The best treatment option(s) for adult and elderly patients with chronic primary musculoskeletal pain: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract Background Chronic primary musculoskeletal pain (CPMP) is one subcategory of the new classification of chronic primary pain for the upcoming ICD-11, defined as chronic pain in the muscles, bones, joints, or tendons that persists or recurs for more than 3 months and is associated with significant emotional distress or functional disability. An array of pharmacological, psychological, physical, complementary, and rehabilitative interventions is available for CPMP, for which previous research has demonstrated varying effect sizes with regard to effectiveness in pain reduction and other main outcomes. This highlights the need for the synthesis of all available evidence. The proposed network meta-analysis will compare all available interventions for CPMP to determine the best treatment option(s) with a focus on efficacy and safety of interventions. Methods We are interested in comparing interventions of the following types: psychological, pharmacological, physical, complementary, and rehabilitative interventions. We will include all randomized controlled trials that compare one intervention with another, or with a control group, in the treatment of CPMP. Primary efficacy outcomes will be pain intensity, emotional distress, and functional disability. Safety outcomes extracted will include proportion of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events, unwanted events, or drop-out rates due to side effects. Published and unpublished trials will be sought through the search of all relevant databases and trial registries. At least two independent reviewers of the team will select the references and extract data independently. We will assess the risk of bias of each individual study using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. We will conduct a network meta-analysis to synthesize all evidence for each outcome. We will fit our model primarily within a Bayesian framework. Discussion CPMP is a disabling condition for which several interventions exist. To our knowledge, this is the first network meta-analysis to systematically compare all available evidence. This is required by national health institutions to inform their decisions about the best available treatment option(s) with regard to efficacy and safety outcomes. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018096114

Download Full-text

Effect of consumption of animal milk compared to infant formula for non-breastfed/mixed-fed infants 6–11 months of age: a systematic review (protocol)

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046370 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. e046370

Author(s):

Aamer Imdad ◽

Julie Melissa Ehrlich ◽

Joseph Catania ◽

Emily Tanner-Smith ◽

Abigail Smith ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Infant Formula ◽

Breast Feeding ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

World Health ◽

Control Group ◽

Breastfed Infants ◽

Evaluation Approach ◽

Animal Milk

IntroductionPrevalence rates of breastfeeding remain low even though the World Health Organization (WHO) and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend exclusive breast feeding for the first 6 months of life in combination with appropriate complementary feeding beyond six 6 months of age. There have been several studies that address the implication of drinking animal milk and/or infant formula on children’s health and development when breast feeding is not offered during the first year of life. Vast improvements have been made in infant formula design, which may increase its benefits compared with animal’s milk. The objective of this review is therefore to synthesise the most recent evidence on the effects of the consumption of animal milk compared with infant formula in non-breastfed or mixed breastfed infants aged 6–11 months.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that assessed the effect of animal milk compared with formula or mixed-fed (breastmilk and formula) on infants aged 6–11 months. The primary outcomes of interest include anaemia, gastrointestinal blood loss, weight for age, height for age and weight for height. We will include randomised and non-randomised studies with a control group. We will use the Cochrane risk of bias tools to assess the risk of bias. We will use meta-analysis to pool findings if the identified studies are conceptually homogenous and data are available from more than one study. We will assess the overall quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.Ethics and disseminationThis is a systematic review, so no patients will be directly involved in the design or development of this study. The findings from this systematic review will be disseminated to relevant patient populations and caregivers and will guide the WHO’s recommendations on formula consumption versus animal milk in infants aged 6–11 months.Trial registration numberCRD42020210925.

Download Full-text

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

BMJ Paediatrics Open ◽

10.1136/bmjpo-2021-001129 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

The efficacy and safety of antimuscarinics for the prevention or treatment of catheter-related bladder discomfort: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Perioperative Medicine ◽

10.1186/s13741-021-00217-0 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Zhongbao Zhou ◽

Yuanshan Cui ◽

Xiaoyi Zhang ◽

Youyi Lu ◽

Zhipeng Chen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Postoperative Nausea And Vomiting ◽

Control Group ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Facial Flushing ◽

Blurred Vision ◽

Randomized Controlled

Abstract Objectives This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antimuscarinics for the prevention or treatment of catheter related bladder discomfort (CRBD). Methods The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (from 1987 to July 2021) were used to search randomized controlled trials. The PRISMA checklists were followed. RevMan5.4.0 was used for statistical analysis. Results Eleven studies involving 1165 patients were involved in the analysis. The study reported that the incidence of CRBD observed in the antimuscarinics group was significantly lower than that of the control group at 0-, 1-, 2-, and 6-h after drug therapy (P = 0.001, P < 0.0001, P = 0.0005, and P = 0.001, respectively). For side effects, there were not statistical differences between the antimuscarinics group and the control group, mainly including dry mouth (risk ratio (RR) = 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.95 to 1.80, P = 0.09), postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.55 to 1.90, P = 0.87), facial flushing (RR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.43 to 2.61, P = 0.90), and blurred vision (RR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.35 to 2.58, P = 0.91). Besides, rescue analgesics were required less in the antimuscarinics group than in the control group (RR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.32 to 0.80, P = 0.003). Conclusions Compared with the control group, the antimuscarinics group had a significant improvement on CRBD, the patients were well tolerated and the use rate of rescue analgesics was low.

Download Full-text

A systematic review and meta-analysis for association of Helicobacter pylori colonization and celiac disease

PLoS ONE ◽

10.1371/journal.pone.0241156 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 16 (3) ◽

pp. e0241156

Author(s):

Fazel Isapanah Amlashi ◽

Zahra Norouzi ◽

Ahmad Sohrabi ◽

Hesamaddin Shirzad-Aski ◽

Alireza Norouzi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Helicobacter Pylori ◽

Celiac Disease ◽

Publication Bias ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Protective Role ◽

Negative Association ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Control Group ◽

Synthesis Methods

Background and objectives Based on some previous observational studies, there is a theory that suggests a potential relationship between Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) colonization and celiac disease (CeD); however, the type of this relationship is still controversial. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore all related primary studies to find any possible association between CeD and human H. pylori colonization. Data sources Studies were systematically searched and collected from four databases and different types of gray literature to cover all available evidence. After screening, the quality and risk of bias assessment of the selected articles were evaluated. Synthesis methods Meta-analysis calculated pooled odds ratio (OR) on the extracted data. Furthermore, heterogeneity, sensitivity, subgroups, and publication bias analyses were assessed. Results Twenty-six studies were included in this systematic review, with a total of 6001 cases and 135512 control people. The results of meta-analysis on 26 studies showed a significant and negative association between H. pylori colonization and CeD (pooled OR = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.45–0.70; P < 0.001), with no publication bias (P = 0.825). The L’Abbé plots also showed a trend of having more H. pylori colonization in the control group. Among subgroups, ORs were notably different only when the data were stratified by continents or risk of bias; however, subgroup analysis could not determine the source of heterogeneity. Conclusions According to the meta-analysis, this negative association might imply a mild protective role of H. pylori against celiac disease. Although this negative association is not strong, it is statistically significant and should be further considered. Further investigations in both molecular and clinic fields with proper methodology and more detailed information are needed to discover more evidence and underlying mechanisms to clear the interactive aspects of H. pylori colonization in CeD patients. Systematic review registration number (PROSPERO) CRD42020167730 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=167730.

Download Full-text

The impact of inclusion, dose and duration of pyrazinamide (PZA) on efficacy and safety outcomes in tuberculosis: systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

Systematic Reviews ◽

10.1186/s13643-019-1231-1 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 8 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

James D. Millard ◽

Elizabeth A. Mackay ◽

Laura J. Bonnett ◽

Geraint R. Davies

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

World Health ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Safety Outcomes ◽

Meta Regression ◽

Indirect Comparisons

Abstract Background Pyrazinamide (PZA) is a key component of current and future regimens for tuberculosis (TB). Inclusion of PZA at higher doses and for longer durations may improve efficacy outcomes but must be balanced against the potential for worse safety outcomes. Methods We will search for randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials in adult participants with and without the inclusion of PZA in TB treatment regimens in the Cochrane infectious diseases group’s trials register, Cochrane central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and the World Health Organization (WHO) international clinical trials registry platform. One author will screen abstracts and remove ineligible studies (10% of which will be double-screened by a second author). Two authors will review full texts for inclusion. Safety and efficacy data will be extracted to pre-piloted forms by one author (10% of which will be double-extracted by a second author). The Cochrane risk of bias tool will be used to assess study quality. The study has three objectives: the association of (1) inclusion, (2) dose and (3) duration of PZA with efficacy and safety outcomes. Risk ratios as relative measures of effect for direct comparisons within trials (all objectives) and proportions as absolute measures of effect for indirect comparisons across trials (for objectives 2 and 3) will be calculated. If there is insufficient data for direct comparisons within trials for objective 1, indirect comparisons between trials will be performed. Measures of effect will be pooled, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals and p values. Meta-analysis will be performed using the generalised inverse variance method for fixed effects models (FEM) or the DerSimonian-Laird method for random effects models (REM). For indirect comparisons, meta-regression for absolute measures against dose and duration data will be performed. Heterogeneity will be quantified through the I2-statistic for direct comparisons and the τ2 statistic for indirect comparisons using meta-regression. Discussion The current use of PZA for TB is based on over 60 years of clinical trial data, but this has never been synthesised to guide rationale use in future regimens and clinical trials. Systematic review registration: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42019138735

Download Full-text

Biological effects of amniotic membrane on diabetic foot wounds: a systematic review

Journal of Wound Care ◽

10.12968/jowc.2018.27.sup2.s19 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 27 (Sup2) ◽

pp. S19-S25 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

André Oliveira Paggiaro ◽

Andriws Garcia Menezes ◽

Alexandra Donizetti Ferrassi ◽

Viviane Fernandes De Carvalho ◽

Rolf Gemperli

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Wound Healing ◽

Amniotic Membrane ◽

Diabetic Foot ◽

Biological Effects ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Healing Process ◽

Intervention Group ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Control Group

Objective: The amniotic membrane has biological properties that are beneficial to the wound healing process of diabetic foot ulcers (DFU). Our aim is to analyse the scientific evidence found in literature on the use of the amniotic membrane to stimulate DFU healing. Method: A systematic review of amniotic membrane's influence was undertaken, using the search terms ‘placenta’ ‘diabetic foot’ ‘amnion’ and biological dressing’, assessing the outcomes ‘wound healing’ and ‘wound healing time’, in DFU. Following the inclusion and exclusion criteria, randomised controlled trials (RCT) were identified, and the risk of bias was analysed according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We conducted a meta-analysis of the two outcomes to evaluate the level of evidence. Results: We identified six clinical trials, with a total of 331 patients. The most common risks of bias in the studies were selection, attrition, and detection biases. From the meta-analysis, the difference of the intervention group (amnion) in relation to the control group was statistically significant. We found that wound healing in the group treated with amniotic membrane occurs 2.32 times more often and is 32 days faster in comparison with the group that used conventional dressings. Conclusion: There is statistical evidence to support the effectiveness of amniotic membrane in comparison with other conventional dressings. In addition, there is a clear tendency for the use of amniotic membrane treatment to result in a larger number of DFUs healing at a quicker rate.

Download Full-text

Physically Active Lessons Meta-Analysis - Norris et al. POST-PRINT

10.31234/osf.io/xdusz ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Emma Norris ◽

Tommy van Steen ◽

Artur Direito ◽

Emmanuel Stamatakis

Keyword(s):

Physical Activity ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Health Outcomes ◽

Educational Outcomes ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Control Group ◽

Physically Active ◽

Meta Analyses

Objective: This review provides the first meta-analysis of the effects of physically active lessons on lesson-time and overall physical activity (PA), as well as health, cognition and educational outcomes. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Six meta-analyses pooled effects on lesson-time PA, overall PA, in-class educational and overall educational outcomes, cognition and health outcomes. Meta-analyses were conducted using the metafor package in R. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for risk of bias. Data sources: PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC and Web of Science, grey literature and reference lists were searched in December 2017 and April 2019. Studies eligibility criteria: Physically active lessons compared to a control group in a randomised or non-randomised design, within single component interventions in general school populations. Results: 42 studies (39 in preschool or elementary school settings, 27 randomised controlled trials) were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review and 37 of them were included across the six meta-analyses (n=12,663). Physically active lessons were found to produce large, significant increases in lesson-time PA (d=2.33; 95%CI 1.42, 3.25: k=16) and small, significant effects on overall PA (d= 0.32, 95%CI 0.18, 0.46: k=8). A large, significant effect was shown on lesson-time educational outcomes (d=0.81; 95%CI 0.47, 1.14: k=7) and a small, significant effect on overall educational outcomes (d=0.36, 95%CI [0.09, 0.63], k=25). No effects were seen on cognitive (k=3) or health outcomes (k=3). 25/42 studies had high risk of bias in at least 2 domains. Conclusion: In elementary and preschool settings, when physically active lessons were added into the curriculum they had a positive impact on both physical activity and educational outcomes. These findings support policy initiatives encouraging the incorporation of physically active lessons into teaching in elementary and preschool settings.

Download Full-text

Effect of yoga on sleep quality and insomnia in women with sleep problems: a systematic review and meta-analysis

10.21203/rs.2.12592/v3 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Weili Wang ◽

Kuang-Huei Chen ◽

Ying-Chieh Pan ◽

Szu-Nian Yang ◽

Yuan-Yu Chan

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Sleep Quality ◽

Sleep Problems ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Control Group ◽

Serious Adverse Events ◽

Positive Effects ◽

Meta Analyses

Abstract Objectives To examine the effectiveness and safety of yoga for women with sleep problems by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods Medline/PubMed, Clincalkey, ScienceDirect, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library were searched throughout the month of June 2019. Randomized controlled trials comparing yoga groups with control groups in women with sleep problems were included. Two reviewers independently evaluated risk of bias by using the risk of bias tool suggested by the Cochrane Collaboration for programming and conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The main outcome measure was sleep quality or the severity of insomnia, which was measured using subjective instruments, such as the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Insomnia severity index (ISI), or objective instruments, such as polysomnography, actigraphy, and safety of the intervention. For each outcome, standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined. Results Nineteen studies including 1832 participants were included in this systematic review. Meta-analyses revealed positive effects of yoga using PSQI or ISI scores in 16 randomized control trials (RCTs) compared with the control group in improving sleep quality in women, PSQI (SMD = −0.54; 95% CI = −0.89 to −0.19 ; P = 0.003). However, three RCTs revealed no effects of yoga compared with the control group in reducing the severity of insomnia in women using ISI (SMD = −0.13; 95% CI = −0.74 to 0.48; P = 0.69). Seven RCTs revealed no evidence for effects of yoga compared with the control group in improving sleep quality for women with breast cancer using PSQI (SMD = −0.15 ; 95% CI = −0.31 to 0.01; P = 0.5). Four RCTs revealed no evidence for the effects of yoga compared with the control group in improving the sleep quality for peri-or postmenopausal women using PSQI (SMD = −0.31; 95% CI = −0.95 to 0.33; P = 0.34).Yoga was not associated with serious adverse events. Discussion This systematic review and meta-analysis found that yoga intervention in some groups of women was beneficial in managing sleep problems. Despite certain disadvantages in methodology in the included studies, yoga may be recommended as a complementary therapy to women.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and Safety of Qingfei Paidu Decoction for Treating COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Frontiers in Pharmacology ◽

10.3389/fphar.2021.688857 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 ◽

Author(s):

Qi Wang ◽

Hongfei Zhu ◽

Mengting Li ◽

Yafei Liu ◽

Honghao Lai ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Conventional Treatment ◽

Randomized Trials ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Random Effect ◽

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Control Group ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Duration Of Symptoms

Background: Qingfei Paidu decoction (QFPD) has been widely used in treating COVID-19 in China. However, there is still a lack of comprehensive and systematic evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of QFPD. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of QFPD in patients with COVID-19.Methods: We searched seven databases up to 5 March 2021. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data of interest, and assessed risk of bias. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials. The Newcastle–Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias of cohort and non-randomized trials. The “Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After (Pre-Post) Studies With No Control Group” was adopted for controlled pre–post studies. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. We carried out a random effect meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3. For outcomes that could not be meta-analyzed, we performed a descriptive analysis.Results: We identified 16 studies with 11,237 patients, including one RCT, six non-randomized trials, two cohort studies, and seven pre–post studies. The certainty of evidence was low to very low because of the observational study design. QFPD combined with conventional treatment might decrease the time for nucleic acid conversion (MD = −4.78 days, 95% CI: −5.79 to −3.77), shorten the length of hospital stay (MD = −7.95 days, 95% CI: −14.66 to −1.24), shorten the duration of symptoms recovery of fever (MD = −1.51 days, 95% CI: −1.92 to −1.09), cough (MD = −1.64 days, 95% CI: −1.91 to −1.36) and chest CT (MD = −2.23 days, 95% CI: −2.46 to −2.00), improve the overall traditional Chinese medicine symptom scores (MD = 41.58 scores, 95% CI: 32.67 to 50.49), and change the laboratory indexes, such as WBC, AST, and CRP.Conclusion: QFPD combined with conventional treatment might be effective for patients with COVID-19. No serious adverse reactions related to QFPD were observed. Further high-quality studies are still needed in the future.

Download Full-text

Steroid therapy for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Monaldi Archives for Chest Disease ◽

10.4081/monaldi.2021.1716 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Tarun Krishna Boppana ◽

Saurabh Mittal ◽

Karan Madan ◽

Anant Mohan ◽

Vijay Hadda ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Mechanical Ventilation ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Steroid Therapy ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Treatment Modalities ◽

Control Group ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Randomized Controlled

There is an urgent need for effective treatment modalities for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Data for the use of steroids in COVID-19 is emerging. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the effectiveness of steroid administration in mortality reduction due to COVID-19 compared to the control group. A systematic search of the Pubmed and Embase databases was performed to extract randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the use of steroid therapy for COVID-19. An overall and subgroup (based upon the type of steroid) pooled mortality analysis was performed, and odds ratios were reported. Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Six RCTs, including 7707 patients, were selected for review. Three trials reported 28-day mortality, and two trials reported 21-day mortality, and one trial reported in-hospital mortality. There were 730 deaths among 2837 participants in the steroid group while 1342 deaths among 4870 patients randomized to the control group (Odds ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.58-1.00, p=0.05). The effect was significant in patients on oxygen or mechanical ventilation. There was no difference in the various preparations and doses of the steroids. There was heterogeneity among the trials as the I2 value was 53%, with a p-value of 0.06. There was no indication of increased serious adverse events. This meta-analysis of RCTs demonstrated that the use of systemic corticosteroids is associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 on oxygen or mechanical ventilation.

Download Full-text