scholarly journals Acupuncture for breathlessness in advanced cancer: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. e054917
Author(s):  
Zihan Yin ◽  
Tao Xu ◽  
Mingsheng Sun ◽  
Ling Zhao ◽  
Fanrong Liang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Sequential Analysis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Trial Sequential Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register

IntroductionBreathlessness in advanced cancer, a frequent multicomponent and debilitating disorder, severely reduces function and quality of patients’ life. Multiple studies have shown that non-pharmacological therapies can effectively palliate breathlessness in advanced cancer. However, no systematic review has investigated the application of acupuncture, as a non-pharmacological treatment, for breathlessness in advanced cancer. A systematic review will be conducted to summarise evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of acupuncture as a therapeutic option for breathlessness in advanced cancer based on existing randomised controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsRCTs will be retrieved from nine scientific databases, including the MEDLINE via PubMed, Web of Science via the Web of Knowledge, Embase via Ovid, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials via the Cochrane Library, and Allied and Complementary Medicine Database via EBSCO, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, VIP Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database; three clinical registry platforms, including the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, NIH Clinical trials.gov and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, as well as from other sources. Studies published since inception of these databases to 1 August 2021 will be retrieved. Search terms will include breathlessness, cancer, acupuncture and RCT. Two investigators will independently select and extract data from RCTs and assess the risk of bias. The primary outcome, which is alleviation of breathlessness, will be assessed. Meta-analysis will be performed using RevMan V.5.4 and STATA V.15.0. The TSA 0.9.5.10 β software will be used to conduct trial sequential analysis. Finally, the quality of evidence from RCTs will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation System tool.Ethics and disseminationResults will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals or conference reports. Since this study involves acquisition of secondary data, ethical approval requirements will be waived.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021240085.

scholarly journals Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of respiratory rehabilitation following intensive care unit discharge for COVID-19 survivors

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e041184
Author(s):  
Dan Wang ◽  
Jin Li ◽  
Feilong Zhu ◽  
Qianqin Hong ◽  
Ming Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Respiratory Rehabilitation

IntroductionBoth physical and mental disorders may be exacerbated in patients with COVID-19 due to the experience of receiving intensive care; undergoing prolonged mechanical ventilation, sedation, proning and paralysis. Pulmonary rehabilitation is aimed to improve dyspnoea, relieve anxiety and depression, reduce the incidence of related complications, as well as prevent and improve dysfunction. However, the impact of respiratory rehabilitation on discharged patients with COVID-19 is currently unclear, especially on patients who have been mechanically ventilated over 24 hours. Therefore, we aim to investigate the efficacy of respiratory rehabilitation programmes, initiated after discharge from the intensive care unit, on the physical and mental health and health-related quality of life in critical patients with COVID-19.Methods and analysisWe have registered the protocol on PROSPERO and in the process of drafting it, we strictly followed the checklist of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Potocols. We will search the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang, VIP information databases and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. Additionally, ongoing trials in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov and ISRCTN registry will be searched as well. Studies in English or Chinese and from any country will be accepted regardless of study design. Two review authors will independently extract data and assess the quality of included studies. Continuous data are described as standard mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs. Dichotomous data from randomised controlled trials are described as risk ratio(RR) with 95% CIs; otherwise, it is described as odds ratio(OR) with 95% CIs. I2 and the Cochrane’s Q statistic will be used to conduct heterogeneity assessment. The quality of evidence of main outcomes will be evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation(GRADE) criteria. When included studies are sufficient, we will conduct subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis; the publication bias will be statistically analysed using a funnel plot analysis and Egger’s test.Ethics and disseminationOur review, planning to include published studies, does not need the request to the ethical committee. The final results of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal after completion.Patient and public involvementNo patient involved.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020186791.

scholarly journals Traction Therapy for Cervical Radicular Syndrome is Statistically Significant but not Clinically Relevant for Pain Relief. A Systematic Literature Review with Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 3389
Author(s):  
Claudio Colombo ◽  
Stefano Salvioli ◽  
Silvia Gianola ◽  
Greta Castellini ◽  
Marco Testa
Keyword(s):  
Sequential Analysis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Trial Sequential Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Radicular Syndrome

Aim: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of traction therapy in reducing pain by performing a systematic review with meta-analysis. We also explore the best modality for administering traction to patients with cervical radicular syndrome (CRS). Methods: We searched the Medline, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) electronic databases. Two reviewers independently selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared traction in addition to other treatments versus the effectiveness of other treatments alone for pain outcome. We calculated the mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used Cochrane’s tool to assess risk of bias and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to evaluate the quality of evidence and summarize the study conclusions. Results: A total of seven studies (589 patients), one with low risk of bias, were evaluated. An overall estimate of treatment modalities showed low evidence that adding traction to other treatments is statistically significant (MD −5.93 [95% CI, −11.81 to −0.04] P = 0.05 and I2 = 57%) compared to other treatments alone. The subgroup analyses were still statistically significant only for mechanical and continuous modalities. Conclusions: Overall analysis showed that, compared to controls, reduction in pain intensity after traction therapy was achieved in patients with cervical radiculopathy. However, the quality of evidence was generally low and none of these effects were clinically meaningful.

scholarly journals Effect of melatonin and melatonin agonists on postoperative sleep quality in adult patients: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e047858
Author(s):  
Akito Tsukinaga ◽  
Takahiro Mihara ◽  
Teppei Takeshima ◽  
Makoto Tomita ◽  
Takahisa Goto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sleep Quality ◽  
Sleep Disturbance ◽  
General Anaesthesia ◽  
Regional Anaesthesia ◽  
Sequential Analysis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Trial Sequential Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials

IntroductionThe circadian rhythm of melatonin secretion is disturbed after general anaesthesia, leading to postoperative sleep disturbance. Small studies investigating the preventive effect of melatonin administration on postoperative sleep disturbance have not reached any conclusions. Therefore, we will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to obtain conclusive results.Methods and analysisWe prepared this protocol following the 2015 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols guidelines. We will conduct a search for randomised controlled trials that evaluated the effect of melatonin and melatonin agonists on postoperative sleep quality in adult patients undergoing general anaesthesia or regional anaesthesia with sedation. We will exclude patients undergoing regional anaesthesia without sedation. Relevant studies will be searched in the following eight databases: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science and four preregistration sites from inception to 1 January 2021. No language restrictions will be applied. Two authors will independently scan and select eligible studies and perform data extraction and assessment of the risk of bias. The Visual Analogue Scale scores for sleep quality will be combined as the mean difference with a 95% CI using a random-effect model; we will use I2 to assess heterogeneity. We will evaluate the quality of trials using the Cochrane methodology and assess the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. If appropriate, trial sequential analysis will be performed.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required for this meta-analysis, as it does not include individual patient data. We will disseminate the results of this meta-analysis in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020180167.

scholarly journals Does propofol ameliorate occurrence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction after general anaesthesia? A protocol of systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xi Zhao ◽  
Ze-qing Huang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cognitive Dysfunction ◽  
Short Term Memory ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
China National Knowledge Infrastructure

Abstract Background Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a common condition after general anesthesia (GA). Previous studies have reported that propofol can ameliorate the occurrence of such disorder. However, its results are still inconsistent. Therefore, this systematic review will assess the efficacy and safety of propofol on POCD after GA. Methods Literature sources will be sought from inception to the present in Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the administration of propofol on POCD after GA. All searches will be carried out without limitations to language and publication status. Outcomes comprise of cognitive impairments changes, impairments in short-term memory, concentration, language comprehension, social integration, quality of life, and adverse events. Cochrane risk of bias tool will be utilized to assess study quality. We will evaluate the quality of evidence for each outcome using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. A narrative synthesis or a meta-analysis will be undertaken as appropriate. Discussion This study will systematically and comprehensively search literature and integrate evidence on the efficacy and safety of propofol on POCD after GA. Our findings will be of interest to clinicians and health-related policy makers. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020164096

scholarly journals Relationship between hormonal contraceptives and sleep among women of reproductive age: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. e045819
Author(s):  
Jinhui Ma ◽  
Megan Cheng ◽  
Lehana Thabane ◽  
Caihong Ma ◽  
Ning Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Reproductive Age ◽  
Hormonal Contraceptives ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Women Of Reproductive Age

IntroductionThe aetiology of sleep disruptions is unknown, but hormonal fluctuations during the menstrual cycle, pregnancy and menopause have been shown to potentially affect how well a woman sleeps. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate whether hormonal contraceptives are associated with a decreased quality of sleep and increased sleep duration in women of reproductive age.MethodsThis review will analyse data from randomised controlled trials or non-randomised comparative studies investigating the association between hormonal contraceptives and sleep outcomes among women of reproductive age. Reviews addressing the same research question with similar eligibility criteria will be included. A literature search will be performed using the MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from inception to 7 March 2021. The Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias for Randomised Trials V.2.0 and The Risk of Bias for Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool will be used to assess risk of bias for each outcome in eligible studies. Two reviewers will independently assess eligibility of studies and risk of bias and extract the data. All extracted data will be presented in tables and narrative form. For sleep measures investigated by two or more studies with low heterogeneity, we will conduct random-effects meta-analysis to estimate the magnitude of the overall effect of hormonal contraceptives. If studies included in this systematic review form a connected network, a network meta-analysis will be conducted to estimate the comparative effect of different contraceptives. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach will be used to summarise the quality of evidence. Our protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 guidelines.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required as data were sourced from previously reported studies. The findings of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020199958.

scholarly journals Interventions to facilitate return to work in adults with chronic non-malignant pain: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e040962
Author(s):  
Mathilda Björk ◽  
Björn Gerdle ◽  
Gunilla Liedberg ◽  
Frida Svanholm ◽  
Marco Solmi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Return To Work ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Indirect Evidence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Analysis Tool ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Private Patient

IntroductionWork absenteeism due to chronic non-malignant pain (CNMP) is a major societal and individual cause of concern that requires effective treatments.ObjectiveWe present a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) aiming to compare available interventions for return to work (RTW) in adults with CNMP.Methods and analysisPubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Knowledge and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases will be searched till 31 August 2020 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining interventions for RTW outcomes among patients with CNMP. Two independent investigators will search the databases, perform data extraction and assess the methodological quality of the selected RCTs. The primary outcome will be RTW, if possible, full-time or part-time after work absence due to chronic pain from baseline to the last available follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include self-reported workability or work capacity, or self-reported physical functioning and quality of life as measured by any validated scale. Pairwise meta-analysis and NMA will be conducted for each outcome using a random-effects model. For the primary outcomes, we will also obtain the ranking of all competing interventions within each NMA using surface under the cumulative ranking curve. The assumption of coherence (ie, that direct and indirect evidence are in statistical agreement) will be examined using both a local and a global approach. We will also conduct subgroup and meta-regression analyses, whenever feasible, to investigate the unexplained variation in effect size. The comparison-adjusted funnel plot will be used to evaluate small-study effects. The overall quality of evidence will be rated with the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis tool. Data analysis will be conducted using Stata V.16.0.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review does not require ethical approval since it will not disseminate any private patient data. The results of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020171429.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document