Abstract
Background: We sought to investigate the methodological and reporting quality of published systematic reviews describing randomized controlled trials in type 2 diabetes mellitus and analyze their association with status of protocol registration.Methods: We searched the PubMed database and identified non-Cochrane systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, reporting on type 2 diabetes mellitus and published between 2005 and 2018. We then randomly selected 20% of these reviews in each year, and performed methodological and reporting quality assessment using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Review 2 (AMSTAR-2) checklist and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. We also conducted regression analyses to explore the association between characteristics of systematic reviews and AMSTAR-2 or PRISMA scores.Results: A total of 238 systematic reviews, including 33 registered and 205 non-registered articles, met the inclusion criteria and were subsequently reviewed. Analysis indicated an increase in both registered rates and quality of systematic reviews in type 2 diabetes mellitus over the recent years. With regards to methodological and reporting quality, we found higher scores in registered, relative to non-registered reviews (AMSTAR-2 mean score: 18.0 vs. 14.5, P = 0.000; PRISMA mean score: 20.4 vs. 17.6, P = 0.000). AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA scores were associated with registration status, country of the first author, and statistical results, whereas the proportion of discussing publication bias and reporting funding sources were <40% for both registered and non-registered systematic reviews.Conclusions: Methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in type 2 diabetes mellitus indicates an improvement in the recent years. However, the overall quality remains low, necessitating further improvement. Future studies are expected to pay more attention to prospective registration, description of publication bias and reporting of funding sources.
Highlights
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is one of the most common chronic diseases in the world [1]
We explored potential aspects for improving systematic reviews (SRs) quality on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in T2DM, which may provide some advice for future reviewers
SR articles, with or without meta-analysis data that met the following criteria were included in our study: [1] had RCTs that explored safety and efficacy of interventions related to T2DM; and [2] were published in English, between 2005 and 2018
Summary
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is one of the most common chronic diseases in the world [1]. To explore safety and efficacy of new interventions for managing the disease, many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted. Many trials investigating the same intervention have reported conflicting results, necessitating systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses. The publication of articles reporting SRs were about 2,500 in 2004 [2], and by 2014 they had increased by 3-fold to more than 8,000 [3]. Methodological and reporting quality in many of these reviews and meta-analyses remain unclear. We sought to investigate the methodological and reporting quality of published systematic reviews describing randomized controlled trials in type 2 diabetes mellitus and analyze their association with status of protocol registration
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
