Evidence mapPaperPMID 25295236Full record

ArticleCMAJ open2014

Sulfonylurea versus metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials and trial sequential analysis.

Bianca Hemmingsen, Jeppe B Schroll, Jørn Wetterslev, Christian Gluud, Allan Vaag, David P Sonne, Lars H Lundstrøm, Thomas Almdal

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CMAJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 97 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Metformin monotherapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020 · on this map
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Pharmacometabolomics of sulfonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional study.Journal of pharmacy & pharmaceutical sciences : a publication of the Canadian Society for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Societe canadienne des sciences pharmaceutiques · 2024
    Article
  8. Repurposing Metformin for Vascular Disease.Current medicinal chemistry · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. A comprehensive diagnostic approach to detect underlying causes of obesity in adults.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2019
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Heart Failure in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Circulation research · 2019
    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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Bianca HemmingsenCopenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jeppe B SchrollNordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jørn WetterslevCopenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Christian GluudCopenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Allan VaagDepartment of Endocrinology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
David P SonneDepartment of Internal Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital Gentofte, University of Copenhagen, Hellerup, Denmark.
Lars H LundstrømDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Nordsjællands Hospital, Hillerød, Denmark.
Thomas AlmdalDepartment of Internal Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital Gentofte, University of Copenhagen, Hellerup, Denmark.
Rigshospitalet · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DKCopenhagen University Hospital · DKNordsjællands Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGuidelines recommend metformin as the first-line oral treatment for type 2 diabetes. We conducted a systematic review to assess whether the use of second- and third-generation sulfonylurea agents is associated with benefits and harms in terms of patient-important outcomes compared with metformin.

methodsWe searched several electronic databases and other sources for randomized clinical trials published to August 2011. We included trials that compared sulfonylurea versus metformin monotherapy among patients 18 years or older with type 2 diabetes and that had an intervention period of at least 24 weeks. We assessed risk of bias and extracted data related to interventions and outcomes. The risk of random errors was assessed by trial sequential analysis.

resultsWe included 14 trials (4560 participants). All trials were judged to be at high risk of bias. Data on patient-important outcomes were sparse. Compared with metformin, sulfonylurea did not significantly affect all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61 to 1.58) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.54 to 4.01). Sulfonylurea significantly decreased the risk of nonfatal macrovascular outcomes (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.93). However, the definition of this outcome varied among trials, and trial sequential analysis showed that more trials are needed before reliable conclusions can be drawn. No differences between sulfonylurea and metformin were found for change in fasting blood glucose level or glycosylated hemoglobin concentration in the random-effects model. Sulfonylurea resulted in greater weight gain compared with metformin, a finding confirmed in the trial sequential analysis. Significantly more patients in the sulfonylurea arm than in the metformin arm had mild hypoglycemia (RR 2.95, 95% CI 2.13 to 4.07) and severe hypoglycemia (RR 5.64, 95% CI 1.22 to 26.00).

interpretationSome evidence suggests that, compared with metformin, second- and third-generation sulfonylureas may not affect all-cause or cardiovascular mortality but may decrease the risk of nonfatal macrovascular outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes. They may also increase the risk of hypoglycemia. In general, the available data were too few and inconsistent to provide firm evidence concerning patient-important outcomes in relation to the benefits and harms of sulfonylurea versus metformin monotherapy.

Identifiers

PMID25295236
PMCPMC4185978
OpenAlexW2163672431

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.