Seeing what you want to see in randomised controlled trials: versions and perversions of UKPDS data. United Kingdom prospective diabetes study.

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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

1. Glycemic Control for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Our Evolving Faith in the Face of Evidence.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2016 · on this map
   Pooled it
2. Efficacy and safety of insulin in type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.BMC endocrine disorders · 2016
   Pooled it
3. Are concomitant treatments confounding factors in randomized controlled trials on intensive blood-glucose control in type 2 diabetes? a systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2013
   Pooled it
4. Reappraisal of metformin efficacy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.PLoS medicine · 2012 · on this map
   Pooled it
5. Effect of intensive glucose lowering treatment on all cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and microvascular events in type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2011
   Pooled it
6. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors for type 2 diabetes mellitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008
   Pooled it
7. Emerging role of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in the management of type 2 diabetes.Vascular health and risk management · 2008
   Pooled it
8. Rosiglitazone for type 2 diabetes mellitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2007
   Pooled it
9. Pioglitazone for type 2 diabetes mellitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2006 · on this map
   Pooled it
10. Randomised controlled trial of structured personal care of type 2 diabetes mellitus.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2001
    Trial
11. Emerging uncertainty on the anti-aging potential of metformin.Ageing research reviews · 2025
    Review
12. Efficacy and toxicity of antihypertensive pharmacotherapy relative to effective dose 50.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019
    Review
13. Six 'biases' against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine.BMC medicine · 2015
    Article
14. Intervention description is not enough: evidence from an in-depth multiple case study on the untold role and impact of context in randomised controlled trials of seven complex interventions.Trials · 2012
    Article
15. Exploring the understanding of evidence-based concepts in people with type 2 diabetes.International journal of general medicine · 2012
    Article
16. The inverse benefit law: how drug marketing undermines patient safety and public health.American journal of public health · 2011
    Article
17. [Glycated haemoglobin for the diagnosis of diabetes. A universal standard?].Atencion primaria · 2010
    Article
18. Managing hyperglycaemia.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2008
    Article
19. Cholinesterase inhibitors: drugs looking for a disease?PLoS medicine · 2006
    Review
20. Metformin's contraindications should be contraindicated.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2005
    Review

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Seeing what you want to see in randomised controlled trials. Authors' choice of study was ill informed.2000
• Commented on by
  Seeing what you want to see in randomised controlled trials. Meta- analyses may suffer from interpretation bias too.2000
• Commented on by
  Glycaemia and vascular effects of type 2 diabetes. Lowering glucose concentrations may not be of any value in itself.2001
• Commented on by
  Interpretation of randomised trials is indeed open to debate.2003

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as