Dietary supplements and prostate cancer: a systematic review of double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised clinical trials

Maturitas ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 75 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Posadzki ◽  
Myeong Soo Lee ◽  
Igho Onakpoya ◽  
Hye Won Lee ◽  
Byong Seob Ko ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Dietary Supplements ◽  
Randomised Clinical Trials ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo

Homeopathic aggravations: a systematic review of randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trials

Homeopathy ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 92 (02) ◽  
pp. 92-98
Author(s):  
S Grabia ◽  
E Ernst
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Randomised Clinical Trials ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trials ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Literature Searches

AbstractHomeopathic aggravations have often been described anecdotally. However, few attempts have been made to scientifically verify their existence. This systematic review aimed at comparing the frequency of homeopathic aggravations in the placebo and verum groups of double-blind, randomised clinical trials. Eight independent literature searches were carried out to identify all such trials mentioning either adverse effects or aggravations. All studies thus found were validated and data were extracted by both authors. Twenty-four trials could be included. The average number of aggravations was low. In total, 50 aggravations were attributed to patients treated with placebo and 63 to patients treated with homoeopathically diluted remedies. We conclude that this systematic review does not provide clear evidence that the phenomenon of homeopathic aggravations exists.

Use of docetaxel in low- and high-burden metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: A systematic review and assessment of subgroup analyses

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (7) ◽  
pp. 1743-1750
Author(s):  
Manuel David Gil-Sierra ◽  
Emilio Jesus Alegre-del Rey ◽  
Catalina Alarcon de la Lastra-Romero ◽  
Marina Sánchez-Hidalgo
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Metastatic Disease ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Randomised Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomised Clinical Trials ◽  
High Burden ◽  
Subgroup Analyses ◽  
Hormone Sensitive

Background Use of docetaxel in low- and high-burden metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer presents considerable controversy. There is literature suggesting lack of benefit for low-volume of metastases. Objective The study aims to develop a systematic review and methodological assessment of subset analysis about use of docetaxel in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer regarding volume of metastatic disease. Methods A systematic review in the Pubmed® database was conducted up to 25 September 2020. A reference tracking was also developed. Randomised clinical trials with subgroup analysis according volume of metastatic disease for overall survival were selected. Two methodologies were used. One of them considered statistical interaction of subsets ( p(i) < 0.1), pre-specification, biological plausibility and consistency among subset results of similar randomised clinical trials. The second methodology was a two-part validated tool: preliminary questions to discard subset analysis without minimal relevance and a checklist The checklist provides recommendations for applicability of subgroup analysis in clinical practice. Results A total of 31 results were found in systematic reviews in the Pubmed® database. One result was identified in the reference tracking. Of the total of 32 results, four randomised clinical trials were included in the study. About first methodology, statistical interaction among subgroups was obtained in one randomised clinical trial. Subgroup analysis was pre-specified in two randomised clinical trials. Biological plausibility was reasonable. No external consistency among results of subgroup analyses in randomised clinical trials was observed. Preliminary questions of second methodology rejected applicability of subgroup analysis in three randomised clinical trials. A ‘null’ recommendation for applicability of subset results was obtained in the remaining randomised clinical trial. Conclusions Patients with low- and high-burden metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer would benefit from docetaxel therapy. No consistent differences for overall survival were observed in subgroup analyses regarding volume of metastatic disease.

Effect of Pycnogenol on Blood Pressure: Findings From a PRISMA Compliant Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Clinical Studies

Angiology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 71 (3) ◽  
pp. 217-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federica Fogacci ◽  
Giuliano Tocci ◽  
Amirhossein Sahebkar ◽  
Vivianne Presta ◽  
Maciej Banach ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
The Impact

Results of previous clinical trials evaluating the effect of pycnogenol supplementation on blood pressure (BP) are controversial. Therefore, we aimed to assess the impact of pycnogenol on BP through a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of available randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies (randomized clinical trials [RCTs]). Literature search included SCOPUS, PubMed-Medline, ISI Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases up to January 10, 2019 to identify RCTs investigating the impact of pycnogenol on BP. Two investigators independently extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis is registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under number CRD42018112172. Overall, the impact of pycnogenol on BP was reported in 7 trials involving 626 participants. Meta-analysis did not suggest any significant improvement in systolic BP (weighted mean difference [WMD]: −0.028 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.182 to 0.127; P = .726; I2 = 46%), diastolic BP (WMD: −0.144 mm Hg; 95% CI: −0.299 to 0.010; P = .067; I2 = 0%), mean arterial pressure (WMD: −0.091 mm Hg; 95% CI: −0.246 to 0.063; P = .246; I2 = 0%), and pulse pressure (WMD: −0.003 mm Hg; 95% CI: −0.151 to 0.158; P = .966; I2 = 0%) following pycnogenol treatment. Results persisted in the leave-one-out sensitivity analysis. Therefore, the present meta-analysis does not suggest any significant effect of pycnogenol on BP.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document