Reviews and reports
- Salt reduction is beneficial for people with Type 2 diabetes
- Pioglitazone raises risk of bladder cancer by 63%
- Diabetes 2015 – Care in Crisis
- Diabetic Retinopathy
- People with diabetes not offered dietary advice
- Medication errors in hospitals
- First ever mandatory care standards to improve the level of care of children and young people with diabetes
- Insulin Analogues and Cancer – A Possible Link That Needs Further Investigation
- The Safety of Insulin Analogues – should patients be concerned?
- Bellagio Report
- Health Select Committee – IDDT gives evidence
- Warnings about ‘human’ insulin from the manufactuers, Novo Nordisk and Aventis
- Zyban – Safety precautions from the Committee on Safety of Medicines
- Novo Nordisk discontinue some GM ‘human’ insulins
- IQWiG: No proof long-acting insulin analogues outperform human insulin for Type 2 diabetes
- Cochrane Review – long-acting analogues vs NPH insulin in Type 2 diabetes
- IQWiG: Short-acting insulin analogues are not superior to regular ‘human’ insulin in Type 2 diabetes
- IQWiG: Rapid-acting analogues are not superior to ‘human’ insulin for Type 1 diabetes
- About IQWiG
- Cochrane review of short-acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin in patients with diabetes mellitus
- Cochrane review of ‘human’ vs animal insulin
- About Cochrane Reviews
- Insulin – A Voice for Choice By Arthur Teuscher
About Cochrane Reviews
Information about the Cochrane Collaboration and systematic reviews
It is an international non-profit organisation that aims to help people make informed decisions about health care by reviewing and promoting the best available evidence from research on the effects of various treatments. The Collaboration also aims to influence what the direction of future research by identifying areas where more research is needed.
We are all aware that some health care treatments make you better, some don’t and sometimes the treatment can be even worse than the condition. Sometimes it seems as though a drug/treatment worked, but really the benefit came from something else or maybe you would have just got better anyway. So both patients and doctors need good evidence from research to know the effects of a drug or treatment in order to decide whether we should try it. This also applies to decision-making bodies, such as the NHS.
How is this good evidence acquired?
However good individual studies maybe, they are often carried out on specific groups of people or on small numbers so the results cannot be extended to assume that the effects of the treatment will be the same for everyone with a particular condition. Publication bias also creeps in as a great deal of good research is not published and so we are not receiving the complete picture.
Cochrane groups carry out systematic searches for all the studies on a topic and then sort out which are the good quality studies [randomised controlled trials or RCTs]. Conclusions can then be drawn that give a much more complete picture of whether or not a drug/treatment is effective. A review may show that there is no evidence to support a particular drug/treatment or that little or no good quality research has been carried out. This is equally important because it means that the use or prescribing of that drug/treatment is not based on proven benefit from research.