ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022
Comparison of Glucose-Lowering Drugs as Second-Line Treatment for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and safety of polyethylene glycol loxenatide in treating mild-to-moderate diabetic kidney disease in type 2 diabetes patients: a randomized, open-label, clinical trial.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Trial
- Isolation, Total Synthesis and Anti-Diabetic Activity of Filiforidine fromMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- 2025 Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diabetes Management in Korea: Recommendation of the Korean Diabetes Association.Diabetes & metabolism journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sulfonylureas and newer diabetes drugs as second-line therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMultiple glucose-lowering drugs are available as add-ons to metformin for a second-line treatment for type 2 diabetes. However, no systematic and comparative data are available for them in China. We aimed to compare the effects of glucose-lowering drugs added to metformin in China.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data, and Chongqing VIP from 1 January 2000 until 31 December 2020 were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing a glucose-lowering drug added to metformin with metformin in Chinese type 2 diabetes patients. Drug classes included sulfonylureas (SUs), glinides (NIDEs), thiazolidinediones (TZDs), α-glucosidase inhibitors (AGIs), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), and insulins (INSs). Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and appraised the risk of bias.
results315 trials were included. In patients receiving metformin alone, the addition of NIDEs produced the greatest additional HbA1c reductions (1.29%; 95% CI 0.97, 1.60); while INSs yielded both the largest additional FPG reductions (1.58 mmol/L; 95% CI 1.22, 1.94) and 2 hPG reductions (2.52 mmol/L; 95% CI 1.83, 3.20). INS add-ons also conferred the largest additional HDL-C increases (0.40 mmol/L; 95% CI 0.16, 0.64), whereas AGI add-ons generated the greatest TC reductions (1.08 mmol/L; 95% CI 0.78, 1.37). The greatest incremental SBP reductions (6.65 mmHg; 95% CI 4.13, 9.18) were evident with SGLT2i add-ons. GLP-1RA add-ons had the greatest BMI reductions (1.96 kg/m
conclusionThe results suggested a potential treatment hierarchy for clinicians and patients, with the GLP-1RA add-ons being most preferred based on their favorable efficacy and safety profiles; and provided a unified hierarchy of evidence for conducting country-specific cost-effectiveness analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.