SynthesisEndocrine2025
Clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes patients with chronic heart failure treated with metformin: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Endocrine, 2025. The graph read 2 numbers from its abstract, feeding 2 cells of the map, but none could be read as for or against, so it casts no vote. Cited by 4 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.
Read, but not usablea number the graph found but could not read as for or against
The results revealed that in comparison to the non-Met group, the Met group exhibited a significantly reduced risk of all-cause mortality (RR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.60-0.87) and a notably lower risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.52, 95%CI:0.29-0.92).
The results revealed that in comparison to the non-Met group, the Met group exhibited a significantly reduced risk of all-cause mortality (RR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.60-0.87) and a notably lower risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.52, 95%CI:0.29-0.92).
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.
Metformin×all-cause mortality
No readable resultOpen on the map →What to test next →1 readable study in this cell: 0 favour the treatment, 1 find no difference, 0 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.
Metformin×cardiovascular events
No readable resultOpen on the map →What to test next →5 readable studies in this cell: 4 favour the treatment, 1 find no difference, 0 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Cost-Effectiveness in Relation to the Supporting Clinical Evidence Across the Type 2 Diabetes Continuum: A Review of Metformin and SGLT2is.Advances in therapy · 2026Review
- Repurposing metformin for cardioprotection: mechanisms and therapeutic potential across cardiovascular pathologies.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Mechanisms and therapeutics of insulin signaling transduction genes in diabetic cardiomyopathy: a comprehensive updated review.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Review
- Impact of DPP-4 Inhibitors in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus and Heart Failure: An In-Depth Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The marked sentences are the ones the graph read a number from.
objectiveTo explore outcomes of metformin (Met) as an antihyperglycemic agent in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) combined with chronic heart failure (CHF).
methodsThis article employed a meta-analysis approach to systematically search several databases. Stata 15.1 software was employed for statistical analysis.
resultsThis meta-analysis encompassed 15 randomized controlled trials, involving 20,595 patients with T2DM and CHF. The results revealed that in comparison to the non-Met group, the Met group exhibited a significantly reduced risk of all-cause mortality (RR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.60-0.87) and a notably lower risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.52, 95%CI:0.29-0.92). However, there was no significant difference in the risk of hospitalization due to heart failure (RR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.70-1.04). Furthermore, the Met group demonstrated significant improvements in NT-proBNP levels compared to the non-Met group (WMD = -132.91, 95%CI: -173.03, -92.79). Regarding the enhancement of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Dimension levels, no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups.
conclusionIn individuals with T2DM and CHF, the use of Met is linked to a decreased likelihood of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular-related mortality. Furthermore, it can enhance cardiac function in CHF patients without elevating the risk of hospitalization due to heart failure, establishing its safety and potential benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39277567What 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.