Review: inhaled insulin provided better glycaemic control than oral hypoglycaemic agents but not subcutaneous insulin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ceglia L, Lau J, Pittas AG. Meta-analysis: efficacy and safety of inhaled insulin therapy in adults with diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med 2006;145:665–75. [OpenUrl][1][PubMed][2][Web of Science][3] Q In patients with diabetes, what is the relative efficacy, safety, and acceptability of inhaled insulin compared with subcutaneous (SC) insulin and oral hypoglycaemic agents? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★★★★ IM/Ambulatory care ★★★★★★☆ Endocrine ★★★★★☆☆ ### ![Graphic][4] Data sources: Medline (to June 2006), Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register (issue 2, 2006), reference lists, and the US Food and Drug Administration website. ### ![Graphic][5] Study selection and assessment: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ⩾12 weeks’ duration that compared inhaled insulin with SC insulin or oral hypoglycaemic agents in non-pregnant adult patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. 16 RCTs (n = 4023, mean age range 29–60 y, 58% men) met the selection criteria. Methodological quality was assessed based on randomisation method, intention to treat analysis, dropout rate, and primary outcome (efficacy or safety). ### ![Graphic][6] Outcomes: change in haemoglobin … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAnnals%2Bof%2BInternal%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DANN%2BINTERN%2BMED%26rft.issn%253D0003-4819%26rft.aulast%253DCeglia%26rft.auinit1%253DL.%26rft.volume%253D145%26rft.issue%253D9%26rft.spage%253D665%26rft.epage%253D675%26rft.atitle%253DMeta-Analysis%253A%2BEfficacy%2Band%2BSafety%2Bof%2BInhaled%2BInsulin%2BTherapy%2Bin%2BAdults%2Bwith%2BDiabetes%2BMellitus%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F17088580%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=17088580&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F12%2F2%2F52.atom [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000241707800005&link_type=ISI [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".