Insulin glargine vs NPH insulin: HbA1c (%)
- Population
- Not specified
- Intervention
- Insulin glargine
- Comparison
- NPH insulin
- Outcome
- HbA1c (%)
Reviews word the same question differently. Two decision models (TypeSafe's Jev and Liquid AI's d1) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others, and rows count as this question only when both agree on all four. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each row.
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
How each review answered it
Current versions only| Question | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary of findings: insulin glargine vs NPH insulin HbA1c (%) (Ultra‐)long‐acting insulin analogues for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 9 studies · 2285 participants | Moderate |
Insulin glargine vs NPH insulin HbA1c (Ultra‐)long‐acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (human isophane insulin) for adults with type 2… (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 16 studies · 5809 participants | Low |
Trials and studies behind the answers
The primary studies that full-text reviews tie to these outcomes. Reviews from the Summary of Findings tier list no included studies here, and trials have not yet been matched to questions on their own, so this list is incomplete.