scholarly journals Beta-Lactam vs. Fluoroquinolone Monotherapy for Pseudomonas aeruginosa Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Antibiotics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 1483
Author(s):  
Eric Reid ◽  
Ryan W. Walters ◽  
Christopher J. Destache
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pseudomonas Aeruginosa ◽  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Soft Tissue Infection ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Tissue Infection ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Bacteriological Eradication ◽  
Meta Analyses

Introduction: Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) is a leading cause of healthcare-associated infections. A variety of antibiotic classes are used in the treatment of PA infections, including beta-lactams (BLs) and fluoroquinolones (FQs), given either together in combination therapy or alone in monotherapy. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of BL agents versus FQ agents as active, definitive monotherapy in PA infections in adults. Methods: Comprehensive literature searches of the Medline and Scopus electronic databases, alongside hand searches of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, and Google Scholar, were performed without a time restriction to identify studies published in English comparing BL and FQ agents given as monotherapy for PA infection in hospitalized adults for which mortality, bacteriological eradication, or clinical response was evaluated. One reviewer screened search results based on pre-defined selection criteria. Two reviewers independently assessed included studies for methodological quality using NIH assessment tools. Two fixed-effects meta-analyses were performed. Results: A total of 368 articles were screened, and six studies involving 338 total patients were included in the meta-analysis. Upon evaluation of methodological quality, two studies were rated good, three fair, and one poor. A meta-analysis of three studies demonstrates FQ monotherapy is associated with significantly improved survival compared to BL monotherapy for patients with PA bacteremia (OR, 3.65; 95% CI, 1.27–10.44; p = 0.02). A meta-analysis of three studies demonstrates FQ monotherapy is associated with equivalent bacteriological eradication compared to BL monotherapy for PA pneumonia or skin and soft tissue infection (RD, 0.07; 95% CI, −0.09 to 0.24; p = 0.39). Conclusion: The meta-analyses demonstrate FQ monotherapy significantly improves survival in PA bacteremia and is associated with similar rates of bacteriological eradication in pneumonia and skin and soft tissue infection caused by PA compared to BL monotherapy. However, more research is needed to make meaningful clinical recommendations.

scholarly journals Beta-lactam vs Fluoroquinolone Monotherapy for Pseudomonas aeruginosa Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Reid ◽  
Ryan Walters ◽  
Christopher Destache
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pseudomonas Aeruginosa ◽  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Soft Tissue Infection ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Tissue Infection ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Bacteriological Eradication ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Introduction: Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) is a leading cause of healthcare-associated infections. A variety of antibiotic classes are used in the treatment of PA infections, including beta-lactams (BLs) and fluoroquinolones (FQs), given either together in combination therapy or alone in monotherapy. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of BL agents versus FQ agents as active, definitive monotherapy in PA infections in adults.Methods: Comprehensive literature searches of Medline and Scopus electronic databases, alongside hand searches of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, and Google Scholar, were performed without time restriction to identify studies published in English comparing BL and FQ agents given as monotherapy for PA infection in hospitalized adults for which mortality, bacteriological eradication, or clinical response was evaluated. One reviewer screened search results based on pre-defined selection criteria. Two reviewers independently assessed included studies for methodological quality using NIH assessment tools. Two fixed-effects meta-analyses were performed.Results: A total of 368 articles were screened, and 6 studies involving 338 total patients were included in the meta-analysis. Upon evaluation of methodological quality, 2 studies were rated good, 3 fair, and 1 poor. A meta-analysis of 3 studies demonstrates FQ monotherapy is associated with significantly improved survival compared to BL monotherapy for patients with PA bacteremia (OR, 3.65; 95% CI, 1.27-10.44; p=.02). A meta-analysis of 3 studies demonstrates FQ monotherapy is associated with equivalent bacteriological eradication compared to BL monotherapy for PA pneumonia or skin and soft tissue infection (RD, 0.07; 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.24; p=.39).Conclusion: The meta-analyses demonstrate FQ monotherapy significantly improves survival in PA bacteremia and is associated with similar rates of bacteriological eradication in pneumonia and skin and soft tissue infection caused by PA compared to BL monotherapy. However, more research is needed to make meaningful clinical recommendations.

scholarly journals 129. Beta-lactam vs Fluoroquinolone Monotherapy for pseudomonas Aeruginosa infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S194-S195
Author(s):  
Eric C Reid ◽  
Ryan Walters ◽  
Christopher Destache
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pseudomonas Aeruginosa ◽  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Soft Tissue Infection ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Tissue Infection ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Bacteriological Eradication

Abstract Background Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) is a leading cause of healthcare-associated infections, including pneumonia, bloodstream infections, and surgical site infections around the world. A variety of antibiotic classes are used in the treatment of PA infections, including beta-lactams (BLs) and fluoroquinolones (FQs), given either together in combination therapy or alone in monotherapy. Here, we report a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of BL agents versus FQ agents as active, definitive monotherapy in PA infections in adults. Methods Comprehensive literature searches of Medline and Scopus electronic databases, alongside hand searches of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, and Google Scholar, were performed in April 2019 without time restriction to identify studies published in English comparing BL and FQ agents given as monotherapy for PA infection in hospitalized adults for which mortality, bacteriological eradication, or clinical response was evaluated. One reviewer screened search results based on pre-defined selection criteria. Two reviewers independently assessed included studies for methodological quality using NIH assessment tools. Two fixed-effects meta-analyses were performed (Figure 1). Results A total of 368 articles were screened, and 6 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Upon evaluation of methodological quality, 2 studies were rated good, 3 fair, and 1 poor (Table 1). A meta-analysis of 3 cohort studies demonstrates FQ monotherapy for PA bacteremia is associated with increased survival compared to BL monotherapy (OR, 3.65; 95% CI, 1.27–10.44; p=.02; Figure 2). A meta-analysis of 3 randomized control studies demonstrates FQ monotherapy for PA pneumonia and skin and soft tissue infection is not significantly associated with increased bacteriological eradication compared to BL monotherapy (RD, 0.07; 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.24; p=.39; Figure 3). Conclusion The data appear to suggest FQ monotherapy is significantly associated with increased survival in PA bacteremia and associated with similar rates of bacteriological eradication in pneumonia and skin and soft tissue infection caused by PA compared to BL monotherapy. However, more research is needed to make meaningful clinical recommendations. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

scholarly journals Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis in Spine Surgery—How Good Are They in Methodological Quality? A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822090681 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muthu Sathish ◽  
Ramakrishnan Eswar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Critical Flaw ◽  
Meta Analyses

Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery over the past 2 decades. Materials and Methods: We conducted independent and in duplicate systematic review of the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 2000 and 2019 from PubMed Central and Cochrane Database pertaining to spine surgery involving surgical intervention. We searched bibliographies to identify additional relevant studies. Methodological quality was evaluated with AMSTAR score and graded with AMSTAR 2 criteria. Results: A total of 96 reviews met the eligibility criteria, with mean AMSTAR score of 7.51 (SD = 1.98). Based on AMSTAR 2 criteria, 13.5% (n = 13) and 18.7% (n = 18) of the studies had high and moderate level of confidence of results, respectively, without any critical flaws. A total of 29.1% (n = 28) of the studies had at least 1 critical flaw and 38.5% (n = 37) of the studies had more than 1 critical flaw, so that their results have low and critically low confidence, respectively. Failure to analyze the conflict of interest of authors of primary studies included in review and lack of list of excluded studies with justification were the most common critical flaw. Regression analysis demonstrated that studies with funding and studies published in recent years were significantly associated with higher methodological quality. Conclusion: Despite improvement in methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery in current decade, a substantial proportion continue to show critical flaws. With increasing number of review articles in spine surgery, stringent measures must be taken to adhere to methodological quality by following PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines to attain higher standards of evidence in published literature.

scholarly journals Efficacy of Oral Ginger (Zingiber officinale) for Dysmenorrhea: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chen X. Chen ◽  
Bruce Barrett ◽  
Kristine L. Kwekkeboom
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Zingiber Officinale ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Meta Analyses

This systematic review examines the efficacy of oral ginger for dysmenorrhea. Key biomedical databases and grey literature were searched. We included randomized controlled trials comparing oral ginger against placebo or active treatment in women with dysmenorrhea. Six trials were identified. Two authors independently reviewed the articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus with a third reviewer. We completed a narrative synthesis of all six studies and exploratory meta-analyses of three studies comparing ginger with placebo and two studies comparing ginger with a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). Ginger appeared more effective for reducing pain severity than placebo. The weighted mean difference on a 10 cm visual analogue scale was 1.55 cm (favoring ginger) (95% CI 0.68 to 2.43). No significant difference was found between ginger and mefenamic acid (an NSAID). The standardized mean difference was 0 (95% CI −0.40 to 0.41). Available data suggest that oral ginger could be an effective treatment for menstrual pain in dysmenorrhea. Findings, however, need to be interpreted with caution because of the small number of studies, poor methodological quality of the studies, and high heterogeneity across trials. The review highlights the need for future trials with high methodological quality.

Multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa skin and soft-tissue infection successfully treated with ceftolozane/tazobactam

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 100-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadia Castaldo ◽  
Filippo Givone ◽  
Maddalena Peghin ◽  
Elda Righi ◽  
Assunta Sartor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pseudomonas Aeruginosa ◽  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Soft Tissue Infection ◽  
Multidrug Resistant ◽  
Tissue Infection

Associations between anger and chronic primary pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomonori Adachi ◽  
Keiko Yamada ◽  
Haruo Fujino ◽  
Kiyoka Enomoto ◽  
Masahiko Shibata
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Negative Emotion ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Perceived Injustice ◽  
Qualitative Synthesis ◽  
Action Tendency ◽  
Comprehensive Search ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Objectives Anger is a negative emotion characterized by antagonism toward someone or something, is rooted in an appraisal or attribution of wrongdoing, and is accompanied by an action tendency to undo the wrongdoing. Anger is prevalent in individuals with chronic pain, especially those with chronic primary pain. The associations between anger and pain-related outcomes (e.g., pain intensity, disability) have been examined in previous studies. However, to our knowledge, no systematic review or meta-analysis has summarized the findings of anger-pain associations through a focus on chronic primary pain. Hence, we sought to summarize the findings on the associations of anger-related variables with pain and disability in individuals with chronic primary pain. Methods All studies reporting at least one association between anger-related variables and the two pain-related outcomes in individuals with chronic primary pain were eligible. We searched electronic databases using keywords relevant to anger and chronic primary pain. Multiple reviewers independently screened for study eligibility, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment. Results Thirty-eight studies were included in this systematic review, of which 20 provided data for meta-analyses (2,682 participants with chronic primary pain). Of the included studies, 68.4% had a medium methodological quality. Evidence showed mixed results in the qualitative synthesis. Most anger-related variables had significant positive pooled correlations with small to moderate effect sizes for pain and disability. Conclusions Through a comprehensive search, we identified several key anger-related variables associated with pain-related outcomes. In particular, associations with perceived injustice were substantial.

P14.71 An assessment of the reporting and methodological quality of meningioma systematic reviews and meta-analyses

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. ii51-ii52
Author(s):  
A M George ◽  
S Gupta ◽  
S M Keshwara ◽  
M A Mustafa ◽  
C S Gillespie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Neurofibromatosis Type ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract BACKGROUND Systematic reviews and meta-analyses constitute the highest level of research evidence and for a disease with limited clinical trial activity, are often relied upon to help inform clinical practice. This review of reviews evaluates both the reporting & methodological quality of meningioma evidence syntheses. MATERIAL AND METHODS Potentially eligible meningioma reviews published between 1st January 1990 and 31st December 2020 were identified from eight electronic databases. Inclusion required the study to meet the Cochrane guideline definition of a systematic review or meta-analysis. Reviews concerning neurofibromatosis type 2, spinal and pediatric meningiomas were excluded. The reporting and methodological quality of articles were assessed against the following modified guidelines: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) and the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) guidelines. RESULTS 117 systematic reviews were identified, 57 of which included meta-analysis (48.7%). The number of meningioma systematic reviews published each year has increased with 63 studies (53.9%) published between 01/2018 and 12/2020. A median of 17 studies (IQR 9–29) were included per review. Impact factor of journals publishing a systematic review with or without a meta-analysis was similar (median 2.3 vs 1.8, P=0.397). The mean PRISMA scores for systematic reviews with a meta-analysis was 21.11 (SD 4.1, 78% adherence) and without was 13.89 (SD 3.4, 63% adherence). Twenty-nine systematic reviews with meta-analysis (51%) and 11 without meta-analysis (18%) achieved greater than 80% adherence to PRISMA recommendations. Methodological quality assessment using AMSTAR2 revealed one study (0.9%) as high quality whilst 111 (94.8%) studies were graded as critically low. One hundred and two articles (87.2%) did not utilize a comprehensive search strategy as defined by the AMSTAR2 tool. Ninety-nine studies (84.6%) obtained a high level of concern for potential bias as per the ROBIS assessment. One hundred and eight articles (92.3%) failed to present information that a protocol had been established prior to study commencement and 76 articles (65.0%) did not conduct a risk of bias assessment. Across the three tools, domains relating to the establishment of a protocol prior to review commencement and conducting appropriate risk of bias assessments were frequently low scoring. CONCLUSION Overall reporting and methodological quality of meningioma systematic reviews was sub-optimal. Established critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines should be utilized a priori to assist in producing high-quality systematic reviews.

Effects of Caffeine Supplementation on Physical Performance of Soccer Players: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 194173812199871
Author(s):  
Raphael Einsfeld Simões Ferreira ◽  
Rafael Leite Pacheco ◽  
Carolina de Oliveira Cruz Latorraca ◽  
Rachel Riera ◽  
Ricardo Guilherme Eid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Perceived Exertion ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Rating Of Perceived Exertion ◽  
Soccer Players ◽  
Meta Analyses

Context: Caffeine is 1 of the most popular supplements consumed by athletes, and the evidence for improving soccer performance remains limited. Objective: To investigate and update the effects (benefits and harms) of caffeine to improve performance on soccer players. Data Sources: Electronic search in Medline (via PubMed), CENTRAL, Embase, SPORTDiscus, and LILACS, from inception to March 28, 2020. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of caffeine on the performance of soccer players. Study Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Level of Evidence: Level 1. Data Extraction: Data extraction was conducted independently by 2 authors using a piloted form. We assessed methodological quality (Cochrane risk-of-bias [RoB] table) and the certainty of the evidence (GRADE [Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation] approach). Results: Sixteen RCTs were included. Overall methodological quality was classified as unclear to low risk of bias. When assessing aerobic endurance, meta-analyses did not demonstrate the differences between caffeine and placebo (mean difference [MD], 44.9 m; 95% confidence interval [CI], −77.7 to 167.6). Similarly, no difference was observed during time to fatigue test (MD, 169.8 seconds; 95% CI, −71.8 to 411.6). Considering anaerobic power, meta-analyses also did not find differences for vertical jump (MD, 1.01 cm; 95% CI, −0.68 to 2.69) and repeated sprint tests (MD, −0.02 seconds; 95% CI, −0.09 to 0.04), as well as reaction time agility test (MD, 0.02 seconds; 95% CI, −0.01 to 0.04) and rating of perceived exertion (MD, 0.16 points; 95% CI, −0.55 to 0.87). Regarding safety, a few minor adverse events were reported. Based on the GRADE approach, the certainty of this evidence was classified as very low to low. Conclusions: We found no significant improvement in soccer-related performance with caffeine compared with placebo or no intervention. However, caffeine appears to be safe.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document