Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2023 Oct 19;23(1):101-114.
doi: 10.1007/s40200-023-01328-9. eCollection 2024 Jun.

A methodological quality review of citations of randomized controlled trials of diabetes type2 in leading clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews

Affiliations
Review

A methodological quality review of citations of randomized controlled trials of diabetes type2 in leading clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews

Azadeh Aletaha et al. J Diabetes Metab Disord. .

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.

Keywords: Clinical practice guideline; Diabetes; Randomized controlled trials; Reporting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interestThe authors declare that they have no conflict of interests that are relevant to the content of this article.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flowchart

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Data from: Global report on diabetes [Database on the internet] WHO deposited.2016
    1. Zheng Y, Ley SH, Hu FB. Global aetiology and epidemiology of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its complications. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2018;14(2):88–98. - PubMed
    1. Kononenko IV, Smirnova OM, Mayorov AY, Shestakova MV. Classification of diabetes. World Health Organization 2019. What’s new? Diabetes Mellitus. 2020;23(4):329–39.
    1. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, Wager E, Middleton P, Altman DG, et al. CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2008;5(1):e20. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Organization WH. Addressing diabetes as a public health challenge in the Eastern Mediterranean Region. World Health Organization.Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean. 2021.

LinkOut - more resources