Pharmacological Treatment of Osteoporosis in Elderly People: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Gerontology ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Qin-Yi Wang ◽  
Na Ding ◽  
Yi-He Dong ◽  
Zhang-Xin Wen ◽  
Rong Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Anabolic Agents ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Antiresorptive Agents ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity ◽  
Post Hoc

<b><i>Background:</i></b> The evidence supporting the use of antiresorptive and anabolic agents for fracture prevention in elderly patients is still inconclusive. Whether it is too late to alter the course of the disease in this age-group has remained uncertain. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of antiresorptive and anabolic agents in elderly patients. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and post hoc analyses of RCTs reporting efficacy outcomes or adverse events of antiresorptive and anabolic agents in elderly patients. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed with the Cochran <i>Q</i> χ<sup>2</sup> test and <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> statistic. All results were expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). <b><i>Results:</i></b> The meta-analysis included 1 RCT and 11 post hoc analyses of data from 10 double-blind placebo-controlled RCTs. Antiresorptive therapy significantly reduced the pooled incidence of vertebral fractures (RR = 0.43; 95% CI = 0.35–0.53; and <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001). It was also associated with lower risk of nonvertebral and hip fractures (RR = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.74–0.96; and <i>p</i> = 0.009 and RR = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.58–0.97; and <i>p</i> = 0.028, respectively). For any adverse events, no difference was observed between antiresorptive agents and placebo groups (RR = 1.01; 95% CI = 1.00–1.02; and <i>p</i> = 0.23). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Both antiresorptive and anabolic agents represented potentially important osteoporosis treatments, showing significant effects on reducing vertebral, nonvertebral, or hip fracture risk, and were well-tolerated by elderly patients. Even in the elderly, maybe it is not too late to alter the course of the disease.

Placebo and nocebo responses in restless legs syndrome

Neurology ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 88 (23) ◽  
pp. 2216-2224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria A. Silva ◽  
Gonçalo S. Duarte ◽  
Raquel Camara ◽  
Filipe B. Rodrigues ◽  
Ricardo M. Fernandes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Restless Legs Syndrome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Placebo Response ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Pool Data ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Restless Legs ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity ◽  
Registration Number

Objective:To estimate the placebo and nocebo responses in restless legs syndrome (RLS) and explore their determinants.Methods:Databases were searched up to October 2015. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of patients with RLS were included if quantitative data were extractable in the placebo arm. Placebo response was defined as the within-group change from baseline, using any scale measuring RLS severity or disability. Nocebo response was defined as the proportion of patients experiencing adverse events in the placebo arm. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool data. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistic. Several predetermined subgroup and sensitivity analysis were performed. PROSPERO registration number is CRD42015027992.Results:We included 85 randomized controlled trials (5,046 participants). Pooled placebo response effect size was −1.41 (95% confidence interval [CI] −1.56 to −1.25, 64 trials, I2 = 88.1%), corresponding to −6.58 points in the International RLS Study Group Scale (IRLS). Pooled nocebo response was 45.36% (95% CI 40.47%–50.29%, 72 trials; I2 = 89.8%). The placebo and nocebo responses were greater in trials with longer duration, evaluating pharmacologic interventions and idiopathic RLS, and in industry-funded and unpublished studies. The placebo response was considerably smaller in objective as compared to subjective outcomes. In addition, the nocebo response increases proportionally with the placebo response, and has the same predictors.Conclusions:The magnitude of the placebo response in RLS is above the threshold of minimal clinical important difference, and the frequency of adverse events is also considerable. These results are relevant to inform the design and interpretation of future clinical trials.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Remdesivir for COVID-19 Treatment: An Analysis of Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yun Zhu ◽  
Zhaowei Teng ◽  
Lirong Yang ◽  
Shuanglan Xu ◽  
Jie Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Discharge Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Registration Number

AbstractBACKGROUNDRemdesivir, an inhibitor of viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerases, has been identified as a candidate for COVID-19 treatment. However, the therapeutic effect of remdesivir is controversial.METHODSWe searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception to June 11, 2020 for randomized controlled trials on the clinical efficacy of remdesivir. The main outcomes were discharge rate, mortality, and adverse events. This study is registered at INPLASY (INPLASY202060046).RESULTSData of 1075 subjects showed that remdesivir significantly increased the discharge rate of patients with COVID-19 compared with the placebo (50.4% vs. 45.29%; relative risk [RR] 1.19 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05–1.34], I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.754). It also significantly decreased mortality (8.18% vs. 12.70%; RR 0.64 [95% CI, 0.44–0.92], I2 = 45.7%, P = 0.175) compared to the placebo. Data of 1296 subjects showed that remdesivir significantly decreased the occurrence of serious adverse events (RR 0.77 [95% CI, 0.63–0.94], I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.716).CONCLUSIONRemdesivir is efficacious and safe for the treatment of COVID-19.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERThis study is registered at the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (INPLASY202060046).

scholarly journals Comparative efficacy and safety of different regimens of ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e040906
Author(s):  
Xinyu Zhao ◽  
Lihui Meng ◽  
Youxin Chen
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Macular Degeneration ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Age Related Macular Degeneration ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Age Related ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveTo give a comprehensive efficacy and safety ranking of different therapeutic regimens of ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).DesignA systematic review and network meta-analysis.MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other clinical trial registries were searched up to 1 October 2019 to identify related randomised controlled trials (RCT) of different regimens of ranibizumab for nAMD. The primary efficacy outcome was the changes of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 1 year, the primary safety outcome was the incidence of severe ocular adverse events. Secondary outcomes such as changes of central retinal thickness (CRT) were evaluated. We estimated the standardised mean difference (SMD), ORs, 95% CIs, the surface under the cumulative ranking curves and the mean ranks for each outcome using network meta-analyses with random effects by Stata 14.0.ResultsWe identified 26 RCTs involving 10 821 patients with nAMD randomly assigned to 21 different therapeutic regimens of ranibizumab or sham treatment. Ranibizumab 0.5 mg (treat and extend, T&E) is most effective in terms of changes of BCVA (letters, SMD=21.41, 95% CI 19.86 to 22.95) and three or more lines of BCVA improvement (OR=2.83, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.38). However, it could not significantly reduce retreatment times compared with monthly injection (SMD=−0.94, 95% CI −2.26 to 0.39). Ranibizumab 0.5 mg (3+pro re nata)+non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is most effective in reducing CRT and port delivery system of ranibizumab (100 mg/mL) could reduce the number of retreatment most significantly. All regimes have no more risk of severe ocular complications (including vitreous haemorrhage, rhegmatogenous retinal detachment, endophthalmitis, retinal tear and retinal pigment epithelium tear) or cardiocerebral vascular complications.ConclusionsRanibizumab 0.5 mg (T&E) is most effective in improving the visual outcome. The administration of topical NSAIDs could achieve additional efficacy in CRT reduction and visual improvement. Both interventions had acceptable risks of adverse events.

scholarly journals Interventional radiology versus operative management for splenic injuries: a study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e028172
Author(s):  
Masahiro Kashiura ◽  
Noritaka Yada ◽  
Kazuma Yamakawa
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Interventional Radiology ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operative Management ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity ◽  
Non Operative Management

IntroductionOver the past decades, the treatment for blunt splenic injuries has shifted from operative to non-operative management. Interventional radiology such as splenic arterial embolisation generally increases the success rate of non-operative management. However, the type of intervention, such as the first definitive treatment for haemostasis (interventional radiology or surgery) in blunt splenic injuries is unclear. Therefore, we aim to clarify whether interventional radiology improves mortality in patients with blunt splenic trauma compared with operative management by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods and analysisWe will search the following electronic bibliographic databases to retrieve relevant articles for the literature review: Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We will include controlled trials and observational studies published until September 2018. We will screen search results, assess the study population, extract data and assess the risk of bias. Two review authors will extract data independently, and discrepancies will be identified and resolved through a discussion with a third author where necessary. Data from eligible studies will be pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed by using the Mantel-Haenszel χ² test and the I² statistic, and any observed heterogeneity will be quantified using the I² statistic. We will conduct sensitivity analyses according to several factors relevant for the heterogeneity.Ethics and disseminationOur study does not require ethical approval as it is based on the findings of previously published articles. This systematic review will provide guidance on selecting a method for haemostasis of splenic injuries and may also identify knowledge gaps that could direct further research in the field. Results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentations at relevant conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018108304.

scholarly journals The efficacy and safety of intrathecal bupivacaine alone versus bupivacaine combined with magnesium sulfate in adults using spinal anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mi-Zhou Wang ◽  
Rui Dong ◽  
Li-Na Jia ◽  
Deng-Bin Ai ◽  
Jian-Hua Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Magnesium Sulfate ◽  
Motor Block ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sensory Block ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Rescue Analgesia ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background: Several studies have investigated the effects of intrathecal magnesium sulfate as an adjuvant for bupivacaine; however, their conclusions are inconsistent. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a meta-analysis on this topic.Methods We searched Pubmed, EMBASE (OvidSP) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of intrathecal bupivacaine combined with magnesium sulfate versus bupivacaine alone in adults using spinal anesthesia.Results Eighteen studies that met our inclusion criteria were included in our analysis. We found that the addition of intrathecal magnesium sulfate to bupivacaine provided a longer duration of analgesia (SMD 0.99; 95% CI [0.45, 1.52], P = 0.0003, I2 = 93%), prolonged the duration of sensory block (MD=106.69; 95% CI, 60.93-152.45; P<0.00001), delayed the onset of sensory block (SMD 1.20; 95% CI [0.65, 1.75], P =<0.0001, I2 = 91%) and motor block (SMD 1.46; 95% CI [0.23, 2.69], P =0.02, I2 = 96%), decreased the requirement for rescue analgesia (SMD -0.81; 95% CI [-1.06, -0.56], P < 0.00001, I2 = 11%). For duration of motor block, and incidence of postoperative adverse events (such as nausea and vomiting, hypotension, bradycardia, pruritus, shivering and neurological deficit), no statistically differences were observed between the 2 groups.Conclusions Our meta-analysis demonstrated that intrathecal magnesium sulfate combined with bupivacaine prolongs the dusration of analgesia, without an impact on the adverse events. However, the quality of evidence was very low when using GRADE to assess it. Given adverse effects before use, more high-quality trials with large samples are required before magnesium sulfate is routinely used as a intrathecal adjunct.

scholarly journals Comparative Efficacy of Pharmacological and Nonpharmacological Interventions for Acne Vulgaris: A Network Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qingyang Shi ◽  
Lizi Tan ◽  
Zhe Chen ◽  
Long Ge ◽  
Xiaoyan Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Physical Symptoms ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Comparative Efficacy ◽  
Inflammatory Lesions ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Acne has several effects on physical symptoms, but the main impacts are on the quality of life, which can be improved by treatment. There are several acne treatments but less evidence comparing their relative efficacy. Thus, we assessed the comparative efficacy of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for acne. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to April 2019, to include randomized controlled trials for acne that compared topical antibiotics (TA), benzoyl peroxide (BPO), topical retinoids (TR), oral antibiotics (OA), lasers, light devices including LED device (LED), photodynamic therapy (PDT), and intense pulsed light, chemical peels (CP), miscellaneous therapies or complementary and alternative medicine (MTCAM), or their combinations. We performed Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects for all treatments compared with placebo and each other. Mean differences (MDs) of lesions count and risk ratios of adverse events with their 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated, and all interventions were ranked by the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) values. Additional frequentist additive network meta-analysis was performed to detect the robustness of results and potential interaction effects. Sensitivity analyses were carried out with different priors, and metaregression was to adjust for nine potential effect modifiers. In the result, seventy-three randomized controlled trials (27,745 patients with mild to moderate acne), comparing 30 grouped intervention categories, were included with low to moderate risk of bias. For adverse effects, OA had more risk in combination treatment with others. For noninflammatory lesions reduction, seventeen interventions had significant differences comparing with placebo and three interventions (TR+BPO: MD = −21.89, 95%CrI [−28.97, −14.76]; TR+BPO+MTCAM: −22.48 [−34.13, −10.70]; TA+BPO+CP: −20.63 [−33.97, −7.13]) were superior to others with 94, 94, and 91% SUCRA values, respectively. For inflammatory lesions reduction, nineteen interventions were significantly better than placebo, and three interventions (TR+BPO: MD = −12.13, 95%CrI [−18.41, −5.80]; TR+BPO+MTCAM: −13.21 [−.39, −3.04]; LED: −11.30 [−18.34, −4.42]) were superior to others (SUCRA: 81, 81, and 77%, respectively). In summary of noninflammatory and inflammatory lesions results, TR+BPO and TA+BPO were the best options compared to others. The frequentist model showed similar results as above. In summary, current evidence supports the suggestion that TR+BPO and TA+BPO are the best options for mild to moderate acne. LED is another option for inflammatory lesions when drug resistance occurs. All the combinations involved with OA showed more risk of adverse events than others. However, the evidence of this study should be cautiously used due to the limitations.

scholarly journals Carbon dioxide versus room air insufflation during balloon-assisted enteroscopy: A systematic review with meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 05 (01) ◽  
pp. E67-E75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashok Shiani ◽  
Seth Lipka ◽  
Andrew Lai ◽  
Andrea Rodriguez ◽  
Christian Andrade ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Dioxide ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Insertion Depth ◽  
Co2 Insufflation ◽  
Air Insufflation

Abstract Background and study aims Carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation has been suggested to be an ideal alternative to room air insufflation to reduce trapped air within the bowel lumen after balloon assisted enteroscopy (BAE). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of utilizing CO2 insufflation as compared to room air during BAE. Patients and methods The primary outcome is mean change in visual analog scale (VAS; 10 cm) at 1, 3, and 6 hours to assess pain. Secondary outcomes include insertion depth (anterograde or retrograde), adverse events, total enteroscopy rate, diagnostic yield, mean anesthetic dosage, and PaCO2 at procedure completion. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception until May 2015. Multiple independent extractions were performed, the process was executed as per the standards of the Cochrane collaboration. Results Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis. VAS at 6 hours favored CO2 over room air (MD 0.13; 95 % CI 0.01, 0.25; p = 0.03). Anterograde insertion depth (cm) was improved in the CO2 group (MD, 58.2; 95 % CI 17.17, 99.23; p = 0.005), with an improvement in total enteroscopy rate in the CO2 group (RR 1.91; 95 % CI 1.20, 3.06; p = 0.007). Mean dose of propofol (mg) favored CO2 compared to air (MD, – 70.53; 95 % CI – 115.07, – 25.98; P = 0.002). There were no differences in adverse events in either group. Conclusions Despite the ability of CO2 to improve insertion depth and decrease amount of anesthesia required, further randomized control trials are needed to determine the agent of choice for insufflation in balloon assisted enteroscopy.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of guselkumab for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: A metaanalysis of randomized clinical trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 433-440
Author(s):  
Xing-Bao Tao ◽  
Yin-Qiu Huang ◽  
Yi-Hong Zhou ◽  
Lv-Lang Zhang ◽  
Yao-Kai Chen
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Plaque Psoriasis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Severe Plaque Psoriasis ◽  
Central Registry

Purpose: To conduct a systematic analysis on data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on different doses of guselkumab, and provide high-quality evidence for its use in the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (PsO). Methods: Related studies were searched using online search engines including MEDLINE, PubMed, and central registry of Cochrane controlled trials from January 2001 to October 2017. Only randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials involving guselkumab- and placebo-treated PsO subjects were included. Results: Five eligible double-blind, randomized, and placebo-controlled trials involving patients with moderate-to-severe PsO subjects treated with guselkumab were included. Compared with the placebo groups, the proportion of patients with improvements in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 (RR= 12.14; 95% CI= 9.11-16.16; p < 0.001); PASI 90 (RR= 23.26; 95% CI =14.57-37.13; p < 0.001), and PASI 100 (RR = 37.66; 95% CI = 15.81-89.69; p < 0.001) were significantly higher than those in guselkumab-treated groups. Furthermore, the guselkumab-treated groups showed significant decreases in Physician’s Global Assessment (PGA) score (RR = 10.46; 95% CI = 7.96-13.83; p < 0.001) and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score (SMD = -1.3; 95% CL = -1.4 to -1.19; p < 0.001), when compared with the placebo groups. However, there were no significant differences in adverse events (AEs) (RR = 1.01; 95% CL = 0.93-1.11; p > 0.05); severe adverse events (SAEs) (RR = 1.32; 95% CI =0.69-2.54; p > 0.05) and study discontinuations (RR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.42-1.48; p > 0.05) between the two groups. Conclusion: This meta-analysis summarizes available evidence for the use of guselkumab in psoriasis. The results suggest that guselkumab is superior to placebo in moderate-to-severe psoriasis, and is welltolerated, effective, and safe in improving the severity of disease and quality of life. Keywords: Guselkumab, Effectiveness, Safety, Plaque psoriasis, Meta-analysis, Quality of life

scholarly journals Impact of surgical margin status on the survival outcome after surgical resection of gastric cancer: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e040282
Author(s):  
Zhiyuan Jiang ◽  
Zhaolun Cai ◽  
Yuan Yin ◽  
Chaoyong Shen ◽  
Jinming Huang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Curative Intent ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Effect Model ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionGenerally, complete resection with cancer cell negative (R0) margin has been accepted as the most effective treatment of gastric cancer and positive resection (R1/R2) margin has been associated with decreased survival to varied degrees. However, the independent impact of microscopical positive (R1) margin on long-term survival may be confounded. No meta-analysis has worked at the association between R1 margin and outcomes of gastric cancer and the available evidence are scant. Therefore, we plan to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantitatively explore the role of R1 margin on gastric (including oesophagogastric junction) cancer survival after curative intent resection.Methods and analysisThe protocol was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guideline. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases will be performed from their inceptions to 30 April 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and case–control studies focusing on the impact of R1 margin on survival of gastric cancer after curative intent resection. The primary outcome will be the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) and the secondary outcomes will be 5-year OS rate and 5-year DFS rate. The Cochrane tool for bias assessment in randomised trials and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-I for the assessment of bias in non-randomised studies (NRS) will be used. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed by visual inspection of forest plots and measured using the I2 statistics. A fixed-effect model will be used when heterogeneity is low, otherwise, a random-effect model will be chosen. Publication bias will be assessed by funnel plots, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be performed in the right context. For each outcome, we will perform data synthesis separately for RCTs and NRS using Rev Man V.5.3 software and compile ‘summary of findings’ tables separately for RCTs and NRS using GRADEpro software. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations considerations will also be used to make an overall assessment of the quality of evidence.Ethics and disseminationThere is no requirement for ethics approval because no patient data will be collected at an individual level in this systematic review and meta-analysis.The results of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences, any deviations from the protocol will be clearly documented and explained in its final report.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020165110.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of edaravone for acute intracerebral haemorrhage: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. e039366
Author(s):  
Luda Feng ◽  
Ning Liang ◽  
Tingting Li ◽  
Qinyu Yang ◽  
Ping Jiang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Intracerebral Haemorrhage ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Routine Treatment ◽  
Manual Search

IntroductionIntracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) is a life-threatening condition with no effective internal treatment options. However, edaravone is a promising therapeutic agent, although its beneficial effects are inconclusive based on previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses. While several trials in the last 8 years have reported the favourable long-term functional outcomes, a few reports indicated edaravone to be associated with an increase in adverse events.Methods and analysisThis protocol was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. We will perform the comprehensive and manual search for published articles, ongoing trials, dissertations and grey literature. The following databases will be searched from inception to 23 April 2020: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese scientific periodical database of VIP INFORMATION, Wanfang Data and SinoMed, with no language restrictions. All randomised controlled trials that (1) compared edaravone with placebo or no treatment, and (2) compared edaravone plus routine treatment or cointervention with routine treatment or cointervention for treating acute ICH will be included. Mortality and long-term dependency will be the primary outcomes. The incidence of adverse events will be assessed for safety evaluation. Two reviewers in pairs will independently carry out the article selection, data extraction and quality assessment. Assessment of the risk of bias and data synthesis will be performed using software Review Manager V.5.3. Finally, we will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to evaluate the quality of the overall evidence.Ethics and disseminationThere are no ethical considerations associated with this updated systematic review and meta-analysis. The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals or conference presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019147801.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document