Efficacy and safety of oral insulin compared to subcutaneous insulin: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventional studies was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of oral insulin versus subcutaneous (SC) insulin in diabetic patients. METHODS: Medline, Scopus, ISI Web of Knowledge and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Two independent reviewers evaluated studies for eligibility and quality and extracted the data. The primary outcomes were fasting blood glucose (FBG), 1h and 2h postprandial blood glucose, HbA1c, AUC of insulin, C max and T max of insulin, and T max of glucose infusion rate. Secondary outcomes were adverse events. RESULTS: Eleven studies (n = 373) met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses showed that there is no significant difference between oral and SC insulin in controlling HbA1c, FBG, 1 and 2 h postprandial blood glucose and producing C max of insulin (P > 0.05); however oral insulin had faster action as indicated by the shorter T max, compared to SC insulin (P < 0.05). The most included studies were varied in their methodological quality. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that oral insulin is comparable to SC insulin with regard to glycemic efficacy and safety. However, is necessary to conduct additional studies in which oral insulin administered to large number of patients for long enough periods of time.

The validity and reliability of the functional rating index for evaluating low back pain in athletes.

The purpose of the present study was to determine the reliability and validity of the Functional Rating Index (FRI) for athletes with low back pain (LBP). In this cross-sectional and prospective cohort study, the validated Persian FRI (PFRI) was tested in 100 athletes with LBP and 50 healthy athletes. From the athletes with LBP, data were recollected among 50 athletes with a 7-day interval to examine test-retest reliability. The content validity was excellent, and the athletes with LBP responded to all items with no floor or ceiling effects. The discriminative validity was supported by a statistically significant difference in PFRI total scores between the athletes with LBP and healthy athletes. The concurrent criterion validity was good (rho = 0.72). The construct, convergent validity was good (r = 0.83). The internal consistency reliability estimate was high (Cronbach's α = 0.90). Factor analysis demonstrated a single-factor structure with an explained variance of 52.22%. The test-retest reliability was excellent, indicated by an ICC(agreement) of 0.97, and the agreement observed in the Bland and Altman plot demonstrated no systematic bias. It is concluded that the PFRI has excellent psychometric properties for assessing athletes with LBP.