| Title |
Efficacy and safety of oral insulin compared to subcutaneous insulin: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40618-015-0326-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
V. Akbari, F. Hendijani, A. Feizi, J. Varshosaz, Z. Fakhari, S. Morshedi, S. A. Mostafavi |
| Abstract |
A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventional studies was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of oral insulin versus subcutaneous (SC) insulin in diabetic patients. Medline, Scopus, ISI Web of Knowledge and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Two independent reviewers evaluated studies for eligibility and quality and extracted the data. The primary outcomes were fasting blood glucose (FBG), 1h and 2h postprandial blood glucose, HbA1c, AUC of insulin, C max and T max of insulin, and T max of glucose infusion rate. Secondary outcomes were adverse events. Eleven studies (n = 373) met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses showed that there is no significant difference between oral and SC insulin in controlling HbA1c, FBG, 1 and 2 h postprandial blood glucose and producing C max of insulin (P > 0.05); however oral insulin had faster action as indicated by the shorter T max, compared to SC insulin (P < 0.05). The most included studies were varied in their methodological quality. This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that oral insulin is comparable to SC insulin with regard to glycemic efficacy and safety. However, is necessary to conduct additional studies in which oral insulin administered to large number of patients for long enough periods of time. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 14% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 14 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 25% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 16 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 15 January 2016.
All research outputs
#14,599,159
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Endocrinological Investigation
#806
of 1,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,036
of 278,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Endocrinological Investigation
#9
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 278,432 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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 65% of its contemporaries.