scholarly journals Meta-Analysis: Randomized Trials of Lactobacillus plantarum on Immune Regulation Over the Last Decades

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Zhao ◽  
Chuantao Peng ◽  
Hafiz Arbab Sakandar ◽  
Lai-Yu Kwok ◽  
Wenyi Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Tnf Α ◽  
Ifn Γ ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Regulatory Effects ◽  
Mean Differences ◽  
Necrosis Factor

Lactobacillus (L.) plantarum strains, belong to lactic acid bacteria group, are considered indispensable probiotics. Here, we performed meta-analysis to evaluate the regulatory effects of L. plantarum on the immunity during clinical trials. This meta-analysis was conducted by searching across four most common literature databases, namely, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Embase, and PubMed. Clinical trial articles that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were analyzed by Review Manager (version 5.3). p-value < 0.05 of the total effect was considered statistically significant. Finally, total of 677 references were retrieved, among which six references and 18 randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. The mean differences observed at 95% confidence interval: interleukin (IL)-4, −0.48 pg/mL (−0.79 to −0.17; p < 0.05); IL-10, 9.88 pg/mL (6.52 to 13.2; p < 0.05); tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, −2.34 pg/mL (−3.5 to −1.19; p < 0.05); interferon (IFN)-γ, −0.99 pg/mL (−1.56 to −0.41; p < 0.05). Therefore, meta-analysis results suggested that L. plantarum could promote host immunity by regulating pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction and anchorage preservation during the two-step technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Haonan Tian ◽  
Congman Xie ◽  
Min Lin ◽  
Hongmei Yang ◽  
Aishu Ren
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Canine Retraction ◽  
Temporary Anchorage Devices ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Mean Differences ◽  
Implant Anchorage

Abstract Background Temporary anchorage devices have been used for decades in orthodontic practice for many applications. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction during the two-step technique. Methods A search was systematically performed for articles published prior to June 30, 2019 in five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Scopus). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled clinical trials (CCTs). The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used for the quality assessment. Data concerning the mean difference in mesial molar movement and extent of canine retraction were extracted for statistical analysis. The mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were analyzed for continuous data. A meta-analysis with a random-effects model for comparable outcomes was carried out. Results Three RCTs and five CCTs were finally included. Meta-analysis showed a significant increase not only in anchorage preservation in the implant anchorage group in both the maxilla (1.56 mm, 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.98, P < 0.00001) and the mandible (1.62 mm, 95% CI: 1.24 to 2.01, P < 0.00001) but also in canine retraction in the implant anchorage group in both the maxilla (0.43 mm, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.69, P = 0.001) and the mandible (0.26 mm, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.49, P = 0.03). Conclusions There is very low-quality evidence showing that implant anchorage is more efficient than conventional anchorage during canine retraction. Additional high-quality studies are needed.

scholarly journals Should syndesmotic screws be removed or retained? A meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wanjin Qin ◽  
Peng Yang ◽  
Nanning Lv ◽  
Kaiwen Chen ◽  
Huilin Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Mean Differences ◽  
American Orthopaedic

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to evaluate the different clinical outcomes after removing or retaining syndesmotic screws, and the difference in clinical outcomes after retaining broken or loose syndesmotic screws was also evaluated. Methods A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. In this meta-analysis, we conducted online searches using the search terms “syndesmotic diastasis”, “syndesmotic injury”, “syndesmotic screw”, “syndesmotic fixation”, and “tibiofibular syndesmosis”. The analysis was performed on individual patient data from all the studies that met the selection criteria. Clinical outcomes were expressed as standard mean differences for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Chi 2 test and the I 2 statistic. Results There were 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 6 observational articles included in this analysis. In the comparison between retained and removed screws and the comparison between broken or loose and removed screws, no significant difference was found in terms of visual analogue scale (VAS), Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle/hindfoot score. Broken or loose screws were associated with better AOFAS scores compared with removed or intact screws, and no significant difference was found in terms of VAS and OMAS scores. Conclusions According to our analysis, there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between removed and retained screws. Broken or loose screws were not associated with bad functional outcomes and may even lead to better function compared with removed or retained screws.

scholarly journals The efficacy of analgesics in controlling orthodontic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Caiqi Cheng ◽  
Tian Xie ◽  
Jun Wang
Keyword(s):  
Analgesic Effect ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Analgesic Effects ◽  
Orthodontic Pain ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Mean Differences

Abstract Background Patients who had gone through orthodontic treatment experienced pain and discomfort which could be the highest-ranking reason for treatment disturbance or early termination. Thus, this review aimed to assess the efficacy of analgesics on the relief of pain in orthodontic treatment. Methods A computerized literature search was conducted in the databases of EMBASE (via OVID, 1974 to 2019 Week 50), MEDLINE (via OVID, 1946 to Dec 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (December 2019). The Cochrane Collaboration’s Review Manager 5.3 software was applied in the present study. And methodological quality was evaluated by the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Results We identified twelve publications including 587 patients in 19 randomized controlled trials. The results showed that the mean difference of naproxen in visual analogue scale (VAS) were − 1.45 (95% CI -2.72, − 0.19; P = .02), − 2.11 (95% CI -3.96, − 0.26; P = .03) and − 1.90 (95% CI -3.33, − 0.47; P = .009) in 2 h, 6 h and 24 h respectively. As for ibuprofen, the standard mean differences were − 1.10 (95% CI -1.49, − 0.71), − 1.63(95% CI -2.32, − 0.95) and − 1.34 (95% CI -2.12, − 0.55) at 2 h, 6 h, and 24 h, with the overall P values all < 0.001. The mean difference of acetaminophen is − 0.68, − 1.34, − 1.91 at three time points and the overall P values all < 0.01. Conclusions This meta-analysis suggests that the use of analgesics is effective for patients in controlling orthodontic pain. Ibuprofen and naproxen are both of stable analgesic effects which could peak at 6 h, while the analgesic effect of acetaminophen increases steadily from 2 h through 24 h. Compared with ibuprofen and acetaminophen, naproxen shows a stronger analgesic effect either at 2 h or 6 h, and its effect lasts to 24 h.

scholarly journals Effect of Berry Polyphenols on Glucose Metabolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Theresa F Rambaran ◽  
Jonathan Bergman ◽  
Peter Nordström ◽  
Anna Nordström
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Glucose Metabolism ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Inverse Variance ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Mean Differences

ABSTRACT The effect of berry polyphenols on glucose metabolism has been evaluated in several studies; however, the results are conflicting. A systematic review and meta-analysis was therefore conducted to evaluate the effect of berry polyphenol consumption on glucose metabolism in adults with impaired glucose tolerance or insulin resistance. PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL (EBSCO), and Scopus were searched for randomized controlled trials published by June 2019. Of the 3240 articles found, 21 met inclusion criteria. Study-specific effects were calculated as mean differences, which were pooled using fixed-effect, inverse-variance weighting. Overall, berry polyphenol consumption did not have a clear effect on biomarkers of glucose metabolism compared with placebo or no treatment. Although some analyses showed statistically significant effects, these effects were too small to be of clinical relevance. The review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews as CRD42019130811.

scholarly journals Should syndesmotic screws be removed or retained? A meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wanjin Qin ◽  
Peng Yang ◽  
Nanning Lv ◽  
Kaiwen Chen ◽  
Huilin Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Mean Differences ◽  
American Orthopaedic

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to evaluate the different clinical outcomes after removing or retaining syndesmotic screws, and the difference in clinical outcomes after retaining broken or loose syndesmotic screws was also evaluated.Methods A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. In this meta-analysis, we conducted online searches using the search terms “syndesmotic diastasis”, “syndesmotic injury”, “syndesmotic screw”, “syndesmotic fixation”, and “tibiofibular syndesmosis”. The analysis was performed on data from all the studies that met the selection criteria. Clinical outcomes were expressed as standard mean differences for continuous outcomes with 95 % confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Chi2 test and the I2 statistic.Results There were 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 6 observational articles included in this analysis. In the comparison between retained and removed screws and the comparison between broken or loose and removed screws, no significant difference was found in terms of visual analogue scale (VAS), Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle/hindfoot score. Broken or loose screws were associated with better AOFAS scores compared with removed or intact screws, and no significant difference was found in terms of VAS and OMAS scores.Conclusions According to our analysis, there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between removed and retained screws. Broken or loose screws were not associated with bad functional outcomes and may even lead to better function compared with removed or retained screws.

The safety of restrictive fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ping Li ◽  
Sheng-Wen Wu ◽  
Dong-Fang Ge ◽  
Zai-Rong Tang ◽  
Cong-Chao Ma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Abdominal Surgery ◽  
Fluid Therapy ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Kidney Injury ◽  
Major Abdominal Surgery ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Clinical Trials Registry

Abstract Background: Restrictive fluid therapy is essential to enhanced recovery after surgery. A meta-analysis was conducted to explore the safety of restrictive fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery and compare it with liberal fluid therapy. Methodology : We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and EMBASE in which restrictive and liberal fluid therapies were compared. Data on complications, anastomotic leaks, and wound infections were extracted. Results: Eleven RCTs comparing the two therapies were included. Compared with liberal fluid therapy, restrictive fluid therapy lowered the risk of complications and cardiopulmonary dysfunction and had similar rates of mortality, anastomotic leak, pneumonia and would infection. But increased kidney injury was also observed in restrictive fluid therapy. Conclusion: Restrictive fluid therapy is safe but may have potential dangers, so caution is warranted in its application.

scholarly journals Efficacy of pharmacological therapies in patients with IBS with diarrhoea or mixed stool pattern: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Gut ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher J Black ◽  
Nicholas E Burr ◽  
Michael Camilleri ◽  
David L Earnest ◽  
Eamonn MM Quigley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Abdominal Pain ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Composite Endpoint ◽  
Response To Therapy ◽  
Stool Consistency ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveOver half of patients with IBS have either diarrhoea (IBS-D) or a mixed stool pattern (IBS-M). The relative efficacy of licenced pharmacological therapies is unclear in the absence of head-to-head trials. We conducted a network meta-analysis to resolve this uncertainty.DesignWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, Embase Classic, the Cochrane central register of controlled trials, and Clinicaltrials.gov through January 2019 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of licenced pharmacological therapies (alosetron, eluxadoline, ramosetron and rifaximin) in adults with IBS-D or IBS-M. Trials included in the analysis reported a dichotomous assessment of overall response to therapy, and data were pooled using a random effects model. Efficacy and safety of all pharmacological therapies were reported as a pooled relative risk with 95% CIs to summarise the effect of each comparison tested. Treatments were ranked according to their p score.ResultsWe identified 18 eligible RCTs (seven alosetron, five ramosetron, two rifaximin and four eluxadoline), containing 9844 patients. All were superior to placebo for the treatment of IBS-D or IBS-M at 12 weeks, according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-recommended endpoint for trials in IBS. Alosetron 1 mg twice daily was ranked first for efficacy, based on the FDA-recommended composite endpoint of improvement in both abdominal pain and stool consistency, effect on global symptoms of IBS and effect on stool consistency. Ramosetron 2.5µg once daily was ranked first for effect on abdominal pain. Total numbers of adverse events were significantly greater with alosetron 1 mg twice daily and ramosetron 2.5µg once daily, compared with placebo. Rifaximin 550 mg three times daily ranked first for safety. Constipation was significantly more common with all drugs, except rifaximin 550 mg three times daily.ConclusionIn a network meta-analysis of RCTs of pharmacological therapies for IBS-D and IBS-M, we found all drugs to be superior to placebo, but alosetron and ramosetron appeared to be the most effective.

scholarly journals Should Finasteride Be Routinely Given Preoperatively for TURP?

ISRN Urology ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. M. Aboumarzouk ◽  
M. Z. Aslam ◽  
A. Wedderburn ◽  
K. Turner ◽  
O. Hughes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Bleeding ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Vascular Endothelial ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Language Restriction ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Endothelial Growth Factor

Objective. The aim of the review was to compare the use of finasteride to placebo in patients undergoing TURP procedures. Material & Methods. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966–November 2011), EMBASE (1980–November 2011), CINAHL, Clinicaltrials.gov, Google Scholar, reference lists of articles, and abstracts from conference proceedings without language restriction for studies comparing finasteride to placebo patients needing TURPs. Results. Four randomised controlled trials were included comparing finasteride to a placebo. A meta-analysis was not conducted due to the disparity present in the results between the studies. Three of the studies found that finasteride could reduce either intra- or postoperative bleeding after TURP. One study found finasteride to significantly lower the microvessel density (MVD) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). None of the studies reported any long-term complications related to either the medication or the procedure. Conclusion. finasteride reduces bleeding either during or after TURP.

Febuxostat use and risks of CVD events, death from cardiac-cause and all-cause mortality: metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
pp. jrheum.200307
Author(s):  
Hao Deng ◽  
Bao Long Zhang ◽  
Jin Dong Tong ◽  
Xiu Hong Yang ◽  
Hui Min Jin
Keyword(s):  
Web Of Science ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Objective To assess whether febuxostat use increases the risk of developing cardiovascular events, death from cardiac-cause and all-cause mortalities. Methods The relevant literature was searched in several databases including the MEDLINE (PubMed, 1 Jan. 1966–29 Feb. 2020), Web of science, EMBASE (1 Jan. 1974–29 Feb. 2020), ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials. Manual searches for references cited in the original studies and relevant review articles were also performed. All studies included in this metanalysis were published in English. Results In the end, 20 studies that met our inclusion criteria were included in this meta-analysis. Use of febuxostat was found not to be associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (RR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.57–1.32, P =0.507). Also, there was no association between febuxostat use and mortalities arising from cardiovascular diseases (CVD) (RR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.49–1.45, P=0.528). The RR also revealed that febuxostat use was not associated with CVD events (RR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.83–1.16, P =0.827). Furthermore, the likelihood of occurrence of CVD events was found not to be dependent on febuxostat dose (RR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.84–1.30, P =0.723). Conclusion Febuxostat use is not associated with increased risks of all-cause mortality, death from CVD or CVD events. Accordingly, it is a safe drug for the treatment of gout. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42019131872

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of atropine to control myopia progression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Congling Zhao ◽  
Chunyan Cai ◽  
Qiang Ding ◽  
Hongbin Dai
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Optimal Dose ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Myopia Progression ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Atropine Treatment ◽  
Observation Period

Abstract Background The effect and safety of atropine on delaying the progression of myopia has been extensively studied, but its optimal dose is still unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this meta-analysis is to systematically evaluate the safety and effectiveness of atropine in controlling the progression of myopia, and to explore the relationship between the dose of atropine and the effectiveness of controlling the progression of myopia. Methods This work was done through the data searched from PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The Cochrane Handbook was also used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. In addition, a meta-analysis was performed using Revman5.3 software. Results A total of 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Myopia progression was mitigated greater in the atropine treatment group than that in the control group, with MD = − 0.80, 95% CI (− 0.94, − 0.66) during the whole observation period. There was a statistical difference among 0.05, 0.5, and 1.0% atropine (P = 0.004). In addition, less axial elongation was shown, with MD = − 0.26, 95% CI (− 0.33, − 0.18) during the whole observation period. Conclusion The effectiveness of atropine in controlling the progression of myopia was dose related. A 0.05% atropine was likely to be the optimal dose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document