What do systematic reviews say?

Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glucose control

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Intensive glucose control versus conventional glucose control for type 1 diabetes mellitus 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glucose control

Intensive glucose control may leads to higher severe hypoglycaemia, baseline HbA1c < 9.0 compared with conventional glucose control (low certainty).

• Intensive glucose control versus conventional glucose control for type 1 diabetes mellitus 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.68 [1.29, 2.19]
  3 studies · 1583 participants
  Low

Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glucose control

Intensive glucose control showed no clear difference in severe hypoglycaemia, baseline HbA1c ≥9.0 compared with conventional glucose control (low certainty).

• Intensive glucose control versus conventional glucose control for type 1 diabetes mellitus 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.04 [0.66, 1.64]
  8 studies · 525 participants
  Low

Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glucose control

It is very uncertain whether intensive glucose control changes ketoacidosis compared with conventional glucose control (very low certainty).

• Intensive glucose control versus conventional glucose control for type 1 diabetes mellitus 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 4.93 [1.18, 20.6]
  3 studies · 96 participants
  Very low

Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glucose control

• Intensive glucose control versus conventional glucose control for type 1 diabetes mellitus 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 1441 participants
  Moderate

Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glucose control

Intensive glucose control showed no clear difference in all‐cause mortality compared with conventional glucose control (moderate certainty).

• Intensive glucose control versus conventional glucose control for type 1 diabetes mellitus 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 1.02 [0.48, 2.19]
  10 studies · 2039 participants
  Moderate

Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glucose control

• Intensive glucose control versus conventional glucose control for type 1 diabetes mellitus 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 1441 participants
  Moderate

Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glucose control

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Intensive glucose control versus conventional glucose control for type 1 diabetes mellitus 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glucose control

Intensive glucose control leads to lower manifestation of retinopathy compared with conventional glucose control (high certainty).

• Intensive glucose control versus conventional glucose control for type 1 diabetes mellitus 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.27 [0.18, 0.42]
  2 studies · 768 participants
  High

Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glucose control

Intensive glucose control probably leads to lower progression of retinopathy compared with conventional glucose control (moderate certainty).

• Intensive glucose control versus conventional glucose control for type 1 diabetes mellitus 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.61 [0.49, 0.76]
  2 studies · 764 participants
  Moderate
• Intensive glucose control versus conventional glucose control for type 1 diabetes mellitus 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 2.32 [1.16, 4.63]
  2 studies · 96 participants
  Low

Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glucose control

Intensive glucose control probably leads to lower manifestation of nephropathy compared with conventional glucose control (moderate certainty).

• Intensive glucose control versus conventional glucose control for type 1 diabetes mellitus 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.56 [0.46, 0.68]
  3 studies · 1475 participants
  Moderate

Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glucose control

It is very uncertain whether intensive glucose control changes progression of nephropathy compared with conventional glucose control (very low certainty).

• Intensive glucose control versus conventional glucose control for type 1 diabetes mellitus 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.79
  3 studies · 179 participants
  Very low

Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glucose control

Intensive glucose control leads to lower manifestation of neuropathy compared with conventional glucose control (high certainty).

• Intensive glucose control versus conventional glucose control for type 1 diabetes mellitus 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.35 [0.23, 0.53]
  3 studies · 1203 participants
  High

Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glucose control

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Intensive glucose control versus conventional glucose control for type 1 diabetes mellitus 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glucose control

Intensive glycaemic control showed no clear difference in mortality compared with standard glycaemic control (moderate certainty).

• Effect of the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus on the development of cognitive impairment and dementia 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1 [0.79, 1.26]
  3 studies · 15888 participants
  Moderate
• Targeting intensive glycaemic control versus targeting conventional glycaemic control for type 2 diabetes mellitus 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1 [0.92, 1.08]
  24 studies · 34325 participants
  Moderate

Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glucose control

Intensive glycaemic control showed no clear difference in cardiovascular mortality compared with conventional glycaemic control (moderate certainty).

• Targeting intensive glycaemic control versus targeting conventional glycaemic control for type 2 diabetes mellitus 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.06 [0.94, 1.21]
  22 studies · 34177 participants
  Moderate

Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glucose control

Intensive glycaemic control probably leads to lower non‐fatal myocardial infarction compared with conventional glycaemic control (moderate certainty).

• Targeting intensive glycaemic control versus targeting conventional glycaemic control for type 2 diabetes mellitus 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.87 [0.77, 0.98]
  14 studies · 30417 participants
  Moderate

Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glucose control

Intensive glycaemic control showed no clear difference in non‐fatal stroke compared with conventional glycaemic control (moderate certainty).

• Targeting intensive glycaemic control versus targeting conventional glycaemic control for type 2 diabetes mellitus 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1 [0.84, 1.19]
  13 studies · 30003 participants
  Moderate

Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glucose control

Intensive glycaemic control may leads to lower amputation of lower extremity compared with conventional glycaemic control (low certainty).

• Targeting intensive glycaemic control versus targeting conventional glycaemic control for type 2 diabetes mellitus 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.65 [0.45, 0.94]
  11 studies · 11200 participants
  Low

Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glucose control

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 mellitus 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.87 [0.71, 1.06]
  8 studies · 28145 participants
  Moderate