Intrauterine Cleaning after Placental Delivery at Cesarean Section: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rana Doosti ◽  
Sakineh Mohammad-Alizadeh-Charandabi ◽  
Parivash Ahmadpour ◽  
Mojgan Mirghafourvand
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cesarean Section ◽  
Postpartum Hemorrhage ◽  
Perioperative Complications ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Significant Difference

Introduction: The increasing rate of cesarean section and its greater number of complications compared to vaginal childbirth invoke efforts to reduce perioperative complications through evidence-based techniques. Objective: The present study mainly aims to assess the effect of intrauterine cleaning after placental delivery in the cesarean section on the frequency of endometritis (primary outcome) and postpartum hemorrhage (secondary outcome). Material and Methods: In this systematic review we have followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Both English and Persian databases were searched (with no time limit) for clinical trials and quasi-experimental studies that had investigated the effect of intrauterine cleaning after placental delivery in the cesarean section on the frequency of endometritis and hemorrhage compared to a control group (no intrauterine cleaning). Results: The meta-analysis on three clinical trials with 696 participants showed no significant difference between intervention and control groups in the frequency of endometritis (RR= 1.33; 95% CI: 0.74 to 2.41; P= 0.34) and postpartum hemorrhage (RR= 1.06; 95% CI: 0.55 to 2.06; P= 0.86). Conclusions: Based on the meta-analysis results, intrauterine cleaning after placental delivery in the cesarean section does not affect endometritis and postpartum hemorrhage. Further and more robust studies based on the Consort Declaration are required to investigate this method to be recommended for use in clinical practice.

scholarly journals Repurposing of drugs for Covid-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pinky Kotecha ◽  
Alexander Light ◽  
Enrico Checcucci ◽  
Daniele Amparore ◽  
Cristian Fiori ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Significant Difference

AbstractObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the data currently available regarding the repurposing of different drugs for Covid-19 treatment. Participants with suspected or diagnosed Covid-19 will be included. The interventions being considered are drugs being repurposed, and comparators will include standard of care treatment or placebo.MethodsWe searched Ovid-MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, clinical trial registration site in the UK(NIHR), Europe (clinicaltrialsregister.eu), US (ClinicalTrials.gov) and internationally (isrctn.com), and reviewed the reference lists of articles for eligible articles published up to April 22, 2020. All studies in English that evaluated the efficacy of the listed drugs were included. Cochrane RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tool were used to assess study quality. This systematic review adheres to the PRISMA guidelines. The protocol is available at PROSPERO (CRD42020180915).ResultsFrom 708 identified studies or clinical trials, 16 studies and 16 case reports met our eligibility criteria. Of these, 6 were randomized controlled trials (763 patients), 7 cohort studies (321 patients) and 3 case series (191 patients). Chloroquine (CQ) had a 100% discharge rate compared to 50% with lopinavir-ritonavir at day 14, however a trial has recommended against a high dosage due to cardiotoxic events. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown no significant improvement in negative seroconversion rate which is also seen in our meta-analysis (p=0.68). Adverse events with HCQ have a significant difference compared to the control group (p=0.001). Lopinavir-ritonavir has shown no improvement in time to clinical improvement which is seen in our meta-analyses (p=0.1). Remdesivir has shown no significant improvement in time to clinical improvement but this trial had insufficient power.DiscussionDue to the paucity in evidence, it is difficult to establish the efficacy of these drugs in the treatment of Covid-19 as currently there is no significant clinical effectiveness of the repurposed drugs. Further large clinical trials are required to achieve more reliable findings. A risk-benefit analysis is required on an individual basis to weigh out the potential improvement in clinical outcome and viral load reduction compared to the risks of the adverse events. (1-16)

scholarly journals Effectiveness of Ivermectin/Doxycycline combination in COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Ali Omrani ◽  
Amin Salehi-Abargouei ◽  
Behrooz Heydari ◽  
Nazgol Kermanshahi ◽  
Fatemeh Joukar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Viral Clearance ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Clinical Recovery ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Abstract BackgroundThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of the Ivermectin/Doxycycline combination for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar from database inception to August 26, 2021 for relevant studies. We included studies reporting at least one of the outcomes of interest: all-cause mortality; time to clinical recovery; hospital stay and viral clearance. The logarithm of risk ratios or mean differences and their corresponding standard errors for each outcome were pooled using a random-effects model. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for randomized clinical trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies.ResultsFour randomized clinical trials and one prospective study involving 789 patients, including 399 in the Ivermectin/Doxycycline group and 390 in the control group, were enrolled. The all-cause mortality rate of patients with COVID-19 in the Ivermectin/Doxycycline group was 0.79% (2/253), which was lower than in the control group (3.6%; 9/250). However, the difference was not statistically significant (Log risk ratio=-1.288; 95% CI:-2.671, 0.096; P = 0.068; I2 = 0%). The effect of Ivermectin/Doxycycline on time to clinical recovery was found to be significant (Difference in means =-2.427 days; 95% CI:-4.033, -0.820; P = 0.003, I2 = 91.475%). There is no significant effect of Ivermectin/Doxycycline on hospital stay (Difference in means =-0.379 days; 95% CI:-1.965, 1.208; P = 0.640, I2 = 91.95%) and time to negative PCR or viral clearance (Difference in means =-0.768 days; 95% CI:-1.550, 0.013; P = 0.054, I2 = 91.48%).DiscussionBased on low-quality evidence, this meta-analysis showed that Ivermectin/Doxycycline combination is accompanied with shorter time of clinical recovery in COVID-19 patients. However, it did not reduce all-cause mortality, viral clearance, and hospital stay significantly. Not only the number of the studies are limited but also they ranked methodologically medium to low with limited participants. To assess the exact effective dose and efficacy of this combination therapy, high-quality and large-scale randomized clinical trials are needed.OtherThis study was registered in Prospero (registration number: CRD42021272400). The authors declare they have no competing financial interests.

scholarly journals The Efficacy of Fish Oil in Preventing Coronary Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaohong Wu ◽  
Haifeng Geng ◽  
Yue Jiang ◽  
Wei Song ◽  
Xueping Zhu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Coronary Heart Disease ◽  
Heart Disease ◽  
Fish Oil ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

To evaluate the efficacy of fish oil for protection against coronary heart disease (CHD), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the use of fish oil for protection against CHD. We retrieved relevant articles published from January 1966 to January 2020 by searching the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science databases. RCTs of fish oil in preventing CHD were selected. The study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool with RevMan 5.3 software. The first selection involved 350 citations. After screening and evaluation of suitability, 19 RCTs adjusted for clustering were included in the meta-analysis. All selected manuscripts considered that fish oil was effective in preventing CHD, secondary outcome measures included angina, sepsis and death. Compared with the control group, fish oil may confer significant protection against CHD (odds ratio = 0.84; 95% confidence interval: 0.72–0.98). There was no significant difference in the incidence of secondary outcomes between the observation group and the control group (P > 0.05). The above results show that fish oil plays an important role in reducing CHD and cardiovascular events. However, because of the suboptimal quality of the studies included into the meta-analysis, these results do not justify adding fish oils systematically to the heavy pharmaceutical assortment already recommended in CHD patients.

Maternal and Neonatal Effect of Fentanyl as a Premedication before Induction of General Anesthesia in Cesarean Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 232-237
Author(s):  
Mir Hadi Musavi ◽  
Behzad Jodeiri ◽  
Keyvan Mirnia ◽  
Morteza Ghojazadeh ◽  
Zeinab Nikniaz
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cesarean Section ◽  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Apgar Score ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intravenous Fentanyl ◽  
Neonatal Effect ◽  
Fentanyl Group

Background: Although, some clinical trials investigated the maternal and neonatal effect of fentanyl as a premedication before induction of general anesthesia in cesarean section, to the best of our knowledge, there is no systematic review to summarize these results. Objectives: The present systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the maternal and neonatal effect of intravenous fentanyl as a premedication before induction of general anesthesia in cesarean section. Methods: The databases of Pubmed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane library were searched till July 2017 to identify randomized clinical trials which evaluated the effects of intravenous fentanyl as a premedication before induction of general anesthesia compared with placebo on neonate first and fifth minute Apgar score and maternal heart rate and mean arterial pressure (MAP) in cesarean section. Standard Mean difference (SMD) was calculated and I-square statistic test was used for heterogeneity analysis. Results: The present systematic review and meta-analysis consisted of three clinical trials including 180 women in labor. Considering the results of meta-analysis, there is no significant differences between fentanyl and placebo in the case of Apgar score at 1 minute; however, the Apgar score of 5 minutes was significantly lower in fentanyl group compared with placebo (SMD -0.68, 95%CI: - 0.98, -0.38, p<0.001). In the term of maternal hemodynamics, the heart rate (SMD -0.43, 95%CI: - 0.72, -0.13, p=0.004) and MAP (SMD -0.78, 95% CI: -1.09, -0.48, p<0.001) in fentanyl group were significantly lower compared with placebo group. Conclusion: The present meta-analysis showed that using intravenous fentanyl as a premedication before induction of general anesthesia had adverse effects on neonate Apgar score. However, it had positive effects on preventing adverse consequences of intubation on maternal hemodynamics.

scholarly journals The high risk of malarial recurrence in patients with Plasmodium-mixed infection after treatment with antimalarial drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aongart Mahittikorn ◽  
Frederick Ramirez Masangkay ◽  
Kwuntida Uthaisar Kotepui ◽  
Giovanni De Jesus Milanez ◽  
Manas Kotepui
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mixed Infection ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Initial Treatment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Antimalarial Drugs ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Pooled Prevalence ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background Malaria mixed infections are often unrecognized by microscopists in the hospitals, and a delay or failure to treat Plasmodium-mixed infection may lead to aggravated morbidity and increased mortality. The present study aimed to quantify the pooled proportion and risk of malarial recurrences after the treatment of Plasmodium-mixed infection. The results of the study may provide benefits in the management of Plasmodium-mixed infection in co-endemic regions. Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis searched the international Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; ID = CRD42020199709), MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus for potentially relevant studies in any language published between January 1, 1936, and July 20, 2020, assessing drug efficacy in patients with Plasmodium-mixed infection. The primary outcome was the pooled prevalence of Plasmodium parasitemia after initiating antimalarial treatment for Plasmodium-mixed infection. The secondary outcome was the pooled risk ratio (RR) of malarial recurrence in Plasmodium-mixed infection compared with those in Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax mono-infection. The pooled analyses were calculated by random-effects meta-analysis. After the initial treatment in different days of recurrences (≤ 28 days or > 28 days), the risk of Plasmodium parasitemia was compared in subgroup analysis. Results Out of 5217 screened studies, 11 were included in the meta-analysis, including 4390 patients from six countries. The pooled prevalence of all recurrences of Plasmodium-mixed parasitemia was 30% (95% confidence interval (CI) 16–43; I2: 99.2%; 11 studies). The RR of malarial recurrence within 28 days after the initial treatment (clinical treatment failure) of Plasmodium-mixed parasitemia compared with the treatment of P. falciparum was 1.22 (p: 0.029; 95% CI 1.02–1.47; Cochran Q: 0.93; I2: 0%; six studies), while there was no significant difference in the risk of recurrence 28 days after initial treatment compared with the treatment of P. falciparum (p: 0.696, RR: 1.14; 95% CI 0.59–2.18; Cochran Q < 0.05; I2: 98.2%; four studies). The subgroup analysis of antimalarial drugs showed that significant malarial recurrence within 28 days was observed in patients treated with artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) with no significant heterogeneity (p: 0.028, RR: 1.31; 95% CI 1.03–1.66; Cochran Q: 0.834; I2: 0%). Conclusions The present findings showed a high prevalence of malarial recurrence after the initial treatment of Plasmodium-mixed infection. Moreover, significant malaria recurrence of mixed infection occurred within 28 days after treatment with ACTs. Graphic Abstract

Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy for Acetaminophen-Related Liver Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Experimental Studies in Vivo

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Wang ◽  
Yiwen Zhang ◽  
Jiajun Zhong ◽  
Yuan Zhang ◽  
Shuisheng Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Stem Cell ◽  
Liver Injury ◽  
Mesenchymal Stem Cell ◽  
Small Sample Size ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Control Group

Objective: The efficacy of mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy in acetaminophen-induced liver injury has been investigated in animal experiments, but individual studies with a small sample size cannot be used to draw a clear conclusion. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical studies to explore the potential of using MSCs in acetaminophen-induced liver injury. Methods: Eight databases were searched for studies reporting the effects of MSCs on acetaminophen hepatoxicity. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used. SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies was applied to assess the methodological quality. A meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.4 and STATA/SE 16.0 software. Results: Eleven studies involving 159 animals were included according to PRISMA statement guidelines. Significant associations were found for MSCs with the levels of alanine transaminase (ALT) (standardized mean difference (SMD) − 2.58, p < 0.0001), aspartate aminotransferase (AST) (SMD − 1.75, p = 0.001), glutathione (GSH) (SMD 3.7, p < 0.0001), superoxide dismutase (SOD) (SMD 1.86, p = 0.022), interleukin 10 (IL-10) (SMD 5.14, p = 0.0002) and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) (SMD − 4.48, p = 0.011) compared with those in the control group. The subgroup analysis showed that the tissue source of MSCs significantly affected the therapeutic efficacy (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis results demonstrate that MSCs could be a potential treatment for acetaminophen-related liver injury.

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 Low Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (Vitamin D) Level Is Associated With Susceptibility to COVID-19, Severity, and Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Rizki Akbar ◽  
Arief Wibowo ◽  
Raymond Pranata ◽  
Budi Setiabudiawan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Hydroxyvitamin D ◽  
Literature Searches ◽  
25 Hydroxyvitamin D ◽  
Meta Regression Analysis ◽  
Embase Database ◽  
Low Serum

Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess whether low serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) level is associated with susceptibility to COVID-19, severity, and mortality related to COVID-19.Methods: Systematic literature searches of PubMed, Scopus, and Embase database up until 9 December 2020. We include published observational prospective and retrospective studies with information on 25-OHD that reported main/secondary outcome. Low serum 25-OHD refers to participants with serum 25-OHD level below a cut-off point ranging from 20 to 30 ng/mL. Other cut-off values were excluded to reduce heterogeneity. The main outcome was mortality defined as non-survivor/death. The secondary outcome was susceptibility and severe COVID-19.Results: There were 14 studies comprising of 999,179 participants. Low serum 25-OHD was associated with higher rate of COVID-19 infection compared to the control group (OR = 2.71 [1.72, 4.29], p &lt; 0.001; I2: 92.6%). Higher rate of severe COVID-19 was observed in patients with low serum 25-OHD (OR = 1.90 [1.24, 2.93], p = 0.003; I2: 55.3%), with a sensitivity of 83%, specificity of 39%, PLR of 1.4, NLR of 0.43, and DOR of 3. Low serum 25-OHD was associated with higher mortality (OR = 3.08 [1.35, 7.00], p = 0.011; I2: 80.3%), with a sensitivity of 85%, specificity of 35%, PLR of 1.3, NLR of 0.44, and DOR of 3. Meta-regression analysis showed that the association between low serum 25-OHD and mortality was affected by male gender (OR = 1.22 [1.08, 1.39], p = 0.002), diabetes (OR = 0.88 [0.79, 0.98], p = 0.019).Conclusion: Low serum 25-OHD level was associated with COVID-19 infection, severe presentation, and mortality.

scholarly journals Nervous and Muscular Adverse Events after COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 939
Author(s):  
Jiaxin Chen ◽  
Yuangui Cai ◽  
Yicong Chen ◽  
Anthony P. Williams ◽  
Yifang Gao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Open Label

Background: Nervous and muscular adverse events (NMAEs) have garnered considerable attention after the vaccination against coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, the incidences of NMAEs remain unclear. We aimed to calculate the pooled event rate of NMAEs after COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials on the incidences of NMAEs after COVID-19 vaccination was conducted. The PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched from inception to 2 June 2021. Two independent reviewers selected the study and extracted the data. Categorical variables were analyzed using Pearson’s chi-square test. The pooled odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and generated with random or fixed effects models. The protocol of the present study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021240450). Results: In 15 phase 1/2 trials, NMAEs occurred in 29.2% vs. 21.6% (p < 0.001) vaccinated participants and controls. Headache and myalgia accounted for 98.2% and 97.7%, and their incidences were 16.4% vs. 13.9% (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.28–3.06, p = 0.002) and 16.0% vs. 7.9% (OR = 3.31, 95% CI = 2.05–5.35, p < 0.001) in the vaccine and control groups, respectively. Headache and myalgia were more frequent in the newly licensed vaccines (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.28–3.06, p = 0.02 and OR = 3.31, 95% CI = 2.05–5.35, p < 0.001) and younger adults (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.12–1.75, p = 0.003 and OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.20–1.96, p < 0.001). In four open-label trials, the incidences of headache, myalgia, and unsolicited NMAEs were 38.7%, 27.4%, and 1.5%. Following vaccination in phase 3 trials, headache and myalgia were still common with a rate of 29.5% and 19.2%, although the unsolicited NMAEs with incidence rates of ≤ 0.7% were not different from the control group in each study. Conclusions: Following the vaccination, NMAEs are common of which headache and myalgia comprised a considerable measure, although life-threatening unsolicited events are rare. NMAEs should be continuously monitored during the ongoing global COVID-19 vaccination program.

scholarly journals The Effectiveness of Microneedling Therapy on The Severity of Acne Scars According to Goodman and Baron: A Systematic review and meta-analysis

2022 ◽  
pp. 48
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Skin Damage ◽  
Acne Scar ◽  
Acne Scars ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Acne Scarring ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Z Value

Background: The emergence of acne scars due to skin damage in the acne healing process and causes psychological effects. The management of acne scars can be done in several methods. Microneedling is a very simple, safe, effective, and minimally invasive therapeutic technique compared to other therapeutic modalities in acne scars. The resulting wound is micro-sized, and promotes the growth of growth factors and collagen production. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of using microneedling as an acne scar treatment option. A systematic review and meta-analysis were qualitatively and quantitatively conducted from RCTs, assessing the effectiveness of microneedling in reducing the severity of acne scars according to Goodman and Baron in the treatment of acne scars. Methods: Medline Pubmed, PMC, Scopus, Google Scholar, and JDC library, eligible search. Ten studies (n=514) were analyzed qualitatively with 2 studies (n=53 subjects) and quantitatively analyzed by 2 studies (n=90 subjects). Both analyzes were included in the meta-analysis. The mean age of the participants was 40.5 years. The application of microneedling intervention as monotherapy or a combination in patients with acne scarring was followed for at least 16 weeks, the results obtained were the mean reduction in the degree of acne scarring after microneedling. Result: The combination of microneedling treatment obtained a qualitative decrease in the degree of acne scars according to Goodman and Baron with a Z value (-4.299) and P=<0.001 lower than the control (PRP) with a significant difference. The quantitative decrease in the degree of acne scars according to Goodman and Baron obtained a Z value (-4.681) and P=<0.001 lower than the control (PRP) with a significant difference. Quantitative reduction in the degree of acne scars according to Goodman and Baron on single therapy between treatment and control with a value of Z (-3.536) and P=<0.001 lower than control (fractional CO2) with a significant difference. The results of the degree of acne scars in the group treated with microneedling alone or in combination were lower than the control group. The mean before and after therapy compared to the control there was a significant difference. Conclusion. The results of a systematic review, concluded that the group treated with microneedling had a decrease in the degree of acne scarring according to Goodman and Baron with P=<0.001 compared to before treatment. The decrease was shown in the difference in Z values, which was significantly greater than the control given other therapies. Microneedling therapy can be an alternative therapy option for acne scar patients who are unresponsive to previous therapy or in conditions where there are contraindications to other therapies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document