LING Juan 1,2,3 , ZHANG Dinghua 4 , DOU Yinghuan 5 , XIE Zhuolin 6 , GE Long 1,2,3,7 , WANG Yongfeng 8 , XUN Yangqin 1,2,3,9 , TIAN Jinhui 1,2,3 , YANG Kehu 1,2,3
  • 1. Evidence-Based Medicine Center, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 73000, P.R.China;
  • 2. Key Laboratory of Evidence-Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, 73000, P.R.China;
  • 3. The GRADE Center in China, Lanzhou, 73000, P.R.China;
  • 4. Department of Endocrinology, Gansu Province Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Lanzhou, 73000, P.R.China;
  • 5. School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 73000, P.R.China;
  • 6. Gansu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Lanzhou, 73000, P.R.China;
  • 7. The First Clinical Medical College, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 73000, P.R.China;
  • 8. School of Basic Medical Sciences, Gansu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Lanzhou, 73000, P.R.China;
  • 9. School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 73000, P.R.China;
YANG Kehu, Email: kehuyangebm2006@126.com
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

ObjectiveTo overview the systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4) in treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MethodsDatabase including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI were searched from inception to December 2016 to collect SRs/MAs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of DPP-4 for the treatment of T2DM. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and evaluated the reporting and methodological qualities using the PRISMA checklist and the AMSTAR tool.ResultsTwenty-seven SRs/MAs of DPP-4 for the treatment of T2DM were included in this overview. The average score of AMSTAR was 7.04. The worst score were the item 1 (26 studies didn't provide an ‘a priori’ design), item 4 (10 studies didn't provide whether the status of publication used as an inclusion criterion?), item 10 and item 11 (15 studies didn't assess the likelihood of publication bias and the potential conflicts of interest). The PRISMA score ranged from 17.0 to 24.5. The main problems of reporting were protocol and registration, search, additional analyses and funding.ConclusionThe evidence shows that the reporting and methodological quality of the SRs/MAs of DPP-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes are not high.

Citation: LING Juan, ZHANG Dinghua, DOU Yinghuan, XIE Zhuolin, GE Long, WANG Yongfeng, XUN Yangqin, TIAN Jinhui, YANG Kehu. DPP-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2018, 18(2): 208-215. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201706017 Copy

  • Previous Article

    Phacotrabeculectomy combined with trabeculectomy for primary angle closure glaucoma with cataract: a systematic review
  • Next Article

    Methodological and reporting quality assessment of meta-analyses investigating surgical procedures published in English in 2014