scholarly journals Effects of Preoperative Versus Intraoperative Application of Mitomycin C on the Outcome of Pterygium Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Mitomycin C ◽  
Ocular Surface ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Recurrence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Recurrent Pterygium ◽  
Pterygium Surgery ◽  
Review Manager

Background: The use of mitomycin C (MMC) has been recommended to reduce postoperative recurrence in patients undergoing pterygium surgery. However, the outcomes with preoperative (PO) and intraoperative (IO) application of mitomycin C have not been adequately compared. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate PO MMC versus IO MMC in terms of recurrence and complications for pterygium treatment. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched with the keywords “pterygium,” “mitomycin,” and “preoperative” and “intraoperative.” Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PO MMC with IO MMC in pterygium surgery were included. A risk of bias tool was used to perform qualitative assessments. Outcome measurements were recurrence and complications of the ocular surface. Review Manager 5.3 was used for statistical analysis. Results: Five RCTs with 390 participants (390 eyes) showing primary or recurrent pterygium were included. Recurrence of pterygium with PO MMC was similar to that with IO MMC (RR = 1.04, 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.76, P = 0.89). There was no significant difference between the two treatments (PO MMC vs. IO MMC) with respect to complications of the ocular surface, including conjunctival complications (RR = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.76; P = 0.89), scleral complications (RR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.14 to 3.73; P = 0.70), and corneal complications (RR = 1.33; 95% CI, 0.32 to 5.48; P = 0.70). Conclusion: PO MMC was as efficient as IO MMC in controlling the recurrence and complications in pterygium surgery.

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

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

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

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

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

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

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Sinomenine Preparation for Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Shan-Shan Lin ◽  
Chun-Xiang Liu ◽  
Jun-Hua Zhang ◽  
Hui Wang ◽  
Jing-Bo Zhai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Morning Stiffness ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Objectives. To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of sinomenine preparation (SP) for treating ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Methods. Clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SP for treating AS were systematically identified in six electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), and Wanfang Databases from the inception up to 31 October 2019. Cochrane’s risk of bias tool was used to assess the methodological quality and Review Manager 5.3 software was used to analyze data. Results. A total of 12 RCTs involving 835 patients were finally included. According to interventions, RCTs were divided into two types. The intervention in 10 RCTs was SP combined with conventional pharmacotherapy (CPT) versus CPT and that in 2 RCTs was SP alone versus CPT. The results of the meta-analysis showed that, compared with CPT alone, SP combined with oral CPT has better improvement in BASDAI (WMD = −1.84, 95% CI [−3.31, −0.37], P=0.01), morning stiffness time (WMD = −13.46, 95% CI [−16.12, −10.79], P<0.00001), the Schober test (WMD = 1.26, 95% CI [0.72, 1.80], P<0.00001), the occipital wall test (WMD = −0.55, 95% CI [−0.96, −0.14], P=0.009), the finger-to-ground distance (WMD = −3.28, 95% CI [−5.64, −0.93], P=0.006), 15 m walking time (WMD = −8.81, 95% CI [−13.42, −4.20], P=0.0002), the C-reactive protein (CRP) (WMD = −1.84, 95% CI [−3.24, −0.45], P=0.01), and the total effective rate (RR = 1.10, 95% CI [1.01, 1.20], P=0.03). Besides, it also showed that oral SP alone may be more effective in improving morning stiffness time (WMD = −31.89, 95% CI [−34.91, −28.87], P<0.00001) compared with CPT alone. However, this study cannot provide evidence that loading the injectable SP based on CPT can significantly increase the efficacy due to the insufficient number of studies included. In terms of adverse events, there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental group and the control group. Conclusions. This study shows that oral SP may be effective and safe in the treatment of AS. Due to the low methodological quality of the included RCTs and the limitations of the meta-analysis, it is still necessary to carry out more multicenter, large-sample, and high-quality RCTs to further verify the conclusions. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018099170), and the review was constructed following the PRISMA guidelines (Annex 1).

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

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

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

Efficacy of Bimodal High-Voltage Monopulsed Current in the Treatment of Pressure Ulcer: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhiwei ZHANG ◽  
Bojun LI ◽  
Zhichao WANG ◽  
Lina WU ◽  
Lili SONG ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Group ◽  
Pressure Ulcer ◽  
High Voltage ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Randomized Controlled Studies ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: We aimed to systematically evaluate the efficacy of high-voltage pulsed current (HVPC) in the treatment of pressure ulcer. Methods: We searched the databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Elsevier and EMBASE to identify randomized controlled studies on the application of HVPC in pressure ulcer treatment, up to January 2019. Two authors independently screened the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted the data and evaluated the quality. RevMan 5.3 software was used for statistical analysis. Four randomized controlled trials involving a total of 176 patients were included in the study. Results: Meta-analysis showed that the percentage of wound area reduction in the HVPC treatment group was higher than that in the control group (95%CI 24.59, 47.76, P<0.001). Descriptive analysis showed that there was no significant difference in wound healing between the HVPC treatment group and the control group. One study reported that there was contact dermatitis, and the rest of the studies reported no adverse events. Conclusion: Compared with the conventional therapy, the combination with HVPC therapy can reduce the area of pressure ulcers more effectively. However, due to the small number of the studies included in this evaluation, the conclusions need to be verified by more high-quality studies.

scholarly journals Effect of pretreatment with midazolam on etomidate-induced myoclonus: A meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 399-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chengmao Zhou ◽  
Yu Zhu ◽  
Zhen Liu ◽  
Lin Ruan
Keyword(s):  
Incidence Rate ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Fixed Effects Model ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Review Manager

Objective To investigate the effect of pretreatment with midazolam on myoclonus induced by etomidate injection. Methods A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager software, version 5.2. Two researchers independently searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase® databases for randomized controlled trials involving patients who underwent etomidate induced general anaesthesia with or without midazolam pretreatment, published between 1990 and 2016. Outcome measures comprised overall myoclonus incidence rate and incidence rate classified by degree of myoclonus following etomidate injection. Data were assessed using a fixed effects model. Results Five studies, comprising 302 patients, were included for analysis. Overall incidence rate of etomidate injection-induced myoclonus was significantly lower in the pooled midazolam group versus controls (relative risk [RR] 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26, 0.44); Results subgrouped by degree of myoclonus showed significantly lower incidence in midazolam groups versus control groups for mild myoclonus (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39, 0.80); moderate myoclonus (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.10, 0.41); and severe myoclonus (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04, 0.39). Conclusion Midazolam can effectively prevent etomidate-induced myoclonus, and alleviate the degree of etomidate-induced myoclonus.

scholarly journals Nurse Participation in Colonoscopy Observation versus the Colonoscopist Alone for Polyp and Adenoma Detection: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lei Xu ◽  
Yu Zhang ◽  
Haojun Song ◽  
Weihong Wang ◽  
Sijie Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Adenoma Detection Rate ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Significant Difference

The role of nurse participation (NP) in colonoscopy observation for polyp and adenoma detection is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate whether nurse participation can improve polyp and adenoma detection.Patients and Methods. The PUBMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English. The outcome measurements included (1) the polyp and adenoma detection rate (PDR and ADR); (2) the advanced lesions detection rate; and (3) the mean polyp and adenoma detection rate per colonoscopy.Results. Three RCTs with a total of 1676 patients were included. The pooled data showed a significantly higher ADR in the NP group than colonoscopist alone (CA) (45.7% versus 39.3%; RR 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04–1.30). And it showed no significant difference in the PDR and advanced lesions detection rate between the two groups (RR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.95–1.37; RR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.91–2.00; resp.).Conclusions. Nurse participation during a colonoscopy can improve the ADR, whereas no benefit for the PDR and advanced lesions detection rate was observed. All RCTs included in the meta-analysis had high risk of bias. Thus, there is a need for new research that uses sound methodology to definitively address the research question under study.

scholarly journals Randomized Controlled Trials for Comparison of Laparoscopic Versus Conventional Open Catheter Placement in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients: A Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mei-Lan Sun ◽  
Yong Zhang(Former Corresponding Author) ◽  
Bo Wang ◽  
Tean Ma ◽  
Hong Jiang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peritoneal Dialysis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Catheter Placement ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Large Sample Size ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Aim: The application of laparoscopic catheterization technology in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients has recently increased. However, the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic versus conventional open PD catheter placement are still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the complications of catheterization in PD patients and to provide a reference for choosing a PD-catheter placement technique in the clinic.Methods: We searched numerous databases, including Embase, PubMed, CNKI and the Cochrane Library, for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Results: Eight relevant studies (n=646) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results showed a lower incidence of catheter migration (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.90, P: 0.03) and catheter removal (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.79, P: 0.008) but a higher incidence of bleeding (OR: 3.25, 95% CI: 1.18 to 8.97, P: 0.02) with a laparoscopic approach than with a conventional approach. There was no significant difference in the incidence of omentum adhesion (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.05 to 2.10, P: 0.24), hernia (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.09 to 1.68, P: 0.20), leakage (OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.26, P: 0.23), intestinal obstruction (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.91, P: 0.90) or perforation (OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.06 to 15.42, P: 0.97). The statistical analysis showed no significant difference in early (OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.33, P: 0.15) , late (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.41 to 1.90, P: 0.76) or total (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.12, P: 0.13) peritonitis infections between the 2 groups, and there are no no significant difference in early ( OR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.06 to 2.36, P: 0.30), late ( OR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.78 to 2.33, P: 0.16) or total ( OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.02, P: 0.17) tunnel or exit-site infections between the 2 groups.Conclusion: Laparoscopic catheterization and conventional open catheter placement in PD patients have unique advantages, but laparoscopic PD catheterization may be superior to conventional open catheter placement. However, this conclusion needs to be confirmed with further large-sample-size, multi-centre, high-quality RCTs.

scholarly journals Comparison of nephroscopy and cystoscopy used in the treatment of bladder stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BMC Surgery ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Liping Gou ◽  
Zhenghao Wang ◽  
Ye Zhou ◽  
Xiaofeng Zheng
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Bladder Stones ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and efficiency of nephroscopy and cystoscopy in transurethral cystolithotripsy (TUCL) for bladder stones (BS). Methods The PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to January 2021 for studies assessing the effect of different types of endoscopes among patients who underwent TUCL. The search strategy and study selection process were in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Results Five randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed no difference in stone-free rate (RR = 1.00, CI = 0.98–1.02, p = 1.00) between the two groups and nonsignificant heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, p = 1.00), and all patients were rendered stone free. Use of the nephroscope significantly shortened the operative time compared with the cystoscope group (RR= − 26.26, CI = − 35.84 to − 16.68, p < 0.00001), and there was significant heterogeneity (I2= 87%, p < 0.00001). There was no significant difference in mean urethral entries (RR = 0.66, CI = − 0.71 to − 2.04, p = 0.35), hospitalization (MD = 0.08, 95% CI = − 0.07 to 0.23, p = 0.31) or total complication rate (RR=1.37, 95% CI = 0.47–4.00, p = 0.56) between the two groups. Conclusions In conclusion, this systematic review demonstrates that both nephroscopy and cystoscopy have high stone clearance efficiency, low rates of complications and short hospitalizations. The mean urethral entries depend on the treatment method for large stone fragments. However, the use of nephroscopy can significantly reduce the operative time.

scholarly journals Activity and Safety of Tegafur, Gimeracil, and Oteracil Potassium for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Ximing Zhang ◽  
Xiumei Tian ◽  
Yuezi Wei ◽  
Hao Deng ◽  
Lichun Ma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

In clinical practice, tegafur, gimeracil, and oteracil potassium (S-1) therapy is commonly administered to treat nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). However, its efficacy and safety remain controversial in both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of S-1 treatment for NPC. We searched PubMed, Ovid, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, and VIP databases for RCTs of chemotherapy with or without S-1 for NPC, from 2001 to 2020. A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.3 and Stata15. Randomized controlled trials published in journals were included irrespective of blinding and language used. Patients were diagnosed with NPC through a clinicopathological examination; patients of all cancer stages and ages were included. Overall, 25 trials and 1858 patients were included. There were significant differences in the complete remission (OR = 2.42, 95% CI (1.88–3.10), P < 0.05 ) and overall response rate (OR = 2.68, 95% CI (2.08–3.45), P < 0.05 ) between the S-1 and non-S-1 groups. However, there was no significant difference in partial remission (OR = 1.10, 95% CI (0.87–1.39), P = 0.42 ) and seven adverse reactions (leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, dermatitis, oral mucositis, and anemia) between the S-1 and non-S-1 groups. Additionally, statistical analyses with six subgroups were performed. S-1 was found to be a satisfactory chemotherapeutic agent combined with radiotherapy, intravenous chemotherapy, or chemoradiotherapy for NPC. As an oral medicine, the adverse reactions of S-1, especially gastrointestinal reactions, can be tolerated by patients, thereby optimizing their quality of life. S-1 may be a better choice for the treatment of NPC. This trial is registered with CRD42019122041.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document