scholarly journals Are functional outcomes and reoperation rates really better than those of cementless stems in displaced femoral neck fractures? An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials in current-generation stem designs

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Chun-Wei Fu ◽  
Hsuan-Hsiao Ma ◽  
Yueh-Ching Liu ◽  
Yung-Chang Lu ◽  
Tung-Fu Huang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Femoral Neck Fractures ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Current Generation ◽  
Displaced Femoral Neck Fractures ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Reoperation Rates ◽  
Better Than

scholarly journals Quadruple versus triple combination antiretroviral therapies for treatment naive people with HIV: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. l4179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qi Feng ◽  
Aoshuang Zhou ◽  
Huachun Zou ◽  
Suzanne Ingle ◽  
Margaret T May ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Triple Combination ◽  
Antiretroviral Therapies ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Hiv 1 ◽  
Cd4 T Cell Count ◽  
Better Than

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of four drug (quadruple) versus three drug (triple) combination antiretroviral therapies in treatment naive people with HIV, and explore the implications of existing trials for clinical practice and research.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesPubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from March 2001 to December 2016 (updated search in PubMed and EMBASE up to June 2018); and reference lists of eligible studies and related reviews.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials comparing quadruple with triple combination antiretroviral therapies in treatment naive people with HIV and evaluating at least one effectiveness or safety outcome.Review methodsOutcomes of interest included undetectable HIV-1 RNA, CD4 T cell count, virological failure, new AIDS defining events, death, and severe adverse effects. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted.ResultsTwelve trials (including 4251 people with HIV) were eligible. Quadruple and triple combination antiretroviral therapies had similar effects on all relevant effectiveness and safety outcomes, with no point estimates favouring quadruple therapy. With the triple therapy as the reference group, the risk ratio was 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.05) for undetectable HIV-1 RNA, 1.00 (0.90 to 1.11) for virological failure, 1.17 (0.84 to 1.63) for new AIDS defining events, 1.23 (0.74 to 2.05) for death, and 1.09 (0.89 to 1.33) for severe adverse effects. The mean difference in CD4 T cell count increase between the two groups was −19.55 cells/μL (−43.02 to 3.92). In general, the results were similar, regardless of the specific regimens of combination antiretroviral therapies, and were robust in all subgroup and sensitivity analyses.ConclusionIn this study, effects of quadruple combination antiretroviral therapy were not better than triple combination antiretroviral therapy in treatment naive people with HIV. This finding lends support to current guidelines recommending the triple regimen as first line treatment. Further trials on this topic should be conducted only when new research is justified by adequate systematic reviews of the existing evidence. However, this study cannot exclude the possibility that quadruple cART would be better than triple cART when new classes of antiretroviral drugs are made available.

scholarly journals Intra-articular saline injection as effective as corticosteroids, platelet-rich plasma and hyaluronic acid for hip osteoarthritis pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2020 ◽  
pp. bjsports-2020-102179
Author(s):  
Aaron Gazendam ◽  
Seper Ekhtiari ◽  
Anthony Bozzo ◽  
Mark Phillips ◽  
Mohit Bhandari
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Platelet Rich Plasma ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hip Osteoarthritis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Saline Injection ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Indirect Comparisons

ObjectiveIntra-articular (IA) injections represent a commonly used modality in the treatment of hip osteoarthritis (OA). Commonly used injections include corticosteroids (CCS), hyaluronic acid (HA) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP). A network meta-analysis allows for comparison among more than two treatment arms and uses both direct and indirect comparisons between interventions. The objective of this network meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy of the various IA injectable treatments in treating hip OA at up to 6 months of follow-up.DesignThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Bayesian random-effects model was performed to assess the direct and indirect comparisons of all treatment options.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus and Web of Science, from inception to October 2019.Eligibility criteria for selected studiesRandomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of CCS, HA, PRP and placebo in the form of IA saline injection for patients with hip OA.ResultsEleven randomised controlled trials comprising 1353 patients were included. For pain outcomes at both 2–4 and 6 months, no intervention significantly outperformed placebo IA injection. For functional outcomes at both 2–4 and 6 months, no intervention significantly outperformed placebo IA injection. Regarding change from baseline at 2–4 months and 6 months, pooled data demonstrated that all interventions (including placebo), with the exception of HA+PRP, led to a clinically important improvement in both pain, exceeding the minimal clinically important difference.ConclusionEvidence suggests that IA hip saline injections performed as well as all other injectable options in the management of hip pain and functional outcomes.

scholarly journals Antidepressants on trial: how valid is the evidence?

2009 ◽  
Vol 194 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gordon Parker
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Antidepressant Drugs ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Contributing Factors ◽  
Current Trial ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Better Than

SummaryA recent meta-analysis concluded that newer antidepressant drugs are equivalent to or no better than placebos, a conclusion at some variance with their commonly judged clinical effectiveness. The ‘disconnect’ between randomised controlled trials and clinical practice would benefit from dissection of contributing factors, and redressing limitations to current trial procedures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document