ArticleSystematic reviews2025
Regular human insulins versus rapid-acting insulin analogues in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
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
backgroundType 1 diabetes is a serious, chronic disorder with an increasing incidence among children and adolescents. Glycemic control in individuals with type 1 diabetes is better managed through a basal-bolus regimen with either regular human or rapid-acting insulin analogues administered as a bolus at mealtimes. Rapid-acting insulin analogues have been hypothesized to cause optimal glycemic control and less risk of hypoglycemic episodes compared to regular human insulins. However, this has never been systematically assessed in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Therefore, this systematic review aims to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of regular human insulins versus rapid-acting insulin analogues in children and adolescents.
methodsThis is a protocol for a systematic review. A search in major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries will be performed by a search specialist. We will include published and unpublished randomized clinical trials comparing regular human insulins versus rapid-acting insulin analogues (lispro, aspart, or glulisine). Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments. Primary outcomes will be severe hypoglycemia, ketoacidosis, and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be quality of life, HbA1c, and non-serious adverse events. Data will be analyzed using fixed-effect meta-analyses, random-effects meta-analyses, and Trial Sequential Analysis. Several subgroup analyses are planned. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2, an eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). DISCUSSION: The beneficial and adverse effects of regular human insulins versus rapid-acting insulin analogues have not been systematically assessed in children and adolescents. There is a need for a comprehensive systematic review of the current evidence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42024508625.
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.