Herbal Medicine for Cervicogenic Dizziness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyunjoo Oh ◽  
Seungwon Shin ◽  
Euiju Lee ◽  
Won-Seok Chung
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Herbal Medicines ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Reliable Effect ◽  
Cervicogenic Dizziness ◽  
Active Controls

Abstract Background: Herbal medicines (HMs) have been widely used in the treatment of cervicogenic dizziness (CGD) based on their empirical effectiveness and safety. Herein, we reviewed and evaluated the clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of HM for CGD. Methods: Among the relevant studies published up to December 2019 in 11 electronic databases, only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The studies’ methodological quality was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials, and the strength of evidence for the main findings was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Results: All 17 included RCTs with 1,797 participants were conducted with six types of modified HM prescriptions and three types of active controls. More than half of the included studies were of low quality because of the high risk of bias due to deviations from the intended intervention. HMs plus active controls were more effective in CGD treatment than active controls alone. HMs plus antivertigo drugs, HMs plus manual therapy, and HMs plus acupuncture therapy were all effective in CGD treatment, with HMs plus antivertigo drugs showing the most reliable effect. All HM prescriptions were effective for specific patterns of CGD when administered with active controls, with Banxia Baizhu Tianma tang and Dingxuan tang demonstrating the most reliable effect. No serious adverse events were reported in all included studies. Conclusions: The current evidence suggests that HMs may enhance the treatment effect on CGD when combined with other treatments without serious adverse events. Further high-quality evidence is needed to draw a definite conclusion.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020199222), and the Research Registry (Review Registry Unique Identifying Number: reviewregistry1036)

scholarly journals Manipulation and Mobilization for Treating Chronic Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for an Appropriateness Panel

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (22.2) ◽  
pp. E55-E70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian D. Coulter
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Chronic Neck Pain ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Sample Sizes ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Multiple Treatment

Background: Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used by patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain; however, questions remain around efficacy, dosing, and safety, as well as how these approaches compare to other therapies. Objectives: Based on published trials, to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic nonspecific neck pain. Study Design: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Methods: We identified studies published between January 2000 and September 2017, by searching multiple electronic databases, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation and/or mobilization therapies to sham, no treatment, each other, and other active therapies, or when combined as multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias by using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. When possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project was funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under award number U19AT007912 and ultimately used to inform an appropriateness panel. Results: A total of 47 randomized trials (47 unique trials in 53 publications) were included in the systematic review. These studies were rated as having low risk of bias and included a total of 4,460 patients with nonspecific chronic neck pain who were being treated by a practitioner using various types of manipulation and/or mobilization interventions. A total of 37 trials were categorized as unimodal approaches and involved thrust or nonthrust compared with sham, no treatment, or other active comparators. Of these, only 6 trials with similar intervention styles, comparators, and outcome measures/timepoints were pooled for meta-analysis at 1, 3, and 6 months, showing a small effect in favor of thrust plus exercise compared to an exercise regimen alone for a reduction in pain and disability. Multimodal approaches appeared to be effective at reducing pain and improving function from the 10 studies evaluated. Health-related quality of life was seldom reported. Some 22/47 studies did not report or mention adverse events. Of the 25 that did, either no or minor events occurred. Limitations: The current evidence is heterogeneous, and sample sizes are generally small. Conclusions: Studies published since January 2000 provide low-moderate quality evidence that various types of manipulation and/or mobilization will reduce pain and improve function for chronic nonspecific neck pain compared to other interventions. It appears that multimodal approaches, in which multiple treatment approaches are integrated, might have the greatest potential impact. The studies comparing to no treatment or sham were mostly testing the effect of a single dose, which may or may not be helpful to inform practice. According to the published trials reviewed, manipulation and mobilization appear safe. However, given the low rate of serious adverse events, other types of studies with much larger sample sizes would be required to fully describe the safety of manipulation and/or mobilization for nonspecific chronic neck pain. Key words: Chronic neck pain, nonspecific, chiropractic, manipulation, mobilization, systematic review, meta-analysis, appropriateness

scholarly journals Beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review of published and unpublished data with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Juul ◽  
Faiza Siddiqui ◽  
Marija Barbateskovic ◽  
Caroline Kamp Jørgensen ◽  
Michael Pascal Hengartner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Harmful Effects

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

scholarly journals Comparative Effectiveness of Pharmacological Interventions for Covid-19: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Franco De Crescenzo ◽  
Laura Amato ◽  
Fabio Cruciani ◽  
Luke P Moynihan ◽  
Gian Loreto D’Alò ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Pharmacological Intervention ◽  
Pharmacological Interventions ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background: Several pharmacological interventions are now under investigation for the treatment of Covid-19, and the evidence is evolving rapidly. Our aim is to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of these drugs.Methods and Findings: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We included 96 RCTs, comprising of 34,501 patients. The network meta-analysis showed in terms of all-cause mortality, when compared to SC or placebo, only corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate (RR 0.90, 95%CI 0.83, 0.97; moderate certainty of evidence). Corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate also when compared to hydroxychloroquine (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.74, 0.94; moderate certainty of evidence). Remdesivir proved to be better in terms of SAEs when compared to SC or placebo (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0.63, 0.89; high certainty of evidence) and plasma (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.34, 0.94; high certainty of evidence). The combination of lopinavir and ritonavir proved to reduce SAEs when compared to plasma (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.25, 0.95; high certainty of evidence). Most of the RCTs were at unclear risk of bias (42 of 96), one third were at high risk of bias (34 of 96) and 20 were at low risk of bias. Certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low.Conclusion: At present, corticosteroids reduced all-cause mortality in patients with Covid-19, with a moderate certainty of evidence. Remdesivir appeared to be a safer option than SC or placebo, while plasma was associated with safety concerns. These preliminary evidence-based observations should guide clinical practice until more data are made public.

The Effectiveness and Safety of Remdesivir for the Treatment of Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timotius Ivan Hariyanto ◽  
Felix Kwenandar ◽  
Karunia Valeriani Japar ◽  
Vika Damay ◽  
Andree Kurniawan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Pubmed Central ◽  
Review Manager

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic disease that has significant implications on the global health burden. Currently, there is no widely accepted pharmacologic treatment for COVID-19. Remdesivir has been shown effective against various types of viruses, including coronaviruses. This study aimed at synthesizing the latest evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of remdesivir as a potential treatment candidate against COVID-19. Methods: This systematic review has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020183707). A systematic search of the literature was conducted in PubMed, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar through June 5th, 2020. Statistical analysis was done by using the Review Manager 5.4 tool. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) and GRADE analysis was performed to determine the certainty of the evidence. Results: Two studies with a total of 1,300 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that remdesivir was associated with faster time to clinical improvement (MD -4.75 days; 95% CI -4.84 days to -4.65 days; p < 0.00001), reduction in mortality rate (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.27 – 0.56; p < 0.00001) and fewer incidence of serious adverse events (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.63 – 0.94; p = 0.01). GRADE analysis showed a high certainty for serious adverse events and moderate certainty for time to clinical improvement and mortality rate. Conclusion: Remdesivir is more effective and safer compared with standard care of treatment for the treatment of COVID19 because it was associated with faster time to clinical improvement, reduction in mortality rate, and fewer incidence of serious adverse events.

scholarly journals Herbal Medicine (Sihogayonggolmoryeo-Tang or Chai-Hu-Jia-Long-Gu-Mu-Li-Tang) for Treating Hypertension:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Boram Lee ◽  
Chan-Young Kwon
Keyword(s):  
Herbal Medicine ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Consistent Difference ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Assessment Development

Introduction. For situations in which effective and safe natural-derived products to treat hypertension are needed, recent studies suggest that an herbal medicine, Sihogayonggolmoryeo-tang (SYM), can improve both hypertension and concurrent mood symptoms. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of SYM in treating hypertension. Methods. Thirteen English, Korean, and Chinese databases were comprehensively searched from their inception to May 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using SYM as a monotherapy or adjunctive therapy for hypertension were evaluated. The primary outcome was the systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP). Descriptive analyses of the relevant data were conducted, and where appropriate data were available, a meta-analysis was performed, and the results were presented as a risk ratio or mean difference with 95% confidence intervals. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results. Seven RCTs with 711 participants were included. Compared with placebo, SYM significantly lowered systolic and diastolic BP and concurrent depression. SYM significantly lowered systolic and diastolic BP compared with active controls; however, subgroup analysis revealed no differences between SYM and antihypertensives. In addition, SYM significantly decreased the level of concurrent depression compared with antidepressants. There was no consistent difference in BP reduction between SYM combined with antihypertensives and antihypertensives alone. No serious adverse events were reported following SYM administration. Most of the included studies had an unclear risk of bias, and the quality of evidence was generally rated “low.” Conclusion. Current evidence suggests that SYM may have the potential to lower hypertension and concurrent depressive symptoms without serious adverse events. Additional high-quality, placebo-controlled RCTs should be conducted to confirm the efficacy of SYM.

scholarly journals The Safety and Efficacy of Ferumoxytol in the Treatment of Iron Deficiency: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4894-4894
Author(s):  
Jameel Abdulrehman ◽  
Grace Tang ◽  
Michael Auerbach ◽  
Michelle Sholzberg
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Oral Iron ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Iv Iron ◽  
Quality Evidence

Abstract Background Iron deficiency (ID) is one of the most common nutritional deficiencies worldwide, with an increased prevalence in pathological states such as end stage renal disease and inflammatory bowel disorders. Iron stores can be replenished by either oral or intravenous (IV) formulations, however IV formulations are known to raise iron stores more quickly and reliably. Ferumoxytol is an IV iron formulation used in the treatment of ID that, advantageously, can be given in large doses over a short period of time. Despite the initial large quantity of post-marketing reports of serious adverse events (SAEs), multiple clinical trials have failed to demonstrate a significant safety signal. Objectives To determine the safety and efficacy of ferumoxytol in the treatment of ID compared to other IV and oral iron formulations, and placebo. Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the Cochrane Handbook, and was reported as per Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, and EMBASE from inception until February 2018 as well as trial registries and reference lists of relevant articles. All randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing ferumoxytol to alternate IV iron, oral iron, or placebo were included. Outcomes included treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs), treatment related adverse events (TRAEs), SAEs, related serious adverse events (RSAEs), hypotension or hypersensitivity reactions (HHR) and composite cardiovascular outcomes (CCO). Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed included studies for risk of bias. If required, additional data was sought from trial authors. Meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager 5.3. Data was pooled using random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool Risk of Bias. The GRADE approach was used to assess quality of evidence. Results The review included nine studies, one of which was a cross-over trial. These included 5691 participants (mean age 54.3, study mean range 30 to 65.1 years). Ferumoxytol was compared to alternate IV iron in three studies, to oral iron in two, and to placebo in four. Overall, studies were at low risk of bias (see figure 1). There was high quality evidence that relative to other IV iron formulations, ferumoxytol has little to no increase in the achievement of a minimum 1g/dL increase in hemoglobin (Relative Risk [RR] 1.04, 95%Confidence Interval [CI] 0.96 to 1.12; 767 participants pooled (pp) from 2 trials)), low quality evidence that it has little to no decrease in TEAE (RR 0.88, 95%CI 0.80 to 0.97; 2764 pp from 3 trials), little to no decrease in TRAEs (RR 0.73, 95%CI 0.61 to 0.88; 2764 pp from 3 trials), little to no increase on SAEs (RR 1.13, 95%CI 0.77 to 1.67; 2764 pp from 3 trials), and little to no decrease in RSAEs (RR 0.58, 95%CI 0.13 to 2.55; 2764 pp from 3 trials), very low quality evidence that it has little to no decrease in HHR (RR 0.58, 95%CI 0.31 to 1.09; 2764 pp from 3 trials) and moderate quality evidence that it has little to no decrease on CCO (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.29; 2602 pp from 2 trials). Compared to oral iron, ferumoxytol had less TEAEs (RR 0.78, 95%CI 0.61 to 0.98; 515 pp from 2 trials), but compared to placebo ferumoxytol had more (RR 1.62, 95%CI 1.01 to 2.61; 2348 pp from 3 trials). Publication bias was not assessed due to the limited number of studies included. Conclusions Upon review of the available evidence, ferumoxytol is probably as efficacious as alternative IV iron formulations with no clear safety concerns. In addition, ferumoxytol had less TEAEs compared to oral iron formulations, but more compared to placebo. Disclosures Auerbach: AMAG Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacosmos A/S: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Racecadotril for acute diarrhoea in children: systematic review and meta-analyses

2015 ◽  
Vol 101 (3) ◽  
pp. 234-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morris Gordon ◽  
Anthony Akobeng
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Acute Diarrhoea ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Duration Of Symptoms ◽  
Duration Of Illness ◽  
Significant Difference

ObjectiveRacecadotril is an antisecretory agent that can prevent fluid/electrolyte depletion from the bowel as a result of acute diarrhoea without affecting intestinal motility. An up-to-date systematic review is indicated to summarise the evidence on racecadotril for the treatment of acute diarrhoea in children.DesignA Cochrane format systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality were performed independently by two reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.PatientsChildren with acute diarrhoea, as defined by the primary studies.InterventionsRCTs comparing racecadotril with placebo or other interventions.Main outcome measursDuration of illness, stool output/volume and adverse events.ResultsSeven RCTs were included, five comparing racecadotril with placebo or no intervention, one with pectin/kaolin and one with loperamide. Moderate to high risk of bias was present in all studies. There was no significant difference in efficacy or adverse events between racecadotril and loperamide. A meta-analysis of three studies with 642 participants showed significantly shorter duration of symptoms with racecadotril compared with placebo (mean difference −53.48 h, 95% CI −65.64 to −41.33). A meta-analysis of five studies with 949 participants showed no significant difference in adverse events between racecadotril and placebo (risk ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.34).ConclusionsThere is some evidence that racecadotril is more effective than placebo or no intervention in reducing the duration of illness and stool output in children with acute diarrhoea. However, the overall quality of the evidence is limited due to sparse data, heterogeneity and risk of bias. Racecadotril appears to be safe and well tolerated.

scholarly journals Effectiveness and safety of herbal medicines for induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e022499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Collins Zamawe ◽  
Carina King ◽  
Hannah Maria Jennings ◽  
Chrispin Mandiwa ◽  
Edward Fottrell
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Herbal Medicines ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Induction Of Labour ◽  
Quality Data ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Significant Difference

ObjectiveThe use of herbal medicines for induction of labour (IOL) is common globally and yet its effects are not well understood. We assessed the efficacy and safety of herbal medicines for IOL.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of published literature.Data sourcesWe searched in MEDLINE, AMED and CINAHL in April 2017, updated in June 2018.Eligibility criteriaWe considered experimental and non-experimental studies that compared relevant pregnancy outcomes between users and non-user of herbal medicines for IOL.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted by two reviewers using a standardised form. A random-effects model was used to synthesise effects sizes and heterogeneity was explored through I2statistic. The risk of bias was assessed using ‘John Hopkins Nursing School Critical Appraisal Tool’ and ‘Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool’.ResultsA total of 1421 papers were identified through the searches, but only 10 were retained after eligibility and risk of bias assessments. The users of herbal medicine for IOL were significantly more likely to give birth within 24 hours than non-users (Risk Ratio (RR) 4.48; 95% CI 1.75 to 11.44). No significant difference in the incidence of caesarean section (RR 1.19; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.86), assisted vaginal delivery (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.14), haemorrhage (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.44 to 1.60), meconium-stained liquor (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.65 to 2.23) and admission to nursery (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.49 to 2.38) was found between users and non-users of herbal medicines for IOL.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that herbal medicines for IOL are effective, but there is inconclusive evidence of safety due to lack of good quality data. Thus, the use of herbal medicines for IOL should be avoided until safety issues are clarified. More studies are recommended to establish the safety of herbal medicines.

scholarly journals Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review with network meta-analysis including individual patient data (The LIVING VACCINE Project)

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Kwasi Korang ◽  
Sophie Juul ◽  
Emil Eik Nielsen ◽  
Joshua Feinberg ◽  
Faiza Siddiqui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Viral Vector ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Harmful Effects

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

scholarly journals Should home-based ovulation predictor kits be offered as an additional approach for fertility management for women and couples desiring pregnancy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. e001403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ping Teresa Yeh ◽  
Caitlin E Kennedy ◽  
Sheryl Van der Poel ◽  
Thabo Matsaseng ◽  
Laura Bernard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Pregnancy Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Time To Pregnancy ◽  
Fertility Management ◽  
Home Based ◽  
Registration Number

IntroductionTo inform the WHO Guideline on self-care interventions, we conducted a systematic review of the impact of ovulation predictor kits (OPKs) on time-to-pregnancy, pregnancy, live birth, stress/anxiety, social harms/adverse events and values/preferences.MethodsIncluded studies had to compare women desiring pregnancy who managed their fertility with and without OPKs, measure an outcome of interest and be published in a peer-reviewed journal. We searched for studies on PubMed, CINAHL, LILACS and EMBASE through November 2018. We assessed risk of bias assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the Evidence Project tool for observational studies, and conducted meta-analysis using random effects models to generate pooled estimates of relative risk (RR).ResultsFour studies (three RCTs and one observational study) including 1487 participants, all in high-income countries, were included. Quality of evidence was low. Two RCTs found no difference in time-to-pregnancy. All studies reported pregnancy rate, with mixed results: one RCT from the 1990s among couples with unexplained or male-factor infertility found no difference in clinical pregnancy rate (RR: 1.09, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.32); two more recent RCTs found higher self-reported pregnancy rates among OPK users (pooled RR: 1.40, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.80). A small observational study found higher rates of pregnancy with lab testing versus OPKs among women using donor insemination services. One RCT found no increase in stress/anxiety after two menstrual cycles using OPKs, besides a decline in positive affect. No studies measured live birth or social harms/adverse events. Six studies presented end-users’ values/preferences, with almost all women reporting feeling satisfied, comfortable and confident using OPKs.ConclusionA small evidence base, from high-income countries and with high risk of bias, suggests that home-based use of OPKs may improve fertility management when attempting to become pregnant with no meaningful increase in stress/anxiety and with high user acceptability.Systematic review registration numberPROSPERO registration number CRD42019119402.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document