scholarly journals Use of NSAIDs via the Rectal Route for the Prevention of Pancreatitis after ERCP in All-Risk Patients: An Updated Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lei-Min Yu ◽  
Ke-Jia Zhao ◽  
Bin Lu
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Rectal Administration ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Rectal Route ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Inflammatory Drugs

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of the rectal administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). We searched database for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing periprocedural rectal administration of NSAIDs with placebo for the prevention of PEP. The rectal administration of NSAIDs significantly decreased the incidence of PEP in the whole patient population (odds ratio (OR): 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.30–0.64, P<0.0001), high-risk patients (OR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.19–0.58, P=0.0001), and all-risk patients (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.31–0.84, P=0.008). The incidence of PEP was reduced by indomethacin (OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.36–0.82, P=0.004) and diclofenac (OR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.15–0.46, P<0.00001). The administration of NSAIDs before (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.25–0.73, P=0.002) or after (OR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.27–0.56, P<0.00001) ERCP reduced PEP. The NSAIDs were associated with a reduction in mild PEP (OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.36–0.83, P=0.004) and moderate-to-severe PEP (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.28–0.79, P=0.004). The rectal administration of NSAIDs reduced the incidence of PEP in high-risk and all-risk patients.

scholarly journals Thoracoscopic surgical ablation or catheter ablation for patients with atrial fibrillation? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 763-773
Author(s):  
Shaolei Yi ◽  
Xiaojun Liu ◽  
Wei Wang ◽  
Lianghua Chen ◽  
Haitao Yuan
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Catheter Ablation ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Invasive Procedure ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Surgical Ablation ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract OBJECTIVES There is an urgent need to understand the difference in the influence of thoracoscopic surgical ablation (TSA) and catheter ablation (CA) on clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of TSA versus CA in patients with AF. METHODS Databases including EMBASE, Clinical Trials, PubMed and Cochrane Central Registered Control System were screened for the retrieval of articles. A direct meta-analysis of TSA versus CA was conducted. The I2 test analysis was performed to evaluate heterogeneity. The Begg–Mazumdar test and the Harbord–Egger test were used to detect publication bias. The primary efficacy outcome was freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia, while the primary safety outcome was severe adverse event (SAE) occurrence. RESULTS Of the 860 identified articles, 6, comprising 466 participants, were finally included. The rate of freedom from AT was higher in the TSA group (75%) than in the CA group (57.1%) (odds ratio 0.41; 95% confidence interval 0.2–0.85; P = 0.02; I2 = 57%). A larger number of SAEs were observed in the TSA group than in the CA group (odds ratio 0.16; 95% confidence interval 0.006–0.46; P = 0.0006; I2 = 44%). The result of the subgroup analysis of 3 studies that enrolled AF patients without a history of ablation showed that the incidence of AT was comparable in both arms. The ablation procedure and hospitalization durations were longer in the TSA arm. CONCLUSIONS In our study, TSA was associated with better efficacy but a higher rate of SAEs compared to CA. In addition, TSA did not show better efficacy results as the first invasive procedure in the sub-analysis of patients with paroxysmal AF or early persistent AF. Therefore, doctors should recommend either TSA or CA to patients with AF after due consideration of the aforementioned findings.

The Efficacy of Daily Bathing with Chlorhexidine for Reducing Healthcare-Associated Bloodstream Infections: A Meta-analysis

2012 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
John C. O'Horo ◽  
Germana L. M. Silva ◽  
L. Silvia Munoz-Price ◽  
Nasia Safdar
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Central Line ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Surgical Trauma ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity ◽  
Healthcare Associated

Design.Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies to assess the efficacy of daily bathing with chlorhexidine (CHG) for prevention of healthcare-associated bloodstream infections (BSIs).Setting.Medical, surgical, trauma, and combined medical-surgical intensive care units (ICUs) and long-term acute care hospitals.Participants.Inpatients.Methods.Data on patient population, diagnostic criteria for BSIs, form and concentration of topical CHG, incidence of BSIs, and study design were extracted.Results.One randomized controlled trial and 11 nonrandomized controlled trials reporting a total of 137,392 patient-days met the inclusion criteria; 291 patients in the CHG arm developed a BSI over 67,775 patient-days, compared with 557 patients in the control arm over 69,617 catheter-days. CHG bathing resulted in a reduced incidence of BSIs: the pooled odds ratio using a random-effects model was 0.44 (95% confidence interval, 0.33–0.59; P< .00001). Statistical heterogeneity was moderate, with an I2 of 58%. For the subgroup of studies that examined central line–associated BSIs, the odds ratio was 0.40 (95% confidence interval, 0.27–0.59).Conclusions.Daily bathing with CHG reduced the incidence of BSIs, including central line-associated BSIs, among patients in the medical ICU. Further studies are recommended to determine the optimal frequency, method of application, and concentration of CHG as well as the comparative effectiveness of this strategy relative to other preventive measures available for reducing BSIs. Future studies should also examine the efficacy of daily CHG bathing in non-ICU populations at risk for BSI.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33(3):257-267

scholarly journals Meta-analysis of the efficacy of sexual intercourse for distal ureteric stones

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 497-504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bin Xu ◽  
Huilei Yan ◽  
Xuebao Zhang ◽  
Yuanshan Cui
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Sexual Intercourse ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Ureteral Stones ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Expulsion Rate ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Distal Ureteric Stones

Objective This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy of sexual intercourse for treatment of distal ureteral stones. Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of sexual intercourse for treatment of distal ureteral stones were searched using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Results Three RCTs comprising 240 patients were included in the meta-analysis, which showed that sexual intercourse was effective in treating distal ureteral stones. The expulsion rate of distal ureteral stones at the second week (odds ratio [OR] = 6.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.66 to 11.94), expulsion rate of distal ureteral stones at the fourth week (OR = 4.00, 95% CI: 2.09 to 7.64), and number of analgesic injections (mean difference [MD] = −0.79, 95% CI: −1.51 to −0.08) indicated that sexual intercourse was more effective than placebo. However, the mean expulsion time of distal ureteral stones (MD = −3.98, 95% CI: −8.77 to 0.81) showed no difference between sexual intercourse and placebo. Conclusions Compared with placebo, sexual intercourse exhibited greater efficacy for the treatment of distal ureteral stones, whilst potentially alleviating pain.

scholarly journals Convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19 patients: a protocol of a prospective meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lajos Szakó ◽  
Nelli Farkas ◽  
Szabolcs Kiss ◽  
Szilárd Váncsa ◽  
Noémi Zádori ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Organ Failure ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Plasma Therapy ◽  
Monthly Basis ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infection with possible serious consequences. The plasma of recovered patients might serve as treatment, which we aim to assess in the form of a prospective meta-analysis focusing on mortality, multi-organ failure, duration of intensive care unit stay, and adverse events. Methods A systematic search was conducted to find relevant registered randomized controlled trials in five trial registries. A comprehensive search will be done continuously on a monthly basis in MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science to find the results of previously registered randomized controlled trials. The selection will be done by two independent authors. Data extraction will be carried out by two other independent reviewers. Disagreements will be resolved by a third investigator. An update of the search of the registries and the first search of the databases will be done on the 21st of July. Data synthesis will be performed following the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration. In the case of dichotomous outcomes (mortality and organ failure), we will calculate pooled risk ratios with a 95% confidence interval (CI) from two-by-two tables (treatment Y/N, outcome Y/N). Data from models with multivariate adjustment (hazard ratios, odds ratio, risk ratio) will be preferred for the analysis. P less than 0.05 will be considered statistically significant. In the case of ICU stay, weighted mean difference with a 95% confidence interval will be calculated. Heterogeneity will be tested with I2, and χ2 tests. Meta-analysis will be performed if at least 3 studies report on the same outcome and population. Discussion Convalescent plasma therapy is a considerable alternative in COVID-19, which we aim to investigate in a prospective meta-analysis.

scholarly journals Vitamin D supplementation, COVID-19 and disease severity: a meta-analysis

QJM ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
K Shah ◽  
D Saxena ◽  
D Mavalankar
Keyword(s):  
Vitamin D ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vitamin D Supplementation ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Objective: Current meta-analysis aims to understand the effect of oral supplementation of vitamin D on intensive care unit (ICU) requirement and mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods: Databases PubMed, preprint servers, and google scholar were searched from December 2019 to December 2020. Authors searched for the articles assessing role of vitamin D supplementation on COVID-19. Cochrane RevMan tool was used for quantitative assessment of the data, where heterogeneity was assessed using I2 and Q statistics and data was expressed using odds ratio with 95% confidence interval. Results: Final meta-analysis involved pooled data of 532 hospitalized patients (189 on vitamin D supplementation and 343 on usual care/placebo) of COVID-19 from three studies (Two randomized controlled trials, one retrospective case-control study). Statistically (p&lt;0.0001) lower ICU requirement was observed in patients with vitamin D supplementation as compared to patients without supplementations (odds ratio: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.210-0.626). However, it suffered from significant heterogeneity, which reduced after sensitivity analysis. In case of mortality, vitamin D supplements has comparable findings with placebo treatment/usual care (odds ratio: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.413-2.113; p=0.87). The studies did not show any publication bias and had fair quality score. Subgroup analysis could not be performed due to limited number of studies and hence dose and duration dependent effect of vitamin D could not be evaluated. Conclusions: Although the current meta-analysis findings indicate potential role of vitamin D in improving COVID-19 severity in hospitalized patients, more robust data from randomized controlled trials are needed to substantiate its effects on mortality.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document