↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy and safety of insulin in type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Endocrine Disorders, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 877)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
281 X users
facebook
9 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
157 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Efficacy and safety of insulin in type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Published in
BMC Endocrine Disorders, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12902-016-0120-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sylvie Erpeldinger, Michaela B. Rehman, Christophe Berkhout, Christophe Pigache, Yves Zerbib, Francis Regnault, Emilie Guérin, Irène Supper, Catherine Cornu, Behrouz Kassaï, François Gueyffier, Rémy Boussageon

Abstract

It is essential to anticipate and limit the social, economic and sanitary cost of type 2 diabetes (T2D), which is in constant progression worldwide. When blood glucose targets are not achieved with diet and lifestyle intervention, insulin is recommended whether or not the patient is already taking hypoglycaemic drugs. However, the benefit/risk balance of insulin remains controversial. Our aim was to determine the efficacy and safety of insulin vs. hypoglycaemic drugs or diet/placebo on clinically relevant endpoints. A systematic literature review (Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library) including all randomised clinical trials (RCT) analysing insulin vs. hypoglycaemic drugs or diet/placebo, published between 1950 and 2013, was performed. We included all RCTs reporting effects on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, death by cancer, cardiovascular morbidity, microvascular complications and hypoglycaemia in adults ≥ 18 years with T2D. Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and extracted the data. Internal validity of studies was analyzed according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI) were calculated, using the fixed effect model in first approach. The I(2) statistic assessed heterogeneity. In case of statistical heterogeneity, subgroup and sensitivity analyses then a random effect model were performed. The alpha threshold was 0.05. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes were non-fatal cardiovascular events, hypoglycaemic events, death from cancer, and macro- or microvascular complications. Twenty RCTs were included out of the 1632 initially identified studies. 18 599 patients were analysed: Insulin had no effect vs. hypoglycaemic drugs on all-cause mortality RR = 0.99 (95 % CI =0.92-1.06) and cardiovascular mortality RR = 0.99 (95 % CI =0.90-1.09), nor vs. diet/placebo RR = 0.92 (95 % CI = 0.80-1.07) and RR = 0.95 (95 % CI 0.77-1.18) respectively. No effect was found on secondary outcomes either. However, severe hypoglycaemia was more frequent with insulin compared to hypoglycaemic drugs RR = 1.70 (95 % CI = 1.51-1.91). There is no significant evidence of long term efficacy of insulin on any clinical outcome in T2D. However, there is a trend to clinically harmful adverse effects such as hypoglycaemia and weight gain. The only benefit could be limited to reducing short term hyperglycemia. This needs to be confirmed with further studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 281 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 155 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 11%
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 10%
Researcher 11 7%
Other 9 6%
Other 31 20%
Unknown 54 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Other 16 10%
Unknown 61 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 206. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 April 2024.
All research outputs
#194,096
of 25,734,859 outputs
Outputs from BMC Endocrine Disorders
#6
of 877 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,783
of 372,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Endocrine Disorders
#1
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,734,859 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 877 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 372,048 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.