Exploring the Quality of Systematic Reviews on Pharmacist Interventions in Patients With Diabetes

Abstract

Objective: To assess the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis studies on pharmacist interventions in patients with diabetes. Data Sources: A comprehensive literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Scopus, and LILACS databases for systematic reviews and meta-analysis studies published from January 1990 to June 2013. The standardized search strategy included the use of MeSH terms or text words related to pharmacist interventions, diabetes, and systematic reviews. Study Selection and Data Extraction: The overview included systematic reviews and meta-analysis studies published in English, Portuguese, or Spanish that evaluated the effect of pharmacist intervention on outcomes for diabetic patients. Two independent authors performed study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment with a consensus process to address disagreements. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklists were used to assess reporting characteristics and methodological quality, respectively. Data Synthesis: The literature search yielded 101 records of potential interest, of which 7 satisfied the inclusion criteria. The total average (SD) for PRISMA and AMSTAR scores were 17.4 (5.6) out of 27 and 6.9 (2.0) out of 11, respectively. The most frequent problems included nonregistration of study protocol, absence of a list of excluded studies, and unclear acknowledgment of conflicts of interests. Conclusion: The reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis studies were suboptimal, with some areas needing further improvement. It is necessary to ensure better transparency and reproducibility in the literature of clinical pharmacy services for diabetic patients.