Clinical evidence dossier
Insulin therapy
Blood glucose
Evidence signal
Authoritative evidence signal
strong
This is an authoritative evidence signal supplied by Clinical Reference. It is not a formal clinical grade, treatment recommendation, or pooled effect estimate.
Evidence snapshot
- Authoritative support records
- 3
- Supporting studies available for review
- 3
- Randomized trials
- 2
- Reported effects
- 18
Clinical conclusion
Insulin therapy has a small positive evidence signal for Blood glucose, but the clinical interpretation is limited.
The conclusion and evidence-signal classification are distinct authoritative fields and are reproduced as published.
Observed effects
Observed study estimates; not a pooled treatment effect.
Change from baseline
Mean difference
-21.01 to 18.58 %
Evidence composition
- Non-randomized studies
- 0
- Other designs
- 0
- Unresolved designs
- 1
- Magnitude-eligible effects
- 2
Consistency
Authoritative consistency classification
mixed
- Positive
- 1
- No effect
- 0
- Mixed
- 1
- Negative
- 1
Population and applicability
Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. 2 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 2 studies described adult participants.
This population information refers to the materialized supporting studies available for review. Omitted support records remain part of the authoritative support accounting and are available through the audit experience.
View reported population descriptions
These descriptions are reported across the supporting studies; they are not a single synthesized population.
- Young Adult (19–39)
- Middle Aged (40-64)
- Older Adults (65+)
- Male
- Female
- with T1 Diabetes
- Hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes.
- Patients requiring insulin therapy for glycemic control.
- Adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes
- Patients currently on premixed insulin therapy
Limitations
- 1 relevant study has unresolved authoritative design evidence and does not contribute to design-specific or RoB-specific claims.
- Upstream consistency scoring indicates mixed findings across the evidence.
- Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: baseline_within_group, usual_care.
- 1 supporting study has high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.
- 3 of 3 studies with duration data have follow-up of 12 weeks or less.
- 1 study contains conflicting p-value and significance fields; those significance claims are suppressed.
Supporting evidence
Inspect the authoritative studies and omitted support records for this dossier.