scholarly journals Favipiravir for treating patients with novel coronavirus (COVID-19): protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. e039730 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morteza Arab-Zozani ◽  
Soheil Hassanipour ◽  
Djavad Ghoddoosi-Nejad
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Code Of Ethics ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Randomised Clinical Trials ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity

IntroductionAn outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) was reported in Wuhan, China, in mid-December 2019, and declared a pandemic by the WHO on 11 March 2020. Due to the unknown nature of the disease and the lack of specific drugs, several potential treatments were used for patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis will evaluate studies of the effects of favipiravir in COVID-19 pneumonia.Methods and analysisWe will search electronic databases including LitCovid hub, PubMed, Scopus, ISI Web of Sciences, Cochrane and Embase using keywords related to COVID-19 and favipiravir. We will search the reference lists of all included studies and reviews. We will also search for clinical trial registries, such as ClinicalTrials.gov, for the ongoing clinical trials. All randomised clinical trials investigating the safety and efficacy of favipiravir compared with other control groups for the treatment of patients with confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 will be included. Patients’ survival at the end of the treatment as well as the follow-up will be the primary outcome of the treatment, followed by the time and rate of the patient with a negative COVID-19 test. The desired secondary outcome will consist of a decreased rate of symptoms, proportion of intensive care unit (ICU) transfers, length of the hospital stay, ICU treatments, the quality of life and additional adverse events. Data synthesis will be conducted using CMA V.2. Two independent investigators will be screening titles, abstracts and full texts of included studies, based on eligibility criteria. These investigators will then independently extract the data and appraise the quality of said studies. All potential discrepancies will be resolved through consultation with the third reviewer. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using a standard I2 test. A funnel plot, Egger’s test and Begg’s test will be used for detecting asymmetry to explore possible publication bias.Ethics and disseminationAll findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis will help identify the safety and efficacy of favipiravir for patients with COVID-19. Given that the design of the study is a systematic review, there is no need to follow the code of ethics protocol. The results of this study will be published in a reputable journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020180032.

scholarly journals The efficacy of Phaseolus vulgaris as a weight-loss supplement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

2011 ◽  
Vol 106 (2) ◽  
pp. 196-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Igho Onakpoya ◽  
Salsabil Aldaas ◽  
Rohini Terry ◽  
Edzard Ernst
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Weight Loss ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
Randomised Clinical Trials ◽  
Herbal Supplement ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Present Systematic Review

A variety of dietary supplements are presently available as slimming aids, but their efficacy has not been proven. One such slimming aid is the bean extract, Phaseolusvulgaris. The aim of the present systematic review is to evaluate the evidence for or against the efficacy of P. vulgaris. Electronic and non-electronic searches were conducted to identify relevant human randomised clinical trials (RCT). Hand searches of bibliographies were also conducted. No age, time or language restrictions were imposed. The eligibility of studies was determined by two reviewers independently, and the methodological quality of the included studies was assessed. We identified eleven eligible trials, and six were included. All the included RCT had serious methodological flaws. A meta-analysis revealed a statistically non-significant difference in weight loss between P. vulgaris and placebo groups (mean difference (MD) − 1·77 kg, 95 % CI − 3·33, 0·33). A further meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant reduction in body fat favouring P. vulgaris over placebo (MD − 1·86 kg, 95 % CI − 3·39, − 0·32). Heterogeneity was evident in both analyses. The poor quality of the included RCT prevents us from drawing any firm conclusions about the effects of P. vulgaris supplementation on body weight. Larger and more rigorous trials are needed to objectively assess the effects of this herbal supplement.

scholarly journals Favipiravir for treating novcl coronavirus (COVID-19) patients: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of Controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morteza Arab-Zozani ◽  
Soheil Hassanipour ◽  
Djavad Ghoddoosi-Nejad
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
World Health ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Data Synthesis ◽  
Clinical Trial Registries ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity ◽  
Health Organization

Abstract Background An outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) was reported in Wuhan, China in mid-December 2019, and declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11, 2020. Due to the unknown nature of the disease and the lack of specific drugs, several potential treatments were used for patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis will evaluate studies of the effects of Favipiravir in COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods We will search electronic databases including LitCovid hub, PubMed, Scopus, ISI web of Sciences, Cochrane, and Embase using keywords related to COVID-19 and Favipiravir. We will search the reference lists of all included studies and reviews. We will also search for clinical trial registries, such as clinicaltrial.gov for the ongoing clinical trials. Two investigators (MAZ and SH) will independently screen titles, abstracts, and full-text of included studies based on eligibility criteria. These investigators will also independently extract data and appraise the quality of studies. All potential discrepancies will be resolved through consultation with the third reviewer. Data synthesis will be conducted using the Review Manager software (version 5.3) or CMA (version 2). Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using a standard I 2 test. A funnel plot, Egger’s test, and Begg’s test will be used for asymmetry to explore possible publication bias. Discussion The findings of this systematic review with proportional meta-analysis will help to identify the safety and efficacy of Favipiravir for COVID-19 patients. Knowledge gained from this research will also assist physicians in selecting better treatment options and developing a guideline in this field.

Intervention Therapies to Reduce Pain-Related Fear in Fibromyalgia Syndrome: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials

Pain Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier Martinez-Calderon ◽  
Mar Flores-Cortes ◽  
Jose Miguel Morales-Asencio ◽  
Alejandro Luque-Suarez
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Full Detail ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Fear Avoidance Beliefs

Abstract Objective This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different interventions at reducing pain-related fear in people with fibromyalgia and to analyze whether the included trials reported their interventions in full detail. Design Systematic review. Setting No restrictions. Methods The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Scopus were searched from their inception to April 2020, along with manual searches and a gray literature search. Randomized clinical trials were included if they assessed pain-related fear constructs as the primary or secondary outcome in adults with fibromyalgia. Two reviewers independently performed the study selection, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist assessment, and grading the quality of evidence. Results Twelve randomized clinical trials satisfied the eligibility criteria, including 11 cohorts with a total sample of 1,441 participants. Exercise, multicomponent, and psychological interventions were more effective than controls were in reducing kinesiophobia. However, there were no differences in decreasing kinesiophobia when self-management and electrotherapy were used. There were also no differences between groups with regard to the rest of the interventions and pain-related constructs (fear-avoidance beliefs, fear of pain, and pain-related anxiety). However, a serious risk of bias and a very serious risk of imprecision were detected across the included trials. This caused the overall certainty of the judged evidence to be low and very low. Additionally, the included trials reported insufficient details to allow the full replication of their interventions. Conclusions This systematic review shows that there are promising interventions, such as exercise, multicomponent, and psychological therapies, that may decrease one specific type of fear in people with fibromyalgia, i.e., kinesiophobia. However, because of the low–very low certainty of the evidence found, a call for action is needed to improve the quality of randomized clinical trials, which will lead to more definitive information about the clinical efficacy of interventions in this field.

scholarly journals Zidovudine/Lamivudine vs. Abacavir/Lamivudine vs. Tenofovir/Emtricitabine in fixed-dose combinations as initial treatment for HIV patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
pp. 70-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Carlos Alzate Angel ◽  
Marcela María Duque Molina ◽  
Héctor Iván García García
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Initial Treatment ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Fixed Dose ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity

Introduction: Initial treatment of the HIV is based on the use of three drugs, two of which are nucleoside analog reverse-transcriptase inhibitors. There are three combinations of these drugs which have been approved by different guidelines, each with divergent results in terms of efficacy and safety.Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of these three combinations.Methods: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing fixed doses of Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate / Emtricitabine (TDF/FTC), Abacavir / Lamivudine (ABC/3TC) and Zidovudine / Lamivudine (ZDV/3TC).Results: Seven clinical trials met the eligibility criteria. The results suggested higher efficacy with TDF/FTC vs. ABC/3TC at 96 weeks and vs. ZDV/3TC at 48 weeks. However, there is clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis were performed by third drug and by level of viral load prior to treatment, and found no differences in virological control. Network meta-analysis could only be carried out with TDF/FTC vs. ZDV/3TC, and the proportion of patients with virological response, with no differences at 48 weeks nor at 96 weeks. Direct comparisons showed an increased risk of bone marrow suppression of ZDV/3TC vs. TDF/FTC and of ABC/3TC hypersensitivity reactions vs. ZDV/3TCConclusions: The results did not show differences in effectiveness among the interventions. However, due to the heterogeneity of the third drug and the follow-up time between the included studies, this result is not definitive. The results raise the need for further studies to help improve treatment recommendations in patients infected with HIV.

Effects of diacerein intake on cardiometabolic profiles in type 2 diabetics: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peyman Nowrouzi-Sohrabi ◽  
Reza Tabrizi ◽  
Mohammad Jalali ◽  
Navid Jamali ◽  
Shahla Rezaei ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Body Weight ◽  
Total Cholesterol ◽  
Ldl Cholesterol ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hdl Cholesterol ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity

Introduction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials was undertaken to evaluate the effect of diacerein intake on cardiometabolic profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods: Electronic databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to 31 July 2019. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using Cochran’s Q test and I-square (I2 ) statistic. Data were pooled using random-effect models and weighted mean difference (WMD). Results: From 1,733 citations, seven clinical trials were eligible for inclusion and meta-analysis. A significant reduction in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (WMD -0.73; 95%CI -1.25 to -0.21; P= 0.006; I2 = 72.2%) and body mass index (BMI) (WMD -0.55; 95%CI -1.03 to -0.07; P= 0.026; I2 = 9.5%) were identified. However, no significant effect of diacerein intake was identified on fasting blood sugar (FBS) (WMD - 9.00; 95%CI -22.57 to 4.57; P= 0.194; I2 = 60.5%), homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) (WMD 0.39; 95%CI 0.95 to 1.73; P= 0.569; I2 = 2.2%), body weight (WMD -0.54; 95%CI -1.10 to 0.02; P= 0.059), triglycerides (WMD -0.56; 95%CI -24.16 to 23.03; P= 0.963; I2 = 0.0%), total-cholesterol (WMD -0.21; 95%CI -12.19 to 11.78; P= 0.973; I2 = 0.0%), HDL-cholesterol (WMD -0.96; 95%CI -2.85 to 0.93; P= 0.321; I2 = 0.0%), and LDL-cholesterol levels (WMD -0.09; 95%CI -8.43 to 8.25; P= 0.983; I2 = 37.8%). Conclusion: Diacerein intake may reduce HbA1c and BMI; however, no evidence of effect was observed for FBS, HOMA-IR, body weight, triglycerides, total-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol or LDL-cholesterol.

scholarly journals Prevention and management of idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 164 ◽  
pp. 105404
Author(s):  
Hao Niu ◽  
Judith Sanabria-Cabrera ◽  
Ismael Alvarez-Alvarez ◽  
Mercedes Robles-Diaz ◽  
Simona Stankevičiūtė ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Liver Injury ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Randomised Clinical Trials ◽  
Drug Induced ◽  
Drug Induced Liver Injury

scholarly journals Safety and efficacy of inpatient pulmonary rehabilitation for patients hospitalised with an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e043377
Author(s):  
Kai Zhu ◽  
Jagdeep Gill ◽  
Ashley Kirkham ◽  
Joel Chen ◽  
Amy Ellis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Acute Exacerbation ◽  
Pulmonary Rehabilitation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Safety And Efficacy

IntroductionPulmonary rehabilitation (PR) following an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) reduces the risk of hospital admissions, and improves physical function and health-related quality of life. However, the safety and efficacy of in-hospital PR during the most acute phase of an AECOPD is not well established. This paper describes the protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis to determine the safety and efficacy of inpatient acute care PR during the hospitalisation phase.Methods and analysisMedical literature databases and registries MEDLINE, EMBASE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, CENTRAL, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, WHO trials portal and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched for articles from inception to June 2021 using a prespecified search strategy. We will identify randomised controlled trials that have a comparison of in-hospital PR with usual care. PR programmes had to commence during the hospitalisation and include a minimum of two sessions. Title and abstract followed by full-text screening will be conducted independently by two reviewers. A meta-analysis will be performed if there is sufficient homogeneity across selected studies or groups of studies. The Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes and Study characteristics framework will be used to standardise the data collection process. The quality of the cumulative evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework.Ethics and disseminationAECOPD results in physical limitations which are amenable to PR. This review will assess the safety and efficacy of in-hospital PR for AECOPD. The results will be presented in a peer-reviewed publication and at research conferences. Ethical review is not required for this study.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document