ArticleDiabetes technology & therapeutics2015
A pilot study to compare meal-triggered gastric electrical stimulation and insulin treatment in Chinese obese type 2 diabetes.
Article in Diabetes technology & therapeutics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventional treatment of obesity and diabetes: An interim report on gastric electrical stimulation.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGastrointestinal electromodulation therapy is a novel alternative for achieving diabetes control without traditional bariatric surgery. We compared the efficacy of a meal-initiated implantable gastric contractility modulation (GCM) device with that of insulin therapy in obese Chinese type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients, for whom oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) had failed. PATIENTS AND
methodsSixteen obese (body mass index, 27.5-40.0 kg/m(2)) T2D patients with a glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level of >7.5% on maximal doses of two or more OADs were offered either insulin therapy (n=8) or laparoscopic implantation of a GCM (n=8). We compared changes in body weight, waist circumference (WC), and HbA1c level 1 year after surgery.
resultsThe GCM and insulin groups had similar baseline body weight and HbA1c. At 12 months, body weight (-3.2±5.2 kg, P=0.043) and WC (-3.8±4.5 cm, P=0.021) fell in the GCM group but not in the insulin group (P<0.05 for between-group difference). At 6 and 12 months, the HbA1c level fell by 1.6±1.1% and 0.9±1.6% (P=0.011), compared with 0.6±0.3% and 0.6±0.3% (P=0.08) for the insulin group (P=0.15 for between-group difference). The mean 24-h systolic blood pressure (BP) fell by 4.5±1.0 mm Hg in the GCM group (P=0.017) but not in the insulin group. The GCM group required fewer antidiabetes medications (P<0.05) and BP-lowering drugs (P<0.05) than the insulin group. A subgroup analysis showed that patients with a triglyceride level of <1.7 mmol/L had a tendency toward a lower HbA1c level (P=0.090) compared with the controls.
conclusionsIn obese T2D patients for whom OADs had failed, GCM implantation was a well-tolerated alternative to insulin therapy, with a low triglyceride level as a possible predictor for glycemic response.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.