ArticleCurrent diabetes reviews2024
Comparative Effectiveness of Oral Hypoglycemic Agents for Glycemic Control and Glycemic Variability in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Using Flash Glucose Monitoring.
Article in Current diabetes reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe study aimed to compare the effectiveness of oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs) as monotherapy, dual and quadruple therapy for glycemic control (GC) and glycemic variability (GV) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) using flash glucose monitoring system (FGM).
backgroundDiabetes management largely relies on HbA1c monitoring. Glycemic variability has been an evolving glycemic target for preventing complications related to type 2 diabetes mellitus.
objectiveThe purpose of the study was to compare glycemic control measures and glycemic variability measures among study groups and to study the relationships between GC and GV indices.
methodsRetrospectively, FGM data were collected from 50 T2DM patients. The patients were classified based on prescribed number of OHAs as monotherapy [group 1: Dipeptidyl peptidase- 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (n=10), group 2: Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors (n=10), group 3: Sulphonylureas (n=10), group 4: Dual therapy (n=10), and group 5: Quadruple therapy (n=10)]. Measures of GC and GV were evaluated.
resultsSignificant differences between study groups were observed in GC and GV measurements. The SGLT2 inhibitors monotherapy group demonstrated optimal GC [eA1c (%): 6.5 ± 2.2; MBG: 140.80 ± 63.94; TIR: 60.60 ± 19.96] and GV (SD: 42.38 ± 34.57; CV: 27.85 ± 6.68; MAGE: 96.76 ± 52.47; MODD: 33.96 ± 22.91) in comparison to other study groups. On using Pearson correlation analysis, mean blood glucose (MBG) and mean amplitude of glycemic excursion (MAGE) showed moderate correlation (r = 0.742)(r
conclusionThe monotherapy group of SGLT2 inhibitors demonstrated glucose-lowering effects with reduced glycemic variability. Hence, optimum glycemic control is associated with decreased glycemic variability.
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.