios de inclusão: ensaios clínicos controlados e randomizados que recrutaram pacientes adultos, com meta de glicemia ≤ 120mg/dL (≤ 6,6mmol/L) comparada a uma meta de concentração de glicemia mais alta com insulina intravenosa em ambos os grupos. Estudos excluídos: aqueles com meta de glicemia no limite superior no grupo de intervenção > 120mg/dL (> 6,6mmol/L), ou em que o controle intensivo de glicose foi realizado apenas no período intraoperatório, e aqueles em que a perda de seguimento excedeu 10% até a alta hospitalar. Desfecho primário: Mortalidade intra-hospitalar durante a admissão hospitalar. Desfechos secundários: Mortalidade e sobrevida em outros momentos, duração da ventilação mecânica invasiva, agentes vasoativos e terapia de substituição renal. Utilizaremos metanálise bayesiana de efeito randômico e modelos bayesianos hierárquicos para dados individuais de pacientes. Discussão: Essa revisão sistemática com dados agregados e de pacientes individuais abordará a questão clínica: Qual é a melhor meta de glicose no sangue de pacientes graves em geral? Protocolo versão 0.4 - 26/06/2023 Registro PROSPERO: CRD42021278869 Objetivo grave MEDLINE MEDLINE® Embase Organização Saúde trials.gov. trialsgov trials.gov . trials gov trials.gov) disponíveis Métodos inclusão 120mgdL mgdL 120mg dL mg ( 6,6mmol/L 66mmolL mmolL 6 6mmol L mmol grupos excluídos 6,6mmol/L, , intraoperatório 10 hospitalar primário intrahospitalar intra secundários momentos invasiva renal Discussão clínica geral 04 0 4 0. 26062023 26 06 2023 26/06/202 PROSPERO CRD CRD4202127886 1 2606202 2 202 26/06/20 CRD420212788 260620 20 26/06/2 CRD42021278 26062 26/06/ CRD4202127 2606 26/06 CRD420212 260 26/0 CRD42021 26/ CRD4202 CRD420 CRD42 CRD4

BACKGROUND: The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) Conference was convened to address standards for improving the quality of reporting of meta-analyses of clinical randomised controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: The QUOROM group consists of 30 clinical epidemiologists, clinicians, statisticians, editors, and researchers. In conference, the group was asked to identify items they thought should be included in a checklist of standards. Whenever possible, checklist items were guided by research evidence suggesting that failure to adhere to the item proposed could lead to biased results. A modified Delphi technique was used in assessing candidate items. RESULTS: The conference resulted in the QUOROM statement, a checklist, and a flow diagram. The checklist describes our preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of a report of a meta- analysis. it is organized into 21 headings and subheadings regarding searches, selection, validity assessment, data abstraction, study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis, and in the results with 'trial flow', study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis; research documentation was identified for eight of the 18 items. The flow diagram provides information about both the numbers of RCTs identified, included, and excluded and the reasons for exclusion of trials. INTERPRETATION We hope this report will generate further thought about ways to improve the quality of reports of meta- analyses of RCTs and that interested readers, reviewers, researchers, and editors will use the QUOROM statement and generate ideas for its improvement.

La Conferencia sobre Calidad de Elaboración de los Informes de los Metaanálisis (QUOROM) se convocó con el fin de abordar la mejora de la calidad de la elaboración de los informes de los metaanálisis de los ensayos clínicos controlados (ECC). El Grupo QUOROM estuvo integrado por 30 personas, entre epidemiólogos clínicos, estadísticos, editores e investigadores. Durante la conferencia se pidió al grupo que identificase aquellos elementos que, en su opinión, se deberían incluir en un protocolo de control de calidad por niveles. En la medida de lo posible, la elección de los elementos de dicho protocolo se guió por la evidencia científica, que sugería que el incumplimiento del elemento propuesto se podría traducir en resultados sesgados. Se utilizó una técnica Delphi modificada para valorar los elementos seleccionados a priori como parte del protocolo. La conferencia se tradujo en la declaración QUOROM, un protocolo de control de calidad y un diagrama de flujo. El protocolo de control de calidad describe la que creemos es la mejor forma de presentar el resumen, la introducción, los métodos, los resultados y la discusión del informe de un metaanálisis. Está organizada en 21 categorías y subcategorías relativas a búsquedas, selección, evaluación de la validez, análisis de los datos, características del estudio y síntesis de los datos cuantitativos, y en los resultados de "flujo de pruebas"; se identificó la documentación de la investigación con 18 elementos. El diagrama de flujo proporciona información tanto sobre el número de ensayos clínicos controlados identificados, incluidos y excluidos, como sobre las razones de su exclusión. Esperamos que este trabajo genere un mayor grado de reflexión sobre cómo mejorar la calidad de los informes de los metaanálisis de los ensayos clínicos controlados, y que los lectores, revisores, investigadores y editores utilicen la declaración QUOROM y generen ideas destinadas a su mejora.

BACKGROUND: The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) Conference was convened to address standards for improving the quality of reporting of meta-analyses of clinical randomised controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: The QUOROM group consists of 30 clinical epidemiologists, clinicians, statisticians, editors, and researchers. In conference, the group was asked to identify items they thought should be included in a checklist of standards. Whenever possible, checklist items were guided by research evidence suggesting that failure to adhere to the item proposed could lead to biased results. A modified Delphi technique was used in assessing candidate items. RESULTS: The conference resulted in the QUOROM statement, a checklist, and a flow diagram. The checklist describes our preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of a report of a meta- analysis. it is organized into 21 headings and subheadings regarding searches, selection, validity assessment, data abstraction, study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis, and in the results with 'trial flow', study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis; research documentation was identified for eight of the 18 items. The flow diagram provides information about both the numbers of RCTs identified, included, and excluded and the reasons for exclusion of trials. INTERPRETATION We hope this report will generate further thought about ways to improve the quality of reports of meta- analyses of RCTs and that interested readers, reviewers, researchers, and editors will use the QUOROM statement and generate ideas for its improvement.

La Conferencia sobre Calidad de Elaboración de los Informes de los Metaanálisis (QUOROM) se convocó con el fin de abordar la mejora de la calidad de la elaboración de los informes de los metaanálisis de los ensayos clínicos controlados (ECC). El Grupo QUOROM estuvo integrado por 30 personas, entre epidemiólogos clínicos, estadísticos, editores e investigadores. Durante la conferencia se pidió al grupo que identificase aquellos elementos que, en su opinión, se deberían incluir en un protocolo de control de calidad por niveles. En la medida de lo posible, la elección de los elementos de dicho protocolo se guió por la evidencia científica, que sugería que el incumplimiento del elemento propuesto se podría traducir en resultados sesgados. Se utilizó una técnica Delphi modificada para valorar los elementos seleccionados a priori como parte del protocolo. La conferencia se tradujo en la declaración QUOROM, un protocolo de control de calidad y un diagrama de flujo. El protocolo de control de calidad describe la que creemos es la mejor forma de presentar el resumen, la introducción, los métodos, los resultados y la discusión del informe de un metaanálisis. Está organizada en 21 categorías y subcategorías relativas a búsquedas, selección, evaluación de la validez, análisis de los datos, características del estudio y síntesis de los datos cuantitativos, y en los resultados de "flujo de pruebas"; se identificó la documentación de la investigación con 18 elementos. El diagrama de flujo proporciona información tanto sobre el número de ensayos clínicos controlados identificados, incluidos y excluidos, como sobre las razones de su exclusión. Esperamos que este trabajo genere un mayor grado de reflexión sobre cómo mejorar la calidad de los informes de los metaanálisis de los ensayos clínicos controlados, y que los lectores, revisores, investigadores y editores utilicen la declaración QUOROM y generen ideas destinadas a su mejora.