scholarly journals Impact of perioperative hemodynamic optimization therapies in surgical patients: Economic study and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
João M Silva ◽  
Pedro Ferro L Menezes ◽  
Suzana M Lobo ◽  
Flavia Helena S Carvalho ◽  
Mariana Augusta N Oliveira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health System ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hospital Costs ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Indirect Costs ◽  
Cardiovascular Complications ◽  
Surgical Patients ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Hemodynamic Optimization

Abstract Background: Several studies suggest that hemodynamic optimization therapies can reduce complication, length of hospital stay and costs. However, Brazilian data are scarce. Therefore, the objective of this analysis was to evaluate whether the improvement demonstrated by hemodynamic optimization therapy in surgical patients could result in lower costs from the perspective of the Brazilian public unified health system. Method: A meta-analysis was performed comparing surgical patients who underwent hemodynamic optimization therapy (intervention) with patients submitted to standard therapy (control) in terms of complications and hospital costs. The cost-effectiveness analysis evaluated the clinical and financial benefits of hemodynamic optimization protocols for surgical patients. The analysis considered the clinical outcomes of randomized studies published in the last 20 years that involved surgeries and hemodynamic optimization therapy. Indirect costs (equipment depreciation, estate and management activities) were not included in the analysis. Results: A total of 21 clinical trials with a total of 4872 surgical patients were selected. Comparison of the intervention and control groups showed lower rates of infectious (RR=0.66; 95% CI=0.58-0.74), renal (RR=0.68; 95% CI=0.54-0.87), and cardiovascular complications (RR=0.87; 95% CI=0.76-0.99) and a non-statistically significant lower rate of respiratory complications (RR=0.82; 95% CI=0.67-1.02). There was no difference in mortality (RR=1.02; 95% CI=0.80-1.3) between groups. In the analysis of total costs, the intervention group showed a cost reduction of R$396,024.83-BRL ($90,161.38-USD) for every 1000 patients treated compared to the control group. The patients in the intervention group showed greater effectiveness, with 1.0 fewer day in the ICU and hospital. In addition, there were 333 fewer patients with complications, with a consequent reduction of R$1,630,341.47-BRL ($371,173.27-USD) for every 1000 patients treated. Conclusions: Hemodynamic optimization therapy is cost-effective and would increase efficiency and decrease the burden of the Brazilian public health system.

scholarly journals Economic impact of therapies on perioperative hemodynamic optimization in surgical patients from the perspective of developing country: Economic study and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
João M Silva ◽  
Pedro Ferro L Menezes ◽  
Flavia Helena S Carvalho ◽  
Mariana Augusta N Oliveira ◽  
Francisco Nilson F Cardoso Filho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hospital Costs ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Health Resources ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Indirect Costs ◽  
Cardiovascular Complications ◽  
Surgical Patients ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Hemodynamic Optimization

Abstract Background: Health resources are limited and need to be rationally distributed. Studies suggest that hemodynamic optimization therapy can reduce length of hospital stay, complications and costs. However, Brazilian data are scarce. Therefore, the objective of this analysis was to evaluate whether the improvement demonstrated by hemodynamic optimization therapy in surgical patients could result in lower costs from the perspective of the Brazilian public unified health s ystem (SUS). Method: A meta-analysis was performed comparing surgical patients who underwent hemodynamic optimization therapy (intervention) with patients submitted to standard therapy (control) in terms of complications and hospital costs. The cost-effectiveness analysis evaluated the clinical and financial benefits of hemodynamic optimization protocols for surgical patients. The analysis considered the clinical outcomes of randomized studies published in the last 20 years that involved surgeries and hemodynamic optimization therapy. Indirect costs were not included in the analysis. Results: A total of 21 clinical trials with a total of 4872 surgical patients were selected. Comparison of the intervention and control groups showed lower rates of infectious (RR=0.66; 95% CI=0.58-0.74), renal (RR=0.68; 95% CI=0.54-0.87), and cardiovascular complications (RR=0.87; 95% CI=0.76-0.99) and a tendency toward lower rates of respiratory complications (RR=0.82; 95% CI=0.67-1.02). There was no difference in mortality (RR=1.02; 95% CI=0.80-1.3) between groups. In the analysis of total costs, the intervention group showed a cost reduction of R$396,024.83 for every 1000 patients treated compared to the control group. The patients in the intervention group showed greater effectiveness, with 1.0 fewer day in the ICU and hospital. In addition, there were 333 fewer patients with complications, with a consequent reduction of R$1,630,341.47 for every 1000 patients treated. Conclusions: Hemodynamic optimization therapy is cost-effective and would increase efficiency and decrease the burden of the Brazilian public health system.

scholarly journals Impact of perioperative hemodynamic optimization therapies in surgical patients: Economic study and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
João M Silva ◽  
Pedro Ferro L Menezes ◽  
Suzana M Lobo ◽  
Flavia Helena S Carvalho ◽  
Mariana Augusta N Oliveira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health System ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hospital Costs ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Indirect Costs ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Surgical Patients ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Hemodynamic Optimization

Abstract Background: Several studies suggest that hemodynamic optimization therapies can reduce complications, the length of hospital stay and costs. However, Brazilian data are scarce. Therefore, the objective of this analysis was to evaluate whether the improvement demonstrated by hemodynamic optimization therapy in surgical patients could result in lower costs from the perspective of the Brazilian public unified health system. Methods: A meta-analysis was performed comparing surgical patients who underwent hemodynamic optimization therapy (intervention) with patients who underwent standard therapy (control) in terms of complications and hospital costs. The cost-effectiveness analysis evaluated the clinical and financial benefits of hemodynamic optimization protocols for surgical patients. The analysis considered the clinical outcomes of randomized studies published in the last 20 years that involved surgeries and hemodynamic optimization therapy. Indirect costs (equipment depreciation, estate and management activities) were not included in the analysis. Results: A total of 21 clinical trials with a total of 4872 surgical patients were selected. Comparison of the intervention and control groups showed lower rates of infectious (RR=0.66; 95% CI=0.58-0.74), renal (RR=0.68; 95% CI=0.54-0.87), and cardiovascular (RR=0.87; 95% CI=0.76-0.99) complications and a nonstatistically significant lower rate of respiratory complications (RR=0.82; 95% CI=0.67-1.02). There was no difference in mortality (RR=1.02; 95% CI=0.80-1.3) between groups. In the analysis of total costs, the intervention group showed a cost reduction of R$396,024.83-BRL ($90,161.38-USD) for every 1000 patients treated compared to the control group. The patients in the intervention group showed greater effectiveness, with 1.0 fewer days in the intensive care unit and hospital. In addition, there were 333 fewer patients with complications, with a consequent reduction of R$1,630,341.47-BRL ($371,173.27-USD) for every 1000 patients treated. Conclusions: Hemodynamic optimization therapy is cost-effective and would increase the efficiency of and decrease the burden of the Brazilian public health system.

scholarly journals Economic impact of therapies on perioperative hemodynamic optimization in surgical patients from the perspective of developing country: Economic study and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
João M Silva ◽  
Pedro Ferro L Menezes ◽  
Flavia Helena S Carvalho ◽  
Mariana Augusta N Oliveira ◽  
Francisco Nilson F Cardoso Filho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hospital Costs ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Health Resources ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Indirect Costs ◽  
Cardiovascular Complications ◽  
Surgical Patients ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Hemodynamic Optimization

Abstract Background: Health resources are limited and need to be rationally distributed. Studies suggest that hemodynamic optimization therapy can reduce length of hospital stay, complications and costs. However, Brazilian data are scarce. Therefore, the objective of this analysis was to evaluate whether the improvement demonstrated by hemodynamic optimization therapy in surgical patients could result in lower costs from the perspective of the Brazilian public unified health s ystem (SUS). Method: A meta-analysis was performed comparing surgical patients who underwent hemodynamic optimization therapy (intervention) with patients submitted to standard therapy (control) in terms of complications and hospital costs. The cost-effectiveness analysis evaluated the clinical and financial benefits of hemodynamic optimization protocols for surgical patients. The analysis considered the clinical outcomes of randomized studies published in the last 20 years that involved surgeries and hemodynamic optimization therapy. Indirect costs were not included in the analysis. Results: A total of 21 clinical trials with a total of 4872 surgical patients were selected. Comparison of the intervention and control groups showed lower rates of infectious (RR=0.66; 95% CI=0.58-0.74), renal (RR=0.68; 95% CI=0.54-0.87), and cardiovascular complications (RR=0.87; 95% CI=0.76-0.99) and a tendency toward lower rates of respiratory complications (RR=0.82; 95% CI=0.67-1.02). There was no difference in mortality (RR=1.02; 95% CI=0.80-1.3) between groups. In the analysis of total costs, the intervention group showed a cost reduction of R$396,024.83 for every 1000 patients treated compared to the control group. The patients in the intervention group showed greater effectiveness, with 1.0 fewer day in the ICU and hospital. In addition, there were 333 fewer patients with complications, with a consequent reduction of R$1,630,341.47 for every 1000 patients treated. Conclusions: Hemodynamic optimization therapy is cost-effective and would increase efficiency and decrease the burden of the Brazilian public health system.

scholarly journals Impact of perioperative hemodynamic optimization therapies in surgical patients: Economic study and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
João M Silva ◽  
Pedro Ferro L Menezes ◽  
Suzana M Lobo ◽  
Flavia Helena S Carvalho ◽  
Mariana Augusta N Oliveira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hospital Costs ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Indirect Costs ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Surgical Patients ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Hemodynamic Optimization ◽  
Consequent Reduction

Abstract Background: Several studies suggest that hemodynamic optimization therapies can reduce complications, the length of hospital stay and costs. However, Brazilian data are scarce. Therefore, the objective of this analysis was to evaluate whether the improvement demonstrated by hemodynamic optimization therapy in surgical patients could result in lower costs from the perspective of the Brazilian public unified health system.Method: A meta-analysis was performed comparing surgical patients who underwent hemodynamic optimization therapy (intervention) with patients who underwent standard therapy (control) in terms of complications and hospital costs. The cost-effectiveness analysis evaluated the clinical and financial benefits of hemodynamic optimization protocols for surgical patients. The analysis considered the clinical outcomes of randomized studies published in the last 20 years that involved surgeries and hemodynamic optimization therapy. Indirect costs (equipment depreciation, estate and management activities) were not included in the analysis.Results: A total of 21 clinical trials with a total of 4872 surgical patients were selected. Comparison of the intervention and control groups showed lower rates of infectious (RR=0.66; 95% CI=0.58-0.74), renal (RR=0.68; 95% CI=0.54-0.87), and cardiovascular (RR=0.87; 95% CI=0.76-0.99) complications and a nonstatistically significant lower rate of respiratory complications (RR=0.82; 95% CI=0.67-1.02). There was no difference in mortality (RR=1.02; 95% CI=0.80-1.3) between groups. In the analysis of total costs, the intervention group showed a cost reduction of R$396,024.83-BRL ($90,161.38-USD) for every 1000 patients treated compared to the control group. The patients in the intervention group showed greater effectiveness, with 1.0 fewer days in the intensive care unit and hospital. In addition, there were 333 fewer patients with complications, with a consequent reduction of R$1,630,341.47-BRL ($371,173.27-USD) for every 1000 patients treated.Conclusions: Hemodynamic optimization therapy is cost-effective and would increase the efficiency of and decrease the burden of the Brazilian public health system.

scholarly journals Use of Topical Tranexamic Acid to Reduce Blood Loss in Single-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 593-600
Author(s):  
Abhinandan Reddy Mallepally ◽  
Rajat Mahajan ◽  
Tarush Rustagi ◽  
Shakti Amar Goel ◽  
Kalidutta Das ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Tranexamic Acid ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Indirect Costs ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Single Level ◽  
Perioperative Blood Loss

Study Design: Nonrandomized, prospective, and case-controlled study.Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of topically applied tranexamic acid (TXA) during different phases of spine surgery.Overview of Literature: Perioperative blood loss is the leading cause of postoperative anemia associated with prolonged stays in hospital and long recovery times. The direct and indirect costs involved pose a significant economic challenge in developing countries. There is no consensus for topical use of tranexamic acid in spine surgery.Methods: Patients requiring a single-level TLIF were divided into two groups. In the TXA group (n=75), the wound surface was soaked with TXA (1 g in 100 mL saline solution) for 3 minutes after exposure, after decompression, and before wound closure, and in the control group (n=175) using only saline. Intraoperative blood loss drain volume was recorded on each of the first 2 days immediately after surgery. An estimated cost analysis was made on the basis of the length of hospital stay and the blood transfusion.Results: IBL for the control group was 783.33±332.71 mL and for intervention group 410.57±189.72 mL (<i>p</i> <0.001). The operative time for control group was 3.24±0.38 hours and for intervention group 2.99±0.79 hours (<i>p</i> <0.695). Hemovac drainage on days 1 and 2 for control group was 167.10±53.83 mL and 99.33±37.5 mL, respectively, and for intervention group 107.03±44.37 mL and 53.38±21.99 mL, respectively (<i>p</i> <0.001). The length of stay was significantly shorter in the intervention group (4.8±1.1 days) compared to control group (7.0±2.3 days). The cost of treatment in the intervention group was US dollar (USD) 4,552.57±1,222.6 compared with that in the control group USD 6,529.9±1,505.04.Conclusions: Topical TXA is a viable, cost-effective method of decreasing perioperative blood loss in major spine surgery with fewer overall complications than other methods. Further studies are required to find the ideal dosage and timing.

scholarly journals Sofosbuvir with daclatasvir and the outcomes of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis with GRADE assessment

2021 ◽  
pp. postgradmedj-2021-140287
Author(s):  
Ahmad Fariz Malvi Zamzam Zein ◽  
Catur Setiya Sulistiyana ◽  
Wilson Matthew Raffaello ◽  
Arief Wibowo ◽  
Raymond Pranata
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Reduce Mortality Rate ◽  
Icu Admission ◽  
Clinical Recovery

PurposeThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (SOF/DCV) on mortality, the need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and clinical recovery in patients with COVID-19.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search through the PubMed, Scopus and Embase from the inception of databases until 6 April 2021. The intervention group was SOF/DCV, and the control group was standard of care. The primary outcome was mortality, defined as clinically validated death. The secondary outcomes were (1) the need for ICU admission or IMV and (2) clinical recovery. The pooled effect estimates were reported as risk ratios (RRs).ResultsThere were four studies with a total of 231 patients in this meta-analysis. Three studies were randomised controlled trial, and one study was non-randomised. SOF/DCV was associated with lower mortality (RR: 0.31 (0.12, 0.78); p=0.013; I2: 0%) and reduced need for ICU admission or IMV (RR: 0.35 (0.18, 0.69); p=0.002; I2: 0%). Clinical recovery was achieved more frequently in the SOF/DCV (RR: 1.20 (1.04, 1.37); p=0.011; I2: 21.1%). There was a moderate certainty of evidence for mortality and need for ICU/IMV outcome, and a low certainty of evidence for clinical recovery. The absolute risk reductions were 140 fewer per 1000 for mortality and 186 fewer per 1000 for the need for ICU/IMV. The increase in clinical recovery was 146 more per 1000.ConclusionSOF/DCV may reduce mortality rate and need for ICU/IMV in patients with COVID-19 while increasing the chance for clinical recovery.Protocol registrationPROSPERO: CRD42021247510.

scholarly journals Methylprednisolone or dexamethasone, which one is superior corticosteroid in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a triple-blinded randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Keivan Ranjbar ◽  
Mohsen Moghadami ◽  
Alireza Mirahmadizadeh ◽  
Mohammad Javad Fallahi ◽  
Vahid Khaloo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinical Status ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Ordinal Scale ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Group Data ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background Although almost a year has passed since the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak and promising reports of vaccines have been presented, we still have a long way until these measures are available for all. Furthermore, the most appropriate corticosteroid and dose in the treatment of COVID-19 have remained uncertain. We conducted a study to assess the effectiveness of methylprednisolone treatment versus dexamethasone for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods In this prospective triple-blinded randomized controlled trial, we enrolled 86 hospitalized COVID-19 patients from August to November 2020, in Shiraz, Iran. The patients were randomly allocated into two groups to receive either methylprednisolone (2 mg/kg/day; intervention group) or dexamethasone (6 mg/kg/day; control group). Data were assessed based on a 9-point WHO ordinal scale extending from uninfected (point 0) to death (point 8). Results There were no significant differences between the groups on admission. However, the intervention group demonstrated significantly better clinical status compared to the control group at day 5 (4.02 vs. 5.21, p = 0.002) and day 10 (2.90 vs. 4.71, p = 0.001) of admission. There was also a significant difference in the overall mean score between the intervention group and the control group, (3.909 vs. 4.873 respectively, p = 0.004). The mean length of hospital stay was 7.43 ± 3.64 and 10.52 ± 5.47 days in the intervention and control groups, respectively (p = 0.015). The need for a ventilator was significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (18.2% vs 38.1% p = 0.040). Conclusion In hospitalized hypoxic COVID-19 patients, methylprednisolone demonstrated better results compared to dexamethasone. Trial registration The trial was registered with IRCT.IR (08/04/2020-No. IRCT20200204046369N1).

scholarly journals Perioperative Gabapentin Does Not Reduce Postoperative Delirium in Older Surgical Patients

2017 ◽  
Vol 127 (4) ◽  
pp. 633-644 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Postoperative Delirium ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Treated Group ◽  
Assessment Method ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Opioid Use

Abstract Background Postoperative pain and opioid use are associated with postoperative delirium. We designed a single-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm, double-blinded trial to determine whether perioperative administration of gabapentin reduced postoperative delirium after noncardiac surgery. Methods Patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo (N = 347) or gabapentin 900 mg (N = 350) administered preoperatively and for the first 3 postoperative days. The primary outcome was postoperative delirium as measured by the Confusion Assessment Method. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain, opioid use, and length of hospital stay. Results Data for 697 patients were included, with a mean ± SD age of 72 ± 6 yr. The overall incidence of postoperative delirium in any of the first 3 days was 22.4% (24.0% in the gabapentin and 20.8% in the placebo groups; the difference was 3.20%; 95% CI, 3.22% to 9.72%; P = 0.30). The incidence of delirium did not differ between the two groups when stratified by surgery type, anesthesia type, or preoperative risk status. Gabapentin was shown to be opioid sparing, with lower doses for the intervention group versus the control group. For example, the morphine equivalents for the gabapentin-treated group, median 6.7 mg (25th, 75th quartiles: 1.3, 20.0 mg), versus control group, median 6.7 mg (25th, 75th quartiles: 2.7, 24.8 mg), differed on the first postoperative day (P = 0.04). Conclusions Although postoperative opioid use was reduced, perioperative administration of gabapentin did not result in a reduction of postoperative delirium or hospital length of stay.

Evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to reducing screen time in children: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Duygu Akçay ◽  
Nuray Barış
Keyword(s):  
Effect Size ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Screen Time ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Mean Differences ◽  
The Impact

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the impact of interventions focused on reducing screen time in children. Design/methodology/approach Studies that aim to investigate the effects of interventions aimed at reducing the time spent in front of the screen (i.e. screen time). A Random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled standard mean differences. The outcome was to evaluate the screen time in children in the 0–18 age range. A subgroup analysis was performed to reveal the extent to which the overall effect size varied by subgroups (participant age, duration of intervention and follow). Findings For the outcome, the meta-analysis included 21 studies, and the standard difference in mean change in screen time in the intervention group compared with the control group was −0.16 (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.21 to −0.12) (p < 0.001). The effect size was found to be higher in long-term (=7 months) interventions and follow-ups (p < 0.05). Originality/value Subgroup analysis showed that a significant effect of screen time reduction was observed in studies in which the duration of intervention and follow-up was =7 months. As the evidence base grows, future researchers can contribute to these findings by conducting a more comprehensive analysis of effect modifiers and optimizing interventions to reduce screen time.

scholarly journals The Effects of Acupuncture on Pregnancy Outcomes of Recurrent Implantation Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Menglin Li ◽  
Yunyun Liu ◽  
Haoran Wang ◽  
Shuzhen Zheng ◽  
Yinhe Deng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pregnancy Rate ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Implantation Failure ◽  
Recurrent Implantation Failure ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Ivf Et

Objective. To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF) undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) and hopefully provide reliable guidance for clinicians and patients. Methods. Through searching domestic and foreign medical journals, the literature of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture for RIF undergoing IVF-ET was collected. RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis and Cochrane’s risk of bias assessment tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Results. Seven documents meeting the criteria were finally included. The results showed that the intervention group contributes more in outcomes including clinical pregnancy rate (RR = 1.90, 95% CI (1.51, 2.40), P < 0.05 ), biochemical pregnancy rate (RR = 1.59, 95% CI (1.27, 1.99), P < 0.05 ), embryo implantation rate (RR = 1.89, 95% CI (1.47, 2.45), P < 0.05 ), and endometrial thickness (MD = 1.11, 95% CI (0.59, 1.63), P < 0.05 ) when compared with the control group, and the difference is statistically significant. In terms of the number of embryo transfers and the type of endometrium, the difference between the acupuncture group and the control group was not statistically significant. Conclusion. Acupuncture therapy on patients with RIF can improve the pregnancy outcome of patients. It is a relatively effective treatment with satisfactory safety and suitable for clinical application. However, as the quality of the included studies is not good enough, the conclusion of this meta-analysis should be treated with caution. More double-blind RCTs equipped with high quality and large samples are expected for the improvement of the level of evidence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document