↓ Skip to main content

Subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin analogues for diabetic ketoacidosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
18 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
179 Mendeley
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
Subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin analogues for diabetic ketoacidosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011281.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos A Andrade-Castellanos, Luis Enrique Colunga-Lozano, Netzahualpilli Delgado-Figueroa, Daniel A Gonzalez-Padilla

Abstract

Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is an acute, life-threatening complication of uncontrolled diabetes that mainly occurs in individuals with autoimmune type 1 diabetes, but it is not uncommon in some people with type 2 diabetes. The treatment of DKA is traditionally accomplished by the administration of intravenous infusion of regular insulin that is initiated in the emergency department and continued in an intensive care unit or a high-dependency unit environment. It is unclear whether people with DKA should be treated with other treatment modalities such as subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin analogues. To assess the effects of subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin analogues for the treatment of diabetic ketoacidosis. We identified eligible trials by searching MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. We searched the trials registers WHO ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of last search for all databases was 27 October 2015. We also examined reference lists of included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews, and contacted trial authors. We included trials if they were RCTs comparing subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin analogues versus standard intravenous infusion in participants with DKA of any age or sex with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, and in pregnant women. Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed studies for risk of bias, and evaluated overall study quality utilising the GRADE instrument. We assessed the statistical heterogeneity of included studies by visually inspecting forest plots and quantifying the diversity using the I² statistic. We synthesised data using random-effects model meta-analysis or descriptive analysis, as appropriate. Five trials randomised 201 participants (110 participants to subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin analogues and 91 to intravenous regular insulin). The criteria for DKA were consistent with the American Diabetes Association criteria for mild or moderate DKA. The underlying cause of DKA was mostly poor compliance with diabetes therapy. Most trials did not report on type of diabetes. Younger diabetic participants and children were underrepresented in our included trials (one trial only). Four trials evaluated the effects of the rapid-acting insulin analogue lispro, and one the effects of the rapid-acting insulin analogue aspart. The mean follow-up period as measured by mean hospital stay ranged between two and seven days. Overall, risk of bias of the evaluated trials was unclear in many domains and high for performance bias for the outcome measure time to resolution of DKA.No deaths were reported in the included trials (186 participants; 3 trials; moderate- (insulin lispro) to low-quality evidence (insulin aspart)). There was very low-quality evidence to evaluate the effects of subcutaneous insulin lispro versus intravenous regular insulin on the time to resolution of DKA: mean difference (MD) 0.2 h (95% CI -1.7 to 2.1); P = 0.81; 90 participants; 2 trials. In one trial involving children with DKA, the time to reach a glucose level of 250 mg/dL was similar between insulin lispro and intravenous regular insulin. There was very low-quality evidence to evaluate the effects of subcutaneous insulin aspart versus intravenous regular insulin on the time to resolution of DKA: MD -1 h (95% CI -3.2 to 1.2); P = 0.36; 30 participants; 1 trial. There was low-quality evidence to evaluate the effects of subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin analogues versus intravenous regular insulin on hypoglycaemic episodes: 6 of 80 insulin lispro-treated participants compared with 9 of 76 regular insulin-treated participants reported hypoglycaemic events; risk ratio (RR) 0.59 (95% CI 0.23 to 1.52); P = 0.28; 156 participants; 4 trials. For insulin aspart compared with regular insulin, RR for hypoglycaemic episodes was 1.00 (95% CI 0.07 to 14.55); P = 1.0; 30 participants; 1 trial; low-quality evidence. Socioeconomic effects as measured by length of mean hospital stay for insulin lispro compared with regular insulin showed a MD of -0.4 days (95% CI -1 to 0.2); P = 0.22; 90 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence and for insulin aspart compared with regular insulin 1.1 days (95% CI -3.3 to 1.1); P = 0.32; low-quality evidence. Data on morbidity were limited, but no specific events were reported for the comparison of insulin lispro with regular insulin. No trial reported on adverse events other than hypoglycaemic episodes, and no trial investigated patient satisfaction. Our review, which provided mainly data on adults, suggests on the basis of mostly low- to very low-quality evidence that there are neither advantages nor disadvantages when comparing the effects of subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin analogues versus intravenous regular insulin for treating mild or moderate DKA.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 179 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 177 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 17%
Student > Bachelor 24 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 11%
Researcher 18 10%
Other 17 9%
Other 40 22%
Unknown 31 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 81 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 7%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 38 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 03 June 2016.
All research outputs
#640,806
of 13,044,792 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,105
of 10,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,113
of 334,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#52
of 203 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,044,792 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 334,198 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 203 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 74% of its contemporaries.