Paracetamol versus other analgesia in adult patients with minor musculoskeletal injuries: a systematic review

ObjectivesPain treatment in acute musculoskeletal injuries usually consists of paracetamol, non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or opioids. It would be beneficial to determine whether paracetamol is as effective as other analgesics. The objective of this study was to evaluate available evidence regarding efficacy of paracetamol in these patients.MethodsEmbase, MEDLINE, Cochrane and relevant trial registers were searched from inception to 14 February 2018 by two independent reviewers to detect all randomised studies with adult patients with acute minor musculoskeletal injuries treated with paracetamol as compared with other analgesics. There were no language or date restrictions. Two independent reviewers evaluated risk of bias and quality of evidence. Primary outcome was decrease in pain scores during the first 24 hours, and secondary outcomes included pain decrease beyond 24 hours, need for additional analgesia and occurrence of adverse events.ResultsSeven trials were included, evaluating 2100 patients who were treated with paracetamol or NSAIDs or the combination of both as comparisons, of which only four studies addressed the primary outcome. No studies were found comparing paracetamol with opioids. There were no differences in analgesic effectiveness within and beyond 24 hours, nor in need for additional analgesia and occurrence of adverse events. Overall, quality of evidence was low. Because of methodological inconsistencies, a meta-analysis was not possible.ConclusionsBased on available evidence, paracetamol is as effective as NSAIDs or the combination of both in treating pain in adult patients with minor musculoskeletal injuries in the acute setting. The quality of evidence is low.

Download Full-text

Acupuncture for post-stroke depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies ◽

10.1186/s12906-021-03277-3 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Ran Liu ◽

Kun Zhang ◽

Qiu-yu Tong ◽

Guang-wei Cui ◽

Wen Ma ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Adverse Events ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Quality Of Evidence ◽

Post Stroke ◽

Assessment Development ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Post Stroke Depression ◽

Meta Analyses

Abstract Background Acupuncture for post-stroke depression (PSD) has been evolving, but uncertainty remains. To assess the existing evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of acupuncture for PSD, we sought to draw conclusions by synthesizing RCTs. Methods An exhaustive literature search was conducted in seven electronic databases from their inception dates to April 19, 2020, to identify systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) on this topic. The primary RCTs included in the SRs/MAs were identified. We also conducted a supplementary search for RCTs published from January 1, 2015, to May 12, 2020. Two reviewers extracted data separately and pooled data using RevMan 5.3 software. The quality of evidence was critically appraised with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Results A total of 17 RCTs involving 1402 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that participants who received a combination of acupuncture and conventional treatments exhibited significantly lower scores on the HAM-D17, HAM-D24 and HAM-D (MD, − 5.08 [95% CI, − 6.48 to − 3.67], I2 = 0%), (MD, − 9.72 [95% CI, − 14.54 to − 4.91], I2 = 65%) and (MD, − 2.72 [95% CI, − 3.61 to − 1.82], respectively) than those who received conventional treatment. However, there was no significant difference in acupuncture versus antidepressants in terms of the 17-item, 24-item and HAM-D scales (MD, − 0.43 [95% CI, − 1.61 to 0.75], I2 = 51%), (MD, − 3.09 [95% CI, − 10.81 to 4.63], I2 = 90%) and (MD, − 1.55 [95% CI, − 4.36 to 1.26], I2 = 95%, respectively). For adverse events, acupuncture was associated with fewer adverse events than antidepressants (RR, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.39], I2 = 35%), but there was no significant difference in the occurrence of adverse events between the combination of acupuncture and conventional treatments versus conventional treatments (RR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.21 to 1.83], I2 = 38%). The quality of evidence was low to very low due to the substantial heterogeneity among the included studies. Conclusions The current review indicates that acupuncture has greater effect on PSD and better safety profile than antidepressants, but high-quality evidence evaluating acupuncture for PSD is still needed.

Download Full-text

Duration of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances in adolescents and adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Progress in Orthodontics ◽

10.1186/s40510-020-00334-4 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Allen Abbing ◽

Vasiliki Koretsi ◽

Theodore Eliades ◽

Spyridon N. Papageorgiou

Keyword(s):

Treatment Duration ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Adult Patients ◽

Comprehensive Treatment ◽

Orthodontic Appliances ◽

Duration Of Treatment ◽

Quality Of Evidence ◽

Fixed Appliances

Abstract Objectives Adults with fixed orthodontic appliances are increasing nowadays. Compared with adolescents, adults present biological differences that might influence treatment duration. Therefore, the aim of the study was to compare duration of treatment with fixed appliances between adults and adolescents. Materials and methods Eight databases were searched up to September 2019 for randomized and non-randomized clinical studies comparing treatment duration with fixed appliances in adolescents and adult patients. After duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment with the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool, random effects meta-analyses of mean differences (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed, followed by assessment of the quality of evidence with GRADE. Results A total of 11 unique studies (one prospective and 10 retrospective non-randomized) with 2969 adolescents and 1380 adult patients were finally included. Meta-analysis of 7 studies found no significant difference in the duration of comprehensive treatment with fixed appliances (MD = − 0.8 month; 95% CI = − 4.2 to 2.6 months; P = 0.65; I2 = 92%) between adults and adolescents. Similarly, both distalization of upper first molars with skeletal anchorage for class II correction and the retraction of canines into the premolar extraction spaces lasted similarly long among adults and adolescents. On the other hand, alignment of palatally displaced canines lasted considerably longer in adults compared to adolescents (1 study; MD = 3.8 months; 95% CI = 1.4 to 6.2 months; P = 0.002). The quality of evidence for the meta-analysis was low due to the inclusion of non-randomized studies with considerable risk of bias. Conclusions While existing evidence does not indicate a difference in the overall duration of treatment with fixed appliances between adults and adolescents, the alignment of palatally displaced canines lasted significantly longer in adults. However, our confidence in these estimates is low due to the risk of bias in the included studies. Trial registration PROSPERO: (CRD42019148169)

Download Full-text

Efficacy of early treatment with hydroxychloroquine in people with mild to moderate COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Archives of Medical Science ◽

10.5114/aoms/143147 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Adrian Hernandez ◽

John Ingemi III ◽

Michael Sherman ◽

Vinay Pasupuleti ◽

Joshuan Barboza ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Adverse Events ◽

Early Treatment ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Viral Clearance ◽

Treatment Intervention ◽

Quality Of Evidence ◽

Symptom Resolution ◽

All Cause Mortality ◽

Meta Analyses

IntroductionNo early treatment intervention for COVID-19 has proven effective to date. We systematically reviewed the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as early treatment for COVID-19.Material and methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating hydroxychloroquine for early treatment of COVID-19 were searched in five engines and preprint websites until September 14, 2021. Primary outcomes were hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included COVID-19 symptom resolution, viral clearance, and adverse events. Inverse variance random-effects meta-analyses were performed and quality of evidence (QoE) per outcome was assessed with GRADE methods.ResultsFive RCTs (n=1848) were included. The comparator was placebo in four RCTs and usual care in one RCT. The RCTs used hydroxychloroquine total doses between 1,600 and 4,400 mg and had follow up times between 14 and 90 days. Compared to the controls, early treatment with hydroxychloroquine did not reduce hospitalizations (RR 0.80, 95%CI 0.47-1.36, I2=2%, 5 RCTs, low QoE), all-cause mortality (RR 0.77, 95%CI 0.16-3.68, I2=0%, 5 RCTs, very low QoE), symptom resolution (RR 0.94, 95%CI 0.77-1.16, I2=71%, 3 RCTs, low QoE) or viral clearance at 14 days (RR 1.02, 95%CI 0.82-1.27, I2=65%, 2 RCTs, low QoE). There was a higher non-significant increase of adverse events with hydroxychloroquine vs. controls (RR 2.17, 95%CI 0.86-5.45, I2=92%, 5 RCTs, very low QoE).ConclusionsHydroxychloroquine was not efficacious as early treatment for COVID-19 infections in RCTs with low to very low quality of evidence for all outcomes. More RCTs are needed to elucidate the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as early treatment intervention.

Download Full-text

Technology-assisted rehabilitation following total knee or hip replacement for people with osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders ◽

10.1186/s12891-019-2900-x ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 20 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Xia Wang ◽

David J. Hunter ◽

Giovana Vesentini ◽

Daniel Pozzobon ◽

Manuela L. Ferreira

Keyword(s):

Adverse Events ◽

Usual Care ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Hospital Readmissions ◽

Functional Mobility ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Timed Up And Go ◽

Quality Of Evidence ◽

Evaluation Approach

Abstract Background To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of technology-assisted rehabilitation following total hip/knee replacement (THR/TKR). Methods Six electronic databases were searched without language or time restrictions for relevant studies: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro); from inception to November 7th, 2018. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion criteria to select eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the effectiveness of technology-based interventions, compared with usual care or no intervention for people undergoing THR/TKR. Two reviewers independently extracted trial details (e.g. patients’ profile, intervention, outcomes, attrition and adverse events). Study methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. Quality of evidence was critically appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Results We identified 21 eligible studies assessing telerehabilitation, game- or web-based therapy. There were 17 studies (N = 2188) in post-TKR rehabilitation and 4 studies (N = 783) in post-THR rehabilitation. Compared to usual care, technology-based intervention was more effective in reducing pain (mean difference (MD): − 0.25; 95% confidence interval (CI): − 0.48, − 0.02; moderate evidence) and improving function measured with the timed up-and-go test (MD: -7.03; 95% CI: − 11.18, − 2.88) in people undergoing TKR. No between-group differences were observed in rates of hospital readmissions or treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in those studies. Conclusion There is moderate-quality of evidence showed technology-assisted rehabilitation, in particular, telerehabilitation, results in a statistically significant improvement in pain; and low-quality of evidence for the improvement in functional mobility in people undergoing TKR. The effects were however too small to be clinically significant. For THR, there is very limited low-quality evidence shows no significant effects.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and safety of colchicine in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

RMD Open ◽

10.1136/rmdopen-2021-001746 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 7 (3) ◽

pp. e001746

Author(s):

Kedar Gautambhai Mehta ◽

Tejas Patel ◽

Paragkumar D Chavda ◽

Parvati Patel

Keyword(s):

Adverse Events ◽

Supportive Care ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Ventilatory Support ◽

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Serious Adverse Events ◽

Quality Of Evidence ◽

Randomised Controlled

BackgroundColchicine, an anti-inflammatory drug is prescribed nowadays for COVID-19. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated efficacy and safety of colchicine in patients with COVID-19.MethodsWe searched databases for randomised controlled studies evaluating efficacy and/or safety of colchicine as compared with supportive care in patients with COVID-19. The efficacy outcomes were mortality, ventilatory support, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and length of hospital stay. The safety outcomes were adverse events, serious adverse events and diarrhoea. A meta-analytical summary was estimated using random effects model through Mantle-Hanzle method. An I2 test was used to assess heterogeneity. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess quality of evidence for each outcome.ResultsOut of 69 full texts assessed, 6 studies (16148 patients with COVID-19) were included in meta-analysis. Patients receiving colchicine did not show significant reduction in mortality (risk difference, RD −0.00 (95% CI −0.01 to 0.01), I2=15%), ventilatory support (risk ratio, RR 0.67 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.21), I2=47%), ICU admission (RR 0.49 (95% CI 0.19 to 1.25), I2=34%), length of hospital stay (mean difference: −1.17 (95% CI −3.02 to 0.67), I2=77%) and serious adverse events (RD −0.01 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.00), I2=28%) than those who received supportive care only. Patients receiving colchicine had higher rates of adverse events (RR 1.58 (95% CI 1.07 to 2.33), I2=81%) and diarrhoea (RR 1.93 (95% CI 1.62 to 2.29), I2=0%) than supportive care treated patients. The GRADE quality of evidence was moderate for most outcomes.ConclusionThe moderate quality evidence suggests no benefit of addition of colchicine to the standard care regimen in patients with COVID-19.

Download Full-text

Comparison of Submucosal With Intramuscular or Intravenous Administration of Dexamethasone for Third Molar Surgeries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Frontiers in Surgery ◽

10.3389/fsurg.2021.714950 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 8 ◽

Author(s):

Chengyu Hou ◽

Feng Liu ◽

Chengbin Liu

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Third Molar ◽

Pooled Analysis ◽

Third Molar Surgery ◽

Quality Of Evidence ◽

Pain Scores ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Mandibular Third Molar Surgery

Objective: The study aimed to review evidence on the efficacy of submucosal (SM) administration vs. intravenous (IV) or intramuscular (IM) route of injections of dexamethasone for improving outcomes after mandibular third molar surgery.Methods: PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to 20th May 2021. Early (2–3 days) and late (7 days) outcomes were compared between SM vs. IV or IM dexamethasone. Quality of evidence was assessed based on GRADE.Results: Thirteen trials were included in the systematic review and 10 in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis indicated a significant reduction in early pain with IV dexamethasone but no such difference for late pain compared to the SM group. There was no difference in early and late swelling scores between the SM and IV groups. Pooled analysis indicated no significant difference in early and late trismus between SM and IV groups. Comparing SM with IM dexamethasone, there was no significant difference in early and late pain scores. Swelling in the early and late postoperative periods was not significantly different between the two groups. There was no significant difference in early and late trismus between SM and IM groups. The quality of evidence was low for all outcomes.Conclusion: Low-quality evidence suggests that SM infiltration of dexamethasone results in similar outcomes as compared to IV or IM administration of the drug after third molar surgeries. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to corroborate the current conclusions.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and harms of convalescent plasma for treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Archives of Medical Science ◽

10.5114/aoms/132492 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Alejandro Piscoya ◽

Luis Ng-Sueng ◽

Angela Parra del Riego ◽

Renato Cerna-Viacava ◽

Vinay Pasupuleti ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Adverse Events ◽

Clinical Improvement ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Random Effect ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Serious Adverse Events ◽

Quality Of Evidence ◽

All Cause Mortality ◽

Grade Methodology

IntroductionWe systematically reviewed benefits and harms of convalescent plasma (CP) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.Material and methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing CP effects on hospitalized, adult COVID-19 patients were searched until November 24, 2020. We assessed risk of bias (RoB) using Cochrane RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools. Inverse variance random effect meta-analyses were performed. Quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE methodology. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinical improvement, and adverse events.ResultsFive RCTs (n = 1067) and 6 cohorts (n = 881) were included. Three and 1 RCTs had some concerns and high RoB, respectively; and there was serious RoB in all cohorts. Convalescent plasma did not reduce all-cause mortality in RCTs of severe (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.33–1.10) or moderate (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.09–3.86) COVID-19 vs. standard of care (SOC); CP reduced all-cause mortality vs. SOC in cohorts (RR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.49–0.91). Convalescent plasma did not reduce invasive ventilation vs. SOC in moderate disease (RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.47–1.55). In comparison to placebo + SOC, CP did not affect all-cause mortality (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.48–1.16) or clinical improvement (HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.82–1.40) in severe patients. Adverse and serious adverse events were scarce, similar between CP and controls. Quality of evidence was low or very low for most outcomes.ConclusionsIn comparison to SOC or placebo + SOC, CP did not reduce all-cause mortality in RCTs of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Convalescent plasma did not have an effect on other clinical or safety outcomes. Until now there is no good quality evidence to recommend CP for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Download Full-text

Spinal manipulative therapy and acupuncture for chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs

10.21203/rs.3.rs-1192409/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Ting Yue ◽

Jingjing Li ◽

Jiaman Yang ◽

Dehui Fan

Keyword(s):

Low Back Pain ◽

Back Pain ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Chronic Low Back Pain ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Low Back ◽

Quality Of Evidence ◽

Moderate Quality

Abstract Background Spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) and acupuncture are commonly used for low back pain (LBP) among complementary and alternative therapies. However, it remains unclear which of the two therapies is more effective for LBP. Therefore, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of SMT and acupuncture on LBP. Methods Four electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (all years until July 2021), including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Two reviewers independently abstracted data, assessed risk of bias, and rated the quality of evidence. The primary outcome was pain; secondary outcomes included functional status and adverse events. Review Manager 5.3 software and Stata 12.0 were used for all statistical analyses. Results 9 RCTs with a total of 714 participants were identified, who were on average middle aged (39-60 years) without signs of radiating pain. These trials included patients with mild to moderate pain. Overall, moderate quality of evidence suggested that SMT had better effects for pain relief (MD: 0.32, 95%CI: 0.09 to 0.55, I2=34%) and similar effects in function (MD: 0.24, 95%CI: -0.45 to 0.94, I2=21%) when compared to acupuncture. Moderate quality of evidence showed SMT reduced pain better than acupuncture at month 2 (MD: 0.61, 95%CI: 0.08 to 1.14, I2=0%) and at month 12 (MD: 1.02, 95%CI: 0.28 to 1.75, I2=42%). In addition, Low quality of evidence showed SMT may provide better improvement in pain at month 3 (MD: 0.74, 95%CI: 0.09 to 1.39, I2=42%) and in function at month 4 (MD: 3.50, 95%CI: 0.71 to 6.29). Adverse events associated with SMT and acupuncture were rare and mild. Conclusions SMT showed better effects than acupuncture for chronic low back pain, while SMT and acupuncture had similar effects in functional improvement. Although SMT and acupuncture were tolerable and safe, patients should be informed about the potential risks of adverse events before starting therapy.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and safety of Sihogayonggolmoryeo-tang (Saikokaryukotsuboreito, Chai-Hu-Jia-Long-Gu-Mu-Li-Tang) for post-stroke depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Scientific Reports ◽

10.1038/s41598-019-51055-6 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Chan-Young Kwon ◽

Boram Lee ◽

Sun-Yong Chung ◽

Jong Woo Kim ◽

Aesook Shin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Subgroup Analysis ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Quality Of Evidence ◽

Post Stroke Depression ◽

Grade Approach

Abstract This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to analyze the efficacy and safety of Sihogayonggolmoryeo-tang (SGYMT), a classical herbal medicine consisting of 11 herbs, for treatment of post-stroke depression (PSD). Thirteen databases were comprehensively searched from their inception dates until July 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using SGYMT as a monotherapy or adjunctive therapy for PSD patients were included. Where appropriate data were available, meta-analysis was performed and presented as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the quality of RCTs using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Jadad scale. The quality of evidence for each main outcome was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Twenty-one RCTs with 1,644 participants were included. In the comparison between the SGYMT and antidepressants groups, the SGYMT group scored significantly lower on both the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) (8 studies; MD −2.08, 95% CI −2.62 to −1.53, I2 = 34%) and the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) (2 studies; MD −0.84, 95% CI −1.40 to −0.29, I2 = 19%), and significantly higher on the Barthel index (3 studies; MD 4.30, 95% CI 2.04 to 6.57, I2 = 66%). Moreover, the SGYMT group was associated with significantly fewer adverse events (6 studies; RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.37, I2 = 0%) than the antidepressants group. In the subgroup analysis, SGYMT treatment consistently reduced HAMD scores within the first 8 weeks of treatment, but thereafter this difference between groups disappeared. Comparisons between SGYMT combined with antidepressants, and antidepressants alone, showed significantly lower scores in the combination group for both HAMD (7 studies; MD = −6.72, 95% CI = −11.42 to −2.01, I2 = 98%) and NIHSS scores (4 studies; MD −3.03, 95% CI −3.60 to −2.45, I2 = 87%). In the subgroup analysis, the reductions of HAMD scores in the SGYMT combined with antidepressants group were consistent within 4 weeks of treatment, but disappeared thereafter. The quality of RCTs was generally low and the quality of evidence evaluated by the GRADE approach was rated mostly “Very low” to “Moderate.” The main causes of low quality ratings were the high risk of bias and imprecision of results. Current evidence suggests that SGYMT, used either as a monotherapy or an adjuvant therapy to antidepressants, might have potential benefits for the treatment of PSD, including short-term reduction of depressive symptoms, improvement of neurological symptoms, and few adverse events. However, since the methodological quality of the included studies was generally low and there were no large placebo trials to ensure reliability, it remains difficult to draw definitive conclusions on this topic. Further well-designed RCTs addressing these shortcomings are needed to confirm our results.

Download Full-text

Comparative efficacy of pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments for chronic idiopathic constipation in China: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine ◽

10.1186/s12906-019-2741-z ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 19 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Qingyang Shi ◽

Lizi Tan ◽

Chunxiang Liu ◽

Huijun Wang ◽

Junhua Zhang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Adverse Effects ◽

Bayesian Network ◽

Primary Outcome ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Secondary Outcome ◽

Idiopathic Constipation ◽

Quality Of Evidence ◽

Chronic Idiopathic Constipation ◽

Nonpharmacological Treatments

Abstract Background To provide evidence for medical management of chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) in China based on comparisons of all clinical practical interventions using Bayesian network meta-analysis. Methods We conducted a systematic literature review by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Wanfang Database (inception to May 2019) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for CIC in Chinese people. Only RCTs that recruited participants aged over 18 and diagnosed with CIC by the Rome II, III or IV criteria were included. We used three outcomes to examine efficacy. The risk ratio (RR) of the responder rate, based on ≥3 spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) per week after treatment, was the primary outcome, and the SBM count per week and the Bristol score (BS) were secondary outcomes. In addition, adverse effects (AEs) were also considered a secondary outcome to evaluate safety. We conducted Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects, and the RR or mean difference with its 95% credible interval was calculated. In addition, we ranked all treatments via their cumulative curves (SUCRA) and assessed the quality of evidence according to the GRADE criteria. Results We included a total of 42 trials (6820 participants) of 20 grouped interventions that included pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments. For the primary outcome, fourteen interventions were significantly better than placebo, and Probiotics plus Mosapride (PB + MP) appeared superior to others (GRADE quality of evidence: Moderate to Low), followed by Prucalopride (PP) (High to Low) and Electroacupuncture (EA) (High to Low). For SBM, Compound sodium bicarbonate suppository (CSBS) appeared to be best, with an SUCRA value of 90% (High to Low). For BS, Lactulose plus Probiotics (LT + PB) was superior to others (Moderate to Low), followed by Polyethylene glycol (PEG) (High to Moderate). Although all interventions appeared non-significant when compared with placebo in terms of adverse effects, Lactulose plus Mosapride showed greater risk than others on ranking probability. Conclusions Given the GRADE assessment, PB + MP, PP and EA may be the priory options with moderate certainty in the quality of evidence for the primary outcome. For SBM, a CSBS may be the best option with moderate certainty in the quality of evidence. For BS, PEG may be the priory option with high certainty in the quality of evidence. However, due to a lack of high certainty in the quality of evidence, caution is needed when recommending the interventions. Because of the limitations, an increased number of trials are required for more accurate results.

Download Full-text