We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
REVIEW
Selenium supplementation for critically ill adults.
BACKGROUND: Selenium is a trace mineral essential to human health, which has an important role in the immune response, defence against tissue damage and thyroid function. Improving selenium status could help protect against overwhelming tissue damage and infection in critically ill adults.
OBJECTIVES: This review assessed the effects of selenium supplementation including the selenium-containing compound, ebselen, on adults recovering from critical illness.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2003), MEDLINE, (1966 to July 2003), EMBASE (1980 to Week 30 2003),CAB NAR (1973 to March 2003), BIOSIS (1985 to July 2003), CINAHL (1982 to July 2003), HEALTHSTAR (1975 to September 2002), Current Controlled Trials, and reference lists. We contacted investigators, and handsearched four journals. Date of the most recent search: December 2003.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials of selenium or ebselen supplementation by any route, in adults with critical illness (including burns, head injury, brain haemorrhage, cerebrovascular accident and surgery).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We sought additional information as required from trialists. We also undertook pooling of data for outcomes and selected exploratory analyses were undertaken.
MAIN RESULTS: Seven randomized trials involving813participants were included. The quality of trials, as reported, was poor, particularly for allocation concealment. The availability of outcome data was limited and trials involving selenium supplementation, were small. Thus the results must be interpreted with caution. Because of heterogeneity, results are presented for the random effects models. Four selenium trials showed no statistically significant difference in mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 1.34). Three trials of ebselen also showed no statistically significant difference in mortality (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.35). One trial of selenium found no statistically significant difference between groups for participants developing infection (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.24). Three trials of ebselen provided data for participants developing infections (pyrexia, respiratory infections or meningitis), which was not statistically significant (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.02). No clear evidence emerged for the benefits of selenium or ebselen supplementation for the outcomes of days on a ventilator, length of intensive care unit stay, length of hospital stay or quality of life.
REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to recommend supplementation of critically ill patients with selenium or ebselen. Trials are required which overcome the defects of the reviewed studies, particularly inadequate size and methodology. This review will be updated when four ongoing trials are completed.
OBJECTIVES: This review assessed the effects of selenium supplementation including the selenium-containing compound, ebselen, on adults recovering from critical illness.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2003), MEDLINE, (1966 to July 2003), EMBASE (1980 to Week 30 2003),CAB NAR (1973 to March 2003), BIOSIS (1985 to July 2003), CINAHL (1982 to July 2003), HEALTHSTAR (1975 to September 2002), Current Controlled Trials, and reference lists. We contacted investigators, and handsearched four journals. Date of the most recent search: December 2003.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials of selenium or ebselen supplementation by any route, in adults with critical illness (including burns, head injury, brain haemorrhage, cerebrovascular accident and surgery).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We sought additional information as required from trialists. We also undertook pooling of data for outcomes and selected exploratory analyses were undertaken.
MAIN RESULTS: Seven randomized trials involving813participants were included. The quality of trials, as reported, was poor, particularly for allocation concealment. The availability of outcome data was limited and trials involving selenium supplementation, were small. Thus the results must be interpreted with caution. Because of heterogeneity, results are presented for the random effects models. Four selenium trials showed no statistically significant difference in mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 1.34). Three trials of ebselen also showed no statistically significant difference in mortality (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.35). One trial of selenium found no statistically significant difference between groups for participants developing infection (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.24). Three trials of ebselen provided data for participants developing infections (pyrexia, respiratory infections or meningitis), which was not statistically significant (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.02). No clear evidence emerged for the benefits of selenium or ebselen supplementation for the outcomes of days on a ventilator, length of intensive care unit stay, length of hospital stay or quality of life.
REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to recommend supplementation of critically ill patients with selenium or ebselen. Trials are required which overcome the defects of the reviewed studies, particularly inadequate size and methodology. This review will be updated when four ongoing trials are completed.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app