↓ Skip to main content

The efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of 58 randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Acta Diabetologica, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
Title
The efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of 58 randomized controlled trials
Published in
Acta Diabetologica, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00592-018-1222-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juan Ling, Peng Cheng, Long Ge, Ding-hua Zhang, An-chen Shi, Jin-hui Tian, Ya-jing Chen, Xiu-xia Li, Jing-yun Zhang, Ke-hu Yang

Abstract

The aim is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4-I: sitagliptin, saxagliptin, linagliptin, vildagliptin and alogliptin) in patients with type 2 diabetes. We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Wanfang Database from inception to April, 2018. Randomized controlled trials were included if they compared the different versions of DPP4-I with each other or with placebo in treatment of type 2 diabetes. Bayesian network meta-analysis and pairwise meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the different kinds of DPP4-I and placebo. The data were analyzed using STATA 12.0 and WinBUGS1.4 software. We identified 58 eligible studies (with 31356 patients) involving 14 treatment arms. Indirect comparison results showed that except for alogliptin, a decrease was found for all DPP4-I versus the placebo for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) with vildagliptin50 twice daily (BID) showing the highest probability. Linagliptin5 once daily (QD) decreased the level of fasting plasma glucose (FPG) the most for all DPP4-I versus the placebo; when comparing them with each other, alogliptin25QD was more effective when compared with sitagliptin100QD and vildaglipti50BID; linagliptin5qd had the highest decrease impact on body mass index (BMI). Except for hypoglycemia and upper respiratory tract infection (URTI), there are no statistical significance on incidence of adverse events and the body weight when DPP4-I are compared with each other or with placebo. Our network meta-analysis presents the associations of DPP4-I versus placebos on HbA1c, FPG, 2 h postprandial blood glucose (2HPPG), BMI, body weight and adverse events. DPP4-I have a lowering effect on the glycemic level (HbA1c, FPG), especially vildaglipti50BID and linagliptin10QD, respectively. Besides, linagliptin5QD has the greatest probabilities of reducing BMI. In addition, DPP4-I were associated with not increasing the incidence of adverse events. Among them, vildagliptin100QD and sitagliptin100QD have the lowest probability in reducing the incidence of hypoglycemia and URTI, respectively.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Researcher 6 9%
Other 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 20 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 28%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 22 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 September 2018.
All research outputs
#17,018,470
of 25,784,004 outputs
Outputs from Acta Diabetologica
#602
of 1,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,634
of 352,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Diabetologica
#10
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,784,004 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,042 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,839 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.