scholarly journals A systematic review of the effect of omega-3 supplements on meibomian gland dysfunction

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 251584142095218
Author(s):  
Mashael Al-Namaeh
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Treatment Group ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meibomian Gland ◽  
Meibomian Gland Dysfunction ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Sodium Fluorescein ◽  
Omega 3 ◽  
Break Up

Introduction: Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) is the leading cause of dry eye syndrome (DES). Many ocular disorders including DES and blepharitis can be linked to MGD. If we treat MGD, we can treat related diseases easily. Purpose: This systematic review is intended to determine the efficacy of omega-3 supplementation in MGD patients. Methods: This systematic review included an electronic search on PubMed and Clinicaltrials.gov to include all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) using omega-3 as a treatment for MGD. Results: Database search yielded to one RCT and six clinical trials through the MEDLINE of a total of 350 participants for the systematic review and meta-analysis study. The investigated treatment group (omega-3 group) had a positive effect on MGD protection in the invasive sodium fluorescein-tear break up time (NaFl-TBUT) score compared with the placebo group (odd ratio = 8.72, 95% confidence interval: 4.73, 16.09; p < 0.001). These data suggest that the odd ratios of the omega-3 group to control group increased the likelihood of the improved stated outcome tear break up time (TBUT) being achieved in the treatment group. No evidence of publication bias was detected in the funnel plot inspection or the Egger’s statistical test ( p = 0.2944). Conclusions: A moderate daily dose of omega-3 may be a beneficial therapeutic for MGD. Omega-3 has been beneficial in many diseases, such as heart attack prevention and agerelated macular degeneration, and this systematic review emphasizes its protection against MGD. In addition, this review emphasizes the precision of noninvasive TBUT (NITBUT) compared with invasive NaFl-TBUT which may suggest the importance of NITBUT in the clinic.

scholarly journals Effect of traditional resistance training on blood pressure in normotensive elderly persons: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 571-581 ◽  
Author(s):  
Durcelina Schiavoni ◽  
Ligia Maxwell Pereira ◽  
Hugo Maxwell Pereira ◽  
Edilson Serpeloni Cyrino ◽  
Jefferson Rosa Cardoso
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Resistance Training ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Elderly Persons ◽  
Traditional Resistance Training ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract The objective of the present study was to determine the effectiveness of the regular practice of traditional resistance training (RT) on systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in normotensive elderly persons. A systematic review of randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses was performed. Searches were performed without language restrictions in different databases. Randomized clinical trials published from 1966 to 2010 that assessed the effects of traditional RT on resting blood pressure (BP) and/or for the treatment of high BP were included. Only studies that assessed the effects of traditional RT on elderly adults, regardless of the number of exercises, with the presence of a control group and comparisons between groups, were included. Twenty-nine studies were found, but only six met the inclusion criteria. The mean difference was used for meta-analysis, using a 95% confidence interval and a random effect model. Traditional RT induced a significant decrease in SBP (-6.63 mmHg; p=0.02) but not in DBP (-3.34 mmHg; p=0.11). These results suggest that traditional RT may be a non-pharmacological strategy for the control of BP in the elderly.

scholarly journals Autologous Matrix of Platelet-Rich Fibrin in Wound Care Settings: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chayane Karla Lucena de Carvalho ◽  
Beatriz Luci Fernandes ◽  
Mauren Abreu de Souza
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Chronic Wounds ◽  
Wound Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Clinical Heterogeneity ◽  
Platelet Rich Fibrin

Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) consists of a matrix that provides the necessary elements for wound healing, acting as a biodegradable scaffold for cell migration, proliferation, and differentiation, in addition to the delivery of growth factors and angiogenesis. This study aims to determine the effectiveness of the autologous PRF in the treatment of wounds of different etiologies. We carried out a systematic review of randomized clinical trials, guided by the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration using the following databases: Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CENTRAL. The search strategy resulted in the inclusion of ten studies that evaluated the use of PRF dressings for the healing of acute or chronic wounds of multiple etiologies. Among the 172 participants treated with PRF in wounds of varying etiologies and different segment times, 130 presented favorable events with the use of the intervention. Among the 10 studies included, only two of them did not demonstrate better results than the control group. The studies showed clinical heterogeneity, making it impossible to perform a meta-analysis. The findings do not provide enough evidence to support the routine use of PRF dressings as the first line of treatment for the healing of acute or chronic wounds of different etiologies. There was great variability in the application of the various protocols and the ways to prepare the PRF, resulting in clinical heterogeneity. Therefore, it makes it impossible to synthesize and to collect evidence from different types of studies in the meta-analysis, which affects the results and their proper discussion.

Supplementation of Probiotics and Its Effects on Physically Active Individuals and Athletes: Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 481-492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriella Berwig Möller ◽  
Maria Júlia Vieira da Cunha Goulart ◽  
Bruna Bellincanta Nicoletto ◽  
Fernanda Donner Alves ◽  
Cláudia Dornelles Schneider
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Small Sample Size ◽  
Gastrointestinal Symptoms ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Probiotic Supplementation ◽  
Physically Active ◽  
Positive Effects

The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the effects of probiotic supplementation on physically active individuals. The participants, interventions, comparisons, outcome and study design inclusion criteria were (a) studies involving healthy adults or older subjects of both sexes who did physical exercise (including athletes and physically active individuals), (b) interventions with probiotics, (c) inclusion of a control group, (d) outcomes not previously defined, and (e) clinical trials and randomized clinical trials, with no language or date restrictions. The search was conducted in the following scientific databases: MEDLINE, Embase, SciELO, Scopus, and Lilacs. Search terms were “Probiotics” OR “Prebiotics” OR “Microbiota” AND “Exercise” OR “Athletes.” The articles were first screened by title and abstract by two independent reviewers and disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Data were extracted independently by the same two reviewers; results were extracted in duplicate and then compared to avoid errors. A total of 544 articles were retrieved and 24 were included. A total of 1,680 patients were included, most of them being male (n = 1,134, 67.5%), with a mean age of 30.9 ± 6.1 years. Following probiotic supplementation, positive effects have been reported for several outcomes including respiratory tract infection, immunologic markers, and gastrointestinal symptoms in both athletes and nonathletes. However, published studies have distinct protocols and measured outcomes, and some of them have small sample size and failed to prove beneficial effect on probiotic supplementation, leading to inconclusive results for standardized supplementation protocols.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of Ivermectin/Doxycycline combination in COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Ali Omrani ◽  
Amin Salehi-Abargouei ◽  
Behrooz Heydari ◽  
Nazgol Kermanshahi ◽  
Fatemeh Joukar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Viral Clearance ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Clinical Recovery ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Abstract BackgroundThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of the Ivermectin/Doxycycline combination for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar from database inception to August 26, 2021 for relevant studies. We included studies reporting at least one of the outcomes of interest: all-cause mortality; time to clinical recovery; hospital stay and viral clearance. The logarithm of risk ratios or mean differences and their corresponding standard errors for each outcome were pooled using a random-effects model. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for randomized clinical trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies.ResultsFour randomized clinical trials and one prospective study involving 789 patients, including 399 in the Ivermectin/Doxycycline group and 390 in the control group, were enrolled. The all-cause mortality rate of patients with COVID-19 in the Ivermectin/Doxycycline group was 0.79% (2/253), which was lower than in the control group (3.6%; 9/250). However, the difference was not statistically significant (Log risk ratio=-1.288; 95% CI:-2.671, 0.096; P = 0.068; I2 = 0%). The effect of Ivermectin/Doxycycline on time to clinical recovery was found to be significant (Difference in means =-2.427 days; 95% CI:-4.033, -0.820; P = 0.003, I2 = 91.475%). There is no significant effect of Ivermectin/Doxycycline on hospital stay (Difference in means =-0.379 days; 95% CI:-1.965, 1.208; P = 0.640, I2 = 91.95%) and time to negative PCR or viral clearance (Difference in means =-0.768 days; 95% CI:-1.550, 0.013; P = 0.054, I2 = 91.48%).DiscussionBased on low-quality evidence, this meta-analysis showed that Ivermectin/Doxycycline combination is accompanied with shorter time of clinical recovery in COVID-19 patients. However, it did not reduce all-cause mortality, viral clearance, and hospital stay significantly. Not only the number of the studies are limited but also they ranked methodologically medium to low with limited participants. To assess the exact effective dose and efficacy of this combination therapy, high-quality and large-scale randomized clinical trials are needed.OtherThis study was registered in Prospero (registration number: CRD42021272400). The authors declare they have no competing financial interests.

scholarly journals Mouth-rinses and SARS-CoV-2 viral load in saliva: A living systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akram Hernández-Vásquez ◽  
Antonio Barrenechea-Pulache ◽  
Daniel Comandé ◽  
Diego Azañedo
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Viral Load ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Sterile Water ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Mouth Rinses ◽  
Number Of Patients

ABSTRACTObjectiveTo conduct a living systematic review of the clinical evidence regarding the effect of different mouth-rinses on the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in the saliva of infected patients. The viral load in aerosols, the duration of the reduction in viral load, viral clearance, SARS-CoV-2 cellular infectivity, and salivary cytokine profiles were also evaluated.Materials and methodsThis study was reported using the PRISMA guidelines. An electronic search was conducted in seven databases and in preprint repositories. We included human clinical trials that evaluated the effect of mouth-rinses with antiseptic substances on the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in the saliva of children or adults that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021240561.ResultsFour studies matching eligibility criteria were selected for evaluation (n=32 participants). Study participants underwent oral rinses with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) at 1 %, povidone–iodine (PI) at 0.5% or 1%, chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) at 0.2% or 0.12% or cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) at 0.075%. Only one study included a control group with sterile water. Three of the studies identified a significant reduction in viral load up to 3, 4, and 6 hours after the use of mouthwashes with PI, CHX, and CPC or PI vs. sterile water, respectively, while one study did not identify a significant reduction in viral load after the use of H2O2 rinses.ConclusionsAccording to the present systematic review, the effect of the use of mouth-rinses on SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the saliva of COVID-19 patients remains uncertain. This is mainly due to the limited number of patients included and a high risk of bias present in the studies analyzed. Evidence from well-designed randomized clinical trials is required for further and more objective evaluation of this effect.

scholarly journals Early Orthodontic Treatments of Unilateral Posterior Crossbite: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
Francesco Caroccia ◽  
Francesco Moscagiuri ◽  
Luigi Falconio ◽  
Felice Festa ◽  
Michele D’Attilio
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Mixed Dentition ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Maxillary Expansion ◽  
Posterior Crossbite ◽  
Quad Helix

We aimed to report an update of the systematic review by Petrén et al. (2003). The objective was to evaluate how orthodontic treatments can affect unilateral posterior crossbite (UPXB) in primary and early mixed dentition. Several databases were consulted, and articles published between January 2002 and March 2020 were selected. This review examines the following studies: randomized clinical trials, prospective and retrospective studies with concurrent untreated or normal control groups, and clinical trials comparing at least two treatment strategies. Among the 1581 articles retrieved from the searches, 11 studies were included. Quad-helix (QH) and expansion plate (EP) appliances were compared in three studies. One study compared rapid maxillary expansion (RME) treatment anchored on primary dentition otherwise on permanent molars. One study compared RME and a modified RME with arms extended until deciduous canine and EP. Four studies evaluated the effects of expansion appliances compared with a control group. Compared with the previous review, the quality of the included studies is higher. However, heterogeneity of treatments, different strategies in measurements, lack of a similar follow-up length, and absence of a cost-effectiveness analysis preclude the possibility of providing reliable scientific evidence on the most effective UPXB treatment in primary and early mixed dentition.

scholarly journals Often claimed, rarely tested: differences in individual drug response

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Winkelbeiner ◽  
Stefan Leucht ◽  
John M. Kane ◽  
Philipp Homan
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Treatment Group ◽  
Antipsychotic Drugs ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
World Health ◽  
Response To Treatment ◽  
Individual Treatment ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Reasonable Assumption ◽  
Personal Element

An assumption among clinicians and researchers is that patients with schizophrenia vary considerably in their response to antipsychotic drugs in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). To evaluate the overall variation in individual treatment response from random variation by comparing the variability between treatment and control groups. DATA SOURCES Cochrane Schizophrenia, MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, BIOSIS Previews, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from January 1, 1955, to December 31, 2016. Double-blind, placebo-controlled, RCTs of adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum disorders and prescription for licensed antipsychoticdrugs. Means and SDs of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale pretreatmentand posttreatment outcome difference scores were extracted. Data quality and validity were ensured by following the PRISMA guidelines. The outcome measurewas the overall variability ratio of treatment to control in ameta-analysis across RCTs. Individual variability ratios were weighted by the inverse-variance method and entered into a random-effects model. A personal element of response was hypothesized to be reflected by a substantial overall increase in variability in the treatment group compared with the control group. An RCT was simulated, comprising 30 patients with schizophrenia randomized to either the treatment or the control group. The different components of variation in RCTs were illustrated with simulated data. In addition, we assessed the variability ratio in 52 RCTs involving 15 360 patients with a schizophrenia or schizoaffective diagnosis. The variability was slightly lower in the treatment compared with the control group (variability ratio = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99; P = .01). In this study, no evidence was found in RCTs that antipsychotic drugs increased the outcome variance, suggesting no personal element of response to treatment but instead indicating that the variance was slightly lower in the treatment group than in the control group; although the study cannot rule out that subsets of patients respond differently to treatment, it suggests that the averagetreatment effect is a reasonable assumption for the individual patient.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document