Items		(1) All‐cause mortality	(2) Health‐related quality of life	(3) Severe hypoglycaemia	(4) Non‐fatal myocardial infarction/stroke	(5) Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia	(6) Serious adverse events	(7) HbA1c
Study limitations (risk of bias)a	Overall risk of bias	Low risk	Some concerns	Low risk	Low risk / low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk
Inconsistencyb	Point estimates did not vary widely?	NA	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	Yes	Yes
	To what extent did confidence intervals overlap (substantial: all confidence intervals overlap at least one of the included studies point estimate; some: confidence intervals overlap but not all overlap at least one point estimate; no: at least one outlier: where the confidence interval of some of the studies do not overlap with those of most included studies)?			Substantial		Substantial	Substantial	Some
	Was the direction of effect consistent?			Yes		Yes	Yes	Yes
	What was the magnitude of statistical heterogeneity (as measured by I²) ‐ low (I² < 40%), moderate (I² 40%‐60%), high I² > 60%)?			Low		Low	Low	Low
	Was the test for heterogeneity statistically significant (P < 0.1)?			Not statistically significant		Not statistically significant	Not statistically significant	Not statistically significant
Indirectness	Were the populations in included studies applicable to the decision context?	Highly applicable	Highly applicable	Highly applicable	Highly applicable	Highly applicable	Highly applicable	Highly applicable
	Were the interventions in the included studies applicable to the decision context?	Highly applicable	Highly applicable	Highly applicable	Highly applicable	Highly applicable	Highly applicable	Highly applicable
	Was the included outcome not a surrogate outcome?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No (↓)
	Was the outcome timeframe sufficient?	No (↓)	Yes	Yes	No (↓)	Yes	Yes	Yes
	Were the conclusions based on direct comparisons?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Imprecisionc	Was the confidence interval for the pooled estimate not consistent with benefit and harm?	NA	NA	No (↓)	NA	No (↓)	No (↓)	No (↓)
	What is the magnitude of the median sample size (high: 300 participants, intermediate: 100‐300 participants, low: < 100 participants)?e	Intermediate	Intermediate	Intermediate	Intermediate	Intermediate	Intermediate	Intermediate
	What was the magnitude of the number of included studies (large: > 10 studies, moderate: 5‐10 studies, small: < 5 studies)?e	Small (↓)	Small (↓)	Small (↓)	Small (↓)	Small (↓)	Small (↓)	Small (↓)
	Was the outcome a common event (e.g. occurs more than 1/100)?	No (↓)	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	Yes	NA
Publication biasd	Was a comprehensive search conducted?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
	Was grey literature searched?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
	Were no restrictions applied to study selection on the basis of language?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
	There was no industry influence on studies included in the review?	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
	There was no evidence of funnel plot asymmetry?	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
	There was no discrepancy in findings between published and unpublished studies?	NA	NA	NA	NA	Yes	NA	Yes
aRisk of bias was addressed by the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool (RoB 2). bQuestions on inconsistency are primarily based on visual assessment of forest plots and prediction intervals. cWhen judging the width of the confidence interval, it is recommended to use a clinical decision threshold to assess whether the imprecision is clinically meaningful. dQuestions address comprehensiveness of the search strategy, industry influence, funnel plot asymmetry and discrepancies between published and unpublished studies. eDepends on the context of the systematic review area. (↓): key item for potential downgrading the certainty of the evidence (GRADE) as shown in the footnotes of the 'Summary of finding' table(s). HbA1c: glycosylated haemoglobin A1c;NA: not applicable.