scholarly journals Mouth-rinses and SARS-CoV-2 viral load in saliva: A living systematic review

Author(s):  
Akram Hernández-Vásquez ◽  
Antonio Barrenechea-Pulache ◽  
Daniel Comandé ◽  
Diego Azañedo

ABSTRACTObjectiveTo conduct a living systematic review of the clinical evidence regarding the effect of different mouth-rinses on the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in the saliva of infected patients. The viral load in aerosols, the duration of the reduction in viral load, viral clearance, SARS-CoV-2 cellular infectivity, and salivary cytokine profiles were also evaluated.Materials and methodsThis study was reported using the PRISMA guidelines. An electronic search was conducted in seven databases and in preprint repositories. We included human clinical trials that evaluated the effect of mouth-rinses with antiseptic substances on the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in the saliva of children or adults that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021240561.ResultsFour studies matching eligibility criteria were selected for evaluation (n=32 participants). Study participants underwent oral rinses with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) at 1 %, povidone–iodine (PI) at 0.5% or 1%, chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) at 0.2% or 0.12% or cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) at 0.075%. Only one study included a control group with sterile water. Three of the studies identified a significant reduction in viral load up to 3, 4, and 6 hours after the use of mouthwashes with PI, CHX, and CPC or PI vs. sterile water, respectively, while one study did not identify a significant reduction in viral load after the use of H2O2 rinses.ConclusionsAccording to the present systematic review, the effect of the use of mouth-rinses on SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the saliva of COVID-19 patients remains uncertain. This is mainly due to the limited number of patients included and a high risk of bias present in the studies analyzed. Evidence from well-designed randomized clinical trials is required for further and more objective evaluation of this effect.

Pain Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier Martinez-Calderon ◽  
Mar Flores-Cortes ◽  
Jose Miguel Morales-Asencio ◽  
Alejandro Luque-Suarez

Abstract Objective This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different interventions at reducing pain-related fear in people with fibromyalgia and to analyze whether the included trials reported their interventions in full detail. Design Systematic review. Setting No restrictions. Methods The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Scopus were searched from their inception to April 2020, along with manual searches and a gray literature search. Randomized clinical trials were included if they assessed pain-related fear constructs as the primary or secondary outcome in adults with fibromyalgia. Two reviewers independently performed the study selection, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist assessment, and grading the quality of evidence. Results Twelve randomized clinical trials satisfied the eligibility criteria, including 11 cohorts with a total sample of 1,441 participants. Exercise, multicomponent, and psychological interventions were more effective than controls were in reducing kinesiophobia. However, there were no differences in decreasing kinesiophobia when self-management and electrotherapy were used. There were also no differences between groups with regard to the rest of the interventions and pain-related constructs (fear-avoidance beliefs, fear of pain, and pain-related anxiety). However, a serious risk of bias and a very serious risk of imprecision were detected across the included trials. This caused the overall certainty of the judged evidence to be low and very low. Additionally, the included trials reported insufficient details to allow the full replication of their interventions. Conclusions This systematic review shows that there are promising interventions, such as exercise, multicomponent, and psychological therapies, that may decrease one specific type of fear in people with fibromyalgia, i.e., kinesiophobia. However, because of the low–very low certainty of the evidence found, a call for action is needed to improve the quality of randomized clinical trials, which will lead to more definitive information about the clinical efficacy of interventions in this field.


Life ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 98
Author(s):  
Andréa Oliver Gomes ◽  
Ana Luiza Cabrera Martimbianco ◽  
Aldo Brugnera Junior ◽  
Anna Carolina Ratto Tempestini Horliana ◽  
Tamiris da Silva ◽  
...  

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of photobiomodulation as an adjuvant treatment for primary headache. A systematic review of randomized clinical trials was performed. For such, electronic searches were performed in the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, LILACS, PEDro, PsycInfo, Clinicaltrials.gov., and WHO/ICTRP databases, with no restrictions imposed regarding language or year of publication. We included studies that assessed any photobiomodulation therapy as an adjuvant treatment for primary headache compared to sham treatment, no treatment, or another intervention. The methodological assessment was conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The certainty of the evidence was classified using the GRADE approach. Four randomized clinical trials were included. Most of the included studies had an overall high risk of bias. Compared to sham treatment, photobiomodulation had a clinically important effect on pain in individuals with primary headache. Despite the benefits reported for other outcomes, the estimates were imprecise, and the certainty of the evidence was graded as low. These findings are considered insufficient to support the use of photobiomodulation in the treatment of primary headache. Randomized clinical trials, with higher methodological quality, are needed to enhance the reliability of the estimated effects.


2020 ◽  
Vol 08 (05) ◽  
pp. E578-E590
Author(s):  
Ricardo Hannum Resende ◽  
Igor Braga Ribeiro ◽  
Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura ◽  
Facundo Galetti ◽  
Rodrigo Silva de Paula Rocha ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and study aims Ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD) have higher risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Guidelines recommend dysplasia surveillance with dye-spraying chromoendoscopy (DCE). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to review all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) available and compare the efficacy of different endoscopic methods of surveillance for dysplasia in patients with UC and CD. Methods Databases searched were Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and SCIELO/LILACS. It was estimated the risk difference (RD) for dichotomous outcomes (number of patients diagnosed with one or more dysplastic lesions, total number of dysplastic lesions diagnosed and number of dysplastic lesions detected by targeted biopsies) and mean difference for continuous outcomes (procedure time). Results This study included 17 RCTs totaling 2,457 patients. There was superiority of DCE when compared to standard-definiton white light endoscopy (SD-WLE). When compared with high-definition (HD) WLE, no difference was observed in all outcomes (number of patients with dysplasia (RD 0.06; 95 % CI [–0.01, 0.13])). Comparing other techniques, no difference was observed between DCE and virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE – including narrow-band imaging [NBI], i-SCAN and flexible spectral imaging color enhancement), in all outcomes except procedure time (mean difference, 6.33 min; 95 % CI, 1.29, 11.33). DCE required a significantly longer procedure time compared with WLE (mean difference, 7.81 min; 95 % CI, 2.76, 12.86). Conclusions We found that dye-spraying chromoendoscopy detected more patients and dysplastic lesions than SD-WLE. Although no difference was observed between DCE and HD-WLE or narrow-band imaging, the main outcomes favored numerically dye-spraying chromoendoscopy, except procedure time. Regarding i-SCAN, FICE and auto-fluorescence imaging, there is still not enough evidence to support or not their recommendation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (03) ◽  
pp. 467-482
Author(s):  
Rogério Lacerda-Santos ◽  
Rhaíssa Ferreira Canutto ◽  
José Lucas dos Santos Araújo ◽  
Fabiola Galbiatti de Carvalho ◽  
Eliseu Aldrighi Münchow ◽  
...  

AbstractThis systematic review was focused on evaluating tooth autotransplantation, considering its impacts on the teeth, bone, soft tissues, and aesthetics in orthodontic patients. A bibliographic search was conducted without limitations on year of publication or language in the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Medline Complete, Cochrane, Clinical Trials, and Trials Central. For triage of articles, indications, surgical planning, orthodontic movement, risk factors for treatment, and long-term follow-ups were considered. For outcomes, the results with reference to teeth, alveolar bone, periodontal tissues, and esthetic satisfaction were considered. Risk of bias was evaluated using the methodological index for nonrandomized studies-MINORS. The results showed 10 controlled clinical trials, and no randomized clinical trials were found. The selected studies included 715 patients and 934 autotransplanted teeth among which there were premolars, molars, and anterior teeth evaluated in the long term, indicating that orthodontics associated with autotransplantation indicated a result that was generally clinically acceptable. The quality of the set of evidence was considered medium due to the presence of different methodological problems, risk of bias, and significant heterogeneity in the evaluated studies. There was a sufficient body of evidence that justified autotransplantation in patients who needed orthodontic movement. In teeth, there was an increase in root resorption influenced by orthodontics, but without impacting on the general clinical result in the long term. Bone and periodontal tissue do not appear to be affected by orthodontics. The patient’s aesthetic satisfaction was not considered in the studies.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Kwasi Korang ◽  
Sophie Juul ◽  
Emil Eik Nielsen ◽  
Joshua Feinberg ◽  
Faiza Siddiqui ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) which has rapidly spread worldwide. Several human randomized clinical trials assessing potential vaccines are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living systematic review that continuously assesses the beneficial and harmful effects of all available vaccines for COVID-19. Methods/design We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any vaccine aiming to prevent COVID-19 (including but not limited to messenger RNA; DNA; non-replicating viral vector; replicating viral vector; inactivated virus; protein subunit; dendritic cell; other vaccines) with any comparator (placebo; “active placebo;” no intervention; standard care; an “active” intervention; another vaccine for COVID-19) for participants in all age groups. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality; a diagnosis of COVID-19; and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be quality of life and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analyses, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Within-study bias will be assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) and Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approaches will be used to assess certainty of evidence. Observational studies describing harms identified during the search for trials will also be included and described and analyzed separately. Discussion COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review assessing the beneficial and harmful effects of different vaccines is urgently needed. This living systematic review will regularly inform best practice in vaccine prevention and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020196492


2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Carolina de Figueiredo Costa ◽  
Thays Allane Cordeiro Maia ◽  
Paulo Goberlânio de Barros Silva ◽  
Lucas Guimarães Abreu ◽  
Delane Viana Gondim ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on the orthodontic mini-implants (OMI) stability. Materials and methods An unrestricted electronic database search in PubMed, Science Direct, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov and a hand search were performed up to December 2020. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or non-randomized clinical trials (Non-RCTs) that assessed the effects of LLLT on the OMI stability were included. Data regarding the general information, LLLT characteristics, and outcomes were extracted. The authors performed risk of bias assessment with Cochrane Collaboration’s or ROBINS-I tool. Meta-analysis was also conducted. Results Five RCTs and one Non-RCT were included and 108 patients were evaluated. The LLLT characteristics presented different wavelength, power, energy density, irradiation time, and protocol duration. Five RCTs had a low risk of selection bias. Two RCTs had a low risk of performance and detection bias. All RCTs had a low risk of attrition bias, reporting bias and other bias. The Non-RCT presented a low risk of bias for all criteria, except for the bias in selection of participants. The meta-analysis revealed that LLLT significantly increased the OMI stability (p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.67) and the highest clinical benefit was showed after 1 (p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.75), 2 (p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.21), and 3 (p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.51) months of OMI placement. Conclusions LLLT shows positive effects on the OMI stability.


2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tae-Young Choi ◽  
Jong In Kim ◽  
Hyun-Ja Lim ◽  
Myeong Soo Lee

Background. Insomnia is a prominent complaint of cancer patients that can significantly affect their quality of life and symptoms related to sleep quality. Conventional drug approaches have a low rate of success in alleviating those suffering insomnia. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy of acupuncture in the management of cancer-related insomnia. Methods. A total of 12 databases were searched from their inception through January 2016 without language restriction. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs were included if acupuncture was used as the sole intervention or as an adjunct to another standard treatment for any cancer-related insomnia. The data extraction and the risk of bias assessments were performed by 2 independent reviewers. Results. Of the 90 studies screened, 6 RCTs were included. The risk of bias was generally unclear or low. Three RCTs showed equivalent effects on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and 2 RCTs showed the similar effects on response rate to those of conventional drugs at the end of treatment. The other RCT showed acupuncture was better than hormone therapy in the numbers of hours slept each night and number of times woken up each night. The 3 weeks of follow-up in 2 RCTs showed superior effects of acupuncture compared with conventional drugs, and a meta-analysis showed significant effects of acupuncture. Two RCTs tested the effects of acupuncture on cancer-related insomnia compared with sham acupuncture. One RCT showed favourable effects, while the other trial failed to do so. Conclusion. There is a low level of evidence that acupuncture may be superior to sham acupuncture, drugs or hormones therapy. However, the number of studies and effect size are small for clinical significance. Further clinical trials are warranted.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paola Janeiro Valenciano ◽  
Fabíola Unbehaun Cibinello ◽  
Jessica Caroliny de Jesus Neves ◽  
Dirce Shizuko Fujisawa

ABSTRACT Objective: To determine the effect of postural education on the learning and postural habits of elementary school children without physical intervention. Methods: We searched PubMed, Lilacs, SciELO, Cochrane, and Science Direct data bases and reference lists of studies in February 2020. The eligibility criteria were randomized clinical trials related to the effect of postural education in children aged between 6 and 12 years old. Two authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias: randomization process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported result. Data were extracted in standardized tables including information on author, publication year, country, sample size, age, sex, intervention characteristics, outcome measurements and results. Results: We found seven clinical trials (involving 2,568 children) for the review. The studies were conducted between 2000 and 2018: four in Belgium, two in Spain, and one in Germany. All seven included trials underwent evaluation: only one had a clear process of randomization and allocation concealment. All included studies were judged as having high risk of bias in at least one domain or have concerns for multiple domains. Conclusions: The positive effects of acquired knowledge and postural habits found in the studies cannot be used to reliably support postural education in elementary school children due to a high risk of bias in the evaluated studies.


Author(s):  
Abdulmohsen Al Rabiah ◽  
Alamri Zahrah ◽  
Tuwaym Malath ◽  
Al Daghri Ebtihal ◽  
Al Suhaibani Daniyah ◽  
...  

Background: Controversy exists in the literature regarding the most optimal repair procedure for improving the adhesion between the repair resin and the existing resin composite materials. Hence the aim of the present study was to do a systematic review and to analyze the adhesion potential of resin-based composites to similar and dissimilar composites and aimed to determine the possible dominant factors affecting the bond strength results. Materials & Methods: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort design were searched through electronic databases including MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) until July 2020 that compared different methods of composite restoration repair and a minimum mean follow-up time of 1 year. There were no restrictions on a particular treatment indication or outcome measures. Two authors independently conducted screening, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction of eligible trials in duplicate. We applied the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool to consider the risk of bias. Results: We identified 10 articles; two of them were RCTs, and eight prospective cohort studies. There were 530 participants, with 990 teeth, dealing with resin-based composite (RBC) restorations. The intervention of defective restorations ranged from minimal intervention to total restoration replacement. The evaluation criteria were also varied with different evaluation protocols. The low number and heterogeneity of RCTs did not allow for meta-analyses. Conclusions: Although different repair protocols are mentioned in the literature according to the included studies, an appropriate and definitive conclusion can't be drawn. However, it seems repairs versus replacements should be considered as the first line of treatment when all factors lead to repair rather than replacement. Further randomized controlled trials with high methodological quality need to be conducted in order to establish evidence-based recommendations, particularly for RBC repair.


Life ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 927
Author(s):  
José-Juan Pereyra-Rodriguez ◽  
Sara Alcantara-Luna ◽  
Javier Domínguez-Cruz ◽  
Manuel Galán-Gutiérrez ◽  
Ricardo Ruiz-Villaverde ◽  
...  

Background: Some Network Meta-analysis (NMA) has been published regarding atopic dermatitis (AD). These studies have considered drugs under investigation both in monotheraphy or in combination with topical corticosteroids, as well as systemic immunosuppressant therapies. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of biological agents and small molecules in AD. Methods: A systematic review and NMA of biologics agents and small molecules in AD was performed. A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for clinical trials and systematic reviews between January 2000 and 19 December 2020. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. It was limited to English language and adult human subjects. Two networks were evaluated: monotherapy and combination with TCS. The two primary outcomes were Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) 75 and EASI 90 change from baseline to week 12–16, depending on source study cut-off. The Cochrane’s Risk of Bias tool 2011 update was used to analyze the risk of bias, focused on the primary objectives. Results: 30 RCTs (included in 26 publications) were included in the systematic review. Finally, 23 RCTs were included in the quantitative analysis (14 RCTs including 3582 patients in monotherapy; and 9 RCTs including 3686 patients with TCS). In monotherapy, a higher percentage of patients achieving EASI-75 was obtained with Upadacitinib 30 mg [OR: 18.90 (13.94; 25.62)] followed by Abrocitinib 200 mg [OR = 11.26 (7.02; 18.05)] and Upadacitinib 15 mg [OR: 10.89 (8.13; 14.59)]. These results were also observed in studies where the use of topical corticosteroid (TCS) was allowed (OR Upadacitinib 30 mg = 9.43; OR Abrocitinib 200 mg = 6.12; OR Upadacitinib 15 mg = 5.20). Regarding IGA, the percentage of patients achieving IGA0/1 was higher with both doses of Upadacitinib 30 mg [OR: 19.13 (13.14; 27.85)] and 15 mg [OR = 10.95 (7.52; 15.94). In studies where the use of TCS were allowed, however, the dose of Abrocitinib 200 mg [OR = 6.10 (3.94; 9.44)] showed higher efficacy than Upadacitinib 15 mg [OR = 5.47 (3.57; 8.41)]. Regarding safety, the drugs with the highest probability of presenting adverse effects were the Janus kinases (JAK) inhibitors, Upadacitinib and Abrocitinib in monotherapy and Baricitinib in combination with TCS. Discussion: Some risks of bias have been found, which must be taken into account when interpreting the results. The funnel plot shows a possible publication bias that may underestimate the efficacy of drugs. Upadacitinib and Abrocitinib are the drugs with the highest efficacy, both in monotherapy and in association with TCS. However, they were also those associated with the highest risk of adverse effects, showing monoclonal antibodies better safety profile. Limitations: We have included molecules still in the development phase as well studies completed and presented at conferences and with data available in Trialsgov® but not published yet. Several molecules’ development had included a small number of patients from 12 to 17 years of age, without being able to differentiate the results from the adult population. Other: Founding: None. PROSPERO database registration number CRD42021225793.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document