Advertisement

Acta Diabetologica

, Volume 56, Issue 1, pp 7–27 | Cite as

DPP-4 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a methodology overview of systematic reviews

  • Juan Ling
  • Long Ge
  • Ding-hua Zhang
  • Yong-feng Wang
  • Zhuo-lin Xie
  • Jin-hui Tian
  • Xiao-hui XiaoEmail author
  • Ke-hu YangEmail author
Review Article
  • 220 Downloads

Abstract

Aims

To evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs), and summarize evidence of important outcomes from dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4-I) in treating type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Methods

We included SRs of DPP4-I for the treatment of T2DM until January, 2018 by searching the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE and three Chinese databases. We evaluated the methodological qualities with the AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool and the GRADE (The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

Results

Sixty-three SRs (a total of 2,603,140 participants) receiving DPP4-I for the treatment of T2DM were included. The results of AMSTAR showed that the lowest quality was “a list of studies (included and excluded) item” with only one (1.6%) study provided, followed by the “providing a priori design” item with only four (6.3%) studies conforming to this item, the next were “the status of publication (gray literature) used as an inclusion criterion item”, with only 18 (28.9%) studies conforming to these items. Only seven (11.1%) studies scored more than nine points in AMSTAR, indicating high methodological quality. For GRADE, of the 128 outcomes, high quality evidence was provided in only 28 (21.9%), moderate in 70 (54.7%), low in 27 (21.1%), and very low in three (2.3%).

Conclusions

The methodological quality of SRs of DPP4-I for type 2 diabetes mellitus is not high and there are common areas for improvement. Furthermore, the quality of evidence level is moderate and more high quality evidence is needed.

Keywords

Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors Systematic reviews Type 2 diabetes mellitus AMSTAR GRADE 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the library of Lanzhou University for their database in accessing and acquiring the full texts. The authors are also grateful to Dr. Karen Bysouth for polishing and revising the language. We would like to thank the authors of the original studies included in this overview.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors (Juan Ling, Long Ge, Ding-hua Zhang, Yong-feng Wang, Zhuo-lin Xie, Jin-hui Tian, Xiao-hui Xiao and Ke-hu Yang) have indicated that they have no conflicts of interest regarding the content of this article.

Human and animal rights

This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Supplementary material

592_2018_1164_MOESM1_ESM.docx (18 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 17 KB)
592_2018_1164_MOESM2_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 17 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    International Diabetes Federation. IDFDIABETESATLAS, 7th edn. http://www.idf.org/files/idf_publications/idf_diabetes_atlas_EN/idf_diabetes_atlas_EN/assets/common/downloads/publication.pdf. Accessed 27 July 2016
  2. 2.
    Deacon CF (2011) Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a comparative review. Diabetes Obes Metab 13(1):7Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Holst JJ, Deacon CF (1998) Inhibition of the activity of dipeptidyl peptidase IV as a treatment for type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 47(11):1663–1670Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thornberry NA, Weber AE (2007) Discovery of JANUVIA (Sitagliptin), a selective dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitor for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Curr Top Med Chem 7(6):557–568Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tahrani AA, Piya MK, Barnett AH (2009) Saxagliptin: a new DPP-4 inhibitor for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Adv Ther 26(3):249–262Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ckhardt ME, Angkop EL, Mark M, Tadayyon M (2007) 8- [(3R)- 3- aminopiperidin- 1- yl] – 7- (but- 2- yn- 1- yl) – 3- methyl- 1- [(4- methylquinazolin- 2- yl) methyl]– 3, 7- dihydro- 1H- purine- 2, 6- dione a highly potent, selective, long-acting, and orally bioavailable DPP-4 inhibitor for the treatment of type-2 diabetes. J Med Chem 50:6450–6453Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Feng J, Zhang ZY, Wallace MB et al (2007) Discovery of alogliptin: a potent, selective, bioavailable, and efficacious inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase IV. J Med Chem 50(10):2297Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Association AD (2014) Standards of medical care in diabetes-2014. Eur J Cancer Suppl 2(3):130–130Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC et al (2007) Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 4: e78Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dersimonian R, Kacker R (2007) Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: an update[J]. Contemp Clin Trials 28(2):105Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA et al (2007) Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 7(2):1–7Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seo HJ, KimQuality KU (2012) Assessment of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of nursing interventions conducted by Korean reviewers. BMC Med Res Methodol 12:129Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jaspers MWM, Smeulers M, Vermeulen H et al (2011) Effects of clinical decision- support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a synthesis of high-quality systematic review findings. J Am Med Inform Assoc 18(3):327–334Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schünemann H, Brożek J, Oxman A (2013) GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. The GRADE Working Group. http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org. Accessed Jan 2018
  15. 15.
    Higgins JPTAD., Sterne JAC (2011) Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. Cochrane collaborationGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH et al (2001) Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med 20(Suppl 3):21–35Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhou JB, Bai L, Wang Y et al (2016) The benefits and risks of DPP4-inhibitors vs. sulfonylureas for patients with type 2 diabetes: accumulated evidence from randomised controlled trial. Int J Clin Pract 70(2):132–141Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Loh HH, Yee A, Loh HS et al (2016) Comparative studies of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor vs sulphonylurea among Muslim Type 2 diabetes patients who fast in the month of Ramadan: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prim Care Diabetes 10(3):210–219Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li J, Tang C, Xue YM (2015) A systematic reviews and meta analysis of comparing glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist with DPP4-I in treating type 2 diabetes, Chin J Crit Care Med 35(12):222–225Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhou Y, He M, Yang M et al (2014) Effect of GLP-1Receptor agonist versus DPP-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes mellitus: asystematic review. Chin J Evid Based Med 12:1459–1466Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhang YF, Hong J, Chi J et al (2014) Head-to-head comparison of dipeptidyl peptidase-iv inhibitors and sulfonylureas—a meta-analysis from randomized clinical trials. Diabetes/Metab Res Rev 30(3):241–256Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Park H, Park C, Kim Y et al (2012) Efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis. Ann Pharmacother 46(11):1453–1469Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gooßen K, Gräber S (2012) Longer term safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab 14(12):1–72Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Aroda VR, Henry RR, Han J et al (2012) Efficacy of GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP4-I: meta-analysis and systematic review. Clin Ther 34(6):1247–1258.e22Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Monami M, Iacomelli I, Marchionni N et al (2010) Dipeptydil [dipeptidyl] peptidase-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (structured abstract). Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 20(4):224–235Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Li YH, Li KL, Liu H (2015) A meta analysis of the pharmacological effect of Sitagliptin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Evid-Based Med 15(3):149–154Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wang T, Gou Z, Wang F et al (2014) Comparison of GLP-1 analogues versus sitagliptin in the management of type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head studies. PLoS ONE 9(8):e103798Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wan LY, Zhang C, Guo WH et al (2013) Efficacy and safety of sitagllptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta- analysis. Advers Drug React J 15(6):306–313Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Du Q, Wu B, Wang YJ et al (2013) Comparative effects of sitagliptin and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis. Curr Med Res Opin 29(11):1487–1494Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhan M, Xu T, Wu F et al (2012) Sitagliptin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. J Evid-Based Med 5(3):154–165Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang Y, Hu M, Zhan M et al (2014) Alogliptin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Chin Hosp Pharm J 34(23):2014–2022Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Berhan A, Berhan Y (2013) Efficacy of alogliptin in type 2 diabetes treatment: a meta-analysis of randomized double-blind controlled studies. BMC Endocr Disord 13(1):9Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bekiari E, Rizava C, Athanasiadou E et al (2015) Systematic review and meta-analysis of vildagliptin for treatment of type 2 diabetes. Endocrine 52(3):458–480Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cai L, Cai Y, Lu ZJ et al (2012) The efficacy and safety of vildagliptin in patients with tye 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Clin Pharm Ther 37(4):386–398Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhan M, Wu PB, Xu Y et al (2011) A meta-analysis of compared vildagliptin with OADs in treatment patients with tye 2 diabetes. Chin Hosp Pharm J 31(21):1824–1828Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zang YL, Xie ZW, Fang Y (2015) A systematic review of Linagliptin intreatment patients with tye 2 diabetes. Chin J Clin Pharmacol Ther 20(7):778–787Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yang T, Lu M, Zhou Y et al (2012) Safety of Linagliptin for Type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. Drug Eval 6:16–20Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yao L, Fan FF, Hu L et al (2016) Efficacy and safety of saxagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Chin Pharm Sci 2:128–139Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhan M, Xu T, Wu FB et al (2012) Saxagliptin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Chin J Evid-Based Med 12(6):708–713Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rehman MB, Tudrej BV, Soustre J et al (2017) Efficacy and safety of DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. Diabetes Metab 43(1):48–58Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kamiya H (2017) A systematic review of the benefits and harms of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor for chronic kidney disease. Hemodialysis International 21(1):72–83Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Guo WQ, Li L, Su Q et al (2017) Effect of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors on heart failure: a network meta-analysis. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 20(10):1427Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Elgendy IY, Mahmoud AN, Barakat AF et al (2017) Cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl-peptidase IV inhibitors: a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized trials. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 17(2):143–155Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bundhun PK, Janoo G, Teeluck AR et al (2017) Adverse drug effects observed with vildagliptin versus pioglitazone or rosiglitazone in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol 18(1):66Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yang W, Cai X, Han X et al (2016) DPP-4 inhibitors and risk of infections: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes/Metab Res Rev 32(4):391–404Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wang T, Wang F, Zhou J et al (2016) Adverse effects of incretin-based therapies on major cardiovascular and arrhythmia events: meta-analysis of randomized trials. Diabetes/Metab Res Rev 32(8):843–857Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Singh-Franco D, Harrington C, Tellez-Corrales E (2016) An updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and tolerability of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes with moderate to severe chronic kidney disease. SAGE Open Med 4:1–16Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ling L, Li S, Ke D et al (2016) Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and risk of heart failure in type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and observational studies. BMJ Br Med J 352:i610Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kundu A, Sardar P, Ghosh S et al (2016) Risk of heart failure with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Cardiol 212:203–205Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kongwatcharapong J, Dilokthornsakul P, Nathisuwan S et al (2016) Effect of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors on heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Int J Cardiol 211:88Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Howse PM, Chibrikova LN, Twells LK et al (2016) Safety and efficacy of incretin-based therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and CKD: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Kidney Dis 68(5):733–742Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cai X, Gao X, Yang W et al (2016) DPP-4 inhibitor treatment in Chinese type 2 diabetes patients: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Technol Ther 120(12):S104Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Mcinnes G, Evans M, Del PS et al (2015) Cardiovascular and heart failure safety profile of vildagliptin: a meta-analysis of 17000 patients. Diabetes Obes Metab 17(11):1085–1092Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hou L, Zhao T, Liu Y et al (2015) Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin compared with sulfonylurea therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes showing inadequately controlled glycosylated hemoglobin with metformin monotherapy: a meta-analysis. Exp Ther Med 9(4):1528–1536Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Esposito K, Chiodini P, Maiorino MI et al (2015) A nomogram to estimate the HbA1c response to different DPP-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 98 trials with 24 163 patients. BMJ Open 5(2):e005892Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zhao Q, Hong D, Zheng D et al (2014) Risk of diarrhea in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with sitagliptin: a meta-analysis of 30 randomized clinical trials. Drug Des Dev Ther 8:2283Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Esposito K, Chiodini P, Maiorino MI et al (2014) Glycaemic durability with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open 4(6):e005442Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Singh-Franco D, Mclaughlin-Middlekauff J, Elrod S et al (2012) The effect of linagliptin on glycaemic control and tolerability in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab 14(8):694–708Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Patil HR, Badarin FJA, Shami HAA et al (2012) Meta-analysis of effect of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors on cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol 110(6):826–833Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Johansen OE, Neubacher D, Von EM et al (2012) Cardiovascular safety with linagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a pre-specified, prospective, and adjudicated meta-analysis of a phase 3 programme. Cardiovasc Diabetol 11(1):1–10Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Gerrald KR, Scoyoc EV, Wines RC et al (2012) Saxagliptin and sitagliptin in adult patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab 14(6):481–492Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Amori RE, Lau J, Pittas AG (2007) Efficacy and safety of incretin therapy in type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 298(2):194Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Richter B, Bandeiraechtler E, Bergerhoff K et al (2008) Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1(2):CD006739Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Karagiannis T, Paschos P, Paletas K et al (2012) Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the clinical setting: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 344:e1369Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Cheng D, Fei Y, Liu Y et al (2014) Efficacy and Safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with moderate to severe renal impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 9(10):e111543Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Tricco AC, Antony J, Khan PA et al (2014) Safety and effectiveness of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors versus intermediate-acting insulin or placebo for patients with type 2 diabetes failing two oral antihyperglycaemic agents: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ Open 4(12):e005752Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Wu D, Li L, Liu C (2014) Efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and metformin as initial combination therapy and as monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab 16(1):30–37Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Pérez A, Franch J, Fuster E et al (2014) Efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: systematic review and meta-analysis. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 17(7):A335Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Liu X, Xiao Q, Zhang L et al (2014) The long-term efficacy and safety of DPP-IV inhibitors monotherapy and in combination with metformin in 18 980 patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus-a meta-analysis. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 23(7):687–698Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Fei Y, Tsoi MF, Kumana CR et al (2017) Network meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcomes in randomized controlled trials of new antidiabetic drugs. Int J Cardiol 39(8):e49–e50Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Chen K, Kang D, Yu M et al (2017) Direct head-to-head comparison of glycemic durability of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and sulphonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of long-term randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Obes Metab 20:1–5Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Ayers D, Kanters S, Goldgrub R et al (2017) Network meta-analysis of liraglutide versus dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in Japanese patients. Curr Med Res Opin 33(9):1Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Verma S, Goldenberg RM, Bhatt DL et al (2017) Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and the risk of heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ Open 5(1):e152–e177Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Kay S, Strickson A, Puelles J et al (2017) Comparative effectiveness of adding alogliptin to metformin plus sulfonylurea with other DPP-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Diabetes Ther 8(2):251–273Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Mannucci E, Monami M (2016) Cardiovascular safety of incretin-based therapies in type 2 diabetes. Syst Rev Integr Anal Randomized Control Trials: Adv Ther 34(1):1–40Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Xu S, Zhang X, Tang L et al (2017) Cardiovascular effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor in diabetic patients with and without established cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Postgrad Med 129(2):205–215Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Li M, Yi Y, Jiang D et al (2017) Efficacy and safety of liraglutide versus sitagliptin both in combination with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine 96(39):e8161Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Min SH, Yoon JH, Hahn S et al (2016) Comparison between SGLT2 inhibitors and DPP4 inhibitors added to insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review with indirect comparison meta-analysis. Diabetes/Metab Res Rev.  https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.2818 Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Min SH, Yoon JH, Hahn S et al (2017) Efficacy and safety of combination therapy with an alpha-glucosidase inhibitor and a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Diabetes Investig.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jdi.12754 Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Chatterjee S, Chatterjee S (2013) ACP journal club: review: dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors do not increase overall adverse events in type 2 diabetes. Ann Intern Med 158(8):JC8Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Armijoolivo S, Stiles CR, Hagen NA et al (2012) Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research. J Eval Clin Pract 18(1):12–18Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Li L, Ying XJ, Sun TT et al (2012) Overview of methodological quality of systematic reviews about gastric cancer risk and protective factors. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 13(5):2069–2079Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Mcauley L, Pham B, Tugwell P et al (2000) Does the inclusion of gray literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 356(9237):1228–1231Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Dubben HH, Beckbornholdt HP (2005) Systematic review of publication bias in studies on publication bias. BMJ 331(7514):433–434Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Schmieder RE, Neuzil P (2016) Scientific data and transparency of conflict of interest are important, not biased editorial without facts. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 9(21):2263Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Tian JH, Zhang J, Ge L, Yang KH, Song FJ (2017) The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews from China and the USA are similar. J Clin Epidemiol 85:50–58Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia S.r.l., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan Ling
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Long Ge
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Ding-hua Zhang
    • 6
  • Yong-feng Wang
    • 7
  • Zhuo-lin Xie
    • 8
  • Jin-hui Tian
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Xiao-hui Xiao
    • 9
    Email author
  • Ke-hu Yang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.School of Basic Medical Sciences, Evidence-Based Medicine CenterLanzhou UniversityLanzhouChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu ProvinceLanzhouChina
  3. 3.Chinese GRADE CenterLanzhou UniversityLanzhouChina
  4. 4.WHO Collaborating Center for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge TranslationLanzhouChina
  5. 5.The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou UniversityLanzhouChina
  6. 6.Gansu University of Traditional Chinese MedicineLanzhouChina
  7. 7.School of Basic Medical SciencesGansu University of Traditional Chinese MedicineLanzhouChina
  8. 8.Department of EndocrinologyGansu Province Hospital of Traditional Chinese MedicineLanzhouChina
  9. 9.Gansu Provincial People’s HospitalLanzhouChina

Personalised recommendations