ReviewJournal of diabetes and metabolic disorders2024
A methodological quality review of citations of randomized controlled trials of diabetes type2 in leading clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews.
Review in Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Evaluate methodological quality of type 2 diabetes RCTs conducted in Iran and cited in clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Methods: We conducted a descriptive methodological quality review, analyzing 286 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) on diabetes mellitus published in Iran from July 2004 to 2021. We searched six databases systematically and evaluated eligible articles using the CONSORT 2010 checklist for abstracts. Two investigators assessed the data using a 17-item checklist derived from CONSORT. Additionally, we examined the citations of each RCT in 260 clinical practice guidelines, with a specific focus on the adequate reporting of outcomes. Results: Out of 6667 articles, 286 analyzed. Poor reporting and failure to meet criteria observed. Only 3.8% cited in guidelines. Reporting rates: primary outcomes (41.9%), randomization (61.8%), trial recruitment (12.6%), blinding (50.8%). 27.9% cited in systematic reviews, 50.34% in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 26.57% in meta-analyses. 67.8% of papers cited in systematic reviews. Adherence highest for participants, objective, randomization, intervention, outcome; lowest for recruitment, trial design, funding source, harms, and reporting primary outcomes. Conclusions: Poor methodological reporting and adherence to CONSORT checklist in evaluated RCTs, especially in methodological sections. Improvements needed for reliable and applicable results in guidelines, reviews, and meta-analyses. Inadequate outcome reporting challenges researchers, clinicians, and policymakers, impacting evidence-based decision-making. Urgent improvements in RCT registration necessary.
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.