Table 5.
Assessment of quality of evidence.
| Question: Should Jinlida plus Antidiabetics versus Antidiabetics be used in Antidiabetics? | |||||||||||
| Bibliography: Jinlida plus Antidiabetics versus Antidiabetics for T2DM | |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
| Quality assessment | Summary of Findings | ||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
| Participants (studies) Follow up |
Risk of bias |
Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Publication bias |
Overall quality of evidence |
Study event rates (%) | Relative Effect (95% CI) |
Anticipated absolute effects |
||
| With Control | With Jinlida Plus Antidiabetics |
Risk With Control |
Risk difference with Jinlida plus Antidiabetics (95% CI) |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
| HbA1C (CRITICAL OUTCOME: better indicated by higher values) | |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
| 1810 (15 studies) 12 weeks | no serious risk of bias1 | no serious inconsistency | no serious indirectness | no serious imprecision | undetected | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ HIGH1 | 902 | 908 | - | The mean hba1c in the intervention groups was 0.65 lower (0.73 to 0.56 lower) | |
|
| |||||||||||
| FBG (CRITICAL OUTCOME: better indicated by higher values) | |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
| 1820 (15 studies) 12 weeks | no serious risk of bias1 | no serious inconsistency | no serious indirectness | no serious imprecision | undetected | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ HIGH1 | 907 | 913 | - | The mean fbg in the intervention groups was 0.89 lower (1.08 to 0.7 lower) | |
|
| |||||||||||
| 2hPG (CRITICAL OUTCOME: better indicated by higher values) | |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
| 1820 (15 studies) 12 weeks | no serious risk of bias1 | no serious inconsistency | no serious indirectness | no serious imprecision | undetected | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ HIGH1 | 907 | 913 | - | The mean 2hpg in the intervention groups was 1.62 lower (1.93 to 1.32 lower) | |
|
| |||||||||||
| HOMA-β (IMPORTANT OUTCOME: better indicated by lower values) | |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
| 992 (7 studies) 12 weeks | serious1 | no serious inconsistency | no serious indirectness | no serious imprecision1 | reporting bias strongly suspected | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW1 due to risk of bias, publication bias | 499 | 493 | - | The mean homa-β in the intervention groups was 0.5 lower (0.62 to 0.37 lower) | |
|
| |||||||||||
| Question: Should Jinlida plus Antidiabetics versus Antidiabetics be used in Antidiabetics? | |||||||||||
| Bibliography: Jinlida plus Antidiabetics versus Antidiabetics for T2DM | |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
| Quality assessment | Summary of Findings | ||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
| Participants (studies) Follow up |
Risk of bias |
Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Publication bias |
Overall quality of evidence |
Study event rates (%) | Relative Effect (95% CI) |
Anticipated absolute effects |
||
| With Control |
With Jinlida Plus Antidiabetics |
Risk With Control |
Risk difference with Jinlida plus Antidiabetics (95% CI) |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
| HOMA-IR (IMPORTANT OUTCOME: better indicated by lower values) | |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
| 1084 (8 studies) 12 weeks | serious1 | no serious inconsistency | no serious indirectness1 | no serious imprecision1 | reporting bias strongly suspected | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW1 due to risk of bias, publication bias | 539 | 545 | - | The mean homa-ir in the intervention groups was 1.82 lower (3.1 to 0.54 lower) | |
|
| |||||||||||
| BMI (IMPORTANT OUTCOME: better indicated by lower values) | |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
| 686 (5 studies) 12 weeks | serious1 | no serious inconsistency | no serious indirectness | no serious imprecision1 | reporting bias strongly suspected | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW1 due to risk of bias, publication bias | 343 | 343 | - | The mean bmi in the intervention groups was 1.07 lower (2.08 to 0.06 lower) | |
1No explanation was provided.