scholarly journals A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis on the Efficacy of Medications in the Treatment of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation in Japan

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Atsushi Nakajima ◽  
Ayako Shoji ◽  
Kinya Kokubo ◽  
Ataru Igarashi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Bayesian Network ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Relative Efficacy ◽  
Idiopathic Constipation ◽  
Chronic Idiopathic Constipation ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background. In the 2010s, medications with new mechanisms were introduced in Japan for the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC). A few systematic reviews have compared medications’ relative efficacy, but the reviews included studies on patients from various races, even though the mechanism of CIC is considered to differ between races. The aim of this study was to use a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the relative efficacy of these medications in Japanese patients. Methods. We conducted a meta-analysis and report it here according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). We identified studies by searching MEDLINE (via the PubMed interface) and the Cochrane Library and ICHUSHI databases and included randomized clinical trials that compared medications for CIC with placebo in Japanese adults. Two reviewers independently screened and assessed articles, abstracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We pooled data by random-effects meta-analyses and also performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to indirectly compare data. Results. The present systematic review and meta-analyses included 1460 patients in 6 randomized clinical trials: 2 on linaclotide, 3 on elobixibat, 2 on lubiprostone, and 1 on lactulose. The results of direct comparisons showed that linaclotide, elobixibat, and lubiprostone were superior to placebo in the change of spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) within 1 week: linaclotide, 1.95 (95% CI, 1.51-2.39); elobixibat, 5.69 (95% CI, 3.31-8.07); and lubiprostone, 2.41 (95% CI, 0.82-4.01). The Bayesian network meta-analysis showed consistent results. Elobixibat 10 mg was ranked first for the increase in SBMs and complete SBMs within 1 week and the time to first SBM. Lubiprostone 48 μg was ranked first for the proportion of patients with SBM within 24 hours. Conclusion. Our direct and indirect meta-analyses revealed that the new CIC medications available in Japan have equal efficacy but that elobixibat and lubiprostone are highly likely to be more efficacious.

scholarly journals Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review with network meta-analysis including individual patient data (The LIVING VACCINE Project)

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Kwasi Korang ◽  
Sophie Juul ◽  
Emil Eik Nielsen ◽  
Joshua Feinberg ◽  
Faiza Siddiqui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Viral Vector ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Harmful Effects

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) which has rapidly spread worldwide. Several human randomized clinical trials assessing potential vaccines are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living systematic review that continuously assesses the beneficial and harmful effects of all available vaccines for COVID-19. Methods/design We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any vaccine aiming to prevent COVID-19 (including but not limited to messenger RNA; DNA; non-replicating viral vector; replicating viral vector; inactivated virus; protein subunit; dendritic cell; other vaccines) with any comparator (placebo; “active placebo;” no intervention; standard care; an “active” intervention; another vaccine for COVID-19) for participants in all age groups. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality; a diagnosis of COVID-19; and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be quality of life and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analyses, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Within-study bias will be assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) and Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approaches will be used to assess certainty of evidence. Observational studies describing harms identified during the search for trials will also be included and described and analyzed separately. Discussion COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review assessing the beneficial and harmful effects of different vaccines is urgently needed. This living systematic review will regularly inform best practice in vaccine prevention and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020196492

scholarly journals Regenerative surgical treatment of furcation defects: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (S22) ◽  
pp. 352-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Søren Jepsen ◽  
Stefano Gennai ◽  
Josefine Hirschfeld ◽  
Zamira Kalemaj ◽  
Jacopo Buti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
Bayesian Network ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Furcation Defects

scholarly journals Efficacy of Adjunctive Treatments Added to Olanzapine or Clozapine for Weight Control in Patients with Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yun-Jung Choi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Weight Reduction ◽  
Weight Control ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Psychiatric Symptoms ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objectives. This study was conducted to review systematically adjunctive treatments for weight reduction in patients with schizophrenia and compare efficacies of clinical trials through meta-analysis, so as to provide effective clinical guideline regarding weight control for patients taking atypical antipsychotics.Methods. Candidate clinical trials were identified through searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and PsycINFO. Fourteen randomized clinical trials were included for systematic review and meta-analysis from 132 potential trials. The Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 2 was used for meta-analysis.Results. Difference in means and significances from meta-analyses regarding weight control by adjunctive treatments showed that topiramate, aripiprazole, or sibutramine was more effective than metformin or reboxetine. Psychiatric evaluations did not show statistically significant changes between treatment groups and placebo groups except topiramate adjunctive treatments. Adverse effects regarding adjunctive therapies were tolerable and showed statistically no significances compared to control groups.Conclusion. Though having several reports related to exacerbation of psychiatric symptoms, topiramate and aripiprazole are more efficacious than other medications in regard to weight reduction and less burden of critical adverse effects as well as being beneficial for clinical improvement.

The Effect of L-Carnitine on Mortality Rate in Septic Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Randomized Clinical Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamed Abdollahi ◽  
Mina Abdolahi ◽  
Mohsen Sedighiyan ◽  
Arash Jafarieh
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Carnitine Supplementation ◽  
Language Restriction ◽  
One Year ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Recent clinical trial studies have reported that L-carnitine supplementation can reduce the mortality rate in patients with sepsis, but there are no definitive results in this context. The current systematic review and metaanalysis aimed to evaluate the effect of L-carnitine supplementation on 28-day and one-year mortality in septic patients. Methods: A systemically search conducted on Pubmed, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases up to June 2019 without any language restriction. The publications were reviewed based on Cochrane handbook and preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). To compare the effects of L-carnitine with placebo, Risk Ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled according to random effects model. Results: Across five enrolled clinical trials, we found that L-carnitine supplementation reduce one-year mortality in septic patients with SOFA> 12 (RR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.96; P= 0.03) but had no significant effect on reducing 28-day mortality ((RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.28; P= 0.65) compared to placebo. Finally, we observed that based on current trials, Lcarnitine supplementation may not have clinically a significant effect on mortality rate. Conclusions: L-carnitine patients with higher SOFA score can reduce the mortality rate. However, the number of trials, study duration and using dosage of L-carnitine are limited in this context and further large prospective trials are required to clarify the effect of L-carnitine on mortality rate in septic patients.

scholarly journals The effects of adding glucocorticosteroids to standard care for children with sepsis. A systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Kwasi Korang ◽  
Sanam Safi ◽  
Christian Gluud ◽  
Janus C Jakobsen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Sequential Analysis ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Trial Sequential Analysis ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background: Glucocorticosteroids are widely used to treat severe sepsis in pediatric intensive care units. However, the evidence on the clinical effects is unclear.Objective: To assess the benefits and harms of glucocorticosteroids for children with sepsis. Data Sources: We conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) (PROSPERO CRD42017054341). We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, SCI-Expanded, and more. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of adding glucocorticosteroids to standard care for children with sepsis. Data Extraction: Two independent reviewers screened studies and extracted data. Evidence was assessed by GRADE according to our published protocol.Data Synthesis: We included 24 trials randomizing 3073 participants. Meta-analyses showed no evidence of an effect of adding glucocorticosteroids for children with sepsis with a mixed focus for any of our outcomes. Meta-analyses suggested evidence of a beneficial effect of dexamethasone for children with meningitis when assessing serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.86; P = 0.001, very low certainty of evidence) and ototoxicity (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.88; P = 0.007, low certainty of evidence). TSAs showed that we did not have sufficient data to confirm or reject these results. We found insufficient evidence to confirm or reject an effect on mortality or our other outcomes. No trials reported quality of life or organ failure. Most trials were at high risks of bias. We found high clinical heterogeneity between participants. None of our TSAs showed benefits, harms or futility. Conclusions: Generally, we found no evidence of an effect of glucocorticosteroids for children with sepsis without meningitis. Dexamethasone for sepsis in children due to meningitis may decrease serious adverse events and ototoxicity.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Effects of Probiotic Species on Iron Absorption and Iron Status

Nutrients ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 2938 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan C. Vonderheid ◽  
Lisa Tussing-Humphreys ◽  
Chang Park ◽  
Heather Pauls ◽  
Nefertiti OjiNjideka Hemphill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Iron Absorption ◽  
Iron Status ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Deficiency Anemia ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Probiotic Treatment ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Strategies to prevent iron deficiency anemia (IDA) have varying effectiveness. The purpose of this systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis was to examine the effects of probiotics on iron absorption and iron status-related markers in humans. Methods: We followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Relevant articles were identified from Embase, Pubmed, Scopus, and CINAHL from inception to February, 2019. We conducted a meta-analysis for eight studies examining the effect of the probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (Lp299v) on iron absorption. Results: Fifteen studies reported in 12 articles were identified (N = 950). Our meta-analysis of eight studies using a random-effects model demonstrated a significant increase in iron absorption following administration of the probiotic Lp299v with a pooled standardized mean difference (an average intervention effect size) of 0.55 (95% CI 0.22–0.88, p = 0.001). Of the seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized clinical trials examining a range of probiotic species on iron status, only one study supplementing with Lp299v showed improvement in serum iron; no other studies reported improvement in iron status-related indices with probiotic treatment. Conclusions: Lp299v significantly improved iron absorption in humans. Future research should include the assessment of Lp299v effect on iron absorption and iron status in populations at high risk of IDA, including pregnant women.

scholarly journals Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review with network meta-analysis including individual patient data (The LIVING VACCINE Project)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
STEVEN KWASI KORANG ◽  
Sophie Juul ◽  
Emil Eik Nielsen ◽  
Joshua Feinberg ◽  
Faiza Siddiqui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Viral Vector ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Harmful Effects

Abstract Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) which has rapidly spread worldwide. Several human randomized clinical trials assessing potential vaccines are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living systematic review that continuously assesses the beneficial and harmful effects of all available vaccines for COVID-19.Methods/design: We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any vaccine aiming to prevent COVID-19 (including but not limited to messenger RNA; DNA; non-replicating viral vector; replicating viral vector; inactivated virus; protein subunit; dendritic cell; other vaccines) with any comparator (placebo; ‘active placebo’; no intervention; standard care; an ‘active’ intervention; another vaccine for COVID-19) for participants in all age groups.Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality; a diagnosis of COVID-19; and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, Trial Sequential Analyses, network meta-analyses, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Within-study bias will be assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) and Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approaches will be used to assess certainty of evidence. Observational studies describing harms identified during the search for trials will also be included and described and analyzed separately.Discussion: COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review assessing the beneficial and harmful effects of different vaccines is urgently needed. This living systematic review will regularly inform best practice in vaccine prevention and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020196492

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document