Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32636220›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open diabetes research & care2020

Efficacy and safety of patient-led versus physician-led titration of basal insulin in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Marco Castellana, Filippo Procino, Rodolfo Sardone, Pierpaolo Trimboli, Gianluigi Giannelli

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Real-World Effectiveness of the Gla-300 + Cap + App Program in Adult Users Living with Type 2 Diabetes in Taiwan.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

5 authors.

Marco CastellanaPopulation Health Unit, National Institute of Gastroenterology "Saverio de Bellis", Research Hospital, Castellana Grotte, Italy mcastellana01@yahoo.it.ORCID 0000-0002-1175-8998
Filippo ProcinoPopulation Health Unit, National Institute of Gastroenterology "Saverio de Bellis", Research Hospital, Castellana Grotte, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2740-2547
Rodolfo SardonePopulation Health Unit, National Institute of Gastroenterology "Saverio de Bellis", Research Hospital, Castellana Grotte, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1383-1850
Pierpaolo TrimboliClinic of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Lugano and Mendrisio Regional Hospital, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Lugano, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-2125-4937
Gianluigi GiannelliScientific Direction, National Institute of Gastroenterology "Saverio de Bellis", Research Hospital, Castellana Grotte, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5140-8060

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionInsulin is the most effective antihyperglycemic treatment and basal insulin is the preferred initial formulation in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, its effects are dose-dependent, so adequate titration is necessary to reach targets. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of patient-led versus physician-led titration of basal insulin in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsFour databases were searched from database inception through March 2020. Randomized controlled studies with at least 12 weeks of follow-up of patients with type 2 diabetes allocated to patient-led versus physician-led titration of basal insulin were selected. Data on glycemic endpoints (hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), hypoglycemia) and other outcomes (insulin dose, body weight, patient-reported outcomes, adverse events, rescue medication, discontinuation) were extracted. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

resultsSix studies evaluating 12 409 patients were finally included. Compared with the physician-led performance, patient-led titration was associated with a statistically significant higher basal insulin dose (+6 IU/day), leading to benefits on HbA1c (-0.1%) and FPG (-5 mg/dL), despite a higher risk of any level hypoglycemia (relative risk=1.1) and a slight increase in body weight (+0.2 kg). No difference was found for the other outcomes.

conclusionsThe present study showed that patient-led titration of basal insulin was not inferior to physician-led titration in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes. Therefore, diabetes self-management education and support programs on basal insulin should be widely adopted in clinical practice and patients provided with tools to self-adjust their dose when necessary.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2PhysiciansAlgorithmsHumansInsulin GlargineRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicInsulin Glarginediabetes mellitus, type 2insulinmeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID32636220
PMCPMC7342431

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.