scholarly journals Laparoscopic nerve‑sparing radical hysterectomy for the treatment of cervical cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Linlin Ma ◽  
Qiwei Li ◽  
Ying Guo ◽  
Xiaoyu Tan ◽  
Mengying Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Radical Hysterectomy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Nerve Sparing ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background The effects and safety of laparoscopic nerve‑sparing radical hysterectomy (LNSRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in cervical cancer treatment remain unclear. This article aims to evaluate the role of LNSRH versus LRH in the treatment of cervical cancer. This is because the updated meta-analysis with synthesized data may provide more reliable evidence on the role of LNSRH and LRH. Methods We searched Pubmed et al. databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving laparoscopic nerve‑sparing radical hysterectomy (LNSRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for cervical cancer treatment from the inception of databases to June 15, 2021. The RevMan 5.3 software was used for data analyses. This meta-analysis protocol had been registered online (available at: https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2021-9-0047/). Results Thirteen RCTs involving a total of 1002 cervical cancer patients were included. Synthesized results indicated that the duration of surgery of the LNSRH group was significantly longer than that of the LRH group [SMD 1.11, 95% CI (0.15 ~ 2.07), P = 0.02]. The time to intestinal function recovery [SMD −1.27, 95% CI (−1.84 ~ −0.69), P < 0.001] and the time to postoperative urinary catheter removal of the LNSRH group [SMD −1.24, 95% CI (−1.62 ~ −0.86), P < 0.001] were significantly less than that of the LRH group. There were no significant differences in the estimated blood loss [SMD 0.10, 95% CI (−0.14 ~ 0.34), P = 0.41], the length of parauterine tissue resection [SMD −0.10, 95% CI (−0.25 ~ 0.05), P = 0.19], length of vaginal excision [SMD 0.04, 95% CI (−0.26 ~ 0.34), P = 0.78], and incidence of intraoperative adverse events [RR 0.97, 95% CI (0.44 ~ 2.13), P = 0.94] between the LNSRH group and the LRH group. Conclusions LNSRH significantly results in earlier bladder and bowel function after surgery. Limited by sample size, LNSRH should be considered with caution in the future.

scholarly journals Vitamin D supplementation, COVID-19 and disease severity: a meta-analysis

QJM ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
K Shah ◽  
D Saxena ◽  
D Mavalankar
Keyword(s):  
Vitamin D ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vitamin D Supplementation ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Objective: Current meta-analysis aims to understand the effect of oral supplementation of vitamin D on intensive care unit (ICU) requirement and mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods: Databases PubMed, preprint servers, and google scholar were searched from December 2019 to December 2020. Authors searched for the articles assessing role of vitamin D supplementation on COVID-19. Cochrane RevMan tool was used for quantitative assessment of the data, where heterogeneity was assessed using I2 and Q statistics and data was expressed using odds ratio with 95% confidence interval. Results: Final meta-analysis involved pooled data of 532 hospitalized patients (189 on vitamin D supplementation and 343 on usual care/placebo) of COVID-19 from three studies (Two randomized controlled trials, one retrospective case-control study). Statistically (p&lt;0.0001) lower ICU requirement was observed in patients with vitamin D supplementation as compared to patients without supplementations (odds ratio: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.210-0.626). However, it suffered from significant heterogeneity, which reduced after sensitivity analysis. In case of mortality, vitamin D supplements has comparable findings with placebo treatment/usual care (odds ratio: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.413-2.113; p=0.87). The studies did not show any publication bias and had fair quality score. Subgroup analysis could not be performed due to limited number of studies and hence dose and duration dependent effect of vitamin D could not be evaluated. Conclusions: Although the current meta-analysis findings indicate potential role of vitamin D in improving COVID-19 severity in hospitalized patients, more robust data from randomized controlled trials are needed to substantiate its effects on mortality.

Mechanical Thromboprophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2006 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 402-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Limpus ◽  
Wendy Chaboyer ◽  
Ellen McDonald ◽  
Lukman Thalib
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Intensive Care Patients ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Confounding Variables

• Objective To systematically review the randomized trials, observational studies, and survey evidence on compression and pneumatic devices for thromboprophylaxis in intensive care patients. • Methods Published studies on the use of compression and pneumatic devices in intensive care patients were assessed. A meta-analysis was conducted by using the randomized controlled trials. • Results A total of 21 relevant studies (5 randomized controlled trials, 13 observational studies, and 3 surveys) were found. A total of 811 patients were randomized in the 5 randomized controlled trials; 3421 patients participated in the observational studies. Trauma patients only were enrolled in 4 randomized controlled trials and 4 observational studies. Meta-analysis of 2 randomized controlled trials with similar populations and outcomes revealed that use of compression and pneumatic devices did not reduce the incidence of venous thromboembolism. The pooled risk ratio was 2.37, indicative of favoring the control over the intervention in reducing the deep venous thrombosis; however, the 95% CI of 0.57 to 9.90 indicated no significant differences between the intervention and the control. A range of methodological issues, including bias and confounding variables, make meaningful interpretation of the observational studies difficult. • Conclusions The limited evidence suggests that use of compressive and pneumatic devices yields results not significantly different from results obtained with no treatment or use of low-molecular-weight heparin. Until large randomized controlled trials are conducted, the role of mechanical approaches to thromboprophylaxis for intensive care patients remains uncertain.

Role of Decompressive Craniectomy in Traumatic Brain Injury – A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 67 (5) ◽  
pp. 1225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kanwaljeet Garg ◽  
PreetM Singh ◽  
Raghav Singla ◽  
Ankita Aggarwal ◽  
Anuradha Borle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Decompressive Craniectomy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document