Cochrane · systematic review · CD005061
Alpha‐glucosidase inhibitors for prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its associated complications in people at increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus
Moelands, SVL, Lucassen, PLBJ, Akkermans, RP, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
Metabolic and Endocrine DisordersAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
14
current version
GRADE rated
9
No studies
5
Included studies
NR
No studies 5 · 35.7%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 7 · 50%Low 1 · 7.1%Moderate 1 · 7.1%High 0 · 0%
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.
Questions and results
Acarbose compared to placebo
Population: people at risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
All‐cause mortality Acarbose vs placebo | RR 0.98 [0.82, 1.18] | 3 studies · 8069 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Incidence of T2DM Acarbose vs placebo | RR 0.82 [0.75, 0.89] | 3 studies · 8008 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Serious adverse events Acarbose vs placebo | RR 1.12 [0.97, 1.29] | 2 studies · 6625 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Cardiovascular mortality Acarbose vs placebo | RR 0.88 [0.71, 1.1] | 3 studies · 8069 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
(a)Non‐fatal myocardial infarction (b)Non‐fatal stroke (c)Congestive heart failure Acarbose vs placebo | RR 0.1 [0.02, 0.53] | 2 studies · 1486 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Health‐related quality of life Acarbose vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Socioeconomic effects Acarbose vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Acarbose compared to no intervention
Population: people at risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
All‐cause mortality Acarbose vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 171 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Incidence of T2DM Acarbose vs no intervention | RR 0.31 [0.14, 0.69] | 2 studies · 140 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Serious adverse events Acarbose vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cardiovascular mortality Acarbose vs no intervention | RR 0.64 [0.16, 2.56] | 2 studies · 205 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
(a)Non‐fatal myocardial infarction (b)Non‐fatal stroke (c)Congestive heart failure Acarbose vs no intervention | RR 0.3 [0.07, 1.41] | 2 studies · 205 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Health‐related quality of life Acarbose vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Socioeconomic effects Acarbose vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |