Sources of evidence for systematic reviews of interventions in diabetes

Pamela Lee Royle, L. Bain, Norman Robert Waugh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aims To analyse the effect on systematic reviews in diabetes interventions of including only trials that are indexed in MIDLINE, and to assess the impact of adding trials from other databases and the grey literature.

Methods All systematic reviews of diabetes interventions which included a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, and were published since 1996, were selected. The impact on the meta-analysis of including only those trials indexed in MEDLINE, and the effect of then adding trials from other sources, was assessed. Where possible this was measured quantitatively, by redoing the meta-analysis, otherwise a qualitative estimate was made.

Results Forty-four systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. There were 120 articles reporting trial data which were not indexed in MEDLINE. These came from 52% of the reviews. In 34% of the reviews, basing a meta-analysis on a search of only MEDLINE would miss trials that could affect the result. Sources of non-MEDLINE data which had the biggest effect on the meta-analyses were journal articles from CENTRAL and EMBASE (mainly in Diabetes, Nutrition and Metabolism) and unpublished data (mainly from industry). The exceptions were journal articles on herbal medicine, mostly indexed in Chinese language databases.

Conclusions A search of only the MEDLINE database is insufficient for systematic reviews of diabetes, because in about 34% of reviews the missed trials could affect the results of the meta-analysis. It is recommended that CENTRAL (on the Cochrane Library) also be searched. Scanning meeting abstracts, and seeking unpublished data are also recommended if the intervention has only recently been introduced.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1386-1393
Number of pages7
JournalDiabetic Medicine
Volume22
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2005

Keywords

  • literature searching
  • meta-analysis
  • systematic reviews
  • SUBCUTANEOUS INSULIN INFUSION
  • RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS
  • PLACEBO-CONTROLLED TRIALS
  • GLYCEMIC CONTROL
  • COST-EFFECTIVENESS
  • ACE-INHIBITORS
  • METAANALYSIS
  • MELLITUS
  • MANAGEMENT
  • EFFICACY

Cite this

Sources of evidence for systematic reviews of interventions in diabetes. / Royle, Pamela Lee; Bain, L.; Waugh, Norman Robert.

In: Diabetic Medicine, Vol. 22, No. 10, 10.2005, p. 1386-1393.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Royle, Pamela Lee ; Bain, L. ; Waugh, Norman Robert. / Sources of evidence for systematic reviews of interventions in diabetes. In: Diabetic Medicine. 2005 ; Vol. 22, No. 10. pp. 1386-1393.
@article{9d1ebce8dc264df88de4f321c0b913ec,
title = "Sources of evidence for systematic reviews of interventions in diabetes",
abstract = "Aims To analyse the effect on systematic reviews in diabetes interventions of including only trials that are indexed in MIDLINE, and to assess the impact of adding trials from other databases and the grey literature.Methods All systematic reviews of diabetes interventions which included a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, and were published since 1996, were selected. The impact on the meta-analysis of including only those trials indexed in MEDLINE, and the effect of then adding trials from other sources, was assessed. Where possible this was measured quantitatively, by redoing the meta-analysis, otherwise a qualitative estimate was made.Results Forty-four systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. There were 120 articles reporting trial data which were not indexed in MEDLINE. These came from 52{\%} of the reviews. In 34{\%} of the reviews, basing a meta-analysis on a search of only MEDLINE would miss trials that could affect the result. Sources of non-MEDLINE data which had the biggest effect on the meta-analyses were journal articles from CENTRAL and EMBASE (mainly in Diabetes, Nutrition and Metabolism) and unpublished data (mainly from industry). The exceptions were journal articles on herbal medicine, mostly indexed in Chinese language databases.Conclusions A search of only the MEDLINE database is insufficient for systematic reviews of diabetes, because in about 34{\%} of reviews the missed trials could affect the results of the meta-analysis. It is recommended that CENTRAL (on the Cochrane Library) also be searched. Scanning meeting abstracts, and seeking unpublished data are also recommended if the intervention has only recently been introduced.",
keywords = "literature searching, meta-analysis, systematic reviews, SUBCUTANEOUS INSULIN INFUSION, RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED TRIALS, GLYCEMIC CONTROL, COST-EFFECTIVENESS, ACE-INHIBITORS, METAANALYSIS, MELLITUS, MANAGEMENT, EFFICACY",
author = "Royle, {Pamela Lee} and L. Bain and Waugh, {Norman Robert}",
year = "2005",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1111/j.1464-5491.2005.01645.x",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "1386--1393",
journal = "Diabetic Medicine",
issn = "0742-3071",
publisher = "Wiley",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Sources of evidence for systematic reviews of interventions in diabetes

AU - Royle, Pamela Lee

AU - Bain, L.

AU - Waugh, Norman Robert

PY - 2005/10

Y1 - 2005/10

N2 - Aims To analyse the effect on systematic reviews in diabetes interventions of including only trials that are indexed in MIDLINE, and to assess the impact of adding trials from other databases and the grey literature.Methods All systematic reviews of diabetes interventions which included a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, and were published since 1996, were selected. The impact on the meta-analysis of including only those trials indexed in MEDLINE, and the effect of then adding trials from other sources, was assessed. Where possible this was measured quantitatively, by redoing the meta-analysis, otherwise a qualitative estimate was made.Results Forty-four systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. There were 120 articles reporting trial data which were not indexed in MEDLINE. These came from 52% of the reviews. In 34% of the reviews, basing a meta-analysis on a search of only MEDLINE would miss trials that could affect the result. Sources of non-MEDLINE data which had the biggest effect on the meta-analyses were journal articles from CENTRAL and EMBASE (mainly in Diabetes, Nutrition and Metabolism) and unpublished data (mainly from industry). The exceptions were journal articles on herbal medicine, mostly indexed in Chinese language databases.Conclusions A search of only the MEDLINE database is insufficient for systematic reviews of diabetes, because in about 34% of reviews the missed trials could affect the results of the meta-analysis. It is recommended that CENTRAL (on the Cochrane Library) also be searched. Scanning meeting abstracts, and seeking unpublished data are also recommended if the intervention has only recently been introduced.

AB - Aims To analyse the effect on systematic reviews in diabetes interventions of including only trials that are indexed in MIDLINE, and to assess the impact of adding trials from other databases and the grey literature.Methods All systematic reviews of diabetes interventions which included a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, and were published since 1996, were selected. The impact on the meta-analysis of including only those trials indexed in MEDLINE, and the effect of then adding trials from other sources, was assessed. Where possible this was measured quantitatively, by redoing the meta-analysis, otherwise a qualitative estimate was made.Results Forty-four systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. There were 120 articles reporting trial data which were not indexed in MEDLINE. These came from 52% of the reviews. In 34% of the reviews, basing a meta-analysis on a search of only MEDLINE would miss trials that could affect the result. Sources of non-MEDLINE data which had the biggest effect on the meta-analyses were journal articles from CENTRAL and EMBASE (mainly in Diabetes, Nutrition and Metabolism) and unpublished data (mainly from industry). The exceptions were journal articles on herbal medicine, mostly indexed in Chinese language databases.Conclusions A search of only the MEDLINE database is insufficient for systematic reviews of diabetes, because in about 34% of reviews the missed trials could affect the results of the meta-analysis. It is recommended that CENTRAL (on the Cochrane Library) also be searched. Scanning meeting abstracts, and seeking unpublished data are also recommended if the intervention has only recently been introduced.

KW - literature searching

KW - meta-analysis

KW - systematic reviews

KW - SUBCUTANEOUS INSULIN INFUSION

KW - RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS

KW - PLACEBO-CONTROLLED TRIALS

KW - GLYCEMIC CONTROL

KW - COST-EFFECTIVENESS

KW - ACE-INHIBITORS

KW - METAANALYSIS

KW - MELLITUS

KW - MANAGEMENT

KW - EFFICACY

U2 - 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2005.01645.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2005.01645.x

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 1386

EP - 1393

JO - Diabetic Medicine

JF - Diabetic Medicine

SN - 0742-3071

IS - 10

ER -