Cochrane · systematic review · CD009122
Intensive glucose control versus conventional glucose control for type 1 diabetes mellitus
Fullerton, B, Jeitler, K, Seitz, M, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2014 · 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
16
current version
GRADE rated
13
No studies
3
Included studies
NR
No studies 3 · 18.8%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 12.5%Low 4 · 25%Moderate 5 · 31.3%High 2 · 12.5%
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
Intensive glucose control versus conventional glucose control for type 1 diabetes mellitus
Population: persons with type 1 diabetes mellitus
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Macrovascular complications Intensive glucose control vs conventional glucose control | no estimate extracted | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Microvascular complications Intensive glucose control vs conventional glucose control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Manifestation of retinopathy Intensive glucose control vs conventional glucose control | RR 0.27 [0.18, 0.42] | 2 studies · 768 participants | High |
Progression of retinopathy Intensive glucose control vs conventional glucose control | RR 0.61 [0.49, 0.76] | 2 studies · 764 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Progression of retinopathy Intensive glucose control vs conventional glucose control | RR 2.32 [1.16, 4.63] | 2 studies · 96 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Manifestation of nephropathy Intensive glucose control vs conventional glucose control | RR 0.56 [0.46, 0.68] | 3 studies · 1475 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Progression of nephropathy Intensive glucose control vs conventional glucose control | RR 0.79 | 3 studies · 179 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Manifestation of neuropathy Intensive glucose control vs conventional glucose control | RR 0.35 [0.23, 0.53] | 3 studies · 1203 participants | High |
Progression of neuropathy Intensive glucose control vs conventional glucose control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Intensive glucose control vs conventional glucose control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Severe hypoglycaemia, baseline HbA1c < 9.0 Intensive glucose control vs conventional glucose control | RR 1.68 [1.29, 2.19] | 3 studies · 1583 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Severe hypoglycaemia, baseline HbA1c ≥9.0 Intensive glucose control vs conventional glucose control | RR 1.04 [0.66, 1.64] | 8 studies · 525 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Ketoacidosis Intensive glucose control vs conventional glucose control | OR 4.93 [1.18, 20.6] | 3 studies · 96 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Health‐related quality of life Intensive glucose control vs conventional glucose control | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 1441 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
All‐cause mortality Intensive glucose control vs conventional glucose control | OR 1.02 [0.48, 2.19] | 10 studies · 2039 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Costs Intensive glucose control vs conventional glucose control | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 1441 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |