scholarly journals Effect of N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor enhancing agents on cognition in dementia: an exploratory systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chun-Hung Chang ◽  
Chieh-Yu Liu ◽  
Shaw-Ji Chen ◽  
Hsin-Chi Tsai
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Function ◽  
Nmda Receptor ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Disease Assessment ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity ◽  
Agent Treatment

AbstractMultiple N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor enhancing agents have had promising effects on cognition among patients with dementia. However, the results remain inconsistent. This exploratory meta-analysis investigated the effectiveness of NMDA receptor enhancing agents for cognitive function. PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Controlled trials assessing add-on NMDA receptor enhancing agent treatment in patients with dementia and using cognition rating scales were eligible and pooled using a random-effect model for comparisons. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated in each study from the effect size; positive values indicated that NMDA receptor enhancing agent treatment improved cognitive function. Funnel plots and the I2 statistic were evaluated for statistical heterogeneity. Moderators were evaluated using meta-regression. We identified 14 RCTs with 2224 participants meeting the inclusion criteria. Add-on NMDA receptor enhancing agents had small positive significant effects on overall cognitive function among patients with dementia (SMD = 0.1002, 95% CI 0.0105–0.1900, P = 0.02860). Subgroup meta-analysis showed patients with Alzheimer’s Disease and trials using the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale as the primary outcome had small positive significant effects (SMD = 0.1042, 95% CI 0.0076–0.2007, P = 0.03451; SMD = 0.1267, 95% CI 0.0145–0.2388, P = 0.2686). This exploratory meta-analysis showed a very small, positive, and significant effect on overall cognition function in patients with dementia. Studies with larger samples are needed to evaluate different cognitive domains and phases of dementia.

scholarly journals Convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19 patients: a protocol of a prospective meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lajos Szakó ◽  
Nelli Farkas ◽  
Szabolcs Kiss ◽  
Szilárd Váncsa ◽  
Noémi Zádori ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Organ Failure ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Plasma Therapy ◽  
Monthly Basis ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infection with possible serious consequences. The plasma of recovered patients might serve as treatment, which we aim to assess in the form of a prospective meta-analysis focusing on mortality, multi-organ failure, duration of intensive care unit stay, and adverse events. Methods A systematic search was conducted to find relevant registered randomized controlled trials in five trial registries. A comprehensive search will be done continuously on a monthly basis in MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science to find the results of previously registered randomized controlled trials. The selection will be done by two independent authors. Data extraction will be carried out by two other independent reviewers. Disagreements will be resolved by a third investigator. An update of the search of the registries and the first search of the databases will be done on the 21st of July. Data synthesis will be performed following the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration. In the case of dichotomous outcomes (mortality and organ failure), we will calculate pooled risk ratios with a 95% confidence interval (CI) from two-by-two tables (treatment Y/N, outcome Y/N). Data from models with multivariate adjustment (hazard ratios, odds ratio, risk ratio) will be preferred for the analysis. P less than 0.05 will be considered statistically significant. In the case of ICU stay, weighted mean difference with a 95% confidence interval will be calculated. Heterogeneity will be tested with I2, and χ2 tests. Meta-analysis will be performed if at least 3 studies report on the same outcome and population. Discussion Convalescent plasma therapy is a considerable alternative in COVID-19, which we aim to investigate in a prospective meta-analysis.

scholarly journals Network Meta-Analysis of Different Clinical Commonly Used Drugs for the Treatment of Hypertrophic Scar and Keloid

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sha Yang ◽  
Yujia J. Luo ◽  
Cong Luo
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Topical Treatment ◽  
Hypertrophic Scar ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Silicone Gels

Background: There is no uniform treatment for pathological scars, including keloids and hypertrophic scars, in clinic currently. Previously, multiple randomized controlled trials have examined the clinical efficacy of different treatments. Nonetheless, the results are inconsistent, and many treatments have not been directly compared. This makes it difficult to conclude which approach is more favorable, in terms of efficacy and safety, for the treatment of pathological scarring. This study aimed at evaluating the efficacy of different injection and topical treatment strategies for hypertrophic scar and keloid.Methods: Relevant literature from PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCRCT), and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP) were searched, from database inception through November 2020. Randomized clinical trials evaluating different treatment strategies of pathological scars, including triamcinolone acetonide (TAC), verapamil (VER), 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), botulinum toxin A (BTA), bleomycin (BLM), and silicone gels were included in the study.Results: The network meta-analysis included a total of 2,009 patients from 29 studies. A network meta-analysis of injection and topical treatment strategies showed that the efficacy of TAC combined with BTA was best in the treatment of pathological scars. Combination therapies of TAC with 5-FU and TAC with BTA significantly improved the clinical efficiency. However, there was no statistically significant difference between other treatment strategies. The order of efficacy predicted by the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve was as follows: TAC+BTA (82.2%) > TAC+5-FU (69.8%) > BTA (67.3%) > 5-FU+silicone (59.4%) > TAC+silicone (58.3%) > 5-FU (49.8%) > BLM (42.0%) > TAC (26.7%) > VER (26.2%) > silicone (18.3%). There was no publication bias revealed based on the funnel diagram.Conclusion: This study recommends intralesional injection of TAC-BTA and TAC-5-FU combined therapies. But for patients who cannot tolerate the side effects, the use of silicone gels in combination with TAC is recommended. However, these conclusions need to be further confirmed by more randomized controlled trials.

scholarly journals The efficacy and safety of intrathecal bupivacaine alone versus bupivacaine combined with magnesium sulfate in adults using spinal anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mi-Zhou Wang ◽  
Rui Dong ◽  
Li-Na Jia ◽  
Deng-Bin Ai ◽  
Jian-Hua Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Magnesium Sulfate ◽  
Motor Block ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sensory Block ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Rescue Analgesia ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background: Several studies have investigated the effects of intrathecal magnesium sulfate as an adjuvant for bupivacaine; however, their conclusions are inconsistent. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a meta-analysis on this topic.Methods We searched Pubmed, EMBASE (OvidSP) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of intrathecal bupivacaine combined with magnesium sulfate versus bupivacaine alone in adults using spinal anesthesia.Results Eighteen studies that met our inclusion criteria were included in our analysis. We found that the addition of intrathecal magnesium sulfate to bupivacaine provided a longer duration of analgesia (SMD 0.99; 95% CI [0.45, 1.52], P = 0.0003, I2 = 93%), prolonged the duration of sensory block (MD=106.69; 95% CI, 60.93-152.45; P<0.00001), delayed the onset of sensory block (SMD 1.20; 95% CI [0.65, 1.75], P =<0.0001, I2 = 91%) and motor block (SMD 1.46; 95% CI [0.23, 2.69], P =0.02, I2 = 96%), decreased the requirement for rescue analgesia (SMD -0.81; 95% CI [-1.06, -0.56], P < 0.00001, I2 = 11%). For duration of motor block, and incidence of postoperative adverse events (such as nausea and vomiting, hypotension, bradycardia, pruritus, shivering and neurological deficit), no statistically differences were observed between the 2 groups.Conclusions Our meta-analysis demonstrated that intrathecal magnesium sulfate combined with bupivacaine prolongs the dusration of analgesia, without an impact on the adverse events. However, the quality of evidence was very low when using GRADE to assess it. Given adverse effects before use, more high-quality trials with large samples are required before magnesium sulfate is routinely used as a intrathecal adjunct.

scholarly journals The Effectiveness of Tocilizumab in the Treatment of COVID-19 in Adults: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chun Chen ◽  
ZeMei Zhou ◽  
Jing Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Hospital Discharge ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Composite Outcome ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Serious Infection ◽  
And Control

Abstract Background: Since December 2019, COVID-19 has spread to the world which leads to a global health threat. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of tocilizumab on COVID-19 patients.Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and WHO international Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) from their inception to March 10, 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on tocilizumab supplementation in adults with COVID-19 disease. The primary outcomes were mortality at 28-30 day and 60-day, incidence of mechanical ventilation (MV), composite outcome of death or MV, time to hospital discharge, and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. A random-effects meta-analysis model was used to pool studies. Results: Eleven studies with a total of 6,579 patients were included in our meta-analysis, of which 3,406 and 3,173 were respectively assigned to the tocilizumab and control groups. Tocilizumab could significantly reduce 28-30 day mortality (RR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.80-0.99, P = 0.04), incidence of MV (RR= 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.89, P = 0.0001), composition outcome of MV or death (RR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.90, P = 0.0002), time to hospital discharge (HR = 1.30, 95% CI 1.16-1.45, P ＜ 0.00001 ), ICU admissions (RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.47-0.88, P = 0.006), serious infection (RR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.40-0.94, P = 0.02) and events of serious adverse advents (RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.47-0.86, P = 0.004). There was no significant difference between tocilizumab and control groups in 60-day mortality and adverse events (AEs).Conclusions: Tocilizumab could reduce the short-term mortality, incidence of MV, composite outcome of death or MV, ICU admissions, serious infection and events of serious adverse advents, and shorten the time to hospital discharge in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The optimal effective dose needs to be confirmed by further studies.

scholarly journals Comparative Efficacy of Pharmacological and Nonpharmacological Interventions for Acne Vulgaris: A Network Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qingyang Shi ◽  
Lizi Tan ◽  
Zhe Chen ◽  
Long Ge ◽  
Xiaoyan Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Physical Symptoms ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Comparative Efficacy ◽  
Inflammatory Lesions ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Acne has several effects on physical symptoms, but the main impacts are on the quality of life, which can be improved by treatment. There are several acne treatments but less evidence comparing their relative efficacy. Thus, we assessed the comparative efficacy of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for acne. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to April 2019, to include randomized controlled trials for acne that compared topical antibiotics (TA), benzoyl peroxide (BPO), topical retinoids (TR), oral antibiotics (OA), lasers, light devices including LED device (LED), photodynamic therapy (PDT), and intense pulsed light, chemical peels (CP), miscellaneous therapies or complementary and alternative medicine (MTCAM), or their combinations. We performed Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects for all treatments compared with placebo and each other. Mean differences (MDs) of lesions count and risk ratios of adverse events with their 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated, and all interventions were ranked by the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) values. Additional frequentist additive network meta-analysis was performed to detect the robustness of results and potential interaction effects. Sensitivity analyses were carried out with different priors, and metaregression was to adjust for nine potential effect modifiers. In the result, seventy-three randomized controlled trials (27,745 patients with mild to moderate acne), comparing 30 grouped intervention categories, were included with low to moderate risk of bias. For adverse effects, OA had more risk in combination treatment with others. For noninflammatory lesions reduction, seventeen interventions had significant differences comparing with placebo and three interventions (TR+BPO: MD = −21.89, 95%CrI [−28.97, −14.76]; TR+BPO+MTCAM: −22.48 [−34.13, −10.70]; TA+BPO+CP: −20.63 [−33.97, −7.13]) were superior to others with 94, 94, and 91% SUCRA values, respectively. For inflammatory lesions reduction, nineteen interventions were significantly better than placebo, and three interventions (TR+BPO: MD = −12.13, 95%CrI [−18.41, −5.80]; TR+BPO+MTCAM: −13.21 [−.39, −3.04]; LED: −11.30 [−18.34, −4.42]) were superior to others (SUCRA: 81, 81, and 77%, respectively). In summary of noninflammatory and inflammatory lesions results, TR+BPO and TA+BPO were the best options compared to others. The frequentist model showed similar results as above. In summary, current evidence supports the suggestion that TR+BPO and TA+BPO are the best options for mild to moderate acne. LED is another option for inflammatory lesions when drug resistance occurs. All the combinations involved with OA showed more risk of adverse events than others. However, the evidence of this study should be cautiously used due to the limitations.

scholarly journals Multivessel versus culprit-only PCI in STEMI patients with multivessel disease: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 109 (11) ◽  
pp. 1381-1391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans-Josef Feistritzer ◽  
Alexander Jobs ◽  
Suzanne de Waha-Thiele ◽  
Ingo Eitel ◽  
Anne Freund ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Aims To perform a pairwise meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and culprit vessel-only PCI in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients without cardiogenic shock. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase for RCTs comparing multivessel PCI with culprit vessel-only PCI in STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock and multivessel coronary artery disease. Only RCTs reporting mortality or myocardial reinfarction after at least 6 months following randomization were included. Hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled using random-effect models. Results Nine RCTs were included in the final analysis. In total, 523 (8.3%) of 6314 patients suffered the combined primary endpoint of death or non-fatal reinfarction. This primary endpoint was significantly reduced with multivessel PCI compared to culprit vessel-only PCI (HR 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43–0.93; p = 0.03). This finding was driven by a reduction of non-fatal reinfarction (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52–0.79; p = 0.001), whereas no significant reduction of all-cause death (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.44–1.35; p = 0.28) or cardiovascular death (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.37–1.11; p = 0.09) was observed. Conclusions In STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock multivessel PCI reduced the risk of death or non-fatal reinfarction compared to culprit vessel-only PCI.

Maintenance Therapies for Multiple Myeloma (MM): A Network Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 236-236
Author(s):  
Helen Mahony ◽  
Ambuj Kumar ◽  
Rahul Mhaskar ◽  
Branko Miladinovic ◽  
Keith Wheatley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Novel Agents ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
American Society ◽  
Novel Agent

Abstract Abstract 236 Background: There is little consensus on which maintenance therapy clinicians should choose for their patients. Since 1999, the three novel agents of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and thalidomide have been approved for use among patients with MM. These agents have been increasingly used as maintenance therapy. To date, only two randomized controlled trials of maintenance therapy have examined the efficacy of these novel agents head-to-head. Here, we conduct a network meta-analysis of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and thalidomide to determine which of these novel agents could potentially increase overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Methods: A comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and meetings abstracts from American Society of Hematology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society for Medical Oncology and European Hematology Association was undertaken to identify all phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of maintenance therapy published until July 2012. We applied the Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) method under the random-effects model. The indirect comparisons were constructed from trials that have one treatment in common. For each included RCT, we calculated the hazard ratio (HR) and its corresponding standard error and used this to calculate the indirect estimates of HR and corresponding credible intervals (CrI). We also ranked the treatments according to the probability of best treatment and calculated the surface underneath the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). All analyses were conducted in WinBUGS 1.4.3 and Stata 11.2. Results: The network, number of trials for each comparison, and number of patients enrolled is shown in Figure 1. The network for OS was based on 12 RCTs enrolling 5542 patients and the network for PFS was constructed from 13 RCTs and 5784 patients. The MTC networks were consistent for both OS and PFS. For both OS and PFS, two comparisons were produced (Figure 2). For OS, the analysis showed that none of the treatments were superior. For PFS, lenalidomide was superior to thalidomide (HR = 0.58, 95% CrI [0.37, 0.94]). The estimates of SUCRA and rank probabilities (Figure 3) suggested that for OS bortezomib was best followed by lenalidomide and thalidomide. For PFS, lenalidomide was best followed by bortezomib and thalidomide. Conclusion: Using the MTC method, we found no evidence that any of the novel agents are superior to one another in terms of OS. Lenalidomide was the only novel agent which was superior to another active therapy (thalidomide). While these results provide preliminary evidence to which novel agent may be more beneficial as maintenance therapy, definitive conclusions cannot be reached until large, well designed RCTs evaluating these therapies head-to-head are conducted. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals The Analgesic Effect of Electroencephalographic Neurofeedback for People With Chronic Pain: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

10.2196/22821 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e22821
Author(s):  
Negin Hesam-Shariati ◽  
Wei-Ju Chang ◽  
James H McAuley ◽  
Andrew Booth ◽  
Zina Trost ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Analgesic Effect ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Placebo Control ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background Chronic pain is a global health problem, affecting around 1 in 5 individuals in the general population. The understanding of the key role of functional brain alterations in the generation of chronic pain has led researchers to focus on pain treatments that target brain activity. Electroencephalographic neurofeedback attempts to modulate the power of maladaptive electroencephalography frequency powers to decrease chronic pain. Although several studies have provided promising evidence, the effect of electroencephalographic neurofeedback on chronic pain is uncertain. Objective This systematic review aims to synthesize the evidence from randomized controlled trials to evaluate the analgesic effect of electroencephalographic neurofeedback. In addition, we will synthesize the findings of nonrandomized studies in a narrative review. Methods We will apply the search strategy in 5 electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL) for published studies and in clinical trial registries for completed unpublished studies. We will include studies that used electroencephalographic neurofeedback as an intervention for people with chronic pain. Risk-of-bias tools will be used to assess methodological quality of the included studies. We will include randomized controlled trials if they have compared electroencephalographic neurofeedback with any other intervention or placebo control. The data from randomized controlled trials will be aggregated to perform a meta-analysis for quantitative synthesis. The primary outcome measure is pain intensity assessed by self-report scales. Secondary outcome measures include depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and sleep quality measured by self-reported questionnaires. We will investigate the studies for additional outcomes addressing adverse effects and resting-state electroencephalography analysis. Additionally, all types of nonrandomized studies will be included for a narrative synthesis. The intended and unintended effects of nonrandomized studies will be extracted and summarized in a descriptive table. Results Ethics approval is not required for a systematic review, as there will be no patient involvement. The search for this systematic review commenced in July 2020, and we expect to publish the findings in early 2021. Conclusions This systematic review will provide recommendations for researchers and health professionals, as well as people with chronic pain, about the evidence for the analgesic effect of electroencephalographic neurofeedback. Trial Registration International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42020177608; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=177608 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) PRR1-10.2196/22821

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document