Clinical evidence dossier
Dulaglutide
HbA1c
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
- 2
Clinical conclusion
Dulaglutide shows a moderate positive evidence signal for improving HbA1c across the studied comparisons.
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
Absolute change
-1.44 to -1.44 %
Change from baseline
Mean difference
-1.44 to -1.44 %
Evidence composition
- Non-randomized studies
- 0
- Other designs
- 0
- Unresolved designs
- 1
- Magnitude-eligible effects
- 2
Consistency
Authoritative consistency classification
mostly_consistent
- Positive
- 2
- No effect
- 1
- Mixed
- 0
- Negative
- 0
Population and applicability
Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. 2 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 3 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)
- Male
- Female
- with T2 Diabetes
- Adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.
- Patients seeking weight management solutions.
- Patients currently using dulaglutide for diabetes management.
Limitations
- 1 relevant study has unresolved authoritative design evidence and does not contribute to design-specific or RoB-specific claims.
- 2 supporting studies do not have a displayable topic-matched quantitative effect.
- Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, unknown_unresolved.
- 3 supporting studies have high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.
Supporting evidence
Inspect the authoritative studies and omitted support records for this dossier.