DPP-4抑制剂治疗2型糖尿病的系统评价再评价

DPP-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews

目的对已发表的二肽基肽酶-4(DPP-4)抑制剂治疗2型糖尿病的有效性和安全性的系统评价/Meta分析进行再评价。方法计算机检索The Cochrane Library、PubMed、EMbase、CBM、WanFang Data和CNKI数据库,搜集基于DPP-4抑制剂治疗2型糖尿病的系统评价再评价,检索时限均为建库至2016年12月。由2位评价员独立筛选文献和提取资料后,采用AMSTAR量表和PRISMA声明评价纳入研究的方法学质量和报告质量。结果最终纳入27篇系统评价/Meta分析。AMSTAR平均分为7.04分,得分最差的为条目1"是否提供了前期设计方案"(26篇未提供)、条目4"发表情况是否已考虑在纳入标准中"(10篇未提供)、条目10"是否评价发表偏倚的可能性"(15篇未提供)和条目11"是否说明相关利益冲突"(15篇未提供)。PRISMA清单评分为17.0~24.5分。报告质量存在的问题主要表现在方案与注册、文献检索、补充分析与资助来源方面。结论本研究结果显示DPP-4抑制剂治疗2型糖尿病的系统评价/Meta分析的方法学质量和报告学质量均不高。

Objective To 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）. Methods Database including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI were searched from inception to December2016 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. Results Twenty-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. Conclusion The evidence shows that the reporting and methodological quality of the SRs/MAs of DPP-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes are not high.