Abe 2010.

Methods	Study design: open‐label parallel RCT Study time frame: not reported Duration of follow‐up: 24 weeks
Participants	Country: Japan Setting: single centre Inclusion criteria: HD patients with type 2 DM; poor glycaemic control (HbA1c ≥ 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) after 8 weeks on oral voglibose therapy of 0.9 mg daily Number: treatment group (18); control group (18) Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (67.0 ± 9.2). control group (66.0 ± 9.0) Sex (M/F): treatment group (11/7); control group (11/7) Exclusion criteria: deranged liver function at baseline; decompensated congestive heart failure; infectious disease; thyroid disease; malignant tumour; treatment with steroids
Interventions	Treatment group Oral mitiglinide: started with 5 mg 3 times/d before each meal. This dose was increased up to 10 mg 3 times/d if target HbA1c values < 6.5% (48 mmol were not reached after 12 weeks). Elderly HD patients (> 75 years) initially received 2.5 mg 3 times/d. The dose was escalated to 5 mg 3 times/d at week 12, if necessary. Voglibose: dose was reduced from 0.9 to 0.6 mg/d if necessary to avoid hypoglycaemia. On the other hand, if the physician judged that mitiglinide 5 mg 3 times/d presented a safety problem, its dose could be reduced to 2.5 mg 3 times/d or 2.5 mg 2 times/d in elderly patients. Treated for 24 weeks Control group Voglibose: 0.9 mg/d for 24 weeks
Outcomes	HbA1c, GA and plasma glucose levels were measured as the criteria for glycaemic control Insulin resistance was assessed using HOMA‐IR Plasma insulin Levels of Hb, total bilirubin, AST, ALT, lactate dehydrogenase, alkaline phosphatase, g‐GTP, total cholesterol, HDL and triglycerides Body weight before and after dialysis BMI CTR determined by radiographic examination of the chest Predialysis SBP and DBP
Notes	Funding source: "The author states that Kissei Pharmaceutical had no involvement the preparation/approval of the paper. However, Kissei Pharmaceutical have paid for the FastTrack prioritization of the manuscript and they are the developers of mitiglinide."
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	A computer‐generated list was used for randomisation.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Open‐label study
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Open‐label study
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No patients dropped out in either arm
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	The prespecified outcomes were not available on a clinical trials database
Other bias	Low risk	No conflicts of interest