scholarly journals Do fluoroquinolone agents produce therapeutic benefits or harmful effects in patients with periodontitis? A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 253-266
Author(s):  
Saray Aranda Romo ◽  
Flavio Martinez-Morales ◽  
Othoniel Aragon-Martinez
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Juul ◽  
Faiza Siddiqui ◽  
Marija Barbateskovic ◽  
Caroline Kamp Jørgensen ◽  
Michael Pascal Hengartner ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide. Antidepressants are frequently used to treat major depressive disorder. It has been shown repeatedly that antidepressants seem to reduce depressive symptoms with a statistically significant effect, but the clinical importance of the effect sizes seems questionable. Both beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants have not previously been sufficiently assessed. The main objective of this review will be to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. Methods/design A systematic review with meta-analysis will be reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2 (ROB2), our eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, Trial Sequential Analysis will be conducted to control for random errors, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. To identify relevant trials, we will search both for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases from their inception to the present. Clinical study reports will be obtained from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Two review authors will independently screen the results of the literature searches, extract data, and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include any published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing one or more antidepressants with placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The following active agents will be included: agomelatine, amineptine, amitriptyline, bupropion, butriptyline, cianopramine, citalopram, clomipramine, dapoxetine, demexiptiline, desipramine, desvenlafaxine, dibenzepin, dosulepin, dothiepin, doxepin, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, imipramine, iprindole, levomilnacipran, lofepramine, maprotiline, melitracen, metapramine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, nortriptyline, noxiptiline, opipramol, paroxetine, protriptyline, quinupramine, reboxetine, sertraline, trazodone, tianeptine, trimipramine, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine. Primary outcomes will be depressive symptoms, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be suicide or suicide attempt, suicidal ideation, and non-serious adverse events. Discussion As antidepressants are commonly used to treat major depressive disorder in adults, a systematic review evaluating their beneficial and harmful effects is urgently needed. This review will inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of this highly prevalent and burdensome disorder. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020220279


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Kwasi Korang ◽  
Sophie Juul ◽  
Emil Eik Nielsen ◽  
Joshua Feinberg ◽  
Faiza Siddiqui ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) which has rapidly spread worldwide. Several human randomized clinical trials assessing potential vaccines are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living systematic review that continuously assesses the beneficial and harmful effects of all available vaccines for COVID-19. Methods/design We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any vaccine aiming to prevent COVID-19 (including but not limited to messenger RNA; DNA; non-replicating viral vector; replicating viral vector; inactivated virus; protein subunit; dendritic cell; other vaccines) with any comparator (placebo; “active placebo;” no intervention; standard care; an “active” intervention; another vaccine for COVID-19) for participants in all age groups. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality; a diagnosis of COVID-19; and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be quality of life and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analyses, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Within-study bias will be assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) and Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approaches will be used to assess certainty of evidence. Observational studies describing harms identified during the search for trials will also be included and described and analyzed separately. Discussion COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review assessing the beneficial and harmful effects of different vaccines is urgently needed. This living systematic review will regularly inform best practice in vaccine prevention and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020196492


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 305-318
Author(s):  
W.G. Lima ◽  
R.M. Pessoa ◽  
K.D. Vital ◽  
I.K.T.M. Takenaka ◽  
V.N. Cardoso ◽  
...  

Gastrointestinal mucositis (GIM) is an inflammation caused by antitumor therapy, especially after chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Currently in the clinical practice, only palliative measures are taken to treat GIM, representing the main clinical limitation in the management of this condition. Several studies have highlighted the potential benefits of probiotics for the management of GIM, but the actual role of these microorganisms in the maintenance of intestinal homeostasis remains elusive. In this context, here we aimed to realise a systematic review with meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of probiotics on experimental GIM. The meta-analysis showed that probiotics significantly suppressed the body weight loss related to GIM in rodents (95% confidence interval (CI): -2.67 to -0.70; I2=98%, P<0.00). Subgroup analysis showed that pre-treatment (≥7 days before chemotherapy) (95% CI: -8.84 to -0.17; I2=98%, P<0.04) with a high dose of probiotics (≥ 109 cfu/day) (95% CI: -2.58 to -0.28; I2=98%, P<0.00) comprising two or more microorganism species (95% CI: -6.49 to -0.28; I2=96%, P=0.03) remedied GIM more effectively. It was also revealed that fungi (specifically Saccharomyces boullardii) are more effective in remedying GIM than bacteria (P=0.03 vs P<0.00), and the mouse models are more receptive than rats to the enteroprotective effects of probiotics (95% CI: -4.76, -0.69; I2=97%, P=0.01). Qualitative analyses highlighted that probiotics suppress GIM through several mechanisms; they reduce the intestinal permeability, suppress the pro-inflammatory cytokine production while stimulating production and secretion of anti-inflammatory cytokines, inhibit the signalling pathways coupled to inflammation and apoptosis, accelerate the proliferation of enterocytes, reduce the levels of reactive oxygen species, and help maintain the protective mucus layer. In conclusion, this review highlights the therapeutic benefits of probiotics in experimental GIM.


Author(s):  
Wendy Wing Yan So ◽  
Erin Yiqing Lu ◽  
Wai Ming Cheung ◽  
Hector Wing Hong Tsang

Background: In recent years, studies and reviews have reported the therapeutic benefits of both mindful and non-mindful exercises in reducing anxiety. However, there have not been any systematic reviews to compare their relative effectiveness for therapeutic application, especially among the non-clinical population. Thus, the aim of this review is to compare the effectiveness between mindful and non-mindful exercise on treating anxiety among non-clinical samples. Methods: Potential articles were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Academic Search Premier, and PsycInfo. Randomized controlled trials, which involved both mindful and non-mindful exercises as intervention, and the use of anxiety outcome measures were included. Results: Twenty-four studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in our systematic review. In addition, 14 studies provided sufficient data to be included in the meta-analysis. For studies that reported significant group differences at post-assessment, results showed that mindful exercise was more beneficial in reducing anxiety than non-mindful exercise. The meta-analysis reported that yoga was more effective in reducing anxiety than non-mindful exercise. Conclusions: Compared to non-mindful exercise, yoga is shown to be more effective in alleviating anxiety symptoms. It is recommended that yoga could be used as a primary healthcare intervention to help the public reduce anxiety.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document