BackgroundSelective reporting bias (SRB), the incomplete publication of outcomes measured or of analyses performed in a study, may lead to the over- or underestimation of treatment effects or harms. Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions are required to assess the risk of SRB, achieved in part by applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool to each included randomised trial. The Cochrane Handbook outlines strategies for a comprehensive risk of bias assessment, but the extent to which these are followed by Cochrane review groups (CRGs) has not been assessed to date. The objective of this study was to determine the methods which CRGs require of their authors to address SRB within systematic reviews, and how SRB risk assessments are verified.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was developed and distributed electronically to the 52 CRGs involved in intervention reviews.ResultsResponses from 42 CRGs show that the majority refer their authors to the Cochrane Handbook for specific instruction regarding assessments of SRB. The handbook strategies remain variably enforced, with 57 % (24/42) of CRGs not requiring review authors to search for included trial protocols and 31 % (13/42) not requiring that contact with individual study authors be attempted. Only half (48 %, 20/42) of the groups consistently verify review authors’ assessments of the risk of SRB to ensure completeness.ConclusionsA range of practices are used by CRGs for addressing SRB, with many steps outlined in the Cochrane Handbook being encouraged but not required. The majority of CRGs do not consider their review authors to be sufficiently competent to assess for SRB, yet risk of bias assessments are not always verified by editors before publication. The implications of SRB may not be fully appreciated by all CRGs, and resolving the identified issues may require an approach targeting several steps in the systematic review process.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0070-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IntroductionSeveral new oral drug classes for type 2 diabetes (T2DM) have been introduced in the last 20 years accompanied by developments in clinical evidence and guidelines. The uptake of new therapies and contemporary use of blood glucose-lowering drugs has not been closely examined in Canada. The objective of this project was to describe these treatment patterns and relate them to changes in provincial practice guidelines.Research design and methodsWe conducted a longitudinal drug utilization study among persons with T2DM aged ≥18 years from 2001 to 2020 in British Columbia (BC), Canada. We used dispensing data from community pharmacies with linkable physician billing and hospital admission records. Laboratory results were available from 2011 onwards. We identified incident users of blood glucose-lowering drugs, then determined sequence patterns of medications dispensed, with stratification by age group, and subgroup analysis for patients with a history of cardiovascular disease.ResultsAmong a cohort of 362 391 patients (mean age 57.7 years old, 53.5% male) treated for non-insulin-dependent diabetes, the proportion who received metformin monotherapy as first-line treatment reached a maximum of 90% in 2009, decreasing to 73% in 2020. The proportion of patients starting two-drug combinations nearly doubled from 3.3% to 6.4%. Sulfonylureas were the preferred class of second-line agents over the course of the study period. In 2020, sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists accounted for 21% and 10% of second-line prescribing, respectively. For patients with baseline glycated hemoglobin (A1C) results prior to initiating diabetic treatment, 41% had a value ≤7.0% and 27% had a value over 8.5%.ConclusionsOral diabetic medication patterns have changed significantly over the last 20 years in BC, primarily in terms of medications used as second-line therapy. Over 40% of patients with available laboratory results initiated T2DM treatment with an A1C value ≤7.0%, with the average A1C value trending lower over the last decade.

GPs have an important role to play in the care of patients at risk of, or infected with, HCV.

No abstract

No abstract