Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews of DPP-4 inhibitors for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: an evidence-based mapping

The benefits of oral glucose-lowering agents: GLP-1 receptor agonists, DPP-4 and SGLT-2 inhibitors on myocardial ischaemia/reperfusion injury

Myocardial infarction (MI) is a life-threatening cardiovascular disease that, on average, results in 8.5 million deaths worldwide each year. Timely revascularization of occluded vessels is a critical method of myocardial salvage. However, reperfusion paradoxically leads to the worsening of myocardial damage known as myocardial ischaemia/reperfusion injury (MI/RI). Therefore, reducing the size of myocardial infarction after reperfusion is critical and remains an important therapeutic goal. The susceptibility of the myocardium to MI/RI may be increased by diabetes. Currently, some traditional antidiabetic agents such as metformin reduce MI/RI by decreasing inflammation, inhibiting oxidative stress, and improving vascular endothelial function. This appears to be a new direction for the treatment of MI/RI. Recent cardiovascular outcome trials have shown that several oral antidiabetic agents, including glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is), and sodium-glucose-linked transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is), not only have good antidiabetic effects but also have a protective effect on myocardial protection. This article aims to discuss the mechanisms and effects of oral antidiabetic agents, including GLP-1RAs, DPP-4is, and SGLT-2is, on MI/RI to facilitate their clinical application.

Author instructions in biomedical journals infrequently address systematic review reporting and methodology: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to analyze how instructions for authors in journals indexed in MEDLINE address systematic review (SR) reporting and methodology.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We analyzed instructions for authors in 20% of MEDLINE-indexed journals listed in the online catalog of the National Library of Medicine on July 27, 2021. We extracted data only from the instructions published in English. We extracted data on the existence of instructions for reporting and methodology of SRs.

RESULTS

Instructions from 1,237 journals mentioned SRs in 45% (n = 560) of the cases. Systematic review (SR) registration was mentioned in 104/1,237 (8%) of instructions. Guidelines for reporting SR protocols were found in 155/1,237 (13%) of instructions. Guidelines for reporting SRs were explicitly mentioned in 461/1,237 (37%), whereas the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) network was referred to in 474/1,237 (38%) of instructions. Less than 2% (n = 20) of instructions mentioned risk of bias and meta-analyses; less than 1% mentioned certainty of evidence assessment, methodological expectations, updating of SRs, overviews of SRs, or scoping reviews.

CONCLUSION

Journals indexed in MEDLINE rarely provide instructions for authors regarding SR reporting and methodology. Such instructions could potentially raise authors' awareness and improve how SRs are prepared and reported.