↓ Skip to main content

Glucose targets for preventing diabetic kidney disease and its progression

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
129 tweeters
facebook
9 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
224 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Glucose targets for preventing diabetic kidney disease and its progression
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010137.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marinella Ruospo, Valeria M Saglimbene, Suetonia C Palmer, Salvatore De Cosmo, Antonio Pacilli, Olga Lamacchia, Mauro Cignarelli, Paola Fioretto, Mariacristina Vecchio, Jonathan C Craig, Giovanni FM Strippoli

Abstract

Diabetes is the leading cause of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) around the world. Blood pressure lowering and glucose control are used to reduce diabetes-associated disability including kidney failure. However there is a lack of an overall evidence summary of the optimal target range for blood glucose control to prevent kidney failure. To evaluate the benefits and harms of intensive (HbA1c < 7% or fasting glucose levels < 120 mg/dL versus standard glycaemic control (HbA1c ≥ 7% or fasting glucose levels ≥ 120 mg/dL for preventing the onset and progression of kidney disease among adults with diabetes. We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register up to 31 March 2017 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings; and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. Randomised controlled trials evaluating glucose-lowering interventions in which people (aged 14 year or older) with type 1 or 2 diabetes with and without kidney disease were randomly allocated to tight glucose control or less stringent blood glucose targets. Two authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and risks of bias, extracted data and checked the processes for accuracy. Outcomes were mortality, cardiovascular complications, doubling of serum creatinine (SCr), ESKD and proteinuria. Confidence in the evidence was assessing using GRADE. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Fourteen studies involving 29,319 people with diabetes were included and 11 studies involving 29,141 people were included in our meta-analyses. Treatment duration was 56.7 months on average (range 6 months to 10 years). Studies included people with a range of kidney function. Incomplete reporting of key methodological details resulted in uncertain risks of bias in many studies. Using GRADE assessment, we had moderate confidence in the effects of glucose lowering strategies on ESKD, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and progressive protein leakage by kidney disease and low or very low confidence in effects of treatment on death related to cardiovascular complications and doubling of serum creatinine (SCr).For the primary outcomes, tight glycaemic control may make little or no difference to doubling of SCr compared with standard control (4 studies, 26,874 participants: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.11; I(2)= 73%, low certainty evidence), development of ESKD (4 studies, 23,332 participants: RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.12; I(2)= 52%; low certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (9 studies, 29,094 participants: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.13; I(2)= 50%; moderate certainty evidence), cardiovascular mortality (6 studies, 23,673 participants: RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.92; I(2)= 85%; low certainty evidence), or sudden death (4 studies, 5913 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.57; I(2)= 85%; very low certainty evidence). People who received treatment to achieve tighter glycaemic control probably experienced lower risks of non-fatal myocardial infarction (5 studies, 25,596 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.99; I(2)= 46%, moderate certainty evidence), onset of microalbuminuria (4 studies, 19,846 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.93; I(2)= 61%, moderate certainty evidence), and progression of microalbuminuria (5 studies, 13,266 participants: RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.93; I(2)= 75%, moderate certainty evidence). In absolute terms, tight versus standard glucose control treatment in 1,000 adults would lead to between zero and two people avoiding non-fatal myocardial infarction, while seven adults would avoid experiencing new-onset albuminuria and two would avoid worsening albuminuria. This review suggests that people who receive intensive glycaemic control for treatment of diabetes had comparable risks of kidney failure, death and major cardiovascular events as people who received less stringent blood glucose control, while experiencing small clinical benefits on the onset and progression of microalbuminuria and myocardial infarction. The adverse effects of glycaemic management are uncertain. Based on absolute treatment effects, the clinical impact of targeting an HbA1c < 7% or blood glucose < 6.6 mmol/L is unclear and the potential harms of this treatment approach are largely unmeasured.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 129 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 224 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 224 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 16%
Student > Bachelor 34 15%
Researcher 29 13%
Student > Postgraduate 20 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 9%
Other 50 22%
Unknown 35 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 106 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 12%
Social Sciences 10 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 4%
Psychology 6 3%
Other 24 11%
Unknown 43 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 83. 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 02 February 2020.
All research outputs
#269,244
of 16,029,054 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#599
of 11,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,751
of 273,157 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#27
of 235 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,029,054 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,367 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
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 273,157 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 235 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.