Is patellofemoral pain preventable? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2020 ◽  
pp. bjsports-2020-102973
Author(s):  
Adam G Culvenor ◽  
Marienke van Middelkoop ◽  
Erin M Macri ◽  
Kay M Crossley
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patellofemoral Pain ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Military Recruits ◽  
Exercise Dose ◽  
Exercise Programmes ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to reduce the risk of incident patellofemoral pain.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis, with strength of evidence evaluated separately for each intervention type.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and SPORTDiscus.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to reduce patellofemoral pain risk compared with a control/non-exposed group.ResultsThirteen trials of mostly military recruits and young athletes analysed six different interventions. There was low certainty evidence from two trials (227 participants) that patellofemoral braces worn during physical activity (compared with no brace) effectively reduced the risk of patellofemoral pain (risk ratio (RR) 0.40, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.73; I2=24.0%). There was low certainty evidence from one trial (320 participants) that running technique retraining to (run softer) reduced patellofemoral pain risk (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.60). There was low certainty evidence from four trials (3364 participants) that multicomponent (strengthening/neuromuscular) exercise programmes did not significantly reduce the risk of patellofemoral pain (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.36; I2=64.9%), although broad CIs may reflect exercise dose variations among studies. There was very low certainty evidence from four trials (2314 participants) that foot orthoses (compared with flat inserts/no orthosis) did not significantly reduce the risk of patellofemoral pain (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.13; I2=0.0%). Static stretching and a running programme that progressed intensity (compared with volume) did not significantly influence patellofemoral pain risk (single studies).ConclusionThere is low-level evidence that patellofemoral braces and running technique retraining can reduce the risk of patellofemoral pain by 60%–79%.

scholarly journals Workplace programmes for supporting breast-feeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Xueying Tang ◽  
Peta Patterson ◽  
Kristen MacKenzie-Shalders ◽  
Louise A van Herwerden ◽  
Jo Bishop ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Breast Feeding ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Positive Direction ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Expectant Fathers ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Objective: To critically review the literature regarding workplace breast-feeding interventions and to assess their impact on breast-feeding indicators. Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Electronic searches for workplace intervention studies to support breast-feeding, without restriction on language or study design, were performed in PubMed, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, Business Source Complete, ProQuest-Sociology and ProQuest-Social Science to 13 April 2020. A meta-analysis of the pooled effect of the programmes on breast-feeding indicators was conducted. Results: The search identified 10 215 articles; fourteen studies across eighteen publications met eligibility criteria. Programmes were delivered in the USA (n 10), Turkey (n 2), Thailand (n 1) or Taiwan (n 1). There were no randomised controlled trials. The pooled OR for exclusive breast-feeding at 3 or 6 months for participants v. non-participants of three non-randomised controlled studies was 3·21 (95 % CI 1·70, 6·06, I2 = 22 %). Despite high heterogeneity, other pooled outcomes were consistently in a positive direction with acceptable CI. Pooled mean duration of breast-feeding for five single-arm studies was 9·16 months (95 % CI 8·25, 10·07). Pooled proportion of breast-feeding at 6 months for six single-arm studies was 0·76 (95 % CI 0·66, 0·84) and breast-feeding at 12 months for three single-arm studies was 0·41 (95 % CI 0·22, 0·62). Most programmes were targeted at mothers; two were targeted at expectant fathers. Conclusions: Workplace programmes may be effective in promoting breast-feeding among employed mothers and partners of employed fathers. However, no randomised controlled trials were identified, and better-quality research on workplace interventions to improve breast-feeding is needed.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of online interventions in preventing depression: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. e022012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alina Rigabert ◽  
Emma Motrico ◽  
Patricia Moreno-Peral ◽  
Davinia M Resurrección ◽  
Sonia Conejo-Cerón ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Psychosocial Interventions ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Online Interventions ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionAlthough evidence exists for the efficacy of psychosocial interventions in preventing depression, little is known about its prevention through online interventions. The objective of this study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of online interventions in preventing depression in heterogeneous populations.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that will be identified through searches of PubMed, PsycINFO, WOS, Scopus, OpenGrey, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov and Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Register . We will also search the reference lists provided in relevant studies and reviews. Experts in the field will be contacted to obtain more references. Two independent reviewers will assess the eligibility criteria of all articles, extract data and determine their risk of bias (Cochrane Collaboration Tool). Baseline depression will be required to have been discarded through standardised interviews or validated self-reports with standard cut-off points. The outcomes will be the incidence of new cases of depression and/or the reduction of depressive symptoms as measured by validated instruments. Pooled standardised mean differences will be calculated using random-effect models. Heterogeneity and publication bias will be estimated. Predefined sensitivity and subgroup analyses will be performed. If heterogeneity is relevant, random-effect meta-regression will be performed.Ethics and disseminationThe results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and will be presented at a professional conference. Ethical assessment is not required as we will search and assess existing sources of literature.Trial registration numberCRD42014014804; Results.

Do sleep interventions change sleep duration in children aged 0-5 years? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2021 ◽  
pp. 101498
Author(s):  
LouiseJ. Fangupo ◽  
Jillian J. Haszard ◽  
Andrew N. Reynolds ◽  
Albany W. Lucas ◽  
Deborah R. McIntosh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sleep Duration ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Comparative efficacy and safety of interventions for treating head lice: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e001129
Author(s):  
Bill Stevenson ◽  
Wubshet Tesfaye ◽  
Julia Christenson ◽  
Cynthia Mathew ◽  
Solomon Abrha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Head Lice ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundHead lice infestation is a major public health problem around the globe. Its treatment is challenging due to product failures resulting from rapidly emerging resistance to existing treatments, incorrect treatment applications and misdiagnosis. Various head lice treatments with different mechanism of action have been developed and explored over the years, with limited report on systematic assessments of their efficacy and safety. This work aims to present a robust evidence summarising the interventions used in head lice.MethodThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis which will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement for network meta-analyses. Selected databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials exploring head lice treatments. Searches will be limited to trials published in English from database inception till 2021. Grey literature will be identified through Open Grey, AHRQ, Grey Literature Report, Grey Matters, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry. Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved via a third reviewer. The primary outcome measure is the relative risk of cure at 7 and 14 days postinitial treatment. Secondary outcome measures may include adverse drug events, ovicidal activity, treatment compliance and acceptability, and reinfestation. Information from direct and indirect evidence will be used to generate the effect sizes (relative risk) to compare the efficacy and safety of individual head lice treatments against a common comparator (placebo and/or permethrin). Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations guideline for network meta-analysis. All quantitative analyses will be conducted using STATA V.16.DiscussionThe evidence generated from this systematic review and meta-analysis is intended for use in evidence-driven treatment of head lice infestations and will be instrumental in informing health professionals, public health practitioners and policy-makers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017073375.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document