Efficacy and safety of opioid therapy guided by pharmacogenetics (PGx): a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federico Rodriguez Cairoli ◽  
Francisco Appiani ◽  
Juan Manuel Sambade ◽  
Daniel Comandé ◽  
Lina Camacho Arteaga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Opioid Therapy ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Chronic Postoperative Pain ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Pain Improvement ◽  
Guided Therapy

Aim: To perform a systematic review to determine the efficacy/safety of PGx-guided opioid therapy for chronic/postoperative pain. Materials & methods: We searched PubMed and other specialized databases. Articles were considered if they compared the efficacy/safety of PGx-guided opioid therapy versus usual care. The risk of bias assessment was performed using Cochrane tools. Results: A total of 3794 records were retrieved. Only five were included for data extraction. A lower requirement of analgesics during postoperative in the PGx-guided intervention arm was reported in two studies. Also, two studies reported significant pain improvement in favor of the PGx-guided therapy when analyzing the subgroup of patients with a high-risk CYP2D6 phenotype. Conclusion: Despite the findings described, information on the efficacy/safety of this intervention is scarce.

scholarly journals Effects of Composite Attachments on Orthodontic Clear Aligners Therapy: A Systematic Review

Materials ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 533
Author(s):  
Riccardo Nucera ◽  
Carolina Dolci ◽  
Angela Mirea Bellocchio ◽  
Stefania Costa ◽  
Serena Barbera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Bodily Movement ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Medium Risk ◽  
Clear Aligner ◽  
Anterior Root

This systematic review aims to highlight the differences between different clear aligner therapies that differ in the presence of attachments or in attachment configuration. Eight electronic databases were searched up to March 2020. Two authors independently proceeded to study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. The analysis of the results was carried out examining six groups of movements (mesio-distal tipping/bodily movement; anterior bucco-lingual tipping/root torque; posterior bucco-lingual tipping/expansion; intrusion; extrusion; rotation). Five clinical trials were selected and all of them showed a medium risk of bias. Literature showed that attachments mostly increase the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment with clear aligners, improving anterior root torque, rotation, and mesio-distal (M-D) movement; they are also important to increase posterior anchorage. However, some articles showed contradictory or not statistically significant results. Attachments also seem to improve intrusion, but the evidence about this movement, as well as extrusion, is lacking. No studies evaluated posterior bucco-lingual tipping/expansion. Further clinical trials are strongly suggested to clarify the influence of attachments and their number, size, shape, and position on each orthodontic movement.

scholarly journals Prognostic models for predicting in-hospital paediatric mortality in resource-limited countries: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e035045
Author(s):  
Morris Ogero ◽  
Rachel Jelagat Sarguta ◽  
Lucas Malla ◽  
Jalemba Aluvaala ◽  
Ambrose Agweyu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Model Development ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Prognostic Models ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Bias Assessment

ObjectivesTo identify and appraise the methodological rigour of multivariable prognostic models predicting in-hospital paediatric mortality in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).DesignSystematic review of peer-reviewed journals.Data sourcesMEDLINE, CINAHL, Google Scholar and Web of Science electronic databases since inception to August 2019.Eligibility criteriaWe included model development studies predicting in-hospital paediatric mortality in LMIC.Data extraction and synthesisThis systematic review followed the Checklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies framework. The risk of bias assessment was conducted using Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). No quantitative summary was conducted due to substantial heterogeneity that was observed after assessing the studies included.ResultsOur search strategy identified a total of 4054 unique articles. Among these, 3545 articles were excluded after review of titles and abstracts as they covered non-relevant topics. Full texts of 509 articles were screened for eligibility, of which 15 studies reporting 21 models met the eligibility criteria. Based on the PROBAST tool, risk of bias was assessed in four domains; participant, predictors, outcome and analyses. The domain of statistical analyses was the main area of concern where none of the included models was judged to be of low risk of bias.ConclusionThis review identified 21 models predicting in-hospital paediatric mortality in LMIC. However, most reports characterising these models are of poor quality when judged against recent reporting standards due to a high risk of bias. Future studies should adhere to standardised methodological criteria and progress from identifying new risk scores to validating or adapting existing scores.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018088599.

scholarly journals Effect of treatments on skin microbiota in patients with atopic dermatitis: a protocol for systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. e053488
Author(s):  
Yang Guo ◽  
Xia Dou ◽  
Xing-ling Jian ◽  
Kao-yuan Zhang ◽  
Ying-jie Zheng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Atopic Dermatitis ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Microbial Interactions ◽  
Skin Microbiota ◽  
Clinical Trial Registry ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Registration Number

IntroductionAtopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease and skin microbiota dysbiosis shows an important role in the pathogenesis of AD. Effects of treatment on skin microbiota for patients with AD have been evaluated in recent years; however, the results remained controversial across studies. This systematic review will summarise studies evaluating the effect of treatments on skin microbiota among patients with AD.Methods and analysisWe will search PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry in November 2021; other data sources will also be considered, including searching specific authors and screening references cited in the enrolled articles. Interventional studies, which enrolled patients with AD receiving treatments and reported treatment-related skin microbiota changes, will be included. Our primary outcomes include skin microbiota diversity and treatment-related differential microbes; the secondary outcomes include microbiota functions and microbial interactions. Risk of bias assessment will be performed using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials, risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions and methodological index for non-randomised studies. Two researchers will independently perform study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment, with disagreements resolved by group discussions. Subgroup analyses will be performed according to different types of treatment for AD.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this systematic review. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication or conference proceedings.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021246566.

scholarly journals Effects of cosmetic and other camouflage interventions on appearance-related and psychological outcomes among adults with visible differences in appearance: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e046634
Author(s):  
Shadi Gholizadeh ◽  
Danielle B Rice ◽  
Andrea Carboni-Jiménez ◽  
Linda Kwakkenbos ◽  
Jill Boruff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Routine Care ◽  
Psychological Outcomes ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Poor Reporting

ObjectiveVisible differences in appearance are associated with poor social and psychological outcomes. Effectiveness of non-surgical cosmetic and other camouflage interventions is poorly understood. The objective was to evaluate effects of cosmetic and other camouflage interventions on appearance-related outcomes, general psychological outcomes and adverse effects for adults with visible appearance differences.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid) CINAHL and Cochrane Central databases searched from inception to 24 October 2020. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles and abstracts and full texts.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials in any language on non-surgical cosmetic or other camouflage interventions that reported appearance-related outcomes, general psychological outcomes or adverse effects for adults with visible appearance differences.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted data, assessed intervention reporting using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Outcomes included appearance-related outcomes, general psychological outcomes (eg, depression, anxiety) and adverse effects.ResultsOne head-to-head trial and five trials with waiting list or routine care comparators were included. All had unclear or high risk of bias in at least five of seven domains. Effect sizes could not be determined for most outcomes due to poor reporting. Between-group statistically significant differences were not reported for any appearance-related outcomes and for only 5 of 25 (20%) other psychological outcomes. Given heterogeneity of populations and interventions, poor reporting and high risk of bias, quantitative synthesis was not possible.ConclusionsConclusions about effectiveness of non-surgical cosmetic or other camouflage interventions could not be drawn. Well-designed and conducted trials are needed. Without such evidence, clinicians or other qualified individuals should engage with patients interested in cosmetic interventions in shared decision making, outlining potential benefits and harms, and the lack of evidence to inform decisions.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018103421.

scholarly journals The efficacy of antibiotics to control colibacillosis in broiler poultry: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-273
Author(s):  
Jan M. Sargeant ◽  
Michele D. Bergevin ◽  
Katheryn Churchill ◽  
Kaitlyn Dawkins ◽  
Bhumika Deb ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Conversion Ratio ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Feed Conversion Ratio ◽  
Feed Conversion ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Alternative Product

AbstractThe objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of antibiotics to prevent or control colibacillosis in broilers. Studies found eligible were conducted controlled trials in broilers that evaluated an antibiotic intervention, with at least one of the following outcomes: mortality, feed conversion ratio (FCR), condemnations at slaughter, or total antibiotic use. Four electronic databases plus the gray literature were searched. Abstracts were screened for eligibility and data were extracted from eligible trials. Risk of bias was evaluated.Seven trials reported eligible outcomes in a format that allowed data extraction; all reported results for FCR and one also reported mortality. Due to the heterogeneity in the interventions and outcomes evaluated, it was not feasible to conduct meta-analysis.Qualitatively, for FCR, comparisons between an antibiotic and an alternative product did not show a significant benefit for either. Some of the comparisons between an antibiotic and a no-treatment placebo showed a numerical benefit to antibiotics, but with wide confidence intervals. The risk-of-bias assessment revealed concerns with reporting of key trial features.The results of this review do not provide compelling evidence for or against the efficacy of antibiotics for the control of colibacillosis.

scholarly journals Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: A Systematic Review and meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Woolf ◽  
Phil Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Response Data ◽  
Randomised Control Trials ◽  
Study Participants ◽  
The Impact

AbstractBackgroundQuestionnaires remain one of the most common forms of data collection in epidemiology, psychology and other human-sciences. However, results can be badly affected by non-response. One way to potentially reduce non-response is by sending potential study participants advance communication. The last systematic review to examine the effect of questionnaire pre-notification on response is ten years old, and lacked a risk of bias assessment.ObjectivesUpdate Edwards et al. (2009) to include 1) recently published studies, 2) an assessment of risk of bias.MethodsData sources: Edwards et al. (2009); 13 data-bases; the references in, and citations of included studies. Eligibility criteria: Randomised control trials examining the impact of pre-notification on response. Data extraction: data extraction was done twice by a single unblinded reviewer. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and funnel plots.Results103 trials were included. Over-all pre-notification increased response, OR = 1.38 (95%CI: 1.25-1.53). However, when studies at high or unclear risk of bias were excluded the effect was greatly reduced (OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.01-1.21).ConclusionsThe evidence implies that while pre-notification does increase response rates, this may not be of clinical utility.

Efficacy and safety evaluation of benzalkonium chloride preserved eye-drops compared with alternatively preserved and preservative-free eye-drops in the treatment of glaucoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. bjophthalmol-2019-315623 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Hedengran ◽  
Alvilda T Steensberg ◽  
Gianni Virgili ◽  
Augusto Azuara-Blanco ◽  
Miriam Kolko
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Benzalkonium Chloride ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Selective Reporting ◽  
Eye Drops ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Safety Measures ◽  
Preservative Free

Background/aimsThis systematic review compared the efficacy and safety of benzalkonium chloride (BAK)-preserved eye-drops with alternatively preserved (AP) and preservative-free (PF) eye-drops.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched for randomised controlled trials in June and October 2019. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were made by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Handbook. Studies on prostaglandin analogue or beta-blocker eye-drops and patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension were included. Primary outcome was change in intraocular pressure (IOP). Secondary outcomes were safety measures as assessed in original study.ResultsOf 433 articles screened, 16 studies were included. IOP meta-analysis was conducted on 13 studies (4201 patients) ranging from 15 days to 6 months. No significant differences between BAK versus PF and AP were identified (95% CI −0.00 to 0.30 mm Hg, p=0.05). Meta-analyses revealed no differences between BAK versus AP and PF with regards to conjunctival hyperaemia (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.22, 3800 patients, 9 studies), ocular hyperaemia (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.78, 2268 patients, 5 studies), total ocular adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.20, 1906 patients, 5 studies) or tear break-up time (mean difference 0.89, 95% CI −0.03 to 1.81, 130 patients, 3 studies). Diverse reporting on safety measures made comparison challenging. Risk of bias was assessed as high or unclear in many relevant domains, suggesting potential selective reporting or under-reporting.ConclusionNo clinically significant differences on efficacy or safety could be determined between BAK versus AP and PF. However, there were substantial uncertainties on safety.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019139692

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Laser Therapy for the Treatment of Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause: A Protocol for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisieux de Lourdes Martins Nóbrega Pessoa ◽  
Ayane Cristine Alves Sarmento ◽  
Kleyton Santos Medeiros ◽  
Ana Paula Ferreira Costa ◽  
Ana Katherine Gonçalves ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Laser Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Genitourinary Syndrome Of Menopause ◽  
Menopausal Women ◽  
Post Menopausal ◽  
Genitourinary Syndrome

Laser therapy has been proposed to improve the symptoms of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), especially in women who do not accept hormonal therapy or are at a high risk of complications if they undergo hormonal therapy. However, studies evaluating the effectiveness and safety of laser treatment for GSM have shown controversial results. Thus, we aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of laser therapy in post-menopausal women with GSM. We have developed a protocol according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocol using the population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and study design (PICOS) framework for post-menopausal women who have received no treatment, laser therapy, placebo, or vaginal estrogen for GSM. As per our protocol, randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials, regardless of language of publication, will be searched in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and clinicaltrials.gov. Gray literature will be searched in Open Gray and Google Scholar. The reference lists will be scanned for additional trials, and the authors will be contacted if necessary. Outcome data reported in a trial registry, even when no published results were available, will be analyzed. The search will be performed using key terms, such as “post-menopausal women,” “menopausal genitourinary syndrome,” “vulvovaginal atrophy,” and “laser therapy.” Two review authors will independently screen the titles and abstracts, while three others will independently evaluate the full text of each study to determine its eligibility for this systematic review (SR). Any disagreement will be resolved through discussion and consensus. Data extraction will be performed independently using a standardized data collection form. Clinical outcomes, including vaginal atrophy, vaginal pH, dryness, dyspareunia, itching, burning, dysuria, urinary frequency, urinary urgency, and urinary incontinence, will be systematically evaluated. We will not perform a separate search for adverse effects; instead, we will consider the adverse effects described in the included studies. Furthermore, we will summarize the effects of dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. On the other hand, continuous outcomes will be summarized by expressing treatment effects as a mean difference with standard deviation or as a standardized mean difference when different scales were used to measure the same outcome. We will use the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for bias assessment and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate the overall certainty of evidence. Review Manager 5.3.5 will be used for quantitative data synthesis, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, meta-regression, and risk of bias assessment. The SR findings will provide highly relevant evidence through the synthesis of well-designed and robust clinical trials on the effectiveness and safety of laser therapy in GSM. The Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration number (2021) of the SR is CRD42021253605.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of Ayurveda interventions for Sinusitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Azeem Ahmad ◽  
Manohar S. Gundeti ◽  
Parth P. Dave ◽  
Sophia Jameela ◽  
Shruti Khanduri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Numerical Data ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Nasal Discharge ◽  
List Type ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Significant Difference

ABSTRACTObjectivesTo provide a broad evaluation of the efficacy and safety of Ayurveda interventions (procedural and non-procedural) for the management of sinusitis, and also of the relative efficacy and safety of different Ayurveda therapies for Sinusitis.MethodsFive electronic databases for published research articles, three databases for the unpublished doctoral thesis, clinical trial registries, and hand searches were done till August 2020. All comparative clinical trials recruiting sinusitis patients of any age group, receiving Ayurveda intervention, regardless of forms, dosages, and ingredients, for not less than one week were included. The data extraction and the risk of bias(RoB) assessment were done by two reviewers independently.ResultsA total of 2824 records were identified, of which 09 randomized parallel arms trials met inclusion criteria. No studies were found comparing Ayurveda versus placebo or non-Ayurveda interventions. Combined Ayurveda therapy (CT) was statistically more beneficial compared with either procedural or non-procedural Ayurveda therapy alone in reducing symptoms nasal discharge (standardized MD −0.71, 95% CI −1.16 to −0.26, I2 58%, 210 participants) and headache (standardized MD −0.44, 95% CI −0.86 to −0.02, I2 56%, 218 participants), however, no significant difference was found in reducing symptoms nasal obstruction and loss of smell. No numerical data related to the safety of Ayurveda intervention was found in included trials. Because, included trials(09) were having ‘high’ to ‘unclear’ overall bias, sub-standard methodology, and heterogeneity in results, the overall findings need to be interpreted cautiously.ConclusionsAlthough individual studies appeared to produce positive results, very low certainty of total effect(downgraded twice for RoB, once for inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision each) hindered to arrive at any conclusion regarding efficacy or safety of Ayurveda interventions for sinusitis. There is a need for well-designed-executed-reported clinical studies on clinically relevant outcomes.PROSPERO registration numberRD42018103995ARTICLE SUMMARYStrength and limitations of this studyThis is the first systematic review to provide the status of available evidence on the efficacy and safety of Ayurveda interventions for sinusitis.The search strategy was comprehensive, all the relevant sources were searched for published as well as unpublished research works.This systematic review has a broad review question, which compromises its eternal validity.The certainty of the overall effect is ‘very low’ due to ‘unclear’ to ‘high’ overall risk of bias, lack of validated outcome measures, inconsistency in results with wide CIs, small sample sizes, incomplete reporting, etc.

scholarly journals Prevalence of retinopathy in prediabetes: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e040997
Author(s):  
Varo Kirthi ◽  
Paul Nderitu ◽  
Uazman Alam ◽  
Jennifer Evans ◽  
Sarah Nevitt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diabetic Retinopathy ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
International Diabetes Federation ◽  
Current Data ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Fundus Photography ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Cochrane Library

IntroductionThere is growing evidence of a higher than expected prevalence of retinopathy in prediabetes. This paper presents the protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis of retinopathy in prediabetes. The aim of the review is to estimate the prevalence of retinopathy in prediabetes and to summarise the current data.Methods and analysisThis protocol is developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. A comprehensive electronic bibliographic search will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library. Eligible studies will report prevalence data for retinopathy on fundus photography in adults with prediabetes. No time restrictions will be placed on the date of publication. Screening for eligible studies and data extraction will be conducted by two reviewers independently, using predefined inclusion criteria and prepiloted data extraction forms. Disagreements between the reviewers will be resolved by discussion, and if required, a third (senior) reviewer will arbitrate.The primary outcome is the prevalence of any standard features of diabetic retinopathy (DR) on fundus photography, as per International Clinical Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale (ICDRSS) classification. Secondary outcomes are the prevalence of (1) any retinal microvascular abnormalities on fundus photography that are not standard features of DR as per ICDRSS classification and (2) any macular microvascular abnormalities on fundus photography, including but not limited to the presence of macular exudates, microaneurysms and haemorrhages. Risk of bias for included studies will be assessed using a validated risk of bias tool for prevalence studies. Pooled estimates for the prespecified outcomes of interest will be calculated using random effects meta-analytic techniques. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the I2 statistic.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as this is a protocol for a systematic review and no primary data are to be collected. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international meetings including Diabetes UK, European Association for the Study of Diabetes, American Diabetes Association and International Diabetes Federation conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020184820.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document