Skip to the main content
Open WellbeingWhat the studies actually measured

Blood sugar and insulin

Biotin (vitamin B7)and Fasting plasma glucose

Both sources here found no clear difference in fasting plasma glucose.

How sure anyone can be

Low certainty, level 2 of 4

Further research is likely to change this.

The most certain of the two findings here; each record carries its own.

The numbers reported

One source’s range, drawn against its own line of no difference and scaled to its own numbers.

-2.73-1.21 mmol/L0.31

This range crosses the no-difference line, so these numbers fit a real difference and no difference at all equally well.

Bar the confidence interval — the range the true effect is likely to sit inNotch the number the source reportedLine where there would be no difference at all

Two sources, newest first

What we read is the published abstract, not the full paper, so a blank below may still be printed in the paper itself. A fixed rule worked this out from the source’s own fields. Nobody checked this rating by hand.

  • Systematic review, 2022

    Low certainty, level 2 of 4

    Influence of biotin intervention on glycemic control and lipid profile in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

    Front Nutr. 2022;9:1046800. doi:10.3389/fnut.2022.1046800. PMID:36386951.

    Number reported
    -1.21 mmol/L
    Which way it went
    No clear difference
    Likely range
    -2.73 to 0.31
    Source’s own words
    mmol/L fasting blood glucose, mean difference vs control
    Who was studied
    Adult with type 2 diabetes
    Compared with
    control arm of randomised trials
    Amount taken
    Not in the abstract
    For how long
    28 to 90 days
    Disagreement between studies
    Not in the abstract
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 2 steps down: risk of bias and imprecision
    1. Starts at High
    2. Risk of bias brought it down to Moderatethe abstract reports no risk-of-bias or quality appraisal, so study limitations cannot be ruled outNot in the abstract
    3. Imprecision brought it down to Lowthe confidence interval includes no effectReported in the abstract
    4. Ends at Low2 steps down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    indirectness
    Inconsistency
    No disagreement reported, and no count of studies behind it

    Imprecision stops at the first check that applies; others may apply too.

    AI review could not confirm it — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and at least one check failed. The batch record names the check and quotes the sentence that caused the doubt. No person read it.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

  • Randomised trial, 2006

    Very low certainty, level 1 of 4

    Biotin supplementation reduces plasma triacylglycerol and VLDL in type 2 diabetic patients and in nondiabetic subjects with hypertriglyceridemia.

    Biomed Pharmacother. 2006;60(4):182-5. doi:10.1016/j.biopha.2006.03.005. PMID:16677798.

    Number reported
    Not in the abstract
    Which way it went
    No clear difference
    Likely range
    Not in the abstract
    Source’s own words
    not reported
    Who was studied
    Adult with type 2 diabetes or hypertriglyceridemia
    Compared with
    placebo
    Amount taken
    61.4 µmol/d
    For how long
    28 days
    Disagreement between studies
    Not in the abstract
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 3 steps down: risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision
    1. Starts at High
    2. Risk of bias brought it down to Moderatethe abstract reports no risk-of-bias or quality appraisal, so study limitations cannot be ruled outNot in the abstract
    3. Indirectness brought it down to Lowthe outcome measured is a proxy for the target outcomeReported in the abstract
    4. Imprecision brought it down to Very lowthe abstract reports no confidence interval for the estimateNot in the abstract
    5. Ends at Very low3 steps down.
    Inconsistency
    One study, so there was nothing to disagree

    Imprecision stops at the first check that applies; others may apply too.

    AI-reviewed & signed — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and checked that the quote, the numbers, the units and the direction match it. No person read it. The owner authorised the agent to sign the batch with the owner's key, and every build rechecks that signature against these exact bytes.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

What is still missing from these readings

  • One give no number at all, only which way it went.
  • One gives no likely range, so how precise that number is is unknown.
  • Two do not say how many people took part.
  • Amount taken — One of Two readings: Not in the abstract.

Something nobody wrote down is never a zero and never a guess.

Still to read for Biotin (vitamin B7)

Four of the 13 things on our list for Biotin (vitamin B7) have no reading here yet:

  • Fasting insulin
  • Hair growth rate
  • Hepatic Fat Fraction
  • Vitamin B7 (Biotin)

Still to read means nobody here has got to it, not that it was tried and did nothing or that no research exists. A pairing on no list is not a gap: we never set out to read it.

Read next

This is a library, not advice. No recommendation, no dose, no diagnosis, no ranking. We never ask about your symptoms, and nothing here is tailored to you.