↓ Skip to main content

Insulin and oral agents for managing cystic fibrosis-related diabetes

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

4 tweeters
2 Facebook pages
1 Wikipedia page


18 Dimensions

Readers on

157 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.
Insulin and oral agents for managing cystic fibrosis-related diabetes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004730.pub4
Pubmed ID

Gary M Onady, Adrienne Stolfi


The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation recommends both short-term and long-acting insulin therapy when cystic fibrosis-related diabetes has been diagnosed. Diagnosis is based on: an elevated fasting blood glucose level greater than 6.94 mmol/liter (125 mg/deciliter); or oral glucose tolerance tests greater than 11.11 mmol/liter (200 mg/deciliter) at two hours; or symptomatic diabetes for random glucose levels greater than 11.11 mmol/liter (200 mg/deciliter); or glycated hemoglobin levels of at least 6.5%. To establish the effectiveness of insulin and oral agents for managing diabetes in people with cystic fibrosis in relation to blood sugar levels, lung function and weight management. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also handsearched abstracts from pulmonary symposia and the North American Cystic Fibrosis Conferences.Date of the most recent search of the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 18 February 2016. Randomized controlled trials comparing all methods of diabetes therapy in people with diagnosed cystic fibrosis-related diabetes. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. The searches identified 22 trials (34 references). Four trials (200 participants) are included: one short-term single-center trial (n = 7) comparing insulin with oral repaglinide and no medication in people with cystic fibrosis-related diabetes and normal fasting glucose; one long-term multicenter trial (n = 100, 74 of whom had cystic fibrosis-related diabetes) comparing insulin with oral repaglinide and placebo; one long-term multicenter trial (n = 73) comparing insulin with oral repaglinide; and one 12-week single-center trial (n = 20) comparing the long-acting insulin glargine to short-term neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin.Two trials with data for the comparison of insulin to placebo did not report any significant differences between groups for the primary outcomes of blood glucose levels, lung function and nutritional status. This was also true for the single trial with data for the comparison of repaglinide to placebo. Two trials (one lasting one year and one lasting two years) contributed data for the comparison of insulin versus repaglinide. There were no significant differences for the primary outcomes at any time point, except at one year (in the two-year trial) when the insulin group had significant improvement in z score for body mass index compared to the repaglinide group. The single trial comparing glargine to neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin also did not report any significant differences in the review's primary outcomes. A few cases of hypoglycemia were seen in three out of the four trials (none in the longest trial), but these events resolved without further treatment.There was an unclear risk of bias from randomization and allocation concealment in two of the four included trials as the authors did not report any details; in the remaining two studies details for randomization led to a low risk of bias, but only one had sufficient details on allocation concealment to allow a low risk judgement, the second was unclear. There was a high risk from blinding for all trials (except for the comparison of oral repaglinide versus placebo) due to the nature of the interventions. Complete data for all outcomes were not available from any trial leading to a high risk of reporting bias. The amounts of insulin and repaglinide administered were not comparable and this may lead to bias in the results. None of the included trials were powered to show a significant improvement in lung function. This review has not found any significant conclusive evidence that long-acting insulins, short-acting insulins or oral hypoglycemic agents have a distinct advantage over one another in controlling hyperglycemia or clinical outcomes associated with cystic fibrosis-related diabetes. While some cystic fibrosis centers use oral medications to help control diabetes, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (USA) clinical practice guidelines support the use of insulin therapy and this remains the most widely-used treatment method. Randomized controlled trials specifically related to controlling diabetes with this impact on the course of pulmonary disease process in cystic fibrosis continue to be a high priority.There is no demonstrated advantage yet established for using oral hypoglycemic agents over insulin, and further trials need to be evaluated to establish whether there is clear benefit for using hypoglycemic agents. Agents that potentiate insulin action, especially agents with additional anti-inflammatory potential should be further investigated to see if there may be a clinical advantage to adding these medications to insulin as adjuvant therapy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 155 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 17%
Student > Master 25 16%
Researcher 19 12%
Other 13 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Other 38 24%
Unknown 23 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 6%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Other 24 15%
Unknown 27 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 06 June 2017.
All research outputs
of 15,812,728 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 265,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,812,728 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,297 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.5. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 265,882 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.