scholarly journals Do the Clinical Effects of Enamel Matrix Derivatives in Infrabony Defects Decrease Overtime? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 446-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabricio Batistin Zanatta ◽  
Fernanda Goulart de Souza ◽  
Tatiana Militz Perrone Pinto ◽  
Raquel Pippi Antoniazzi ◽  
Cassiano Kuchenbecker Rösing
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Gingival Recession ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Enamel Matrix Derivative ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Clinical Effects ◽  
Enamel Matrix ◽  
Results Of Treatment

Previous systematic reviews have demonstrated better results with enamel matrix derivative proteins (EMDP) as compared with open flap debridement (OFD) for the management of infrabony periodontal defects (IPD). The aim of this study was to determine whether these differences vary according to the follow-up and quality of the studies. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline/PubMed, Lilacs, Embase and Web of Science electronic databases were searched up to August 2013 for randomized clinical trials.Eligible outcomes were changes in probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL),gingival recession (GR) and bone changes (BC). Studies with follow-up of 12 months showed differences of 0.97 mm (CI95% 0.52 - 1.43) and 1.19 mm (CI95% 0.77 - 1.60) for PD and CAL, respectively, favorable for EMDP. Studies with follow-up ≥ 24 months presented advantages of 1.11 mm (CI95% 0.74 -1.48) for CAL and 0.83 mm (CI95% 0.19 -1.48) for PD,with use of EMDP. Considering the quality of studies, those with low risk of bias showed lower difference between groups, presenting 0.8 mm (CI95% 0.24-1.36) for CAL, favorable for EMDP and without differences for PS (0.51 mm, CI95% -0.21 - 1.23). In conclusion, follow-up time (< or > 2 years) and the risk of bias influence the results of treatment with EMDP in IPD.

scholarly journals Relationship between hormonal contraceptives and sleep among women of reproductive age: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. e045819
Author(s):  
Jinhui Ma ◽  
Megan Cheng ◽  
Lehana Thabane ◽  
Caihong Ma ◽  
Ning Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Reproductive Age ◽  
Hormonal Contraceptives ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Women Of Reproductive Age

IntroductionThe aetiology of sleep disruptions is unknown, but hormonal fluctuations during the menstrual cycle, pregnancy and menopause have been shown to potentially affect how well a woman sleeps. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate whether hormonal contraceptives are associated with a decreased quality of sleep and increased sleep duration in women of reproductive age.MethodsThis review will analyse data from randomised controlled trials or non-randomised comparative studies investigating the association between hormonal contraceptives and sleep outcomes among women of reproductive age. Reviews addressing the same research question with similar eligibility criteria will be included. A literature search will be performed using the MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from inception to 7 March 2021. The Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias for Randomised Trials V.2.0 and The Risk of Bias for Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool will be used to assess risk of bias for each outcome in eligible studies. Two reviewers will independently assess eligibility of studies and risk of bias and extract the data. All extracted data will be presented in tables and narrative form. For sleep measures investigated by two or more studies with low heterogeneity, we will conduct random-effects meta-analysis to estimate the magnitude of the overall effect of hormonal contraceptives. If studies included in this systematic review form a connected network, a network meta-analysis will be conducted to estimate the comparative effect of different contraceptives. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach will be used to summarise the quality of evidence. Our protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 guidelines.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required as data were sourced from previously reported studies. The findings of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020199958.

scholarly journals Traction Therapy for Cervical Radicular Syndrome is Statistically Significant but not Clinically Relevant for Pain Relief. A Systematic Literature Review with Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 3389
Author(s):  
Claudio Colombo ◽  
Stefano Salvioli ◽  
Silvia Gianola ◽  
Greta Castellini ◽  
Marco Testa
Keyword(s):  
Sequential Analysis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Trial Sequential Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Radicular Syndrome

Aim: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of traction therapy in reducing pain by performing a systematic review with meta-analysis. We also explore the best modality for administering traction to patients with cervical radicular syndrome (CRS). Methods: We searched the Medline, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) electronic databases. Two reviewers independently selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared traction in addition to other treatments versus the effectiveness of other treatments alone for pain outcome. We calculated the mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used Cochrane’s tool to assess risk of bias and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to evaluate the quality of evidence and summarize the study conclusions. Results: A total of seven studies (589 patients), one with low risk of bias, were evaluated. An overall estimate of treatment modalities showed low evidence that adding traction to other treatments is statistically significant (MD −5.93 [95% CI, −11.81 to −0.04] P = 0.05 and I2 = 57%) compared to other treatments alone. The subgroup analyses were still statistically significant only for mechanical and continuous modalities. Conclusions: Overall analysis showed that, compared to controls, reduction in pain intensity after traction therapy was achieved in patients with cervical radiculopathy. However, the quality of evidence was generally low and none of these effects were clinically meaningful.

Mandibular alignment changes after full-fixed orthodontic treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 609-621 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmad J Swidi ◽  
Andreea E Griffin ◽  
Peter H Buschang
Keyword(s):  
Observational Studies ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Post Treatment ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Meta Analyses

SummaryBackgroundAlthough post-treatment mandibular alignment has been extensively investigated, the findings remain controversial.ObjectivesThe objective was to assess mandibular alignment changes, as measured by the irregularity index, of patients who underwent full-fixed orthodontic treatment and were followed up at least 1 year after retention.Search methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library, in addition, the reference lists of included studies, were screened. The search was conducted up to April 2018.Selection criteriaThe study designs included both interventional and observational studies of orthodontic patients who received either extraction or non-extraction treatment.Data collection and analysisThe interventional studies were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias assessment tool. The quality of the observational studies was evaluated using National Institution of Health quality assessment tools. The first two authors independently applied the eligibility criteria, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Any conflicts were resolved with consensus discussion with the third author.ResultsThe search retrieved 11 326 articles, 170 of which were assessed for eligibility. There were 44 studies included in the qualitative assessments and 30 in the meta-analyses. The studies included 1 randomized control trial (RCT) and 43 observational studies. The RCT was judged to have a high risk of bias and all of the observational studies had either fair or poor quality. The meta-analysis was based on studies judged to be of fair quality, including a total of 1859 patients. All meta-analyses were performed using random-effect models. The standardized mean difference between post-treatment and post-retention irregularity was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.04–1.40) and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.63–1.07) after extraction and non-extraction treatments, respectively. There was a substantial heterogeneity for the extraction (I2 = 75.2%) and non-extraction (I2 = 70.1%) studies. The follow-up duration (1–10 versus 10–20 years) explained 33% of the heterogeneity, with longer follow-up studies showing more irregularity.LimitationsThe quality of evidence provided by the studies was low. There was a risk of publication bias, and the search was limited to English language.Conclusions and implicationsPost-treatment mandibular irregularity increases are limited. Irregularity increases are slightly greater in patients treated with mandibular premolars extractions, and in patients followed up over longer periods of time.RegistrationThe study protocol was not registered.

scholarly journals Methodological Quality Assessment of Systematic Review or Meta-Analysis Using AMSTAR-2: the Long-Term Effectiveness or Efficacy of Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qian Li ◽  
Ke Deng ◽  
Xiaoyuan Jiang ◽  
Huan Tao ◽  
Hui Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background：Systematic review or meta-analysis, the strong study design of high quality evidence, give inconsistent conclusion of long-term effectiveness or efficacy of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. We appraised the methodological quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Methods: We found the relevant systematic reviews or meta-analyses by searching Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the International prospective register of systematic reviews, Psyc ARTICLES/OVID, the Chinese Bio-Medical Literature Database, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and the Wan Fang Data and VIP Database on March 1st, 2019. The methodological quality was assessed by A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2(AMSTAR-2). Spearman correlation analysis and non-parametric tests were used to assess the association between quality and factors. Results: Twenty-one systematic reviews or meta-analyses were included in our study. One has no individual study. In terms of methodological quality, twelve reviews were critically low in overall confidence, four reviews were low, two reviews were moderate, two reviews were high. When referring to the systematic reviews or meta-analyses of relatively better methodological quality with more credible results and conclusions, the effectiveness or efficacy of opioids was small to questionable. Cochrane reviews performed better than non-Cochrane reviews in establishing prior protocol (100% vs 17%, P<0.05), providing an excluded studies list (100% vs 50%, P<0.05) and taking risk of bias into account when interpreting the results of the review (100% vs 75%, P<0.05). There was a strong correlation (ρ=0.526, P<0.05) between the impact factor of systematic reviews or meta-analyses in published journals and methodological quality. Conclusion The methodological quality of the included systematic reviews or meta-analyses is far from satisfactory and needs improvement, especially in establishing prior protocol and justifying significant deviations from the protocol, providing an excluded primary studies list, reporting the funding information of primary studies, and assessing the potential impact of risk of bias on individual studies.

Clinical Performance of Filled/Nanofilled Versus Nonfilled Adhesive Systems in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. E34-E59
Author(s):  
JL de Geus ◽  
BM Maran ◽  
KA Cabral ◽  
A Dávila-Sánchez ◽  
C Tardem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Secondary Caries ◽  
Significant Difference

Clinical Relevance The use of filled adhesive systems does not influence the clinical performance of the adhesive restoration in noncarious cervical lesions. SUMMARY Objective: The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the clinical performance of filled vs unfilled adhesive systems when applied in noncarious cervical lesions. Methods and Materials: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO, Cochrane Library, and SIGLE. Gray literature was also screened. Only randomized controlled clinical trials were included. The risk of bias of the studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to compare the retention rate, marginal discoloration, and secondary caries of noncarious cervical lesions restored with filled adhesives vs unfilled adhesives. The quality of the body of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results: A total of 3662 studies were identified after removal of duplicates. Twenty-nine studies remained for qualitative analyses and 28 studies for the meta-analysis. Only one study was judged to have a low risk of bias, and the other 28 were considered to have unclear risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference between filled adhesives compared with unfilled adhesives in relation to loss of retention, marginal discoloration, or secondary caries at any of the follow-up periods (12–18 months, 24–30 months, 3 years, and 5 years or longer). The quality of evidence was graded as moderate for most outcomes at the respective follow-ups, except when there was an explained heterogeneity, which occurred mainly for loss of retention at the 12-month to 3-year follow-up. The results did not depend on whether microfilled or nanofilled adhesives had been investigated. Conclusions: The addition of fillers into the composition of adhesive systems did not increase the clinical performance (retention rates, marginal discoloration, or secondary caries) of composite restorations placed in noncarious cervical lesions when compared with unfilled adhesives.

Dynamic Stabilization of Syndesmosis Injuries Reduces Complications and Reoperations as Compared With Screw Fixation: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 1000-1013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Grassi ◽  
Kristian Samuelsson ◽  
Pieter D’Hooghe ◽  
Matteo Romagnoli ◽  
Massimiliano Mosca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Dynamic Fixation ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background: Several devices for obtaining dynamic fixation of the syndesmosis have been introduced in recent years, but their efficacy has been tested in only a few randomized controlled trials (RCTs), without demonstrating any clear benefit over the traditional static fixation with screws. Purpose: To perform a level 1 meta-analysis of RCTs to investigate the complications, subjective outcomes, and functional results after dynamic or static fixation of acute syndesmotic injuries. Study Design: Meta-analysis of RCTs. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed of the Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase electronic databases, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished studies. Eligible studies were RCTs comparing dynamic fixation and static fixation of acute syndesmosis injuries. A meta-analysis was performed, while bias and quality of evidence were rated according to the Cochrane Database questionnaire and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. Results: Dynamic fixation had a significantly reduced relative risk (RR = 0.55, P = .003) of complications—in particular, the presence of inadequate reduction at the final follow-up (RR = 0.36, P = .0008) and the clinical diagnosis of recurrent diastasis or instability (RR = 0.10, P = .03). The effect was more evident when compared with permanent screws (RR = 0.10, P = .0001). The reoperation rate was similar between the groups (RR = 0.64, P = .07); however, the overall risk was reduced after dynamic fixation as compared with static fixation with permanent screws (RR = 0.24, P = .007). The American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society score was significantly higher among patients treated with dynamic fixation—6.06 points higher ( P = .005) at 3 months, 5.21 points ( P = .03) at 12 months, and 8.60 points ( P < .00001) at 24 months—while the Olerud-Molander score was similar. The visual analog scale for pain score was reduced at 6 months (–0.73 points, P = .003) and 12 months (–0.52 points, P = .005), and ankle range of motion increased by 4.36° ( P = .03) with dynamic fixation. The overall quality of evidence ranged from “moderate” to “very low,” owing to a substantial risk of bias, heterogeneity, indirectness of outcome reporting, and evaluation of a limited number of patients. Conclusion: The dynamic fixation of syndesmotic injuries was able to reduce the number of complications and improve clinical outcomes as compared with static screw fixation—especially malreduction and clinical instability or diastasis—at a follow-up of 2 years. A lower risk of reoperation was found with dynamic fixation as compared with static fixation with permanent screws. However, the lack of patients or personnel blinding, treatment heterogeneity, small samples, and short follow-up limit the overall quality of this evidence.

scholarly journals Network Meta‐Analysis Comparing the Outcomes of Treatments for Intermittent Claudication Tested in Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shivshankar Thanigaimani ◽  
James Phie ◽  
Chinmay Sharma ◽  
Shannon Wong ◽  
Muhammad Ibrahim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intermittent Claudication ◽  
Exercise Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Home Exercise ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background No network meta‐analysis has considered the relative efficacy of cilostazol, home exercise therapy, supervised exercise therapy (SET), endovascular revascularization (ER), and ER plus SET (ER+SET) in improving maximum walking distance (MWD) over short‐ (<1 year), moderate‐ (1 to <2 years), and long‐term (≥2 years) follow‐up in people with intermittent claudication. Methods and Results A systematic literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials testing 1 or more of these 5 treatments according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis guidelines. The primary outcome was improvement in MWD assessed by a standardized treadmill test. Secondary outcomes were adverse events and health‐related quality of life. Network meta‐analysis was performed using the gemtc R statistical package. The Cochrane collaborative tool was used to assess risk of bias. Forty‐six trials involving 4256 patients were included. At short‐term follow‐up, home exercise therapy (mean difference [MD], 89.4 m; 95% credible interval [CrI], 20.9–157.7), SET (MD, 186.8 m; 95% CrI, 136.4–237.6), and ER+SET (MD, 326.3 m; 95% CrI, 222.6–430.6), but not ER (MD, 82.5 m; 95% CrI, −2.4 to 168.2) and cilostazol (MD, 71.1 m; 95% CrI, −24.6 to 167.9), significantly improved MWD (in meters) compared with controls. At moderate‐term follow‐up, SET (MD, 201.1; 95% CrI, 89.8–318.3) and ER+SET (MD, 368.5; 95% CrI, 195.3–546.9), but not home exercise therapy (MD, 99.4; 95% CrI, −174.0 to 374.9) or ER (MD, 84.2; 95% CrI, −35.3 to 206.4), significantly improved MWD (in meters) compared to controls. At long‐term follow‐up, none of the tested treatments significantly improved MWD compared to controls. Adverse events and quality of life were reported inconsistently and could not be meta‐analyzed. Risk of bias was low, moderate, and high in 4, 24, and 18 trials respectively. Conclusions This network meta‐analysis suggested that SET and ER+SET are effective at improving MWD over the moderate term (<2 year) but not beyond this. Durable treatments for intermittent claudication are needed.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of digital technology interventions to reduce loneliness in adults: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. e032455 ◽  
Author(s):  
Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah ◽  
David Nogueras ◽  
Hugo van Woerden ◽  
Vasiliki Kiparoglou
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Digital Technology ◽  
English Language ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Public Health Problem ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Randomised Control Trials

IntroductionLoneliness is an emerging public health problem that is associated with social, emotional, mental and physical health issues. The application of digital technology (DT) interventions to reduce loneliness has significantly increased in the recent years. The effectiveness of DT interventions needs to be assessed systematically.Methods and analysisAim: To undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of DT interventions to reduce loneliness among adults.Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources: PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and Web of Science.Publication period: 1 January 2010 to 31 July 2019.Inclusion criteria: Primary studies involving the application of DT interventions to reduce loneliness, involving adult participants (aged ≥18 years), follow-up period ≥3 months and published in the English language.Synthesis and meta-analysis: A narrative summary of the characteristics of included studies, findings by the type of DT intervention, and the age, gender and ethnicity of participants. A meta-analysis by the study design and duration of follow-up and determination of random effects size using the RevMan V.5 software.Quality of evidence and bias: Quality of evidence assessed the RoB V.2.0 (revised tool for Risk of Bias in randomized trials) and ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias in Non-randomized Studies—of Interventions) tools for randomised control trials and non-randomised studies, respectively. Heterogeneity between studies will be determined by the I2and Cochran’s Q statistics and publication bias checked with funnel plots and the Egger’s test.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was not required for this protocol. The findings will be disseminated through journal articles and conference presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019131524

scholarly journals Different Acupuncture Therapies for Allergic Rhinitis: Overview of Systematic Reviews and Network Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinhuan Zhang ◽  
Yanying Zhang ◽  
Xingxian Huang ◽  
Kai Lan ◽  
Liyu Hu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Western Medicine ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Alternative Therapy ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Sphenopalatine Ganglion

Objective. To evaluate the quality of methodologies used in previous systematic reviews (SRs) and compare efficacy of different acupuncture therapies for allergic rhinitis. Methods. Seven electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews (SRs) performed on different acupuncture therapies for allergic rhinitis from inception to 15 November 2019. The AMSTAR2 instrument was employed to assess the methodological quality of included SRs. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected from the included systematic reviews. We also included recent RCTs published by 15 November 2019. Cochrane risk of bias tool was utilized to determine risk of bias of the included RCTs. Pairwise meta-analyses were performed using the random-effects model. Network meta-analysis of the included RCTs was carried out using frequentist framework. Results. We identified 2 SRs with low quality and 18 SRs with very low quality, both of which contained 33 eligible RCTs (n = 3769). Most of these studies had unclear risk of bias. On the basis of ranking probability, NMA analysis showed that acupuncture at the sphenopalatine ganglion acupoint (OR: 1.31, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.61) had the highest probability of improving global allergic rhinitis symptoms, followed by San-Fu-Tie (OR: 1.17, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.27), manual acupuncture (OR:1.15, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.24) compared with conventional western medicine treatment. Moreover, direct comparison of the follow-up period showed that the clinical outcomes of acupuncture and related therapies at three-month (OR:1.34, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.55), six-month (OR: 1.31, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.57), and twelve-month (OR: 1.30, 95%CI 1.11 to 1.53) follow-up were better than those of traditional western medicine. Conclusion. These results indicate that for patients with allergic rhinitis who are unresponsive to conventional western medicine or cannot tolerate the side effects, acupuncture at the sphenopalatine ganglion acupoint is an effective alternative therapy. Further studies are advocated to deeply explore methodological quality of SRs by incorporating high-quality RCTs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document