Skip to main content
. 2022 Nov 16;13:1015045. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1015045

TABLE 6.

Summary of findings table.

Certainty assessment No of patients Effect Certainty Importance
No of studies Study design Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Other considerations BBR+placebo/OHAs placebo/OHAs Relative
(95% CI)
Absolute
(95% CI)
FPG
37 Randomized trials serious a not serious not serious not serious none 1544 1504 - MD 0.82 mmol/L lower(0.95 lower to 0.7 lower) ⊕⊕⊕○Moderate IMPORTANT
HbA1c
31 Randomized trials serious a not serious not serious not serious none 1352 1331 - MD 0.63 % lower(0.72 lower to 0.53 lower) ⊕⊕⊕○Moderate IMPORTANT
2hPBG
34 Randomized trials serious a not serious not serious not serious publication bias strongly suspected b 1454 1430 - MD 1.16 mmol/L lower
(1.36 lower to 0.96 lower)
⊕⊕○○Low IMPORTANT
Total adverse events
14 Randomized trials serious a not serious not serious not serious none 66/670 (9.9%) 89/651 (13.7%) RR 0.73
(0.55 to 0.97)
37 fewer per 1,000
(from 62 fewer to 4 fewer)
⊕⊕⊕○Moderate IMPORTANT
Hypoglycemia
2 Randomized trials serious a not serious not serious very serious c none 7/95 (7.4%) 15/91 (16.5%) RR 0.48
(0.21 to 1.08)
86 fewer per 1,000(from 130 fewer to 13 more) ⊕○○○Very low IMPORTANT

CI confidence interval, MD mean difference, RR risk ratio.

a

: Most information is from studies at low or unclear risk of bias. Potential limitations are likely to lower confidence in the estimate of effect.

b

: Egger's test showed that there was obvious publication bias.

c

: The optimal information size criterion is not met. The 95% CI overlaps no effect and fails to exclude important benefit.