scholarly journals Effects of low-level laser therapy on the orthodontic mini-implants stability: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Carolina de Figueiredo Costa ◽  
Thays Allane Cordeiro Maia ◽  
Paulo Goberlânio de Barros Silva ◽  
Lucas Guimarães Abreu ◽  
Delane Viana Gondim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Laser Therapy ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Low Level Laser Therapy ◽  
Mini Implants ◽  
Level Laser

Abstract Objectives The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on the orthodontic mini-implants (OMI) stability. Materials and methods An unrestricted electronic database search in PubMed, Science Direct, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov and a hand search were performed up to December 2020. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or non-randomized clinical trials (Non-RCTs) that assessed the effects of LLLT on the OMI stability were included. Data regarding the general information, LLLT characteristics, and outcomes were extracted. The authors performed risk of bias assessment with Cochrane Collaboration’s or ROBINS-I tool. Meta-analysis was also conducted. Results Five RCTs and one Non-RCT were included and 108 patients were evaluated. The LLLT characteristics presented different wavelength, power, energy density, irradiation time, and protocol duration. Five RCTs had a low risk of selection bias. Two RCTs had a low risk of performance and detection bias. All RCTs had a low risk of attrition bias, reporting bias and other bias. The Non-RCT presented a low risk of bias for all criteria, except for the bias in selection of participants. The meta-analysis revealed that LLLT significantly increased the OMI stability (p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.67) and the highest clinical benefit was showed after 1 (p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.75), 2 (p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.21), and 3 (p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.51) months of OMI placement. Conclusions LLLT shows positive effects on the OMI stability.

Effects of Low-Level Laser Therapy as a Therapeutic Strategy for Patients With Tinnitus: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Maria Carolina Ferreira ◽  
Izabella Lima de Matos ◽  
Isabela Porto de Toledo ◽  
Heitor Marques Honório ◽  
Maria Fernanda Capoani Garcia Mondelli
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Laser Therapy ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Low Level Laser Therapy ◽  
Low Level ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Tinnitus Severity ◽  
Low Level Laser ◽  
Level Laser

Purpose This systematic review aimed to analyze the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on the severity of tinnitus when compared to no therapy or other modalities of therapies. Method A systematic review protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under the Registration Number CRD42019119376. A search was performed in each of the following databases: EMBASE, LILACS, PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ProQuest. The inclusion criteria consisted of studies in adults over 16 years of age, randomized clinical trials in which subjects presented chronic (≥ 6 months) and subjective tinnitus (unilateral or bilateral) as well as with or without bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, and studies that used only LLLT for treatment of tinnitus compared to no-therapy group or other modalities of therapy. No language or time restrictions were stipulated. The references were managed by Endnote Web and Rayyan QCRI. Results After the screening process, seven studies remained that attained the eligibility criteria. Regarding the risk of bias, only one study was categorized as low risk of bias; the six remaining studies were classified as moderate risk of bias. The seven included studies mainly assessed the LLLT effects on tinnitus by Visual Analogue Scale, Tinnitus Handicap Inventory, pitch and loudness matching, minimum masking level, and pure-tone audiometry. All the seven selected studies found different degrees of significant results regarding tinnitus severity; however, there was no consensus among the results. Conclusion Even though the LLLT showed positive effects in the tinnitus severity in some studies, it is not possible yet to make any recommendation over its uses for the treatment of tinnitus severity.

scholarly journals Efficacy of low-level laser therapy on pain and disability in knee osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e031142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Bjørn Stausholm ◽  
Ingvill Fjell Naterstad ◽  
Jon Joensen ◽  
Rodrigo Álvaro Brandão Lopes-Martins ◽  
Humaira Sæbø ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Laser Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Low Level Laser Therapy ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Low Level ◽  
Low Level Laser ◽  
Level Laser

ObjectivesLow-level laser therapy (LLLT) is not recommended in major knee osteoarthritis (KOA) treatment guidelines. We investigated whether a LLLT dose–response relationship exists in KOA.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesEligible articles were identified through PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Physiotherapy Evidence Database and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on 18 February 2019, reference lists, a book, citations and experts in the field.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesWe solely included randomised placebo-controlled trials involving participants with KOA according to the American College of Rheumatology and/or Kellgren/Lawrence criteria, in which LLLT was applied to participants’ knee(s). There were no language restrictions.Data extraction and synthesisThe included trials were synthesised with random effects meta-analyses and subgrouped by dose using the World Association for Laser Therapy treatment recommendations. Cochrane’s risk-of-bias tool was used.Results22 trials (n=1063) were meta-analysed. Risk of bias was insignificant. Overall, pain was significantly reduced by LLLT compared with placebo at the end of therapy (14.23 mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; 95% CI 7.31 to 21.14)) and during follow-ups 1–12 weeks later (15.92 mm VAS (95% CI 6.47 to 25.37)). The subgroup analysis revealed that pain was significantly reduced by the recommended LLLT doses compared with placebo at the end of therapy (18.71 mm (95% CI 9.42 to 27.99)) and during follow-ups 2–12 weeks after the end of therapy (23.23 mm VAS (95% CI 10.60 to 35.86)). The pain reduction from the recommended LLLT doses peaked during follow-ups 2–4 weeks after the end of therapy (31.87 mm VAS significantly beyond placebo (95% CI 18.18 to 45.56)). Disability was also statistically significantly reduced by LLLT. No adverse events were reported.ConclusionLLLT reduces pain and disability in KOA at 4–8 J with 785–860 nm wavelength and at 1–3 J with 904 nm wavelength per treatment spot.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016035587.

scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness of convalescent plasma in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 175346662110280
Author(s):  
Roberto Ariel Abeldaño Zuñiga ◽  
Ruth Ana María González-Villoria ◽  
María Vanesa Elizondo ◽  
Anel Yaneli Nicolás Osorio ◽  
David Gómez Martínez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trials

Aims: Given the variability of previously reported results, this systematic review aims to determine the clinical effectiveness of convalescent plasma employed in the treatment of hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of controlled clinical trials assessing treatment with convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The outcomes were mortality, clinical improvement, and ventilation requirement. Results: A total of 51 studies were retrieved from the databases. Five articles were finally included in the data extraction and qualitative and quantitative synthesis of results. The overall risk of bias in the reviewed articles was established at low-risk only in two trials. The meta-analysis suggests that there is no benefit of convalescent plasma compared with standard care or placebo in reducing the overall mortality and the ventilation requirement. However, there could be a benefit for the clinical improvement in patients treated with plasma. Conclusion: Current results led to assume that the convalescent plasma transfusion cannot reduce the mortality or ventilation requirement in hospitalized patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. More controlled clinical trials conducted with methodologies that ensure a low risk of bias are still needed. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Effect of low-level laser therapy on pain and disability in patients with plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 102478
Author(s):  
Janice S. Guimarães ◽  
Fabio L. Arcanjo ◽  
Gustavo Leporace ◽  
Leonardo F. Metsavaht ◽  
Cristiano Sena ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Laser Therapy ◽  
Plantar Fasciitis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Level Laser Therapy ◽  
Low Level ◽  
Low Level Laser ◽  
Level Laser

scholarly journals Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review with network meta-analysis including individual patient data (The LIVING VACCINE Project)

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Kwasi Korang ◽  
Sophie Juul ◽  
Emil Eik Nielsen ◽  
Joshua Feinberg ◽  
Faiza Siddiqui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Viral Vector ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Harmful Effects

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) which has rapidly spread worldwide. Several human randomized clinical trials assessing potential vaccines are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living systematic review that continuously assesses the beneficial and harmful effects of all available vaccines for COVID-19. Methods/design We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any vaccine aiming to prevent COVID-19 (including but not limited to messenger RNA; DNA; non-replicating viral vector; replicating viral vector; inactivated virus; protein subunit; dendritic cell; other vaccines) with any comparator (placebo; “active placebo;” no intervention; standard care; an “active” intervention; another vaccine for COVID-19) for participants in all age groups. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality; a diagnosis of COVID-19; and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be quality of life and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analyses, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Within-study bias will be assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) and Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approaches will be used to assess certainty of evidence. Observational studies describing harms identified during the search for trials will also be included and described and analyzed separately. Discussion COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review assessing the beneficial and harmful effects of different vaccines is urgently needed. This living systematic review will regularly inform best practice in vaccine prevention and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020196492

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document