ArticleAmerican journal of clinical and experimental immunology2017
The effect and safety of diacerein in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus : a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in American journal of clinical and experimental immunology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effect of Diacerein on Type 2 Diabetic Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials with Trial Sequential Analysis.Journal of diabetes research · 2020Pooled it
- Advances in Drug Delivery Science for Diacerein: Strategies to Enhance Solubility, Bioavailability, and Pharmacokinetic Performance.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- Diacerein mitigates endocrine and cardio-metabolic disruptions in experimental PCOS mice model by modulating AdipoR1/ PON 1.BMC endocrine disorders · 2024Article
- Anti-Contractile and Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Diacerein on Isolated Mouse Airways Smooth Muscle and Mouse Asthma Model.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Background: Diacerein has been proposed as a treatment option for management of type 2 diabetes due to its anti-inflammatory properties. PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is to examine the effect and safety of diacerein in patients with type 2 diabetes. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: We searched Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for RCTs published from database inception to September 2017. DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS: Among 44 studies that were initially identified, four were eligible and were included in the following analysis. Diacerein significantly reduced fasting glycemia [weighted mean differences (WMD) -0.66, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) -1.16 to -0.16] and glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c ) (WMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.44 to -0.26). And the patients with a diacerein supplementation duration of ≤12 weeks had a greater decrease of fasting glycemia and HbA1c than the supplementation duration of >12 weeks. Furthermore, compared with placebo, diacerein revealed a significant increase in the relative risk (RR) of gastrointestinal symptoms (RR=2.50, 95% CI: 1.10 to 5.65), especially in the study subgroup with supplementation duration of >12 weeks (RR=4.01, 95% CI: 2.32 to 6.95). LIMITATIONS: The sample size was relatively small and the duration of included studies was short so that the treatment efficacy and safety for longer duration was unknown.
conclusionsAlthough further studies are needed, our findings clearly provide support to the use of diacerein in the clinical management of subjects with type 2 diabetes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29348985PMC5768895W3021951179What 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.