scholarly journals The effectiveness and safety of low-level laser therapy on breast cancer–related lymphedema: An overview and update of systematic reviews

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuping Wang ◽  
Yonggui Ge ◽  
Wenting Xing ◽  
Junping Liu ◽  
Jiqi Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Low Level Laser Therapy ◽  
Level Laser ◽  
Evidence Quality ◽  
Overview Of Systematic Reviews ◽  
Breast Cancer Related Lymphedema

AbstractThe objective of our overview of systematic reviews was to critically analyze the evidence from existing systematic reviews investigating the effectiveness and safety of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in patients with breast cancer–related lymphedema (BCRL). In addition, an updated and comprehensive systematic review was conducted, which aimed to provide updated evidence about this topic. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness and safety of LLLT in patients with BCRL. The methodological quality for each of included systematic reviews or RCTs was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) tool or Cochrane risk of bias tool, respectively. The updated systematic review separately compared the effectiveness of LLLT to each of active or negative interventions. Data were pooled with random-effects models for each outcome per comparison. The evidence quality of outcomes was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) or GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) for quantitative studies and qualitative studies, respectively. Seven systematic reviews and ten RCTs met the eligibility criteria. Conflicting results regarding the effectiveness of LLLT were presented by the overview of systematic reviews. The AMSTAR 2 showed that the methodological quality of included systematic reviews was low or critically low quality due to one or more critical weaknesses. The GRADE and GRADE-CERQual showed that the evidence quality was low to very low for most outcomes. The updated systematic review showed that LLLT may offer additional benefits as compared to compression therapies (pneumatic compression or compression bandage), placebo laser, or no treatment for patients with BCRL. However, when compared to other types of active interventions, LLLT did not improve outcomes significantly. None of the treatment-related adverse event was reported. Many trials had a high or unclear risk of bias for two or more items, and our updated systematic review showed low quality of evidence per outcome using GRADE approach. Due to insufficient data and poor quality of evidence, there is uncertain to reach these conclusions that LLLT is superior to another active or negative intervention and is safe. More RCTs of high methodological quality, with large sample sizes and long-term follow-up, are needed to inform clinical guidelines and routine practice.

P14.71 An assessment of the reporting and methodological quality of meningioma systematic reviews and meta-analyses

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. ii51-ii52
Author(s):  
A M George ◽  
S Gupta ◽  
S M Keshwara ◽  
M A Mustafa ◽  
C S Gillespie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Neurofibromatosis Type ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract BACKGROUND Systematic reviews and meta-analyses constitute the highest level of research evidence and for a disease with limited clinical trial activity, are often relied upon to help inform clinical practice. This review of reviews evaluates both the reporting & methodological quality of meningioma evidence syntheses. MATERIAL AND METHODS Potentially eligible meningioma reviews published between 1st January 1990 and 31st December 2020 were identified from eight electronic databases. Inclusion required the study to meet the Cochrane guideline definition of a systematic review or meta-analysis. Reviews concerning neurofibromatosis type 2, spinal and pediatric meningiomas were excluded. The reporting and methodological quality of articles were assessed against the following modified guidelines: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) and the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) guidelines. RESULTS 117 systematic reviews were identified, 57 of which included meta-analysis (48.7%). The number of meningioma systematic reviews published each year has increased with 63 studies (53.9%) published between 01/2018 and 12/2020. A median of 17 studies (IQR 9–29) were included per review. Impact factor of journals publishing a systematic review with or without a meta-analysis was similar (median 2.3 vs 1.8, P=0.397). The mean PRISMA scores for systematic reviews with a meta-analysis was 21.11 (SD 4.1, 78% adherence) and without was 13.89 (SD 3.4, 63% adherence). Twenty-nine systematic reviews with meta-analysis (51%) and 11 without meta-analysis (18%) achieved greater than 80% adherence to PRISMA recommendations. Methodological quality assessment using AMSTAR2 revealed one study (0.9%) as high quality whilst 111 (94.8%) studies were graded as critically low. One hundred and two articles (87.2%) did not utilize a comprehensive search strategy as defined by the AMSTAR2 tool. Ninety-nine studies (84.6%) obtained a high level of concern for potential bias as per the ROBIS assessment. One hundred and eight articles (92.3%) failed to present information that a protocol had been established prior to study commencement and 76 articles (65.0%) did not conduct a risk of bias assessment. Across the three tools, domains relating to the establishment of a protocol prior to review commencement and conducting appropriate risk of bias assessments were frequently low scoring. CONCLUSION Overall reporting and methodological quality of meningioma systematic reviews was sub-optimal. Established critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines should be utilized a priori to assist in producing high-quality systematic reviews.

scholarly journals A comparison between two recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug’s safety

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Penedones ◽  
Carlos Alves ◽  
Francisco Batel Marques
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Drug Reactions ◽  
Post Marketing ◽  
Review Question ◽  
Marketing Data

Abstract Background Several recommendations are available to conduct and report a systematic review of adverse drug reactions. This study is aimed at identifying and comparing the methodologies of the two most commonly used recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug’s safety. Methods Two systematic reviews were conducted following the recommendations “Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions” and “Systematic Reviews’ Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare.” The methods of each recommendation were characterized, and the results and the discussion of each systematic review were also evaluated. Results The methodologies of both recommendations are similar. The review question was structured. Both recommendations suggest to include pre- and post-marketing data. The recommended data sources differed and, consequently, the results of the systematic reviews (37 vs. 35 studies). Other aspects of search literature were identical. Different tools are suggested to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. For case reports, both recommendations only report some questions that may be helpful to assess risk of bias. The reporting of the results and discussion is also identical for both recommendations. Conclusions Few methodological differences were observed between the analyzed recommendations to conduct a systematic review on drug’s safety. Combining their methods into a single and recognized recommendation could be of great value.

scholarly journals Low-Level Laser Therapy for Temporomandibular Disorders: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gang-Zhu Xu ◽  
Jie Jia ◽  
Lin Jin ◽  
Jia-Heng Li ◽  
Zhan-Yue Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Laser Therapy ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Low Level Laser Therapy ◽  
Low Level ◽  
Low Level Laser ◽  
Jadad Scale ◽  
Level Laser

Objectives. We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) versus placebo in patients with temporomandibular disorder (TMD). Methods. A systematic search of multiple online sources electronic databases was undertaken. The methodological quality of each included study was assessed using the modified Jadad scale, and the quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Results. A total of 31 RCTs were included. Total modified Jadad scale scores showed that the methodological quality was high in 30 studies and low in 1 study. Combining data from all clinically heterogeneous studies revealed positive effects of LLLT on pain relief, regardless of the visual analogue scale (VAS) score or the change of VAS score between the baseline and the final follow-up time point, while dosage analyses showed discrepant results about the effects of high or low doses for patients with TMD. Follow-up analyses showed that LLLT significantly reduced pain at the short-term follow-up. Temporomandibular joint function outcomes indicated that the overall effect favored LLLT over placebo. Conclusion. This systematic review suggests that LLLT effectively relieves pain and improves functional outcomes in patients with TMD.

scholarly journals Effectiveness and safety of low-level laser therapy in diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lin Lin ◽  
Jingjing Li ◽  
Jingshan Lin ◽  
Shiheng Tang ◽  
Yuxia Li
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Low Level Laser Therapy ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Medical Treatments ◽  
Level Laser

Abstract Background Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is one of the most common chronic complications of diabetes mellitus. The main symptoms of DPN include numbness or pain in both extremities and paresthesia (such as formication or burning sensations), which greatly affect patients’ quality of life. Pharmacological treatments for DPN are associated with both uncertain therapeutic effects and adverse effects, as well as with high costs. Some clinical studies have reported that low-level laser therapy (LLLT) relieves clinical symptoms and improves nerve function in patients with DPN. We intend to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to further evaluate the effectiveness and safety of LLLT for DPN. Methods The following electronic databases will be searched to retrieve literature from their inception until December 2020: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science (the Science and Social Science Citation Index), CNKI, VIP, WanFang, and SinoMed. Simultaneously, clinical registration tests and gray literature will also be retrieved. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LLLT with either sham LLLT, no (specific) treatment, or active conventional medical treatments will be included. The primary outcomes will be nerve conduction velocity as well as clinical scores that assess neurological function and related symptoms. The risk of bias of each study and quality of evidence will be assessed using the updated Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and GRADE approach, respectively. A meta-analysis will then be conducted using Review Manager software version 5.3. Discussion This study will integrate RCTs and analyze data to provide a detailed summary of the evidence relating to the effects and safety of LLLT in patients with DPN. LLLT will be compared with sham LLLT, no (specific) treatment, or active conventional medical treatments, especially in terms of neurological function, quality of life, and adverse events. In conclusion, this systematic review will generate evidence regarding the use of LLLT to treat DPN, in terms of both its efficacy and safety. Systematic review registration This protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on April 2020 (registration number: CRD42020170625).

scholarly journals Effects of Low-Level Laser Therapy as an Adjunct for Orthodontic Retention: A Systematic Review of Human and Animal Studies

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhiyi Shan ◽  
Ka Wai Frank Wong ◽  
Colman McGrath ◽  
Min Gu ◽  
Yanqi Yang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Laser Therapy ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Animal Studies ◽  
Tooth Movement ◽  
Root Resorption ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Low Level Laser Therapy ◽  
Low Level Laser ◽  
Level Laser

Abstract Background: Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has been verified effective in tooth-movement acceleration and pain alleviation during active orthodontic treatment, but its function remains inconclusive post-treatment. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effects of LLLT as an adjunct retention regimen following active orthodontic tooth movement (OTM).Methods: This review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Six databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Pubmed, Scopus, ProQuest) were comprehensively searched for human and animal studies published till December 2019 and screened according to our eligibility criteria. The risk of bias was assessed based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and Systematic Review Center for Laboratory Experiment Tool. Two independent reviewers performed all procedures in duplicate. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion or consultation with a third reviewer.Results: A total of 394 records were identified from the initial search. Following screening, 15 full-text articles were reviewed for eligibility (ĸ>0.90), and ultimately, eight studies (three human studies and five animal studies) were included in this review. The key outcomes considered were ‘preventing tooth relapse’ and ‘rehabilitating root resorption’. Two controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and one animal study supported the preventive effects of LLLT on the relapse of post-orthodontic tooth positions. In contrast, two animal studies reported opposing findings. Regarding the rehabilitation of root resorption, evidence supported the reparative potential of LLLT in orthodontic force-induced root resorption. Overall, there was a high risk of bias among studies, except for one randomised controlled trial. Due to the substantial heterogeneity among studies in terms of their types, participants, designs, LLLT settings and variables of interest, it was not feasible to conduct a meta-analysis; therefore, a qualitative synthesis is presented.Conclusion: The quality of evidence for LLLT contributing to the maintenance of orthodontic outcomes or a better treatment prognosis remains low. There is considerable controversy over the effects of LLLT on orthodontic relapse. However, the use of LLLT after OTM has promising reparative effects for root resorption and is generally recommended.

scholarly journals The Effects of Tai Chi Exercise Among Adults With Chronic Heart Failure: An Overview of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinke Huang ◽  
Xiaohui Qin ◽  
Min Shen ◽  
Yanjuan Xu ◽  
Yong Huang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Tai Chi ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Quality Reporting ◽  
Evidence Quality ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Tai chi (TC) is a popular form of exercise among adults with chronic heart failure (CHF), yet services are greatly underutilized. The aim of the current study was to identify and summarize the existing evidence and to systematically determine the clinical effectiveness of Tai Chi in the management of CHF using a systematic overview.Methods: Both English and Chinese databases were searched for systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) on TC for CHF from their inception to June 2020. The methodological quality, reporting quality, and risk of bias of SRs/MAs were assessed using Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, and Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS), respectively. The evidence quality of outcome measures was assessed by the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).Results: Six SRs/MAs using a quantitative synthesis to assess various outcomes of TC in CHF were included in this overview. The methodological quality, reporting quality and risk of bias of the SRs/MAs and the evidence quality of the outcome measures are generally unsatisfactory. The limitations of the past SRs/MAs included the lack of either the protocol or registration, the list of excluded studies, and the computational details of meta-analysis were inadequately reported. The critical problems were that qualitative data synthesis relied on trials with small sample sizes and critical low quality.Conclusions: TC may be a promising complementary treatment for CHF. However, further rigorous and comprehensive SRs/MAs and RCTs are required to provide robust evidence for definitive conclusions.

scholarly journals Benefits and Safety of Chinese Herbal Medicine in Treating Psoriasis: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jie Zhang ◽  
Qianying Yu ◽  
Li Peng ◽  
Yuesi Qin ◽  
Mingyi Jing ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Chinese Herbal ◽  
Evidence Quality ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Quality Evidence

Background: In recent years, systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) for psoriasis have continuously emerged. Their methods and evidence quality, however, are yet to be evaluated, and whether their conclusions can provide clinicians with reliable evidence is still debatable.Objectives: This overview aims to evaluate the methodological quality, risk of bias, and reporting quality of relevant SRs/MAs, as well as the current evidence of CHM for treating psoriasis.Methods: We searched nine electronic databases from their respective time of establishment to January 20, 2021, as well as the reference lists of the included SRs/MAs, protocol registries, and gray literature. Two reviewers independently used the following: A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2, Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS), the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), and Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to evaluate the methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality, and evidence quality of the included SRs/MAs.Results: This review included 14 SRs/MAs involving 45 outcomes, of which 12 (85.71%) SRs/MAs had a very low quality evaluated by AMSTAR 2 and 7 (50.00%) SRs/MAs had a high risk of bias assessed by ROBIS. The protocol and registration and funding statements were the major reporting flaws according to the PRISMA checklist. The evaluation with the GRADE system demonstrated no outcome of high-quality evidence, and inconsistent efficacy evaluations were found in this overview. Only 15 (33.33%) outcomes were moderate-quality evidence, supporting the claim that CHM plus Western medicine (WM) was superior to WM. Generally low quality of evidence showed no difference in the incidence of adverse events between the combined therapy and WM. However, the conclusion that CHM was superior to WM cannot be drawn due to the inconsistent results.Conclusion: Despite that CHM has the potential benefit and safety in the adjuvant treatment of psoriasis, the conclusion should be treated with caution because of the generally low quality of methodology and evidence. In the future, high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should be carried out, and the quality of relevant SRs should also be improved to promote their clinical application.

Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Pulmonary Embolism: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (23) ◽  
pp. 2686-2691 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ioannis Doundoulakis ◽  
Christina Antza ◽  
Haralambos Karvounis ◽  
George Giannakoulas
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Vitamin K ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonist ◽  
Language Restriction ◽  
Overview Of Systematic Reviews

Background: Anticoagulation in patients with pulmonary embolism. Objective: To identify how non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants are associated with multiple outcomes in patients with pulmonary embolism. Methods: We performed a systematic search of systematic reviews via multiple electronic databases from inception to August 19th, 2019, without language restriction. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews using the ROBIS tool. Results: We found twelve systematic reviews. Eleven SRs collected their data from randomized clinical trials and one from observational studies. All the included studies were published between 2014 and 2019 in English. The methodological quality of the 12 systematic reviews was low to high. None of the systematic reviews, which are included in our overview of systematic reviews, has evaluated the overall quality of evidence outcome using the Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Conclusion: This is the first effort to summarize evidence about non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in an overview of systematic reviews focusing exclusively on patients with pulmonary embolism. The evidence suggests that the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants seem to be more effective and safer than a dualdrug approach with LMWH- VKA.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document