scholarly journals The Effects of Modified Simiao Decoction in the Treatment of Gouty Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ya-Fei Liu ◽  
Ying Huang ◽  
Cai-Yu-Zhu Wen ◽  
Jun-Jun Zhang ◽  
Guo-Lan Xing ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Uric Acid ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Gouty Arthritis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Anti Inflammation

The modified Simiao decoctions (MSD) have been wildly applied in the treatment of gouty arthritis in China. However, the evidence needs to be evaluated by a systematic review and meta-analysis. After filtering, twenty-four randomised, controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of MSD and anti-inflammation medications and/or urate-lowering therapies in patients with gouty arthritis were included. In comparison with anti-inflammation medications, urate-lowering therapies, or coadministration of anti-inflammation medications and urate-lowering therapies, MSD monotherapy significantly lowered serum uric acid (p<0.00001, mean difference = −90.62, and 95% CI [−128.38, −52.86];p<0.00001, mean difference = −91.43, and 95% CI [−122.38, −60.49];p=0.02, mean difference = −40.30, and 95% CI [−74.24, −6.36], resp.). Compared with anti-inflammation medications and/or urate-lowering therapies, MSD monotherapy significantly decreased ESR (p<0.00001; mean difference = −8.11; 95% CI [−12.53, −3.69]) and CRP (p=0.03; mean difference = −3.21; 95% CI [−6.07, −0.36]). Additionally, the adverse effects (AEs) of MSD were fewer (p<0.00001; OR = 0.08; 95% CI [0.05, 0.16]). MSD are effective in the treatment of gouty arthritis through anti-inflammation and lowering urate. However, the efficacy of MSD should be estimated with more RCTs.

scholarly journals Cannabinoids for adult cancer-related pain: systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elaine G Boland ◽  
Michael I Bennett ◽  
Victoria Allgar ◽  
Jason W Boland
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesThere is increased interest in cannabinoids for cancer pain management and legislative changes are in progress in many countries. This study aims to determine the beneficial and adverse effects of cannabis/cannabinoids compared with placebo/other active agents for the treatment of cancer-related pain in adults.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis to identify randomised controlled trials of cannabinoids compared with placebo/other active agents for the treatment of cancer-related pain in adults to determine the effect on pain intensity (primary outcome) and adverse effects, including dropouts. Searches included Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane and grey literature. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed.ResultsWe identified 2805 unique records, of which six randomised controlled trials were included in this systematic review (n=1460 participants). Five studies were included in the meta-analysis (1442 participants). All had a low risk of bias. There was no difference between cannabinoids and placebo for the difference in the change in average Numeric Rating Scale pain scores (mean difference −0.21 (−0.48 to 0.07, p=0.14)); this remained when only phase III studies were meta-analysed: mean difference −0.02 (−0.21 to 0.16, p=0.80). Cannabinoids had a higher risk of adverse events when compared with placebo, especially somnolence (OR 2.69 (1.54 to 4.71), p<0.001) and dizziness (OR 1.58 (0.99 to 2.51), p=0.05). No treatment-related deaths were reported. Dropouts and mortality rates were high.ConclusionsStudies with a low risk of bias showed that for adults with advanced cancer, the addition of cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain.Trial registration numberCRD42018107662.

scholarly journals Protective Treatments against Endothelial Glycocalyx Degradation in Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (15) ◽  
pp. 6994
Author(s):  
Hasnain Q. R. B. Khan ◽  
Gwendolen C. Reilly
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
The Body ◽  
Endothelial Glycocalyx ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Post Operation ◽  
Mean Differences ◽  
Randomised Controlled

The aim was to explore the body of literature focusing on protective treatments against endothelial glycocalyx degradation in surgery. A comprehensive systematic review of relevant articles was conducted across databases. Inclusion criteria: (1) treatments for the protection of the endothelial glycocalyx in surgery; (2) syndecan-1 used as a biomarker for endothelial glycocalyx degradation. Outcomes analysed: (1) mean difference of syndecan-1 (2) correlation between glycocalyx degradation and inflammation; (3) correlation between glycocalyx degradation and extravasation. A meta-analysis was used to present mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Seven articles with eight randomised controlled trials were included. The greatest change from baseline values in syndecan-1 concentrations was generally from the first timepoint measured post-operatively. Interventions looked to either dampen the inflammatory response or fluid therapy. Methylprednisolone had the highest mean difference in plasma syndecan-1 concentrations. Ulinastatin showed correlations between alleviation of degradation and preserving vascular permeability. In this systematic review of 385 patients, those treated were more likely than those treated with placebo to exhibit less shedding of the endothelial glycocalyx. Methylprednisolone has been shown to specifically target the transient increase of glycocalyx degradation immediately post-operation and has displayed anti-inflammatory effects. We have proposed suggestions for improved uniformity and enhanced confidence for future randomised controlled trials.

scholarly journals Effect of Uric Acid-Lowering Agents on Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hongxuan Xu ◽  
Yunqing Liu ◽  
Lingbing Meng ◽  
Li Wang ◽  
Deping Liu
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Uric Acid ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Heart Failure Patients ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background: Elevated serum uric acid (SUA) level is considered an independent predictor of all-cause mortality and the combined endpoint of death or readmission in cardiovascular disease patients. However, the causal relationship between uric acid-lowering therapies (ULTs) and heart failure is still controversial.Design: Meta-analyses were performed to systematically compile available evidence to determine the overall effect of ULTs on heart failure patients.Method: We conducted this systematic review following the PRISMA statement guidelines. Databases were searched to identify randomised controlled trials related to the influence of a ULT intervention in people with heart failure. Data extracted from the included studies were subjected to a meta-analysis to compare the effects of ULTs to a control.Results: Pooled analysis of left ventricular ejection fraction (LEVF) showed an insignificant result towards the ULT group (MD, 1.63%; 95%CI, −1.61 to 4.88; p = 0.32; three studies). Pooled analysis of the 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) showed an insignificant result towards the ULT group (MD, 4.59; 95%CI, −12.683 to 22.00; p = 0.61; four studies). Pooled analysis of BNP/NT-pro-BNP led to a nearly statistically significant result towards the ULT group (SMD, −0.30; 95%CI, −0.64 to 0.04; p = 0.08; five studies). Pooled analysis of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death between ULTs (all XOIs) and placebo did not show a significant difference (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.74 to 2.15, p = 0.39).Conclusion: ULTs did not improve LVEF, BNP/NT-pro-BNP, 6MWT, all-cause mortality, and CV death in heart failure patients. UA may just be a risk marker of heart failure.

scholarly journals Oral Bicarbonate Therapy in Non-Haemodialysis Dependent Chronic Kidney Disease Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 208 ◽  
Author(s):  
May Khei Hu ◽  
Miles D. Witham ◽  
Roy L. Soiza
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Metabolic Acidosis ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Bicarbonate Therapy ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Metabolic acidosis is a common complication in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients, and is associated with an accelerated decline in renal function. Oral bicarbonate therapy has been used to counteract metabolic acidosis in CKD for decades. However, until recently, there have been very few intervention studies testing the effectiveness of bicarbonate therapy at improving metabolic acidosis or its consequences in patients with CKD. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to examine the outcomes of all published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the effect of oral bicarbonate therapy in adults with CKD. Ovid MEDLINE®, EMBASE® and Cochrane Library were searched in mid-October 2018 for English literature, with no restrictions applied to the publication status or date. Seven RCTs that recruited 815 participants met our inclusion criteria after full text review. Oral bicarbonate supplementation resulted in a slightly higher estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (mean difference 3.1 mL/min per 1.73 m2; 95% CI 1.3–4.9) and serum bicarbonate levels (mean difference 3.4 mmol/L; 95% CI 1.9–4.9) at the end of follow-up (three months to five years) compared to those given placebo or conventional CKD treatment. When limited to studies reporting outcomes at one year, the positive effect of oral bicarbonate therapy on eGFR was attenuated. There were no significant treatment effects in other parameters such as systolic blood pressure (BP) and weight. These findings should be interpreted with caution and further trial evidence is needed to establish the net overall benefit or harm of oral bicarbonate therapy in CKD.

Interferon-beta injection in multiple sclerosis patients is related to the induction of headache and flu-like pain symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonardo Gomes Pereira ◽  
Gabriela Trevisan ◽  
Patrícia Rodrigues ◽  
Fernanda Tibolla Viero ◽  
Julia Maria Frare ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
First Choice ◽  
Pain Symptoms ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Multiple Sclerosis Patients

: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic neurodegenerative, inflammatory and autoimmune disease characterised by the demyelination of the central nervous system. One of the main approaches to treating MS is the use of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). Among the DMTs are interferons (IFNs), which are cytokines responsible for controlling the activity of the immune system, exerting immunomodulatory, antiviral, and antiproliferative activities. IFN-beta (IFN-β) is the first-choice drug used to treat relapsing-remitting MS. However, the administration of IFN-β causes numerous painful adverse effects, resulting in lower adherence to the treatment. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the headache and flu-like pain symptoms observed after IFNβ injection in MS patients using a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. The search of research databases identified 2370 articles. Nine articles were included (three involving IFNβ-1b and six involving IFNβ-1a). All studies included in the meta-analysis had a low risk of bias. Headache and flu-like pain symptoms frequency increased in MS patients treated with IFN-β. Thus, the adverse effects of headache and flu-like pain symptoms appear to be linked to IFN-β treatment in MS. The protocol of the study was registered in the Prospective International Registry of Systematic Reviews.

scholarly journals Nuts and their Effect on Gut Microbiota, Gut Function and Symptoms in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Nutrients ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
pp. 2347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice C. Creedon ◽  
Estella S. Hung ◽  
Sarah E. Berry ◽  
Kevin Whelan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Gut Microbiota ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Faecal Microbiota ◽  
Gut Function ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Impact

Nuts contain fibre, unsaturated fatty acids and polyphenols that may impact the composition of the gut microbiota and overall gut health. This study aimed to assess the impact of nuts on gut microbiota, gut function and gut symptoms via a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in healthy adults. Eligible RCTs were identified by systematic searches of five electronic databases, hand searching of conference abstracts, clinical trials databases, back-searching reference lists and contact with key stakeholders. Eligible studies were RCTs administering tree nuts or peanuts in comparison to control, measuring any outcome related to faecal microbiota, function or symptoms. Two reviewers independently screened papers, performed data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Outcome data were synthesised as weighted mean difference (WMD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) using a random effects model. This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019138169). Eight studies reporting nine RCTs were included, investigating almonds (n = 5), walnuts (n = 3) and pistachios (n = 1). Nut consumption significantly increased Clostridium (SMD: 0.40; 95% CI, 0.10, 0.71; p = 0.01), Dialister (SMD: 0.44; 95% CI, 0.13, 0.75; p = 0.005), Lachnospira (SMD: 0.33; 95% CI, 0.02, 0.64; p = 0.03) and Roseburia (SMD: 0.36; 95% CI, 0.10, 0.62; p = 0.006), and significantly decreased Parabacteroides (SMD: −0.31; 95% CI, −0.62, −0.00; p = 0.05). There was no effect of nuts on bacterial phyla, diversity or stool output. Further parallel design RCTs, powered to detect changes in faecal microbiota and incorporating functional and clinical outcomes, are needed.

scholarly journals Inhaled methoxyflurane (Penthrox) for analgesia in trauma: a systematic review protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael M. Eager ◽  
Grant S. Nolan ◽  
Kathryn Tonks ◽  
Anoopama Ramjeeawon ◽  
Natalie Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Acute Trauma ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background More than 75% of patients presenting to the Emergency Department are suffering symptoms of pain. Despite this, 67% will not receive any analgesia. Methoxyflurane is a fluorinated hydrocarbon gas which has analgesic properties when inhaled. Penthrox is a methoxyflurane autoinhaler recently licenced in Europe. Its ease of administration, safety, and fast onset of action make it of particular relevance to emergency medicine. Additionally, outside the hospital, it has the advantage of increased temperature stability and portability over current standard care. New evidence of its efficacy is emerging; however, currently, its use in Europe is not widespread. The objective of this study will be to systematically evaluate the evidence on inhaled methoxyflurane to determine if it is a superior analgesia in the acute trauma setting. Methods We designed and registered a study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis on randomised controlled trials, comparing inhaled methoxyflurane and either placebo or standard care. A comprehensive search will be conducted from database inception onwards in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane CENTRAL database, concurrent with a search of the grey literature for other relevant studies, including clinical trial databases. Only randomised controlled trials will be included. No limitations will be imposed on publication status or language of publication. The primary outcome will be mean difference in patient-reported pain at time points within the first 30 min of administration. Secondary outcomes will be mean difference in time to clinically significant pain relief and relative risk of adverse effects. Two reviewers will independently screen all returned studies and collect data. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or referral to a third reviewer. Individual study methodological quality will be appraised using an appropriate tool. If feasible, we will conduct a random effects meta-analysis; if this is not possible, we will construct a narrative synthesis. Discussion This systematic review will summarise the best available evidence and definitively establish if inhaled methoxyflurane is a superior analgesia to standard care in the acute trauma setting. This knowledge will directly impact emergency care in the UK and worldwide and may require amendments to European pain relief guidelines. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020189119.

scholarly journals Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions for reducing transmission of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e041383
Author(s):  
Krishna Regmi ◽  
Cho Mar Lwin
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Pharmaceutical Interventions

IntroductionImplementing non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) protect the public from COVID-19. However, the impact of NPIs has been inconsistent and remains unclear. This study, therefore, aims to measure the impact of major NPIs (social distancing, social isolation and quarantine) on reducing COVID-19 transmission.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis research of both randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. We will undertake a systematic search of: MEDLINE, Embase, Allied & Complementary Medicine, COVID-19 Research, WHO database on COVID-19, ClinicalTrails.Gov for clinical trials on COVID-19, Cochrane Resources on Coronavirus (COVID-19), Oxford COVID-19 Evidence Service and Google Scholar for published and unpublished literatures on COVID-19 including preprint engines such as medRxiv, bioRxiv, Litcovid and SSRN for unpublished studies on COVID-19 and will be reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Outcomes of interest for impact analysis will include the reduction of COVID-19 transmission, avoiding crowds and restricting movement, isolating ill and psychological impacts. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist has been used for this protocol. For quality of included studies, we will use the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias for randomised controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will grade the certainty of the evidence for all outcome measures across studies. Random-effects model for meta-analysis will measure the effect size of NPIs or the strengths of relationships. For quantitative data, risk ratio or OR, absolute risk difference (for dichotomous outcome data), or mean difference or standardised mean difference (for continuous data) and their 95% CIs will be calculated. Where statistical pooling is not possible, a narrative synthesis will be conducted for the included studies. To assess the heterogeneity of effects, I2 together with the observed effects will be evaluated to provide the true effects in the analysis.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethical approval from an institutional review board or research ethics committee is not required as primary data will not be collected. The final results of this study will be published in an open-access peer-reviewed journal, and abstract will be presented at suitable national/international conferences or workshops. We will also share important information with public health authorities as well as with the WHO. In addition, we may post the submitted manuscript under review to medRxiv, or other relevant preprint servers.Trial registration numberCRD42020207338.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document