Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glucose control: End‐stage renal disease
Intensive glycaemic control showed no clear difference in end‐stage renal disease compared with conventional glycaemic control (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glycaemic control End‐stage renal disease · participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus Intensive glycaemic control showed no clear difference in end‐stage renal disease compared with conventional glycaemic control (moderate certainty). Targeting intensive glycaemic control versus targeting conventional glycaemic control for type 2 diabetes… (2013) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.87 [0.71, 1.06] | 8 studies · 28145 participants | Moderate |
Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glycaemic control End‐stage renal disease · patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus Intensive glycaemic control showed no clear difference in end‐stage renal disease compared with conventional glycaemic control (moderate certainty). Targeting intensive glycaemic control versus targeting conventional glycaemic control for type 2 diabetes… (2011) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD008143.PUB2, superseded | RR 0.87 [0.71, 1.06] | 7 studies · 28075 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Targeting intensive glycaemic control versus targeting conventional glycaemic control for type 2 diabetes mellitus 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.