Clinical evidence for high-risk medical devices used to manage diabetes: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
DIABETES & ENDOCRINOLOGY
EPIDEMIOLOGY
General diabetes
General endocrinology
Journal
BMJ open
ISSN: 2044-6055
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101552874
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 04 2023
11 04 2023
Historique:
medline:
13
4
2023
entrez:
11
4
2023
pubmed:
12
4
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Medical devices, including high-risk medical devices, have greatly contributed to recent improvements in the management of diabetes. However, the clinical evidence that is submitted for regulatory approval is not transparent, and thus a comprehensive summary of the evidence for high-risk devices approved for managing diabetes in Europe is lacking. In the framework of the Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices group, we will, therefore, perform a systematic review and meta-analysis, which will evaluate the efficacy, safety and usability of high-risk medical devices for the management of diabetes. This study has been reported according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. We will search Embase (Elsevier), Medline All (Ovid), Cochrane Library (Wiley), Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science) to identify interventional and observational studies that evaluate the efficacy and/or safety and/or usability of high-risk medical devices for the management of diabetes. No language or publication dates' limits will be applied. Animal studies will be excluded. In accordance with the Medical Device Regulation in European Union, high-risk medical devices are those in classes IIb and III. The following medical devices for diabetes management are considered as having a high risk: implantable continuous glucose monitoring systems, implantable pumps and automated insulin delivery devices. Selection of studies, data extraction and quality of evidence assessment will be performed independently by two researchers. Sensitivity analysis will be performed to identify and explain potential heterogeneity. No ethical approval is needed for this systematic review, as it is based in already published data. Our findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. CRD42022366871.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37041065
pii: bmjopen-2022-070672
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-070672
pmc: PMC10106051
doi:
Substances chimiques
Blood Glucose
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e070672Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: RH reports having received speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly, Dexcom and Novo Nordisk, receiving license fees from BBraun, and being director at CamDiab. All other authors declare no competing interests.
Références
Diabet Med. 2019 May;36(5):644-652
pubmed: 30761592
BMC Health Serv Res. 2004 Dec 22;4(1):38
pubmed: 15615589
Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2022 May 5;8(3):249-258
pubmed: 34448829
BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919
pubmed: 27733354
Nat Med. 2021 Jul;27(7):1154-1164
pubmed: 34267380
BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629-34
pubmed: 9310563
Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 01;4:1
pubmed: 25554246
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2023 Jan;11(1):42-57
pubmed: 36493795
BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898
pubmed: 31462531
Postgrad Med J. 2021 Jun;97(1148):384-390
pubmed: 32820087
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n160
pubmed: 33781993
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2021 Aug;23(8):1722-1732
pubmed: 33950566
Lancet. 2018 Aug 11;392(10146):521-530
pubmed: 30017550
Lancet. 2019 Oct 5;394(10205):1265-1273
pubmed: 31533908