Zouxi Du1,2, Tingting Lu3, Mingdong Gao4,2, Limin Tian5,6,7. 1. The First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China. 2. Clinical Research Center for Metabolic Diseases, The Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, 730000, China. 3. Institution of Clinical Research and Evidence-Based Medicine, The Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, 730000, China. 4. Department Pediatrics, The Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, 730000, China. 5. The First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China. tlm7066@sina.com. 6. Department of Endocrinology, The Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, 730000, China. tlm7066@sina.com. 7. Clinical Research Center for Metabolic Diseases, The Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, 730000, China. tlm7066@sina.com.
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of relevant systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) on Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4I) for Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: Relevant SRs and MAs on T2DM and DPP-4I published between 2017 and November 2021 were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, VIP, CNKI, CBM, and WanFang databases. Two independent reviewers performed the search, selection, and data extraction. The reporting and methodological quality of the reviewers was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) tools. The relationship between reporting and methodological quality score was assessed with the Spearman correlation test. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies involving 151,715 participants were included in the study. This overview showed that DPP-4I was safer and more efficacious than other anti-hyperglycemic drugs (OADs) in treating T2DM. The methodological quality of one SR was low, while the rest were very low. Thus, refinements are needed in the quality of protocol and registration information, a complete search strategy, the summary of the evidence, the listing of excluded studies, assessing the potential impact of risk of bias in RCTs, and discussing the RoB on MA results, and the funding of RCTs need improvement for generating SR. In addition, the reporting and methodological quality scores were moderately correlated (rS = 0.66, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: DPP-4I is safer and more efficacious than OADs in treating T2DM. However, the reporting and methodological quality of the related SRs was unsatisfactory. Therefore, PRISMA and AMSTAR 2 analyses should be followed to enhance the overall quality of future SRs.
AIMS: To evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of relevant systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) on Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4I) for Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: Relevant SRs and MAs on T2DM and DPP-4I published between 2017 and November 2021 were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, VIP, CNKI, CBM, and WanFang databases. Two independent reviewers performed the search, selection, and data extraction. The reporting and methodological quality of the reviewers was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) tools. The relationship between reporting and methodological quality score was assessed with the Spearman correlation test. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies involving 151,715 participants were included in the study. This overview showed that DPP-4I was safer and more efficacious than other anti-hyperglycemic drugs (OADs) in treating T2DM. The methodological quality of one SR was low, while the rest were very low. Thus, refinements are needed in the quality of protocol and registration information, a complete search strategy, the summary of the evidence, the listing of excluded studies, assessing the potential impact of risk of bias in RCTs, and discussing the RoB on MA results, and the funding of RCTs need improvement for generating SR. In addition, the reporting and methodological quality scores were moderately correlated (rS = 0.66, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: DPP-4I is safer and more efficacious than OADs in treating T2DM. However, the reporting and methodological quality of the related SRs was unsatisfactory. Therefore, PRISMA and AMSTAR 2 analyses should be followed to enhance the overall quality of future SRs.
Authors: M M Gabir; R L Hanson; D Dabelea; G Imperatore; J Roumain; P H Bennett; W C Knowler Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Mohammad Hassan Murad; Victor M Montori; John P A Ioannidis; Roman Jaeschke; P J Devereaux; Kameshwar Prasad; Ignacio Neumann; Alonso Carrasco-Labra; Thomas Agoritsas; Rose Hatala; Maureen O Meade; Peter Wyer; Deborah J Cook; Gordon Guyatt Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jimmy T Le; Riaz Qureshi; Claire Twose; Lori Rosman; Genie Han; Kolade Fapohunda; Ian J Saldanha; Roberta W Scherer; Flora Lum; Ali Al-Rajhi; David C Musch; Barbara S Hawkins; Kay Dickersin; Tianjing Li Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 7.389