Azithromycin in patients with Covid-19; a systematic review and metanalysis

Background: Azithromycin (AZM) has been widely used in the management of Covid-19. However, the evidence on its actual effects remains disperse and difficult to apply in clinical settings. This systematic review and metanalysis summarizes the studies on the beneficial and adverse effect of AZM in patients with Covid-19. Methods: The PRISMA 2020 statement criteria were followed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing clinical outcomes of patients treated, and not treated, with AZM, indexed until the 5th of July 2021, were searched in PubMed, Embase, The Web of Science, Scopus, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and MedRXivs. We used Random-effects models to estimate pooled effect size from aggregate data. Results: The initial search produced 4950 results. Finally, 16 studies, five RCTs and 11 with an observational design, with a total of 22984 patients, were included. The metanalysis showed no difference in mortality for those treated, or not, with AZM, OR: 0.95 (0.79-1.13). There was also no significant difference for those treated, and not, with AZM in need for hospital admission or time to admission from ambulatory settings, clinical severity, need for intensive care, or adverse effects. Conclusions: These results presented in this review do not support the use of AZM in the management of Covid-19. They also show that any harm caused to the patient who received it is unlikely. Future research on treatment for patients with Covid-19 may need to focus on other drugs

Download Full-text

Digital Interventions for Problematic Cannabis Users in Non-Clinical Settings: Findings from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

European Addiction Research ◽

10.1159/000445716 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 22 (5) ◽

pp. 233-242 ◽

Cited By ~ 33

Author(s):

Eva Hoch ◽

Ulrich W. Preuss ◽

Marica Ferri ◽

Roland Simon

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Behavioral Therapy ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cannabis Use ◽

Treatment Programs ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Clinical Settings ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Digital Interventions ◽

Central Register

Background: Existing cannabis treatment programs reach only a very limited proportion of people with cannabis-related problems. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effectiveness of digital interventions applied outside the health care system in reducing problematic cannabis use. Methods: We systematically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2015), PubMed (2009-2015), Medline (2009-2015), Google Scholar (2015) and article reference lists for potentially eligible studies. Randomized controlled trials examining the effects of internet- or computer-based interventions were assessed. Study effects were estimated by calculating effect sizes (ESs) using Cohen's d and Hedges' g bias-corrected ES. The primary outcome assessed was self-reported cannabis use, measured by a questionnaire. Results: Fifty-two studies were identified. Four studies (including 1,928 participants) met inclusion criteria. They combined brief motivational interventions and cognitive behavioral therapy delivered online. All studies were of good quality. The pooled mean difference (Δ = 4.07) and overall ES (0.11) give evidence of small effects at 3-month follow-up in favor of digital interventions. Conclusions: Digital interventions can help to successfully reduce problematic cannabis use outside clinical settings. They have some potential to overcome treatment barriers and increase accessibility for at-risk cannabis users.

Download Full-text

Hydroxychloroquine for Treatment of COVID‐19 Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

10.21203/rs.3.rs-603673/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Vinícius Y Moraes ◽

Alexandre R Marra ◽

Leandro L Matos ◽

Ary Serpa Neto ◽

Luiz Vicente Rizzo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Adverse Effects ◽

Risk Ratio ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Control Group ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Random Effects Models ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Background: We performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS (2019 to March 2021) for patients aged 18 years or older, who had COVID-19 and were treated with hydroxychloroquine versus placebo or standard of care. We also searched the WHO Clinical Trials Registry for ongoing and recently completed studies, and the reference lists of selected articles and reviews for possible relevant studies, with no restrictions regarding language or publication status. Random-effects models were used to obtain pooled mean differences of treatment effect on mortality, and serious adverse effects between hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and the control group (standard of care or placebo); heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 and the Cochran´s Q statistic. Results: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in mortality rate between patients treated with HCQ compared to standard of care or placebo (16.7% vs. 18.5%; pooled risk ratio 1.09; 95%CI: 0.99-1.19). Also, therate of serious adverse effects was similar between both groups, HCQ and control (3.7% vs. 2.9%; pooled risk ratio 1.22; 95%CI: 0.76-1.96). Conclusion: Hydroxychloroquine is not efficacious in reducing mortality of COVID-19 patients.Systematic review registration: Prospero database, registration number: CRD42020197070.

Download Full-text

Functional cortical changes associated with shoulder instability – a systematic review

Shoulder & Elbow ◽

10.1177/17585732211019016 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 175857322110190

Author(s):

Morissa F Livett ◽

Deborah Williams ◽

Hayley Potter ◽

Melinda Cairns

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Joint Instability ◽

Glenohumeral Joint ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Cortical Function ◽

High Quality Research ◽

Central Register ◽

Rehabilitative Measures ◽

Randomised Controlled

Background Glenohumeral joint instability is associated with structural deficits and/or alterations in sensory and motor processing; however, a proportion of patients with glenohumeral joint instability fail to respond to surgical and rehabilitative measures. This systematic review aimed to establish if functional cortical changes occur in patients with glenohumeral joint instability. Methods AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Medline, PEDro, Pubmed, PsychINFO and Scopus were searched from inception to 17 March 2021. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised trials were included and quality was appraised using the Downs and Black tool. Results One thousand two hundred seventy-nine records were identified of which five were included in the review. All studies showed altered cortical function when comparing instability patients with healthy controls and included areas associated with higher cortical functions. Discussion The findings of this systematic review offer some insight as to why interventions addressing peripheral pathoanatomical factors in patients with glenohumeral joint instability may fail in some cases due to functional cortical changes. However, data are of moderate to high risk of bias. Further high-quality research is required to ascertain the degree of functional cortical changes associated with the type and duration of glenohumeral joint instability.

Download Full-text

Fluid resuscitation in paediatric burns: how do we get it right? A systematic review of the evidence

Archives of Disease in Childhood ◽

10.1136/archdischild-2017-314504 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 104 (3) ◽

pp. 280-285 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Christopher Stutchfield ◽

Anna Davies ◽

Amber Young

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Fluid Resuscitation ◽

Primary Data ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Burn Shock ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Study Protocols ◽

Central Register ◽

Affect Patient Outcome ◽

Randomised Controlled

BackgroundOptimal fluid resuscitation in children with major burns is crucial to prevent or minimise burn shock and prevent complications of over-resuscitation.ObjectivesTo identify studies using endpoints to guide fluid resuscitation in children with burns, review the range of reported endpoint targets and assess whether there is evidence that targeted endpoints impact on outcome.DesignSystematic review.MethodsMedline, Embase, Cinahl and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched with no restrictions on study design or date. Search terms combined burns, fluid resuscitation, endpoints, goal-directed therapy and related synonyms. Studies reporting primary data regarding children with burns (<16 years) and targeting fluid resuscitation endpoints were included. Data were extracted using a proforma and the results were narratively reviewed.ResultsFollowing screening of 777 unique references, 7 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Four studies were exclusively paediatric. Six studies used urine output (UO) as the primary endpoint. Of these, one set a minimum UO threshold, while the remainder targeted a range from 0.5–1.0 mL/kg/hour to 2–3 mL/kg/hour. No studies compared different UO targets. Heterogeneous study protocols and outcomes precluded comparison between the UO targets. One study targeted invasive haemodynamic variables, but this did not significantly affect patient outcome.ConclusionsFew studies have researched resuscitation endpoints for children with burns. Those that have done so have investigated heterogeneous endpoints and endpoint targets. There is a need for future randomised controlled trials to identify optimal endpoints with which to target fluid resuscitation in children with burns.

Download Full-text

Use of Prophylaxis for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Isolated Foot or Ankle Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Thrombosis and Haemostasis ◽

10.1055/s-0039-1693464 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 119 (10) ◽

pp. 1686-1694 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Bavand Bikdeli ◽

Renuka Visvanathan ◽

David Jimenez ◽

Manuel Monreal ◽

Samuel Z. Goldhaber ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Venous Thromboembolism ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Evidence Base ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Foot And Ankle ◽

Vte Prophylaxis ◽

Ankle Surgery ◽

Significant Difference

AbstractAlthough prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE) is recommended after many surgeries, evidence base for use of VTE prophylaxis after foot or ankle surgery has been elusive, leading into varying guidelines recommendations and notable practice variations. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to determine if use of VTE prophylaxis decreased the frequency of subsequent VTE, including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), compared with control. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov through May 2018, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective controlled observational studies of VTE prophylaxis in patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery. Our search retrieved 263 studies, of which 6 were finally included comprising 1,600 patients. Patients receiving VTE prophylaxis had lower risk for subsequent DVT (risk ratio [RR]: 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55–0.94) and subsequent VTE (RR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.55–0.94). There was only one case of nonfatal PE, no cases of fatal PE, and no change in all-cause mortality (RR: 3.51; 95% CI: 0.14–84.84). There was no significant difference in the risk for bleeding (RR: 2.12; 95% CI: 0.53–8.56). Very few RCTs exist regarding the efficacy and safety of VTE prophylaxis in foot and ankle surgery. Prophylaxis appears to reduce the risk of subsequent VTE, but the event rates are low and symptomatic events are rare. Future studies should determine the subgroups of patients undergoing foot or ankle surgery in whom prophylaxis may be most useful.

Download Full-text

Blinding integrity in randomized sham-controlled trials of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for major depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology ◽

10.1017/s1461145712001691 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 16 (5) ◽

pp. 1173-1181 ◽

Cited By ~ 30

Author(s):

Marcelo T. Berlim ◽

Hannah J. Broadbent ◽

Frederique Van den Eynde

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽

Major Depression ◽

Magnetic Stimulation ◽

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Treatment Allocation ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a safe and effective treatment for major depression (MD). However, the perceived lack of a suitable sham rTMS condition might have compromised the success of blinding procedures in clinical trials. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind and sham-controlled trials (RCTs) on high frequency (HF-), low frequency (LF-) and bilateral rTMS for MD. We searched the literature from January 1995 to July 2012 using Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Scopus. The main outcome measure was participants' ability to correctly guess their treatment allocation at study end. We used a random-effects model and risk difference (RD). Overall, data were obtained from seven and two RCTs on HF- and bilateral rTMS, respectively. No RCT on LF-rTMS reporting on blinding success was found. HF- and bilateral rTMS trials enrolled 396 and 93 depressed subjects and offered an average of approximately 13 sessions. At study end, 52 and 59% of subjects receiving HF-rTMS and sham rTMS were able to correctly guess their treatment allocation, a non-significant difference (RD = −0.04; z = −0.51; p = 0.61). Furthermore, 63.3 and 57.5% of subjects receiving bilateral and sham rTMS were able to correctly guess their treatment allocation, also a non-significant difference (RD = 0.05; z = 0.49; p = 0.62). In addition, the use of angulation and sham coil in HF-rTMS trials produced similar results. In summary, existing sham rTMS interventions appear to result in acceptable levels of blinding regarding treatment allocation.

Download Full-text

Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials of Acupressure Therapy for Primary Dysmenorrhea

Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine ◽

10.1155/2013/169692 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 2013 ◽

pp. 1-9 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Hui-ru Jiang ◽

Shuang Ni ◽

Jin-long Li ◽

Miao-miao Liu ◽

Ji Li ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Statistical Analysis ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Primary Dysmenorrhea ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Central Register

The evidence of acupressure is limited in the management of dysmenorrhea. To evaluate the efficacy of acupressure in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we searched MEDLINE, the Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases from inception until March 2012. Two reviewers independently selected articles and extracted data. Statistical analysis was performed with RevMan 5.1 software. Eight RCTs were identified from the retrieved 224 relevant records. Acupressure improved pain measured with VAS (−1.41 cm 95% CI [−1.61, −1.21]), SF-MPQ at the 3-month followup (WMD −2.33, 95% CI [−4.11, −0.54]) and 6-month followup (WMD −4.67, 95% CI [−7.30, −2.04]), and MDQ at the 3-month followup (WMD −2.31, 95% CI [−3.74, −0.87]) and 6-month followup (WMD −4.67, 95% CI [−7.30, −2.04]). All trials did not report adverse events. These results were limited by the methodological flaws of trials.

Download Full-text

Should syndesmotic screws be removed or retained? A meta-analysis

10.21203/rs.3.rs-17528/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Wanjin Qin ◽

Peng Yang ◽

Nanning Lv ◽

Kaiwen Chen ◽

Huilin Yang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Outcomes ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Search Terms ◽

Central Register ◽

Significant Difference ◽

The Difference ◽

Mean Differences ◽

American Orthopaedic

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to evaluate the different clinical outcomes after removing or retaining syndesmotic screws, and the difference in clinical outcomes after retaining broken or loose syndesmotic screws was also evaluated. Methods A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. In this meta-analysis, we conducted online searches using the search terms “syndesmotic diastasis”, “syndesmotic injury”, “syndesmotic screw”, “syndesmotic fixation”, and “tibiofibular syndesmosis”. The analysis was performed on individual patient data from all the studies that met the selection criteria. Clinical outcomes were expressed as standard mean differences for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Chi 2 test and the I 2 statistic. Results There were 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 6 observational articles included in this analysis. In the comparison between retained and removed screws and the comparison between broken or loose and removed screws, no significant difference was found in terms of visual analogue scale (VAS), Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle/hindfoot score. Broken or loose screws were associated with better AOFAS scores compared with removed or intact screws, and no significant difference was found in terms of VAS and OMAS scores. Conclusions According to our analysis, there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between removed and retained screws. Broken or loose screws were not associated with bad functional outcomes and may even lead to better function compared with removed or retained screws.

Download Full-text

Effect of Rapid Maxillary Expansion on Mandibular Rotation—A Systematic Review

The Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society ◽

10.1177/0301574219897318 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 54 (1) ◽

pp. 5-13

Author(s):

Priyanka Chhutani ◽

Sonali Deshmukh ◽

Sandeep Jethe ◽

Sanket Agarkar ◽

Sujata Yerawadekar ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Rapid Maxillary Expansion ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Maxillary Expansion ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Maxillary Molars ◽

Central Register ◽

Clinical Trials Registry

Objective: To evaluate the effect of rapid maxillary expansion (RME) on mandibular rotation. Materials and Method: A systematic review of articles selected from 4 electronic databases—PUBMED, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Clinical Trials Registry, and Google Scholar—was carried out. Additional studies were hand-searched and retrieved from the reference lists of relevant articles. Studies published till August, 2019, were included in this study. Results: A total of 28 articles were identified through electronic database searching. 16 articles were obtained after elimination of duplicates which were then screened. Full-text articles were assessed according to the eligibility criteria. 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 14 clinical trials (CTs) were identified for inclusion in the review. These studies effectively highlighted the effect of RME on mandibular rotation, primarily in the clockwise direction. Conclusion: There is a moderate sum of evidence to illustrate the effect of RME on mandibular rotation. It can be concluded that RME brings about clockwise rotation of the mandible, ie in downward and backward directions, thereby increasing the lower anterior facial height. This effect could be attributed to the vertical maxillary movement and the extrusion of the maxillary molars.

Download Full-text

Difluprednate versus Prednisolone Acetate after Cataract Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026752 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (11) ◽

pp. e026752

Author(s):

Mahmoud Tawfik KhalafAllah ◽

Ahmed Basiony ◽

Ahmed Salama

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Cataract Surgery ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Prednisolone Acetate ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Topical Steroids ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Small Incision Cataract Surgery ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Evidence Quality

ObjectiveTopical steroids are the cornerstone in controlling the inflammation after cataract surgery. Prednisolone acetate and difluprednate are the two main products for this purpose. However, it is unclear which one should be used in terms of effectiveness and safety.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline via PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of science and clinicaltrials.gov were searched through 10 January 2018, and updated on 20 July 2019, in addition to researching the references’ lists of the relevant articles.Eligibility criteriaRandomised-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing difluprednate and prednisolone acetate regardless of the dosing regimen used.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent authors assessed the included RCTs regarding the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. Relevant data were extracted, and meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to appraise the evidence quality.ResultsWe included six RCTs with 883 patients: 441 received difluprednate and 442 received prednisolone acetate. The evidence quality was graded as moderate for corneal oedema and intraocular pressure and low for anterior chamber (AC) clearance. After small incision cataract surgery, difluprednate was superior in clearing AC cells at 1 week (OR=2.5, p>0.00001) and at 2 weeks (OR=2.5, p=0.04), as well as clearing the AC flare at 2 weeks (OR=6.7, p=0.04). After phacoemulsification, difluprednate was superior in terms of corneal clarity at 1 day (OR=2.6, p=0.02) and 1 week after surgery (OR=1.96, p=0.0007). No statistically significant difference was detected between both agents at 1 month in effectiveness. Also, both agents were safe, evaluated by the ocular hypertension (OR=1.23, p=0.8).ConclusionWith low-to-moderate certainty, difluprednate and prednisolone acetate are safe agents for controlling the inflammation after cataract surgery. Difluprednate showed significant superiority in terms of AC cells and AC flare at 2 weeks postoperatively.

Download Full-text