scholarly journals Hydroxychloroquine Versus COVID-19: A Rapid Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amir Shamshirian ◽  
Amirhossein Hessami ◽  
Keyvan Heydari ◽  
Reza Alizadeh-Navaei ◽  
Mohammad Ali Ebrahimzadeh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Comparative Studies ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Mesh Terms

AbstractBackgroundCoronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a major global issue with rising the number of infected individuals and mortality in recent months. Among all therapeutic approaches, arguments have raised about hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) efficacy in the treatment of COVID-19. We aimed to overcome the controversies regarding the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19, using a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsA systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar and medRxiv pre-print database using all available MeSH terms for COVID-19 and hydroxychloroquine. Two authors selected and assessed the quality of studies independently using related checklists. Data have been extracted from included studies and analyzed using CMA v. 2.2.064. heterogeneity was also assessed using the I-squared test. We also conducted different sensitivity analyses to examine the effect of studies that greatly influence the results.ResultsOut of 14 studies entered into our systematic review, 12 studies including seven comparative studies with control group and five observational studies containing 3,428 participants have entered into the study. The results of the meta-analysis on comparative studies indicated no significant clinical effectiveness (negative in RT-PCR evaluation) for HCQ regimen in the treatment of COVID-19 in comparison to control group (RR: 1.04, 95% CI, 0.83-1.31). The same result was observed for the combination of HCQ+azithromycin (RR: 2.15, 95% CI, 0.31-14.77). Approximately 1.7 times higher mortality rate was observed among the HCQ regimen group in comparison to control group (RR: 1.73, 95% CI, 1.06-2.81), which was not related to the age differences according to meta-regression analysis (P=0.305). No substantial difference was observed for disease exacerbation (RR: 1.87, 95% CI, 0.28-12.36) between HCQ group and controls. Also, radiological findings significantly improved in the HCQ group (OR: 0.32, 95% CI, 0.11-0.98). Odds of known HCQ adverse effects (diarrhea, vomiting, blurred vision, rash, headache, etc.) occurred in the HCQ regimen group was approximately 3.5 times of control group (OR: 3.55, 95% CI, 1.61-7.82), but no substantial differences were found regarding intubation odds between HCQ group and control group (OR: 2.11, 95% CI, 0.31-14.03).ConclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis not only indicated no clinical benefits regarding HCQ treatment with/without azithromycin for COVID-19 patients, but the higher mortality rate and frequency of known HCQ adverse effects were observed for the HCQ regimen group. However, due to that most of the studies were non-randomized and results were not homogenous, selection bias was unavoidable and further large randomized clinical trials following comprehensive meta-analysis should be taken into account in order to achieve more reliable findings.

scholarly journals Is dezocine effective and safe in preventing opioids-induced cough during general anaesthesia induction? A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e035691
Author(s):  
Li-xian He ◽  
Ken Shao ◽  
Jie Ma ◽  
Yuan-yuan Zhao ◽  
Yun-tai Yao
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Systemic Review ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Anaesthesia Induction

IntroductionCough is often observed when administrating a bolus of opioids. Opioid-induced cough (OIC) is mostly transient, benign and self-limiting, but could be associated with adverse effects. Numerous pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions have been used to manage OIC with controversial efficacy and safety. Recent studies suggested that, pretreatment of intravenous dezocine (DZC) could completely suppress OIC during anaesthesia induction. To address this knowledge lack, we will perform a systemic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of DZC on OIC and possible complications. We provide here a protocol that will outline the methods and analyses planned for the systematic review.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science as well as Chinese BioMedical Literature & Retrieval System (SinoMed), China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data and VIP Data will be searched from 1978 to 31 December 2019 to identify all randomised controlled trials comparing DZC with placebo on the incidence and severity of OIC. Primary outcomes of interest include the incidence and severity of OIC. Secondary outcomes of interest include possible complications or adverse effects of DZC. Two authors will independently extract relevant variables and outcome data. For continuous variables, treatment effects will be calculated as weighted mean difference and 95% CI. For dichotomous data, treatment effects will be calculated as OR and 95% CI. Each outcome will be tested for heterogeneity, and randomised-effects or fixed-effects model will be used in the presence or absence of significant heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses will be done by examining the influence of statistical model and individual trial(s) on estimated treatment effects. Publication bias will be explored through visual inspection of funnel plots of the outcomes. Statistical significance will be defined as p<0.05.Ethics and disseminationThis study is a protocol of meta-analysis of previously published literatures, ethical approval was not necessary according to the Ethical Committee of Fuwai Hospital. The study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated via research presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019141255.

scholarly journals Comparison between Arm Port and Chest Port for Optimal Vascular Access Port in Patients with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ye Liu ◽  
Li-li Li ◽  
Lei Xu ◽  
Dong-dong Feng ◽  
Yu Cao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Comparative Studies ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Access Port ◽  
Chest Port

Objectives. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the complication rates between arm and chest ports in patients with breast cancer. Design and Data Sources. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang database were used to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of publications published from the inception of the database to 11, October 2019. Our search generated a total of 22 articles published from 2011 to 2019, including 6 comparative studies and 16 single-arm articles, involving 4131 cases and 5272 controls. Single-arm studies combined with comparative studies were also pooled and analyzed. Finally, subgroup analysis was performed to compare the rates of infection and thrombosis between these two ports. Eligibility Criteria. Included articles were research studies comparing complication rates of arm ports with chest ports in patients with breast cancer. Any review or meta-analysis article would be removed. Data Extraction and Synthesis. Demographic data and information for the following analysis were extracted. DerSimonian and Laird random effect meta-analysis was conducted to analyze comparative studies while Begg’s and Egger’s tests were used for assessment of publication bias. Meta-regression analysis was performed to explain the sources of heterogeneity. Results. There was no difference in the risk of overall complications between arm and chest ports for comparative studies (P=0.083). While results of pooled comparative and single-arm studies indicated that arm port would increase the overall complication risks with RR of 2.64, results of the subgroup analysis showed that there was no difference in the risk of catheter-related infection between these two ports. However, arm port might be associated with the higher thrombosis rates compared with chest port according to the results of the analysis for only comparative studies (RR = 2.23, P=0.041) as well as pooled comparative and single-arm studies (RR = 1.21, P=0.029). Conclusions. This study indicated that the arm port might increase the risk of overall complication risks as well as the risk of catheter-related thrombosis compared with the chest port. However, these reported findings still need to be verified by large randomized clinical trials.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Tocilizumab in Patients with COVID-19 : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhenlu Li ◽  
Qianqiu Che ◽  
Mao Li ◽  
Jianping Liu ◽  
Rao Du ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Disease Severity ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Critical Patients

Abstract Background Tocilizumab (TCZ) is an anti-interleukin-6 antibody that has been used to treat patients with 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Numerous retrospective studies have shown beneficial treatment efficacy. Several recent randomized clinical trials have questioned the efficacy of TCZ in patients with COVID-19. Therefore, we performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the effectiveness and safety of tocilizumab recently used for treating patients with COVID-19. Methods Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and comparative studies that compared the outcomes between TCZ and standard of care (SOC) were analysed. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (inception to November 20, 2020) were systematically searched. Primary outcomes included mortality and the rate of requirement for mechanical ventilation (MV). In addition, several subgroup analyses stratified by disease severity, publication type and TCZ administration were performed. Results Three RCTs, twenty-one cohort studies and nine case-control studies including 11,206 patients were finally included. The TCZ group included 2,794 patients (24.93%) and the SOC group included 8,412 patients (75.07%). The mortality rate (>14 days) of the TCZ group, 29.63% (590/1,991), was lower than the SOC group, 41.51% (2,380/5,734) (OR 0.64, 0.57 to 0.73; p <0.00001). However, no significant difference in-14-day mortality rates was observed between the two groups (13.53% vs 22.92%, p = 0.21). Meanwhile, the rate of MV was significantly decreased in the TCZ group compared with the SOC group (OR 0.42, 0.22 to 0.83; p = 0.01). According to the results of the subgroup analysis stratified by disease severity, TCZ only reduced the mortality rate for critical patients with COVID-19 compared with SOC (OR 0.60, 0.52 to 0.71; P < 0.00001), particularly for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) or patients requiring MV. No statistically significant increase was recognized in the rates of secondary infections or thrombosis between the two groups. Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis found that the addition of tocilizumab to the SOC might reduce mortality after 14 days in patients with COVID-19, particularly critical patients requiring MV. More extensive RCTs with longer follow-up periods are needed to validate these findings.

The Effect of L-Carnitine on Mortality Rate in Septic Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Randomized Clinical Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamed Abdollahi ◽  
Mina Abdolahi ◽  
Mohsen Sedighiyan ◽  
Arash Jafarieh
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Carnitine Supplementation ◽  
Language Restriction ◽  
One Year ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Recent clinical trial studies have reported that L-carnitine supplementation can reduce the mortality rate in patients with sepsis, but there are no definitive results in this context. The current systematic review and metaanalysis aimed to evaluate the effect of L-carnitine supplementation on 28-day and one-year mortality in septic patients. Methods: A systemically search conducted on Pubmed, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases up to June 2019 without any language restriction. The publications were reviewed based on Cochrane handbook and preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). To compare the effects of L-carnitine with placebo, Risk Ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled according to random effects model. Results: Across five enrolled clinical trials, we found that L-carnitine supplementation reduce one-year mortality in septic patients with SOFA> 12 (RR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.96; P= 0.03) but had no significant effect on reducing 28-day mortality ((RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.28; P= 0.65) compared to placebo. Finally, we observed that based on current trials, Lcarnitine supplementation may not have clinically a significant effect on mortality rate. Conclusions: L-carnitine patients with higher SOFA score can reduce the mortality rate. However, the number of trials, study duration and using dosage of L-carnitine are limited in this context and further large prospective trials are required to clarify the effect of L-carnitine on mortality rate in septic patients.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Tocilizumab in Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhenlu Li ◽  
Qianqiu Che ◽  
Mao Li ◽  
Jianping Liu ◽  
Rao Du ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Disease Severity ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Critical Patients

Abstract Background Tocilizumab (TCZ) is an anti-interleukin-6 antibody that has been used to treat patients with 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Numerous retrospective studies have shown beneficial treatment efficacy. Several recent randomized clinical trials have questioned the efficacy of TCZ in patients with COVID-19. Therefore, we performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the effectiveness and safety of tocilizumab recently used for treating patients with COVID-19. Methods Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and comparative studies that compared the outcomes between TCZ and standard of care (SOC) were analysed. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (inception to November 20, 2020) were systematically searched. Primary outcomes included mortality and the rate of requirement for mechanical ventilation (MV). In addition, several subgroup analyses stratified by disease severity, publication type and TCZ administration were performed. Results Three RCTs, twenty-one cohort studies and nine case-control studies including 11,206 patients were finally included. The TCZ group included 2,794 patients (24.93%) and the SOC group included 8,412 patients (75.07%). The mortality rate (>14 days) of the TCZ group, 29.63% (590/1,991), was lower than the SOC group, 41.51% (2,380/5,734) (OR 0.64, 0.57 to 0.73; p <0.00001). However, no significant difference in-14-day mortality rates was observed between the two groups (13.53% vs 22.92%, p = 0.21). Meanwhile, the rate of MV was significantly decreased in the TCZ group compared with the SOC group (OR 0.42, 0.22 to 0.83; p = 0.01). According to the results of the subgroup analysis stratified by disease severity, TCZ only reduced the mortality rate for critical patients with COVID-19 compared with SOC (OR 0.60, 0.52 to 0.71; P < 0.00001), particularly for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) or patients requiring MV. No statistically significant increase was recognized in the rates of secondary infections or thrombosis between the two groups. Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis found that the addition of tocilizumab to the SOC might reduce mortality after 14 days in patients with COVID-19, particularly critical patients requiring MV. More extensive RCTs with longer follow-up periods are needed to validate these findings.

scholarly journals EXPRESS: Stroke risk following traumatic brain injury: systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 174749302110042
Author(s):  
Grace Mary Turner ◽  
Christel McMullan ◽  
Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi ◽  
Danai Bem ◽  
Tom Marshall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Stroke Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Large Sample Size ◽  
Hazard Ratios ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Aims To investigate the association between TBI and stroke risk. Summary of review We undertook a systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library from inception to 4th December 2020. We used random-effects meta-analysis to pool hazard ratios (HR) for studies which reported stroke risk post-TBI compared to controls. Searches identified 10,501 records; 58 full texts were assessed for eligibility and 18 met the inclusion criteria. The review included a large sample size of 2,606,379 participants from four countries. Six studies included a non-TBI control group, all found TBI patients had significantly increased risk of stroke compared to controls (pooled HR 1.86; 95% CI 1.46-2.37). Findings suggest stroke risk may be highest in the first four months post-TBI, but remains significant up to five years post-TBI. TBI appears to be associated with increased stroke risk regardless of severity or subtype of TBI. There was some evidence to suggest an association between reduced stroke risk post-TBI and Vitamin K antagonists and statins, but increased stroke risk with certain classes of antidepressants. Conclusion TBI is an independent risk factor for stroke, regardless of TBI severity or type. Post-TBI review and management of risk factors for stroke may be warranted.

scholarly journals Impact of interstitial lung disease on mortality in ANCA-associated vasculitis: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 147997312199456
Author(s):  
Peining Zhou ◽  
Jing Ma ◽  
Guangfa Wang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Interstitial Lung Disease ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Lung Disease ◽  
Mortality Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Anca Associated Vasculitis ◽  
Retrospective Cohort Studies

Several retrospectivee described the association of interstitial lung disease (ILD) and ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV). However, the relationship between the ILD and mortality in AAV patients have not been established so far. This study aims to estimate the relevance of AAV-associated-ILD (AAV-ILD) and mortality risk by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.A comprehensive systematic review was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses). PubMed, Embase.com and the Cochrane Library (Wiley) were searched for original observational studies. Summary estimates were derived with a random-effects model and reported as risk ratio (RR), tested for publication bias and heterogeneity. Ten retrospective cohort studies were included, comprising 526 AAV-ILD patients enrolled from 1974 to 2018. Meta-analysis yielded a pooled RR of 2.90 (95% confidence interval 1.77–4.74) for death among those with AAV-ILD compared to control group. UIP pattern was associated with an even poorer prognosis in comparison to non-UIP pattern (RR 4.36, 95% confidence interval 1.14–16.78). Sensitivity analysis suggested that the meta-RR result was not skewed by a single dominant study. ILD might be associated with a higher mortality risk in AAV patients.

scholarly journals Anemia as a risk factor for tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yemataw Gelaw ◽  
Zegeye Getaneh ◽  
Mulugeta Melku
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Risk Factor ◽  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Low Socioeconomic Status ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Public Health Problem ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Major Public Health Problem ◽  
Double Burden ◽  
Mesh Terms

Abstract Background Tuberculosis is a major public health problem caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis, occurring predominantly in population with low socioeconomic status. It is the second most common cause of death from infectious diseases. Tuberculosis becomes a double burden among anemic patients. Anemia increases an individual’s susceptibility to infectious diseases including tuberculosis by reducing the immunity level. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine whether anemia is a risk factor for tuberculosis. Method Relevant published articles were searched in electronic databases like PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library using the following MeSH terms: risk factor, predictors, tuberculosis, TB, Anaemia, Anemia, hemoglobin, Hgb, and Hb. Articles written in the English, observational studies conducted on the incidence/prevalence of tuberculosis among anemic patients, or papers examined anemia as risk factors for tuberculosis were included. From those studies meeting eligibility criteria, the first author’s name, publication year, study area, sample size and age of participants, study design, and effect measure of anemia for tuberculosis were extracted. The data were entered using Microsoft Excel and exported to Stata version 11 for analysis. The random-effects model was applied to estimate the pooled OR and HR, and 95% CI. The sources of heterogeneity were tested by Cochrane I-squared statistics. The publication bias was assessed using Egger’s test statistics. Results A total of 17 articles with a 215,294 study participants were included in the analysis. The odd of tuberculosis among anemic patients was 3.56 (95% CI 2.53–5.01) times higher than non-anemic patients. The cohort studies showed that the HR of tuberculosis was 2.01 (95% CI 1.70–2.37) times higher among anemic patients than non-anemic patients. The hazard of tuberculosis also increased with anemia severity (HR 1.37 (95% CI 0.92–2.05), 2.08 (95% CI 1.14–3.79), and 2.66 (95% CI 1.71–4.13) for mild, moderate, and severe anemia, respectively). Conclusion According to the current systematic review and meta-analysis, we can conclude that anemia was a risk factor for tuberculosis. Therefore, anemia screening, early diagnose, and treatment should be provoked in the community to reduce the burden of tuberculosis.

scholarly journals Nervous and Muscular Adverse Events after COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 939
Author(s):  
Jiaxin Chen ◽  
Yuangui Cai ◽  
Yicong Chen ◽  
Anthony P. Williams ◽  
Yifang Gao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Open Label

Background: Nervous and muscular adverse events (NMAEs) have garnered considerable attention after the vaccination against coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, the incidences of NMAEs remain unclear. We aimed to calculate the pooled event rate of NMAEs after COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials on the incidences of NMAEs after COVID-19 vaccination was conducted. The PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched from inception to 2 June 2021. Two independent reviewers selected the study and extracted the data. Categorical variables were analyzed using Pearson’s chi-square test. The pooled odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and generated with random or fixed effects models. The protocol of the present study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021240450). Results: In 15 phase 1/2 trials, NMAEs occurred in 29.2% vs. 21.6% (p < 0.001) vaccinated participants and controls. Headache and myalgia accounted for 98.2% and 97.7%, and their incidences were 16.4% vs. 13.9% (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.28–3.06, p = 0.002) and 16.0% vs. 7.9% (OR = 3.31, 95% CI = 2.05–5.35, p < 0.001) in the vaccine and control groups, respectively. Headache and myalgia were more frequent in the newly licensed vaccines (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.28–3.06, p = 0.02 and OR = 3.31, 95% CI = 2.05–5.35, p < 0.001) and younger adults (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.12–1.75, p = 0.003 and OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.20–1.96, p < 0.001). In four open-label trials, the incidences of headache, myalgia, and unsolicited NMAEs were 38.7%, 27.4%, and 1.5%. Following vaccination in phase 3 trials, headache and myalgia were still common with a rate of 29.5% and 19.2%, although the unsolicited NMAEs with incidence rates of ≤ 0.7% were not different from the control group in each study. Conclusions: Following the vaccination, NMAEs are common of which headache and myalgia comprised a considerable measure, although life-threatening unsolicited events are rare. NMAEs should be continuously monitored during the ongoing global COVID-19 vaccination program.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of Suprascapular Nerve Block in the Treatment of Hemiplegic Shoulder Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yajing Hou ◽  
Yong Wang ◽  
Xiaojing Sun ◽  
Yake Lou ◽  
Ying Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Shoulder Pain ◽  
Nerve Block ◽  
External Rotation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Suprascapular Nerve ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Suprascapular Nerve Block ◽  
Secondary Endpoints

Purpose: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of suprascapular nerve block (SSNB) in patients with hemiplegic shoulder pain (HSP).Background: SSNB is widely used in various shoulder pains, but whether it is effective in HSP remains unknown.Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched to identify potential citations. Randomized controlled trials meeting the eligible criteria were included in our analysis. The primary endpoint was Visual Analog Scale (VAS) with a maximum value of 100 and a minimum value of 0. Secondary endpoints were passive range of motion (PROM) that pain starts, and the PROM mainly included abduction, flexion, and external rotation. In addition, the upper extremity Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA) was also included in our secondary endpoints.Results: Eight studies with 281 patients were included in our analysis. For VAS, there was no obvious difference between SSNB group and control group regardless of the follow-up period (&lt;4 weeks or ≥4 weeks), which were −6.62 (−15.76, 2.53; p = 0.16) and 1.78 (−16.18, 19.74; p = 0.85). For shoulder function, the PROM of abduction, flexion, and external rotation was similar between groups. However, motor function indicator FMA is lower in SSNB control than that in control group, with a mean difference (and 95% CI) of −2.59 (−4.52, −0.66; p = 0.008).Conclusion: SSNB is an effective way for HSP patients.Systematic Review Registration: Registration ID: CRD42021252429.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document