scholarly journals Two-Thumb or Two-Finger Technique in Infant Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation by a Single Rescuer? A Meta-Analysis with GOSH Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (14) ◽  
pp. 5214
Author(s):  
Chun-Yu Chang ◽  
Yueh-Tseng Hou ◽  
Yung-Jiun Chien ◽  
Yu-Long Chen ◽  
Po-Chen Lin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ◽  
Cardiopulmonary Arrest ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Compression Rate ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Compression Depth ◽  
Neurological Outcomes ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Off Time

Out-of-hospital infant cardiopulmonary arrest is a fatal and uncommon event. High mortality rates and poor neurological outcomes may be improved by early cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The ongoing debate over two different infant CPR techniques, the two-thumb (TT) and the two-finger (TF) technique, has remained, especially in terms of the adequate compression depth, compression rate, and hands-off time. In this article, we searched three major databases, PubMed, EMBASE (Excerpta Medica database), and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), for randomized control trials which compared the outcomes of interest between the TT and TF techniques in infant CPR. The results showed that the TT technique was associated with higher proportion of adequate compression depth (Mean difference (MD): 19.99%; 95%, Confidence interval (CI): 9.77 to 30.22; p < 0.01) than the TF technique. There was no significant difference in compression rate and hands-off time. In our conclusion, the TT technique is better in terms of adequate compression depth than the TF technique, without significant differences in compression rate and hands-off time.

scholarly journals Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Eculizumab, Inebilizumab, Tocilizumab, and Satralizumab for Neuromyelitis Optica

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rajan Chamlagain ◽  
Sangam shah ◽  
Suman Gaire ◽  
Anuj Krishna Paudel ◽  
Krishna Dahal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Monoclonal Antibody ◽  
Monoclonal Antibodies ◽  
Neuromyelitis Optica ◽  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Quantitative Synthesis ◽  
The Central Nervous System

Neuromyelitis optica is rare, autoimmune-mediated inflammation and demyelination of the central nervous system with a prevalence of 1-2 persons per 100,000 populations. We aim to generate a head-to-head comparison of these drugs with appropriate evidence to guide future trials and treatment guidelines in a patient with recurrent attacks of NMO. We searched the databases like PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Embase for studies published prior to April 2021 using the keywords. Over all 929 patients from 11 different publications were included in the study. Five studies were included for quantitative synthesis. Pooling of studies showed significant mean reduction of ARR in the monoclonal antibody group (-0.26 [-0.35, -0.17], P <0.00001, I2=0%) and the mean difference in EDSS score from baseline in monoclonal antibodies was -0.23(95% CI [-0.43, -0.03], P=0.02, I2=0%). There was no significant difference in frequency of total reported adverse events between monoclonal antibody and the comparator arm (RR: 1.01 [0.95, 1.07], P=0.74, I2=14%). Our findings, particularly seen from the context of a few RCTs, support the pursuit of larger, multi-center RCTs that evaluate the effectiveness of each of the currently available monoclonal antibodies and better describe their adverse risk profile.

Velcro Ties in Early Postoperative Pediatric Tracheostomy Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 019459982096472
Author(s):  
Brent A. Chang ◽  
Joshua Gurberg ◽  
Erin Ware ◽  
Kimberly Luu
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Prospective Trial ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Limited Data ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Randomized Prospective Trial ◽  
The Difference

Objective To systematically review the literature to determine the difference in complications between standard twill and Velcro ties following pediatric tracheostomy. Data Sources MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and CINAHL Plus were searched up to August 2020. Review Methods Two authors independently screened articles for eligibility. Retrospective and prospective studies were included as long as there was a direct comparison between twill and Velcro ties. Quantitative and qualitative analysis was performed. The main outcomes were skin-related complications and accidental decannulation. Results Three studies were included in the final analysis: 1 randomized prospective trial and 2 retrospective studies. There were 238 patients total (137 twill, 101 Velcro). Combined analysis showed skin-related complications in 23% of the Velcro group and 44% of the twill group. Meta-analysis for skin-related complications showed no significant difference when comparing Velcro with standard twill ties (risk ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.24-1.17]; P = .12, n = 238 participants from 3 studies, I2 = 66%). Accidental decannulation rates were overall low and comparable between groups (1.0% of twill, 1.4% of Velcro). Conclusion Based on limited data, skin-related complications were not statistically different between Velcro and twill ties. Accidental decannulation is rare with Velcro and standard twill ties, and both are viable options following pediatric tracheostomy.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of prophylactic use of ketamine for prevention of postanesthetic shivering: a systematic review and meta analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yang Zhou ◽  
Abdul Mannan ◽  
Yuan Han ◽  
He Liu ◽  
Hui-Lian Guan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Incidence Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Postanesthetic Shivering ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Prophylactic Use

Abstract Background Postanesthetic shivering is a common complication of anesthesia, which accounts for much discomfort in postoperative patients and may increase postoperative complications in high-risk patients. Due to the lack of high-quality evidence, it is difficult to draw a conclusion about optimal anti-shivering medication. The main purpose of this meta-analysis was to analyze and evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic use of ketamine for preventing postanesthetic shivering. Methods We searched the following databases: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails for randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome observed was the difference of the incidence rate of postanesthetic shivering between ketamine group and placebo group. The secondary outcomes were the sedation score and incidence of the side effects caused by ketamine and any other drugs utilized in the studies. Results In this meta-analysis, we analyzed a total of 16 trials including 1485 patients. Ketamine reduced the incidence rate of postanesthetic shivering compared to a placebo (odds ratio [OR]: 0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.06 to 0.26, P<0.01). Regarding side effects, there was no evident variability of the incidence of nausea and vomiting. Usage of ketamine was associated with a lower rate of hypotension and bradycardia when compared to a placebo. Hallucinations were more frequently observed in patients who received higher doses of ketamine. No significant difference was found in the incidence of postanesthetic shivering with ketamine versus other pharmacological interventions. Conclusions Ketamine can prevent postanesthetic shivering without severe side effects. However, ketamine shows no advantage over other anti-shivering drugs.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of prophylactic use of ketamine for prevention of postanesthetic shivering: A system review and meta analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yang Zhou ◽  
Abdul Mannan ◽  
Yuan Han ◽  
He Liu ◽  
Hui-Lian Guan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Incidence Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Postanesthetic Shivering ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Prophylactic Use

Abstract Background Postanesthetic shivering is a common complication of anesthesia, which accounts for much discomfort in postoperative patients and may increase postoperative complications in high-risk patients. Due to the lack of high-quality evidence, it is difficult to draw a conclusion about optimal anti-shivering medication. The main purpose of this meta-analysis was to analyze and evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic use of ketamine for preventing postanesthetic shivering. Methods We used a systematic approach, also known as meta-analysis, to further address postoperative shivering. We searched the following databases: Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails for randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome observed was the incidence rate of postanesthetic shivering. The secondary outcomes were the sedation score and incidence of the side effects caused by drugs utilized in the studies. Results In this meta-analysis, we analyzed a total of 16 trials including 1485 patients. Ketamine reduced the incidence rate of postanesthetic shivering compared to a placebo (odds ratio [OR]: 0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.06 to 0.26, P＜0.01). Regarding side effects, there was no evident variability of the incidence of nausea and vomiting. Usage of ketamine was associated with a lower rate of hypotension and bradycardia when compared to a placebo. Hallucinations were more frequently observed in patients who received higher doses of ketamine. No significant difference was found in the incidence of postanesthetic shivering with ketamine versus other pharmacological interventions. Conclusions Ketamine can prevent postanesthetic shivering without severe side effects. However, ketamine shows no advantage over other anti-shivering drugs.

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 A Comparison of Transplant Outcomes in Peritoneal and Hemodialysis Patients: A Meta-Analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maozhi Tang ◽  
Tianyi Li ◽  
Hong Liu
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Journal Club ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Graft Function ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Transplant Outcomes ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Short And Long Term ◽  
The Impact

Background: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD) have been considered the 2 standard pre-transplant dialysis modalities in patients awaiting kidney transplantation. However, the impact of pretransplant dialysis on the short- and long-term post-transplant outcomes remains controversial. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials for this review. Twelve studies were identified by strict screening for the meta-analysis. Results: We found that pretransplant PD patients had a significantly lower incidence of delayed graft function than HD patients, with an OR 0.67 (95% CI 0.62-0.72, p < 0.05). In contrast, there was no significant difference in the incidence of acute rejection, OR 0.96 (95% CI 0.75-1.16). Pretransplant PD had a better 5-year patient survival rate than HD, with a hazard ratio 0.86 (95% CI 0.79-0.95, p < 0.05); however, there were no significant differences in the graft survival rate (p = 0.08). Conclusions: We found that PD was a better choice of pretransplant dialysis modality than HD. Video Journal Club ‘Cappuccino with Claudio Ronco' at http://www.karger.com/?doi=446272.

Effects of TACE and preventive antiviral therapy on HBV reactivation and subsequent hepatitis in hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 49 (7) ◽  
pp. 646-655 ◽  
Author(s):  
Su-Su Zhang ◽  
Jin-Xia Liu ◽  
Jing Zhu ◽  
Ming-Bing Xiao ◽  
Cui-Hua Lu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Antiviral Therapy ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hbv Reactivation ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Fixed Effects Model ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background and aim The impact of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and preventive antiviral therapy on the occurrence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation and subsequent hepatitis remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of TACE and preventive antiviral therapy on the risk of HBV reactivation and subsequent hepatitis. Meanwhile, we explored the role of HBeAg status in HBV reactivation after TACE. Methods We performed this meta-analysis with 11 included studies to assess the effect of TACE and preventive antiviral therapy on predicting clinical outcomes in HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated using a random or fixed effects model. PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled were searched for the included articles (from 2000 to December 2017). Results Our results showed that TACE significantly increased the risk of HBV reactivation (OR: 3.70; 95% CI 1.45–9.42; P < 0.01) and subsequent hepatitis (OR: 4.30; 95% CI 2.28–8.13; P < 0.01) in HCC patients. There was no significant difference in HBV reactivation after TACE between HBeAg positive and negative patients (OR: 1.28; 95% CI 0.31–5.34; P = 0.73). Preventive antiviral therapy could statistically reduce the rate of HBV reactivation (OR: 0.08; 95% CI 0.02–0.32; P < 0.01) and hepatitis (OR: 0.22; 95% CI 0.06–0.80; P = 0.02) in those with TACE treatment. Conclusions The present study suggested that TACE was associated with a higher possibility of HBV reactivation and subsequent hepatitis. Preventive antiviral therapy is significantly in favor of a protective effect.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of prophylactic use of ketamine for prevention of postanesthetic shivering: A system review and meta analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yang Zhou ◽  
Abdul Mannan ◽  
Yuan Han ◽  
He Liu ◽  
Hui-Lian Guan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Incidence Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Postanesthetic Shivering ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Prophylactic Use

Abstract Background Postanesthetic shivering is a common complication of anesthesia, which accounts for much discomfort in postoperative patients and may increase postoperative complications in high-risk patients. Due to the lack of high-quality evidence, it is difficult to draw a conclusion about optimal anti-shivering medication. The main purpose of this meta-analysis was to analyze and evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic use of ketamine for preventing postanesthetic shivering. Methods We used a systematic approach, also known as meta-analysis, to further address postoperative shivering. We searched the following databases: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails for randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome observed was the difference of the incidence rate of postanesthetic shivering between ketamine group and placebo group . The secondary outcomes were the sedation score and incidence of the side effects caused by ketamine and any other drugs utilized in the studies. Results In this meta-analysis, we analyzed a total of 16 trials including 1485 patients. Ketamine reduced the incidence rate of postanesthetic shivering compared to a placebo (odds ratio [OR]: 0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.06 to 0.26, P＜0.01). Regarding side effects, there was no evident variability of the incidence of nausea and vomiting. Usage of ketamine was associated with a lower rate of hypotension and bradycardia when compared to a placebo. Hallucinations were more frequently observed in patients who received higher doses of ketamine. No significant difference was found in the incidence of postanesthetic shivering with ketamine versus other pharmacological interventions. Conclusions Ketamine can prevent postanesthetic shivering without severe side effects. However, ketamine shows no advantage over other anti-shivering drugs.

scholarly journals Prognosis of combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema: comparison with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis alone

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 175346661988811 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chun-guo Jiang ◽  
Qiang Fu ◽  
Chun-ming Zheng
Keyword(s):  
Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis ◽  
Pulmonary Fibrosis ◽  
Poor Prognosis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Lower Lobe ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Review Manager ◽  
Convincing Data

Background: Combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema (CPFE) is a syndrome characterized by the coexistence of upper lobe emphysema and lower lobe fibrosis. However, whether CPFE has a higher or lower mortality than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) alone is still not clear. In this study we conducted a meta-analysis to assess the survival rate (SR) of CPFE versus IPF alone in clinical trials. Methods: We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for trials published prior to 31 March 2018. Extracts from the literature were analyzed with Review Manager version 5.3. Results: Thirteen eligible trials were included in this analysis (involving 1710 participants). Overall, the pooled results revealed that no statistically significant difference was detected in the 1-year [relative risk (RR) = 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.94–1.03, p = 0.47], 3-year (RR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.68–1.01, p = 0.06), and 5-year (RR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.59–1.07, p = 0.14) SRs of CPFE versus IPF alone. Conclusions: CPFE exhibits a very poor prognosis, similar to IPF alone. Additional studies are needed to provide more convincing data to investigate the natural history and outcome of patients with CPFE in comparison to IPF. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document