Trial reportDiabetes care2023
A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of IDegLira Versus Basal-Bolus in Patients With Poorly Controlled Type 2 Diabetes and Very High HbA1c ≥9-15%: DUAL HIGH Trial.
Trial report in Diabetes care, 2023. The graph read 1 number from its abstract, feeding 1 cell of the map, but none could be read as for or against, so it casts no vote. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
Read, but not usablea number the graph found but could not read as for or against
IDegLira resulted in significantly lower rates of hypoglycemia <70 mg/dL (26% vs. 48%, P = 0.008; odds ratio 0.39, 95% CI 0.19, 0.78), and less weight gain (1.24 ± 8.33 vs. 5.84 ± 6.18 kg, P = 0.001; ETD -4.60, 95% CI -7.33, -1.87).
clause the extractor read what became the number
Where it lands on the map
Rows are treatments, columns are outcomes. The coloured squares are the cells this paper feeds, coloured by the vote it casts there. Click one to jump to what this paper adds to it.
What it adds to each cell
For every cell the paper feeds: the belief in the claim with and without this paper, and this paper's estimate drawn against every other readable study in the cell. The ringed dot is this paper.
Insulin×hypoglycaemia
No readable resultOpen on the map →What to test next →4 readable studies in this cell: 2 favour the treatment, 1 find no difference, 1 favour the comparator.
This paper's own estimate is on a different scale from the rest of the cell, so it is not drawn here.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Trial
- Trial
- Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist and respiratory complications after endoscopy: A Japanese nationwide cohort study.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
- An overview of randomized clinical trials of fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin plus GLP-1RA (injectable therapy): Lessons for advancing therapy in people with type 2 diabetes.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2025Review
- Switch from premixed insulin analogue to degludec-liraglutide combination: a CGM study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Efficacy of Simplifying Complex Insulin Regimen on Glycometabolic Parameters and Target Organ Damage in Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of diabetes research · 2025Article
- Expert Opinion on Current Trends in the Use of Insulin in the Management of People with Type 2 Diabetes from the South-Eastern European Region and Israel.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2024Review
- Advances in the management of type 2 diabetes in adults.BMJ medicine · 2023Review
- The 2022 American Diabetes Association Meeting.Journal of diabetes · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The marked sentences are the ones the graph read a number from.
objectiveIn participants with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and HbA1c >9.0-10.0%, guidelines recommend treatment with basal-bolus insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsThis randomized trial compared the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) and basal-bolus among participants with high HbA1c ≥9.0-15.0%, previously treated with 2 or 3 oral agents and/or basal insulin, allocated (1:1) to basal-bolus (n = 73) or IDegLira (n = 72). The primary end point was noninferiority (0.4%) in HbA1c reduction between groups.
resultsAmong 145 participants (HbA1c 10.8% ± 1.3), there was no statistically significant difference in HbA1c reduction (3.18% ± 2.29 vs. 3.00% ± 1.79, P = 0.65; estimated treatment difference (ETD) 0.18%, 95% CI -0.59, 0.94) between the IDegLira and basal-bolus groups. IDegLira resulted in significantly lower rates of hypoglycemia <70 mg/dL (26% vs. 48%, P = 0.008; odds ratio 0.39, 95% CI 0.19, 0.78), and less weight gain (1.24 ± 8.33 vs. 5.84 ± 6.18 kg, P = 0.001; ETD -4.60, 95% CI -7.33, -1.87).
conclusionsIn participants with T2D and HbA1c ≥9.0-15.0%, IDegLira resulted in similar HbA1c reduction, less hypoglycemia, and less weight gain compared with the basal-bolus regimen.
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.