scholarly journals Effectiveness, safety and acceptability of medical abortion at home versus in the clinic: a systematic review and meta-analysis in response to COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (12) ◽  
pp. e003934
Author(s):  
Katherine Gambir ◽  
Camille Garnsey ◽  
Kelly Ann Necastro ◽  
Thoai D Ngo
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Medical Abortion ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Evaluation Approach ◽  
Home Based ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
At Home

BackgroundIncreased access to home-based medical abortion may offer women a convenient, safe and effective abortion method, reduce burdens on healthcare systems and support social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Home-based medical abortion is defined as any abortion where mifepristone, misoprostol or both medications are taken at home.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRSs) were conducted. We searched databases from inception to 10 July 2019 and 14 June 2020. Successful abortion was the main outcome of interest. Eligible studies were RCTs and NRSs studies with a concurrent comparison group comparing home versus clinic-based medical abortion. Risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% CIs were calculated. Estimates were calculated using a random-effects model. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess risk of bias by outcome and to evaluate the overall quality of the evidence.ResultsWe identified 6277 potentially eligible published studies. Nineteen studies (3 RCTs and 16 NRSs) were included with 11 576 women seeking abortion up to 9 weeks gestation. Neither the RCTs nor the NRS found any difference between home-based and clinic-based administration of medical abortion in having a successful abortion (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01, I2=0%; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.01, I2=52%, respectively). The certainty of the evidence for the 16 NRSs was downgraded from low to very low due to high risk of bias and publication bias. The certainty of the evidence for the three RCTs was downgraded from high to moderate by one level for high risk of bias.ConclusionHome-based medical abortion is effective, safe and acceptable to women. This evidence should be used to expand women’s abortion options and ensure access to abortion for women during COVID-19 and beyond.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020183171.

scholarly journals Association between vision impairment and mortality: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e037556
Author(s):  
Joshua R Ehrlich ◽  
Jacqueline Ramke ◽  
David Macleod ◽  
Bonnielin K Swenor ◽  
Helen Burn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Vision Impairment ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Evaluation Approach ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionDue to growth and ageing of the world’s population, the number of individuals worldwide with vision impairment (VI) and blindness is projected to increase rapidly over the coming decades. VI and blindness are an important cause of years lived with disability. However, the association of VI and blindness with mortality, including the risk of bias in published studies and certainty of the evidence, has not been adequately studied in an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods and analysisThe planned systematic review and meta-analysis will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Databases, including MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid and Global Health, will be searched for relevant studies. Two reviewers will then screen studies and review full texts to identify studies for inclusion. Data extraction will be performed, and for included studies, the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence will be assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The prognostic factor in this study is visual function, which must have been measured using a standard objective ophthalmic clinical or research instrument. We will use standard criteria from WHO to categorise VI and blindness. All-cause mortality may be assessed by any method one or more years after baseline assessment of vision. Results from included studies will be meta-analysed according to relevant sections of the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist.Ethics and disseminationThis review will only include published data; therefore, ethics approval will not be sought. The findings of this review and meta-analysis will be published in an open-access, peer-reviewed journal and will be included in the ongoing Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health.

scholarly journals Risk of infection associated with intravenous iron preparations: protocol for updating a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. e024618 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akshay Shah ◽  
Anita Sugavanam ◽  
Jack Reid ◽  
Antony J Palmer ◽  
Edward Dickson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intravenous Iron ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Evaluation Approach ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionThe benefits and risk of intravenous iron have been documented in previous systematic reviews and continue to be the subject of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). An ongoing issue that continues to be raised is the relationship between administering iron and developing infection. This is supported by biological plausibility from animal models. We propose an update of a previously published systematic review and meta-analysis with the primary focus being infection.Methods and analysisWe will include RCTs and non-randomised studies (NRS) in this review update. We will search the relevant electronic databases. Two reviewers will independently extract data. Risk of bias for RCTs and NRS will be assessed using the relevant tools recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration. Data extracted from RCTs and NRS will be analysed and reported separately. Pooled data from RCTs will be analysed using a random effects model. We will also conduct subgroup analyses to identify any patient populations that may be at increased risk of developing infection. We will provide a narrative synthesis on the definitions, sources and responsible pathogens for infection in the included studies. Overall quality of evidence on the safety outcomes of mortality and infection will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will only investigate published studies and therefore ethical approval is not required. The results will be broadly distributed through conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications.Trial registration numberPROSPERO (CRD42018096023).

scholarly journals Meditation-based therapies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children, adolescents and adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 87-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Junhua Zhang ◽  
Amparo Díaz-Román ◽  
Samuele Cortese
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Attention Deficit ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Hyperactivity Disorder ◽  
Adolescents And Adults ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Core Symptoms

BackgroundThe efficacy of meditation-based therapies for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) across the lifespan remains uncertain.ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of meditation-based therapies for ADHD core symptoms and associated neuropsychological dysfunctions in children/adolescents or adults with ADHD.MethodsWe searched Pubmed, PsycInfo, Embase+Embase Classic, Ovid Medline and Web of Knowledge with no language, date or type of document restriction, up to 5 May 2018. Random-effects model was used. Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochran’s Q and I2 statistics. Publication (small studies) bias was assessed with funnel plots and the Egger’s test. Studies were evaluated with the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool. Analyses were conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis.Findings13 RCTs (seven in children/adolescents, n=270 and six in adults, n=339) were retained. Only one RCT was double-blind.Meditation-based therapies were significantly more efficacious than the control conditions in decreasing the severity of ADHD core symptoms (inattention+hyperactivity/impulsivity: children/adolescents: Hedge’s g=-0.44, 95% CI −0.69 to −0.19, I20%; adults: Hedge’s g=−0.66, 95% CI –1.21 to −0.11, I281.81%). No significant effects were found on neuropsychological measures of inattention and inhibition in children/adolescents. In adults, significant effects were detected on working memory and inhibition, although these results were based on a small number of studies (n=3). 57% and 43% of the studies in children/adolescents were rated at overall unclear and high risk of bias, respectively. In adults, 33% and 67% of the studies were deemed at overall unclear and high risk of bias, respectively. No evidence of publication bias was found.ConclusionsDespite statistically significant effects on ADHD combined core symptoms, due to paucity of RCTs, heterogeneity across studies and lack of studies at low risk of bias, there is insufficient methodologically sound evidence to support meditation-based therapies for ADHD.Trial registration numberPROSPERO 2018 [CRD42018096156].

scholarly journals Effect of consumption of animal milk compared to infant formula for non-breastfed/mixed-fed infants 6–11 months of age: a systematic review (protocol)

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e046370
Author(s):  
Aamer Imdad ◽  
Julie Melissa Ehrlich ◽  
Joseph Catania ◽  
Emily Tanner-Smith ◽  
Abigail Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Infant Formula ◽  
Breast Feeding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
World Health ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Breastfed Infants ◽  
Evaluation Approach ◽  
Animal Milk

IntroductionPrevalence rates of breastfeeding remain low even though the World Health Organization (WHO) and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend exclusive breast feeding for the first 6 months of life in combination with appropriate complementary feeding beyond six 6 months of age. There have been several studies that address the implication of drinking animal milk and/or infant formula on children’s health and development when breast feeding is not offered during the first year of life. Vast improvements have been made in infant formula design, which may increase its benefits compared with animal’s milk. The objective of this review is therefore to synthesise the most recent evidence on the effects of the consumption of animal milk compared with infant formula in non-breastfed or mixed breastfed infants aged 6–11 months.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that assessed the effect of animal milk compared with formula or mixed-fed (breastmilk and formula) on infants aged 6–11 months. The primary outcomes of interest include anaemia, gastrointestinal blood loss, weight for age, height for age and weight for height. We will include randomised and non-randomised studies with a control group. We will use the Cochrane risk of bias tools to assess the risk of bias. We will use meta-analysis to pool findings if the identified studies are conceptually homogenous and data are available from more than one study. We will assess the overall quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.Ethics and disseminationThis is a systematic review, so no patients will be directly involved in the design or development of this study. The findings from this systematic review will be disseminated to relevant patient populations and caregivers and will guide the WHO’s recommendations on formula consumption versus animal milk in infants aged 6–11 months.Trial registration numberCRD42020210925.

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.

scholarly journals Infiltration and sealing for managing non-cavitated proximal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuanyuan Chen ◽  
Dongru Chen ◽  
Huancai Lin
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Caries Risk ◽  
Moderate Risk ◽  
Risk Levels ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Caries Lesions

Abstract Background Infiltration and sealing are micro-invasive treatments for arresting proximal non-cavitated caries lesions; however, their efficacies under different conditions remain unknown. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the caries-arresting effectiveness of infiltration and sealing and to further analyse their efficacies across different dentition types and caries risk levels. Methods Six electronic databases were searched for published literature, and references were manually searched. Split-mouth randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effectiveness between infiltration/sealing and non-invasive treatments in proximal lesions were included. The primary outcome was obtained from radiographical readings. Results In total, 1033 citations were identified, and 17 RCTs (22 articles) were included. Infiltration and sealing reduced the odds of lesion progression (infiltration vs. non-invasive: OR = 0.21, 95% CI 0.15–0.30; sealing vs. placebo: OR = 0.27, 95% CI 0.18–0.42). For both the primary and permanent dentitions, infiltration and sealing were more effective than non-invasive treatments (primary dentition: OR = 0.30, 95% CI 0.20–0.45; permanent dentition: OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.14–0.28). The overall effects of infiltration and sealing were significantly different from the control effects based on different caries risk levels (OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.14–0.28). Except for caries risk at moderate levels (moderate risk: OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.01–8.27), there were significant differences between micro-invasive and non-invasive treatments (low risk: OR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.08–0.72; low to moderate risk: OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.18–0.81; moderate to high risk: OR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.10–0.29; and high risk: OR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.07–0.28). Except for caries risk at moderate levels (moderate risk: OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.01–8.27), infiltration was superior (low risk: OR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.08–0.72; low to moderate risk: OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.18–0.81; moderate to high risk: OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.10–0.39; and high risk: OR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.05–0.37). Conclusion Infiltration and sealing were more efficacious than non-invasive treatments for halting non-cavitated proximal lesions.

scholarly journals Rapid diagnostic test for antenatal syphilis screening in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e018132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmen Phang Romero Casas ◽  
Marrissa Martyn-St James ◽  
Jean Hamilton ◽  
Daniel S Marinho ◽  
Rodolfo Castro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Antenatal Clinics

ObjectivesTo undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the test performance including sensitivity and specificity of rapid immunochromatographic syphilis (ICS) point-of-care (POC) tests at antenatal clinics compared with reference standard tests (non-treponemal (TP) and TP tests) for active syphilis in pregnant women.MethodsFive electronic databases were searched (PubMed, EMBASE, CRD, Cochrane Library and LILACS) to March 2016 for diagnostic accuracy studies of ICS test and standard reference tests for syphilis in pregnant women. Methodological quality was assessed using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies). A bivariate meta-analysis was undertaken to generate pooled estimates of diagnostic parameters. Results were presented using a coupled forest plot of sensitivity and specificity and a scatter plot.ResultsThe methodological quality of the five included studies with regards to risk of bias and applicability concern judgements was either low or unclear. One study was judged as high risk of bias for patient selection due to exclusion of pregnant women with a previous history of syphilis, and one study was judged at high risk of bias for study flow and timing as not all patients were included in the analysis. Five studies contributed to the meta-analysis, providing a pooled sensitivity and specificity for ICS of 0.85 (95% CrI: 0.73 to 0.92) and 0.98 (95% CrI: 0.95 to 0.99), respectively.ConclusionsThis review and meta-analysis observed that rapid ICS POC tests have a high sensitivity and specificity when performed in pregnant women at antenatal clinics. However, the methodological quality of the existing evidence base should be taken into consideration when interpreting these results.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016036335.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychotherapies for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Davide Papola ◽  
Giovanni Ostuzzi ◽  
Federico Tedeschi ◽  
Chiara Gastaldon ◽  
Marianna Purgato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Panic Disorder ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Psychodynamic Therapy ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
First Line ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background Psychotherapies are the treatment of choice for panic disorder, but which should be considered as first-line treatment is yet to be substantiated by evidence. Aims To examine the most effective and accepted psychotherapy for the acute phase of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia via a network meta-analysis. Method We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the most effective and accepted psychotherapy for the acute phase of panic disorder. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CENTRAL, from inception to 1 Jan 2021 for RCTs. Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines were used. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). The protocol was published in a peer-reviewed journal and in PROSPERO (CRD42020206258). Results We included 136 RCTs in the systematic review. Taking into consideration efficacy (7352 participants), acceptability (6862 participants) and the CINeMA confidence in evidence appraisal, the best interventions in comparison with treatment as usual (TAU) were cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) (for efficacy: standardised mean differences s.m.d. = −0.67, 95% CI −0.95 to −0.39; CINeMA: moderate; for acceptability: relative risk RR = 1.21, 95% CI −0.94 to 1.56; CINeMA: moderate) and short-term psychodynamic therapy (for efficacy: s.m.d. = −0.61, 95% CI −1.15 to −0.07; CINeMA: low; for acceptability: RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.54–1.54; CINeMA: moderate). After removing RCTs at high risk of bias only CBT remained more efficacious than TAU. Conclusions CBT and short-term psychodynamic therapy are reasonable first-line choices. Studies with high risk of bias tend to inflate the overall efficacy of treatments. Results from this systematic review and network meta-analysis should inform clinicians and guidelines.

scholarly journals Should home-based ovulation predictor kits be offered as an additional approach for fertility management for women and couples desiring pregnancy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. e001403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ping Teresa Yeh ◽  
Caitlin E Kennedy ◽  
Sheryl Van der Poel ◽  
Thabo Matsaseng ◽  
Laura Bernard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Pregnancy Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Time To Pregnancy ◽  
Fertility Management ◽  
Home Based ◽  
Registration Number

IntroductionTo inform the WHO Guideline on self-care interventions, we conducted a systematic review of the impact of ovulation predictor kits (OPKs) on time-to-pregnancy, pregnancy, live birth, stress/anxiety, social harms/adverse events and values/preferences.MethodsIncluded studies had to compare women desiring pregnancy who managed their fertility with and without OPKs, measure an outcome of interest and be published in a peer-reviewed journal. We searched for studies on PubMed, CINAHL, LILACS and EMBASE through November 2018. We assessed risk of bias assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the Evidence Project tool for observational studies, and conducted meta-analysis using random effects models to generate pooled estimates of relative risk (RR).ResultsFour studies (three RCTs and one observational study) including 1487 participants, all in high-income countries, were included. Quality of evidence was low. Two RCTs found no difference in time-to-pregnancy. All studies reported pregnancy rate, with mixed results: one RCT from the 1990s among couples with unexplained or male-factor infertility found no difference in clinical pregnancy rate (RR: 1.09, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.32); two more recent RCTs found higher self-reported pregnancy rates among OPK users (pooled RR: 1.40, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.80). A small observational study found higher rates of pregnancy with lab testing versus OPKs among women using donor insemination services. One RCT found no increase in stress/anxiety after two menstrual cycles using OPKs, besides a decline in positive affect. No studies measured live birth or social harms/adverse events. Six studies presented end-users’ values/preferences, with almost all women reporting feeling satisfied, comfortable and confident using OPKs.ConclusionA small evidence base, from high-income countries and with high risk of bias, suggests that home-based use of OPKs may improve fertility management when attempting to become pregnant with no meaningful increase in stress/anxiety and with high user acceptability.Systematic review registration numberPROSPERO registration number CRD42019119402.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document