Spinal manipulations for the treatment of migraine: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials

Cephalalgia ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 31 (8) ◽  
pp. 964-970 ◽  
Author(s):  
P Posadzki ◽  
E Ernst
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Drug Therapy ◽  
Spinal Manipulation ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Medical Practitioner ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Migraine Headaches

Aims: The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of spinal manipulations as a treatment for migraine headaches. Method: Seven databases were searched from inception to November 2010. All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating spinal manipulations performed by any type of healthcare professional for treating migraine headaches in human subjects were considered. The selection of studies, data extraction and validation were performed independently by two reviewers. Results: Three RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Their methodological quality was mostly poor and ranged between 1 and 3 on the Jadad scale. Two RCTs suggested no effect of spinal manipulations in terms of Headache Index or migraine duration and disability compared with drug therapy, spinal manipulation plus drug therapy, or mobilization. One RCT showed significant improvements in migraine frequency, intensity, duration and disability associated with migraine compared with detuned interferential therapy. The most rigorous RCT demonstrated no effect of chiropractic spinal manipulation compared with mobilization or spinal manipulation by medical practitioner or physiotherapist on migraine duration or disability. Conclusions: Current evidence does not support the use of spinal manipulations for the treatment for migraine headaches.

scholarly journals Acupuncture for Managing Cancer-Related Insomnia: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tae-Young Choi ◽  
Jong In Kim ◽  
Hyun-Ja Lim ◽  
Myeong Soo Lee
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Sleep Quality ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sham Acupuncture ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
The Other ◽  
Level Of Evidence

Background. Insomnia is a prominent complaint of cancer patients that can significantly affect their quality of life and symptoms related to sleep quality. Conventional drug approaches have a low rate of success in alleviating those suffering insomnia. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy of acupuncture in the management of cancer-related insomnia. Methods. A total of 12 databases were searched from their inception through January 2016 without language restriction. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs were included if acupuncture was used as the sole intervention or as an adjunct to another standard treatment for any cancer-related insomnia. The data extraction and the risk of bias assessments were performed by 2 independent reviewers. Results. Of the 90 studies screened, 6 RCTs were included. The risk of bias was generally unclear or low. Three RCTs showed equivalent effects on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and 2 RCTs showed the similar effects on response rate to those of conventional drugs at the end of treatment. The other RCT showed acupuncture was better than hormone therapy in the numbers of hours slept each night and number of times woken up each night. The 3 weeks of follow-up in 2 RCTs showed superior effects of acupuncture compared with conventional drugs, and a meta-analysis showed significant effects of acupuncture. Two RCTs tested the effects of acupuncture on cancer-related insomnia compared with sham acupuncture. One RCT showed favourable effects, while the other trial failed to do so. Conclusion. There is a low level of evidence that acupuncture may be superior to sham acupuncture, drugs or hormones therapy. However, the number of studies and effect size are small for clinical significance. Further clinical trials are warranted.

Neurodevelopmental Treatment (Bobath) for Children With Cerebral Palsy: A Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (11) ◽  
pp. 679-686 ◽  
Author(s):  
Márcia Andréa Zanon ◽  
Rafael Leite Pacheco ◽  
Carolina de Oliveira Cruz Latorraca ◽  
Ana Luiza Cabrera Martimbianco ◽  
Daniela Vianna Pachito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cerebral Palsy ◽  
Physical Therapy ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
The Body ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Children With Cerebral Palsy ◽  
Protocol Registration

Aim: To assess the effects of neurodevelopmental treatment for children with cerebral palsy. Methods: We conducted a systematic review following the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and reported in accordance to PRISMA Statement. Through a comprehensive literature search we considered all randomized clinical trials that compared neurodevelopmental treatment with conventional physical therapy for children with cerebral palsy. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Table to assess the risk of bias of the included randomized clinical trial, and the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the body of the evidence. Results: We found 3 randomized clinical trials (2 published and 1 ongoing) comprising 66 children. Published randomized clinical trials presented methodological and reporting limitations and only 1 provided data for outcomes of interest. No difference between neurodevelopmental treatment and conventional physical therapy was found for gross motor function (mean difference 1.40; 95% confidence interval –5.47 to 8.27, low certainty evidence). Conclusion: This review found that the effects of neurodevelopmental treatment for children with cerebral palsy are still uncertain. Further studies are required to assess the efficacy and safety of neurodevelopmental treatment for this purpose and until there, current evidence do not support its routinely use in practice. Number of protocol registration in PROSPERO database: CRD42017082817 (available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=82817 ).

Effects of hesperidin consumption on cardiovascular risk biomarkers: a systematic review of animal studies and human randomized clinical trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 77 (12) ◽  
pp. 845-864 ◽  
Author(s):  
L Pla-Pagà ◽  
J Companys ◽  
L Calderón-Pérez ◽  
E Llauradó ◽  
R Solà ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cardiovascular Risk ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Animal Studies ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Risk Biomarkers

Abstract Context The cardioprotective effects of the flavonoid hesperidin, which is present in citrus products, are controversial and unclear. This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2015 guidelines. Objective To evaluate the current evidence from animal and human clinical studies and thus determine whether the consumption of hesperidin exerts beneficial effects on cardiovascular risk factors. Data sources PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Study Design) criteria defined the research question. Searches of the PubMed and Cochrane Plus databases were conducted and studies that met the inclusion criteria and were published in English in the last 15 years were included. Data extraction The first author, year of publication, study design, characteristics of animals and humans, intervention groups, dose of hesperidin, route of administration, duration of the intervention, cardiovascular risk biomarkers assessed, and results observed were extracted from the included articles. Results A total of 12 animal studies and 11 randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. In the animal studies, the glucose, total and LDL cholesterol, and triglyceride levels decreased with chronic flavonoid consumption. In the human studies, endothelial function improved with flavonoid consumption, whereas no conclusive results were observed for the other biomarkers. Conclusions Animal studies have revealed that hesperidin and hesperetin consumption reduces glucose levels and various lipid profile parameters. However, a definitive conclusion cannot be drawn from the existing human clinical trials. Further research is needed to confirm whether the findings observed in animal models can also be observed in humans. Systematic Review Registration Prospero registration number CRD42018088942.

scholarly journals Tooth-Bone-Borne Vs. Bone-Borne Palatal Expanders: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yomna M. Yacout ◽  
Mohamed G. Hassan ◽  
Nadia M. El-Harouni ◽  
Hanan A. Ismail ◽  
Abbas R. Zaher
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Selection Criteria ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Reference Lists ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Hand Search

The aim of this review was to evaluate the current evidence regarding post-treatment effects of tooth-bone-borne vs. bone-borne expanders. A search was conducted in MEDLINE via PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and Open Gray; in addition to a hand search in reference lists of selected articles and creating a search alert in electronic databases. Selection criteria included randomized and prospective clinical trials comparing post-expansion skeletal and/or dento-alveolar effects of tooth-bone-borne expanders to those of bone-borne expanders. Following study retrieval and selection, relevant data was extracted, and risk of bias was assessed using the revised RoB 2 tool for randomized clinical trials. After examining 10 full text articles, one randomized clinical trial was finally included. The study compared the dento-alveolar effects of tooth-bone-borne and bone-borne expanders, following expansion and after 6 months, using digital dental casts. Using the RoB 2 tool, the study was judged overall to show some concerns. A definitive conclusion could not be drawn from this systematic review due to the scarcity of clinical trials tackling the research question. A need for future well-conducted research was highlighted in this review.

scholarly journals Use of systematic reviews to justify the conduct of urology clinical trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Shepard ◽  
Audrey Wise ◽  
Bradley S. Johnson ◽  
Matt Vassar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Extraction Process ◽  
Current Data ◽  
Research Waste ◽  
Pubmed Search

Abstract Background Given the increased amount of research being funded in the field of urology, reducing the amount of research waste is vital. Systematic reviews are an essential tool in aiding in reducing waste in research; they are a comprehensive summary of the current data on a clinical question. The aim of this study is to evaluate the use of systematic reviews as justification in conducting randomized clinical trials (RCT) in high impact urology journals. Methods On December 13, 2019, one of us (BJ) conducted a PubMed search for randomized controlled trials published in the top four urology journals according to their Google Scholar h5-index. Using a masked data extraction process each RCT was searched for systematic reviews. Then each review was evaluated for if it was justification for conducting the trial based on the context the systematic review was used.Results Of the 566 articles retrieved 281 were included. Overall 60.5% (170/281) trials cited a systematic review. We found only 47.6% (134/281) studies cited a systematic review as “verbatim” justification for conducting the trial. Regression analysis yielded a finding of statistical significance in showing a correlation of studies over medical devices were more likely to cite a systematic review than other study topics ( adjusted odds ratio 2.01, 95% CI, 1.08 - 3.73) A total of 409 different systematic review citations were recorded in the 281 trials.Conclusion Less than half of clinical trials cited a systematic review as justification for conducting the trial. If clinical trials were required to support their studies with systematic reviews we believe this would greatly reduce the amount of research waste within clinical research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document