scholarly journals An analysis of psychotherapies delivered online and in person for patients with chronic pain: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Stephanie Haugh ◽  
Laura O'Connor ◽  
Brian Slattery ◽  
Michelle Hanlon ◽  
Jack Flynn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Psychological Distress ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Pain Interference ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register

Introduction: There is increasing evidence for the use of psychotherapies, including cognitive behavioural therapy, acceptance and commitment therapy, and mindfulness based stress reduction therapy, as an approach to management of chronic pain. Similarly, online psychotherapeutic interventions have been shown to be efficacious, and to arguably overcome practical barriers associated with traditional face-to-face treatment for chronic pain. This is a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis aiming to evaluate and rank psychotherapies (delivered in person and online) for chronic pain patients. Methods/ design: Four databases, namely the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO will be searched from inception. Randomised controlled trials that have evaluated psychological interventions for pain management delivered online or in person will be included in the review. Data will be independently extracted in duplicate and the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool will be used to assess study quality. Measures of pain interference will be extracted as the primary outcome and measures of psychological distress will be extracted as the secondary outcome. A network meta-analysis will generate indirect comparisons of psychotherapies across treatment trials. Rankings of psychotherapies for chronic pain will be made available.   Discussion: A variety of psychotherapies, delivered both online and in person, have been used in an attempt to help manage chronic pain. Although occasional head to head trials have been conducted, little evidence exists to help identify which psychotherapy is most effective in reducing pain interference. The current review will address this gap in the literature and compare the psychotherapies used for internet delivered and in person interventions for chronic pain in relation to the reduction of pain interference and psychological distress. Results will provide a guide for clinicians when determining treatment course and will inform future research into psychotherapies for chronic pain. PROSPERO registration: CRD42016048518 01/11/16

scholarly journals The relative effectiveness of psychotherapeutic techniques and delivery modalities for chronic pain: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Stephanie Haugh ◽  
Laura O'Connor ◽  
Brian Slattery ◽  
Michelle Hanlon ◽  
Jack Flynn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Psychological Distress ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Relative Effectiveness ◽  
Pain Interference ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register

Introduction: There is increasing evidence for the use of psychotherapies, including cognitive behavioural therapy, acceptance and commitment therapy, and mindfulness based stress reduction therapy, as an approach to management of chronic pain. Similarly, online psychotherapeutic interventions have been shown to be efficacious, and to arguably overcome practical barriers associated with traditional face-to-face treatment for chronic pain. This is a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis aiming to evaluate and rank psychotherapies (delivered in person and online) for chronic pain patients. Methods/ design: Four databases, namely the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO will be searched from inception. Randomised controlled trials that have evaluated psychological interventions for pain management delivered online or in person will be included in the review. Data will be independently extracted in duplicate and the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool will be used to assess study quality. Measures of pain interference will be extracted as the primary outcome and measures of psychological distress will be extracted as the secondary outcome. A network meta-analysis will generate indirect comparisons of psychotherapies across treatment trials. Rankings of psychotherapies for chronic pain will be made available.   Discussion: A variety of psychotherapies, delivered both online and in person, have been used in an attempt to help manage chronic pain. Although occasional head to head trials have been conducted, little evidence exists to help identify which psychotherapy is most effective in reducing pain interference. The current review will address this gap in the literature and compare the psychotherapies used for internet delivered and in person interventions for chronic pain in relation to the reduction of pain interference and psychological distress. Results will provide a guide for clinicians when determining treatment course and will inform future research into psychotherapies for chronic pain. PROSPERO registration: CRD42016048518 01/11/16

scholarly journals The Analgesic Effect of Electroencephalographic Neurofeedback for People With Chronic Pain: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

10.2196/22821 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e22821
Author(s):  
Negin Hesam-Shariati ◽  
Wei-Ju Chang ◽  
James H McAuley ◽  
Andrew Booth ◽  
Zina Trost ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Analgesic Effect ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Placebo Control ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background Chronic pain is a global health problem, affecting around 1 in 5 individuals in the general population. The understanding of the key role of functional brain alterations in the generation of chronic pain has led researchers to focus on pain treatments that target brain activity. Electroencephalographic neurofeedback attempts to modulate the power of maladaptive electroencephalography frequency powers to decrease chronic pain. Although several studies have provided promising evidence, the effect of electroencephalographic neurofeedback on chronic pain is uncertain. Objective This systematic review aims to synthesize the evidence from randomized controlled trials to evaluate the analgesic effect of electroencephalographic neurofeedback. In addition, we will synthesize the findings of nonrandomized studies in a narrative review. Methods We will apply the search strategy in 5 electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL) for published studies and in clinical trial registries for completed unpublished studies. We will include studies that used electroencephalographic neurofeedback as an intervention for people with chronic pain. Risk-of-bias tools will be used to assess methodological quality of the included studies. We will include randomized controlled trials if they have compared electroencephalographic neurofeedback with any other intervention or placebo control. The data from randomized controlled trials will be aggregated to perform a meta-analysis for quantitative synthesis. The primary outcome measure is pain intensity assessed by self-report scales. Secondary outcome measures include depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and sleep quality measured by self-reported questionnaires. We will investigate the studies for additional outcomes addressing adverse effects and resting-state electroencephalography analysis. Additionally, all types of nonrandomized studies will be included for a narrative synthesis. The intended and unintended effects of nonrandomized studies will be extracted and summarized in a descriptive table. Results Ethics approval is not required for a systematic review, as there will be no patient involvement. The search for this systematic review commenced in July 2020, and we expect to publish the findings in early 2021. Conclusions This systematic review will provide recommendations for researchers and health professionals, as well as people with chronic pain, about the evidence for the analgesic effect of electroencephalographic neurofeedback. Trial Registration International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42020177608; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=177608 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) PRR1-10.2196/22821

scholarly journals The Analgesic Effect of Electroencephalographic Neurofeedback for People With Chronic Pain: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Negin Hesam-Shariati ◽  
Wei-Ju Chang ◽  
James H McAuley ◽  
Andrew Booth ◽  
Zina Trost ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Analgesic Effect ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Placebo Control ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomized Controlled

BACKGROUND Chronic pain is a global health problem, affecting around 1 in 5 individuals in the general population. The understanding of the key role of functional brain alterations in the generation of chronic pain has led researchers to focus on pain treatments that target brain activity. Electroencephalographic neurofeedback attempts to modulate the power of maladaptive electroencephalography frequency powers to decrease chronic pain. Although several studies have provided promising evidence, the effect of electroencephalographic neurofeedback on chronic pain is uncertain. OBJECTIVE This systematic review aims to synthesize the evidence from randomized controlled trials to evaluate the analgesic effect of electroencephalographic neurofeedback. In addition, we will synthesize the findings of nonrandomized studies in a narrative review. METHODS We will apply the search strategy in 5 electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL) for published studies and in clinical trial registries for completed unpublished studies. We will include studies that used electroencephalographic neurofeedback as an intervention for people with chronic pain. Risk-of-bias tools will be used to assess methodological quality of the included studies. We will include randomized controlled trials if they have compared electroencephalographic neurofeedback with any other intervention or placebo control. The data from randomized controlled trials will be aggregated to perform a meta-analysis for quantitative synthesis. The primary outcome measure is pain intensity assessed by self-report scales. Secondary outcome measures include depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and sleep quality measured by self-reported questionnaires. We will investigate the studies for additional outcomes addressing adverse effects and resting-state electroencephalography analysis. Additionally, all types of nonrandomized studies will be included for a narrative synthesis. The intended and unintended effects of nonrandomized studies will be extracted and summarized in a descriptive table. RESULTS Ethics approval is not required for a systematic review, as there will be no patient involvement. The search for this systematic review commenced in July 2020, and we expect to publish the findings in early 2021. CONCLUSIONS This systematic review will provide recommendations for researchers and health professionals, as well as people with chronic pain, about the evidence for the analgesic effect of electroencephalographic neurofeedback. CLINICALTRIAL International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42020177608; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=177608 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT PRR1-10.2196/22821

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of antidepressants for the treatment of back pain and osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. m4825 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni E Ferreira ◽  
Andrew J McLachlan ◽  
Chung-Wei Christine Lin ◽  
Joshua R Zadro ◽  
Christina Abdel-Shaheed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
World Health ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Osteoarthritis Pain

Abstract Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for back and osteoarthritis pain compared with placebo. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 15 November and updated on 12 May 2020. Eligibility criteria for study selection Randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy or safety, or both of any antidepressant drug with placebo (active or inert) in participants with low back or neck pain, sciatica, or hip or knee osteoarthritis. Data extraction and synthesis Two independent reviewers extracted data. Pain and disability were primary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). A random effects model was used to calculate weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Safety (any adverse event, serious adverse events, and proportion of participants who withdrew from trials owing to adverse events) was a secondary outcome. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) framework. Results 33 trials (5318 participants) were included. Moderate certainty evidence showed that serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) reduced back pain (mean difference −5.30, 95% confidence interval −7.31 to −3.30) at 3-13 weeks and low certainty evidence that SNRIs reduced osteoarthritis pain (−9.72, −12.75 to −6.69) at 3-13 weeks. Very low certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced sciatica at two weeks or less (−18.60, −31.87 to −5.33) but not at 3-13 weeks (−17.50, −42.90 to 7.89). Low to very low certainty evidence showed that tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) did not reduce sciatica at two weeks or less (−7.55, −18.25 to 3.15) but did at 3-13 weeks (−15.95, −31.52 to −0.39) and 3-12 months (−27.0, −36.11 to −17.89). Moderate certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced disability from back pain at 3-13 weeks (−3.55, −5.22 to −1.88) and disability due to osteoarthritis at two weeks or less (−5.10, −7.31 to −2.89), with low certainty evidence at 3-13 weeks (−6.07, −8.13 to −4.02). TCAs and other antidepressants did not reduce pain or disability from back pain. Conclusion Moderate certainty evidence shows that the effect of SNRIs on pain and disability scores is small and not clinically important for back pain, but a clinically important effect cannot be excluded for osteoarthritis. TCAs and SNRIs might be effective for sciatica, but the certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020158521.

scholarly journals Iris-Claw Intraocular Lens: Anterior Chamber or Retropupillary Implantation? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Medicina ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (8) ◽  
pp. 785
Author(s):  
I-Chia Liang ◽  
Yun-Hsiang Chang ◽  
Adrián Hernández Hernández Martínez ◽  
Chi-Feng Hung
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Chamber ◽  
Intraocular Lens ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Cell Counts ◽  
Iop Elevation ◽  
Iris Claw

Background and Objectives: Iris-claw intraocular lens (ICIOL) could be implanted in the anterior chamber (AC) or retropupillary (RP) in eyes lacking capsular and/or zonular support. Several studies have focused on comparing the efficacy and complications of these two techniques and we designed this research to review the published literatures. Materials and Methods: Peer-reviewed studies were collected through network databases (PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov) and analyzed. The primary outcome was the standardized mean differences (SMDs) of pre- and post-operative corrected distant visual acuity (CDVA). The secondary outcome was the SMDs of pre- and post-operative intraocular pressure (IOP), endothelial cell counts (ECC), and the odds ratios (ORs) of post-operative IOP elevation and cystoid macular edema (CME). Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software was utilized to conduct statistical analysis. Results: Six studies (one randomized controlled trial and five retrospective case series) were relevant and included a total of 516 eyes (255 and 261 eyes in the AC ICIOL and RP ICIOL groups, respectively). The quantitative analysis showed no significant differences in CDVA (SMD: 0.164, 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.171 to 0.500), ECC (SMD: −0.011, 95% CI: −0.195 to 0.173), and IOP elevation events (OR: 0.797, 95% CI: 0.459 to 1.383). Lesser IOP reduction (SMD: 0.257, 95%CI: 0.023 to 0.490) and a relative increase in the incidence of CME (OR:2.315, 95% CI: 0.950 to 5.637) were observed in the AC ICIOL group compared with RP ICIOL group. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis indicated that AC and RP ICIOL seem to have equivalent visual outcomes. RP ICIOL may perform slightly better with more IOP reduction and lesser CME. More randomized controlled trials, which have higher patient participation and more outcomes are needed to confirm our conclusions.

scholarly journals Mindfulness-based and acceptance-based programmes in the treatment of obsessive–compulsive disorder: a study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e050329
Author(s):  
Johannes Julian Bürkle ◽  
Johannes Caspar Fendel ◽  
Stefan Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Obsessive Compulsive Disorder ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Obsessive Compulsive ◽  
Compulsive Disorder

IntroductionCognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) with exposure and response prevention is the recommended standard for the treatment of obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD). However, a high proportion of patients refuse this treatment, do not respond or relapse shortly after treatment. Growing evidence suggests that mindfulness-based and acceptance-based programmes (MABPs) are an effective option for the treatment of OCD. This systematic review and meta-analysis will examine the effectiveness of MABPs in treating OCD. We also aimed to explore potential moderators of the programmes’ effectiveness.Methods and analysisWe will systematically search MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, PSYINDEX, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (no language restrictions) for studies that evaluate the effect of MABPs on patients with OCD. We will conduct backward and forward citation searches of included studies and relevant reviews and contact corresponding authors. The primary outcome will be pre-post intervention change in symptom severity. A secondary outcome will be change in depressive symptoms. Two reviewers will independently screen the records, extract the data and rate the methodological quality of the studies. We will include both controlled and uncontrolled trials. Randomised controlled trials will be meta-analysed, separately assessing between-group effects. A second meta-analysis will assess the within-group effect of all eligible studies. We will explore moderators and sources of heterogeneity such as the specific programme, study design, changes in depressive symptoms, hours of guided treatment, control condition and prior therapy (eg, CBT) using metaregression and subgroup analyses. We will perform sensitivity analyses using follow-up data. A narrative synthesis will also be pursued. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of the evidence.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences.

scholarly journals Interventional radiology versus operative management for splenic injuries: a study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e028172
Author(s):  
Masahiro Kashiura ◽  
Noritaka Yada ◽  
Kazuma Yamakawa
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Interventional Radiology ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operative Management ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity ◽  
Non Operative Management

IntroductionOver the past decades, the treatment for blunt splenic injuries has shifted from operative to non-operative management. Interventional radiology such as splenic arterial embolisation generally increases the success rate of non-operative management. However, the type of intervention, such as the first definitive treatment for haemostasis (interventional radiology or surgery) in blunt splenic injuries is unclear. Therefore, we aim to clarify whether interventional radiology improves mortality in patients with blunt splenic trauma compared with operative management by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods and analysisWe will search the following electronic bibliographic databases to retrieve relevant articles for the literature review: Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We will include controlled trials and observational studies published until September 2018. We will screen search results, assess the study population, extract data and assess the risk of bias. Two review authors will extract data independently, and discrepancies will be identified and resolved through a discussion with a third author where necessary. Data from eligible studies will be pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed by using the Mantel-Haenszel χ² test and the I² statistic, and any observed heterogeneity will be quantified using the I² statistic. We will conduct sensitivity analyses according to several factors relevant for the heterogeneity.Ethics and disseminationOur study does not require ethical approval as it is based on the findings of previously published articles. This systematic review will provide guidance on selecting a method for haemostasis of splenic injuries and may also identify knowledge gaps that could direct further research in the field. Results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentations at relevant conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018108304.

632 SUTURED VERSUS MESH-AUGMENTED HIATUS HERNIA REPAIR: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Josipa Petric ◽  
Tim Bright ◽  
David Liu ◽  
Melissa Wee ◽  
David Watson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hiatus Hernia ◽  
Mesh Repair ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hernia Recurrence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Absorbable Mesh ◽  
Hiatal Closure

Abstract   Repair of large hiatus hernias is increasingly being performed. However, there is no consensus for the optimal technique for hiatal closure between sutured versus mesh-augmented (absorbable or non-absorbable) repair. This meta-analysis systematically reviewed published randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing sutured versus mesh-augmented hiatus hernia (HH) repair. Our primary endpoint was HH recurrence at short- and long-term follow-up. Secondary endpoints were: surgical complications, operative times, dysphagia and quality of life. Methods A systematic review of Medline, Scopus (which encompassed Embase), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and PubMed was performed to identify relevant studies comparing mesh-augmented versus sutured HH repair. Data were extracted and compared by meta-analysis, using odds ratio and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Results Seven RCTs were found which compared mesh-augmented (non-absorbable mesh: n = 296; absorbable mesh: n = 92) with sutured repair (n = 347). There were no significant differences for short-term hernia recurrence (defined as 6–12 months, 10.1% mesh versus 15.5% sutured, P = 0.22), long-term hernia recurrence (defined as 3–5 years, 30.7% mesh vs 31.3% sutured, P = 0.69), functional outcomes and patient satisfaction. The only statistically significant difference was that the mesh repair required a longer operation time (P = 0.05, OR 2.33, 95% CI 0.03–24.69). Conclusion Mesh repair for hiatus hernia does not offer any advantage over sutured hiatal closure. As both techniques deliver good and comparable clinical outcomes, a suture only technique is still an appropriate approach.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction and anchorage preservation during the two-step technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Haonan Tian ◽  
Congman Xie ◽  
Min Lin ◽  
Hongmei Yang ◽  
Aishu Ren
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Canine Retraction ◽  
Temporary Anchorage Devices ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Mean Differences ◽  
Implant Anchorage

Abstract Background Temporary anchorage devices have been used for decades in orthodontic practice for many applications. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction during the two-step technique. Methods A search was systematically performed for articles published prior to June 30, 2019 in five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Scopus). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled clinical trials (CCTs). The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used for the quality assessment. Data concerning the mean difference in mesial molar movement and extent of canine retraction were extracted for statistical analysis. The mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were analyzed for continuous data. A meta-analysis with a random-effects model for comparable outcomes was carried out. Results Three RCTs and five CCTs were finally included. Meta-analysis showed a significant increase not only in anchorage preservation in the implant anchorage group in both the maxilla (1.56 mm, 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.98, P < 0.00001) and the mandible (1.62 mm, 95% CI: 1.24 to 2.01, P < 0.00001) but also in canine retraction in the implant anchorage group in both the maxilla (0.43 mm, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.69, P = 0.001) and the mandible (0.26 mm, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.49, P = 0.03). Conclusions There is very low-quality evidence showing that implant anchorage is more efficient than conventional anchorage during canine retraction. Additional high-quality studies are needed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document