A simplified search strategy for identifying randomised controlled trials for systematic reviews of health care interventions : a comparison with more exhaustive strategies

Background It is generally believed that exhaustive searches of bibliographic databases are needed for systematic reviews of health care interventions. The CENTRAL database of controlled trials (RCTs) has been built up by exhaustive searching. The CONSORT statement aims to encourage better reporting, and hence indexing, of RCTs. Our aim was to assess whether developments in the CENTRAL database, and the CONSORT statement, mean that a simplified RCT search strategy for identifying RCTs now suffices for systematic reviews of health care interventions. Methods RCTs used in the Cochrane reviews were identified. A brief RCT search strategy (BRSS), consisting of a search of CENTRAL, and then for variants of the word random across all fields (random$.af.) in MEDLINE and EMBASE, was devised and run. Any trials included in the meta-analyses, but missed by the BRSS, were identified. The meta-analyses were then re-run, with and without the missed RCTs, and the differences quantified. The proportion of trials with variants of the word random in the title or abstract was calculated for each year. The number of RCTs retrieved by searching with "random$.af." was compared to the highly sensitive search strategy (HSSS). Results The BRSS had a sensitivity of 94%. It found all journal RCTs in 47 of the 57 reviews. The missing RCTs made some significant differences to a small proportion of the total outcomes in only five reviews, but no important differences in conclusions resulted. In the post-CONSORT years, 1997–2003, the percentage of RCTs with random in the title or abstract was 85%, a mean increase of 17% compared to the seven years pre-CONSORT (95% CI, 8.3% to 25.9%). The search using random$.af. reduced the MEDLINE retrieval by 84%, compared to the HSSS, thereby reducing the workload of checking retrievals. Conclusion A brief RCT search strategy is now sufficient to locate RCTs for systematic reviews in most cases. Exhaustive searching is no longer cost-effective, because in effect it has already been done for CENTRAL

Self monitoring of blood glucose - a survey of Diabetes UK members with type 2 diabetes who use SMBG

Background: aim - to survey members of Diabetes UK who had Type 2 diabetes and who used self monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), to elicit their views on its usefulness in the management of their diabetes, and how they used the results. A questionnaire was developed for the Diabetes UK website. The questionnaire was posted on the Diabetes UK website until over 500 people had responded. Questions asked users to specify the benefits gained from SMBG, and how these benefits were achieved. We carried out both quantitative analysis and a thematic analysis for the open ended free-text questions.Findings: 554 participants completed the survey, of whom 289 (52.2%) were male. 20% of respondents were recently diagnosed (&lt; 6 months). Frequency of SMBG varied, with 43% of participants testing between once and four times a day and 22% testing less than once a month or for occasional periods.80% of respondents reported high satisfaction with SMBG, and reported feeling more 'in control' of their diabetes management using it. The most frequently reported use of SMBG was to make adjustments to food intake or confirm a hyperglycaemic episode.Women were significantly more likely to report feelings of guilt or self-chastisement associated with out of range readings (p = &lt; .001).Conclusion: SMBG was clearly of benefit to this group of confirmed users, who used the results to adjust diet, physical activity or medications. However many individuals (particularly women) reported feelings of anxiety and depression associated with its use.<br/

Bibliometrics of NIHR HTA monographs and their related journal articles

Objectives: A bibliometric analysis of the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) monographs and their related journal articles by: (1) exploring the differences in citations to the HTA monographs in Google Scholar (GS), Scopus and Web of Science (WoS), and (2) comparing Scopus citations to the monographs with their related journal articles. Setting: A study of 111 HTA monographs published in 2010 and 2011, and their external journal articles. Main outcome measures: Citations to the monographs in GS, Scopus and WoS, and to their external journal articles in Scopus. Results: The number of citations varied among the three databases, with GS having the highest and WoS the lowest; however, the citation-based rankings among the databases were highly correlated. Overall, 56% of monographs had a related publication, with the highest proportion for primary research (76%) and lowest for evidence syntheses (43%). There was a large variation in how the monographs were cited, compared to journal articles, resulting in more frequent problems, with unlinked citations in Scopus and WoS. When comparing differences in the number of citations between monograph publications with their related journal articles from the same project, we found that monographs received more citations than their journal articles for evidence syntheses and methodology projects; by contrast, journal articles related to primary research monographs were more highly cited than their monograph. Conclusions: The numbers of citations to the HTA monographs differed considerably between the databases, but were highly correlated. When a HTA monograph had a journal article from the same study, there were more citations to the journal article for primary research, but more to the monographs for evidence syntheses. Citations to the related journal articles were more reliably recorded than citations to the HTA monographs

Liraglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes : a single technology appraisal

This paper presents a summary of the Evidence Review Group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of liraglutide in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, based upon the manufacturer’s submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The manufacturer proposed the use of liraglutide as a second or third drug in patients with type 2 diabetes whose glycaemic control was unsatisfactory with metformin, with or without a second oral glucoselowering drug. The submission included six manufacturer-sponsored trials that compared the efficacy of liraglutide against other glucose-lowering agents. Not all of the trials were relevant to the decision problem. The most relevant were Liraglutide Effects and Actions in Diabetes 5 (LEAD-5) (liraglutide used as part of triple therapy and compared against insulin glargine) and LEAD-6 [liraglutide in triple therapy compared against another glucagon like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, exenatide]. Five of the six trials were published in full and one was then unpublished. Two doses of liraglutide, 1.2 and 1.8 mg, were used in some trials but in the two comparisons in triple therapy, against glargine and exenatide, only the 1.8-mg dose was used. Liraglutide in both doses was found to be clinically effective in lowering blood glucose concentration [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)], reducing weight (unlike other glucose-lowering agents, such as sulphonylureas, glitazones and insulins, which cause weight gain) and also reducing systolic blood pressure (SBP). Hypoglycaemia was uncommon. The ERG carried out meta-analyses comparing the 1.2- and 1.8-mg doses of liraglutide, which suggested that there was no difference in control of diabetes, and only a slight difference in weight loss, insufficient to justify the extra cost

Literature searching for clinical and cost-effectiveness studies used in health technology assessment reports carried out for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraisal system

Background In the UK, one part of the remit of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is to carry out a programme of technology appraisals. These are done to a fairly tight timetable in order not to delay the guidance on new technologies. Each appraisal is underpinned by a Technology Assessment Report (TAR) commissioned from a group of academic units. As the TAR process is relatively new, and is still evolving, the methods used for its literature searching have been largely based on the well-established and documented methods used for Cochrane reviews. These involve comprehensive searching of a variety of sources to protect against bias, but can add substantially to the time and costs of carrying out a review. However, resource constraints require that TARs are produced as efficiently as possible, and to a tight timetable, which means that not all of the Cochrane methods can be applied, or are appropriate. In addition, it is not known whether the marginal benefits of exhaustive searching justify the costs. The challenge for those undertaking TARs is to know how best to adapt and optimise, and extend when necessary, the Cochrane-based search strategies, so that searching can be done both rapidly and systematically. Objective To contribute to making searching for TARs more cost-effective by suggesting an optimum literature retrieval strategy, based on empirical data obtained from a sample of recent TARs, which balances comprehensiveness and efficiency. Methods A sample of 20 recent TARs was studied. All sources used to search for clinical and cost-effectiveness studies were recorded. In addition, all studies that were included in the clinical and cost-effectiveness sections of the TARs were identified, and their characteristics recorded, including author, journal, year, study design, study size and quality score. Each was also classified by publication type, and then checked to see whether it was indexed in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and then either the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR) for clinical effectiveness studies or the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) for the cost-effectiveness studies. Any study not found in at least one of these databases was checked to see whether it was indexed in the Science Citation Index (SCI) and BIOSIS, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Online if a cancer review. Any studies still not found were investigated further to see whether they were in a number of additional databases. Results Sources searched The median number of sources searched per TAR was 20, and the range was from 13 to 33 sources. Six sources (CCTR, DARE, EMBASE, MEDLINE, NHS EED and sponsor/industry submissions to NICE) were used in all reviews. Clinical effectiveness studies There were 424 studies in total. The publication types were: published 80%, meeting abstracts 11.3% and unpublished 8.7%. Eighty per cent of reviews included at least one abstract or unpublished study (60% included at least one abstract and 50% included at least one unpublished study). The median number of studies included per TAR was 19.5 (range 2–41). The median number of participants included per TAR was 2787 (range 69–97,570). Evidence from non-randomised controlled trial (RCT) studies was used in 45% of TARs. The proportion of studies classified either as published in full or as abstracts, and found indexed in the following databases, was: MEDLINE 82.7%, EMBASE 78.6% and CCTR 50.1%. The cumulative percentage of studies found after searching these three databases was 87.3%. Adding SCI, BIOSIS and ASCO Online increased this to 98.2%. Eighty-seven per cent of studies were indexed in both MEDLINE and EMBASE. Cost-effectiveness studies The 130 studies were classified as: published 73.1%, unpublished 23.8%, abstracts 1.5% and grey literature 1.5%. The median number of studies used was 4.0. The percentage of studies classified as either published in full or as abstracts, and found indexed in the following databases, was: MEDLINE 86.6%, EMBASE 86.6% and NHS EED 40.2%. The cumulative percentage of these studies found indexed after searching the three databases was 94.8%. Adding SCI and ASCO Online increased this to 97.9%. Studies used in the economic modelling The 121 articles were classified as: published 50.4%, abstracts 5.0%, reference sources 17.4%, unpublished 17.4% and grey literature 9.8%. The median number of studies used for the 14 TARs that included an economic model was 9.0 per TAR. Search terms for identifying non-RCTs A sensitive search filter, constructed for MEDLINE and using the search terms from the bibliographic records in the included studies, retrieved only 85% of the known sample. Therefore, it is recommended that when searching for non-RCT studies a search is done for the intervention alone, and records are then scanned manually for those that look relevant. Conclusions Searching additional databases beyond the Cochrane Library (which includes CCTR, NHS EED and the HTA database), MEDLINE, EMBASE and SCI, plus BIOSIS limited to meeting abstracts only, is seldom effective in retrieving additional studies for inclusion in the clinical and cost-effectiveness sections of TARs (apart from reviews of cancer therapies, where a search of the ASCO database is recommended). A more selective approach to database searching would suffice in most cases and would save resources, thereby making the TAR process more efficient. However, searching non-database sources (including submissions from manufacturers, recent meeting abstracts, contact with experts and checking reference lists) does appear to be a productive way of identifying further studies

Hospital admission patterns subsequent to diagnosis of type 1 diabetes in children : a systematic review

Background Patients with type 1 diabetes are known to have a higher hospital admission rate than the underlying population and may also be admitted for procedures that would normally be carried out on a day surgery basis for non-diabetics. Emergency admission rates have sometimes been used as indicators of quality of diabetes care. In preparation for a study of hospital admissions, a systematic review was carried out on hospital admissions for children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, whilst under the age of 15. The main thrust of this review was to ascertain where there were gaps in the literature for studies investigating post-diagnosis hospitalisations, rather than to try to draw conclusions from the disparate data sets. Methods A systematic search of the electronic databases PubMed, Cochrane LibrarMEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted for the period 1986 to 2006, to identify publications relating to hospital admissions subsequent to the diagnosis of type 1 diabetes under the age of 15. Results Thirty-two publications met all inclusion criteria, 16 in Northern America, 11 in Europe and 5 in Australasia. Most of the studies selected were focussed on diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) or diabetes-related hospital admissions and only four studies included data on all admissions. Admission rates with DKA as primary diagnosis varied widely between 0.01 to 0.18 per patient-year as did those for other diabetes-related co-morbidity ranging from 0.05 to 0.38 per patient year, making it difficult to interpret data from different study designs. However, people with Type 1 diabetes are three times more likely to be hospitalised than the non-diabetic populations and stay in hospital twice as long. Conclusion Few studies report on all admissions to hospital in patients diagnosed with type 1 diabetes whilst under the age of 15 years. Health care costs for type 1 patients are higher than those for the general population and information on associated patterns of hospitalisation might help to target interventions to reduce the cost of hospital admissions

Evidence review : liraglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of liraglutide in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, based upon the manufacturer’s submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The manufacturer proposed the use of liraglutide as a second or third drug in patients with type 2 diabetes whose glycaemic control was unsatisfactory with metformin, with or without a second oral glucose-lowering drug. The submission included six manufacturer-sponsored trials that compared the efficacy of liraglutide against other glucose-lowering agents. Not all of the trials were relevant to the decision problem. The most relevant were Liraglutide Effects and Actions in Diabetes 5 (LEAD-5) (liraglutide used as part of triple therapy and compared against insulin glargine) and LEAD-6 [liraglutide in triple therapy compared against another glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist, exenatide]. Five of the six trials were published in full and one was then unpublished. Two doses of liraglutide, 1.2 and 1.8 mg, were used in some trials, but in the two comparisons in triple therapy, against glargine and exenatide, only the 1.8-mg dose was used. Liraglutide in both doses was found to be clinically effective in lowering blood glucose concentration [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)], reducing weight (unlike other glucose-lowering agents, such as sulphonylureas, glitazones and insulins, which cause weight gain) and also reducing systolic blood pressure (SBP). Hypoglycaemia was uncommon. The ERG carried out meta-analyses comparing the 1.2- and 1.8-mg doses of liraglutide, which suggested that there was no difference in control of diabetes, and only a slight difference in weight loss, insufficient to justify the extra cost. The cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out using the Center for Outcomes Research model. The health benefit was reported as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The manufacturer estimated the cost-effectiveness to be £15,130 per QALY for liraglutide 1.8 mg compared with glargine, £10,054 per QALY for liraglutide 1.8 mg compared with exenatide, £10,465 per QALY for liraglutide 1.8 mg compared with sitagliptin, and £9851 per QALY for liraglutide 1.2 mg compared with sitagliptin. The ERG conducted additional sensitivity analyses and concluded that the factors that carried most weight were: in the comparison with glargine, the direct utility effects of body mass index (BMI) changes and SBP, with some additional contribution from HbA1c in the comparison with exenatide, HbA1c, with some additional effects from cholesterol and triglycerides in the comparison with sitagliptin, HbA1c and direct utility effects of BMI changes. The European Medicines Agency has approved liraglutide in dual therapy with other oral glucose-lowering agents. NICE guidance recommends the use of liraglutide 1.2 mg in triple therapy when glycaemic control remains or becomes inadequate with a combination of two oral glucose-lowering drugs. The use of liraglutide 1.2 mg in a dual therapy is indicated only in patients who are intolerant of, or have contraindications to, three oral glucose-lowering drugs. The use of liraglutide 1.8 mg was not approved by NICE. The ERG recommends research into the (currently unlicensed) use of liraglutide in combination with long-acting insulin

Systematic review of SGLT2 receptor inhibitors in dual or triple therapy in type 2 diabetes

Background Despite the number of medications for type 2 diabetes, many people with the condition do not achieve good glycaemic control. Some existing glucose-lowering agents have adverse effects such as weight gain or hypoglycaemia. Type 2 diabetes tends to be a progressive disease, and most patients require treatment with combinations of glucose-lowering agents. The sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) receptor inhibitors are a new class of glucose-lowering agents. Objective To assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of the SGLT2 receptor inhibitors in dual or triple therapy in type 2 diabetes. Data sources MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library (all sections); Science Citation Index; trial registries; conference abstracts; drug regulatory authorities; bibliographies of retrieved papers. Inclusion criteria Randomised controlled trials of SGLT2 receptor inhibitors compared with placebo or active comparator in type 2 diabetes in dual or combination therapy. Methods Systematic review. Quality assessment used the Cochrane risk of bias score. Results Seven trials, published in full, assessed dapagliflozin and one assessed canagliflozin. Trial quality appeared good. Dapagliflozin 10 mg reduced HbA1c by −0.54% (weighted mean differences (WMD), 95% CI −0.67 to −0.40) compared to placebo, but there was no difference compared to glipizide. Canagliflozin reduced HbA1c slightly more than sitagliptin (up to −0.21% vs sitagliptin). Both dapagliflozin and canagliflozin led to weight loss (dapagliflozin WMD −1.81 kg (95% CI −2.04 to −1.57), canagliflozin up to −2.3 kg compared to placebo). Limitations Long-term trial extensions suggested that effects were maintained over time. Data on canagliflozin are currently available from only one paper. Costs of the drugs are not known so cost-effectiveness cannot be assessed. More data on safety are needed, with the Food and Drug Administration having concerns about breast and bladder cancers. Conclusions Dapagliflozin appears effective in reducing HbA1c and weight in type 2 diabetes, although more safety data are needed

Systematic reviews of epidemiology in diabetes: finding the evidence

BACKGROUND: Methodological research to support searching for those doing systematic reviews of epidemiological studies is a relatively neglected area. Our aim was to determine how many databases it is necessary to search to ensure a comprehensive coverage of the literature in diabetes epidemiology, with the aim of examining the efficiency of searching in support of systematic reviews of the epidemiology of diabetes METHODS: Three approaches were used. First, we defined a set of English language diabetes journals and examined their coverage in bibliographic databases. Second, we searched extensively for diabetes epidemiology articles (in all languages) to determine which are the most useful databases; and third, we analysed the scattering of these articles to determine the core journals in the area. RESULTS: The overlap between MEDLINE and Embase for diabetes journals was 59%. A search for diabetes epidemiology articles across both MEDLINE and Embase, showed that MEDLINE alone retrieved about 94% of the total articles. Searching for diabetes epidemiology studies beyond MEDLINE and Embase retrieved no additional English language journal articles. The only diabetes epidemiology studies found by searching beyond MEDLINE and Embase were found in LILACS, and were Spanish or Portuguese language studies from Latin America; no additional English language studies were found. Only 30% of the meeting abstracts were converted to full publication after three years. One third of journal articles were published in just six journals, with Diabetes Care contributing 14.3% of the articles, followed by Diabetic Medicine (5.0%); Diabetes Research & Clinical Practice (4.1%); Diabetologia (4.0%); Diabetes & Metabolism (2.4%) and Diabetes (2.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that when searching for articles on diabetes epidemiology, MEDLINE and Embase would suffice for English language papers, with LILACS giving some additional non-English articles from Latin America. Although a MEDLINE-only search will retrieve the vast majority of the relevant literature, Embase and LILACs should also be searched to ensure the search is comprehensive. Searching for meeting abstracts is recommended to alert reviewers to unpublished work. The low rate of full publication of meeting abstracts has the danger of producing bias in reviews. Our findings on scattering show that the core literature in this field is concentrated in just six journals