4.5 Review

Efficacy of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors in patients with type II diabetes A protocol for systematic review of randomised controlled clinical trials utilising a generalised pairwise modelling methodology

期刊

MEDICINE
卷 98, 期 51, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000018198

关键词

network meta-analysis; sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors; type II diabetes

资金

  1. Qatar National Library

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Recent systematic reviews have evaluated the efficacy of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2) inhibitors (SGLT2I) in improving glycaemic control and mortality in patients with type II diabetes mellitus. None have incorporated the most recent study or utilized the generalized pairwise modeling methodology network meta-analysis (NMA), as well as a novel bias risk assessment approach. Methods: We propose to conduct literature search of all randomized controlled clinical trials published in English language evaluating the efficacy of (SGLT2I) versus placebo or usual standard of care from the inception of following databases to September 30, 2019: Controlled Clinical Trials Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), EMBASE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), PubMed. Two reviewers will independently search these databases to identify studies that satisfy pre-specified eligibility criteria. Study bias risk assessment amongst other methodology quality evaluation of the studies will be carried out using a novel risk bias assessment tool. Results: We anticipate that the result of this review will provide additional insight into the ranking of the efficacy of various (SGLT2I) in type II diabetic patients especially as it relates to mortality, glycemic control, and body weight reduction. Conclusion: The result of this review will be useful informing therapeutic decisions by policy makers with regards to commissioning of diabetic care.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据