Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31950229›Full record

ArticleDiabetologia2020

How conclusive is the CONCLUDE trial?

Stefano Del Prato

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Diabetologia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stefano Del PratoDepartment of Clinical & Experimental Medicine, Section of Diabetes, University of Pisa, Nuovo Ospedale Santa Chiara, Via Paradisa, 2, 56124, Pisa, Italy. stefano.delprato@med.unipi.it.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5388-0270
University of Pisa · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of basal insulin analogues has reduced the risk of hypoglycaemia in insulin-treated individuals with type 2 diabetes. Insulin degludec and insulin glargine 300 U/ml (glargine U300) represent an evolution of basal insulin analogues, both of them reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia as compared with that associated with glargine U100. However, whether degludec and glargine U300 are equivalent with respect to glycaemic control and risk of hypoglycaemia remains to be fully ascertained. In the CONCLUDE trial, 1609 individuals with type 2 diabetes were randomised to either degludec 200 U/ml (degludec U200) or glargine U300. In this issue of Diabetologia (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-019-05080-9) the investigators report that during the maintenance period, HbA

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2HypoglycemiaBlood GlucoseFemaleHumansHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinInsulin GlargineInsulin, Long-ActingMaleReproducibility of ResultsBlood GlucoseHypoglycemic AgentsInsulininsulin degludecInsulin GlargineInsulin, Long-ActingBasal insulin analoguesDegludecGlargine U300GlucometerHierarchical statistical analysisHome blood glucose monitoringHypoglycaemiaPharmacodynamicsPharmacokineticsType 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID31950229
OpenAlexW2998883502

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.