scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Intranasal Ketamine for Acute Pain Management in the Emergency Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (17) ◽  
pp. 3978
Author(s):  
Yee Sin Seak ◽  
Junainah Nor ◽  
Tuan Hairulnizam Tuan Kamauzaman ◽  
Ariff Arithra ◽  
Md Asiful Islam
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Acute Pain ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Emergency Setting ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Acute Pain Management ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Mean Differences ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Due to overcrowding, personnel shortages, or problematic intravenous (IV) cannulation, acute pain management is often sub-optimal in emergency departments (EDs). The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intranasal (IN) ketamine for adult acute pain in the emergency setting. We searched and identified studies up to 21 May 2021 via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Database, and Google Scholar. The random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was used to estimate mean differences (MDs) and odds ratios (ORs). The I2 statistic and Cochran’s Q test were used to determine heterogeneity. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020213391). Seven randomised controlled trials were included with a total of 1760 patients. There was no significant difference in pain scores comparing IN ketamine with IV analgesics or placebo at 5 (MD 0.94, p = 0.26), 15 (MD 0.15, p = 0.74), 25 (MD 0.24, p = 0.62), 30 (MD −0.05, p = 0.87), and 60 (MD −0.42, p = 0.53) minutes. There was also no significant difference in the need for rescue analgesics between IN ketamine and IV analgesics (OR 1.66, 95% CI: 0.57−4.86, p = 0.35, I2 = 70%). Only mild adverse effects were observed in patients who received IN ketamine. Our results suggest that IN ketamine is non-inferior to IV analgesics and may have a role in acute pain management among adults in the ED.

scholarly journals Intranasal ketamine for acute pain management in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (9) ◽  
pp. 1860-1866
Author(s):  
Lucas Oliveira J. e Silva ◽  
John Y. Lee ◽  
Fernanda Bellolio ◽  
James L. Homme ◽  
Jana L. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Acute Pain ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Acute Pain Management

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of bupropion for smoking cessation and reduction in schizophrenia: systematic review and meta-analysis

2010 ◽  
Vol 196 (5) ◽  
pp. 346-353 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Tai-yin Tsoi ◽  
Mamta Porwal ◽  
Angela Claire Webster
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Negative Symptoms ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Smoking Abstinence ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
End Of Treatment ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundThe benefits and harms of bupropion as an aid for smoking cessation in schizophrenia remain uncertain.AimsTo summarise the current evidence for efficacy and safety of bupropion as treatment for nicotine dependence in schizophrenia.MethodSystematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bupropion with placebo or alternative therapeutic control in adult smokers with schizophrenia.ResultsTwenty-one reports from seven RCTs were included. Biochemically verified self-reported smoking cessation rates after bupropion were significantly higher than placebo at the end of treatment (risk ratio (RR) = 2.57, P = 0.004) and at 6 months (RR = 2.78, P = 0.05). Expired carbon monoxide level was significantly lower with bupropion at the end of therapy (P = 0.002) but not at 6 months (P = 0.37). There was no significant difference in positive (P = 0.28) or negative symptoms (P = 0.49) between the bupropion and the placebo group.ConclusionsBupropion increases the rates of smoking abstinence in smokers with schizophrenia, without jeopardising their mental state.

90 Intranasal Ketamine for Acute Pain Management in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. S36
Author(s):  
J.Y. Organick-Lee ◽  
L. Oliveira JE Silva ◽  
F. Bellolio ◽  
J. Homme ◽  
J. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Acute Pain ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Acute Pain Management

Copper Concentrations in Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (37) ◽  
pp. 6373-6383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leila Jouybari ◽  
Faezeh Kiani ◽  
Farhad Islami ◽  
Akram Sanagoo ◽  
Fatemeh Sayehmiri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Breast Tissue ◽  
Reference Lists ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cancer Risks ◽  
Hair Samples ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Mean Differences ◽  
Very High

: Breast cancer is the most common neoplasm, comprising 16% of all women's cancers worldwide. Research of Copper (Cu) concentrations in various body specimens have suggested an association between Cu levels and breast cancer risks. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarize the results of published studies and examine this association. We searched the databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar and the reference lists of relevant publications. The Standardized Mean Differences (SMDs) between Cu levels in cancer cases and controls and corresponding Confidence Intervals (CIs), as well as I2 statistics, were calculated to examine heterogeneity. Following the specimens used in the original studies, the Cu concentrations were examined in three subgroups: serum or plasma, breast tissue, and scalp hair. We identified 1711 relevant studies published from 1984 to 2017. There was no statistically significant difference between breast cancer cases and controls for Cu levels assayed in any studied specimen; the SMD (95% CI) was -0.01 (-1.06 - 1.03; P = 0.98) for blood or serum, 0.51 (-0.70 - 1.73; P = 0.41) for breast tissue, and -0.88 (-3.42 - 1.65; P = 0.50) for hair samples. However, the heterogeneity between studies was very high (P < 0.001) in all subgroups. We did not find evidence for publication bias (P = 0.91). The results of this meta-analysis do not support an association between Cu levels and breast cancer. However, due to high heterogeneity in the results of original studies, this conclusion needs to be confirmed by well-designed prospective studies.

Is there Sex-related Outcome Difference According to oral P2Y12 Inhibitors in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 107,126 Patients

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-203
Author(s):  
Oliver Brown ◽  
Jennifer Rossington ◽  
Gill Louise Buchanan ◽  
Giuseppe Patti ◽  
Angela Hoye
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndromes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Indirect Comparison ◽  
Bleeding Risk ◽  
Cardiovascular Death ◽  
P2y12 Inhibitors ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Coronary Syndromes ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background and Objectives: The majority of patients included in trials of anti-platelet therapy are male. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether, in addition to aspirin, P2Y12 blockade is beneficial in both women and men with acute coronary syndromes. </P><P> Methods: Electronic databases were searched and nine eligible randomised controlled studies were identified that had sex-specific clinical outcomes (n=107,126 patients). Risk Ratios (RR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were calculated for a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke (MACE), and a safety endpoint of major bleeding for each sex. Indirect comparison analysis was performed to statistically compare ticagrelor against prasugrel. </P><P> Results: Compared to aspirin alone, clopidogrel reduced MACE in men (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.92; p=0.003), but was not statistically significant in women (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.02, p=0.08). Clopidogrel therapy significantly increased bleeding in women but not men. Compared to clopidogrel, prasugrel was beneficial in men (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.97; p=0.02) but not statistically significant in women (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.06; p=0.30); ticagrelor reduced MACE in both men (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.94; p=0.001) and women (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.97; p=0.02). Indirect comparison demonstrated no significant difference between ticagrelor and prasugrel in either sex. Compared to clopidogrel, ticagrelor and prasugrel increased bleeding risk in both women and men. </P><P> Conclusion: In summary, in comparison to monotherapy with aspirin, P2Y12 inhibitors reduce MACE in women and men. Ticagrelor was shown to be superior to clopidogrel in both sexes. Prasugrel showed a statistically significant benefit only in men; however indirect comparison did not demonstrate superiority of ticagrelor over prasugrel in women.

scholarly journals Comparative efficacy and safety of interventions for treating head lice: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e001129
Author(s):  
Bill Stevenson ◽  
Wubshet Tesfaye ◽  
Julia Christenson ◽  
Cynthia Mathew ◽  
Solomon Abrha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Head Lice ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundHead lice infestation is a major public health problem around the globe. Its treatment is challenging due to product failures resulting from rapidly emerging resistance to existing treatments, incorrect treatment applications and misdiagnosis. Various head lice treatments with different mechanism of action have been developed and explored over the years, with limited report on systematic assessments of their efficacy and safety. This work aims to present a robust evidence summarising the interventions used in head lice.MethodThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis which will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement for network meta-analyses. Selected databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials exploring head lice treatments. Searches will be limited to trials published in English from database inception till 2021. Grey literature will be identified through Open Grey, AHRQ, Grey Literature Report, Grey Matters, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry. Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved via a third reviewer. The primary outcome measure is the relative risk of cure at 7 and 14 days postinitial treatment. Secondary outcome measures may include adverse drug events, ovicidal activity, treatment compliance and acceptability, and reinfestation. Information from direct and indirect evidence will be used to generate the effect sizes (relative risk) to compare the efficacy and safety of individual head lice treatments against a common comparator (placebo and/or permethrin). Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations guideline for network meta-analysis. All quantitative analyses will be conducted using STATA V.16.DiscussionThe evidence generated from this systematic review and meta-analysis is intended for use in evidence-driven treatment of head lice infestations and will be instrumental in informing health professionals, public health practitioners and policy-makers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017073375.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document