scholarly journals A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Acupotomy for Scoliosis

2021 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 265-275
Author(s):  
Jung Hyeon Park ◽  
Gyu Hui Kim ◽  
Tae Kyung Kim ◽  
Eun Ju Lee ◽  
Hyun Min Yoon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Combined Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Visual Analog Scale Score ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Oswestry Disability Index Score ◽  
Mean Differences

This review investigated the effectiveness and safety of acupotomy treatment for scoliosis. There were 7 online databases used in the search from inception to March 17, 2021, for randomized controlled trials of the use of acupotomy in patients with scoliosis. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies included (n = 12). A quantitative synthesis of the randomized controlled trials was performed using RevMan Version 5.3. The effect sizes of studies were presented as mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes, with a 95% confidence interval. As part of combined therapy, acupotomy was reported to significantly improve Cobb’s angle compared with other treatments. Likewise, the Visual Analog Scale score, the Oswestry Disability Index score, and pulmonary function were also reported to be improved following acupotomy combination therapy. Although 5 studies mentioned the criteria for reporting adverse events, only 1 study reported adverse events. In conclusion, acupotomy may be an effective treatment for scoliosis. However, the small number, and heterogeneity of the included studies, as well as the poor methodological quality, indicate that higher-quality studies should be conducted to verify the effectiveness and safety of acupotomy treatment for scoliosis.

scholarly journals Traditional Chinese Medicine Preparation Combined Therapy May Improve Chemotherapy Efficacy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiaming Wu ◽  
Yun Liu ◽  
Cantu Fang ◽  
Lixian Zhao ◽  
Lizhu Lin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Combined Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine Preparation

Background. Whether traditional Chinese medicine preparation combined therapy can improve the efficacy of chemotherapy is controversial. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine preparation combined with chemotherapy. Method. Three databases were searched from inception through August 2018. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving the combined treatment of chemotherapy and traditional Chinese medicine preparation compared to chemotherapy alone for treating cancer were retrieved. The methodological quality of the included RCTs was assessed with Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias assessment tool. Meta-analysis was adopted to make comprehensive comparisons between the experimental and control groups. Results. Four RCTs were included in this review, comprising 256 subjects. The majority of the RCTs were judged as being of poor methodological quality. Meta-analysis showed that the combination of traditional Chinese medicine preparation and chemotherapy appeared to be more effective than chemotherapy alone, for the treatment of cancer, as assessed by the disease control rate (RR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.79) and the objective response rate (RR: 2.71, 95% CI: 1.28 to 5.77). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of bone marrow suppression (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.37) or gastrointestinal reaction (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.69). Conclusions. Traditional Chinese medicine preparation combined with chemotherapy may improve objective response rates and disease control rates more than chemotherapy alone. The evidence that combined traditional Chinese medicine preparation can reduce the side effects of chemotherapy is insufficient. More rigorous randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these conclusions.

Effects of Teriparatide versus Salmon Calcitonin Therapy for the Treat-ment of Osteoporosis in Asia: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Changjun Chen ◽  
Mohammed Alqwbani ◽  
Jie Chen ◽  
Ruitong Yang ◽  
Songgang Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Neck ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Salmon Calcitonin ◽  
Bone Markers ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Asian Patients ◽  
Teriparatide Treatment

Objective: The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of teriparatide versus salmon calcitonin for the treatment of osteoporosis in Asian patients and to investigate whether the results of global studies could be applicable to Asian patients. Methods: PubMed, OVID, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and EMBASE up to December 2018 were searched. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared teriparatide versus salmon calcitonin in Asian osteoporosis popula-tion were included. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for data synthe-sis, and Cochrane Collaboration software Review Manager 5.3 was used to analyze the pooled data. Results: Three RCTs involving 529 patients were included (mean age 68.7 yr; 93.4% females; mean follow-up 6 months); outcome measures included bone mineral density (BMD) of the femoral neck, total hip and lumbar spine; bone markers and adverse events. We found that the period of 6-months of teriparatide treatment was helpful for the improvement of the BMD of lumbar vertebra, however, the improvement of BMD was not significant in femoral neck and total hip join. There was a positive correlation between bone-specific alka-line phosphatase (BSAP) and osteocalcin (OCN) and the response of Asian patients to subcutaneous injection of 20 micrograms per day of teriparatide. And the proportion of the occurrence of adverse effect was more obvious in teriparatide group compared with salmon calciton-in, but there was no significant difference. Conclusion: Results suggested that the use of teriparatide could improve the lumbar BMD by short-term (six months) application in Asian osteoporosis patients, which is beneficial to the patients who cannot tolerate adverse events of long-term treatment. The BSAP and OCN bone markers could be useful to monitor the responses of Asian osteoporosis patients to teriparatide treatment. Finally, both of teriparatide and salmon calcitonin were well tolerated by Asian patients.

Long-term mortality and patency after drug-coated balloon angioplasty in the hemodialysis circuit: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2022 ◽  
pp. 112972982110701
Author(s):  
Yunfeng Li ◽  
Zhenwei Shi ◽  
Yunyun Zhao ◽  
Zhanjiang Cao ◽  
Zhengli Tan
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Balloon Angioplasty ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Primary Patency ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Technical Success ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Drug Coated Balloon

Purpose: To compare all-cause mortality and primary patency with drug-coated balloon angioplasty (DCBA) compared with plain balloon angioplasty (PBA) in people with hemodialysis-related stenosis. Materials and methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from November 1966 to February 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the use of DCBA versus PBA for stenosis in hemodialysis circuits. Data extracted from the articles were integrated to determine all-cause mortality, target lesion primary patency (TLPP), circuit access primary patency (CAPP), 30-day adverse events, and technical success for the two approaches. We performed meta-analysis on these results using a fixed-effects model to evaluate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) where I2 < 50% in a test for heterogeneity, or a random-effect model if otherwise. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were also performed. Results: Sixteen RCTs of 1672 individuals were included in our meta-analysis, of which 839 individuals received DCBA and 833 received PBA. The pooled outcome showed no statistical difference between DCBA and PBA in all-cause mortality at 6 months (OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.72–2.32, p = 0.39, I2 = 4%), 12 months (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.68–1.53, p = 0.91, I2 = 0%), and 24 months (OR = 1.50, 95% CI = 0.87–2.57, p = 0.15, I2 = 0%), 30-day adverse events (OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.30–3.98, p = 0.90, I2 = 66%), and technical success (OR = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.02–1.92, p = 0.16, I2 = 65%). The DCBA had significantly better outcomes versus PBA in TLPP at 6 months (OR = 2.37, 95% CI = 1.84–3.04, p < 0.001, I2 = 44%) and 12 months (OR = 1.77, 95% CI = 1.22–2.56, p = 0.002, I2 = 56%), and CAPP at 6 months (OR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.21–3.54, p = 0.008, I2 = 67%) and 12 months (OR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.29–2.15, p < 0.001, I2 = 0%). Conclusion: In hemodialysis circuit stenosis, DCBA appears to have similar safety but greater efficacy than PBA.

scholarly journals The Effectiveness and Safety of Probiotic Supplements for Psoriasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Preclinical Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Liuting Zeng ◽  
Ganpeng Yu ◽  
Yang Wu ◽  
Wensa Hao ◽  
Hua Chen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intestinal Flora ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Skin Thickness ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Probiotic Treatment ◽  
Preclinical Trials

Background. Patients with psoriasis need long-term medication to control their condition. Recent studies suggest that changing the intestinal flora may be a potential treatment. Methods. The databases were utilized to search the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and preclinical trials about probiotic supplement in the treatment of psoriasis. The retrieval time is from the establishment of these databases to December 2020. RevMan5.3 was used for the risk assessment of bias and meta-analysis. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021232756). Results. A total of 3 RCTs involving 164 participants were included. Two RCTs showed that probiotics can improve PASI and thereby improve the condition. For inflammation-related indicators, only one RCT showed that probiotics can improve the levels of CRP and TNF-α but have no obvious improvement effect on IL6. One RCT demonstrated the total effective rate of probiotics in the treatment of psoriasis. For adverse events, one RCT showed that the incidence of adverse events of probiotic treatment was low. Preclinical studies showed that continuous intervention with oral probiotics can significantly improve the progression of psoriasis and reduce the expression of inflammatory factors. The meta-analysis showed that the PASI between two groups was of no statistical significance (SMD 1.83 [-0.41, 4.07], P = 0.11 ). Meanwhile, probiotics may improve skin thickness (SMD -5.87 [-11.34, -0.41], P = 0.04 ) in animal model. Conclusion. Prebiotics may have a positive effect on alleviating the clinical symptoms of psoriasis, but a large sample of RCTs is still needed to support its therapeutic effect in psoriasis.

scholarly journals The efficacy and safety of intrathecal bupivacaine alone versus bupivacaine combined with magnesium sulfate in adults using spinal anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mi-Zhou Wang ◽  
Rui Dong ◽  
Li-Na Jia ◽  
Deng-Bin Ai ◽  
Jian-Hua Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Magnesium Sulfate ◽  
Motor Block ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sensory Block ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Rescue Analgesia ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background: Several studies have investigated the effects of intrathecal magnesium sulfate as an adjuvant for bupivacaine; however, their conclusions are inconsistent. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a meta-analysis on this topic.Methods We searched Pubmed, EMBASE (OvidSP) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of intrathecal bupivacaine combined with magnesium sulfate versus bupivacaine alone in adults using spinal anesthesia.Results Eighteen studies that met our inclusion criteria were included in our analysis. We found that the addition of intrathecal magnesium sulfate to bupivacaine provided a longer duration of analgesia (SMD 0.99; 95% CI [0.45, 1.52], P = 0.0003, I2 = 93%), prolonged the duration of sensory block (MD=106.69; 95% CI, 60.93-152.45; P<0.00001), delayed the onset of sensory block (SMD 1.20; 95% CI [0.65, 1.75], P =<0.0001, I2 = 91%) and motor block (SMD 1.46; 95% CI [0.23, 2.69], P =0.02, I2 = 96%), decreased the requirement for rescue analgesia (SMD -0.81; 95% CI [-1.06, -0.56], P < 0.00001, I2 = 11%). For duration of motor block, and incidence of postoperative adverse events (such as nausea and vomiting, hypotension, bradycardia, pruritus, shivering and neurological deficit), no statistically differences were observed between the 2 groups.Conclusions Our meta-analysis demonstrated that intrathecal magnesium sulfate combined with bupivacaine prolongs the dusration of analgesia, without an impact on the adverse events. However, the quality of evidence was very low when using GRADE to assess it. Given adverse effects before use, more high-quality trials with large samples are required before magnesium sulfate is routinely used as a intrathecal adjunct.

scholarly journals Melatonin and Cardioprotection in Humans: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Domínguez-Rodríguez ◽  
Pedro Abreu-González ◽  
Néstor Báez-Ferrer ◽  
Russel J. Reiter ◽  
Pablo Avanzas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Favorable Effect ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Weighted Mean ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Mean Differences

Myocardial ischemia/reperfusion (IR) injury represents a critical problem associated with interventional approaches for coronary reperfusion. Pharmacological cardioprotective interventions are advocated to ameliorate IR injury. Melatonin is an anti-inflammatory and antioxidant agent with a wide range of therapeutic properties that may contribute to its cardioprotective effects. No systematic review or meta-analysis has compared melatonin vs. placebo as a cardioprotective agent in humans. The present study, based on a systematic review and meta-analysis, was carried out to assess melatonin's efficacy as a cardioprotective treatment. We performed a systematic review of the available literature. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified and information was extracted using predefined data extraction forms. The primary outcomes were (a) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and (b) blood troponin levels in patients who underwent myocardial revascularization and were randomized to melatonin or placebo. The inverse-variance random-effects method was used to pool the estimates. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed. Weighted mean differences or standardized mean differences were calculated. A total of 283 records were screened and seven RCTs met all the inclusion criteria. After the pooled analysis, the results on LVEF were consistent across all studies, and a significant heterogeneity was found in the results on troponin levels. The melatonin-treated patients had on average higher LVEF than the placebo-treated individuals with a weighted mean difference = 3.1% (95% CI 0.6–5.5, p = 0.01). Five works compared the levels of troponin after melatonin or placebo treatment. The melatonin-treated patients had lower levels of troponin with a standardized mean difference = −1.76 (95% CI −2.85 to −0.67, p = 0.002). The findings of this meta-analysis revealed that melatonin administration in humans as a cardioprotective agent attenuated heart dysfunction with a favorable effect on the LVEF.

scholarly journals Comparative Efficacy of Pharmacological and Nonpharmacological Interventions for Acne Vulgaris: A Network Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qingyang Shi ◽  
Lizi Tan ◽  
Zhe Chen ◽  
Long Ge ◽  
Xiaoyan Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Physical Symptoms ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Comparative Efficacy ◽  
Inflammatory Lesions ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Acne has several effects on physical symptoms, but the main impacts are on the quality of life, which can be improved by treatment. There are several acne treatments but less evidence comparing their relative efficacy. Thus, we assessed the comparative efficacy of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for acne. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to April 2019, to include randomized controlled trials for acne that compared topical antibiotics (TA), benzoyl peroxide (BPO), topical retinoids (TR), oral antibiotics (OA), lasers, light devices including LED device (LED), photodynamic therapy (PDT), and intense pulsed light, chemical peels (CP), miscellaneous therapies or complementary and alternative medicine (MTCAM), or their combinations. We performed Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects for all treatments compared with placebo and each other. Mean differences (MDs) of lesions count and risk ratios of adverse events with their 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated, and all interventions were ranked by the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) values. Additional frequentist additive network meta-analysis was performed to detect the robustness of results and potential interaction effects. Sensitivity analyses were carried out with different priors, and metaregression was to adjust for nine potential effect modifiers. In the result, seventy-three randomized controlled trials (27,745 patients with mild to moderate acne), comparing 30 grouped intervention categories, were included with low to moderate risk of bias. For adverse effects, OA had more risk in combination treatment with others. For noninflammatory lesions reduction, seventeen interventions had significant differences comparing with placebo and three interventions (TR+BPO: MD = −21.89, 95%CrI [−28.97, −14.76]; TR+BPO+MTCAM: −22.48 [−34.13, −10.70]; TA+BPO+CP: −20.63 [−33.97, −7.13]) were superior to others with 94, 94, and 91% SUCRA values, respectively. For inflammatory lesions reduction, nineteen interventions were significantly better than placebo, and three interventions (TR+BPO: MD = −12.13, 95%CrI [−18.41, −5.80]; TR+BPO+MTCAM: −13.21 [−.39, −3.04]; LED: −11.30 [−18.34, −4.42]) were superior to others (SUCRA: 81, 81, and 77%, respectively). In summary of noninflammatory and inflammatory lesions results, TR+BPO and TA+BPO were the best options compared to others. The frequentist model showed similar results as above. In summary, current evidence supports the suggestion that TR+BPO and TA+BPO are the best options for mild to moderate acne. LED is another option for inflammatory lesions when drug resistance occurs. All the combinations involved with OA showed more risk of adverse events than others. However, the evidence of this study should be cautiously used due to the limitations.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Sinomenine Preparation for Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Shan-Shan Lin ◽  
Chun-Xiang Liu ◽  
Jun-Hua Zhang ◽  
Hui Wang ◽  
Jing-Bo Zhai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Morning Stiffness ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Objectives. To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of sinomenine preparation (SP) for treating ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Methods. Clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SP for treating AS were systematically identified in six electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), and Wanfang Databases from the inception up to 31 October 2019. Cochrane’s risk of bias tool was used to assess the methodological quality and Review Manager 5.3 software was used to analyze data. Results. A total of 12 RCTs involving 835 patients were finally included. According to interventions, RCTs were divided into two types. The intervention in 10 RCTs was SP combined with conventional pharmacotherapy (CPT) versus CPT and that in 2 RCTs was SP alone versus CPT. The results of the meta-analysis showed that, compared with CPT alone, SP combined with oral CPT has better improvement in BASDAI (WMD = −1.84, 95% CI [−3.31, −0.37], P=0.01), morning stiffness time (WMD = −13.46, 95% CI [−16.12, −10.79], P<0.00001), the Schober test (WMD = 1.26, 95% CI [0.72, 1.80], P<0.00001), the occipital wall test (WMD = −0.55, 95% CI [−0.96, −0.14], P=0.009), the finger-to-ground distance (WMD = −3.28, 95% CI [−5.64, −0.93], P=0.006), 15 m walking time (WMD = −8.81, 95% CI [−13.42, −4.20], P=0.0002), the C-reactive protein (CRP) (WMD = −1.84, 95% CI [−3.24, −0.45], P=0.01), and the total effective rate (RR = 1.10, 95% CI [1.01, 1.20], P=0.03). Besides, it also showed that oral SP alone may be more effective in improving morning stiffness time (WMD = −31.89, 95% CI [−34.91, −28.87], P<0.00001) compared with CPT alone. However, this study cannot provide evidence that loading the injectable SP based on CPT can significantly increase the efficacy due to the insufficient number of studies included. In terms of adverse events, there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental group and the control group. Conclusions. This study shows that oral SP may be effective and safe in the treatment of AS. Due to the low methodological quality of the included RCTs and the limitations of the meta-analysis, it is still necessary to carry out more multicenter, large-sample, and high-quality RCTs to further verify the conclusions. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018099170), and the review was constructed following the PRISMA guidelines (Annex 1).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document