Trial reportScientific reports2021
A randomized trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine in hyperglycemic acute stroke patients receiving intensive care.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02607943 (Insulin Glargine Versus Regular Insulin Based Regimens in Glycemic Control After Acute Stroke), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Insulin Glargine Versus Regular Insulin Based Regimens in Glycemic Control After Acute Stroke: A Multi-center, Randomized Control Study
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This pilot, randomized, open-label controlled study compared the basal-bolus regimens of insulin glargine (IG) and neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin in stroke patients with hyperglycemia receiving intensive care. The study recruited acute stroke patients requiring intensive care within 72 h (h) of onset and had blood glucose > 200 mg/dL. 50 patients received IG (n = 26) or NPH (n = 24) with added short-acting prandial regular insulin over a 72-h period. The primary end point was the percentage of glucose within 80-180 mg/dL assessed through continuous glucose monitoring. The baseline characteristics were comparable, except the IG had higher glucose pre-randomization than the NPH (290.69 ± 82.31 vs. 246.04 ± 41.76 mg/dL, P = 0.021). The percentage of time with glucose between 80 and 180 mg/dL was 45.88 ± 27.04% in the IG and 53.56 ± 22.89% in the NPH (P = 0.341) and the percentage of glucose reduction was 31.47 ± 17.52% in the IG and 27.28 ± 14.56% in the NPH (P = 0.374). The percentage of time with glucose < 60 mg/dL was 0.14 ± 0.49% in the IG and 0.47 ± 1.74% in the NPH. Poststroke outcomes were not significantly different. In conclusion, IG is safe and equally effective as an NPH-based basal-bolus regimen for acute stroke patients with hyperglycemia receiving intensive care.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02607943. Registered 18/11/2015, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02607943 .
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.