DPP-4 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a methodology overview of systematic reviews

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
Number of systematic reviews included	63
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.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	No