SynthesisBMJ open2026
Regular human insulins versus rapid-acting insulin analogues in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the beneficial and harmful effects of regular human insulins versus rapid-acting insulin analogues in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes.
designSystematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. DATA SOURCES: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and other sources from inception to 30 January 2026. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised clinical trials comparing regular human insulins versus rapid-acting insulin analogues (insulin aspart, lispro, glulisine) in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. ANALYSES: Data were analysed using meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, V.2, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Severe hypoglycaemia, ketoacidosis and serious adverse events.
results10 trials randomising 1107 participants were included. The certainty of evidence was very low mainly due to high risk of bias and small sample sizes. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between regular human insulins and rapid-acting insulin analogues on severe hypoglycaemia (risk ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.03; I
conclusionsCurrent research shows no differential effects between regular human insulins and rapid-acting insulin analogues for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes, but the evidence is very uncertain. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024508625.
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.