Effectiveness of antidiabetic agents for treatment of gestational diabetes: A methodological quality assessment of meta-analyses and network meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Aims/introduction
Despite there being several meta-analyses on the effects of antidiabetic agents in patients with gestational diabetes mellitus, the reliability of their findings is a concern, mainly due to undetermined methodological quality of these studies. This study aimed to assess the methodological quality of available meta-analyses and provide a summary estimation of the effectiveness of treatments modalities.Materials and methods
PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases were comprehensively searched for retrieving relevant meta-analyses published in English up to May 2020. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) was applied to evaluate methodological quality of eligible meta-analyses. A network meta-analysis was used to calculate the pooled odds ratio of maternal and neonatal outcomes in gestational diabetes mellitus patients treated with metformin or glyburide compared with those treated with insulin. The rank network analysis was carried out for ranking of the treatments and reporting the most efficient treatment.Results
A total of 27 and 17 studies were included for qualitative and quantitative syntheses, respectively; of these, just four studies were classified as high quality. The results showed that metformin had the highest probability of being the best treatment, compared with insulin and glyburide, for the majority of adverse neonatal outcomes, whereas glyburide was the best treatment in reducing the risk of adverse maternal outcomes. The results were not significantly changed after excluding low-quality studies.Conclusions
This review study of available literature shows that metformin can be a superior option in most neonatal and maternal adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with gestational diabetes mellitus; the results need to be further updated by including future more qualified studies.
SUBMITTER: Bidhendi Yarandi R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8668072 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeTo assess the overall quality of published urological meta-analyses and identify predictive factors for high quality.Materials and methodsWe systematically searched PubMed to identify meta-analyses published from January 1st, 2011 to December 31st, 2015 in 10 predetermined major paper-based urology journals. The characteristics of the included meta-analyses were collected, and their reporting and methodological qualities were assessed by the PRISMA checklist (27 items) and AMSTAR tool (11 items), respectively. Descriptive statistics were used for individual items as a measure of overall compliance, and PRISMA and AMSTAR scores were calculated as the sum of adequately reported domains. Logistic regression was used to identify predictive factors for high qualities.ResultsA total of 183 meta-analyses were included. The mean PRISMA and AMSTAR scores were 22.74 ± 2.04 and 7.57 ± 1.41, respectively. PRISMA item 5, protocol and registration, items 15 and 22, risk of bias across studies, items 16 and 23, additional analysis had less than 50% adherence. AMSTAR item 1, "a priori" design, item 5, list of studies and item 10, publication bias had less than 50% adherence. Logistic regression analyses showed that funding support and "a priori" design were associated with superior reporting quality, following PRISMA guideline and "a priori" design were associated with superior methodological quality.ConclusionsReporting and methodological qualities of recently published meta-analyses in major paper-based urology journals are generally good. Further improvement could potentially be achieved by strictly adhering to PRISMA guideline and having "a priori" protocol.
| S-EPMC5399869 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProbiotics are widely used for the induction and maintenance of remission in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and pouchitis. There are a large number of meta-analyses (MAs)/ systematic reviews (SRs) on this subject, the methodological quality of which has not been evaluated.ObjectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of and summarize the evidence obtained from MAs/SRs of probiotic treatments for IBD and pouchitis patients.MethodsThe PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were searched to identify Chinese and English language MAs/SRs of the use of probiotics for IBD and pouchitis. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies.ResultsA total of 36 MAs/SRs were evaluated. The AMSTAR scores of the included studies ranged from 1 to 10, and the average score was 5.81. According to the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 4 articles were classified as high quality, 24 articles were classified as moderate quality, and 8 articles were classified as low quality. Most of the MAs/SRs suggested that probiotics had potential benefits for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), but failed to show effectiveness in the induction and maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease (CD). The probiotic preparation VSL#3 may play a beneficial role in pouchitis.ConclusionThe overall methodological quality of the current MAs/SRs in the field of probiotics for IBD and pouchitis was found to be low to moderate. More MAs/SRs of high quality are required to support using probiotics to treat IBD and pouchitis.
| S-EPMC5179087 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine how the results of network meta-analyses are reported.DesignMethodological systematic review of published reports of network meta-analyses.Data sourcesCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Medline, and Embase, searched from inception to 12 July 2012.Study selectionAll network meta-analyses comparing the clinical efficacy of three or more interventions in randomised controlled trials were included, excluding meta-analyses with an open loop network of three interventions.Data extraction and synthesisThe reporting of the network and results was assessed. A composite outcome included the description of the network (number of interventions, direct comparisons, and randomised controlled trials and patients for each comparison) and the reporting of effect sizes derived from direct evidence, indirect evidence, and the network meta-analysis.Results121 network meta-analyses (55 published in general journals; 48 funded by at least one private source) were included. The network and its geometry (network graph) were not reported in 100 (83%) articles. The effect sizes derived from direct evidence, indirect evidence, and the network meta-analysis were not reported in 48 (40%), 108 (89%), and 43 (36%) articles, respectively. In 52 reports that ranked interventions, 43 did not report the uncertainty in ranking. Overall, 119 (98%) reports of network meta-analyses did not give a description of the network or effect sizes from direct evidence, indirect evidence, and the network meta-analysis. This finding did not differ by journal type or funding source.ConclusionsThe results of network meta-analyses are heterogeneously reported. Development of reporting guidelines to assist authors in writing and readers in critically appraising reports of network meta-analyses is timely.
| S-EPMC3949412 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Moderate-to-severe psoriasis is associated with significant comorbidity, an impaired quality of life, and increased medical costs, including those associated with treatments. Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of randomized clinical trials are considered two of the best approaches to the summarization of high-quality evidence. However, methodological bias can reduce the validity of conclusions from these types of studies and subsequently impair the quality of decision making. As co-authorship is among the most well-documented forms of research collaboration, the present study aimed to explore whether authors' collaboration methods might influence the methodological quality of SRs and MAs of psoriasis. Methodological quality was assessed by two raters who extracted information from full articles. After calculating total and per-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scores, reviews were classified as low (0-4), medium (5-8), or high (9-11) quality. Article metadata and journal-related bibliometric indices were also obtained. A total of 741 authors from 520 different institutions and 32 countries published 220 reviews that were classified as high (17.2%), moderate (55%), or low (27.7%) methodological quality. The high methodological quality subnetwork was larger but had a lower connection density than the low and moderate methodological quality subnetworks; specifically, the former contained relatively fewer nodes (authors and reviews), reviews by authors, and collaborators per author. Furthermore, the high methodological quality subnetwork was highly compartmentalized, with several modules representing few poorly interconnected communities. In conclusion, structural differences in author-paper affiliation network may influence the methodological quality of SRs and MAs on psoriasis. As the author-paper affiliation network structure affects study quality in this research field, authors who maintain an appropriate balance between scientific quality and productivity are more likely to develop higher quality reviews.
| S-EPMC5389828 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Because of the methodological complexity of network meta-analyses (NMAs), NMAs may be more vulnerable to methodological risks than conventional pair-wise meta-analysis. Our study aims to investigate epidemiology characteristics, conduction of literature search, methodological quality and reporting of statistical analysis process in the field of cancer based on PRISMA extension statement and modified AMSTAR checklist. We identified and included 102 NMAs in the field of cancer. 61 NMAs were conducted using a Bayesian framework. Of them, more than half of NMAs did not report assessment of convergence (60.66%). Inconsistency was assessed in 27.87% of NMAs. Assessment of heterogeneity in traditional meta-analyses was more common (42.62%) than in NMAs (6.56%). Most of NMAs did not report assessment of similarity (86.89%) and did not used GRADE tool to assess quality of evidence (95.08%). 43 NMAs were adjusted indirect comparisons, the methods used were described in 53.49% NMAs. Only 4.65% NMAs described the details of handling of multi group trials and 6.98% described the methods of similarity assessment. The median total AMSTAR-score was 8.00 (IQR: 6.00-8.25). Methodological quality and reporting of statistical analysis did not substantially differ by selected general characteristics. Overall, the quality of NMAs in the field of cancer was generally acceptable.
| S-EPMC5111127 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:There is an increasing prevalence of hypothyroidism and there is a growing body of meta-analyses (MAs) on the association between hypothyroidism and other diseases. However, the methodological quality of the MAs significantly varies. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate and summarise data on the methodological quality of MAs on the associations between hypothyroidism and other diseases using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scale, providing suggestions for clinical decision-making processes. DESIGN:To assess the methodological quality of MAs using the AMSTAR scale. DATA SOURCES:A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, web of science and Chinese Biomedicine Literature Database. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:We included MAs that had assessed the association between hypothyroidism and other diseases in humans and that had full texts regardless of the publication status. No restriction applied on language or date. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts of all searched literature to acquire potentially eligible publications. The full texts of possible eligible publications were downloaded and assessed. Inconsistent comments were resolved through discussions with a third reviewer. RESULTS:52 studies were included. The average AMSTAR score of the included articles was 8.6 (range: 5-10), and those of English and Chinese MAs were 8.8 and 7.0, respectively. A total of 52 MAs were evaluated, and 19 (36.5%) and 33 (63.5%) of these MAs were of moderate and high quality, respectively. None of the MAs were of low quality. Only two MAs had an a priori design. Items 3, 5 and 9 had the highest compliance (50/52, 96.2%), and aside from item 1, items 7 and 8 had the lowest compliance (33/52,63.5%). According to the results of these MAs, hypothyroidism was significantly associated with cardiovascular diseases, metabolic diseases, neuropsychiatric disorders, breast cancer and pregnancy outcome. CONCLUSIONS:The methodological quality of the included MAs on the association between hypothyroidism and other diseases was moderate to high. MAs with high qualities confirmed that hypothyroidism was significantly associated with cardiovascular diseases, metabolic syndrome, preterm birth and neonatal outcomes. Consideration of scientific quality when formulating conclusions should be made explicit and more attention should be paid to improving the methodological quality of MAs, and increasing their applicability for clinical decision-making.
| S-EPMC6475183 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives: This research aims to evaluate the methodological quality of budget impact analyses for orphan drugs and to provide suggestions for future analyses. Methods: Conference abstracts and peer-reviewed literature on budget impact analyses were collected through searches of Pubmed and Embase. ISPOR good practice guidelines were used as a methodological standard for budget impact analyses. Examined parameters encompassed: perspective, target population, data sources, intervention and comparator(s), time horizon, scope of costs, discounting, validation, assumptions and sensitivity analysis. Results: Seventy studies on individual orphan drugs and 21 studies on a combination of orphan drugs analyzing budget impact were identified. Overall, analyses considered a third-party payer perspective, reported periodic budget impacts over a one-to-five-year time horizon, and did not apply discounting. A dynamically fluctuating population and costs beyond drug costs were accounted for in 18.7% and 51.7% of studies, respectively. Input data were retrieved from published literature, clinical trials, registries, claims databases, expert opinions, historical data and market research. Assumptions were mostly made about population size and intervention/comparator(s) market uptake, but these assumptions were rarely justified and their impact was insufficiently explored through sensitivity analyses. Budget impact results were rarely validated. Conclusion: Existing budget impact analyses for orphan drugs are concise, vary greatly and are of substandard methodological quality. To eliminate possible bias in future budget impact analyses, future studies should adhere to national or ISPOR good practice guidelines on budget impact analysis.
| S-EPMC8098807 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Meta-analyses (MAs) are often used because they are lauded to provide robust evidence that synthesises information from multiple studies. However, the validity of MA conclusions relies on the procedural rigour applied by the authors. Therefore, this meta-research study aims to characterise the methodological quality and meta-analytic practices of MAs indexed in PsycINFO. DESIGN:A meta-epidemiological study. PARTICIPANTS:We evaluated a random sample of 206 MAs indexed in the PsycINFO database in 2016. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES:Two authors independently extracted the methodological characteristics of all MAs and checked their quality according to the 16 items of the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) tool for MA critical appraisal. Moreover, we investigated the effect of mentioning Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) on the methodological quality of MAs. RESULTS:According to AMSTAR2 criteria, 95% of the 206 MAs were rated as critically low quality. Statistical methods were appropriate and publication bias was well evaluated in 87% and 70% of the MAs, respectively. However, much improvement is needed in data collection and analysis: only 11% of MAs published a research protocol, 44% had a comprehensive literature search strategy, 37% assessed and 29% interpreted the risk of bias in the individual included studies, and 11% presented a list of excluded studies. Interestingly, the explicit mentioning of PRISMA suggested a positive influence on the methodological quality of MAs. CONCLUSION:The methodological quality of MAs in our sample was critically low according to the AMSTAR2 criteria. Some efforts to tremendously improve the methodological quality of MAs could increase their robustness and reliability.
| S-EPMC7402002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rationale, aims, and objectivesCOVID-19 has caused an ongoing public health crisis. Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been performed to synthesize evidence for better understanding this new disease. However, some concerns have been raised about rapid COVID-19 research. This meta-epidemiological study aims to methodologically assess the current systematic reviews and meta-analyses on COVID-19.MethodsWe searched in various databases for systematic reviews with meta-analyses published between 1 January 2020 and 31 October 2020. We extracted their basic characteristics, data analyses, evidence appraisal, and assessment of publication bias and heterogeneity.ResultsWe identified 295 systematic reviews on COVID-19. The median time from submission to acceptance was 33 days. Among these systematic reviews, 73.9% evaluated clinical manifestations or comorbidities of COVID-19. Stata was the most used software programme (43.39%). The odds ratio was the most used effect measure (34.24%). Moreover, 28.14% of the systematic reviews did not present evidence appraisal. Among those reporting the risk of bias results, 14.64% of studies had a high risk of bias. Egger's test was the most used method for assessing publication bias (38.31%), while 38.66% of the systematic reviews did not assess publication bias. The I2 statistic was widely used for assessing heterogeneity (92.20%); many meta-analyses had high values of I2 . Among the meta-analyses using the random-effects model, 75.82% did not report the methods for model implementation; among those meta-analyses reporting implementation methods, the DerSimonian-Laird method was the most used one.ConclusionsThe current systematic reviews and meta-analyses on COVID-19 might suffer from low transparency, high heterogeneity, and suboptimal statistical methods. It is recommended that future systematic reviews on COVID-19 strictly follow well-developed guidelines. Sensitivity analyses may be performed to examine how the synthesized evidence might depend on different methods for appraising evidence, assessing publication bias, and implementing meta-analysis models.
| S-EPMC8242754 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStudies have shown that industry-sponsored meta-analyses of drugs lack scientific rigour and have biased conclusions. However, these studies have been restricted to certain medical specialities. We compared all industry-supported meta-analyses of drug-drug comparisons with those without industry support.MethodsWe searched PubMed for all meta-analyses that compared different drugs or classes of drugs published in 2004. Two authors assessed the meta-analyses and independently extracted data. We used a validated scale for judging the methodological quality and a binary scale for judging conclusions. We divided the meta-analyses according to the type of support in 3 categories: industry-supported, non-profit support or no support, and undeclared support.ResultsWe included 39 meta-analyses. Ten had industry support, 18 non-profit or no support, and 11 undeclared support. On a 0-7 scale, the median quality score was 6 for meta-analyses with non-profit or no support and 2.5 for the industry-supported meta-analyses (P < 0.01). Compared with industry-supported meta-analyses, more meta-analyses with non-profit or no support avoided bias in the selection of studies (P = 0.01), more often stated the search methods used to find studies (P = 0.02), searched comprehensively (P < 0.01), reported criteria for assessing the validity of the studies (P = 0.02), used appropriate criteria (P = 0.04), described methods of allocation concealment (P = 0.05), described methods of blinding (P = 0.05), and described excluded patients (P = 0.08) and studies (P = 0.15). Forty percent of the industry-supported meta-analyses recommended the experimental drug without reservations, compared with 22% of the meta-analyses with non-profit or no support (P = 0.57).In a sensitivity analysis, we contacted the authors of the meta-analyses with undeclared support. Eight who replied that they had not received industry funding were added to those with non-profit or no support, and 3 who did not reply were added to those with industry support. This analysis did not change the results much.ConclusionTransparency is essential for readers to make their own judgment about medical interventions guided by the results of meta-analyses. We found that industry-supported meta-analyses are less transparent than meta-analyses with non-profit support or no support.
| S-EPMC2553412 | biostudies-literature