Efficacy and Safety of Oral and Transdermal Opioid Analgesics for Musculoskeletal Pain in Older Adults: A Systematic Review of Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 475.e1-475.e24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodrigo Z. Megale ◽  
Leticia A. Deveza ◽  
Fiona M. Blyth ◽  
Vasi Naganathan ◽  
Paulo H. Ferreira ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Naiane Teixeira Bastos de Oliveira ◽  
Irlei dos Santos ◽  
Gisela Cristiane Miyamoto ◽  
Cristina Maria Nunes Cabral

Abstract Background Chronic musculoskeletal pain affects the quality of life of older adults by interfering in their ability to perform activities of daily living. Aerobic exercise programs have been used in the treatment of various health conditions, including musculoskeletal disorders. However, there is still little evidence on the effects of aerobic exercise for the treatment of older adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Thus, the objective of this study is to assess the effects of aerobic exercise in improving pain and function of older adults with chronic pain as a consequence of different chronic musculoskeletal conditions. Methods The databases to be used in the search are PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Randomized controlled trials that used aerobic exercise in the treatment of older adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain will be included. Primary outcomes will be pain and function. We will use the PEDro scale to evaluate the methodological quality and statistical description of each included study, and the strength of the recommendations will be summarized using GRADE. Discussion The results of this systematic review will provide a synthesis of the current evidence on the effects of aerobic exercise in the treatment of older adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain. In addition, this information can help health professionals in decision-making about the use of aerobic exercise in the treatment of older adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Ethics and dissemination This systematic review was recorded prospectively, and the results will be part of a doctoral thesis to be published in a peer-reviewed international journal and possibly presented at international conferences. Systematic review registration PROSPERO, CRD42019118903.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e042597
Author(s):  
Xinyuan Liu ◽  
Qing Yang ◽  
Zhongning He ◽  
Shukun Yao

IntroductionFunctional constipation (FC) is a common digestive system disease, with an uptrend in morbidity and mortality, resulting in huge social and economic losses. Although the guidelines recommend lifestyle intervention as a first-line treatment, lifestyle intervention is not widely used in clinic. Inulin can be used as the basic material of functional food. Clinical studies have shown that inulin supplementation is associated with increased frequency of bowel movements, but has certain side effects. Therefore, the efficacy and safety of inulin in the treatment of FC need to be further evaluated.Methods and analysisWe will search Medline, Web of Science, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Wanfang Database and China Biomedical Literature Database. We will also search the China Clinical Trial Registry, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and related conference summaries. This systematic review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. RevMan V.5.3.5 will be used for analysis.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will evaluate the efficacy and safety of inulin supplementation for the treatment of FC. All included data will be obtained from published articles, there is no need for the ethical approval, and it will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Due to lack of a new systematic review in this field, this study will combine relevant randomised controlled trials to better explore the evidence of inulin supplementation in the treatment of FC and guide clinical practice and clinical research.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020189234.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document