Effect of Intensive Versus Standard Blood Glucose Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Different Regions of the World: Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regional variation in type 2 diabetes mellitus care may affect outcomes in patients treated with intensive versus standard blood glucose control. We sought to evaluate these differences between North America and the rest of the world. METHODS AND RESULTS: Databases were searched from their inception through December 2013. Randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of intensive therapy with standard therapy for macro- and microvascular complications in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus were selected. We calculated summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs with the random-effects model. The analysis included 34 967 patients from 17 randomized controlled trials (7 in North America and 10 in the rest of the world). There were no significant differences between intensive and standard therapy groups for all-cause mortality (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.13) and cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.32). For trials conducted in North America, intensive therapy compared with standard glycemic control resulted in significantly higher all-cause mortality (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.40) and cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.90) than trials conducted in the rest of the world (all-cause mortality OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03; interaction P=0.006; cardiovascular mortality OR 0.89, 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.00; interaction P=0.007). Analysis of individual macro- and microvascular outcomes revealed no significant regional differences; however, the risk of severe hypoglycemia was significantly higher in trials of intensive therapy in North America (OR 3.52, 95% CI 3.07 to 4.03) compared with the rest of the world (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.47; interaction P=0.001). CONCLUSION: Randomization to intensive glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients was associated with increases in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and severe hypoglycemia in North America compared with the rest of the world. Further investigation into the pathobiology or patient variability underlying these findings is warranted.
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
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 | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".