Hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AbstractThe efficacy and safety of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is disputed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of HCQ in addition to standard of care (SOC) in COVID-19. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of sciences, and medRxiv were searched up to March 15, 2021. Clinical studies registry databases were also searched for identifying potential clinical trials. The references list of the key studies was reviewed to identify additional relevant resources. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and Jadad checklist. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3). Eleven randomized controlled trials with a total number of 8161 patients were identified as eligible for meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups in terms of negative rate of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (Risk ratio [RR]: 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90, 1.08; P = 0.76), PCR negative conversion time (Mean difference [MD]: − 1.06, 95% CI − 3.10, 0.97; P = 0.30), all-cause mortality (RR: 1.09, 95% CI 1.00, 1.20; P = 0.06), body temperature recovery time (MD: − 0.64, 95% CI − 1.37, 0.10; P = 0.09), length of hospital stay (MD: − 0.17, 95% CI − 0.80, 0.46; P = 0.59), use of mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.95, 1.32; P = 0.19), and disease progression (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.37, 1.85; P = 0.64). However, there was a significant difference between two groups regarding adverse events (RR: 1.81, 95% CI 1.36, 2.42; P < 0.05). The findings suggest that the addition of HCQ to SOC has no benefit in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Additionally, it is associated with more adverse events.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Steroidal Anti-Androgens in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials ◽

10.2174/1574887114666191105152404 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 15 (1) ◽

pp. 34-47 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Muhammed Rashid ◽

Madhan Ramesh ◽

K. Shamshavali ◽

Amit Dang ◽

Himanshu Patel ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Quality Assessment ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Control Group ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the sixth primary cause of cancer death. However, conflicts are present about the efficacy and safety of Non-steroidal anti-androgens (NSAA) for its treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of NSAAs versus any comparator for the treatment of advanced or metastatic PCa (mPCa). Methodology: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched. References of included studies and clinicaltrials.gov were also searched for relevant studies. Only English language studies after 1990 were considered for review. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of NSAAs as compared with any other comparator including surgery or chemotherapy in mPCa patients were included. The outcomes include efficacy, safety and the tolerability of the treatment. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used for quality assessment. Two authors were independently involved in the selection, extraction and quality assessment of included studies and disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third reviewer. Results: Fifty-eight out of 1307 non-duplicate RCTs with 29154 patients were considered for the review. NSAA showed significantly better progression-free survival [PFS] (Hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.78; P=0.0001), time to distant metastasis or death [TTD] (HR, 0.80; 95% CI 0.73-0.91; p<0.0001), objective response (Odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI 1.06-2.54; P=0.03) and clinical benefits (OR, 1.33; 95% CI 1.08-1.63; P=0.006) as compared to the control group. There was no significant difference observed between the groups in terms of overall survival (HR, 0.95; 95%CI, 0.87-1.03; P=0.18) and time to progression (HR, 0.93; 95% CI 0.77-1.11; P=0.43). Treatment-related adverse events were more with the NSAA group, but the discontinuation due to lack of efficacy reason was 43% significantly lesser than the control group in patients with mPCa. Rest of the outcomes were appeared to be non-significant. Conclusion: Treatment with NSAA was appeared to be better efficacious with respect to PFS, TTD, and response rate with considerable adverse events when compared to the control group in patients with metastatic PCa.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and Safety of Sinomenine Preparation for Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Randomized Controlled Trials

Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine ◽

10.1155/2020/4593412 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 2020 ◽

pp. 1-16

Author(s):

Shan-Shan Lin ◽

Chun-Xiang Liu ◽

Jun-Hua Zhang ◽

Hui Wang ◽

Jing-Bo Zhai ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Morning Stiffness ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

Objectives. To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of sinomenine preparation (SP) for treating ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Methods. Clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SP for treating AS were systematically identified in six electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), and Wanfang Databases from the inception up to 31 October 2019. Cochrane’s risk of bias tool was used to assess the methodological quality and Review Manager 5.3 software was used to analyze data. Results. A total of 12 RCTs involving 835 patients were finally included. According to interventions, RCTs were divided into two types. The intervention in 10 RCTs was SP combined with conventional pharmacotherapy (CPT) versus CPT and that in 2 RCTs was SP alone versus CPT. The results of the meta-analysis showed that, compared with CPT alone, SP combined with oral CPT has better improvement in BASDAI (WMD = −1.84, 95% CI [−3.31, −0.37], P=0.01), morning stiffness time (WMD = −13.46, 95% CI [−16.12, −10.79], P<0.00001), the Schober test (WMD = 1.26, 95% CI [0.72, 1.80], P<0.00001), the occipital wall test (WMD = −0.55, 95% CI [−0.96, −0.14], P=0.009), the finger-to-ground distance (WMD = −3.28, 95% CI [−5.64, −0.93], P=0.006), 15 m walking time (WMD = −8.81, 95% CI [−13.42, −4.20], P=0.0002), the C-reactive protein (CRP) (WMD = −1.84, 95% CI [−3.24, −0.45], P=0.01), and the total effective rate (RR = 1.10, 95% CI [1.01, 1.20], P=0.03). Besides, it also showed that oral SP alone may be more effective in improving morning stiffness time (WMD = −31.89, 95% CI [−34.91, −28.87], P<0.00001) compared with CPT alone. However, this study cannot provide evidence that loading the injectable SP based on CPT can significantly increase the efficacy due to the insufficient number of studies included. In terms of adverse events, there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental group and the control group. Conclusions. This study shows that oral SP may be effective and safe in the treatment of AS. Due to the low methodological quality of the included RCTs and the limitations of the meta-analysis, it is still necessary to carry out more multicenter, large-sample, and high-quality RCTs to further verify the conclusions. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018099170), and the review was constructed following the PRISMA guidelines (Annex 1).

Download Full-text

Activity and Safety of Tegafur, Gimeracil, and Oteracil Potassium for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal of Oncology ◽

10.1155/2021/6690275 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 2021 ◽

pp. 1-15

Author(s):

Ximing Zhang ◽

Xiumei Tian ◽

Yuezi Wei ◽

Hao Deng ◽

Lichun Ma ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Adverse Reactions ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

In clinical practice, tegafur, gimeracil, and oteracil potassium (S-1) therapy is commonly administered to treat nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). However, its efficacy and safety remain controversial in both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of S-1 treatment for NPC. We searched PubMed, Ovid, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, and VIP databases for RCTs of chemotherapy with or without S-1 for NPC, from 2001 to 2020. A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.3 and Stata15. Randomized controlled trials published in journals were included irrespective of blinding and language used. Patients were diagnosed with NPC through a clinicopathological examination; patients of all cancer stages and ages were included. Overall, 25 trials and 1858 patients were included. There were significant differences in the complete remission (OR = 2.42, 95% CI (1.88–3.10), P < 0.05 ) and overall response rate (OR = 2.68, 95% CI (2.08–3.45), P < 0.05 ) between the S-1 and non-S-1 groups. However, there was no significant difference in partial remission (OR = 1.10, 95% CI (0.87–1.39), P = 0.42 ) and seven adverse reactions (leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, dermatitis, oral mucositis, and anemia) between the S-1 and non-S-1 groups. Additionally, statistical analyses with six subgroups were performed. S-1 was found to be a satisfactory chemotherapeutic agent combined with radiotherapy, intravenous chemotherapy, or chemoradiotherapy for NPC. As an oral medicine, the adverse reactions of S-1, especially gastrointestinal reactions, can be tolerated by patients, thereby optimizing their quality of life. S-1 may be a better choice for the treatment of NPC. This trial is registered with CRD42019122041.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and Safety of Methylnaltrexone for the Treatment of Opioid-Induced Constipation: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

10.21203/rs.3.rs-100123/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Ying-Ying Zhang ◽

Rong Zhou ◽

Wan-Jie Gu

Keyword(s):

Abdominal Pain ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Safety Outcome ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Safety Outcomes

Abstract Background: Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a distressing side effect during opioid analgesia and is mainly mediated by gastrointestinal μ opioid receptors. Methylnaltrexone, a peripheral μ opioid receptor antagonist with restricted ability to cross the blood-brain barrier, may alleviate OIC without reversing analgesia. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of methylnaltrexone for the treatment of OIC.Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials that compared methylnaltrexone with placebo for the treatment of OIC. The primary efficacy outcome was rescue-free bowel movement (RFBM) within 4 hours after the first dose. Secondary efficacy outcomes included RFBM within 24 hours after the first dose, RFBM ≥3 times per week, and need take rescue laxatives. The primary safety outcome was any adverse events. Secondary safety outcomes included abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and flatulence. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled using random-effects model with the intention-to-treat principle. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.Results: Eight trials with 2,034 participants were included. Compared with placebo, methylnaltrexone significantly increased RFBM within 4 hours after the first dose (8 trials; 1,833 participants; RR 3.74, 95% CI 3.02-4.62; I2 = 0%; high-certainty evidence), RFBM within 24 hours after the first dose (2 trials; 614 participants; RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.52-2.58; I2 = 9%; moderate-certainty evidence), and RFBM ≥3 times per week (3 trials; 1,396 participants; RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.17-1.52; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) and decreased need to take rescue laxatives (3 trials; 807 participants; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63-0.85; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For safety outcomes, there was no difference in any adverse events between the two groups (8 trials; 2,034 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.99-1.23; I2 = 34%; moderate-certainty evidence), including diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and flatulence; but for the most commonly reported adverse events, the abdominal pain was higher in methylnaltrexone group than that in placebo group (6 trials; 1,813 participants; RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.29-4.08; I2 = 62%; moderate-certainty evidence).Conclusions: Methylnaltrexone is an effective and safe drug for treating OIC. But the safety of abdominal pain should be considered.Trial registration: PROSPERO (CRD42020187290).

Download Full-text

Hydroxychloroquine plus standard care compared with the standard care alone in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

10.1101/2020.06.05.20122705 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Bahman Amani ◽

Ahmad Khanijahani ◽

Behnam Amani

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Standard Care ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

AbstractBackground & ObjectiveThe efficacy and safety of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating coronavirus disease COVID-19 pandemic is disputed. This study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of HCQ plus the standard of care in COVID-19 patients.MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, and web of sciences were searched up to June 1, 2020. The references list of the key studies was reviewed for additional relevant resources. Clinical studies registry databases were searched for identifying potential clinical trials. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3).ResultsThree randomized controlled trials with total number of 242 patients were identified eligible for meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between HCQ and standard care in terms of viral clearance (Risk ratio [RR] = 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91, 1.16; P = 0.68), disease progression (RR = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.10, 0.81; P = 0.94), Chest CT (RR = 1.40; 95% CI = 1.03, 1.91; P = 0.03). There is a significant difference between HCQ and standard care for adverse events (RR = 2.88; 95% CI = 1.50, 5.54; P = 0.002).ConclusionAlthough the current meta-analysis failed to confirm the efficacy and safety of HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, further rigorous randomized clinical trials are necessary to evaluate conclusively the efficacy and safety of HCQ against COVID-19.

Download Full-text

Does the Source of Mesenchymal Stem Cell Have an Effect in the Management of Osteoarthritis of the Knee? Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Cartilage ◽

10.1177/1947603520951623 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 194760352095162

Author(s):

Madhan Jeyaraman ◽

Sathish Muthu ◽

Parvez Ahmad Ganie

Keyword(s):

Stem Cell ◽

Mesenchymal Stem Cell ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Osteoarthritis Of Knee ◽

Randomized Controlled

Study Design Meta-analysis. Objectives To compare the efficacy and safety of bone marrow(BM)–derived mesenchymal stem cell(MSCs) and adipose-derived(AD) MSCs in the management of osteoarthritis of knee from randomized controlled trials(RCTs) available in the literature. Materials and Methods We conducted electronic database searche from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library till May 2020 for RCTs analyzing the efficacy and safety of MSCs in management of osteoarthritis of knee. Visual Analog Score(VAS) for Pain, Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index(WOMAC), Lysholm Knee Scale(Lysholm), Whole-Organ Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score(WORMS), Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score(KOOS), and adverse events were the outcomes analyzed. Analysis was performed in R platform using OpenMeta[Analyst] software. Results Nineteen studies involving 811 patients were included for analysis. None of the studies compared the source of MSCs for osteoarthritis of knee and results were obtained by pooled data analysis of both sources. At 6 months, AD-MSCs showed significantly better VAS( P<0.001, P=0.069) and WOMAC( P=0.134, P=0.441) improvement than BM-MSCs, respectively, compared to controls. At 1 year, AD-MSCs outperformed BM-MSCs compared to their control in measures like WOMAC( P=0.007, P=0.150), KOOS( P<0.001; P=0.658), and WORMS( P<0.001, P=0.041), respectively. Similarly at 24 months, AD-MSCs showed significantly better Lysholm score( P=0.037) than BM-MSCs( P=0.807) although VAS improvement was better with BM-MSCs at 24 months( P<0.001). There were no significant adverse events with either of the MSCs compared to their controls. Conclusion Our analysis establishes the efficacy, safety, and superiority of AD-MSC transplantation, compared to BM-MSC, in the management of osteoarthritis of knee from available literature. Further RCTs are needed to evaluate them together with standardized doses.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and safety of 18 anti-osteoporotic drugs in the treatment of patients with osteoporosis caused by glucocorticoid: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PLoS ONE ◽

10.1371/journal.pone.0243851 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 15 (12) ◽

pp. e0243851

Author(s):

Zhiming Liu ◽

Min Zhang ◽

Zhubin Shen ◽

Junran Ke ◽

Ding Zhang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Vertebral Fracture ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Current Evidence ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Different Types

Background Glucocorticoids are widely used in a variety of diseases, especially autoimmune diseases and inflammatory diseases, so the incidence of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis is high all over the world. Objectives The purpose of this paper is to use the method of network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy of anti-osteoporosis drugs directly and indirectly, and to explore the advantages of various anti-osteoporosis drugs based on the current evidence. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) and compared the efficacy and safety of these drugs by NMA. The risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) are used as the influence index of discontinuous data, and the standardized mean difference (SMD) and its 95% CI are used as the influence index of continuous data. The statistical heterogeneity was evaluated by the calculated estimated variance (τ2), and the efficacy and safety of drugs were ranked by the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). The main outcome of this study was the incidence of vertebral fracture after taking several different types of drugs, and the secondary results were the incidence of non-vertebral fracture and adverse events, mean percentage change of lumbar spine (LS) and total hip (TH)bone mineral density (BMD) from baseline to at least 12 months. Results Among the different types of anti-GIOP, teriparatide (SUCRA 95.9%) has the lowest incidence of vertebral fracture; ibandronate (SUCRA 75.2%) has the lowest incidence of non-vertebral fracture; raloxifene (SUCRA 98.5%) has the best effect in increasing LS BMD; denosumab (SUCRA 99.7%) is the best in increasing TH BMD; calcitonin (SUCRA 92.4%) has the lowest incidence of serious adverse events. Conclusions Teriparatide and ibandronate are effective drugs to reduce the risk of vertebral and non-vertebral fractures in patients with GIOP. In addition, long-term use of raloxifene and denosumab can increase the BMD of LS and TH.

Download Full-text

Early Versus Routine Stoma Closure in Patients With Colorectal Resection: A Meta-Analysis of 7 Randomized Controlled Trials

Surgical Innovation ◽

10.1177/1553350620907812 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 27 (3) ◽

pp. 291-298

Author(s):

Yinyin Guo ◽

Yanxin Luo ◽

Hui Zhao ◽

Liangliang Bai ◽

Juan Li ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Surgery ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Bowel Obstruction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Wound Complications ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Stoma Closure ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

Background. A substantial proportion of patients undergoing colorectal surgery receive a temporary stoma, and the timing for stoma closure remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of early stoma closure (ESC) compared with routine stoma closure (RSC) after colorectal surgery. Methods. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials that compared ESC and RSC after colorectal surgery. Results. A total of 7 randomized controlled trials with 814 enrolled patients were identified for this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between the ESC and RSC groups regarding the complications of stoma closure (26.8% and 16.6%, respectively; odds ratio [OR]: 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-1.90; P = .17). A subgroup analysis was conducted by Clavien-Dindo grade of complication, and no significant difference was observed in any subgroup ( P > .05). However, the ESC group had a significantly higher risk of wound complications than the RSC group (17.6% and 7.8%, respectively; OR: 2.61; 95% CI: 1.43-4.76; P = .002), and the RSC group had more cases of small bowel obstruction than the ESC group (3.1% and 8.4%, respectively; OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.15-0.87; P = .02). Conclusions. ESC is a safe and effective therapeutic approach in patients who have undergone colorectal surgery; it is associated with a reduced risk of bowel obstruction but a higher risk of wound complications.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and safety of bempedoic acid in patients with hypercholesterolemia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

European Journal of Preventive Cardiology ◽

10.1177/2047487320930585 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 204748732093058 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Lei Dai ◽

Yuyue Zuo ◽

Qiqi You ◽

Hesong Zeng ◽

Shiyi Cao

Keyword(s):

Adverse Events ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Fixed Effects ◽

Therapeutic Option ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Lipid Lowering ◽

Oral Drug ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Randomized Controlled

Aim Bempedoic acid is a novel oral drug, which has been increasingly researched to play an important role in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia recently. However, results from original studies were inconsistent and inconclusive. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to quantitatively appraise the efficacy and safety of bempedoic acid. Methods PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus were searched from inception to 30 January 2020. We included randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and safety of bempedoic acid with placebo in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Results from trials were presented as mean differences or odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and were pooled by random or fixed effects model. The risk of bias and heterogeneity among trials were also assessed and analyzed. Results Pooled analysis of 10 eligible trials showed that bempedoic acid treatment resulted in greater lowering of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level than the placebo group (mean difference –23.16%, 95% CI –26.92% to –19.04%). We also found that improvements in lipid parameters and biomarkers were still maintained at weeks 24 and 52 from the long-term trials. As for safety, bempedoic acid did not increase the risk of overall adverse events (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.18). However, the incidence of adverse events leading to discontinuation was higher in the bempedoic acid group (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.82). Conclusions Available evidence from randomized controlled trials suggests that bempedoic acid provides a well-tolerated and effective therapeutic option for lipid lowering in patients with hyperlipidemia

Download Full-text

Nurse Participation in Colonoscopy Observation versus the Colonoscopist Alone for Polyp and Adenoma Detection: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials

Gastroenterology Research and Practice ◽

10.1155/2016/7631981 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 2016 ◽

pp. 1-7 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Lei Xu ◽

Yu Zhang ◽

Haojun Song ◽

Weihong Wang ◽

Sijie Zhang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Detection Rate ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Research Question ◽

Adenoma Detection Rate ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Adenoma Detection ◽

Significant Difference

The role of nurse participation (NP) in colonoscopy observation for polyp and adenoma detection is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate whether nurse participation can improve polyp and adenoma detection.Patients and Methods. The PUBMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English. The outcome measurements included (1) the polyp and adenoma detection rate (PDR and ADR); (2) the advanced lesions detection rate; and (3) the mean polyp and adenoma detection rate per colonoscopy.Results. Three RCTs with a total of 1676 patients were included. The pooled data showed a significantly higher ADR in the NP group than colonoscopist alone (CA) (45.7% versus 39.3%; RR 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04–1.30). And it showed no significant difference in the PDR and advanced lesions detection rate between the two groups (RR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.95–1.37; RR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.91–2.00; resp.).Conclusions. Nurse participation during a colonoscopy can improve the ADR, whereas no benefit for the PDR and advanced lesions detection rate was observed. All RCTs included in the meta-analysis had high risk of bias. Thus, there is a need for new research that uses sound methodology to definitively address the research question under study.

Download Full-text