Novel chemotherapy combinations for metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma (mAGC): An updated meta-analysis.

125 Background: Despite the successful integration of targeted therapies, chemotherapy remains the mainstay of treatment for mAGC. Uncertainty remains regarding the choice of the regimen. Methods: We searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE until February 2014; proceedings from ECCO, ESMO, ASCO until June 2014 with Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials on chemotherapy in mAGC. Objectives: To assess and compare the effects on overall survival of regimens containing: 1) irinotecan (I) vs non-I, 2) docetaxel (D) vs non-D, 3) capecitabine (C) vs 5-FU, 4) S-1 vs 5-FU, 5) oxaliplatin (O) vs the same regimen containing cisplatin. For 1) and 2), substitutive (other chemotherapy substituted by I or D) and additive comparisons (I or D added) were analyzed separately. Results: The meta-analyses of overall survival included: Comparison 1) a. Substitutive: 5 trials, 724 patients (pts), with a HR of 0.85 (95% CI 0.73-0.99), b. Additive: 3 trials, 500 pts, with a HR of 0.88 (95% CI 0.76-1.03), both in favor of the I-containing regimens. Comparison 2) In total, 6 trials, 1702 pts, with a HR of 0.89 (95% CI 0.80-0.99) in favor of patients treated with D. a. Substitutive: 3 trials, 479 pts, with a HR of 1.05 (95% CI 0.87-1.27) in favor of patients treated without D. b. Additive: 3 trials, 1223 pts, with a HR of 0.82 (95% CI 0.87-0.93), in favor of D-containing regimens. If only studies (2 trials, 588 pts) are considered, in which D is added to a platinum/5-FU doublet, the HR is 0.79 (95% CI 0.64-0.98) in favor of the D-containing regimen. Comparison 3) 2 trials, 401 pts, with a HR of 0.85 (95% CI 0.68-1.06) in favor of the C-containing-regimen. Comparison 4) 2 trials, 1497 pts, with a HR of 0.89 (95% CI 0.80-1.0) in favor of the S-1-containing regimen. Comparison 5) 1 trial, 220 pts, with a HR of 0.82 (0.47-1.45) in favor of the O-containing regimen. Conclusions: All different chemotherapy combinations including I, D, O or oral 5-FU prodrugs are valid treatment options for mAGC. Among the comparisons analyzed above, only D-containing combinations, in which D was added to a single-agent or two-drug (platinum/5-FU) combination show a significant advantage in overall survival as compared to regimens without D.

Download Full-text

Efficacy of pharmacological therapies in patients with IBS with diarrhoea or mixed stool pattern: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Gut ◽

10.1136/gutjnl-2018-318160 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 69 (1) ◽

pp. 74-82 ◽

Cited By ~ 23

Author(s):

Christopher J Black ◽

Nicholas E Burr ◽

Michael Camilleri ◽

David L Earnest ◽

Eamonn MM Quigley ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Abdominal Pain ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Composite Endpoint ◽

Response To Therapy ◽

Stool Consistency ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Once Daily ◽

Central Register ◽

Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveOver half of patients with IBS have either diarrhoea (IBS-D) or a mixed stool pattern (IBS-M). The relative efficacy of licenced pharmacological therapies is unclear in the absence of head-to-head trials. We conducted a network meta-analysis to resolve this uncertainty.DesignWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, Embase Classic, the Cochrane central register of controlled trials, and Clinicaltrials.gov through January 2019 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of licenced pharmacological therapies (alosetron, eluxadoline, ramosetron and rifaximin) in adults with IBS-D or IBS-M. Trials included in the analysis reported a dichotomous assessment of overall response to therapy, and data were pooled using a random effects model. Efficacy and safety of all pharmacological therapies were reported as a pooled relative risk with 95% CIs to summarise the effect of each comparison tested. Treatments were ranked according to their p score.ResultsWe identified 18 eligible RCTs (seven alosetron, five ramosetron, two rifaximin and four eluxadoline), containing 9844 patients. All were superior to placebo for the treatment of IBS-D or IBS-M at 12 weeks, according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-recommended endpoint for trials in IBS. Alosetron 1 mg twice daily was ranked first for efficacy, based on the FDA-recommended composite endpoint of improvement in both abdominal pain and stool consistency, effect on global symptoms of IBS and effect on stool consistency. Ramosetron 2.5µg once daily was ranked first for effect on abdominal pain. Total numbers of adverse events were significantly greater with alosetron 1 mg twice daily and ramosetron 2.5µg once daily, compared with placebo. Rifaximin 550 mg three times daily ranked first for safety. Constipation was significantly more common with all drugs, except rifaximin 550 mg three times daily.ConclusionIn a network meta-analysis of RCTs of pharmacological therapies for IBS-D and IBS-M, we found all drugs to be superior to placebo, but alosetron and ramosetron appeared to be the most effective.

Download Full-text

Should Finasteride Be Routinely Given Preoperatively for TURP?

ISRN Urology ◽

10.1155/2013/458353 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 2013 ◽

pp. 1-7 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

O. M. Aboumarzouk ◽

M. Z. Aslam ◽

A. Wedderburn ◽

K. Turner ◽

O. Hughes ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Meta Analysis ◽

Postoperative Bleeding ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Vascular Endothelial ◽

Central Register ◽

Language Restriction ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Endothelial Growth Factor

Objective. The aim of the review was to compare the use of finasteride to placebo in patients undergoing TURP procedures. Material & Methods. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966–November 2011), EMBASE (1980–November 2011), CINAHL, Clinicaltrials.gov, Google Scholar, reference lists of articles, and abstracts from conference proceedings without language restriction for studies comparing finasteride to placebo patients needing TURPs. Results. Four randomised controlled trials were included comparing finasteride to a placebo. A meta-analysis was not conducted due to the disparity present in the results between the studies. Three of the studies found that finasteride could reduce either intra- or postoperative bleeding after TURP. One study found finasteride to significantly lower the microvessel density (MVD) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). None of the studies reported any long-term complications related to either the medication or the procedure. Conclusion. finasteride reduces bleeding either during or after TURP.

Download Full-text

Combination chemotherapies in advanced gastric cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2007.25.18_suppl.4555 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽

pp. 4555-4555 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

A. D. Wagner ◽

W. Grothe ◽

J. Haerting ◽

G. Kleber ◽

A. Grothey ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Gastric Cancer ◽

Advanced Gastric Cancer ◽

Search Strategy ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Central Register ◽

Significant Survival ◽

Drug Regimens ◽

Randomised Controlled

4555 Background: Combination chemotherapy is widely accepted for patients with advanced gastric cancer, but uncertainty remains regarding the choice of the regimen. Methods: Our objectives were to assess the effect of: 1) 5-FU/cisplatin combinations with versus without anthracyclines; 2) 5-FU/anthracycline combinations with versus without cisplatin; 3) Irinotecan versus non-irinotecan containing combination chemotherapies; 4) Docetaxel versus non-docetaxel containing combinations; on overall survival and toxicity. Search strategy: We searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, proceedings from DDW, ECCO, ESMO, ASCO until october 2006. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials on different combination chemotherapies as above in advanced gastric cancer. Results: 13 trials including in total 2,184 patients (pts) are included in this meta-analysis. Comparison 1) including 501 pts (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.62–0.95); and 2) including 1,147 pts (HR 0.83; 95%CI 0.76–0.91) both demonstrate a significant survival benefit for three-drug regimens including 5-FU, anthracyclines and cisplatin. Among these, the rate of treatment-related deaths was higher when 5-FU was administered as bolus compared to infusional 5-FU (exact Mantel-Haenszel OR 2.33, p=0.285). Comparison 3) including 536 pts results in a HR of 0.88; 95% CI 0.73- 1.06. The rate of treatment related deaths was 0.7% versus 2.6% in the irinotecan versus non-irinotecan-containing arms (exact Mantel-Haenszel OR 0.275, p=0.166). Comparison 4) 4 relevant trials were identified. A meta-analysis will be performed as soon as the final results of at least 3 trials are available. Conclusions: Three-drug regimens containing 5-FU, anthracyclines and cisplatin achieve superior survival results compared to cisplatin/5-FU or antracycline/5-FU combinations. Among these, ECF (epirubicin, cisplatin and 5-FU) is tolerated best. Combinations including irinotecan demonstrate a non-significant trend towards better survival in this meta-analysis, but have never been compared against three-drug regimens containing 5-FU/cisplatin and an anthracycline. Supported by: KKS Halle, grant number [BMBF/FKZ 01GH01GH0105]. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Download Full-text

3,4-diaminopyridine treatment for Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome in adults: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BMC Neurology ◽

10.1186/s12883-021-02405-3 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Na Zhang ◽

Daojun Hong ◽

Taohui Ouyang ◽

Wei Meng ◽

Jingwei Huang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Meta Analysis ◽

Autoimmune Disorder ◽

Placebo Treatment ◽

Secondary Outcome ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Central Register ◽

Compound Muscle Action Potentials ◽

Myasthenic Syndrome ◽

Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome (LEMS) is a rare autoimmune disorder of neuromuscular transmission. The objective was to examine the efficacy and safety of 3,4-diaminopyridine (3,4-DAP) in patients with LEMS. Methods We searched several databases to identify relevant studies, including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials(CENTRAL). The primary outcome, quantitative myasthenia gravis (QMG) score and the secondary outcome, compound muscle action potentials (CMAP) amplitude were pooled by meta-analysis. Results Six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 115 patients with LEMS were included. QMG score showed a significant decrease (improvement) of 2.76 points (95 % CI, -4.08 to -1.45, p < 0.001) after treatment with 3, 4-DAP. Moreover, the overall mean CMAP amplitude improved significantly in LEMS patients with 3, 4-DAP treatment, compared with placebo treatment (mean difference 1.34 mV, 95 % CI, 0.98 to 1.70, p < 0.001). The overall assessment of all included trials showed a low risk of bias and low heterogeneity. Conclusions The pooled results of RCTs demonsrated with moderate to high evidence that 3,4-DAP has a significant effect on LEMS treatment, with improvements in muscle strength score and CMAP amplitude.

Download Full-text

Weight change and the risk of incident atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Heart ◽

10.1136/heartjnl-2019-314931 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 105 (23) ◽

pp. 1799-1805 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Nicholas R Jones ◽

Kathryn S Taylor ◽

Clare, J Taylor ◽

Paul Aveyard

Keyword(s):

Atrial Fibrillation ◽

Weight Gain ◽

Weight Change ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Overweight And Obesity ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Healthcare Settings ◽

Central Register ◽

Randomised Controlled

BackgroundThe prevalence of obesity is increasing globally and this could partly explain the worldwide increase in the prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF), as both overweight and obesity are established risk factors. However, the relationship between weight change and risk of incident AF, independent of starting weight, remains uncertain.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Trials Register—clinicaltrials.gov, CINAHL and the WHO ICTRP were searched from inception to July 2018.We included randomised controlled trials and cohort studies across all healthcare settings but excluded studies of bariatric surgery. A random effects model was used to calculate pooled hazard ratios. The primary outcome was the risk of incident AF in relation to weight change.ResultsTen studies, including 108 996 people, met our inclusion criteria. For a 5% gain in weight, the incidence of AF increased by 13% (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.23, I2=70%, n>20 411 in five studies; study size was unknown for one study). A 5% loss in body weight was not associated with a significant change in the incidence of AF (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.16, I2=73%, n=40 704 in five studies).ConclusionsWeight gain may increase the risk of AF, but there was no clear evidence that non-surgical weight loss altered AF incidence. Strategies to prevent weight gain in the population may reduce the global burden of AF. Given the lack of studies and methodological limitations, further research is needed.

Download Full-text

Right versus left thoracic approach oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030157 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (7) ◽

pp. e030157

Author(s):

Tianci Chai ◽

Zhimin Shen ◽

Sui Chen ◽

Yuhan Lin ◽

Zhenyang Zhang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Oesophageal Cancer ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Malignant Tumours ◽

Central Register ◽

Registration Number ◽

Thoracic Approach ◽

Randomised Controlled

IntroductionOesophageal cancer is one of the most common malignant tumours and has been identified as one of the leading causes of cancer death worldwide. Surgery is considered to be the optimal treatment for patients with resectable oesophageal cancer. Oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer can significantly extend the survival period of patients and provide a potential opportunity for a cure. However, there is still controversy regarding which thoracic approach (right or left) during oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer can lead to better surgical outcomes globally. This systematic review and meta-analysis will be performed to determine which thoracic approach during oesophagectomy will achieve longer patient survival and will be more beneficial for patients.Methods and analysisWe will search PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cancerlit, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar databases for relevant clinical trials published in any language before 1 October 2019. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, propensity score-matched comparative studies and prospective cohort studies of interest, published or unpublished, that meet the inclusion criteria will be included. Subgroup analysis of the type of operation, tumour pathological stage and ethnicity will be performed.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019124133.Ethics and disseminationBecause this study will be based on published or unpublished records and studies, there is no need for ethics approval. The results of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Download Full-text

Buteyko method for people with asthma: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049213 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (10) ◽

pp. e049213

Author(s):

Karla Morganna Pereira Pinto de Mendonça ◽

Sean Collins ◽

Tácito ZM Santos ◽

Gabriela Chaves ◽

Sarah Leite ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Secondary Data ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Plain Language ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Meta Analyses

IntroductionButeyko method is recommended as a non-pharmacological treatment for people with asthma. Although the worldwide interest in the Buteyko method, there is a paucity of studies gathering evidence to support its use. Therefore, we aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of the Buteyko method in children and adults with asthma.Methods and analysisWe will search on Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for studies focusing on the Buteyko method for children and adults with asthma. The searches will be carried out in September 2021 from database’s inception to the present. We will include randomised controlled trials comparing Buteyko method alone with asthma education or inactive control intervention. There will be no restriction on language. Primary outcomes include quality of life, asthma symptoms and adverse events/side effects. Two review authors will independently screen the studies for inclusion and extract data. We will assess the quality of the included studies using the ‘Risk of Bias’ tool. The certainty of the evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach. Data synthesis will be conducted using Review Manager software. Reporting of the review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.Ethics and disseminationThis study will assess and provide evidence for the use of the Buteyko method in people with asthma. We will analyse secondary data and this does not require ethics approval. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals, at relevant conferences and will be shared in plain language in social media. Moreover, the findings of this review could guide the direction of healthcare practice and research.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020193132.

Download Full-text

Assessment of Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine Safety Profiles – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

10.1101/2020.05.02.20088872 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Lu Ren ◽

Wilson Xu ◽

James L Overton ◽

Shandong Yu ◽

Nipavan Chiamvimonvat ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Fixed Effects ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Regression Analyses ◽

Inclusion Criteria ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Central Register ◽

Precautionary Measures ◽

Meta Analyses

AbstractBackgroundRecently, chloroquine (CQ) and its derivative hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have emerged as potential antiviral and immunomodulatory options for the treatment of 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19). To examine the safety profiles of these medications, we systematically evaluated the adverse events (AEs) of these medications from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, and the ClinicalTrials.gov for all the RCTs comparing CQ or HCQ with placebo or other active agents, published before March 31, 2020. The random-effects or fixed-effects models were used to pool the risk estimates relative ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for the outcomes.ResultsThe literature search yielded 23 and 17 studies for CQ and HCQ, respectively, that satisfied our inclusion criteria. Of these studies, we performed meta-analysis on the ones that were placebo-controlled, which included 6 studies for CQ and 14 studies for HCQ. We did not limit our analysis to published reports involving viral treatment alone; data also included the usage of either CQ or HCQ for the treatment of other diseases. The trials for the CQ consisted of a total of 2,137 participants (n=1,077 CQ, n=1,060 placebo), while the trials for HCQ involved 1,096 participants (n=558 HCQ and n=538 placebo). The overall mild or total AEs were statistically higher comparing CQ or HCQ to placebo. The AEs were further categorized into four groups and analyses revealed that neurologic, gastrointestinal, dermatologic, and ophthalmic AEs were higher in participants taking CQ compared to placebo. Although this was not evident in HCQ treated groups, further analyses suggested that there were more AEs attributed to other organ system that were not included in the categorized meta-analyses. Additionally, meta-regression analyses revealed that total AEs was affected by dosage for the CQ group.ConclusionsTaken together, we found that participants taking either CQ or HCQ have more AEs than participants taking placebo. Precautionary measures should be taken when using these drugs to treat COVID-19.

Download Full-text

Efficacy of pharmacological therapies for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Gut ◽

10.1136/gutjnl-2018-316001 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 68 (3) ◽

pp. 434-444 ◽

Cited By ~ 20

Author(s):

Pavit Luthra ◽

Nicholas E Burr ◽

Darren M Brenner ◽

Alexander C Ford

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Current Knowledge ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Response To Therapy ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Primary Analysis ◽

Central Register ◽

Bowel Movements ◽

Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveOpioids are increasingly prescribed in the West and have deleterious GI consequences. Pharmacological therapies to treat opioid-induced constipation (OIC) are available, but their relative efficacy is unclear. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to address this deficit in current knowledge.DesignWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMBASE Classic and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials through to December 2017 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological therapies in the treatment of adults with OIC. Trials had to report a dichotomous assessment of overall response to therapy, and data were pooled using a random effects model. Efficacy and safety of pharmacological therapies was reported as a pooled relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs to summarise the effect of each comparison tested and ranked treatments according to their P-score.ResultsTwenty-seven eligible RCTs of pharmacological therapies, containing 9149 patients, were identified. In our primary analysis, using failure to achieve an average of ≥3 bowel movements (BMs) per week with an increase of ≥1 BM per week over baseline or an average of ≥3 BMs per week, to define non-response, the network meta-analysis ranked naloxone first in terms of efficacy (RR=0.65; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.80, P-score=0.84), and it was also the safest drug. When non-response to therapy was defined using failure to achieve an average of ≥3 BMs per week, with an increase of ≥1 BM per week over baseline, naldemedinewas ranked first (RR=0.66; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.77, P score=0.91) and alvimopan second (RR=0.74; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.94, P-score=0.71).ConclusionIn network meta-analysis, naloxone and naldemedine appear to be the most efficacious treatments for OIC. Naloxone was the safest of these agents.

Download Full-text

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol

10.1101/2020.04.03.20052530 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Rocío Bravo-Jeria ◽

María Ximena Rojas Reyes ◽

Juan Víctor Ariel Franco ◽

María Paz Acuña ◽

Luz Ángela Torres López ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Direct Evidence ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Randomised Trials ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Central Register ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Meta Analyses

ABSTRACTObjectiveTo determine the relative impact of the use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine on outcomes important to patients with COVID 19.DesignThis is the protocol of a living systematic review.Data sourcesWe will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), trial registries, grey literature and in a centralised repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe will follow a common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews, already published and submitted to PROSPERO (awaiting ID allocation).We will include randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine — as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs — versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomised trials evaluating chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomised studies in COVID-19 will be searched in case no direct evidence from randomised trials is found, or if the direct evidence provides low- or very low-certainty for critical outcomes.Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will perform random-effects meta-analyses and use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it if the conclusions change or there are substantial updates.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.

Download Full-text