scholarly journals Panoramic versus CBCT used to reduce inferior alveolar nerve paresthesia after third molar extractions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 20190265
Author(s):  
Nathalia Calzavara Del Lhano ◽  
Rosangela Almeida Ribeiro ◽  
Carolina Castro Martins ◽  
Neuza Maria Souza Picorelli Assis ◽  
Karina Lopes Devito
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Panoramic Radiography ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Inferior Alveolar Nerve ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Third Molar Surgery ◽  
Reference List ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Eligibility Criteria

Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to verify whether CBCT in comparison with panoramic radiography reduced the cases of temporary paresthesias of the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) associated with third molar extractions. Methods: The literature search included five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, SciELO), in addition to gray literature and hand search of reference list of included studies. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts, and full texts according to eligibility criteria, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias through Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials (RoB 2.0). Data were meta-analyzed by comparing CBCT versus panoramic radiographs for number of events (temporary paresthesia after third molar surgery). Fixed effect model was used for non-significant heterogeneity; relative risk (RR) and 95% CI were calculated. The certainty of evidence was evaluated by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Results: Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in meta-analysis, and for the majority of domains they presented low risk of bias. RR was 1.23 (95% IC: 0.75–2.02; I2: 0%; p = 0.43) favouring panoramic radiography, but without significant effect, and with moderate certainty of evidence. Conclusions: We concluded that both interventions had a similar ability to reduce temporary paresthesia of the IAN after third molar surgery with moderate certainty of evidence.

scholarly journals Platelet-Rich Fibrin in third molar surgery. Systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaston Salas ◽  
Shuheng Lai ◽  
Francisca Verdugo-Paiva ◽  
Roberto Requena
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Wound Healing ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Third Molar Surgery ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Platelet Rich Fibrin

Objective: The objective of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness and safety of platelet rich fibrin (PRF) in third molar surgery. Data sources: A comprehensive search strategy is meant to be used in an attempt to identify all relevant RCTs, ongoing investigation reported in specialty congresses and trials regardless of language or publication status (published, unpublished, in press, and in progress). Search will be conducted in The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PUBMED; Embase; Lilacs, and also conduct a search through trial registries of the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Word Health Organization (WHO) and the ClinicalTrials.gov, US National Institutes of Health (NIH), grey literature search and specialty congress will be reviewed. Eligibility criteria: We will include randomised trials evaluating the effect of PRF on wound healing after third molar surgery. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias using Cochrane 'risk of bias' tool. We will pool the results using meta-analysis and will apply the GRADE system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Ethics and dissemination: As researchers will not access information that could lead to the identification of an individual participant, obtaining ethical approval was waived. Keywords: platelet-rich fibrin; third molars; wound healing; systematic review

scholarly journals Platelet-Rich Fibrin in Third Molar Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol

2021 ◽  
pp. 194338752110162
Author(s):  
Gaston A. Salas ◽  
Shuheng A. Lai ◽  
Francisca Verdugo-Paiva ◽  
Roberto A. Requena
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Third Molar Surgery ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Platelet Rich Fibrin

Objective: The objective of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness and safety of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) in third molar surgery. Data Sources: A comprehensive search strategy is meant to be used in an attempt to identify all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), ongoing investigation reported in specialty congresses and trials regardless of language or publication status (published, unpublished, in press and in progress). Searches will be conducted in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PUBMED, Embase, Lilacs, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov , US National Institutes of Health (NIH), grey literature and in specialized congresses and conferences. Eligibility Criteria: We will include randomized trials evaluating the effect of PRF on wound healing after third molar surgery. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, data extraction and risk of bias assessment using Cochrane “risk of bias” tool. We will pool the results using meta-analysis and will apply the GRADE system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Ethics and Dissemination: As researchers will not access information that could lead to the identification of an individual participant, obtaining ethical approval was waived.

Chasing the Anchor: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Perceptual Anchoring Deficits in Developmental Dyslexia

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kurt D Shulver ◽  
Nicholas A Badcock
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Reading Ability ◽  
English Language ◽  
Prediction Interval ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Visual Assessment ◽  
Individual Performance ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Eligibility Criteria

We report the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the relationship between perceptual anchoring and dyslexia. Our goal was to assess the direction and degree of effect between perceptual anchoring and reading ability in typical and atypical (dyslexic) readers. We performed a literature search of experiments explicitly assessing perceptual anchoring and reading ability using PsycInfo (Ovid, 1860 to 2020), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1860 to 2019), EMBASE (Ovid, 1883 to 2019), and PubMed for all available years up to June (2020). Our eligibility criteria consisted of English-language articles and, at minimum, one experimental group identified as dyslexic - either by reading assessment at the time, or by previous diagnosis. We assessed for risk of bias using an adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Six studies were included in this review, but only five (n = 280 participants) were included in the meta-analysis (we were unable to access the necessary data for one study).The overall effect was negative, large and statistically significant; g = -0.87, 95% CI [-1.47, 0.27]: a negative effect size indicating less perceptual anchoring in dyslexic versus non-dyslexic groups. Visual assessment of funnel plot and Egger’s test suggest minimal bias but with significant heterogeneity; Q (4) = 9.70, PI (prediction interval) [-2.32, -0.58]. The primary limitation of the current review is the small number of included studies. We discuss methodological limitations, such as limited power, and how future research may redress these concerns. The variability of effect sizes appears consistent with the inherent variability within subtypes of dyslexia. This level of dispersion seems indicative of the how we define cut-off thresholds between typical reading and dyslexia populations, but also the methodological tools we use to investigate individual performance.

Mortality Benefit From the Passive Leg Raise Maneuver in Guiding Resuscitation of Septic Shock Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

2021 ◽  
pp. 088506662110197
Author(s):  
Moosa Azadian ◽  
Suyee Win ◽  
Amir Abdipour ◽  
Carolyn Krystal Kim ◽  
H. Bryant Nguyen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Septic Shock ◽  
Fluid Resuscitation ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Passive Leg Raise

Background: Fluid therapy plays a major role in the management of critically ill patients. Yet assessment of intravascular volume in these patients is challenging. Different invasive and non-invasive methods have been used with variable results. The passive leg raise (PLR) maneuver has been recommended by international guidelines as a means to determine appropriate fluid resuscitation. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine if using this method of volume assessment has an impact on mortality outcome in patients with septic shock. Methods: This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched available data in the MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from inception until October 2020 for prospective, randomized, controlled trials that compared PLR-guided fluid resuscitation to standard care in adult patients with septic shock. Our primary outcome was mortality at the longest duration of follow-up. Results: We screened 1,425 article titles and abstracts. Of the 23 full-text articles reviewed, 5 studies with 462 patients met our eligibility criteria. Odds ratios (ORs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for mortality at the longest reported time interval were calculated for each study. Using random effects modeling, the pooled OR (95% CI) for mortality with a PLR-guided resuscitation strategy was 0.82 (0.52 -1.30). The included studies were not blinded and they ranged from having low to high risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Conclusion: Our analysis showed there was no statistically significant difference in mortality among septic shock patients treated with PLR-guided resuscitation vs. those with standard care.

scholarly journals Effectiveness and safety of herbal medicines for induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e022499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Collins Zamawe ◽  
Carina King ◽  
Hannah Maria Jennings ◽  
Chrispin Mandiwa ◽  
Edward Fottrell
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Herbal Medicines ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Induction Of Labour ◽  
Quality Data ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Significant Difference

ObjectiveThe use of herbal medicines for induction of labour (IOL) is common globally and yet its effects are not well understood. We assessed the efficacy and safety of herbal medicines for IOL.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of published literature.Data sourcesWe searched in MEDLINE, AMED and CINAHL in April 2017, updated in June 2018.Eligibility criteriaWe considered experimental and non-experimental studies that compared relevant pregnancy outcomes between users and non-user of herbal medicines for IOL.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted by two reviewers using a standardised form. A random-effects model was used to synthesise effects sizes and heterogeneity was explored through I2statistic. The risk of bias was assessed using ‘John Hopkins Nursing School Critical Appraisal Tool’ and ‘Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool’.ResultsA total of 1421 papers were identified through the searches, but only 10 were retained after eligibility and risk of bias assessments. The users of herbal medicine for IOL were significantly more likely to give birth within 24 hours than non-users (Risk Ratio (RR) 4.48; 95% CI 1.75 to 11.44). No significant difference in the incidence of caesarean section (RR 1.19; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.86), assisted vaginal delivery (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.14), haemorrhage (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.44 to 1.60), meconium-stained liquor (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.65 to 2.23) and admission to nursery (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.49 to 2.38) was found between users and non-users of herbal medicines for IOL.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that herbal medicines for IOL are effective, but there is inconclusive evidence of safety due to lack of good quality data. Thus, the use of herbal medicines for IOL should be avoided until safety issues are clarified. More studies are recommended to establish the safety of herbal medicines.

Does the Use of Articaine Increase the Risk of Hypesthesia in Lower Third Molar Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 79 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-74
Author(s):  
Emerson Filipe de Carvalho Nogueira ◽  
Fábio Andrey da Costa Araújo ◽  
Tatiane Fonseca Faro ◽  
Renata de Albuquerque Cavalcanti Almeida ◽  
Ricardo José de Holanda Vasconcellos
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Third Molar Surgery

scholarly journals Safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy: a systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Haitham Shoman ◽  
Simone Sandler ◽  
Alexander Peters ◽  
Ameer Farooq ◽  
Magdalen Gruendl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Conventional Laparoscopy ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Gasless Laparoscopy ◽  
Resource Setting

Abstract Background Gasless laparoscopy, developed in the early 1990s, was a means to minimize the clinical and financial challenges of pneumoperitoneum and general anaesthesia. It has been used in a variety of procedures such as in general surgery and gynecology procedures including diagnostic laparoscopy. There has been increasing evidence of the utility of gasless laparoscopy in resource limited settings where diagnostic imaging is not available. In addition, it may help save costs for hospitals. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the available evidence surrounding the safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy compared to conventional laparoscopy and open techniques and to analyze the benefits that gasless laparoscopy has for low resource setting hospitals. Methods This protocol is developed by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis–Protocols (PRISMA-P). The PRISMA statement guidelines and flowchart will be used to conduct the study itself. MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and Global Index Medicus (WHO) will be searched and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. The articles that will be found will be pooled into Covidence article manager software where all the records will be screened for eligibility and duplicates removed. A data extraction spreadsheet will be developed based on variables of interest set a priori. Reviewers will then screen all included studies based on the eligibility criteria. The GRADE tool will be used to assess the quality of the studies and the risk of bias in all the studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk assessment tool. The RoB II tool will assed the risk of bias in randomized control studies and the ROBINS I will be used for the non-randomized studies. Discussion This study will be a comprehensive review on all published articles found using this search strategy on the safety and efficiency of the use of gasless laparoscopy. The systematic review outcomes will include safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy compared to the use of conventional laparoscopy or laparotomy. Trial registration The study has been registered in PROSPERO under registration number: CRD42017078338

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document