Objective To assess the effect of PRISMA statement on intervention-related systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in Evidence-based medicine .Methods Intervention-related systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in Evidence-based medicine from 2001 to 2011 were assessed according to the PRISMA scale and analyzed by Meta Analysist software.Results Seventy intervention-related systematic reviews and meta-analyses involving 14-disease spectra were included in this study.PRISMA statement and systematic reviews and meta-analysespublished by au-thors in colleges and universities could improve their academic level (P<0.05), fund support and the number of authors showed no significant effect on their academic level.Conclusion Literature retrieval methods,literature screening methods,bias assessment methods, and other analyzing methods used systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in Evidence-based medicine and their academic level can be improved by PRISMA statement.

Objective To assess the methodology of papers on systematic reviews and meta-analysis of interventions published in Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine .Methods Basic data were extracted from 70 papers on systematic reviews and meta-analysis of interventions published in Journal of Evidence-Based Medicinefrom 2001 to 2011 .Methodology used in these papers was assessed according to the AMSTAR Scale.The data were input into the Excelland analyzed using the SPSS7.0 and Meta-Analyst software.Results The methodology used in 34 papers (48.6%) was assessed using the Cochrane bias risk assessment tools.Fund support, number of authors and their affiliated institutions did not sig-nificantly affect the total score of methodology used in the 70 papers .Conclusion The methodology used in papers on systematic reviews and meta-analysis of interventions published in Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine is not quite valid as its early design program and retrieval strategies are imperfect , and it does not provide the excluded literature list and the interest conflict.

OBJECTIVE To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of dapagliflozin in the treatment of heart failure with diabetes mellitus type 2. METHODS The clinical trials of dapagliflozin in the treatment of heart failure with diabetes mellitus type 2 were searched in Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, VIP, CNKI and Wanfang databases from the establishment of the database to March 18, 2022. The RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis, and the TSA 0.9 software was used for sequential analysis. RESULTS The 31 RCT studies meeting the criteria were finally included, involving 2 906 patients. Meta-analysis showed that compared with the control group, the experimental group significantly improved LVEF[MD=4.43, 95% CI(3.35, 5.50), P<0.000 01], total effective rate[MD=4.19, 95%CI(2.52, 6.99), P<0.000 01], and reduced NT-proBNP[MD=–451.84, 95%CI(–608.09, –295.60), P<0.000 01], LVEDD[MD=–2.74, 95%CI(–3.67, –1.82), P<0.000 01, Hb1ac[MD=–0.88, 95%CI(–1.19, –0.57), P<0.000 01], FPG[MD=–1.10, 95%CI(–1.45, –0.75), P<0.000 01], 2hPG[MD=–2.52, 95%CI(–3.37, –1.66), P<0.000 01] and the incidence of adverse reactions[MD=0.63, 95%CI(0.47, 0.83), P=0.001]. Sequential analysis showed that the effect of dapagliflozin on LVEF in patients with heart failure with type 2 diabetes was accurate, and the possibility of excluding false positive was possible. CONCLUSION The treatment of heart failure with diabetes mellitus type 2 with good efficacy and safety is achieved by dapagliflozin, but it still needs to be included in more high-quality RCT studies for further demonstration.