scholarly journals Use of Anti-Inflammatory Drugs interventions for the treatment of Muscle Soreness: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Lohn Nahon ◽  
Anibal Monteiro de Magalhães Neto ◽  
Jaqueline Santos Silva Lopes ◽  
Aloa de Souza Machado ◽  
L. C. Cameron
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Muscle Soreness ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Inflammatory Drugs ◽  
Anti Inflammatory ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Objective: To investigate the effects of pharmacological interventions in the treatment of Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness (DOMS). Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs). Data sources: The PubMed / MEDLINE, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, Scielo and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) databases were searched from the oldest records to August 3, 2020. Eligibility criteria: 1) Tue used a RCTs design; 2) Evaluate the effects of Steroidal or Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) for treatment DOMS; and 3) Therapeutically used drugs, after exercise. Results: In total, 26 studies (patients = 934) were eligible for qualitative analysis on the treatment of DOMS. The results of the meta-analysis showed no superiority between the use or not of NSAIDs, in the improvement of late muscle pain, since statistically significant differences were not verified (21 studies, n= 955; SMD= 0.02; 95% CI -0.58, 0.63; p=0.94; I2=93%). The quality of the synthesized evidence was very low according to the criteria of Evaluation, Development and Evaluation of the Classification of Recommendations, associated with the significant heterogeneity among the included studies. Conclusion: The results demonstrate that the use of NSAIDs is not a superior treatment to the control / placebo on DOMS improvement. The variation between dose-response and exercise protocol used in the studies may have influenced the results. In addition, the high risk of identified bias characterizes limitation to be considered in profound interpretations.

scholarly journals Right versus left thoracic approach oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. e030157
Author(s):  
Tianci Chai ◽  
Zhimin Shen ◽  
Sui Chen ◽  
Yuhan Lin ◽  
Zhenyang Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Oesophageal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Malignant Tumours ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Thoracic Approach ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionOesophageal cancer is one of the most common malignant tumours and has been identified as one of the leading causes of cancer death worldwide. Surgery is considered to be the optimal treatment for patients with resectable oesophageal cancer. Oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer can significantly extend the survival period of patients and provide a potential opportunity for a cure. However, there is still controversy regarding which thoracic approach (right or left) during oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer can lead to better surgical outcomes globally. This systematic review and meta-analysis will be performed to determine which thoracic approach during oesophagectomy will achieve longer patient survival and will be more beneficial for patients.Methods and analysisWe will search PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cancerlit, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar databases for relevant clinical trials published in any language before 1 October 2019. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, propensity score-matched comparative studies and prospective cohort studies of interest, published or unpublished, that meet the inclusion criteria will be included. Subgroup analysis of the type of operation, tumour pathological stage and ethnicity will be performed.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019124133.Ethics and disseminationBecause this study will be based on published or unpublished records and studies, there is no need for ethics approval. The results of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Gelatin tannate for acute diarrhoea and gastroenteritis in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
pp. archdischild-2018-316385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan D Florez ◽  
Javier M Sierra ◽  
Laura F Niño-Serna
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Acute Diarrhoea ◽  
Stool Frequency ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness and safety of gelatin tannate (GT) for reducing the duration of the acute diarrhoea and gastroenteritis (ADG) in children.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS and grey literature, published from inception to October 2018. No language restrictions.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials in children with ADG, comparing GT with placebo.ResultsOf 797 titles identified, we included three studies (276 children). We performed a random effects model meta-analysis for the main outcome (diarrhoea duration). We did not find significant differences between GT and placebo for diarrhoea duration (mean difference (MD)=−15.85 hours; 95% CI −42.24 to 14.82, I2=92%; three studies), stool frequency at day 2 (MD=0.11 stools/day; 95% CI −0.39 to 0.62: I2=26%; two studies), diarrhoea at day 3 (risk ratio [RR]=0.46; 95% CI 0.06 to 3.47: I2=73%; two studies), vomiting (RR=1.31; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.80: I2=0%; two studies) or adverse events (RR=0.86; 95% CI 0.27 to 2.66: I2=0%; two studies). Most common adverse events included abdominal pain and nausea.ConclusionThe effect of GT was no different to placebo for mean diarrhoea duration (low certainty on the evidence) and stool frequency at day 2 (high certainty) and for the presence of diarrhoea at day 3 (very low certainty) of vomiting (moderate certainty) and of adverse events (low certainty).PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018087902.

scholarly journals Statins Reduce Mortality After Non-severe but Not After Severe Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mingwang Jia ◽  
Wenjie Huang ◽  
Li Li ◽  
Zhong Xu ◽  
Lichan Wu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Protective Effect ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Severe Pneumonia ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Pneumonia Severity ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Statin Use

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of statins on mortality for patients with non-severe pneumonia or severe pneumonia. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane central register of controlled trials and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for the association between statins and non-severe/severe pneumonia. Eligible articles were analyzed in Stata 12.0. RESULTS: The database search yielded a total of 566 potential publications, 24 studies involving 312,309 patients met the eligibility criteria. Pooled unadjusted data showed that statin use was associated with lower mortality after non-severe pneumonia (odds ratio [OR] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-0.73), but not severe pneumonia (OR 1.05; 95% CI, 0.86-1.28). However, this protective effect of statins was weakened using adjusted estimates (OR 0.78, 95% CI, 0.75-0.82). Besides, protective effect of statins was attenuated by confounders in a subgroup analysis, especially when accounting for pneumonia severity indicators (OR 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Statin use was associated with reduced mortality after non-severe pneumonia but not severe pneumonia and this protective effect was weakened in subgroups. This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW. Registered readers (see “For Readers”) may comment by clicking on ABSTRACT on the issue’s contents page.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of online interventions in preventing depression: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. e022012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alina Rigabert ◽  
Emma Motrico ◽  
Patricia Moreno-Peral ◽  
Davinia M Resurrección ◽  
Sonia Conejo-Cerón ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Psychosocial Interventions ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Online Interventions ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionAlthough evidence exists for the efficacy of psychosocial interventions in preventing depression, little is known about its prevention through online interventions. The objective of this study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of online interventions in preventing depression in heterogeneous populations.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that will be identified through searches of PubMed, PsycINFO, WOS, Scopus, OpenGrey, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov and Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Register . We will also search the reference lists provided in relevant studies and reviews. Experts in the field will be contacted to obtain more references. Two independent reviewers will assess the eligibility criteria of all articles, extract data and determine their risk of bias (Cochrane Collaboration Tool). Baseline depression will be required to have been discarded through standardised interviews or validated self-reports with standard cut-off points. The outcomes will be the incidence of new cases of depression and/or the reduction of depressive symptoms as measured by validated instruments. Pooled standardised mean differences will be calculated using random-effect models. Heterogeneity and publication bias will be estimated. Predefined sensitivity and subgroup analyses will be performed. If heterogeneity is relevant, random-effect meta-regression will be performed.Ethics and disseminationThe results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and will be presented at a professional conference. Ethical assessment is not required as we will search and assess existing sources of literature.Trial registration numberCRD42014014804; Results.

scholarly journals Vitamin C for the treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduard Baladia ◽  
Ana Beatriz Pizarro ◽  
Gabriel Rada
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Vitamin C ◽  
Direct Evidence ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Central Register

ABSTRACTObjectiveThis living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of vitamin C in the treatment of patients with COVID-19.Data sourcesWe will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature and in a centralised repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question.We will include randomised trials evaluating the effect of vitamin C, as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs, versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomised trials evaluating vitamin C in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomised studies in COVID-19 will be searched in case no direct evidence from randomised trials is found, or if the direct evidence provides low- or very low-certainty for critical outcomes.Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will pool the results using meta-analysis and will apply the GRADE system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.PROSPERO RegistrationSubmitted to PROSPERO (awaiting ID allocation).

scholarly journals Efficacy of pharmacological therapies for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Gut ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 434-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pavit Luthra ◽  
Nicholas E Burr ◽  
Darren M Brenner ◽  
Alexander C Ford
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Response To Therapy ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Bowel Movements ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveOpioids are increasingly prescribed in the West and have deleterious GI consequences. Pharmacological therapies to treat opioid-induced constipation (OIC) are available, but their relative efficacy is unclear. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to address this deficit in current knowledge.DesignWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMBASE Classic and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials through to December 2017 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological therapies in the treatment of adults with OIC. Trials had to report a dichotomous assessment of overall response to therapy, and data were pooled using a random effects model. Efficacy and safety of pharmacological therapies was reported as a pooled relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs to summarise the effect of each comparison tested and ranked treatments according to their P-score.ResultsTwenty-seven eligible RCTs of pharmacological therapies, containing 9149 patients, were identified. In our primary analysis, using failure to achieve an average of ≥3 bowel movements (BMs) per week with an increase of ≥1 BM per week over baseline or an average of ≥3 BMs per week, to define non-response, the network meta-analysis ranked naloxone first in terms of efficacy (RR=0.65; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.80, P-score=0.84), and it was also the safest drug. When non-response to therapy was defined using failure to achieve an average of ≥3 BMs per week, with an increase of ≥1 BM per week over baseline, naldemedinewas ranked first (RR=0.66; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.77, P score=0.91) and alvimopan second (RR=0.74; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.94, P-score=0.71).ConclusionIn network meta-analysis, naloxone and naldemedine appear to be the most efficacious treatments for OIC. Naloxone was the safest of these agents.

scholarly journals Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rocío Bravo-Jeria ◽  
María Ximena Rojas Reyes ◽  
Juan Víctor Ariel Franco ◽  
María Paz Acuña ◽  
Luz Ángela Torres López ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Direct Evidence ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

ABSTRACTObjectiveTo determine the relative impact of the use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine on outcomes important to patients with COVID 19.DesignThis is the protocol of a living systematic review.Data sourcesWe will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), trial registries, grey literature and in a centralised repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe will follow a common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews, already published and submitted to PROSPERO (awaiting ID allocation).We will include randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine — as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs — versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomised trials evaluating chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomised studies in COVID-19 will be searched in case no direct evidence from randomised trials is found, or if the direct evidence provides low- or very low-certainty for critical outcomes.Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will perform random-effects meta-analyses and use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it if the conclusions change or there are substantial updates.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.

scholarly journals Does flare trial design affect the effect size of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in symptomatic osteoarthritis? A systematic review and meta-analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 75 (11) ◽  
pp. 1971-1978 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toby O Smith ◽  
Kun Zou ◽  
Natasya Abdullah ◽  
Xi Chen ◽  
Sarah R Kingsbury ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Joint Effusion ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Inflammatory Drugs ◽  
Anti Inflammatory ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesIt is thought that the clinical trial benefits of oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may relate to flare designs. The aim of this study was to examine the difference in NSAID (including cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors) response in osteoarthritis (OA) trials based on different designs.MethodsSystematic review was undertaken of the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL and the Cochrane library till February 2015. Randomised controlled trials assessing pain, function and/or stiffness following commencement of NSAIDs in flare and non-flare designs were eligible. Trials were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Meta-analyses were conducted to assess the effect sizes (ES) of NSAIDs for OA with flare versus non-flare trial designs.ResultsFifty-seven studies including 33 263 participants assessing 26 NSAIDs were included. Twenty-two (39%) were flare design, 24 (42%) were non-flare designs, 11 (19%) were possible flare designs. On meta-analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in ES of NSAIDs versus placebo between flare and non-flare trial designs for absolute pain and function or stiffness at immediate-term (1 week), short-term (2–4 week) or longer-term (12–13 week) follow-up periods (p>0.05). However there was a lower ES for mean change in pain in flare and possible flare trials compared with non-flare trials at short-term follow-up (0.36 vs 0.69; p=0.05).ConclusionsContrary to previous understanding, flare trial designs do not result in an increased treatment effect for NSAIDs in people with OA compared with non-flare design. Whether flare design influences other outcomes such as joint effusion remains unknown.

scholarly journals Acknowledging the gap: a systematic review of micronutrient supplementation in infants under six months of age

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 238
Author(s):  
Isabella Stelle ◽  
Sruthi Venkatesan ◽  
Karen Edmond ◽  
Sophie E Moore
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Micronutrient Supplementation ◽  
Micronutrient Deficiencies ◽  
Term Infants ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background: Micronutrient deficiencies remain common worldwide, but the consequences to growth and development in early infancy (under six months of age) are not fully understood. We present a systematic review of micronutrient interventions in term infants under six months of age, with a specific focus on iron supplementation. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) from January 1980 through December 2019. Interventions included iron or multiple micronutrients (MMNs). Results: Of 11,109 records identified, 32 publications from 23 trials were included (18 iron and five MMN supplementation trials). All 23 trials evaluated the effect of supplementation on biochemical outcomes, ten reported on growth, 14 on morbidity and/or mortality and six on neuro-behavioural development. Low- and middle- income countries made up 88% (21/24) of the total trial locations. Meta-analysis was not possible due to extensive heterogeneity in both exposure and outcome measures.  However, these trials indicated that infants less than six months of age benefit biochemically from early supplementation with iron, but the effect of additional nutrients or MMNs, along with the impacts on growth, morbidity and/or mortality, and neuro-behavioural outcomes remain unclear. Conclusions: Infants less than six months of age appear to benefit biochemically from micronutrient supplementation. However, well-powered randomised controlled trials are required to determine whether routine supplementation with iron or MMNs containing iron should commence before six months of life in exclusively breast-fed infants in low-resource settings.

scholarly journals Oxymetazoline for the treatment of rosacea-associated persistent facial erythema. Systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geovanna Cárdenas ◽  
Francisco Novillo ◽  
Shuheng Lai ◽  
Héctor Fuenzalida ◽  
Francisca Verdugo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Facial Erythema ◽  
Central Register ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACTObjectiveThe objective of this systematic review is to assess the impact of oxymetazoline in patients with moderate to severe rosacea.Data SourcesWe will conduct a comprehensive search in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Lilacs, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and grey literature, to identify all relevant randomized controlled trials regardless of language or publication status (published, unpublished, in press and in progress).Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe will include randomized trials evaluating the effect of oxymetazoline in patients with moderate to severe rosacea. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, data extraction, and assess the risk of bias. We will pool the results using meta-analysis and will apply the GRADE [1] system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.Ethics and DisseminationNo ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.Protocol and RegistrationThis protocol was adapted to the specificities of the question assessed in this review and registered to PROSPERO with the ID CRD42020150262.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document