Barriers to participation in clinical trials of cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review of patient-reported factors

2006 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward J Mills ◽  
Dugald Seely ◽  
Beth Rachlis ◽  
Lauren Griffith ◽  
Ping Wu ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 117954412090646 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herman Johal ◽  
Tahira Devji ◽  
Yaping Chang ◽  
Jonathan Simone ◽  
Christopher Vannabouathong ◽  
...  

Background: For patients with chronic, non-cancer pain, traditional pain-relieving medications include opioids, which have shown benefits but are associated with increased risks of addiction and adverse effects. Medical cannabis has emerged as a treatment alternative for managing these patients and there has been a rise in the number of randomized clinical trials in recent years; therefore, a systematic review of the evidence was warranted. Objective: To analyze the evidence surrounding the benefits and harms of medical cannabinoids in the treatment of chronic, non-cancer-related pain. Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Data sources: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Databases. Eligibility criteria: English language randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic, non-cancer-related pain. Data extraction and synthesis: Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. All stages were conducted independently by a team of 6 reviewers. Data were pooled through meta-analysis with different durations of treatment (2 weeks, 2 months, 6 months) and stratified by route of administration (smoked, oromucosal, oral), conditions, and type of cannabinoids. Main outcomes and measures: Patient-reported pain and adverse events (AEs). Results: Thirty-six trials (4006 participants) were included, examining smoked cannabis (4 trials), oromucosal cannabis sprays (14 trials), and oral cannabinoids (18 trials). Compared with placebo, cannabinoids showed a significant reduction in pain which was greatest with treatment duration of 2 to 8 weeks (weighted mean difference on a 0-10 pain visual analogue scale −0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.96 to −0.40, I2 = 8%, P < .00001; n = 16 trials). When stratified by route of administration, pain condition, and type of cannabinoids, oral cannabinoids had a larger reduction in pain compared with placebo relative to oromucosal and smoked formulations but the difference was not significant ( P[interaction] > .05 in all the 3 durations of treatment); cannabinoids had a smaller reduction in pain due to multiple sclerosis compared with placebo relative to other neuropathic pain ( P[interaction] = .05) within 2 weeks and the difference was not significant relative to pain due to rheumatic arthritis; nabilone had a greater reduction in pain compared with placebo relative to other types of cannabinoids longer than 2 weeks of treatment but the difference was not significant ( P[interaction] > .05). Serious AEs were rare, and similar across the cannabinoid (74 out of 2176, 3.4%) and placebo groups (53 out of 1640, 3.2%). There was an increased risk of non-serious AEs with cannabinoids compared with placebo. Conclusions: There was moderate evidence to support cannabinoids in treating chronic, non-cancer pain at 2 weeks. Similar results were observed at later time points, but the confidence in effect is low. There is little evidence that cannabinoids increase the risk of experiencing serious AEs, although non-serious AEs may be common in the short-term period following use.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 232596712096041
Author(s):  
Flávio Luís Garcia ◽  
Brady T. Williams ◽  
Evan M. Polce ◽  
Daniel B. Heller ◽  
Zachary S. Aman ◽  
...  

Background: Despite its increasing use in the management of musculoskeletal conditions, questions remain regarding the preparation methods of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and its clinical applications for intra-articular hip disorders, including femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS), labral pathology, and osteoarthritis (OA). Purpose: To systematically review and assess the preparation methods and clinical outcomes from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the use of PRP for intra-articular hip disorders. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A systematic review in accordance with the 2009 PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was performed in September 2019. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Ovid Medline, and Embase were queried for studies regarding the use of PRP to treat intra-articular hip disorders. Qualifying articles were English-language RCTs describing the use of PRP for intra-articular hip disorders, either as standalone treatment or surgical augmentation. Two authors independently assessed article eligibility. Data pertaining to patient characteristics, indication for treatment, PRP preparation method, follow-up period, and clinical outcomes were extracted. Study results were qualitatively reported and quantitatively compared using meta-analysis when appropriate. Results: Seven RCTs met inclusion criteria. Four studies described the use of PRP for hip OA and 3 utilized PRP at arthroscopy for FAIS and labral tears. Outcomes after PRP for OA demonstrated improvement in validated patient-reported outcome measures for up to 1 year; however, pooled effect sizes found no statistically significant difference between PRP and hyaluronic acid (HA) regarding pain visual analog scale scores at short-term (≤2 months; P = .27), midterm (4-6 months; P = .85), or long-term (1 year; P = .42) follow-up. When injected at arthroscopy, 1 study reported improved outcomes, 1 reported no difference in outcomes, and 1 reported worse outcomes compared with controls. The meta-analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference on the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) between PRP and control cohorts at a minimum 1-year follow-up. There were considerable deficiencies and heterogeneity in the reporting of PRP preparation methods for both indications. Conclusion: Treatment of OA with PRP demonstrated reductions in pain and improved patient-reported outcomes for up to 1 year. However, there was no statistically significant difference between PRP and HA in pain reduction. Likewise, for FAIS and labral surgery there was no statistically significant difference in mHHS outcomes between patients treated with PRP and controls. Given the limited number of studies and variability in PRP preparations, additional high-quality randomized trials are warranted.


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peyman Nowrouzi-Sohrabi ◽  
Reza Tabrizi ◽  
Mohammad Jalali ◽  
Navid Jamali ◽  
Shahla Rezaei ◽  
...  

Introduction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials was undertaken to evaluate the effect of diacerein intake on cardiometabolic profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods: Electronic databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to 31 July 2019. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using Cochran’s Q test and I-square (I2 ) statistic. Data were pooled using random-effect models and weighted mean difference (WMD). Results: From 1,733 citations, seven clinical trials were eligible for inclusion and meta-analysis. A significant reduction in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (WMD -0.73; 95%CI -1.25 to -0.21; P= 0.006; I2 = 72.2%) and body mass index (BMI) (WMD -0.55; 95%CI -1.03 to -0.07; P= 0.026; I2 = 9.5%) were identified. However, no significant effect of diacerein intake was identified on fasting blood sugar (FBS) (WMD - 9.00; 95%CI -22.57 to 4.57; P= 0.194; I2 = 60.5%), homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) (WMD 0.39; 95%CI 0.95 to 1.73; P= 0.569; I2 = 2.2%), body weight (WMD -0.54; 95%CI -1.10 to 0.02; P= 0.059), triglycerides (WMD -0.56; 95%CI -24.16 to 23.03; P= 0.963; I2 = 0.0%), total-cholesterol (WMD -0.21; 95%CI -12.19 to 11.78; P= 0.973; I2 = 0.0%), HDL-cholesterol (WMD -0.96; 95%CI -2.85 to 0.93; P= 0.321; I2 = 0.0%), and LDL-cholesterol levels (WMD -0.09; 95%CI -8.43 to 8.25; P= 0.983; I2 = 37.8%). Conclusion: Diacerein intake may reduce HbA1c and BMI; however, no evidence of effect was observed for FBS, HOMA-IR, body weight, triglycerides, total-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol or LDL-cholesterol.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document