Evidence map›Paper›PMID 7512901›Full record

ReviewDrugs1994

Changing from porcine to human insulin.

J Everett, D Kerr

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs, 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 52% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 'Human' insulin versus animal insulin in people with diabetes mellitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2005 · on this map
    Pooled it
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

J EverettMetabolism Unit, Royal Bournemouth General Hospital, England.
D Kerr
Royal Bournemouth Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of hypoglycaemia unawareness is associated with long duration of diabetes, improved glycaemic control, alcohol intake and recurrent hypoglycaemia. However, current evidence suggests that neither frequency of severe episodes nor mortality from hypoglycaemia are increased following a change from animal to human insulin. Nevertheless, a small number of patients continue to report an alteration in the nature of hypoglycaemic warning symptoms following a change in insulin species. This is possibly a consequence of a reduced catecholamine response to lowering blood glucose levels or to species differences in the effect of insulin on central nervous system function. In practical terms, it seems sensible to warn patients that the nature of the symptoms associated with hypoglycaemia might alter following conversion from porcine to human insulin. At the time of the changeover, patients should be encouraged to perform frequent blood glucose measurements. Also, the usual insulin dose should be reduced by 10% at the start of human insulin treatment. Other aspects of insulin treatment including injection technique, meal timing, exercise, etc. should be discussed. For patients who are convinced that loss of warning of hypoglycaemia occurred after conversion from porcine to human insulin, a change back to animal insulin would be preferred to relaxing glycaemic control in the first instance. Pressure should be brought to bear on the pharmaceutical industry to maintain the availability of animal insulins for the small number of patients who have experienced problems with human insulin.

Indexed as

AnimalsDiabetes ComplicationsDiabetes MellitusHumansHypoglycemiaInsulinRisk FactorsSwineInsulin

Identifiers

PMID7512901
OpenAlexW1973075901

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.