A juxtaposition of safety outcomes between various doses of sodium-glucose co-transporter inhibitors, in insulin-treated type-1 diabetes mellitus patients: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract


 Background: Several clinical trials have tested the safety profile of sodium-glucose co-transport inhibitors’ (SGLTis) in adult type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) patients. However, no systematic review has yet compared its variation between large and low dose SGLTis. Henceforth, a review protocol is proposed here to review it.
 Methods: Different electronic databases will be searched for randomized-controlled trials (published in the English language) studying the above objective, irrespective of their publication date. After selecting the eligible trials, their data on the study design, population characteristics, compared interventions, and outcomes of interest will be extracted. Then, utilizing the Cochrane tool, each trial's risk of selection bias, detection bias, performance bias, attrition bias, reporting bias, and other bias will be judged. Next, depending on clinical heterogeneity among the trials, a random-effect or fixed-effect model meta-analysis will be used to compare the respective outcomes. Via the Chi2 and I2 statistics, the statistical inconsistency among the trials will be estimated. When this is substantial, subgroup analysis will follow. Publication bias will be evaluated by funnel plots and Egger’s test. A sensitivity analysis will be done to check different assumptions. If a quantitative juxtaposition is not possible, a narrative reporting will ensue.
 Conclusion: The proposed study will perform a dose-wise juxtaposition of the safety profile of SGLTis in insulin-treated T1DM patients.
 Registration: Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (Registration no. CRD42019146578)
 

A systematic review of tobacco smoking cessation services in Africa: Practices and challenges faced by healthcare workers

“…A systematic review of the literature was conducted using the guidelines outlined by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for assessment of intervention studies [17,18]. We reviewed all literature found irrespective of their study design.…”