scholarly journals Association between antioxidant vitamins and asthma outcome measures: systematic review and meta-analysis

Thorax ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 64 (7) ◽  
pp. 610-619 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Allen ◽  
J R Britton ◽  
J A Leonardi-Bee
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Antioxidant Vitamins ◽  
Asthma Outcome

scholarly journals SARS-CoV-2 genome and antibodies in breastmilk: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. fetalneonatal-2020-321074
Author(s):  
Faith Zhu ◽  
Carlos Zozaya ◽  
Qi Zhou ◽  
Charmaine De Castro ◽  
Prakesh S Shah
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Respiratory Support ◽  
Common Finding ◽  
Rt Pcr

ObjectiveTo systematically review and meta-analyse the rate of SARS-CoV-2 genome identification and the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in breastmilk of mothers with COVID-19.DesignA systematic review of studies published between January 2019 and October 2020 without study design or language restrictions.SettingData sourced from Ovid Embase Classic+Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, relevant bibliographies and the John Hopkins University COVID-19 database.PatientsMothers with confirmed COVID-19 and breastmilk tested for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR or for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.Main outcome measuresPresence of SARS-CoV-2 genome and antibodies in breastmilk.ResultsWe included 50 articles. Twelve out of 183 women from 48 studies were positive for SARS-CoV-2 genome in their breastmilk (pooled proportion 5% (95% CI 2% to 15%; I2=48%)). Six infants (50%) of these 12 mothers tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, with one requiring respiratory support. Sixty-one out of 89 women from 10 studies had anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody in their breastmilk (pooled proportion 83% (95% CI 32% to 98%; I2=88%)). The predominant antibody detected was IgA.ConclusionsSARS-CoV-2 genome presence in breastmilk is uncommon and is associated with mild symptoms in infants. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may be a more common finding. Considering the low proportion of SARS-CoV-2 genome detected in breastmilk and its lower virulence, mothers with COVID-19 should be supported to breastfeed.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents for the treatment of oesophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e046352
Author(s):  
Lijuan Zhang ◽  
Yanli Song ◽  
Nan Jiang ◽  
Yaqi Huang ◽  
Bo Dong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Growth Factor ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Oesophageal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Positive Effects

ObjectivesDespite remarkable advances in the treatment of oesophageal cancer (OC), the role of antiepidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) agents in treating OC remains controversial. Herein, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to elucidate the efficacy and safety of anti-EGFR agents in patients with OC.DesignMeta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) identified by searching the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biology Medicine, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform databases from inception to December 2019. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.SettingRCTs from any country and healthcare setting.ParticipantsPatients with OC.InterventionsCombination therapy with anti-EGFR agents and conventional treatments versus conventional treatments alone in patients with OC.Primary and secondary outcome measuresOverall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were primary outcome measures, and objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and treatment toxicities were secondary outcome measures.ResultsIn total, 25 RCTs comprising 3406 patients with OC were included. Overall, anti-EGFR treatment significantly improved the OS (HR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.89, p<0.00001), ORR (relative risk (RR): 1.33, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.52, p<0.0001) and DCR (RR: 1.22, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.34, p<0.0001) but not PFS (HR: 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.08, p=0.26). Anti-EGFR treatment was significantly associated with higher incidences of myelosuppression, diarrhoea, acne-like rash and hypomagnesaemia.ConclusionsOverall, anti-EGFR agents have positive effects on OS, the ORR and DCR in OC. However, considering the high incidence of adverse effects, such as myelosuppression, diarrhoea, acne-like rashes and hypomagnesaemia, careful monitoring of patients with OC is recommended during anti-EGFR treatment.Trial registration numberCRD42020169230.

Haemostatic devices in parotid surgery: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
L Allen ◽  
C MacKay ◽  
M H Rigby ◽  
J Trites ◽  
S M Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Facial Nerve ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Operative Blood Loss ◽  
Parotid Surgery

Abstract Objective The Harmonic Scalpel and Ligasure (Covidien) devices are commonly used in head and neck surgery. Parotidectomy is a complex and intricate surgery that requires careful dissection of the facial nerve. This study aimed to compare surgical outcomes in parotidectomy using these haemostatic devices with traditional scalpel and cautery. Method A systematic review of the literature was performed with subsequent meta-analysis of seven studies that compared the use of haemostatic devices to traditional scalpel and cautery in parotidectomy. Outcome measures included: temporary facial paresis, operating time, intra-operative blood loss, post-operative drain output and length of hospital stay. Results A total of 7 studies representing 675 patients were identified: 372 patients were treated with haemostatic devices, and 303 patients were treated with scalpel and cautery. Statistically significant outcomes favouring the use of haemostatic devices included operating time, intra-operative blood loss and post-operative drain output. Outcome measures that did not favour either treatment included facial nerve paresis and length of hospital stay. Conclusion Overall, haemostatic devices were found to reduce operating time, intra-operative blood loss and post-operative drain output.

scholarly journals Generic Patient-Reported Outcomes and Outcome Measures: A Systematic Review Study Protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuki Seidler ◽  
Erika Mosor ◽  
Margaret R Andrews ◽  
Carolina Watson ◽  
Nick Bott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Screening Process ◽  
Patient Reported

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an essential part of health outcome measurement and vital to patient-centricity and valued-based care. Several international consortia have developed core outcome sets and many of them include PROs. PROs are measured by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). PROs and PROMs can be generic or specific to certain diseases or conditions. While the characteristics of generic PROs and PROMs are well recognised as widely relevant and applicable across different domains, diseases and conditions, there is a lack of knowledge on the types of PROs measured by generic PROMs. We also do not know in which disease areas generic PROs and PROMs are commonly used. To date, there has been no systematic review solely focusing on generic PROMs, what they measure and their areas of application. Objectives: This systematic review will identify core PROs measured by generic PROMs used in adult populations and the areas in which they are applied. Methods: We will conduct a systematic review of reviews. The screening process and the reporting will comply with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) 2020 Statement. We will use four databases, Medline [PubMed], CINHAL [Ebsco], Cochrane [Cochrane Library], and PsycINFO [Ovid], and reports from international consortia. Inclusion criteria are systematic reviews, meta-analysis or patient-reported outcome sets developed by international consortia reporting on generic PROMs in adult populations. Articles primarily focusing on patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), children or adolescents, or those not written in English will be excluded. Risk of bias will be assessed by checking if the included articles comply with established guidelines for systematic reviews such as the PRISMA statement. We will extract generic PROMs and PROs measured by these PROMs, and the areas applied from the selected articles and reports. Extracted data and information will be quantitatively and qualitatively synthesised without statistical interference. The quality of the synthesised evidences will be assessed by clarifying the strengths, limitations and possible biases in our review.

scholarly journals Effect of backward walking training on knee osteoarthritis: protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e040726
Author(s):  
Yuxuan Wu ◽  
Cheng Lei ◽  
Zhimin Huangfu ◽  
Kejimu Sunzi ◽  
Changmei Yang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Adjunctive Treatment ◽  
Bias Analysis ◽  
Backward Walking ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionBackward walking (BW) is otherwise known as retrowalking. As opposed to forward walking, BW is a countersequential exercise and is a common method of rehabilitation training and disease-assisted treatment. Studies have shown that BW has a helpful effect on improving lower limb proprioception, gait synergy and improving limb balance. Many studies have concluded that BW can improve the symptoms of patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) and can be used for rehabilitation and adjunctive treatment of KOA, but there is a lack of evidence-based medical evidence.This research aims to provide an update to the most recent available evidence on the effect of BW on patients with KOA .Methods and analysesElectronic databases, such as Ovid/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed, will be searched by us. We will include studies identified from citation until 12 May 2020 and will not be restricted by geographical setting. The search will not be limited to the language of the publication, but the study of human subjects. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the BW training of KOA will be included, with outcome measures including pain, knee function or balance function. The quality of included RCTs will be evaluated according to the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool. A meta-analysis or systematic review will be performed to summarise the effects of BW training. We will perform sensitivity analysis on the sample size of RCTs, meta-regression analysis of the follow-up periods, dosages and baselines of outcome measures, and publication bias analysis.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as this study will not involve confidential personal data. The results of this study will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020185694.

scholarly journals Comparison of Fentanyl, Remifentanil, Sufentanil and Alfentanil in Combination with Propofol for General Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kannan Sridharan ◽  
Gowri Sivaramakrishnan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Opioid Analgesics ◽  
Effect Estimate ◽  
Eye Opening ◽  
Anesthesia Time

Background: Opioid analgesics are commonly used along with propofol during general anesthesia. Due to the dearth of data on the quality of anesthesia achieved with this combination, the present meta-analysis was carried out. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for appropriate studies using a suitable search strategy. Randomized clinical trials comparing the combination of remifentanil/sufentanil/alfentanil with propofol with fentanyl and propofol, were included. The outcome measures were as follows: total propofol dose to achieve the desired general anesthesia; time of onset and duration of general anesthesia; depth of general anesthesia; and recovery time (time for eye-opening and time taken for extubation). Risk of bias was assessed and Forest plots were generated for eligible outcomes. The weighted mean difference [95% confidence intervals] was used as the effect estimate. Results: Fourteen studies were included in the systematic review and 13 were included in the metaanalysis. Statistically significant differences were observed for remifentanil in comparison to fentanyl when combined with propofol: Propofol dose (in mg) -76.18 [-94.72, -57.64]; time of onset of anesthesia (min) -0.44 [-0.74, -0.15]; time taken for eye-opening (min) -3.95 [-4.8, -3.1]; and time for extubation (min) -3.53 [-4.37, -2.7]. No significant differences were observed for either sufentanil or alfentanil about the dose of propofol required and due to scanty data, pooling of the data could not be attempted for other outcome measures for either sufentanil or alfentanil. Conclusion: To conclude, we found that remifentanil has a statistically significant anesthetic profile than fentanyl when combined with propofol. Scanty evidence for both alfentanil and sufentanil precludes any such confirmation.

Effect of Intranasal Corticosteroids on Secondary Sinonasal Symptoms: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 601-607
Author(s):  
Neal Deot ◽  
Jeremy Barr ◽  
Nicholas Mankowski ◽  
Jacob Brunner ◽  
Edward D. McCoul
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Facial Pain ◽  
English Language ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Included Study ◽  
Specific Symptom ◽  
Postnasal Drip ◽  
Pressure Headache ◽  
Sinonasal Symptoms

Background Intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) sprays are indicated for use in the treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis and include aqueous and nonaqueous formulations. Secondary symptoms of rhinitis include postnasal drip, facial pain/pressure, headache, cough, and ear fullness. The effectiveness of INCS on these specific symptoms, as well as the comparative effectiveness of aqueous and nonaqueous formulations, is poorly defined. Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of aqueous versus nonaqueous INCS formulations on less common sinonasal symptoms. Methods A systematic review was conducted of English-language, randomized controlled trials, with adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) standard. Studies that did not provide quantitative data on relief of postnasal drip, facial pain/pressure, headache, cough, and ear fullness were excluded. An itemized assessment of the risk of bias was conducted for each included study. Results Of the 118 studies identified, 9 met the criteria for qualitative analysis. An effect on postnasal drip was reported in 5 studies, facial pain/pressure in 2 studies, and cough in 2 studies. A reduction in a specific symptom was reported in about half of these studies, with heterogenous outcome measures. Only 1 study reported the effect of a nonaqueous formulation on a specific symptom. No studies reported an effect on aural fullness. Conclusions Limited data are available regarding the effectiveness of aqueous or nonaqueous INCS on secondary symptoms in adult patients with rhinitis. Further study is needed using homogenous outcome measures and direct comparison of INCS formulations.

scholarly journals Remote home monitoring (virtual wards) during the COVID-19 pandemic: a living systematic review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cecilia Vindrola-Padros ◽  
Kelly E Singh ◽  
Manbinder S Sidhu ◽  
Theo Georghiou ◽  
Chris Sherlaw-Johnson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Patient Safety ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Secondary Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Eligible Patient ◽  
Home Monitoring ◽  
Healthcare Sector ◽  
Future Research ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACTObjectivesThe aim of this review was to analyse the implementation and impact of remote home monitoring models (virtual wards) during COVID-19, identifying their main components, processes of implementation, target patient populations, impact on outcomes, costs and lessons learnt. The review will be kept ‘live’ through regular updates.DesignThe review was designed as a living systematic review to capture a rapidly evolving evidence base. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- Analysis (PRISMA) statement.SettingThe review included remote home monitoring models led by primary and secondary care across seven countries.Participants17 examples of remote home monitoring models were included in the review.Main outcome measuresImpact of remote home monitoring on virtual length of stay, escalation, Emergency department attendance/reattendance, admission/readmission and mortality.ResultsThe primary aim of the remote home monitoring models was the early identification of deterioration for patients self-managing COVID-19 symptoms at home. Most models were led by secondary care. Broad criteria for the eligible patient population were used and confirmation of COVID-19 was not required (in most cases). Monitoring was carried via online platforms, paper-based systems with telephone calls or (less frequently) through wearable sensors. We could not reach conclusions regarding patient safety and the identification of early deterioration due to lack of standardised reporting across articles and missing data. None of the articles reported any form of economic analysis, beyond how the resources were used.ConclusionsThe review pointed to variability in the implementation of the models, in relation to healthcare sector, monitoring approach and selected outcome measures. Lack of standardisation on reporting prevented conclusions on the impact of remote home monitoring on patient safety or early escalation during COVID-19. Future research should focus on staff and patient experiences of care and potential inequalities in patients’ access to these models. Attention needs to be paid to the processes used to implement these models, the evaluation of their impact on patient outcomes through the use of comparators, the use of risk-stratification tools, and cost-effectiveness of the models and their sustainability.Protocol registrationThe review protocol was published on PROSPERO (CRD: 42020202888).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document