scholarly journals What Keeps Older People out of Nursing Homes? A Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 510-510
Author(s):  
Joseph Gaugler ◽  
Rachel Zmora ◽  
Colleen Peterson ◽  
Lauren Mitchell ◽  
Robyn Birkeland ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nursing Home ◽  
Older People ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Older Persons ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Nursing Home Admission ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Fee For Service ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Perhaps one of the most examined, and costly, health transitions older people experience is nursing home admission. In addition to the financial costs nursing home admission poses to older people, their families, and other payers (e.g., the public), institutionalization is linked with a range of negative outcomes and represents a loss of independence and quality of life to many older persons. The current meta-analysis attempted to synthesize all available randomized controlled trials available to ascertain which intervention approaches appeared to prevent nursing home entry for older adults. The MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were searched to August, 2020. Abstracts were screened (N = 28,120) to identify randomized controlled trials of interventions to prevent or delay nursing home admission as well as systematic reviews. Identified studies were cross-referenced until the point of saturation, resulting in 1,786 studies for additional inclusion/exclusion screening. Following a consensus-based review among the authors that included risk of bias, 323 randomized controlled trials were included in the meta analysis. Although several intervention modalities appeared protective against nursing home admission and approached statistical significance, preliminary results suggest that comprehensive geriatrics assessment (pooled OR = .69, 95% CI: .50, .95) and specialized, inpatient geriatrics care (pooled OR: .77, 95% CI: .59, .99) were most consistent in helping to prevent institutionalization among older persons. The findings emphasize the importance of geriatrics when delivering optimal care to older persons. Integrating such approaches more effectively into a largely fee-for-service healthcare paradigm remain a critical challenge.

scholarly journals Effects of Diet, Aerobic Exercise, or Both on Non-HDL-C in Adults: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Cholesterol ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
George A. Kelley ◽  
Kristi S. Kelley
Keyword(s):  
Aerobic Exercise ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Mixed Effect ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Effect Model

Purpose. To use the meta-analytic approach to examine the effects of diet (D), aerobic exercise (E), or both (DE) on non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) in adults. Methods. Randomized controlled trials in adults ≥18 years of age were included. A mixed-effect model was used to combine effect size (ES) results within each subgroup and to compare subgroups (Qb). Heterogeneity was examined using the Q and I2 statistics, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were also calculated. Statistical significance was set at P≤0.05, while a trend for statistical significance was set between P>0.05, and ≤0.10. Results. A statistically significant exercise minus control group decrease in non-HDL-C was found for DE (7 ESs, 389 participants, x¯=-11.1 mg/dL, 95%  CI=−21.7 to −0.6, P=0.04, Q=2.4, P=0.88, I2=0%), a trend for the D group (7 ESs, 402 participants, x¯=−8.5 mg/dL, 95%  CI=−18.6 to 1.6, P=0.10, Q=0.76, P=0.99, I2=0%), and no change for the E group (7 ESs, 387 participants, x¯=3.0 mg/dL, 95%   CI=−7.1 to 13.1, P=0.56, Q=0.78, P=0.99, I2=0%). Overall, no statistically significant between-group differences were found (Qb=4.1, P=0.12). Conclusions. Diet combined with aerobic exercise may reduce non-HDL-C among adults in some settings.

scholarly journals COVID-19 and Vitamin D (Co-VIVID Study): a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seshadri Reddy Varikasuvu ◽  
Balachandar Thangappazham ◽  
Hemanth Raj
Keyword(s):  
Vitamin D ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Individual Outcomes ◽  
Vitamin D Levels

Background: Vitamin D levels have been reported to be associated with COVID-19 susceptibility, severity and mortality events.. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the use of vitamin D intervention on COVID-19 outcomes. Methods: Literature search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases (latest search on August 5, 2021). We included RCTs reporting the use of vitamin D intervention to control/placebo group in COVID-19. Two independent researchers did literature search, abstracted data, and the risk of bias assessment. Results: A total of 6 RCTs with 551 COVID-19 patients were included. The overall collective evidence pooling all the outcomes across all RCTs indicated the beneficial use of vitamin D intervention in COVID-19 (relative risk, RR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.92, Z=2.33, p=0.02, I2 = 48%). However, no statistical significance was observed for individual outcomes of ICU care (RR = 0.11, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.30, Z=1.48, p=0.14, I2 = 66%) and mortality (RR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.40, Z=0.66, p=0.02, I2 = 33%), though decreased rates were noted. The rates of RT-CR positivity was significantly decreased in the intervention group as compared to the non-vitamin D groups (RR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.89, Z=2.31, p=0.02, I2 = 0%). Conclusion: COVID-19 patients supplemented with vitamin D are more likely to demonstrate fewer rates of ICU admission, mortality events and RT-PCR positivity. However, no statistical significance has been achieved for individual outcomes of ICU and deaths. More RCTs and completion of ongoing trials largely needed to precisely establish the association between vitamin D use and COVID-19.

scholarly journals Short Dental Implants (≤7mm) Versus Longer Implants in Augmented Bone Area: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 354-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Priscila N. Uehara ◽  
Victor Haruo Matsubara ◽  
Fernando Igai ◽  
Newton Sesma ◽  
Marcio K. Mukai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Bone Area ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Short Implants

Aim: The aim of this systematic review was to compare the survival rate and the marginal bone loss between short implants (≤7 mm) placed in the atrophic area and longer implants placed in the augmented bone area of posterior regions of maxillaries. Methods: Electronic search using three databases was performed up to May 2017 to identify Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) assessing short implants survival with a minimal follow-up of 12 months post-loading. For the meta-analysis, a Risk Difference (RD) with the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was used to pool the results of implant failure rate for each treatment group. For the marginal bone changes, Mean Differences (MD) with 95% CI were calculated. Results: Seven randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, being included in qualitative and quantitative analyses. The RD between the short implant group and the control group was -0.02 (95% CI: -0.04 to 0.00), I2=0 and Chi2=3.14, indicating a favorable survival rate for short implant, but with no statistical significance (p=0.09). Discussion: For marginal bone loss, the mean difference was -0,13 (95%CI: -0.22 to -0.05), favoring the test group with statistical significance (p=0.002). The studies showed more heterogeneity for bone loss compared to survival rate. Short and longer implants showed similar survival rates after one year of loading, however the marginal bone loss around short implants was lower than in longer implants sites. Conclusion: Placement of implants ≤7 mm of length was found to be a predictable alternative for the rehabilitation of atrophic posterior regions, avoiding all the disadvantages intrinsic to bone augmentation procedures.

scholarly journals The effect of cognitive-based training for the healthy older people: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PLoS ONE ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. e0176742 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huei-Ling Chiu ◽  
Hsin Chu ◽  
Jui-Chen Tsai ◽  
Doresses Liu ◽  
Ying-Ren Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older People ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Prevention of Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia with Oral Care in Individuals Without Mechanical Ventilation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2015 ◽  
Vol 36 (8) ◽  
pp. 899-906 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asako Kaneoka ◽  
Jessica M. Pisegna ◽  
Keri V. Miloro ◽  
Mel Lo ◽  
Hiroki Saito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nursing Home ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Care ◽  
Nursing Home Residents ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Preventive Effect ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Healthcare Associated

OBJECTIVEEvidence is lacking on the preventive effect of oral care on healthcare-associated pneumonia in hospitalized patients and nursing home residents who are not mechanically ventilated. The primary aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of oral care on the incidence of pneumonia in nonventilated patients.METHODSWe searched 8 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS, ICHUSHI, and CiNii), in addition to trial registries and a manual search. Eligible studies were published and unpublished randomized controlled trials examining the effect of any method of oral care on reported incidence of pneumonia and/or fatal pneumonia. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Risk of bias was assessed for eligible studies.RESULTSWe identified 5 studies consisting of 1,009 subjects that met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 2 trials assessed the effect of chlorhexidine in hospitalized patients; 3 studies examined mechanical oral cleaning in nursing home residents. A meta-analysis could only be done on 4 trials; this analysis showed a significant risk reduction in pneumonia through oral care interventions (RRfixed, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40–0.91; P=.02). The effects of mechanical oral care alone were significant when pooled across studies. (RRfixed, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40–0.92; P=.02). Risk reduction for fatal pneumonia from mechanical oral cleaning was also significant (RRfixed, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.23–0.71; P=.002). Most studies had a high risk of bias.CONCLUSIONSThis analysis suggests a preventive effect of oral care on pneumonia in nonventilated individuals. This effect, however, should be interpreted with caution due to risk of bias in the included trials.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;36(8): 899–906

scholarly journals Pridopidine for the Improvement of Motor Function in Patients With Huntington's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shujun Chen ◽  
Tianyu Liang ◽  
Tao Xue ◽  
Shouru Xue ◽  
Qun Xue
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Huntington's Disease ◽  
Huntington’S Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Motor Score ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background: Huntington's disease (HD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder. Generally, it is characterized by deficits in cognition, behavior, and movement. Recent studies have shown that pridopidine is a potential and effective drug candidate for the treatment of HD. In the present study, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pridopidine in HD.Methods: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which had that evaluated pridopidine therapy in HD patients.Results: We pooled data from 1,119 patients across four RCTs. Patients in the pridopidine group had a significantly lower Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale (UHDRS)-modified Motor Score (mMS) (MD −0.79, 95% CI = −1.46 to −0.11, p = 0.02) than those in the placebo group. Additionally, no differences were observed in the UHDRS-Total Motor Score (TMS) (MD −0.91. 95% CI = −2.03 to 0.21, p = 0.11) or adverse events (RR 1.06, 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.16, p = 0.24) in the pridopidine and placebo groups. In the subgroup analysis, the short-term (≤12 weeks) and long-term (>12 weeks) subgroups exhibited similar efficacy and safety with no statistical significance in TMS, mMS, or adverse events. However, TMS (MD −1.50, 95% CI = −2.87 to −0.12, p = 0.03) and mMS (MD −1.03, 95% CI = −1.87 to −0.19, p = 0.02) were observed to be improved significantly when the dosage of pridopidine ≥90 mg/day. Additionally, pridopidine (≥90 mg/day) increased total adverse events (RR 1.11, 95% CI = 1.00 to 1.22, p = 0.04) compared with placebo. On this basis, we analyzed the incidence of various adverse events when the dosage was ≥90 mg/day. Nonetheless, these results were within the acceptable threshold, although patients developed symptoms, such as nasopharyngitis and insomnia.Conclusion: Pridopidine improved mMS and had no statistical significance in association with TMS or adverse events. Pridopidine (≥90 mg/day) improved TMS and mMS but increased adverse events, such as nasopharyngitis and insomnia. More RCTs were expected to assess pridopidine in HD.

scholarly journals Comparison of the participation rate between CT colonography and colonoscopy in screening population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 93 (1105) ◽  
pp. 20190240 ◽  
Author(s):  
He Zhu ◽  
Fudong Li ◽  
Ke Tao ◽  
Jing Wang ◽  
Carissa Scurlock ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Ct Colonography ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Participation Rate ◽  
Statistical Evidence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Screening Population ◽  
The Difference

Objective: To compare the participation rate between CT colonography (CTC) and colonoscopy in screening population in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: A search was performed using the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. RCTs that included screening populations and reported participation number were assessed. Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the bias and quality. Risk ratio (RR) was used to present the results. The non-participation rate was analyzed to verify the results of participation rate. Results: Five of 760 studies, with a total of 15,974 invitees, were included. The participation rate was higher at CTC (28.8%) than colonoscopy (20.8%), although the difference did not reach statistical significance (RR = 1.26; p = 0.070; I2 = 90.3%). The non-participation rate at CTC was significantly lower than colonoscopy (RR = 0.92; p = 0.012; I2 = 86.7%). Subgroup analysis suggested both the participation and non-participation rate were with significant difference between reduced/no cathartic preparation CTC and colonoscopy. Cumulative meta-analysis showed both the participation rate and non-participation rate exhibited a trend over time and sample size. Conclusion: The participation rate was higher at CTC than colonoscopy, although the difference did not reach statistical significance. But the non-participation rate was with statistical difference. Screening population seemed more likely to participate the reduced/no cathartic preparation CTC. Statistical evidence was provided for more large RCTs are needed in the future. Advances in knowledge: The screening populations seem more likely to participate in the CTC, especially the reduced/no cathartic preparation CTC. The statistical evidence was provided for more large RCTs are needed in the future.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document