ReviewIranian journal of public health2024
Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart versus Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30 in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Iranian journal of public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy, safety and treatment satisfaction of transition to a regimen of insulin degludec/aspart: A pilot study.World journal of diabetes · 2025Trial
- Transition from Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion to IDeg-Based Regimens in Hospitalized T2DM Patients: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/aspart in patients with type 2 and type 1 diabetes mellitus: real-world evidence from Indonesia.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Switching from Premixed Insulin to Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Implications of a Real-World Study on Insulin Degludec Dosing.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We systematically reviewed and analyzed the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin as-part (IDegAsp) versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods: We used computers to search the Embase, PubMed, Clinical Trials, and the Cochrane Library database, and collected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the treatment of IDegAsp versus BIAsp 30 in T2D patients. The research period was from the establishment of the database to May 19, 2023. We used Review Manager 5.20 statistical software for systematic meta-analysis. Results: We included 8 RCTs with 2281 participants. IDegAsp was better to BIAsp30 in improving fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels ( Conclusion: Compared with BIAsp30, IDegAsp could significantly reduce FPG levels, insulin dosage, and the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemic events in T2D patients, without increasing the overall risk of adverse events.
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.