scholarly journals Effects of Therapeutic Exercise Intensity on Cerebral Palsy Outcomes: A Systematic Review With Meta-Regression of Randomized Clinical Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Che-Wei Hsu ◽  
Yi-No Kang ◽  
Sung-Hui Tseng
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cerebral Palsy ◽  
Exercise Intensity ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Therapeutic Exercise ◽  
Meta Regression

Neurodevelopmental Treatment (Bobath) for Children With Cerebral Palsy: A Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (11) ◽  
pp. 679-686 ◽  
Author(s):  
Márcia Andréa Zanon ◽  
Rafael Leite Pacheco ◽  
Carolina de Oliveira Cruz Latorraca ◽  
Ana Luiza Cabrera Martimbianco ◽  
Daniela Vianna Pachito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cerebral Palsy ◽  
Physical Therapy ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
The Body ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Children With Cerebral Palsy ◽  
Protocol Registration

Aim: To assess the effects of neurodevelopmental treatment for children with cerebral palsy. Methods: We conducted a systematic review following the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and reported in accordance to PRISMA Statement. Through a comprehensive literature search we considered all randomized clinical trials that compared neurodevelopmental treatment with conventional physical therapy for children with cerebral palsy. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Table to assess the risk of bias of the included randomized clinical trial, and the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the body of the evidence. Results: We found 3 randomized clinical trials (2 published and 1 ongoing) comprising 66 children. Published randomized clinical trials presented methodological and reporting limitations and only 1 provided data for outcomes of interest. No difference between neurodevelopmental treatment and conventional physical therapy was found for gross motor function (mean difference 1.40; 95% confidence interval –5.47 to 8.27, low certainty evidence). Conclusion: This review found that the effects of neurodevelopmental treatment for children with cerebral palsy are still uncertain. Further studies are required to assess the efficacy and safety of neurodevelopmental treatment for this purpose and until there, current evidence do not support its routinely use in practice. Number of protocol registration in PROSPERO database: CRD42017082817 (available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=82817 ).

Non-surgical interventions for the treatment of masticatory muscular spasticity in patients with cerebral palsy. Systematic review of randomized clinical trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monise Mendes Rocha ◽  
Ana Luiza Cabrera Martimbianco ◽  
Rafael Zaratin Beltramin ◽  
Anna Carolina Ratto Tempestini Horliana ◽  
Elaine Marcílio Santos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cerebral Palsy ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Surgical Interventions

scholarly journals Ranking videolaryngoscopes and direct laryngoscopes by orotracheal intubation performance in children: protocol of a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials at patient level

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clístenes C Carvalho ◽  
Stéphanie LPA Regueira ◽  
Ana Beatriz S Souza ◽  
Lucas MLF Medeiros ◽  
Marielle BS Manoel
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Orotracheal Intubation ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Intubation Attempt ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Meta Regression

ABSTRACTBackgroundVideolaryngoscopy was shown to improve glottic visualization in children as compared to direct laryngoscopy, but at the expenses of delayed time for intubation. As little evidence is available regarding the relative performance of different laryngoscopes at present, we designed this systematic review and network meta-analysis to rank the different videolaryngoscopes (VLs) and direct laryngoscopes (DLs) for orotracheal intubation in children.MethodsWe will conduct a search in PubMed, LILACS, Scielo, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2021, Issue 1) on 27/01/2021. We will include randomized clinical trials fully reported with patients aged ≤ 18 years, making comparisons between different types of laryngoscopes (any of both VLs and DLs) for failed first intubation attempt, intubation time, number of attempts at intubation or number of unsuccessful intubations, failed intubation, glottic view score, or adverse responses to endotracheal intubation. Pooled effects will be estimated by both fixed and random-effects models and presented according to qualitative and quantitative heterogeneity assessment. Sensitivity analyses will be performed as well as a priori subgroup, meta-regression and multiple meta-regression analyses. Additionally, network meta-analyses will be applied to rank the different VLs and DLs. We will also assess the risk of selective publication by funnel plot asymmetry.DiscussionThis systematic review and network meta-analysis aim to understand which laryngoscopes perform better than others for orotracheal intubation.Systematic review registrationThe current protocol was submitted to PROSPERO on 25/01/2021.

scholarly journals Ranking videolaryngoscopes by orotracheal intubation performance: protocol of a systematic review and network meta-analysis of clinical trials at patient level

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clístenes Crístian de Carvalho ◽  
Danielle Melo da Silva ◽  
Victor Macedo Lemos ◽  
Thiago Gadelha Batista dos Santos ◽  
Ikaro Cavalcante Agra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Macintosh Laryngoscope ◽  
Orotracheal Intubation ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Meta Regression

ABSTRACTBackgroundVideolaryngoscopes (VLs) are regarded to improve glottic visualization as compared to Macintosh laryngoscope (ML). However, we currently do not know which one would be the best choice. We then designed this systematic review and network meta-analysis to rank the different VLs as compared to ML.MethodsWe will conduct a search in PubMed, LILACS, Scielo, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 6) on 11/01/2021. We will include randomized clinical trials fully reported with patients aged ≥ 16 years, comparing VLs with ML for failed intubation with the device, failed first intubation attempts, number of intubation attempts, time for intubation, difficulty of intubation, and improved visualization of the larynx. Pooled effects will be estimated by both fixed and random-effects models and presented according to qualitative and quantitative heterogeneity assessment. Sensitivity analyses will be performed as well as a priori subgroup, meta-regression and multiple meta-regression analyses. Additionally, network meta-analyses will be applied to rank the different VLs as compared to ML. We will also assess the risk of selective publication by funnel plot asymmetry.DiscussionThis systematic review and network meta-analysis aim at helping health services and clinicians involved in airway manipulation choose the best VLs for orotracheal intubation.Systematic review registrationThe current protocol was submitted to PROSPERO on 07/01/2021.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document