Skip to content Skip to navigation
University of Warwick
  • Study
  • |
  • Research
  • |
  • Business
  • |
  • Alumni
  • |
  • News
  • |
  • About

University of Warwick
Publications service & WRAP

Highlight your research

  • WRAP
    • Home
    • Search WRAP
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse WRAP by Year
    • Browse WRAP by Subject
    • Browse WRAP by Department
    • Browse WRAP by Funder
    • Browse Theses by Department
  • Publications Service
    • Home
    • Search Publications Service
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse Publications service by Year
    • Browse Publications service by Subject
    • Browse Publications service by Department
    • Browse Publications service by Funder
  • Statistics
  • Help & Advice
University of Warwick

The Library

  • Login

Sources of evidence for systematic reviews of interventions in diabetes

Tools
- Tools
+ Tools

Royle, P. L., Bain, L. (Lynda) and Waugh, Norman. (2005) Sources of evidence for systematic reviews of interventions in diabetes. Diabetic Medicine, Vol. 22 (No. 10). pp. 1386-1393. ISSN 0742-3071

Full text not available from this repository.
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2005.01645.x

Abstract

Aims To analyse the effect on systematic reviews in diabetes interventions of including only trials that are indexed in medline, and to assess the impact of adding trials from other databases and the grey literature. Methods All systematic reviews of diabetes interventions which included a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, and were published since 1996, were selected. The impact on the meta-analysis of including only those trials indexed in medline, and the effect of then adding trials from other sources, was assessed. Where possible this was measured quantitatively, by redoing the meta-analysis, otherwise a qualitative estimate was made. Results Forty-four systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. There were 120 articles reporting trial data which were not indexed in medline. These came from 52% of the reviews. In 34% of the reviews, basing a meta-analysis on a search of only medline would miss trials that could affect the result. Sources of non-medline data which had the biggest effect on the meta-analyses were journal articles from central and embase (mainly in Diabetes, Nutrition and Metabolism) and unpublished data (mainly from industry). The exceptions were journal articles on herbal medicine, mostly indexed in Chinese language databases. Conclusions A search of only the medline database is insufficient for systematic reviews of diabetes, because in about 34% of reviews the missed trials could affect the results of the meta-analysis. It is recommended that central (on the Cochrane Library) also be searched. Scanning meeting abstracts, and seeking unpublished data are also recommended if the intervention has only recently been introduced.

Item Type: Journal Article
Divisions: Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences
Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School
Journal or Publication Title: Diabetic Medicine
Publisher: Blackwell Publishing
ISSN: 0742-3071
Date: 2005
Volume: Vol. 22
Number: No. 10
Page Range: pp. 1386-1393
Identification Number: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2005.01645.x
Status: Peer Reviewed
Publication Status: Published
Access rights to Published version: Restricted or Subscription Access
URI: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/50159

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
twitter

Email us: publications@warwick.ac.uk
Contact Details
About Us