scholarly journals Ceftazidime-Avibactam Combination Therapy Compared to Ceftazidime-Avibactam Monotherapy for the Treatment of Severe Infections Due to Carbapenem-Resistant Pathogens: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Antibiotics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Fiore ◽  
Aniello Alfieri ◽  
Sveva Di Franco ◽  
Maria Caterina Pace ◽  
Vittorio Simeon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Retrospective Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Beta Lactam ◽  
Qualitative Synthesis ◽  
Severe Infections ◽  
Tract Infections

Ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA) is a novel beta-lactam beta-lactamase inhibitor combination approved for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections, complicated intra-abdominal infections, and for hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated pneumonia. The aim of this systematic review (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019128927) was to evaluate the effectiveness of CZA combination therapy versus CZA monotherapy in the treatment of severe infections. The databases included in the search, until 12 February 2020, were MEDLINE by PubMed, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies published in peer-reviewed journals and in the English language. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality (longest follow-up) evaluated in patients with the diagnosis of infection with at least one pathogen; secondary outcomes were clinical and microbiological improvement/cure. Thirteen studies were included in the qualitative synthesis: 7 RCTs and 6 retrospective studies All the six retrospective studies identified carbapenamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) as the cause of infection and for this reason were included in the network meta-analysis (NMA); the quality of the studies, assessed using the New Castle-Ottawa Scale, was moderate-high. In all the six retrospective studies included in the NMA, CZA was used in large part for off-label indications (mostly blood stream infections: 80–100% of patients included). No difference in mortality rate was observed in patients undergoing CZA combination therapy compared to CZA monotherapy [n = 503 patients, direct evidence OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.65–1.41].

scholarly journals Ceftolozane-Tazobactam Combination Therapy Compared to Ceftolozane-Tazobactam Monotherapy for the Treatment of Severe Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Antibiotics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 79
Author(s):  
Marco Fiore ◽  
Antonio Corrente ◽  
Maria Caterina Pace ◽  
Aniello Alfieri ◽  
Vittorio Simeon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
English Language ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Qualitative Synthesis ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Severe Infections ◽  
Microbiological Cure

Ceftolozane-tazobactam (C/T) is a combination of an advanced-generation cephalosporin (ceftolozane) with a β-lactamase inhibitor (tazobactam). It is approved for the treatment of complicated urinary-tract/intra-abdominal infections and hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated pneumonia. This systematic review and meta-analysis (registered prospectively on PROSPERO, no. CRD42019134099, on 20 January 2020) aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of C/T combination therapy compared to C/T monotherapy for the treatment of severe infections and to describe the prevalence of microorganisms in the included studies. We retrieved literature from PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL, until 26 November 2020. Eligible studies were both randomised trials and nonrandomised studies with a control group, published in the English language and peer-reviewed journals. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were (i) clinical improvement and (ii) microbiological cure. Eight nonrandomised studies were included in the qualitative synthesis: Seven retrospective cohort studies and one case-control study. The meta-analysis of the four studies evaluating all-cause mortality (in total 148 patients: 87 patients treated with C/T alone and 61 patients treated with C/T combination therapy) showed a significant reduction of mortality in patients receiving C/T combination therapy, OR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.10–0.97, p = 0.045. Conversely, the meta-analysis of the studies evaluating clinical improvement and microbiological cure showed no differences in C/T combination therapy compared to C/T monotherapy. The most consistent data come from the analysis of the clinical improvement, n = 391 patients, OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.54–1.74, p = 0.909. In 238 of the 391 patients included (60.8%), C/T was used for the treatment of infections caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

scholarly journals Interventional radiology versus operative management for splenic injuries: a study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e028172
Author(s):  
Masahiro Kashiura ◽  
Noritaka Yada ◽  
Kazuma Yamakawa
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Interventional Radiology ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operative Management ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity ◽  
Non Operative Management

IntroductionOver the past decades, the treatment for blunt splenic injuries has shifted from operative to non-operative management. Interventional radiology such as splenic arterial embolisation generally increases the success rate of non-operative management. However, the type of intervention, such as the first definitive treatment for haemostasis (interventional radiology or surgery) in blunt splenic injuries is unclear. Therefore, we aim to clarify whether interventional radiology improves mortality in patients with blunt splenic trauma compared with operative management by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods and analysisWe will search the following electronic bibliographic databases to retrieve relevant articles for the literature review: Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We will include controlled trials and observational studies published until September 2018. We will screen search results, assess the study population, extract data and assess the risk of bias. Two review authors will extract data independently, and discrepancies will be identified and resolved through a discussion with a third author where necessary. Data from eligible studies will be pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed by using the Mantel-Haenszel χ² test and the I² statistic, and any observed heterogeneity will be quantified using the I² statistic. We will conduct sensitivity analyses according to several factors relevant for the heterogeneity.Ethics and disseminationOur study does not require ethical approval as it is based on the findings of previously published articles. This systematic review will provide guidance on selecting a method for haemostasis of splenic injuries and may also identify knowledge gaps that could direct further research in the field. Results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentations at relevant conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018108304.

632 SUTURED VERSUS MESH-AUGMENTED HIATUS HERNIA REPAIR: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Josipa Petric ◽  
Tim Bright ◽  
David Liu ◽  
Melissa Wee ◽  
David Watson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hiatus Hernia ◽  
Mesh Repair ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hernia Recurrence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Absorbable Mesh ◽  
Hiatal Closure

Abstract   Repair of large hiatus hernias is increasingly being performed. However, there is no consensus for the optimal technique for hiatal closure between sutured versus mesh-augmented (absorbable or non-absorbable) repair. This meta-analysis systematically reviewed published randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing sutured versus mesh-augmented hiatus hernia (HH) repair. Our primary endpoint was HH recurrence at short- and long-term follow-up. Secondary endpoints were: surgical complications, operative times, dysphagia and quality of life. Methods A systematic review of Medline, Scopus (which encompassed Embase), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and PubMed was performed to identify relevant studies comparing mesh-augmented versus sutured HH repair. Data were extracted and compared by meta-analysis, using odds ratio and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Results Seven RCTs were found which compared mesh-augmented (non-absorbable mesh: n = 296; absorbable mesh: n = 92) with sutured repair (n = 347). There were no significant differences for short-term hernia recurrence (defined as 6–12 months, 10.1% mesh versus 15.5% sutured, P = 0.22), long-term hernia recurrence (defined as 3–5 years, 30.7% mesh vs 31.3% sutured, P = 0.69), functional outcomes and patient satisfaction. The only statistically significant difference was that the mesh repair required a longer operation time (P = 0.05, OR 2.33, 95% CI 0.03–24.69). Conclusion Mesh repair for hiatus hernia does not offer any advantage over sutured hiatal closure. As both techniques deliver good and comparable clinical outcomes, a suture only technique is still an appropriate approach.

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 Relationship between hormonal contraceptives and sleep among women of reproductive age: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. e045819
Author(s):  
Jinhui Ma ◽  
Megan Cheng ◽  
Lehana Thabane ◽  
Caihong Ma ◽  
Ning Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Reproductive Age ◽  
Hormonal Contraceptives ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Women Of Reproductive Age

IntroductionThe aetiology of sleep disruptions is unknown, but hormonal fluctuations during the menstrual cycle, pregnancy and menopause have been shown to potentially affect how well a woman sleeps. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate whether hormonal contraceptives are associated with a decreased quality of sleep and increased sleep duration in women of reproductive age.MethodsThis review will analyse data from randomised controlled trials or non-randomised comparative studies investigating the association between hormonal contraceptives and sleep outcomes among women of reproductive age. Reviews addressing the same research question with similar eligibility criteria will be included. A literature search will be performed using the MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from inception to 7 March 2021. The Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias for Randomised Trials V.2.0 and The Risk of Bias for Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool will be used to assess risk of bias for each outcome in eligible studies. Two reviewers will independently assess eligibility of studies and risk of bias and extract the data. All extracted data will be presented in tables and narrative form. For sleep measures investigated by two or more studies with low heterogeneity, we will conduct random-effects meta-analysis to estimate the magnitude of the overall effect of hormonal contraceptives. If studies included in this systematic review form a connected network, a network meta-analysis will be conducted to estimate the comparative effect of different contraceptives. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach will be used to summarise the quality of evidence. Our protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 guidelines.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required as data were sourced from previously reported studies. The findings of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020199958.

scholarly journals Antibiotics for uncomplicated skin abscesses: systematic review and network meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e020991 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wen Wang ◽  
Wenwen Chen ◽  
Yanmei Liu ◽  
Reed Alexander C Siemieniuk ◽  
Ling Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Late Recurrence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Risk Of Treatment

ObjectiveTo assess the impact of adjunctive antibiotic therapy on uncomplicated skin abscesses.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov.Study selectionA BMJ Rapid Recommendation panel provided input on design, important outcomes and the interpretation of the results. Eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) included a comparison of antibiotics against no antibiotics or a comparison of different antibiotics in patients with uncomplicated skin abscesses, and reported outcomes prespecified by the linked guideline panel.Review methodsReviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts for eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We performed random-effects meta-analyses that compared antibiotics with no antibiotics, along with a limited number of prespecified subgroup hypotheses. We also performed network meta-analysis with a Bayesian framework to compare effects of different antibiotics. Quality of evidence was assessed with The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsFourteen RCTs including 4198 patients proved eligible. Compared with no antibiotics, antibiotics probably lower the risk of treatment failure (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.90; low quality), recurrence within 1 month (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77; moderate quality), hospitalisation (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.94; moderate quality) and late recurrence (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.85; moderate quality). However, relative to no use, antibiotics probably increase the risk of gastrointestinal side effects (trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX): OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.58; moderate quality; clindamycin: OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.88; high quality) and diarrhoea (clindamycin: OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.50 to 4.89; high quality). Cephalosporins did not reduce the risk of treatment failure compared with placebo (moderate quality).ConclusionsIn patients with uncomplicated skin abscesses, moderate-to-high quality evidence suggests TMP-SMX or clindamycin confer a modest benefit for several important outcomes, but this is offset by a similar risk of adverse effects. Clindamycin has a substantially higher risk of diarrhoea than TMP-SMX. Cephalosporins are probably not effective.

scholarly journals Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of respiratory rehabilitation following intensive care unit discharge for COVID-19 survivors

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e041184
Author(s):  
Dan Wang ◽  
Jin Li ◽  
Feilong Zhu ◽  
Qianqin Hong ◽  
Ming Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Respiratory Rehabilitation

IntroductionBoth physical and mental disorders may be exacerbated in patients with COVID-19 due to the experience of receiving intensive care; undergoing prolonged mechanical ventilation, sedation, proning and paralysis. Pulmonary rehabilitation is aimed to improve dyspnoea, relieve anxiety and depression, reduce the incidence of related complications, as well as prevent and improve dysfunction. However, the impact of respiratory rehabilitation on discharged patients with COVID-19 is currently unclear, especially on patients who have been mechanically ventilated over 24 hours. Therefore, we aim to investigate the efficacy of respiratory rehabilitation programmes, initiated after discharge from the intensive care unit, on the physical and mental health and health-related quality of life in critical patients with COVID-19.Methods and analysisWe have registered the protocol on PROSPERO and in the process of drafting it, we strictly followed the checklist of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Potocols. We will search the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang, VIP information databases and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. Additionally, ongoing trials in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov and ISRCTN registry will be searched as well. Studies in English or Chinese and from any country will be accepted regardless of study design. Two review authors will independently extract data and assess the quality of included studies. Continuous data are described as standard mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs. Dichotomous data from randomised controlled trials are described as risk ratio(RR) with 95% CIs; otherwise, it is described as odds ratio(OR) with 95% CIs. I2 and the Cochrane’s Q statistic will be used to conduct heterogeneity assessment. The quality of evidence of main outcomes will be evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation(GRADE) criteria. When included studies are sufficient, we will conduct subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis; the publication bias will be statistically analysed using a funnel plot analysis and Egger’s test.Ethics and disseminationOur review, planning to include published studies, does not need the request to the ethical committee. The final results of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal after completion.Patient and public involvementNo patient involved.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020186791.

scholarly journals Delayed antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections: protocol of an individual patient data meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e026925 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beth Stuart ◽  
Hilda Hounkpatin ◽  
Taeko Becque ◽  
Guiqing Yao ◽  
Shihua Zhu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Patient Data ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Antibiotic Prescribing ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Tract Infections

IntroductionDelayed prescribing can be a useful strategy to reduce antibiotic prescribing, but it is not clear for whom delayed prescribing might be effective. This protocol outlines an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies to explore the overall effect of delayed prescribing and identify key patient characteristics that are associated with efficacy of delayed prescribing.Methods and analysisA systematic search of the databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, EBSCO CINAHL Plus and Web of Science was conducted to identify relevant studies from inception to October 2017. Outcomes of interest include duration of illness, severity of illness, complication, reconsultation and patient satisfaction. Study authors of eligible papers will be contacted and invited to contribute raw IPD data. IPD data will be checked against published data, harmonised and aggregated to create one large IPD database. Multilevel regression will be performed to explore interaction effects between treatment allocation and patient characteristics. The economic evaluation will be conducted based on IPD from the combined trial and observational studies to estimate the differences in costs and effectiveness for delayed prescribing compared with normal practice. A decision model will be developed to assess potential savings and cost-effectiveness in terms of reduced antibiotic usage of delayed prescribing and quality-adjusted life years.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the University of Southampton Faculty of Medicine Research Ethics Committee (Reference number: 30068). Findings of this study will be published in peer-reviewed academic journals as well as General Practice trade journals and will be presented at national and international conferences. The results will have important public health implications, shaping the way in which antibiotics are prescribed in the future and to whom delayed prescriptions are issued.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018079400.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document