↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Short‐acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin for adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
358 Mendeley
Title
Short‐acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin for adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012161
Pubmed ID
Authors

Birgit Fullerton, Andrea Siebenhofer, Klaus Jeitler, Karl Horvath, Thomas Semlitsch, Andrea Berghold, Johannes Plank, Thomas R Pieber, Ferdinand M Gerlach

Abstract

Short-acting insulin analogue use for people with diabetes is still controversial, as reflected in many scientific debates. To assess the effects of short-acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes. We carried out the electronic searches through Ovid simultaneously searching the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R) (1946 to 14 April 2015), EMBASE (1988 to 2015, week 15), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; March 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the European (EU) Clinical Trials register (both March 2015). We included all randomised controlled trials with an intervention duration of at least 24 weeks that compared short-acting insulin analogues with regular human insulins in the treatment of adults with type 1 diabetes who were not pregnant. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trials for risk of bias, and resolved differences by consensus. We graded overall study quality using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) instrument. We used random-effects models for the main analyses and presented the results as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. We identified nine trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria including 2693 participants. The duration of interventions ranged from 24 to 52 weeks with a mean of about 37 weeks. The participants showed some diversity, mainly with regard to diabetes duration and inclusion/exclusion criteria. The majority of the trials were carried out in the 1990s and participants were recruited from Europe, North America, Africa and Asia. None of the trials was carried out in a blinded manner so that the risk of performance bias, especially for subjective outcomes such as hypoglycaemia, was present in all of the trials. Furthermore, several trials showed inconsistencies in the reporting of methods and results.The mean difference (MD) in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was -0.15% (95% CI -0.2% to -0.1%; P value < 0.00001; 2608 participants; 9 trials; low quality evidence) in favour of insulin analogues. The comparison of the risk of severe hypoglycaemia between the two treatment groups showed an OR of 0.89 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.12; P value = 0.31; 2459 participants; 7 trials; very low quality evidence). For overall hypoglycaemia, also taking into account mild forms of hypoglycaemia, the data were generally of low quality, but also did not indicate substantial group differences. Regarding nocturnal severe hypoglycaemic episodes, two trials reported statistically significant effects in favour of the insulin analogue, insulin aspart. However, due to inconsistent reporting in publications and trial reports, the validity of the result remains questionable.We also found no clear evidence for a substantial effect of insulin analogues on health-related quality of life. However, there were few results only based on subgroups of the trial populations. None of the trials reported substantial effects regarding weight gain or any other adverse events. No trial was designed to investigate possible long-term effects (such as all-cause mortality, diabetic complications), in particular in people with diabetes related complications. Our analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short-acting insulin analogues on blood glucose control in people with type 1 diabetes. To make conclusions about the effect of short acting insulin analogues on long-term patient-relevant outcomes, long-term efficacy and safety data are needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 358 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 357 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 56 16%
Researcher 40 11%
Student > Bachelor 40 11%
Student > Postgraduate 21 6%
Other 21 6%
Other 61 17%
Unknown 119 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 106 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 42 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 19 5%
Psychology 15 4%
Social Sciences 11 3%
Other 41 11%
Unknown 124 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 69. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 December 2021.
All research outputs
#641,329
of 26,146,017 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,098
of 13,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,268
of 369,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#21
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,146,017 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,190 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 369,760 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.