scholarly journals Effectiveness of postdischarge interventions for reducing the severity of chronic pain after total knee replacement: systematic review of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e020368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vikki Wylde ◽  
Jane Dennis ◽  
Rachael Gooberman-Hill ◽  
Andrew David Beswick
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Total Knee Replacement ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Pain Severity ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Total Knee ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveApproximately 20% of patients experience chronic pain after total knee replacement (TKR). The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of postdischarge interventions commenced in the first 3 months after surgery in reducing the severity of chronic pain after TKR.DesignThe protocol for this systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42017041382). MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to November 2016. Randomised controlled trials of postdischarge intervention which commenced in the first 3 months after TKR surgery were included. The primary outcome of the review was self-reported pain severity at 12 months or longer after TKR. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.ResultsSeventeen trials with data from 2485 randomised participants were included. The majority of trials evaluated physiotherapy interventions (n=13); other interventions included nurse-led interventions (n=2), neuromuscular electrical stimulation (n=1) and a multidisciplinary intervention (n=1). Opportunities for meta-analysis were limited by heterogeneity. No study found a difference in long-term pain severity between trial arms, with the exception of one trial which found home-based functional exercises aimed at managing kinesiophobia resulted in lower pain severity scores at 12 months postoperatively compared with advice to stay active.ConclusionThis systematic review and narrative synthesis found no evidence that one type of physiotherapy intervention is more effective than another at reducing the severity of chronic pain after TKR. Further research is needed to evaluate non-physiotherapy interventions, including the provision of care as part of a stratified and multidisciplinary care package.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017041382.

scholarly journals Effects of presurgical interventions on chronic pain after total knee replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e033248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Dennis ◽  
Vikki Wylde ◽  
Rachael Gooberman-Hill ◽  
AW Blom ◽  
Andrew David Beswick
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
Total Knee ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Quality Evidence

ObjectiveNearly 100 000 primary total knee replacements (TKR) are performed in the UK annually. The primary aim of TKR is pain relief, but 10%–34% of patients report chronic pain. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of presurgical interventions in preventing chronic pain after TKR.DesignMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL,The Cochrane Libraryand PsycINFO were searched from inception to December 2018. Screening and data extraction were performed by two authors. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool and quality of evidence was assessed by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.Primary and secondary outcomesPain at 6 months or longer; adverse events.InterventionsPresurgical interventions aimed at improving TKR outcomes.ResultsEight randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with data from 960 participants were included. The studies involved nine eligible comparisons. We found moderate-quality evidence of no effect of exercise programmes on chronic pain after TKR, based on a meta-analysis of 6 interventions with 229 participants (standardised mean difference 0.20, 95% CI −0.06 to 0.47, I2=0%). Sensitivity analysis restricted to studies at overall low risk of bias confirmed findings. Another RCT of exercise with no data available for meta-analysis showed no benefit. Studies evaluating combined exercise and education intervention (n=1) and education alone (n=1) suggested similar findings. Adverse event data were reported by most studies, but events were too few to draw conclusions.ConclusionsWe found low to moderate-quality evidence to suggest that neither preoperative exercise, education nor a combination of both is effective in preventing chronic pain after TKR. This review also identified a lack of evaluations of other preoperative interventions, such as multimodal pain management, which may improve long-term pain outcomes after TKR.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017041382.

scholarly journals Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. l352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah A Wilson ◽  
Rob Middleton ◽  
Simon G F Abram ◽  
Stephanie Smith ◽  
Abtin Alvand ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Total Knee Replacement ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Knee Replacement ◽  
Risk Ratio ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Total Knee ◽  
Randomised Controlled

AbstractObjectiveTo present a clear and comprehensive summary of the published data on unicompartmental knee replacement (UKA) or total knee replacement (TKA), comparing domains of outcome that have been shown to be important to patients and clinicians to allow informed decision making.DesignSystematic review using data from randomised controlled trials, nationwide databases or joint registries, and large cohort studies.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), and Clinical Trials.gov, searched between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 2018.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies published in the past 20 years, comparing outcomes of primary UKA with TKA in adult patients. Studies were excluded if they involved fewer than 50 participants, or if translation into English was not available.Results60 eligible studies were separated into three methodological groups: seven publications from six randomised controlled trials, 17 national joint registries and national database studies, and 36 cohort studies. Results for each domain of outcome varied depending on the level of data, and findings were not always significant. Analysis of the three groups of studies showed significantly shorter hospital stays after UKA than after TKA (−1.20 days (95% confidence interval −1.67 to −0.73), −1.43 (−1.53 to −1.33), and −1.73 (−2.30 to −1.16), respectively). There was no significant difference in pain, based on patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), but significantly better functional PROM scores for UKA than for TKA in both non-trial groups (standard mean difference −0.58 (−0.88 to −0.27) and −0.29 (−0.46 to −0.11), respectively). Regarding major complications, trials and cohort studies had non-significant results, but mortality after TKA was significantly higher in registry and large database studies (risk ratio 0.27 (0.16 to 0.45)), as were venous thromboembolic events (0.39 (0.27 to 0.57)) and major cardiac events (0.22 (0.06 to 0.86)). Early reoperation for any reason was higher after TKA than after UKA, but revision rates at five years remained higher for UKA in all three study groups (risk ratio 5.95 (1.29 to 27.59), 2.50 (1.77 to 3.54), and 3.13 (1.89 to 5.17), respectively).ConclusionsTKA and UKA are both viable options for the treatment of isolated unicompartmental osteoarthritis. By directly comparing the two treatments, this study demonstrates better results for UKA in several outcome domains. However, the risk of revision surgery was lower for TKA. This information should be available to patients as part of the shared decision making process in choosing treatment options.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO number CRD42018089972.

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.

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 Efficacy and safety profile of statins in patients with cancer: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 76 (12) ◽  
pp. 1639-1651
Author(s):  
John P. Thomas ◽  
Yoon K. Loke ◽  
Leo Alexandre
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Statin Therapy ◽  
Safety Profile ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Purpose A growing body of preclinical and observational research suggests that statins have potential as a therapeutic strategy in patients with cancer. This systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with solid tumours aimed to determine the efficacy of statin therapy on mortality outcomes, their safety profile and the risk of bias of included studies. Methods Full-text articles comparing statin therapy versus control in solid tumours and reporting mortality outcomes were identified from Medline and Embase from conception to February 2020. A systematic review with qualitative (primarily) and quantitative synthesis was conducted. This systematic review was prospectively registered (Prospero registration CRD42018116364). Results Eleven trials of 2165 patients were included. Primary tumour sites investigated included lung, colorectal, gastro-oesophageal, pancreatic and liver. Most trials recruited patients with advanced malignancy and used sub-maximal statin doses for relatively short durations. Aside from one trial which demonstrated benefit with allocation to pravastatin 40 mg in hepatocellular carcinoma, the remaining ten trials did not demonstrate efficacy with statins. The pooled hazard ratio for all-cause mortality with allocation to pravastatin in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in two trials was 0.69 (95% confidence interval CI 0.30–1.61). Study estimates were imprecise. There were no clinically important differences in statin-related adverse events between groups. Overall, included trials were deemed low risk of bias. Conclusion The trial evidence is not sufficiently robust to confirm or refute the efficacy and safety of statins in patients with solid malignant tumours. Study and patient characteristics may explain this uncertainty. The potential role of high-dose statins in adjuvant settings deserves further research.

Verum versus Sham Manual Acupuncture for Migraine: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 76-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Yang ◽  
Qinghui Que ◽  
Xiaode Ye ◽  
Guo hua Zheng
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Recurrence Rate ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Total Effective Rate ◽  
Effective Rate ◽  
Sham Acupuncture ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Manual Acupuncture ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background Manual acupuncture (MA) is commonly used as a treatment for migraine in China. However, its specific clinical effects have been challenged on the basis that some of its effects may relate to psychological or ‘placebo’ mechanisms. Objective To identify the effectiveness of verum MA compared with sham acupuncture for the treatment of migraine. Methods Eight electronic databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of verum versus sham MA on migraine. The quality of included trials was assessed using the ‘risk of bias’ tool provided by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Intervention. RevMan 5.2 software was used for data analysis. Results Ten trials with 997 participants were included. Most trials had high methodological quality and were at low risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed superior effects of verum MA over sham acupuncture on the total effective rate, reflected by a reduction in the ‘not effective’ rate (relative risk (RR) 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.38; p<0.0001, four trials) and a reduced recurrence rate (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.81; p=0.006, two trials), but no significant differences in headache intensity, frequency or duration, accompanying symptoms and use of medication. No severe adverse events related to acupuncture occurred during treatment with either verum or sham MA. Conclusions Current clinical evidence suggests that verum acupuncture is superior to sham acupuncture in migraine, reflected by a higher total effective rate and decreased recurrence rate. Nevertheless, further large-scale RCTs with a rigorous design are required to confirm these findings in view of the relative paucity of eligible RCTs and small sample sizes of those included.

scholarly journals The effects of exercise on Bone Mineral Density in Men: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Blair Ross Hamilton ◽  
Katherine Staines ◽  
George Kelley ◽  
Kristi Kelley ◽  
Wendy Kohrt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Mineral Density ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Mineral ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Mineral Density ◽  
Skeletal Health ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Introduction: Exercise is a cost-effective, widely available intervention that has been reported to help maintain optimal bone mineral density (BMD) in men, however, consideration of exercise modality is needed if the aim is to promote skeletal health. A previous meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials observed a moderate benefit on femoral neck (FN) but no benefit on lumbar spine (LS) BMD. However, since that analysis more randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been published and updated methods of meta-analysis have been developed and therefore an updated systematic review and meta-analysis is required. Methods and analysis: RCTs of &gt;24 weeks and published in English up to 01/05/20 will be retrieved by searching 3 electronic databases, cross referencing and expert review. The primary outcome measures will be changes in FN and LS BMD and lower limb BMD. Risk of bias for each study will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias instrument for RCTs, while the strength of evidence for each outcome will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) instrument. Standardised effect sizes will be calculated from each study and pooled using the inverse heterogeneity (IVhet) model. Trial Registration number: CRD42020180441.

scholarly journals Effect of interventions for the well-being, satisfaction and flourishing of general practitioners—a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. e046599
Author(s):  
Diana Naehrig ◽  
Aaron Schokman ◽  
Jessica Kate Hughes ◽  
Ronald Epstein ◽  
Ian B Hickie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Intervention Studies ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Positive Outcomes ◽  
Mindfulness Interventions ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesClinician well-being has been recognised as an important pillar of healthcare. However, research mainly addresses mitigating the negative aspects of stress or burnout, rather than enabling positive aspects. With the added strain of a pandemic, identifying how best to maintain and support the well-being, satisfaction and flourishing of general practitioners (GPs) is now more important than ever.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesWe searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus from 2000 to 2020.Study selectionIntervention studies with more than 50% GPs in the sample evaluating self-reported well-being, satisfaction and related positive outcomes were included. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool was applied.ResultsWe retrieved 14 792 records, 94 studies underwent full-text review. We included 19 studies in total. Six randomised controlled trials, three non-randomised, controlled trials, eight non-controlled studies of individual or organisational interventions with a total of 1141 participants. There were two quasi-experimental articles evaluating health system policy change. Quantitative and qualitative positive outcomes were extracted and analysed. Individual mindfulness interventions were the most common (k=9) with medium to large within-group (0.37–1.05) and between-group (0.5–1.5) effect sizes for mindfulness outcomes, and small-to-medium effect sizes for other positive outcomes including resilience, compassion and empathy. Studies assessing other intervention foci or other positive outcomes (including well-being, satisfaction) were of limited size and quality.ConclusionsThere is remarkably little evidence on how to improve GPs well-being beyond using mindfulness interventions, particularly for interventions addressing organisational or system factors. This was further undermined by inconsistent reporting, and overall high risk of bias. We need to conduct research in this space with the same rigour with which we approach clinical intervention studies in patients.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020164699.Funding sourceDr Diana Naehrig is funded through the Raymond Seidler PhD scholarship.

scholarly journals Cannulation Technique of Vascular Access in Haemodialysis and the Impact on the Arteriovenous Fistula Survival: Protocol of Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (23) ◽  
pp. 12554
Author(s):  
Ricardo Peralta ◽  
Luís Sousa ◽  
António Filipe Cristóvão
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Arteriovenous Fistula ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Primary Patency ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cannulation Technique ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Impact

Background: Based on a literature review of various studies, comparisons between BH and RL are inconclusive regarding some outcomes. However, in the last 5 years, some studies have been published that may contribute to clarifying which cannulation technique (CT) allows better fistula survival. Aim: To review which cannulation technique allows better primary patency of the arteriovenous fistula in haemodialysis patients. Methods: We will include all randomised controlled trials and observational studies that include comparisons among CTs and thus define the benefits and risks of each CT. A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis will be performed in accordance with the quality and homogeneity of studies. A comprehensive search strategy will be applied to the CINAHL, MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases from January 2000 to September 2021. The primary outcome is the arteriovenous fistula primary patency. To assess the risk of bias in randomised controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies, we will use the tool Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for Randomized Trials (RoB 2). For nonrandomised studies, the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) will be used. Discussion: The evidence generated from this systematic review of current evidence could inform the design and implementation of continuous quality improvement programs in cannulation techniques in haemodialysis patients, as well as contributing to improving the curricula within haemodialysis courses. This protocol was registered with the National Institute for Health Research PROSPERO database prior to commencement (registration number CRD42021237050).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document