A detailed analysis of outcome reporting from randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses of inguinal hernia repair

Hernia ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Bhangu ◽  
P. Singh ◽  
T. Pinkney ◽  
J. M. Blazeby
Hernia ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Alabi ◽  
N. Haladu ◽  
N. W. Scott ◽  
M. Imamura ◽  
I. Ahmed ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose Inguinal hernia repair using surgical mesh is a very common surgical operation. Currently, there is no consensus on the best technique for mesh fixation. We conducted an overview of existing systematic reviews (SRs) of randomised controlled trials to compare the risk of chronic pain and recurrence following open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs using various mesh fixation techniques. Methods We searched major electronic databases in April 2020 and assessed the methodological quality of identified reviews using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Results We identified 20 SRs of variable quality assessing suture, self-gripping, glue, and mechanical fixation. Across reviews, the risk of chronic pain after open mesh repair was lower with glue fixation than with suture and comparable between self-gripping and suture. Incidence of chronic pain was lower with glue fixation than with mechanical fixation in laparoscopic repairs. There were no significant differences in recurrence rates between fixation techniques in open and laparoscopic mesh repairs, although fewer recurrences were reported with suture. Many reviews reported wide confidence intervals around summary estimates. Despite no clear evidence of differences among techniques, two network meta-analyses (one assessing open repairs and one laparoscopic repairs) ranked glue fixation as the best treatment for reducing pain and suture for reducing the risk of recurrence. Conclusion Glue fixation may be effective in reducing the incidence of chronic pain without increasing the risk of recurrence. Future research should consider both the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of fixation techniques alongside the type of mesh and the size and location of the hernia defect.


Trials ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel J. Hall ◽  
Mufiza Z. Kapadia ◽  
Simon Eaton ◽  
Winnie W. Y. Chan ◽  
Cheri Nickel ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e001129
Author(s):  
Bill Stevenson ◽  
Wubshet Tesfaye ◽  
Julia Christenson ◽  
Cynthia Mathew ◽  
Solomon Abrha ◽  
...  

BackgroundHead lice infestation is a major public health problem around the globe. Its treatment is challenging due to product failures resulting from rapidly emerging resistance to existing treatments, incorrect treatment applications and misdiagnosis. Various head lice treatments with different mechanism of action have been developed and explored over the years, with limited report on systematic assessments of their efficacy and safety. This work aims to present a robust evidence summarising the interventions used in head lice.MethodThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis which will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement for network meta-analyses. Selected databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials exploring head lice treatments. Searches will be limited to trials published in English from database inception till 2021. Grey literature will be identified through Open Grey, AHRQ, Grey Literature Report, Grey Matters, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry. Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved via a third reviewer. The primary outcome measure is the relative risk of cure at 7 and 14 days postinitial treatment. Secondary outcome measures may include adverse drug events, ovicidal activity, treatment compliance and acceptability, and reinfestation. Information from direct and indirect evidence will be used to generate the effect sizes (relative risk) to compare the efficacy and safety of individual head lice treatments against a common comparator (placebo and/or permethrin). Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations guideline for network meta-analysis. All quantitative analyses will be conducted using STATA V.16.DiscussionThe evidence generated from this systematic review and meta-analysis is intended for use in evidence-driven treatment of head lice infestations and will be instrumental in informing health professionals, public health practitioners and policy-makers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017073375.


BMJ ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 343 (jul22 1) ◽  
pp. d4002-d4002 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. C. Sterne ◽  
A. J. Sutton ◽  
J. P. A. Ioannidis ◽  
N. Terrin ◽  
D. R. Jones ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document