Suppr超能文献

二甲双胍与健康结局:系统评价和荟萃分析的伞式综述。

Metformin and health outcomes: An umbrella review of systematic reviews with meta-analyses.

机构信息

School of Public Health, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.

Centre for Global Health, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

出版信息

Eur J Clin Invest. 2021 Jul;51(7):e13536. doi: 10.1111/eci.13536. Epub 2021 Mar 16.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The objective was to capture the breadth of outcomes that have been associated with metformin use and to systematically assess the quality, strength and credibility of these associations using the umbrella review methodology.

METHODS

Four major databases were searched until 31 May 2020. Meta-analyses of observational studies and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (including active and placebo control arms) were included.

RESULTS

From 175 eligible publications, we identified 427 different meta-analyses, including 167 meta-analyses of observational studies, 147 meta-analyses of RCTs for metformin vs placebo/no treatment and 113 meta-analyses of RCTs for metformin vs active medications. There was no association classified as convincing or highly suggestive from meta-analyses of observational studies, but some suggestive/weak associations of metformin use with a lower mortality risk of CVD and cancer. In meta-analyses of RCTs, metformin was associated with a lower incidence of diabetes in people with prediabetes or no diabetes at baseline; lower ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome incidence (in women in controlled ovarian stimulation); higher success for clinical pregnancy rate in poly-cystic ovary syndrome (PCOS); and significant reduction in body mass index in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus, in women who have obesity/overweight with PCOS and in obese/overweight women. Of 175 publications, 166 scored as low or critically low quality per AMSTAR 2 criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Observational evidence on metformin seems largely unreliable. Randomized evidence shows benefits for preventing diabetes and in some gynaecological and obstetrical settings. However, almost all meta-analyses are of low or critically low quality according to AMSTAR 2 criteria.

摘要

背景

本研究旨在全面总结与二甲双胍使用相关的结局,并采用 umbrella 综述方法系统评估这些关联的质量、强度和可信度。

方法

系统检索了四大数据库,检索时间截至 2020 年 5 月 31 日。纳入了观察性研究的荟萃分析和随机对照试验(RCT)的荟萃分析(包括活性药物和安慰剂对照臂)。

结果

从 175 篇合格文献中,我们确定了 427 项不同的荟萃分析,包括 167 项观察性研究的荟萃分析、147 项二甲双胍与安慰剂/无治疗比较的 RCT 荟萃分析和 113 项二甲双胍与活性药物比较的 RCT 荟萃分析。观察性研究荟萃分析未发现有说服力或高度提示性的关联,但二甲双胍的使用与 CVD 和癌症的死亡率降低存在一些提示性/弱关联。在 RCT 荟萃分析中,二甲双胍与基线时无糖尿病或糖尿病前期的人群发生糖尿病的风险降低相关;与控制性卵巢刺激的女性发生卵巢过度刺激综合征的风险降低相关;与多囊卵巢综合征患者的临床妊娠率升高相关;与 1 型糖尿病患者的体重指数降低相关,与肥胖/超重的多囊卵巢综合征患者和肥胖/超重的女性相关。在 175 篇文献中,根据 AMSTAR 2 标准,有 166 篇的评分属于低质量或极低质量。

结论

关于二甲双胍的观察性证据似乎大多不可靠。随机证据表明,二甲双胍在预防糖尿病和某些妇科和产科环境中具有益处。然而,根据 AMSTAR 2 标准,几乎所有的荟萃分析都是低质量或极低质量的。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验