Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17523734›Full record

ArticleClinical drug investigation2004

Insulin aspart : an evidence-based medicine review.

Alan Haycox

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alan HaycoxPrescribing Research Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
University of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper provides a review and evaluation of the published evidence relating to the efficacy, safety and ease of administration of the rapid-acting insulin analogue insulin aspart in comparison with human insulin (HI) in diabetes mellitus in the following categories: (a) in adults, (b) in children, and (c) in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). A search for publications on insulin aspart was conducted for the following databases: Cochrane, BIOSIS, EMBASE-DP and MEDLINE. Publications were examined for relevance by two independent assessors and were graded using a system developed by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Overall, the evidence comparing insulin aspart with HI was of high quality, with all three categories graded as grade A evidence. Studies showed strong evidence for better glycaemic control, without an increased risk of hypoglycaemia, together with evidence supporting improved convenience and flexibility in administration of insulin aspart compared with regular HI in adult diabetic patients. Evidence from three trials in adults with type 1 diabetes showed a lower incidence of major nocturnal hypoglycaemia with insulin aspart versus regular HI. Published evidence also confirmed the more rapid action of insulin aspart versus HI, and a comparable efficacy and safety profile for both insulin types in type 1 paediatric patients. There was also strong evidence that insulin aspart is well tolerated and efficacious for CSII/pump use. Insulin aspart better mimics the physiological response to meals than regular HI, and may offer advantages in terms of glycaemic control and reduction of hypoglycaemia combined with flexibility and convenience of administration. Overall, there is a good body of evidence to support the efficacy, tolerability and ease of administration of insulin aspart in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Identifiers

PMID17523734
OpenAlexW2009374493

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.