scholarly journals Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in patients with suspected appendicitis: a systematic review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Jaschinski ◽  
Christoph Mosch ◽  
Michaela Eikermann ◽  
Edmund AM Neugebauer
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Open Appendectomy ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Suspected Appendicitis ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy

scholarly journals Comparative efficacy and safety of interventions for treating head lice: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e001129
Author(s):  
Bill Stevenson ◽  
Wubshet Tesfaye ◽  
Julia Christenson ◽  
Cynthia Mathew ◽  
Solomon Abrha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Head Lice ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundHead lice infestation is a major public health problem around the globe. Its treatment is challenging due to product failures resulting from rapidly emerging resistance to existing treatments, incorrect treatment applications and misdiagnosis. Various head lice treatments with different mechanism of action have been developed and explored over the years, with limited report on systematic assessments of their efficacy and safety. This work aims to present a robust evidence summarising the interventions used in head lice.MethodThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis which will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement for network meta-analyses. Selected databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials exploring head lice treatments. Searches will be limited to trials published in English from database inception till 2021. Grey literature will be identified through Open Grey, AHRQ, Grey Literature Report, Grey Matters, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry. Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved via a third reviewer. The primary outcome measure is the relative risk of cure at 7 and 14 days postinitial treatment. Secondary outcome measures may include adverse drug events, ovicidal activity, treatment compliance and acceptability, and reinfestation. Information from direct and indirect evidence will be used to generate the effect sizes (relative risk) to compare the efficacy and safety of individual head lice treatments against a common comparator (placebo and/or permethrin). Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations guideline for network meta-analysis. All quantitative analyses will be conducted using STATA V.16.DiscussionThe evidence generated from this systematic review and meta-analysis is intended for use in evidence-driven treatment of head lice infestations and will be instrumental in informing health professionals, public health practitioners and policy-makers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017073375.

scholarly journals Partially randomised patient preference trials as an alternative design to randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analyses

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e031151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karin A Wasmann ◽  
Pieta Wijsman ◽  
Susan van Dieren ◽  
Willem Bemelman ◽  
Christianne Buskens
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
External Validity ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Internal Validity ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Lost To Follow Up

ObjectiveRandomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients’ preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined.DesignSystematic review and meta-analyses.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed.ResultsIn total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%–100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%–99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI −0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502).ConclusionsPatients’ preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019094438.

scholarly journals M89. PHARMACOLOGICAL INTERVENTIONS FOR SMOKING CESSATION AMONG PEOPLE WITH SCHIZOPHRENIA: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S168-S168
Author(s):  
Dan Siskind ◽  
Brian Wu ◽  
Tommy Wong ◽  
Steve Kisely
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Smoking Abstinence ◽  
Pharmacological Interventions ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background People living with schizophrenia are 3 times more likely to smoke than the general population, and have fewer and less successful quitting attempts. In concert with psychosocial quit interventions, there is a need for evidence based pharmacological interventions to assist people living with schizophrenia achieve smoking abstinence. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, PsycInfo, EMBASE and Cochrane for randomised controlled trials of pharmacological interventions for reducing smoking among people living with schizophrenia. We conducted pairwise and network meta-analyses of effectiveness of interventions for achieving abstinence and reduction in smoking. We also examined psychiatric and physical adverse events of interventions. Results Nineteen studies were included in the systematic review. Data was available for buproprion, varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Buproprion (RR 3.4, 95%CI 1.6–7.3, p=0.002), varenicline (RR 3.8, 95%CI 2.0–7.2, p<0.001) and NRT (RR 4.3, 95%CI 1.7–10.7, p=0.002) were all associated with increased rates of abstinence in pairwise meta-analyses. In a network meta-analysis varenicline was superior to buproprion (RR 2.0, 95%CI 1.0–3.9), however there was no statistically significant difference between varenicline and NRT or buproprion and NRT. Varenicline was associated with higher rates of nausea than placebo. Discussion Buproprion, varenicline and NRT were all superior to placebo for achieving abstinence. Varenicline appears to be superior to buproprion for achieving abstinence, however varenicline is associated with higher rates of nausea.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document