Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 25, 2025
Improving IV Insulin Administration in a Community Hospital
Published on: June 11, 2012
Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis with protocols in Diabetes Mellitus Type
Daniel Christopher Rainkie1, Zeinab Salman Abedini1, Nada Nabil Abdelkader1
1Qatar University Health Cluster, College of Pharmacy, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar.
Background:
Systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses (SR/MAs) are strongly encouraged to work from a protocol to facilitate high quality, transparent methodology. The completeness of reporting of a protocol (PRISMA-P) and manuscript (PRISMA) is essential to the quality appraisal (AMSTAR-2) and appropriate use of SR/MAs in making treatment decisions.
Objectives:
The objectives of this study were to describe the completeness of reporting and quality of SR/MAs, assess the correlations between PRISMA-P, PRISMA, and AMSTAR-2, and to identify reporting characteristics between similar items of PRISMA-P and PRISMA.
Methods:
We performed a systematic review of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus SR/MAs of hypoglycemic agents with publicly available protocols. Cochrane reviews, guidelines, and specific types of MA were excluded. Two reviewers independently, (i) searched PubMed and Embase between 1/1/2015 to 20/3/2019; (ii) identified protocols of included studies by searching the manuscript bibliography, supplementary material, PROSPERO, and Google; (iii) completed PRISMA-P, PRISMA, and AMSTAR-2 tools. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and multivariable linear regression.
Results:
Of 357 relevant SR/MAs, 51 had available protocols and were included. The average score for PRISMA-P was 15.8±3.3 (66%; maximum 24) and 25.2±1.1 (93%; maximum 27) for PRISMA. The quality of SR/MAs assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool identified an overall poor quality (63% critically low, 18% low, 8% moderate, 12% high). The correlation between the PRISMA-P and PRISMA was not significant (r = 0.264; p = 0.06). Correlation was significant between PRISMA-P and AMSTAR-2 (r = 0.333; p = 0.02) and PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 (r = 0.555; p<0.01). Discrepancies in reporting were common between similar PRISMA-P and PRISMA items.
Conclusion:
Adherence to protocol reporting guidance was poor while manuscript reporting was comprehensive. Protocol completeness is not associated with a completely reported manuscript. Independently, PRISMA-P and PRISMA scores were weakly associated with higher quality assessments but insufficient as a surrogate for quality. Critical areas for quality improvement include protocol description, investigating causes of heterogeneity, and the impact of risk of bias on the evidence synthesis.
Related Concept Videos
01:22Diabetes Mellitus: Type 2 and Gestational
01:22Diabetes Mellitus: Overview and Type I Subtype
Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease in which the immune system mistakenly attacks and destroys the insulin-producing beta cells in the pancreas. As a result, the body is unable to produce sufficient insulin, and individuals with...
01:15Diabetes: Management and Pharmacotherapy
Insulin remains the cornerstone of treatment for most patients with type 1 and many...
01:16Insulin: Dosing Regimen and Adverse Effects
The basal dose constitutes about 40%-50% of the total daily dose, with the rest as premeal insulin. The mealtime insulin dose should mirror...
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
01:36Carbohydrate Metabolism
Starch accounts for approximately 60% of the carbohydrates consumed by humans. Since amylase enzymes cannot function in the stomach's acidic environment, starch can only be digested in the mouth and small intestine. Simple sugars are found naturally in milk and fruits in...