VEGFA rs3025039 and biliary atresia susceptibility in Chinese population: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundPrevious studies have suggested an association between vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGFA) rs3025039 polymorphism and biliary atresia (BA). However, this conclusion is controversial and there is no published pooled evidence of this association.MethodsThis study was conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews). A thorough search was performed on databases including PubMed, Embase, and Chinese Biomedical Database up to August 2020. This study included 846 cases of BA and 2821 controls concerning VEGFA rs3025039 polymorphism. We selected relevant studies based on the following inclusion criteria: (1) the study design was case–control and cohort and (2) the patients carried standard clinical diagnoses of BA, etc. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) patients with other related diseases, (2) lack of requisite information and (3) duplicate data. The OR (odd ratio) and the corresponding 95% CI (confidence interval) were calculated to estimate the association.ResultsThis study on VEGFA rs3025039 polymorphism in the Chinese population included 846 cases and 2821 controls. The results showed that there was no significant association between rs3025039 and susceptibility to BA under four genetic models. The results of the subgroup analysis were similar to the overall results.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis shows that rs3025039 was not associated with susceptibility to BA in the Chinese population. Further validation may entail additional research.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020203812.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and safety of instantaneous wave-free ratio in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017868 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 7 (9) ◽

pp. e017868

Author(s):

Joey S.W. Kwong ◽

Sheyu Li ◽

Wan-Jie Gu ◽

Hao Chen ◽

Chao Zhang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Adverse Outcomes ◽

Coronary Revascularisation ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Registration Number ◽

Collection Form ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Meta Analyses

IntroductionEffective selection of coronary lesions for revascularisation is pivotal in the management of symptoms and adverse outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. Recently, instantaneous ‘wave-free’ ratio (iFR) has been proposed as a new diagnostic index for assessing the severity of coronary stenoses without the need of pharmacological vasodilation. Evidence of the effectiveness of iFR-guided revascularisation is emerging and a systematic review is warranted.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and controlled observational studies. Electronic sources including MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, Cochrane databases and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched for potentially eligible studies investigating the effects of iFR-guided strategy in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation. Studies will be selected against transparent eligibility criteria and data will be extracted using a prestandardised data collection form by two independent authors. Risk of bias in included studies and overall quality of evidence will be assessed using validated methodological tools. Meta-analysis will be performed using the Review Manager software. Our systematic review will be performed according to the guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. Results of the systematic review will be disseminated as conference proceedings and peer-reviewed journal publication.Trial registration numberThis protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42017065460.

Download Full-text

Does pain influence force steadiness? A protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042525 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

pp. e042525

Author(s):

Michail Arvanitidis ◽

Deborah Falla ◽

Andy Sanderson ◽

Eduardo Martinez-Valdes

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Force Steadiness ◽

Assessment Development ◽

Ethical Approval ◽

Registration Number ◽

Meta Analyses

IntroductionPerforming contractions with minimum force fluctuations is essential for everyday life as reduced force steadiness impacts on the precision of voluntary movements and functional ability. Several studies have investigated the effect of experimental or clinical musculoskeletal pain on force steadiness but with conflicting findings. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the current literature to determine whether pain, whether it be clinical or experimental, influences force steadiness.Methods and analysisThis protocol for a systematic review was informed and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Key databases will be searched from inception to 31 August 2020, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL Plus, ZETOC and Web of Science. Grey literature and key journals will be also reviewed. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa tool, and the quality of the cumulative evidence assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. If homogeneity exists between groups of studies, meta-analysis will be conducted. Otherwise, a narrative synthesis approach and a vote-counting method will be used, while the results will be presented as net increases or decreases of force steadiness.Ethics and disseminationThe findings will be presented at conferences and the review will be also submitted for publication in a refereed journal. No ethical approval was required.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020196479

Download Full-text

Risk of hypertension with bevacizumab, an antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor A: a systematic review and meta-analysis

International Journal of Basic & Clinical Pharmacology ◽

10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20194287 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 8 (10) ◽

pp. 2354

Author(s):

Mandar K. Shah ◽

Mihika A. Shah ◽

Sharan D. Shah

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Low Dose ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Concurrent Chemotherapy ◽

High Dose ◽

Vascular Endothelial ◽

Exclusion Criteria ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Endothelial Growth Factor

Bevacizumab, a humanized antibody against VEGF, is effective in the treatment of patients with many cancers. However, as with many therapeutic agents, significant side effects are associated with bevacizumab, Hypertension is one of the predominant toxicity. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published clinical trials of bevacizumab to quantify the risk of hypertension. 15 studies following PRISMA guidelines and matching inclusion and exclusion criteria were collected in which a group of patients were either treated with Bevacizumab and a concurrent chemotherapy and another group treated with Placebo and the same chemotherapy. Relative risk (RR) was calculated. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. RevMan 5.3 software was used for the analysis. A total of 13,070 patients were included. Bevacizumab was associated with a significant increased risk of overall hypertension (RR=3.509; 95% C.I:2.451 to 5.023). 11 trials are included for determining the risk of Grade 3 hypertension including 8799 patients with a significant increased risk (RR=3.909; 95%C.I:1.983 to 7.707). 7 trials are included for determining the risk of hypertension at low dose (2.5 mg/kg/cycle) including 3691 patients associated with a significant increased (RR=2.640; 95%C.I: 1.408 to 4.950). 10 trials are included for determining the risk of hypertension at high dose (5 mg/kg/cycle) including 9379 patients associated with a significant (RR=4.036; 95%C.I: 2.948 to 5.525). Our meta-analysis has demonstrated that bevacizumab may be associated with a significantly increased risk of hypertension in patient with a variety of metastatic solid tumors irrespective of dosing.

Download Full-text

A Primer on Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Seminars in Liver Disease ◽

10.1055/s-0038-1655776 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 38 (02) ◽

pp. 103-111 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Nghia Nguyen ◽

Siddharth Singh

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Biomedical Literature ◽

Data Abstraction ◽

Exclusion Criteria ◽

Medical Librarian ◽

Quantitative Synthesis ◽

Review Protocol ◽

Meta Analyses

AbstractWith the rapid growth of biomedical literature, there is increasing need to make meaningful inferences from a comprehensive and complex body of evidence. Systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses offer an objective and summative approach to synthesize knowledge and critically appraise evidence to inform clinical practice. Systematic reviews also help identify key knowledge gaps for future investigation. In this review, the authors provide a step-by-step approach to conducting a systematic review. These include: (1) formulating a focused and clinically-relevant question; (2) designing a detailed review protocol with explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria; (3) performing a systematic literature search of multiple databases and unpublished data, in consultation with a medical librarian, to identify relevant studies; (4) meticulous data abstraction by at least two sets of investigators independently; (5) assessing risk of bias in individual studies; (6) quantitative synthesis with meta-analysis; and (7) critically and transparently ascertaining quality of evidence.

Download Full-text

Quality of meta-analyses of non-opioid, pharmacological, perioperative interventions for chronic postsurgical pain: a systematic review

Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine ◽

10.1136/rapm-2021-102981 ◽

2022 ◽

pp. rapm-2021-102981

Author(s):

Rachel H McGregor ◽

Freda M Warner ◽

Lukas D Linde ◽

Jacquelyn J Cragg ◽

Jill A Osborn ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Measurement Tool ◽

Critical Element ◽

Postsurgical Pain ◽

Chronic Postsurgical Pain ◽

Registration Number ◽

Meta Analyses

BackgroundIn an attempt to aggregate observations from clinical trials, several meta-analyses have been published examining the effectiveness of systemic, non-opioid, pharmacological interventions to reduce the incidence of chronic postsurgical pain.ObjectiveTo inform the design and reporting of future studies, the purpose of our study was to examine the quality of these meta-analyses.Evidence reviewWe conducted an electronic literature search in Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Published meta-analyses, from the years 2010 to 2020, examining the effect of perioperative, systemic, non-opioid pharmacological treatments on the incidence of chronic postsurgical pain in adult patients were identified. Data extraction focused on methodological details. Meta-analysis quality was assessed using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) critical appraisal tool.FindingsOur search yielded 17 published studies conducting 58 meta-analyses for gabapentinoids (gabapentin and pregabalin), ketamine, lidocaine, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and mexiletine. According to AMSTAR 2, 88.2% of studies (or 15/17) were low or critically low in quality. The most common critical element missing was an analysis of publication bias. Trends indicated an improvement in quality over time and association with journal impact factor.ConclusionsWith few individual trials adequately powered to detect treatment effects, meta-analyses play a crucial role in informing the perioperative management of chronic postsurgical pain. In light of this inherent value and despite a number of attempts, high-quality meta-analyses are still needed.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021230941.

Download Full-text

The longitudinal and concurrent relationship between caregiver sensitivity and preschool attachment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PLoS ONE ◽

10.1371/journal.pone.0245061 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 16 (1) ◽

pp. e0245061

Author(s):

Monica C. O’Neill ◽

Shaylea Badovinac ◽

Rebecca Pillai Riddell ◽

Jean-François Bureau ◽

Carla Rumeo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Classification Systems ◽

Effect Sizes ◽

Medium Effect ◽

Future Directions ◽

Longitudinal Association ◽

Registration Number ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

The Relationship

The present study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the concurrent and longitudinal relationship between caregiver sensitivity and preschool attachment measured using the Main and Cassidy (1988) and Cassidy and Marvin (1992) attachment classification systems. This review was pre-registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; Registration Number CRD42017073417) and completed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The present review identified 36 studies made up of 21 samples (N = 3, 847) examining the relationship between caregiver sensitivity and preschool attachment. Eight primary meta-analyses were conducted separately according to the proximity of the assessment of sensitivity to attachment (i.e., concurrent versus longitudinal), operationalization of caregiver sensitivity (i.e., unidimensional versus multidimensional) and attachment categorizations (i.e., secure-insecure versus organized-disorganized). Overall, the meta-analyses revealed higher levels of caregiver sensitivity among caregivers with secure and organized preschoolers, relative to insecure and disorganized preschoolers, respectively. Medium effect sizes (g = .46 to .59) were found for both longitudinal and concurrent associations between caregiver sensitivity and preschool attachment when a unidimensional measure of caregiver sensitivity was employed, compared to small to medium effect sizes (g = .34 to .49) when a multidimensional measure of caregiver sensitivity was employed. Child age at attachment measurement was a significant moderator of the longitudinal association between unidimensional caregiver sensitivity and preschool attachment. Future directions for the literature and clinical implications are discussed.

Download Full-text

An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses on Acupuncture for Post-Acute Stroke Dysphagia

10.20944/preprints201910.0135.v1 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Zi-Yu Tian ◽

Xing Liao ◽

Ying Gao ◽

Shi-Bing Liang ◽

Chong-Yang Zhang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Acute Stroke ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Primary Outcome ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Future Research ◽

Overview Of Systematic Reviews ◽

Registration Number ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Quality Type

Background: Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) on acupuncture treatment for post-acute stroke dysphagia have been published. Due to conflicting results an overview of SRs to summarize and assess the quality of this evidence to determine whether acupuncture is effective for this disease was conducted. Methods: Seven databases were searched for SRs and/or Meta-analysis of RCTs and quasi-RCTs on acupuncture for post-acute stroke dysphagia. Two authors independently identified SRs and meta-analyses, collected data to assess the quality of included SRs and meta analyses according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2). Results: 31 SRs were identified. Quality of 22 SRs was critically low, 5 SRs were low, and 4 Cochrane SRs were moderate when evaluated by AMSTAR2. 17 SRs reported 85.2-96.3% items of PRISMA. Five SRs included explanatory RCTs, 16 SRs included pragmatic RCTs, and 10 SRs included both. Conclusion: Currently evidence on the effectiveness of acupuncture on post-acute stroke dysphagia is low quality. Type of study appeared to have no direct influence on the result, but the primary outcome measures showed a relationship with the quality of SRs. High quality trials with large sample sizes should be the focus of future research. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019134163

Download Full-text

Comparison of various behavioral intervention approaches for tobacco cessation- A protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

10.21203/rs.3.rs-76755/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Priyanka Dhawan ◽

Sonu Goel ◽

Ashutosh Aggarwal ◽

Abhishek Ghosh ◽

Rajesh Vijayvergiya ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Behavior Change ◽

Behavioral Intervention ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Tobacco Cessation ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Scientific Databases ◽

Behavior Change Interventions ◽

Registration Number ◽

Substantial Progress ◽

Meta Analyses

Abstract BackgroundDespite substantial progress in tobacco control in the last two decades, there is limited literature on the most effective tobacco cessation behavioral intervention. This network meta-analysis will compare various behavior change intervention for tobacco cessation and attempt to rank them to identify the best approach for cessation.MethodologyThe network meta-analysis will include randomized controlled trials on behavior change for tobacco cessation. The PICOS framework will be used while selecting the studies from various established scientific databases viz. Pubmed, Scopus, Embase, and other sources including Clinicaltrial.gov. The primary outcome for this review will be sustained or point prevalence tobacco abstinence at 6 months or 12 months. To graphically depict and document the studies Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines along with PRISMA Network Meta-Analysis extension statement will be used.ConclusionThe network meta-analysis will provide the rankings of behavior change interventions thus determining the most and least effective modality for tobacco cessation. The information obtained will be an important guide for policymakers, implementors, and researchers to choose the priority cessation intervention.RegistrationProtocol of this review and network meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews (registration number: CRD42020145768).

Download Full-text