Items		(1) Resolution of symptoms	(2) Time to resolution of symptoms	(3) Blood or plasma glucose concentration at 20 minutes	(4) Resolution of hypoglycaemia	(5) Time to resolution of hypoglycaemia	(6) Adverse events	(7)Treatment delay
Indirectness	Were the populations in included studies applicable to the decision context?	NA	NA	Poorly applicable (↓)	NA	NA	NA	NA
	Were the interventions in the included studies applicable to the decision context?			Applicable
	Was the included outcome not a surrogate outcome?			Yes
	Was the outcome timeframe sufficient?			Sufficient
	Were the conclusions based on direct comparisons?			Yes
Imprecisiona	What is the magnitude of the median sample size (high: 300 participants, intermediate: 100‐300 participants, low: < 100 participants)?e			Low (↓)
	What was the magnitude of the number of included studies (large: > 10 studies, moderate: 5‐10 studies, small: < 5 studies)?e			Small (↓)
	Was the outcome a common event (e.g. occurs more than 1/100)?			Yes
Publication biasb	Was a comprehensive search conducted?			Yes
	Was grey literature searched?			Yes
	Were no restrictions applied to study selection on the basis of language?			Yes
	There was no industry influence on studies included in the review?			Yes
aWhen judging the width of the confidence interval it is recommended to use a clinical decision threshold to assess whether the imprecision is clinically meaningful. bQuestions address comprehensiveness of the search strategy, industry influence, funnel plot asymmetry and discrepancies between published and unpublished trials. (↓): key item for potential downgrading the certainty of the evidence (GRADE) as shown in the footnotes of the 'Summary of finding' table(s); NA: not applicable