| Ref ID | 101 |
| First Author | J. Ling |
| Journal | ACTA DIABETOLOGICA |
| Year Of Publishing | 2019 |
| URL | https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00592-018-1164-5.pdf |
| Keywords |
• Endocrinology • Risk of bias • Low reporting quality • Publication bias • Grey literature • Protocols |
| Problem(s) |
• Poor consideration of publication bias • No quality assessment undertaken or reported • Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed • Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review • Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided • No registered or published protocol • Grey literature excluded • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | China |
| Checklists |
• AMSTAR 1 • GRADE |
| Aim | To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR) of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4-I) in treating type 2 diabetes mellitus published across several databases from inception to January 2018. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | Only seven (11.1%) of the 63 included systematic reviews of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes mellitus scored more than nine points in AMSTAR. The lowest quality items were “a list of studies (included and excluded)” with only one (1.6%) review fulfilling, followed by the “providing a priori design” item with only four (6.3%) systematic reviews conforming; the next were “the status of publication (gray literature) used as an inclusion criterion item”, with only 18 (28.9%) reviews conforming. Eight studies did not use a quality scoring tool or checklist and nine reviews did not consider the methodological rigor and scientific quality in the analysis and the conclusions of the review. 45.3% of systematic reviews did not assess the likelihood of publication bias. 41 systematic reviews acknowledged potential sources of support and sources of funding. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 63 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 894 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |