Independent · non-commercial · publishes on a quarterly cycle|Current cycle 2026 Q3
Compound Evidence InstituteEvidence synthesis · established 2023Graded assessments of compounds, trials, methods and supply
Document set current to 30 July 2026
Evidence synthesis · §2

Exenatide in type 2 diabetes mellitus: durability of effect — search strategy

Sources, search strings, screening flow and extraction procedure, reproduced so that the review can be repeated.

Document identifier
CEI-ES-124/2
Series
Evidence synthesis
Version
2.3
Published
27 Feb 2026
Last reviewed
27 Feb 2026
Next review
27 Aug 2027
Identifier
10.71829/cei.syn.124
Certainty
High
Cycle
2026 Q1
Review type
Intervention review
Search executed
30 Oct 2025

Templated review frame. This review question was generated by crossing an indication with a compound for which contributing trials exist. Its prose frame is templated and is shared with other questions of the same shape. Its included studies, its summary of findings and its certainty rating are computed from the underlying records and are not templated. The Institute publishes these questions because the alternative is to leave a question the document set can answer unanswered, and it labels them because the alternative is to present a templated frame as an authored one.

§2Search strategy

The search was executed on 30 October 2025 and re-run at each review. It is reproduced here in full so that it can be repeated. A review whose search cannot be repeated cannot be checked, and the Institute regards reproducing the strategy as a condition of publication rather than an appendix to it.

§2.1Sources searched

Table 2. Sources searched, with the coverage period of each.

SourceCoverageRecords
MEDLINE (Ovid)Inception to the search date43
Embase (Ovid)Inception to the search date144
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled TrialsCurrent issue at the search date103
ClinicalTrials.govAll records, including those without posted results53
WHO International Clinical Trials Registry PlatformAll records219
EU Clinical Trials RegisterAll records245
Regulatory assessment reports (FDA, EMA, MHRA, PMDA)Published review documents273
Sponsor clinical study reports where obtainableRequested; obtained only in part299
Record counts are per source before de-duplication and sum to more than the de-duplicated total in §2.3.

§2.2Search strategy

The strategy below is the MEDLINE (Ovid) version. Strategies for the other sources are translations of it, adapted to each source's controlled vocabulary and syntax, and preserving the same concept structure.

1   exp GLP-1 receptor agonist/
2   exenatide.mp.
3   "AC2993".ti,ab,kf. OR "exendin-4".ti,ab,kf.
4   1 OR 2 OR 3
5   exp Type 2 diabetes mellitus/
6   type 2 diabetes.ti,ab,kf.
7   5 OR 6
8   4 AND 7
9   randomized controlled trial.pt. OR controlled clinical trial.pt. OR randomi#ed.ti,ab. OR placebo.ti,ab. OR clinical trials as topic.sh. OR randomly.ti,ab. OR trial.ti.
10   exp animals/ NOT humans.sh.
11   8 AND 9 NOT 10
12   remove duplicates from the preceding set

No language restriction was applied. No date restriction was applied. Records identified only through a registry and carrying no posted results are counted separately in the flow below rather than being excluded silently, following the search-strategy consultation.

§2.3Screening flow

Table 3. Screening flow from records identified to studies included.

StageRecords
Records identified from database searching982
Records removed as duplicates286
Records screened on title and abstract696
Records excluded at title and abstract663
Full-text reports assessed for eligibility33
Full-text reports excluded, with reasons28
Studies included in the qualitative synthesis5
Studies included in the quantitative synthesis2
Two reviewers screened independently at both stages. Agreement at title and abstract exceeded the pre-specified threshold; disagreement at full text was resolved by a third reviewer without recourse to the effect estimates.

§2.4Data extraction and certainty assessment

  • Extraction was performed independently in duplicate onto a piloted form. The extracted data are published in full at §3, at the level of the individual outcome and study, with the source of each value identified. That practice was adopted following a public submission that a review whose extracted data are not published cannot be checked.
  • Risk of bias was assessed at the level of the individual study and outcome.
  • Certainty was assessed across the five domains recorded at §4, with the reason for each downgrade recorded against its domain.
  • Clinical study reports were requested for every contributing trial. The outcome of each request, including refusals, is recorded in the amendment log.

References cited on this page

References are numbered in order of first citation in this document. Each superscript in the text links to its entry below.

  1. Holman RR, Bethel MA, Mentz RJ, Thompson VP, Lokhnygina Y, Buse JB, Chan JC, Choi J, Gustavson SM, Iqbal N, Maggioni AP, Marso SP, Öhman P, Pagidipati NJ, Poulter N, Ramachandran A, Zinman B, Hernandez AF. Effects of once-weekly exenatide on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. New England Journal of Medicine 2017;377(13):1228–1239. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1612917 · PMID 28910237

Identifiers are reproduced only where the Institute holds them. Where a digital object identifier or PubMed identifier is not shown, the Institute has recorded the journal and year and has not constructed an identifier.

Nothing published by the Institute is medical advice, a diagnosis, a prescription, a treatment recommendation or a purchasing recommendation. Compounds supplied for research use are not approved for human or veterinary use in any jurisdiction, and a favourable analytical assessment of a supplier is not a statement that any product is safe or effective. The Institute publishes certainty ratings and never recommendations. No telephone number, messaging handle or ordering channel appears anywhere on this site.