ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2025
Efficacy and safety of insulin sensitisers for treating type 2 diabetes: a network meta-analysis.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThiazolidinediones (TZDs), including pioglitazone and rosiglitazone, and non-TZD insulin sensitisers (chiglitazar sodium) demonstrate potential; however, their comparative efficacy and safety remain unclear. We aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety of commonly used insulin sensitisers, including chiglitazar sodium, sitagliptin, pioglitazone, and rosiglitazone for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
methodsA computer-based search was conducted in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, the VIP database, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from the establishment date of each database to January 2025. Included study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve was calculated for each outcome indicator to compare the efficacy and safety of different interventions.
resultsIn reducing haemoglobin A1c, 8 mg of rosiglitazone was superior over 100 mg sitagliptin, 30 mg pioglitazone, and 15 mg pioglitazone (P < 0.05), with no significant differences among the remaining medications. To reduce fasting plasma glucose, 45 mg of pioglitazone was more effective than any dosage of chiglitazar sodium, sitagliptin, or rosiglitazone (P < 0.05). Regarding safety, the incidence rate of adverse reactions was higher with 45 mg of pioglitazone than with 8 mg of rosiglitazone (P < 0.05), with no significant differences in adverse events among other medications.
conclusionCompared with placebo, all four drugs were safe and effective in the treatment of T2DM. High-dose TZDs may be more effective than mitiglinide and sitagliptin. However, 45 mg of pioglitazone was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events, warranting close monitoring of its safety profile.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40745111What 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.