ArticleBMJ open2019
Effectiveness in clinical practice versus efficacy of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in clinical trials for type 2 diabetes: protocol for systematic review.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionData supporting the use of oral antidiabetic drugs mainly rely on data from premarketing clinical trials. Real-world data studies are crucial to evaluate effectiveness of drugs. The aim of this systematic review is to compare the results obtained for efficacy and effectiveness endpoints on clinical trials and those obtained from routine clinical practice of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review will include randomised controlled trials and observational studies evaluating the efficacy and effectiveness of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, respectively. A literature search will be performed at Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov. Search terms comprised the drug name (including the pharmacotherapeutic class and the international non-proprietary name). Data on haemoglobin A1C, blood glucose and body weight will be retrieved. The risk of bias will be independently assessed according to the checklist proposed by Downs and Black. Data will be analysed using descriptive statistics and meta-analysis when applicable. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as no primary data are collected. This systematic review will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and at conference meetings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.