scholarly journals Adjunctive therapies for the nonsurgical treatment of peri-implant diseases: systemic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
yuhan xiao ◽  
Yichun Qin ◽  
Haiyang Yu
Keyword(s):  
Photodynamic Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Systemic Review ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Enamel Matrix Derivative ◽  
Local Antibiotics ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Systemic Antibiotics

Abstract Background Peri-implant diseases are caused by biofilms around the implant and may lead to implant failure. Non-surgical mechanical debridement with different adjunctive therapies has being applied in the treatment of peri-implant diseases. This systematic review aims to figure out whether one adjunctive therapy is superior to any other. Methods Two independent authors screened the literature via the MEDLINE and Cochrane Library. Only clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of adjunctive therapies in the treatment of experimental peri-implant mucositis with non-surgical mechanical debridement (MD) were included in this review. The studies selected were published before February 2020. Comparisons of clinical outcomes were estimated using meta-analysis Results: A total of thirty-one RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The following adjunctive interventions were compared in the included studies: modifying the prosthesis; air abrasive; Er:YAG laser; diode laser; photodynamic therapy; local antibiotics; system antibiotics; probiotics; enamel matrix derivative. Follow-up ranged from 3 months to 1 years. Statistically significant difference was observed between MD with photodynamic therapy and MD alone at 3 months follow-up (P < 0.01). There is no statistical difference between MD with chlorhexidine and MD alone at 3 months follow-up (P = 0.61), so is MD with probiotics and MD alone (P = 0.47), and so is systemic antibiotics and MD alone (P = 0.96). Conclusion.At present, we do not know which non-surgical intervention is superior to any other, and for the interventions having similar degrees of effectiveness we do not know which one has less side effects, is simpler and cheaper to use. It is necessary to conduct well-designed RCTs with longer follow-ups to assess the accurate effectiveness of therapies.

scholarly journals Adjunctive therapies for the nonsurgical treatment of peri-implant diseases: systemic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
yuhan xiao ◽  
Yichun Qin ◽  
Haiyang Yu
Keyword(s):  
Photodynamic Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Systemic Review ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Enamel Matrix Derivative ◽  
Local Antibiotics ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Systemic Antibiotics

Abstract Background Peri-implant diseases are caused by biofilms around the implant and may lead to implant failure. Non-surgical mechanical debridement (MD) with different adjunctive therapies has been applied in the treatment of peri-implant diseases. This systematic review aimed to deduce the optimal adjunctive therapy.Methods Two independent authors screened the literature using MEDLINE and Cochrane Library. Only clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about adjunctive therapies for non-surgical treatment of peri-implant diseases were included in this review. Studies selected were published before February 2020. The clinical outcomes were compared in this meta-analysis.Results: A total of 31 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The following adjunctive interventions were compared in the included studies: modification of the prosthesis; air abrasive; Er:YAG laser; diode laser; photodynamic therapy; local antibiotics; system antibiotics; probiotics; and enamel matrix derivative. Follow-up ranged from 3 months to 1 year. A statistically significant difference was observed between MD with photodynamic therapy and MD alone at 3 months follow-up ( P < 0.01). However, such a difference was not detected between MD with chlorhexidine and MD alone at 3 months follow-up ( P = 0.61), between MD with probiotics and MD alone ( P = 0.47), and between systemic antibiotics and MD alone ( P = 0.96).Conclusion Currently, the optimal non-surgical intervention is not known. Also, among the interventions with similar efficiency, that with fewer side effects, easy to use, and cost-effective is yet to be identified. Thus, well-designed RCTs with prolonged follow-ups to assess the accurate effectiveness of therapies are imperative.

scholarly journals Adjunctive therapies for the nonsurgical treatment of peri-implant diseases: systemic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
yuhan xiao ◽  
Yichun Qin ◽  
Haiyang Yu
Keyword(s):  
Photodynamic Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Systemic Review ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Enamel Matrix Derivative ◽  
Local Antibiotics ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Systemic Antibiotics

Abstract Background Peri-implant diseases are caused by biofilms around the implant and may lead to implant failure. Non-surgical mechanical debridement (MD) with different adjunctive therapies has been applied in the treatment of peri-implant diseases. This systematic review aimed to deduce the optimal adjunctive therapy. Methods Two independent authors screened the literature using MEDLINE and Cochrane Library. Only clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about adjunctive therapies for non-surgical treatment of peri-implant diseases were included in this review. Studies selected were published before February 2020. The clinical outcomes were compared in this meta-analysis. Results: A total of 31 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The following adjunctive interventions were compared in the included studies: modification of the prosthesis; air abrasive; Er:YAG laser; diode laser; photodynamic therapy; local antibiotics; system antibiotics; probiotics; and enamel matrix derivative. Follow-up ranged from 3 months to 1 year. A statistically significant difference was observed between MD with photodynamic therapy and MD alone at 3 months follow-up ( P < 0.01). However, such a difference was not detected between MD with chlorhexidine and MD alone at 3 months follow-up ( P = 0.61), between MD with probiotics and MD alone ( P = 0.47), and between systemic antibiotics and MD alone ( P = 0.96). Conclusion Currently, the optimal non-surgical intervention is not known. Also, among the interventions with similar efficiency, that with fewer side effects, easy to use, and cost-effective is yet to be identified. Thus, well-designed RCTs with prolonged follow-ups to assess the accurate effectiveness of therapies are imperative.

scholarly journals Adjunctive therapies for the nonsurgical treatment of peri-implant diseases: systemic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
yuhan xiao ◽  
Yichun Qin ◽  
Haiyang Yu
Keyword(s):  
Photodynamic Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Systemic Review ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Local Antibiotics ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Systemic Antibiotics ◽  
Non Surgical Treatment

Abstract Background Peri-implant diseases are mainly caused by biofilms around the implant and may lead to implant failure. Non-surgical mechanical debridement with different adjunctive therapies has being applied in the treatment of peri-implant diseases. This systematic review aims to figure out whether one adjunctive therapy is superior to any other. Methods Two independent authors screened the literature via the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and Science Direct. Only clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of adjunctive therapies in the treatment of peri-implant diseases with non-surgical mechanical debridement (MD) were included in this review. The studies selected were published before June 2020. Comparisons of clinical outcomes were estimated using meta-analysis Results: A total of eighteen RCTs met the inclusion criteria, of which 13 articles were included in the meta-analysis. The following adjunctive interventions were compared in the included studies: modifying the prosthesis; air abrasive; photodynamic therapy; local antibiotics; systemic antibiotics; probiotics. Statistically significant difference was observed between MD with photodynamic therapy and MD alone at 3 months follow-up ( P < 0.01). There is no statistical difference between MD with chlorhexidine and MD alone in the treatment of peri-implant diseases at 3 months follow-up ( P = 0.84), so is MD with probiotics and MD alone ( P = 0.96), and so is systemic antibiotics and MD alone ( P = 0.47). Conclusion. MD adjunct with PDT is an effective treatment for peri-implant mucositis. However, there is still no effective non-surgical treatment for peri-implantitis.

Early Versus Routine Stoma Closure in Patients With Colorectal Resection: A Meta-Analysis of 7 Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-298
Author(s):  
Yinyin Guo ◽  
Yanxin Luo ◽  
Hui Zhao ◽  
Liangliang Bai ◽  
Juan Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Surgery ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Bowel Obstruction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Wound Complications ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Stoma Closure ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Background. A substantial proportion of patients undergoing colorectal surgery receive a temporary stoma, and the timing for stoma closure remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of early stoma closure (ESC) compared with routine stoma closure (RSC) after colorectal surgery. Methods. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials that compared ESC and RSC after colorectal surgery. Results. A total of 7 randomized controlled trials with 814 enrolled patients were identified for this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between the ESC and RSC groups regarding the complications of stoma closure (26.8% and 16.6%, respectively; odds ratio [OR]: 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-1.90; P = .17). A subgroup analysis was conducted by Clavien-Dindo grade of complication, and no significant difference was observed in any subgroup ( P > .05). However, the ESC group had a significantly higher risk of wound complications than the RSC group (17.6% and 7.8%, respectively; OR: 2.61; 95% CI: 1.43-4.76; P = .002), and the RSC group had more cases of small bowel obstruction than the ESC group (3.1% and 8.4%, respectively; OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.15-0.87; P = .02). Conclusions. ESC is a safe and effective therapeutic approach in patients who have undergone colorectal surgery; it is associated with a reduced risk of bowel obstruction but a higher risk of wound complications.

scholarly journals Drug-Eluting Balloons versus Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents for Treating In-Stent Restenosis in Coronary Heart Disease after PCI: A Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wen-Juan Xiu ◽  
Hai-Tao Yang ◽  
Ying-Ying Zheng ◽  
Yi-Tong Ma ◽  
Xiang Xie
Keyword(s):  
Observational Studies ◽  
Second Generation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Drug Eluting Stents ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Stent Restenosis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Drug Eluting ◽  
In Stent Restenosis

Background. In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a common problem following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the best treatment strategy remains uncertain. There is some controversy over the efficacy of drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) for treating ISR. Methods. A meta-analysis was used to compare the efficacy of the DEB and second-generation DES in the treatment of ISR. The primary endpoint is the incidence of target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary endpoint is the occurrence of target vessel revascularization (TVR), myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause death (ACM), cardiac death (CD), major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), minimum luminal diameter (MLD), late luminal loss (LLL), binary restenosis (BR), and percent diameter stenosis (DS%). Results. A total of 12 studies (4 randomized controlled trials and 8 observational studies) including 2020 patients with a follow-up of 6–25 months were included in the present study. There was a significant difference in the MLD between the two groups during follow-up (P=0.007, RR = 0.23, and 95% CI: 0.06–0.4 mm). There was no significant difference in LLL, BR, or DS% and the overall incidence of MACEs between the two groups. Subgroup analysis showed no significant difference in the incidence of primary and secondary endpoints when considering RCTs or observational studies only. Conclusions. The efficacy of the DEB and second-generation DES in the treatment of ISR is comparable. However, our results need further verification through multicenter randomized controlled trials.

scholarly journals The Effectiveness and Safety of Thunder Fire Moxibustion for Treating Allergic Rhinitis: A PRISMA Compliant Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Ting Yuan ◽  
Jun Xiong ◽  
Jun Yang ◽  
Xue Wang ◽  
Yunfeng Jiang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Total Effective Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Effective Rate ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Background. Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a noninfectious inflammatory disease caused by allergic individuals exposed to allergens. Western medicine therapy for treating AR causes obvious adverse events, while thunder fire moxibustion (TFM) is known as a safe and effective treatment for AR. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of TFM for treating AR. Methods. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and CBM from inception to April 5, 2020, were searched without any language restriction. Reviewers identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality, independently. The primary outcomes were the total effective rate and the TNSS. The secondary outcomes included TNNSS, RQLQ, VAS, serum IgE, IgA, or IgG level, and adverse events. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were collected; methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool (RoB), and the level of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. Meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan5.3.0 software. Results. A total of 18 RCTs were included, including 1600 patients. The results of this meta-analysis showed a statistically significant effect in a total effective rate of T = TFM (RR = 1.07; 95% CI [1.03, 1.12]; P=0.45; I2 = 0%) and T = TFM + other treatments (RR = 1.18; 95% CI [1.11, 1.25]; P=0.03; I2 = 53%). In addition, TFM intervention also showed significant difference in total symptom score (T = TFM + other treatments) (MD = −1.42; 95% CI [−1.55, −1.29]; P=0.03; I2 = 60%) in patients with AR. Conclusion. Existing evidence shows that TFM is safe and effective for AR. Due to the universal low quality of the eligible trials and low evidence level, we should draw our conclusions with caution. Therefore, clinical researchers should carry out more large-sample, multicentre, high-quality randomized controlled clinical trials in the future to verify the clinical efficacy of TFM in treating AR.

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).

scholarly journals Risk of malignancies in patients with spondyloarthritis treated with biologics compared with those treated with non-biologics: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 1759720X2092569
Author(s):  
Yu Heng Kwan ◽  
Ka Keat Lim ◽  
Warren Fong ◽  
Hendra Goh ◽  
Linkai Ng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Interleukin 17 ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Analytical Approaches

Background: The aim of our study was to synthesize evidence on the occurrence of malignancy in spondyloarthritis (SpA), from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing biologics with non-biologics and biologics to each other. Methods: We systematically searched Medline, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Scopus and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception until 31 October 2018. RCTs with ⩾24-week follow-up were included. We extracted data using standardized forms and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. We performed pair-wise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses to compare the risk of malignancy for each biologics class and SpA type. We reported the Peto odds ratio (OR) of any malignancy along with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Bayesian posterior probabilities comparing risk of malignancy of each biologic class with non-biologics were computed as supplementary measures. Results: Fifty-four trials were included; most (44/54) had follow-up <1 year. Among 14,245 patients, 63 developed a malignancy. While most Peto ORs were >1, they had wide 95% CI and p >0.05. The overall Peto OR comparing biologics with non-biologics was 1.42 (95% CI 0.80–2.53). Only interleukin-17 inhibitors in peripheral SpA had p <0.05 (Peto OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.07–7.13); the posterior probability that the risk was higher than non-biologics was 98%. Stratified analyses revealed no consistent trend by prior exposure to biologics, duration of follow-up, study quality, study-arm crossover, analytical approaches and type of malignancy. Conclusions: Our findings indicate no overall elevated risk of malignancy with biologics in SpA. As our meta-analyses are unable to conclude on the long-term risk, long-term pharmacovigilance of biologics in SpA may still be warranted.

Impact of Dispatcher-Assisted Bystander Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation with Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 372-381
Author(s):  
Junhong Wang ◽  
Hua Zhang ◽  
Zongxuan Zhao ◽  
Kaifeng Wen ◽  
Yaoke Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ◽  
Neurological Outcome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Systemic Review ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Bystander Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Hospital Cardiac Arrest

AbstractObjective:This systemic review and meta-analysis was conducted to explore the impact of dispatcher-assisted bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DA-BCPR) on bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (BCPR) probability, survival, and neurological outcomes with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).Methods:Electronically searching of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library, along with manual retrieval, were done for clinical trials about the impact of DA-BCPR which were published from the date of inception to December 2018. The literature was screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, the baseline information, and interested outcomes were extracted. Two reviewers assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. Pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by STATA version 13.1.Results:In 13 studies, 235,550 patients were enrolled. Compared with no dispatcher instruction, DA-BCPR tended to be effective in improving BCPR rate (I2 = 98.2%; OR = 5.84; 95% CI, 4.58-7.46; P <.01), return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) before admission (I2 = 36.0%; OR = 1.17; 95% CI, 1.06-1.29; P <.01), discharge or 30-day survival rate (I2 = 47.7%; OR = 1.25; 95% CI, 1.06-1.46; P <.01), and good neurological outcome (I2 = 30.9%; OR = 1.24; 95% CI, 1.04-1.48; P = .01). However, no significant difference in hospital admission was found (I2 = 29.0%; OR = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.91-1.30; P = .36).Conclusion:This review shows DA-BPCR plays a positive role for OHCA as a critical section in the life chain. It is effective in improving the probability of BCPR, survival, ROSC before admission, and neurological outcome.

scholarly journals Effects of palonosetron and ondansetron on preventing nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic surgery

2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 411-420 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qili Liu ◽  
Chengmao Zhou ◽  
Zeqing Bao ◽  
Yu Zhu
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Time Intervals ◽  
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Background This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery with general anesthesia. Methods We searched for randomized controlled clinical trials in PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library. Results Nine studies were enrolled in this meta-analysis and showed no statistically significant difference between palonosetron and ondansetron in the prevention of PONV in the first 24 hours after surgery (relative risk [RR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35–1.10). Palonosetron more effectively prevented vomiting at various time intervals during the first 24 hours postoperatively than did ondansetron: 0–2 hours (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26–0.78), 2–6 hours (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.39–1.40), and 6–24 hours (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.55–2.64). No significant differences in side effects were found between palonosetron and ondansetron (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.40–1.14). Conclusion This meta-analysis demonstrated that palonosetron is not more efficacious than ondansetron in the prevention of early PONV. However, palonosetron was more efficacious than ondansetron in the prevention of vomiting after laparoscopic surgery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document