SynthesisBMJ open diabetes research & care2026
Sex differences in glycemic outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diabetes treatments.
Synthesis in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2026. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sex differences in glycemic outcomes following insulin therapy remain underexplored despite biological and psychosocial factors that may influence individual responses. This systematic review examines sex-specific differences in glycemic control to guide personalized diabetes care and promote health equity. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar (August 2014-December 2025) for randomized and observational studies involving adults of both sexes on insulin. Twenty-four studies were included, with certainty of evidence assessed using GRADE. In type 1 diabetes, women showed no significant difference in achieving HbA1c <7% (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.22; very low certainty) and toward higher time-in-range (SMD 0.78, -0.01 to 1.57; moderate certainty). In type 2 diabetes, men were more likely to achieve HbA1c targets (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.03; low certainty), while women required higher weight-adjusted insulin doses (SMD 0.55, 0.23 to 0.86; very low certainty). Hypoglycemia risk showed opposing trends in inpatient (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.83; very low certainty) versus outpatient settings (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.89; low certainty) with substantial heterogeneity (I2>70%). These findings suggest that sex-related differences in glycemic outcomes vary by diabetes type and treatment context. Given the low certainty and heterogeneity of current evidence, results should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating. This review supports the consideration of biological sex within a broader, individualized diabetes management framework and highlights the need for future sex-stratified analyses with rigorous control of lifestyle and physiological factors.
introductionSex differences in glycemic outcomes following the same insulin therapy in diabetes remain underexplored. Numerous factors, encompassing both biological and psychosocial aspects, could potentially influence individual responses to insulin therapy. This systematic review examines sex-specific differences in glycemic control to guide personalized diabetes care and promote health equity.
methodsPubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched (August 1, 2014-December 31, 2025) for randomized and observational studies. Eligible studies included adults of both sexes on insulin reporting sex-specific data for predefined outcomes. Data on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), blood glucose metrics, hypoglycemia, and insulin dose were extracted. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations.
resultsTwenty-four studies were included. In type 1 diabetes, women showed no significant difference in achieving HbA1c <7% (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.22; very low certainty) and toward higher time-in-range (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.78, -0.01 to 1.57; moderate certainty). In type 2 diabetes, men were more likely to achieve HbA1c targets (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.03; low certainty), whereas women required higher weight-adjusted insulin doses (SMD 0.55, 0.23 to 0.86; very low certainty). Hypoglycemia risk showed opposing trends in inpatient (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.83; very low certainty) versus outpatient settings (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.89; low certainty), with substantial heterogeneity (I
conclusionSex-related differences in glycemic outcomes under insulin therapy were observed, with patterns varying by diabetes type, treatment context, and outcome. Given the low certainty and heterogeneity of the evidence, these findings should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating rather than directive for clinical practice. The results support consideration of biological sex as one component within a broader, individualized diabetes management framework. Future studies should prioritize sex-stratified analyses with rigorous control of polypharmacy, body composition, and lifestyle factors to determine whether sex-specific insulin strategies provide meaningful clinical benefit. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251144696.
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.