scholarly journals Recurrence rate with inferior conjunctival autograft transplantation compared with superior conjunctival autograft transplantation in pterygium surgery: a meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenwei Li ◽  
Yaoyong Lou ◽  
Bin Wang
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Recurrence Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Postoperative Recurrence ◽  
Pain Scale ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Conjunctival Autograft ◽  
Autograft Group

AbstractBackgroundConjunctival autograft transplantation from superior conjunctiva is often chosen to lower the postoperative recurrence rate for pterygium treatment. However, inferior conjunctival autograft (ICA) might be taken as an alternative surgery method, especially under certain conditions. Consequently, we designed this research to estimate and contrast the result of inferior conjunctival autograft and superior conjunctival autograft (SCA) on the postoperative recurrence rate.MethodsWe searched through network database (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) to choose suitable randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Based on Cochrane review methods, we evaluated eligibility and risk of bias of included studies. The primary measures included postoperative recurrence rate. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were assessed. RevMan 5.3 software was utilized to conduct statistical analysis.ResultsFour RCTs composed of a total of 438 eyes were included in this meta-analysis, with 234 eyes in the inferior conjunctival autograft group and 204 eyes in the superior conjunctival autograft group. Statistical meta-analysis revealed that the postoperative recurrence rate was similar between the two groups (RR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.36 to 1.62,P = 0.49). Only two RCTs applied the postoperative pain scale and one of them did not provided adequate numbers.ConclusionsOur meta-analysis indicated that inferior autograft transplantation and superior autograft transplantation had a similar effect on postoperative recurrence rate. The inferior autograft group might have a less postoperative pain. Subsequent RCTs which have more patients participated and more outcomes are needed to confirm our conclusions in years to come.

scholarly journals What is the impact of dexamethasone on postoperative pain in adults undergoing general anaesthesia for elective abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ciara Mitchell ◽  
C. Mitchell ◽  
S. J. Cheuk ◽  
C. M. O’Donnell ◽  
S. Bampoe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Abdominal Surgery ◽  
General Anaesthesia ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Morphine ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
Elective Abdominal Surgery ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Previous meta-analysis of heterogeneous surgical cohorts demonstrated reduction in postoperative pain with perioperative intravenous dexamethasone, but none have addressed adults undergoing elective abdominal surgery. Objective To determine the impact of intravenous perioperative dexamethasone on postoperative pain in adults undergoing elective abdominal surgery under general anaesthesia. Methods This review was prospectively registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42020176202). Electronic databases Medical Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Exerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), (CINAHL) Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and trial registries were searched to January 28 2021 for randomised controlled trials, comparing dexamethasone to placebo or alternative antiemetic, that reported pain. The primary outcome was pain score, and secondary outcomes were time to first analgesia, opioid requirements and time to post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge. Results Fifty-two studies (5768 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. Pain scores ≤4 hours were reduced in patients who received dexamethasone at rest (mean difference (MD), -0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.72 to -0.35, I2 = 81%) and on movement (MD -0.42, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.22, I2 = 35 ). In the dexamethasone group 4–24 hour pain scores were less at rest (MD -0.31, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.14, I2 = 96) and on movement (MD -0.26, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.13, I2 = 29) and pain scores ≥24 hours were reduced at rest (MD -0.38, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.24, I2 = 88) and on movement (MD -0.38, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.11, I2 = 71). Time to first analgesia (minutes) was increased (MD 22.92, 95% CI 11.09 to 34.75, I2 = 98), opioid requirements (mg oral morphine) decreased (MD -6.66, 95% CI -9.38 to -3.93, I2 = 88) and no difference in time to PACU discharge (MD -3.82, 95% CI -10.87 to 3.23, I2 = 59%). Conclusions Patients receiving dexamethasone had reduced pain scores, postoperative opioid requirements and longer time to first analgesia. Dexamethasone is an effective analgesic adjunct for patients undergoing abdominal surgery.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Bevacizumab in the Treatment of Pterygium: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi Sun ◽  
Bowen Zhang ◽  
Xiuhua Jia ◽  
Shiqi Ling ◽  
Juan Deng
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Conjunctival Autograft ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Purpose. Studies investigating efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in pterygium have increased and reported controversial results. Thus, we updated this meta-analysis to clarify the issue. Methods. Studies were selected through search of the databases Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from their inception up until June 2017. The pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for recurrence and complication rates by using random effects model. Results. 1045 eyes in 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolled. Overall, the pooled estimate showed a statistically significant effect of bevacizumab on the reduction of recurrence (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56–0.97, P=0.03). Subgroup analyses presented significant results beneficial to bevacizumab (primary pterygium group, RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33–0.83, P=0.006; conjunctival autograft group, RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25–0.91, P=0.02; and follow-up longer than 12 months group, RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.13–0.99, P=0.05). No statistically significant difference was observed in complication rates. Conclusions. Application of bevacizumab showed a statistically significant decrease in recurrence rate following removal of primary pterygia, or in cases with conjunctival autograft, or with follow-up longer than 12 months, while complications were not increased.

scholarly journals Articaine in dentistry: an overview of the evidence and meta-analysis of the latest randomised controlled trials on articaine safety and efficacy compared to lidocaine for routine dental treatment

BDJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Erica Martin ◽  
Alan Nimmo ◽  
Andrew Lee ◽  
Ernest Jennings
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Local Anaesthetic ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Dental Treatment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Dental Procedures ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Objectives To comprehensively review the existing studies of articaine in dentistry and conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to answer the following Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome question: “Is articaine a safe and efficacious local anaesthetic for routine dental treatment compared to lidocaine?” Methods Database searches were conducted in Medline Ovid, Medline Pubmed, Scopus, Emcare, Proquest and the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials. Inclusion criteria were all existing English, human, randomised controlled trials of interventions involving 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine in routine dental treatment. Twelve studies were included for meta-analysis using Cochrane Review Manager 5 software. Anaesthetic success odds ratios were calculated using a random-effects model. Results Articaine had a higher likelihood of achieving anaesthetic success than lidocaine overall and in all subgroup analyses with varying degrees of significance. Overall (OR: 2.17, 95% CI: 1.50, 3.15, I2 = 62%) articaine had 2.17 times the likelihood of anaesthetic success of lidocaine (P < 0.0001). For mandibular blocks (OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.98, I2 = 0%) articaine had 1.5 times the likelihood of anaesthetic success of lidocaine (P = 0.004). For all infiltrations, maxillary and mandibular (OR: 2.78, 95% CI: 1.61, 4.79, I2 = 66%) articaine had 2.78 times the likelihood of anaesthetic success of lidocaine (P = 0.0002). None of the studies reported any major local anaesthetic-related adverse effects as a result of the interventions. Conclusions Articaine is a safe and efficacious local anaesthetic for all routine dental procedures in patients of all ages, and more likely to achieve successful anaesthesia than lidocaine in routine dental treatment. Neither anaesthetic has a higher association with anaesthetic-related adverse effects.

scholarly journals Effects of Systemic Magnesium on Postoperative Analgesia: Is the Current Evidence Strong Enough?

2015 ◽  
Vol 5;18 (5;9) ◽  
pp. 405-417
Author(s):  
Prof. Qu Yan
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Pain Score ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Post Operative Pain ◽  
Mean Differences

Background: Clinical studies have been previously carried out on the efficacy of systemic magnesium to minimize postoperative pain, however, with controversial results. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety of systemic magnesium on post-operative pain. Study Design: Comprehensive systematic review of all relevant, publsished randomized controlled trials. Methods: A search was conducted of published literature in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases from inception to September 2014. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared magnesium with placebo were identified. Effects were summarized using standardized mean differences (SMDs), weighed mean differences (WMD), or odds ratio (OR) with suitable effect model. Results: Twenty-seven RCTs involving 1,504 patients were included. In total, peri-operative magnesium significantly reduced the pain score at rest (SMD, -1.43, 95% CI, -2.74 to -0.12, < 0.01). Magnesium significantly reduced analgesic consumption (SMD, -1.72, 95% CI, -3.21 to -0.23) in patients undergoing urogenital, orthopaedic, and cardiovascular surgeries, but was inconclusive for patients receiving gastrointestinal surgeries. The obvious analgesia of systemic magnesium was observed on reducing the pain score during movement at 24 hours after operation (SMD, -0.05, 95% CI, -0.43 to 0.32). Moreover, magnesium administration showed a beneficial effect with regard to intra-operative hemodynamics and reduced extubation time in the cardiovascular surgery patients (WMD, -29.34 min, 95% CI, -35.74 to -22.94, P < 0.01). Limitations: Focused only on the quality of analgesia on postoperative pain with regards to surgery type. Conclusions: Our study suggests that systemic magnesium during general anesthesia significantly decreases post-operative pain scores without increasing adverse events. It should be noted that since there are 18 ongoing RCTs without published data, it is still premature to draw conclusions on the long-term analgesic effects of magnesium as well as potential gender or age difference. Key words: Magnesium, post-operative pain, meta-analysis

scholarly journals Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Part 2 - Hand hygiene and other hygiene measures: systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lubna Al-Ansary ◽  
Ghada Bawazeer ◽  
Elaine Beller ◽  
Justin Clark ◽  
John Conly ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hand Hygiene ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Respiratory Viruses ◽  
Relative Reduction ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Hygiene Measures ◽  
The Impact

AbstractOBJECTIVETo assess the effectiveness of hand hygiene, surface disinfecting, and other hygiene interventions in preventing or reducing the spread of illnesses from respiratory viruses.DESIGNUpdate of a systematic review and meta-analysis focussing on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs (c-RCTs) evidence only.DATA SOURCESEligible trials from the previous Cochrane review, search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase and CINAHL from 01 October 2010 to 01 April 2020, and forward and backward citation analysis of included studies.DATA SELECTIONRCTs and c-RCTs involving people of any age, testing the use of hand hygiene methods, surface disinfection or cleaning, and other miscellaneous barrier interventions. Face masks, eye protection, and person distancing are covered in Part 1 of our systematic review. Outcomes included acute respiratory illness (ARI), influenza-like illness (ILI) or laboratory-confirmed influenza (influenza) and/or related consequences (e.g. death, absenteeism from school or work).DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSISSix authors working in pairs independently assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool and extracted data. The generalised inverse variance method was used for pooling by using the random-effects model, and results reported with risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).RESULTSWe identified 51 eligible trials. We included 25 randomised trials comparing hand hygiene interventions with a control; 15 of these could be included in meta-analyses. We pooled 8 trials for the outcome of ARI. Hand hygiene showed a 16% relative reduction in the number of participants with ARI (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.86) in the intervention group. When we considered the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and influenza, the RR for ILI was 0.98 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.14), and for influenza the RR was 0.91 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.34). Three trials measured absenteeism. We found a 36% relative reduction in absentee numbers in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.71). Comparison of different hand hygiene interventions did not favour one intervention type over another. We found no incremental effects of combining hand hygiene with using face masks or disinfecting surfaces or objects.CONCLUSIONSDespite the lack of evidence for the impact of hand hygiene in reducing ILI and influenza, the modest evidence for reducing the burden of ARIs, and related absenteeism, justifies reinforcing the standard recommendation for hand hygiene measures to reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Funding for relevant trials with an emphasis on adherence and compliance with such a measure is crucial to inform policy and global pandemic preparedness with confidence and precision.

scholarly journals Convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19 patients: a protocol of a prospective meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lajos Szakó ◽  
Nelli Farkas ◽  
Szabolcs Kiss ◽  
Szilárd Váncsa ◽  
Noémi Zádori ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Organ Failure ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Plasma Therapy ◽  
Monthly Basis ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infection with possible serious consequences. The plasma of recovered patients might serve as treatment, which we aim to assess in the form of a prospective meta-analysis focusing on mortality, multi-organ failure, duration of intensive care unit stay, and adverse events. Methods A systematic search was conducted to find relevant registered randomized controlled trials in five trial registries. A comprehensive search will be done continuously on a monthly basis in MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science to find the results of previously registered randomized controlled trials. The selection will be done by two independent authors. Data extraction will be carried out by two other independent reviewers. Disagreements will be resolved by a third investigator. An update of the search of the registries and the first search of the databases will be done on the 21st of July. Data synthesis will be performed following the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration. In the case of dichotomous outcomes (mortality and organ failure), we will calculate pooled risk ratios with a 95% confidence interval (CI) from two-by-two tables (treatment Y/N, outcome Y/N). Data from models with multivariate adjustment (hazard ratios, odds ratio, risk ratio) will be preferred for the analysis. P less than 0.05 will be considered statistically significant. In the case of ICU stay, weighted mean difference with a 95% confidence interval will be calculated. Heterogeneity will be tested with I2, and χ2 tests. Meta-analysis will be performed if at least 3 studies report on the same outcome and population. Discussion Convalescent plasma therapy is a considerable alternative in COVID-19, which we aim to investigate in a prospective meta-analysis.

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.

Sulodexide versus Control and the Risk of Thrombotic and Hemorrhagic Events: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (08) ◽  
pp. 908-918
Author(s):  
Behnood Bikdeli ◽  
Saurav Chatterjee ◽  
Ajay J. Kirtane ◽  
Sahil A. Parikh ◽  
Giuseppe M. Andreozzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Cardiovascular Mortality ◽  
Dermatan Sulfate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Arterial Disease ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Random Effects Models ◽  
All Cause Mortality

AbstractThrombotic cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, and venous thromboembolism [VTE]) remains a major cause of death and disability. Sulodexide is an oral glycosaminoglycan containing heparan sulfate and dermatan sulfate. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the cardiovascular efficacy, and safety of sulodexide versus control in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for RCTs reporting cardiovascular outcomes in patients receiving sulodexide versus control (placebo or no treatment). Outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, MI, stroke, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, and bleeding. We used inverse variance random-effects models with odds ratio (OR) as the effect measure. After screening 360 records, 6 RCTs including 7,596 patients (median follow-up duration: 11.6 months) were included. Patients were enrolled for history of MI, VTE, peripheral arterial disease, or cardiovascular risk factors plus nephropathy. Use of sulodexide compared with control was associated with reduced odds of all-cause mortality (OR 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52–0.85, p = 0.001), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22–0.89, p = 0.02), and MI (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51–0.96, p = 0.03), and nonsignificantly reduced odds of stroke (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.45–1.35, p = 0.38). Sulodexide was associated with significantly reduced odds of VTE (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.24–0.81, p = 0.008), including DVT (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.26–0.65, p < 0.001), but not pulmonary embolism (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.40–2.15, p = 0.86). Bleeding events were not significantly different in the two groups (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.47–2.74, p = 0.48). In six RCTs across a variety of clinical indications, use of sulodexide compared with placebo or no treatment was associated with reduced odds of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, MI, and DVT, without a significant increase in bleeding. Additional studies with this agent are warranted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document