Cited by 6Diabetes Treatment and ManagementPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsPharmacology and Obesity Treatment

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Risk of pancreatic adverse events associated with the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor drugs: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Open access
Shihab, Hasan M·2015·World Journal of Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Risk of pancreatic adverse events associated with the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor drugs: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.13105/wjma.v3.i6.254

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 6

Metadata

Authors
Shihab, H. M.
Corresponding author
Shihab, Hasan M
Venue
World Journal of Meta-Analysis
Published
2015
Volume
3
Issue
6
Pages
254
ISSN
2308-3840 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2759953463
Cited by
5
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
0.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
World Journal of Meta-Analysis (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Pharmacology and Obesity Treatment
Keywords
GLP-1 receptor agonists, DPP-4 inhibitors, drug safety, type 2 diabetes, drug-induced pancreatitis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review