Systematic review and meta-analysis protocol for efficacy and safety of Momordica charantia L. on animal models of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Abstract

Background: Studies on several preclinical models of type 2 diabetes mellitus have been conducted to establish the hypoglycemic activity of Momordica charantia L. Concerned with appropriateness of these models, we designed a systematic review to establish the efficacy and safety of M. charantia L. in preclinical models of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods: Review authors will search without language restriction in MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL databases through April 2019. Search filters will be applied to enhance search efficiency. The authors will search for gray literature in Google and Google Scholar, OpenGrey, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Two authors will evaluate full texts, extract data, and asses risk of bias independently. The review will include randomized or non-randomized studies that assessed the efficacy or safety of M. charantia L. with vehicle control group. The primary endpoint will be fasting blood glucose level. We will use Egger's test to assess publication biases. Chi-square test and I 2 will be used to assess heterogeneity in effect size of the primary outcome. Using RevMan software version 5.3, the authors will perform a meta-analysis of quantitative data. Discussion: The strength of evidence will be rated as high, moderate, low, or very low using GRADE framework for animal studies. This systematic review will potentially improve research practice by identifying risks of bias and design features that compromise translatability and contribute to evidence-based clinical trial design.

Phytosterols and phytostanols and the hallmarks of cancer in model organisms: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…This in turn, makes the collective assessment of animal studies susceptible to high inter-study variation because each study has adapted its own protocol. We applied I 2 > 75% as a marker of high heterogeneity for meta-analysis of animal studies (Peter et al 2020). In meta-analyses with !10 comparisons per outcome and I 2 > 75%, sources of heterogeneity were explored and discussed (Deeks et al 2019;Peter et al 2020).…”

“…We applied I 2 > 75% as a marker of high heterogeneity for meta-analysis of animal studies (Peter et al 2020). In meta-analyses with !10 comparisons per outcome and I 2 > 75%, sources of heterogeneity were explored and discussed (Deeks et al 2019;Peter et al 2020). Assessment of publication bias was performed by visual inspection where !10 studies were assessed for a single outcome.…”

A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of High, Medium, and Low Voltage Electrical Stimulation on the Meat Quality of Small Ruminants

“…Asymmetry of the funnel plots was used to assess publication biases [23]. A random effects model was used for pooling effect estimates because effect sizes from animal studies were more likely to differ due to the difference in design characteristics [24]. The tests for funnel plot asymmetry were not used if the study number was less than 10, because the test power is generally too low to differentiate chance from real asymmetry [25].…”

The safety and efficacy of Momordica charantia L. in animal models of type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…This systematic review and meta‐analysis is based on registered protocol number CRD42019119181 (Peter, Mtewa, Nagendrappa, Kaligirwa, & Sesaazi, 2020). We reported results according to the PRISMA guidelines, the PRISMA abstract checklist, and guidelines for reporting systematic review and meta‐analysis of animal studies (Beller et al, 2013; Moher et al, 2009; Sena, Currie, McCann, Macleod, & Howells, 2014).…”