|
| HECM + drugs compared to drugs for diabetes |
| Patient or population: diabetes |
| Setting: community |
| Intervention: HECM + drugs |
| Comparison: drugs |
Outcome
No. of participants (studies) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) | Certainty |
| Control | HECM | Difference |
Fast glucose (FPG)
No. of participants: 356 (4 RCTs) | — | The mean fast glucose was 7.70 mmol/L | — | MD 1.26 mmol/L lower
(1.46 lower to 1.06 lower) | ⊕○○○
Very lowa,b |
2 h postprandial plasma glucose
No. of participants: 446 (5 RCTs) | — | The mean 2 h postprandial plasma glucose was 11.71 mmol/L | — | MD 2.24 mmol/L lower
(2.7 lower to 1.77 lower) | ⊕○○○
Very lowa,b,c |
| GRADE working group grades of evidence |
| High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. |
| Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate. The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. |
| Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited. The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. |
| Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate. The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. |
| Explanations |
| (a) Most of the trials had an unclear risk of selection bias, detective bias, and other bias, all of them had a high risk of performance bias. |
| (b) All of the trials published in China with positive results and small sample size. |
| (c) There was potential statistical heterogeneity among trials (I-square value more than 40%). |
|
