Cochrane · systematic review · CD008143
Targeting intensive glycaemic control versus targeting conventional glycaemic control for type 2 diabetes mellitus
Hemmingsen Bianca, Lund Søren S, Gluud Christian, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2013 · Cochrane Library
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
7
current version
GRADE rated
7
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 1 · 14.3%Moderate 5 · 71.4%High 1 · 14.3%
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
Current version onlyIntensive glycaemic control versus conventional glycaemic control for type 2 diabetes mellitus
Population: participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
All‐cause mortality Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glycaemic control | RR 1 [0.92, 1.08] | 24 studies · 34325 participants | Moderate Downgraded: publication bias |
Cardiovascular mortality Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glycaemic control | RR 1.06 [0.94, 1.21] | 22 studies · 34177 participants | Moderate Downgraded: publication bias |
Non‐fatal myocardial infarction Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glycaemic control | RR 0.87 [0.77, 0.98] | 14 studies · 30417 participants | Moderate Downgraded: publication bias |
Non‐fatal stroke Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glycaemic control | RR 1 [0.84, 1.19] | 13 studies · 30003 participants | Moderate Downgraded: publication bias |
Amputation of lower extremity Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glycaemic control | RR 0.65 [0.45, 0.94] | 11 studies · 11200 participants | Low Downgraded: publication bias |
End‐stage renal disease Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glycaemic control | RR 0.87 [0.71, 1.06] | 8 studies · 28145 participants | Moderate Downgraded: publication bias |
Hypoglycaemia ‐ Severe hypoglycaemia Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glycaemic control | RR 2.18 [1.53, 3.11] | 17 studies · 28794 participants | High |
Intensive glycaemic control compared to conventional glycaemic control for type 2 diabetes mellitus
Population: patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
All‐cause mortality Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glycaemic control | RR 1.01 [0.9, 1.13] | 18 studies · 29731 participants | Moderate |
Cardiovascular mortality Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glycaemic control | RR 1.06 [0.9, 1.26] | 18 studies · 29731 participants | Moderate |
Non‐fatal myocardial infarction Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glycaemic control | RR 0.87 [0.76, 1] | 12 studies · 29174 participants | Moderate |
Non‐fatal stroke Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glycaemic control | RR 0.96 [0.8, 1.16] | 11 studies · 28760 participants | Moderate |
Amputation of lower extremity Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glycaemic control | RR 0.64 [0.43, 0.95] | 8 studies · 6960 participants | Low |
End‐stage renal disease Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glycaemic control | RR 0.87 [0.71, 1.06] | 7 studies · 28075 participants | Moderate |
Severe hypoglycaemia Intensive glycaemic control vs conventional glycaemic control | RR 2.05 [1.39, 3.02] | 12 studies · 28127 participants | High |