Does psychotherapy work? An umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 139 (3) ◽  
pp. 296-297
Author(s):  
J. Theule ◽  
B. Henrikson
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

scholarly journals Effects of popular diets on anthropometric and metabolic parameters: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (OCE2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Monica Dinu ◽  
Giuditta Pagliai ◽  
Donato Angelino ◽  
Alice Rosi ◽  
Margherita Dall'Asta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Metabolic Risk Factors ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Metabolic Risk ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Anthropometric Parameters ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractIntroduction:The prevalence of overweight, obesity, and their related complications is increasing worldwide. We aimed to summarise and critically evaluate the effects of different popular diets on anthropometric parameters and metabolic risk factors.Material and methods:An umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials was conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Umbrella Review Methodology. The review protocol has been registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019126103). Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science were searched from inception to April 2019 to identify meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials that examined the effects of different diets on anthropometric parameters and metabolic risk factors. For each association, we estimated the summary effect size by random-effects and fixed-effects models, the 95% confidence interval, and the 95% prediction interval. We also assessed the between-study heterogeneity and evidence for small-study effects. We further applied standardized methodological criteria to evaluate the epidemiological credibility of the statistically significant associations.Results:Overall, 80 articles reporting 495 unique meta-analyses were examined, covering a wide range of popular diets: low-carbohydrate (n = 21 articles), high-protein (n = 8), low-fat (n = 9), palaeolithic (n = 2), low glycaemic index/load (n = 12), intermittent energy restriction (n = 6), Mediterranean (n = 11), Nordic (n = 2), vegetarian (n = 9), Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension or DASH (n = 6), and portfolio dietary pattern (n = 1). The methodological quality of most articles (n = 65; 81%), evaluated using the AMSTAR-2 questionnaire, was low or critically low. The strength of evidence was generally weak. The most consistent evidence was reported for Mediterranean diet, with suggestive evidence of an improvement in weight, body mass index (BMI), total cholesterol, glucose and blood pressure. Suggestive evidence of an improvement in weight and blood pressure was also reported for DASH diet. Low-carbohydrate, high-protein, low-fat and low-glycaemic index/load diets showed suggestive and/or weak evidence of a reduction in weight and BMI, but contrasting evidence for lipid, glycaemic and blood pressure parameters, suggesting potential risks of unfavourable effects. Finally, evidence for palaeolithic, intermittent energy restriction, Nordic, vegetarian and portfolio dietary patterns was graded as weak or not statistically significant.Discussion:Most meta-analyses showed low methodological quality and the strength of evidence, assessed using evidence classification criteria, was generally weak. Among all the diets evaluated, Mediterranean diet had the strongest and most consistent evidence of a positive effect on both anthropometric parameters and metabolic risk factors.

scholarly journals Pre-Procedural Lumbar Neuraxial Ultrasound—A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials and Meta-Analysis

Healthcare ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 479
Author(s):  
Tatiana Sidiropoulou ◽  
Kalliopi Christodoulaki ◽  
Charalampos Siristatidis
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Technical Failure ◽  
Obese Patients ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

A pre-procedural ultrasound of the lumbar spine is frequently used to facilitate neuraxial procedures. The aim of this review is to examine the evidence sustaining the utilization of pre-procedural neuraxial ultrasound compared to conventional methods. We perform a systematic review of randomized controlled trials with meta-analyses. We search the electronic databases Medline, Cochrane Central, Science Direct and Scopus up to 1 June 2019. We include trials comparing a pre-procedural lumbar spine ultrasound to a non-ultrasound-assisted method. The primary endpoints are technical failure rate, first-attempt success rate, number of needle redirections and procedure time. We retrieve 32 trials (3439 patients) comparing pre-procedural lumbar ultrasounds to palpations for neuraxial procedures in various clinical settings. Pre-procedural ultrasounds decrease the overall risk of technical failure (Risk Ratio (RR) 0.69 (99% CI, 0.43 to 1.10), p = 0.04) but not in obese and difficult spinal patients (RR 0.53, p = 0.06) and increase the first-attempt success rate (RR 1.5 (99% CI, 1.22 to 1.86), p < 0.0001, NNT = 5). In difficult spines and obese patients, the RR is 1.84 (99% CI, 1.44 to 2.3; p < 0.0001, NNT = 3). The number of needle redirections is lower with pre-procedural ultrasounds (SMD = −0.55 (99% CI, −0.81 to −0.29), p < 0.0001), as is the case in difficult spines and obese patients (SMD = −0.85 (99% CI, −1.08 to −0.61), p < 0.0001). No differences are observed in procedural times. Ιn conclusion, a pre-procedural ultrasound provides significant benefit in terms of technical failure, number of needle redirections and first attempt-success rate. Τhe effect of pre-procedural ultrasound scanning of the lumbar spine is more significant in a subgroup analysis of difficult spines and obese patients.

scholarly journals A guide to do randomized controlled trials in the field of otolaryngology

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sameh M. Zamzam ◽  
Mosaad Abdel-Aziz ◽  
Ahmed Atef ◽  
Usama Abdel-Naseer ◽  
Mostafa Hamoda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Study Groups ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Main Body ◽  
Main Research ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
New Treatment ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine

Abstract Background Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are prospective comparative studies in which study groups are allocated randomly to intervention or serve as controls. RCT is the mainstay to achieve evidence in the literature in clinical research. A RCT is the main research design to study the effect of an intervention and the only way to confirm the value of a new treatment. Main body RCT also gives the way to generate meta-analyses and systematic reviews giving a stronger evidence for clinical practice. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is crucial for safe, effective, and standardized patient care. Although there is an agreement on the importance of performing RCT, it can be challenging to do it efficiently including different aspects like study design, funding, randomization, blinding, follow-up, data analysis, statistics, generalization of results, and reporting of quality of the studies. Conclusion In this article, we gave a comprehensive review for RCT in otolaryngology discussing their importance, advantages, and drawbacks, types, steps, challenges, reporting their quality and their prevalence in the literature.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document