Background: The dose-wise variation in sodium-glucose co-transporter inhibitor (SGLTi) treated type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) patients' safety profile remains poorly understood. Aim: Therefore, this study aims to study it. Method: A database search occurred in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases for double-blinded randomized controlled trials reporting the above outcomes. The risk of bias assessment of the reviewed RCTs happened using the Cochrane tool. Pairwise random-effect meta-analysis (DerSimonian and Laird method) was used to compare SGLTis’ safety between its mega (maximum dose in which it got tested in the reviewed trials) and low dosages and between SGLTi dosage irrespectively and placebo. The relative safety between respective and different generic SGLTi dosages was contrasted by network meta-analysis (NMA). The NMA models included double-blinded RCTs' data and excluded pooled safety data from RCTs with different follow-up duration to reduce the intransitivity risk. Effect-sizes got estimated in risk ratio (RR). The statistical significance estimation occurred at p<0.05 and 95% confidence interval (CI). Stata software, v16, was used for analysis. Results: This review incorporated fifteen studies sourcing data from 7,330 participants from 120 countries. The risk of bias among these studies was primarily low. Dose irrespectively SGLTis increased the risk of any adverse event-led study discontinuation (RR: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.04-1.93; I2: 14.8%), genital infection (RR: 3.18; 95% CI: 2.48-4.09; I2: 0%), and diabetic ketoacidosis (RR: 2.40; 95% CI: 1.23-4.64; I2: 27.4%). The mega and low doses were indifferent safety-wise. On NMA, compared to the respective different generic SGLT type 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), the risk of any side effect, any adverse event-led study discontinuation, documented hypoglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, and urinary tract infection were lower with 2.5 mg empagliflozin, 50 mg ipragliflozin, 2.5 mg dapagliflozin, 10 mg dapagliflozin, and 50 mg ipragliflozin, respectively. The surface under the cumulative ranking curves for outcomes with statistically significant differences between two SGLT2i dosages supported these findings chiefly. Supplementary NMA that included trials of identical follow-up duration or mechanism of action closely replicated the preliminary NMA findings. Discussion: Using the GRADE Working Group’s (2004) approach, the statistically significant findings from all direct pairwise and indirect NMA comparisons were downgraded to moderate and low-quality evidence, respectively. The key strengths of this review include its comprehensive database search strategy, incorporation of double-blinded RCTs only (highest level of epidemiological evidence), and the intransitivity risk reduction strategies. Its main limitations include the poor representation of certain SGLTis tested by fewer trials (e.g., canagliflozin), a few unclear risks of bias components in the reviewed trials, and dependence of relative safety between two generic SGLT2i-dosages on indirect NMA comparisons. Regarding its implication, besides providing SGLTi-associated safety information, it will plausibly aid physicians in choosing T1DM patient-specific generic SGLTi type and dosage. Also, it emphasizes the need for different generic SGLTi-based multi-arm RCTs. To conclude, SGLTi treatment increases any adverse event-led study discontinuation, genital infection, and ketoacidosis risk in T1DM patients; however, the safety profile doesn't vary between its mega and low dosages. A relatively safer SGLTi dosage is available to ensure individualized diabetes care for specific SGLTi-dosage-related side effects in T1DM patients.