Pharmacotherapy in paediatric type 2 diabetes mellitus: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The rates of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in children and adolescents have risen globally over the past few years. While a few diabetes pharmacotherapies have been used in this population, their comparative benefits and harms are unclear. Thus, we will conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapies for managing paediatric T2DM. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will include RCTs that enrolled T2DM patients ≤18 years of age and who were randomised to monotherapy or combination pharmacotherapies with or without lifestyle interventions. Comparator groups will include placebo or non-pharmacological treatments including lifestyle interventions.Treatment outcomes will include change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin A1c, body mass index z-score, weight, systolic/diastolic blood pressure, fasting plasma glucose, fasting insulin and lipid profiles, T2DM-related complications, as well as the incidence of treatment-related adverse events.Literature searches will be conducted in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL and Web of Science. We will also search the grey literature and the reference list of included trials and relevant reviews. Two reviewers will assess the eligibility of articles identified through our searches and will extract data from eligible studies independently. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate the risk of bias. Disagreements will be resolved through consensus or arbitration by a third reviewer.A frequentist random-effects model will be used for conducting NMA. The quality of evidence will be assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis platform. We will assess the effect modification through network meta-regression and subgroup analyses for sex, age at study inclusion, duration of T2DM, follow-up duration and risk of bias ratings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will not require ethics approval. We will disseminate our findings through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022310100.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.113 | 0.172 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.028 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".