1. Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis with protocols in Diabetes Mellitus Type II: A systematic review
- Author
-
Nada Nabil Abdelkader, Zeinab Salman Abedini, and Daniel Rainkie
- Subjects
Research Report ,bias ,Physiology ,reporting standards ,Type 2 diabetes ,Database and Informatics Methods ,Endocrinology ,Medical Conditions ,Mathematical and Statistical Techniques ,systematic review ,Medicine and Health Sciences ,Database Searching ,Methodological quality ,Multidisciplinary ,Statistics ,Diabetes mellitus type II ,Research Assessment ,Metaanalysis ,Type 2 Diabetes ,Systematic review ,Physiological Parameters ,Meta-analysis ,Physical Sciences ,Research Reporting Guidelines ,Medicine ,Guideline Adherence ,type 2 diabetes ,Research Article ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Systematic Reviews ,Endocrine Disorders ,Science ,MEDLINE ,Research and Analysis Methods ,Bias ,Diabetes mellitus ,Diabetes Mellitus ,medicine ,Humans ,Obesity ,Statistical Methods ,Diabetic Endocrinology ,Data collection ,business.industry ,Body Weight ,Biology and Life Sciences ,medicine.disease ,Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 ,Metabolic Disorders ,Family medicine ,business ,Mathematics ,Systematic Reviews as Topic - Abstract
Background Systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses (SR/MAs) are strongly encouraged to work from a protocol to facilitate high quality, transparent methodology. The completeness of reporting of a protocol (PRISMA-P) and manuscript (PRISMA) is essential to the quality appraisal (AMSTAR-2) and appropriate use of SR/MAs in making treatment decisions. Objectives The objectives of this study were to describe the completeness of reporting and quality of SR/MAs, assess the correlations between PRISMA-P, PRISMA, and AMSTAR-2, and to identify reporting characteristics between similar items of PRISMA-P and PRISMA. Methods We performed a systematic review of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus SR/MAs of hypoglycemic agents with publicly available protocols. Cochrane reviews, guidelines, and specific types of MA were excluded. Two reviewers independently, (i) searched PubMed and Embase between 1/1/2015 to 20/3/2019; (ii) identified protocols of included studies by searching the manuscript bibliography, supplementary material, PROSPERO, and Google; (iii) completed PRISMA-P, PRISMA, and AMSTAR-2 tools. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and multivariable linear regression. Results Of 357 relevant SR/MAs, 51 had available protocols and were included. The average score for PRISMA-P was 15.8±3.3 (66%; maximum 24) and 25.2±1.1 (93%; maximum 27) for PRISMA. The quality of SR/MAs assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool identified an overall poor quality (63% critically low, 18% low, 8% moderate, 12% high). The correlation between the PRISMA-P and PRISMA was not significant (r = 0.264; p = 0.06). Correlation was significant between PRISMA-P and AMSTAR-2 (r = 0.333; p = 0.02) and PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 (r = 0.555; p Conclusion Adherence to protocol reporting guidance was poor while manuscript reporting was comprehensive. Protocol completeness is not associated with a completely reported manuscript. Independently, PRISMA-P and PRISMA scores were weakly associated with higher quality assessments but insufficient as a surrogate for quality. Critical areas for quality improvement include protocol description, investigating causes of heterogeneity, and the impact of risk of bias on the evidence synthesis.
- Published
- 2020