Dataset Information

Comparative long-term effectiveness and safety of primary bariatric surgeries in treating type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Bariatric surgeries are effective in treating obesity related comorbidities, including type 2 diabetes mellitus. More robust evidence is needed to facilitate choice of procedure. In this systemic review, we aim to investigate the comparative long-term effectiveness in inducing remission of type 2 diabetes, halting diabetic complications, reducing mortality and the safety of conventional and emerging bariatric surgeries. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Databases including Cochrane Central Register, EMBASE, MEDLINE and clinical trial registries will be searched for randomised controlled trials with at least 3 years of follow-up, including direct and/or indirect evidence regarding primary bariatric surgeries in overweight or obese adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus, from inception of each database to 2019, with no language or publication type limits imposed. Dual selection of studies, data extraction and risk of bias assessments will be performed. Primary outcomes include full diabetes remission, composite outcome of full or partial diabetes remission and adverse event profiles. Secondary outcomes include anthropometric measurements, cardiovascular risk factor burden, medication burden, diabetic complications and all-cause mortality. Given sufficient homogeneity, network meta-analyses will be performed in a random-effects model based on the Bayesian framework, while assessing for consistency between direct and indirect estimates. Heterogeneities of studies will be explored through meta-regression analysis, and robustness of findings will be checked by sensitivity analysis, and an alternative method under a frequentist framework. All statistical analysis and graphical presentations will be conducted by R software V.3.3.3 (The R Project for Statistical Computing). The overall quality of the evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria for each outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethics approval is not required as individual patient data will not be included. This review will be subject for publication in a peer reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42018110775.

SUBMITTER: Ding L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6500318 | biostudies-other | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative long-term effectiveness and safety of primary bariatric surgeries in treating type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Ding Li L Zhuo Chuanjun C Fan Yuxin Y Zhang Yalan Y Li Hui H Qi Dongwang D Tang Shaofang S Cui Jingqiu J He Qing Q Liu Ming M

BMJ open 20190404 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Bariatric surgeries are effective in treating obesity related comorbidities, including type 2 diabetes mellitus. More robust evidence is needed to facilitate choice of procedure. In this systemic review, we aim to investigate the comparative long-term effectiveness in inducing remission of type 2 diabetes, halting diabetic complications, reducing mortality and the safety of conventional and emerging bariatric surgeries.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>Databases including Cochran ...[more]

PMID: 30948619

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere has been a dramatic shift in use of bariatric procedures, but little is known about their long-term comparative effectiveness.ObjectiveTo compare weight loss and safety among bariatric procedures.DesignRetrospective observational cohort study, January 2005 to September 2015. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02741674).Setting41 health systems in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network.Participants65 093 patients aged 20 to 79 years with body mass index (BMI) of 35 kg/m2 or greater who had bariatric procedures.Intervention32 208 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), 29 693 sleeve gastrectomy (SG), and 3192 adjustable gastric banding (AGB) procedures.MeasurementsEstimated percent total weight loss (TWL) at 1, 3, and 5 years; 30-day rates of major adverse events.ResultsTotal numbers of eligible patients with weight measures at 1, 3, and 5 years were 44 978 (84%), 20 783 (68%), and 7159 (69%), respectively. Thirty-day rates of major adverse events were 5.0% for RYGB, 2.6% for SG, and 2.9% for AGB. One-year mean TWLs were 31.2% (95% CI, 31.1% to 31.3%) for RYGB, 25.2% (CI, 25.1% to 25.4%) for SG, and 13.7% (CI, 13.3% to 14.0%) for AGB. At 1 year, RYGB patients lost 5.9 (CI, 5.8 to 6.1) percentage points more weight than SG patients and 17.7 (CI, 17.3 to 18.1) percentage points more than AGB patients, and SG patients lost 12.0 (CI, 11.6 to 12.5) percentage points more than AGB patients. Five-year mean TWLs were 25.5% (CI, 25.1% to 25.9%) for RYGB, 18.8% (CI, 18.0% to 19.6%) for SG, and 11.7% (CI, 10.2% to 13.1%) for AGB. Patients with diabetes, those with BMI less than 50 kg/m2, those aged 65 years or older, African American patients, and Hispanic patients lost less weight than patients without those characteristics.LimitationPotential unobserved confounding due to nonrandomized design; electronic health record databases had missing outcome data.ConclusionAdults lost more weight with RYGB than with SG or AGB at 1, 3, and 5 years; however, RYGB had the highest 30-day rate of major adverse events. Small subgroup differences in weight loss outcomes were observed.Primary funding sourcePatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Project description:IntroductionHeart failure (HF) is an end-stage of numerous heart diseases including hypertension, coronary heart disease and arrhythmia, in which the heart is unable to perform its circulatory function with sufficient efficiency due to structural or functional dysfunction (systolic or diastolic alterations). Strategies such as exercise rehabilitation may improve cardiac function, exercise capacity and health-related quality of life and reduce anxiety and depression in patients with HF. However, the relative effectiveness as well as the hierarchy of exercise interventions have not been well established, although various exercise options are available. Therefore, this protocol proposes to conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) aiming to compare the effectiveness of different types of exercise training in patients with HF.Methods and analysisPubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library will be searched from inception to March 2021 for relevant randomised controlled trials. Other resources, such as Google Scholar and Clinical Trials.gov will also be considered. Studies assessing exercise rehabilitation in patients with HF will be selected. Two independent reviewers will identify eligible trials. The PEDro risk of bias assessment tool will be used to assess the quality of the included studies. Bayesian NMA will be used when possible to determine the comparative effectiveness of the different exercise interventions. The mean ranks and surface will estimate the ranking probabilities for the optimal intervention of various treatments under the cumulative ranking curve. Subgroup, sensitivity and meta-regression will be conducted to explain the included studies' heterogeneity if possible. We will also use the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to assess the strength of evidence.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review and NMA will synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of the different exercises in patients with HF. The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. No ethical approval will be required because the data used for the review will be exclusively extracted from published studies.Prospero registration numberCRD42020165870.

Project description:BackgroundThere have been ongoing efforts to understand when and how data from observational studies can be applied to clinical and regulatory decision making. The objective of this review was to assess the comparability of relative treatment effects of pharmaceuticals from observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsWe searched PubMed and Embase for systematic literature reviews published between January 1, 1990, and January 31, 2020, that reported relative treatment effects of pharmaceuticals from both observational studies and RCTs. We extracted pooled relative effect estimates from observational studies and RCTs for each outcome, intervention-comparator, or indication assessed in the reviews. We calculated the ratio of the relative effect estimate from observational studies over that from RCTs, along with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for each pair of pooled RCT and observational study estimates, and we evaluated the consistency in relative treatment effects.ResultsThirty systematic reviews across 7 therapeutic areas were identified from the literature. We analyzed 74 pairs of pooled relative effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies from 29 reviews. There was no statistically significant difference (based on the 95% CI) in relative effect estimates between RCTs and observational studies in 79.7% of pairs. There was an extreme difference (ratio < 0.7 or > 1.43) in 43.2% of pairs, and, in 17.6% of pairs, there was a significant difference and the estimates pointed in opposite directions.ConclusionsOverall, our review shows that while there is no significant difference in the relative risk ratios between the majority of RCTs and observational studies compared, there is significant variation in about 20% of comparisons. The source of this variation should be the subject of further inquiry to elucidate how much of the variation is due to differences in patient populations versus biased estimates arising from issues with study design or analytical/statistical methods.

Project description:The safety and efficacy of different drugs in treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) patients who could not maintain normal glucose level only through diet and exercise remains to be debated. We performed this network meta-analysis (NAM) to compare and rank different antidiabetic drugs in glucose level control and pregnancy outcomes in GDM patients.We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase up to December 31, 2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to different drugs in the treatment of GDM patients were enrolled. We extracted the relevant information and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We did pair-wise meta-analyses using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model and then adopted random-effects NAM combining both direct and indirect evidence within a Bayesian framework, to calculate the odds ratio (OR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) and to draw a surface under the cumulative ranking curve of the neonatal and maternal outcomes of different treatments in GDM patients.Thirty-two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this NAM, including 6 kinds of treatments (metformin, metformin plus insulin, insulin, glyburide, acarbose, and placebo). The results of the NAM showed that regarding the incidence of macrosomia and LGA, metformin had lower incidence than glyburide (OR, 0.5411 and 0.4177). In terms of the incidence of admission to the NICU, insulin had higher incidence compared with glyburide (OR, 1.844). As for the incidence of neonatal hypoglycemia, metformin had lower incidence than insulin and glyburide (OR, 0.6331 and 0.3898), and insulin was lower than glyburide (OR, 0.6236). For mean birth weight, metformin plus insulin was lower than insulin (SMD, -0.5806), glyburide (SMD, -0.7388), and placebo (SMD, -0.6649). Besides, metformin was observed to have lower birth weight than glyburide (SMD, 0.2591). As for weight gain, metformin and metformin plus insulin were lower than insulin (SMD, -0.9166, -1.53). Ranking results showed that glyburide might be the optimum treatment regarding average glucose control, and metformin is the fastest in glucose control for GDM patients; glyburide have the highest incidence of macrosomia, preeclampsia, hyperbilirubinemia, neonatal hypoglycemia, shortest gestational age at delivery, and lowest mean birth weight; metformin (plus insulin when required) have the lowest incidence of macrosomia, PIH, LGA, RDS, low gestational age at delivery, and low birth weight. Besides, insulin had the highest incidence of NICU admission, acarbose had the lowest risk of neonatal hypoglycemia.Our study concluded that metformin is fastest in glucose control, with a more favorable pregnancy outcomes-would be a better option, but its rate of glucose control is the lowest.However, glyburide is the optimumtreatment regarding the rate of glucose control, but withmore adverse outcomes. This NAMbased on 32 RCTs will strongly help to guide further development of management for GDM patients, clinicians should carefully balance the risk-benefit profile of different treatments according to various situations.

Dataset Information

Comparative long-term effectiveness and safety of primary bariatric surgeries in treating type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Publications

Comparative long-term effectiveness and safety of primary bariatric surgeries in treating type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets