Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Analogs for Gonadal Protection During Gonadotoxic Chemotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (7) ◽  
pp. 939-953 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigar Sofiyeva ◽  
Timo Siepmann ◽  
Kristian Barlinn ◽  
Emre Seli ◽  
Baris Ata
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Alkylating Agents ◽  
Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone ◽  
Significant Benefit ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Releasing Hormone ◽  
Hormone Analogs

Objective:A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to investigate whether gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs (GnRHa) have a protective role in women treated with alkylating agents.Data Sources:Major databases (PubMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), systematic snowballing, and trial registries were screened from the inception dates until September 2017.Methods and Study SelectionComparative studies involving reproductive-aged women undergoing chemotherapy with or without coadministration of GnRHa were included. Spontaneous menstrual resumption was assessed as a main outcome. Statistical analyses were performed with STATA 14.2 statistical software. Effect estimates were presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Results:The literature search yielded 25 436 citations and 84 papers were assessed in full text. Eighteen studies (11 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 7 cohort studies) published between 1987 and 2015 were included in the analysis, revealing a significant protective effect of GnRHa (n = 1043; RR:1.38; 95% CI: 1.18-1.63) although with high heterogeneity (I2= 83.3%). Subgroup analyses revealed a significant benefit of GnRHa cotreatment both in RCTs and in cohort studies. Statistical significance was found in all subgroups by the underlying disease, that is, hematological malignancies, autoimmune diseases, and breast cancer. Sensitivity analyses in GnRH agonist-treated patients, in patients younger than 40 years old, and in patients without supradiaphragmatic radiotherapy also revealed a significant benefit of GnRHa cotreatment.Conclusion:Our results indicate that concurrent GnRHa administration is an effective method to decrease gonadotoxicity of alkylating agents. The presence of low-quality evidence favoring gonadoprotective effect requires a strong recommendation for offering GnRHa coadministration to young women who are to undergo gonadotoxic chemotherapy.Capsule:The present systematic review and meta-analysis shows a significant gonadoprotective effect of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs in women treated with alkylating agents.

scholarly journals Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Neurosurgery ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 80 (5) ◽  
pp. 701-715 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Yavin ◽  
Steven Casha ◽  
Samuel Wiebe ◽  
Thomas E Feasby ◽  
Callie Clark ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Relative Safety

Abstract BACKGROUND: Due to uncertain evidence, lumbar fusion for degenerative indications is associated with the greatest measured practice variation of any surgical procedure. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the current evidence on the comparative safety and efficacy of lumbar fusion, decompression-alone, or nonoperative care for degenerative indications. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (up to June 30, 2016). Comparative studies reporting validated measures of safety or efficacy were included. Treatment effects were calculated through DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 65 studies (19 randomized controlled trials, 16 prospective cohort studies, 15 retrospective cohort studies, and 15 registries) enrolling a total of 302 620 patients. Disability, pain, and patient satisfaction following fusion, decompression-alone, or nonoperative care were dependent on surgical indications and study methodology. Relative to decompression-alone, the risk of reoperation following fusion was increased for spinal stenosis (relative risk [RR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.28) and decreased for spondylolisthesis (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.68-0.83). Among patients with spinal stenosis, complications were more frequent following fusion (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.18-2.96). Mortality was not significantly associated with any treatment modality. CONCLUSION: Positive clinical change was greatest in patients undergoing fusion for spondylolisthesis while complications and the risk of reoperation limited the benefit of fusion for spinal stenosis. The relative safety and efficacy of fusion for chronic low back pain suggests careful patient selection is required (PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews number, CRD42015020153).

scholarly journals Non-autoimmune diabetes mellitus and the risk of virus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Lontchi-Yimagou ◽  
Charly Feutseu ◽  
Sebastien Kenmoe ◽  
Alexandra Lindsey Djomkam Zune ◽  
Solange Fai Kinyuy Ekali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
H1n1 Virus ◽  
Autoimmune Diabetes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Virus Infections ◽  
Autoimmune Diabetes Mellitus

AbstractA significant number of studies invoked diabetes as a risk factor for virus infections, but the issue remains controversial. We aimed to examine whether non-autoimmune diabetes mellitus enhances the risk of virus infections compared with the risk in healthy individuals without non-autoimmune diabetes mellitus. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed case-control and cohort studies on the association between non-autoimmune diabetes and viruses. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science with no language restriction, to identify articles published until February 15, 2021. The main outcome assessment was the risk of virus infection in individuals with non-autoimmune diabetes. We used a random-effects model to pool individual studies and assessed heterogeneity (I2) using the χ2 test on Cochrane’s Q statistic. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42019134142. Out of 3136 articles identified, we included 68 articles (90 studies, as the number of virus and or diabetes phenotype varied between included articles). The summary OR between non-autoimmune diabetes and virus infections risk were, 10.8(95% CI: 10.3–11.4; 1-study) for SARS-CoV-2; 3.6(95%CI: 2.7–4.9, I2 = 91.7%; 43-studies) for HCV; 2.7(95% CI: 1.3–5.4, I2 = 89.9%, 8-studies;) for HHV8; 2.1(95% CI: 1.7–2.5; 1-study) for H1N1 virus; 1.6(95% CI: 1.2–2.13, I2 = 98.3%, 27-studies) for HBV; 1.5(95% CI: 1.1–2.0; 1-study) for HSV1; 3.5(95% CI: 0.6–18.3 , I2 = 83.9%, 5-studies) for CMV; 2.9(95% CI: 1–8.7, 1-study) for TTV; 2.6(95% CI: 0.7–9.1, 1-study) for Parvovirus B19; 0.7(95% CI: 0.3–1.5 , 1-study) for coxsackie B virus; and 0.2(95% CI: 0–6.2; 1-study) for HGV. Our findings suggest that, non-autoimmune diabetes is associated with increased susceptibility to viruses especially SARS-CoV-2, HCV, HHV8, H1N1 virus, HBV and HSV1. Thus, these viruses deserve more attention from diabetes health-care providers, researchers, policy makers, and stakeholders for improved detection, overall proper management, and efficient control of viruses in people with non-autoimmune diabetes.

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.

632 SUTURED VERSUS MESH-AUGMENTED HIATUS HERNIA REPAIR: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Josipa Petric ◽  
Tim Bright ◽  
David Liu ◽  
Melissa Wee ◽  
David Watson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hiatus Hernia ◽  
Mesh Repair ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hernia Recurrence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Absorbable Mesh ◽  
Hiatal Closure

Abstract   Repair of large hiatus hernias is increasingly being performed. However, there is no consensus for the optimal technique for hiatal closure between sutured versus mesh-augmented (absorbable or non-absorbable) repair. This meta-analysis systematically reviewed published randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing sutured versus mesh-augmented hiatus hernia (HH) repair. Our primary endpoint was HH recurrence at short- and long-term follow-up. Secondary endpoints were: surgical complications, operative times, dysphagia and quality of life. Methods A systematic review of Medline, Scopus (which encompassed Embase), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and PubMed was performed to identify relevant studies comparing mesh-augmented versus sutured HH repair. Data were extracted and compared by meta-analysis, using odds ratio and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Results Seven RCTs were found which compared mesh-augmented (non-absorbable mesh: n = 296; absorbable mesh: n = 92) with sutured repair (n = 347). There were no significant differences for short-term hernia recurrence (defined as 6–12 months, 10.1% mesh versus 15.5% sutured, P = 0.22), long-term hernia recurrence (defined as 3–5 years, 30.7% mesh vs 31.3% sutured, P = 0.69), functional outcomes and patient satisfaction. The only statistically significant difference was that the mesh repair required a longer operation time (P = 0.05, OR 2.33, 95% CI 0.03–24.69). Conclusion Mesh repair for hiatus hernia does not offer any advantage over sutured hiatal closure. As both techniques deliver good and comparable clinical outcomes, a suture only technique is still an appropriate approach.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document