Evidence mapPaperPMID 21080740Full record

ReviewDrugs2010

Influence of intensive versus conventional glucose control on microvascular and macrovascular complications in type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus.

Taina K Mattila, Anthonius de Boer

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Diabetes mellitus related bone metabolism and periodontal disease.International journal of oral science · 2015
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Taina K MattilaDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Anthonius de Boer
Utrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus patients, hyperglycaemia is independently related to the development of microvascular and macrovascular complications. Glycaemic targets and the benefits of intensive versus conventional glucose control are under debate. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses comparing the effects of intensive versus conventional glucose control on microvascular and macrovascular complications in type 1 and 2 diabetes. MEDLINE and Cochrane database searches were performed with a limit on randomized controlled trials or meta-analysis and keywords related to glucose control and diabetes. In addition, related articles and reference lists of relevant articles and guidelines were reviewed. Nine randomized controlled trials, three in type 1 and six in type 2 diabetes, and four meta-analyses in type 2 diabetes were reviewed. These studies included more than 30,000 patients. On the basis of these trials and meta-analyses, it can be concluded that intensive glucose control has a beneficial effect on microvascular complications (retinopathy, nephropathy, neuropathy) in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients. The risk reduction of developing a microvascular complication varied between 25% and 76%. Particularly in patients with type 2 diabetes, there was a 10-15% decrease in nonfatal myocardial infarction with intensive glucose control, but no effect on stroke, cardiovascular death or all-cause mortality was observed. There was a beneficial effect of intensive glucose control on cardiovascular disease in patients with type 1 diabetes in only one trial. In all studies, intensive glucose control was associated with at least twice the risk for serious hypoglycaemia than the conventional-control group. In conclusion, compared with conventional glucose control, intensive glucose control is associated with fewer microvascular complications in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, a decrease in coronary events, especially in type 2 diabetes, and more serious hypoglycaemia.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Diabetic AngiopathiesHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBlood Glucose

Identifiers

PMID21080740
OpenAlexW2025580679

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.