scholarly journals The Combined Effect of Promoting the Mediterranean Diet and Physical Activity on Metabolic Risk Factors in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Nutrients ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 1577 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evangelia Malakou ◽  
Manolis Linardakis ◽  
Miranda Armstrong ◽  
Dimitra Zannidi ◽  
Charlie Foster ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hdl Cholesterol ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Metabolic Risk Factors ◽  
Combined Effect ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Metabolic Risk ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Adhering to the Mediterranean diet (MD) and physical activity (PA) public health guidelines have independently been linked to health benefits in adults. These behaviours form essential components of the traditional Mediterranean lifestyle. However, their combined effect on metabolic risk has not been systematically assessed. This systematic review with meta-analysis (PROSPERO; CRD42017073958) aimed to examine, for the first time, the combined effect of promoting the MD and PA compared with no treatment, treatment with MD or PA alone, or a different dietary and/or PA treatment, and estimate its magnitude on metabolic risk factors. Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science were systematically searched until March 2018 for English language controlled interventions reporting the combined effects of the MD and PA on one or multiple metabolic risk factors in adults. Two researchers independently conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment using a rigorous methodology. Reporting followed PRISMA guidelines. Quality of reporting and risk of bias were assessed using the CONSORT guidelines and the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool, respectively. Data from 12 articles reporting 11 randomised controlled trials (n = 1684) were included in the qualitative synthesis; across them, risk of bias was considered low, unclear and high for 42%, 25% and 33% of domains, respectively. Between-study heterogeneity ranged from 44% (triglycerides) to 98% (insulin and high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL)-cholesterol). Compared to a control condition, there was strong evidence (p < 0.001) of a beneficial effect of promoting the MD and PA on body weight (−3.68 kg, 95% CI (confidence intervals) −5.48, −1.89), body mass index (−0.64 kg/m2, 95% CI −1.10, −0.18), waist circumference (−1.62 cm, 95% CI −2.58, −0.66), systolic (−0.83 mmHg, 95% CI −1.57, −0.09) and diastolic blood pressure (−1.96 mmHg, 95% CI −2.57, −1.35), HOMA-IR index (−0.90, 95% CI −1.22, −0.58), blood glucose (−7.32 mg/dL, 95% CI −9.82, −4.82), triglycerides (−18.47 mg/dL, 95% CI −20.13, −16.80), total cholesterol (−6.30 mg/dL, 95% CI −9.59, −3.02) and HDL-cholesterol (+3.99 mg/dL, 95% CI 1.22, 6.77). There was no evidence of an effect on insulin concentrations. The data presented here provide systematically identified evidence that concurrently promoting the MD and PA is likely to provide an opportunity for metabolic risk reduction. However, due to the high degree of heterogeneity, most likely due to the variation in control group treatment, and the small number of included studies, findings from the pooled analysis should be interpreted with caution. These findings also highlight the need for high quality randomised controlled trials examining the combined effect of the MD and PA on metabolic risk.

scholarly journals Exercise improves quality of life in androgen deprivation therapy-treated prostate cancer: systematic review of randomised controlled trials

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laisa Teleni ◽  
Raymond J Chan ◽  
Alexandre Chan ◽  
Elisabeth A Isenring ◽  
Ian Vela ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Androgen Deprivation ◽  
Metabolic Risk Factors ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Metabolic Risk ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Men receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer (PCa) are likely to develop metabolic conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, abdominal obesity and osteoporosis. Other treatment-related side effects adversely influence quality of life (QoL) including vasomotor distress, depression, anxiety, mood swings, poor sleep quality and compromised sexual function. The objective of this study was to systematically review the nature and effects of dietary and exercise interventions on QoL, androgen deprivation symptoms and metabolic risk factors in men with PCa undergoing ADT. An electronic search of CINAHL, CENTRAL, Medline, PsychINFO and reference lists was performed to identify peer-reviewed articles published between January 2004 and December 2014 in English. Eligible study designs included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with pre- and post-intervention data. Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality with the Cochrane approach was conducted by two independent reviewers. Seven exercise studies were identified. Exercise significantly improved QoL, but showed no effect on metabolic risk factors (weight, waist circumference, lean or fat mass, blood pressure and lipid profile). Two dietary studies were identified, both of which tested soy supplements. Soy supplementation did not improve any outcomes. No dietary counselling studies were identified. No studies evaluated androgen-deficiency symptoms (libido, erectile function, sleep quality, mood swings, depression, anxiety and bone mineral density). Evidence from RCTs indicates that exercise enhances health- and disease-specific QoL in men with PCa undergoing ADT. Further studies are required to evaluate the effect of exercise and dietary interventions on QoL, androgen deprivation symptoms and metabolic risk factors in this cohort.

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.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychotherapies for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Davide Papola ◽  
Giovanni Ostuzzi ◽  
Federico Tedeschi ◽  
Chiara Gastaldon ◽  
Marianna Purgato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Panic Disorder ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Psychodynamic Therapy ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
First Line ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background Psychotherapies are the treatment of choice for panic disorder, but which should be considered as first-line treatment is yet to be substantiated by evidence. Aims To examine the most effective and accepted psychotherapy for the acute phase of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia via a network meta-analysis. Method We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the most effective and accepted psychotherapy for the acute phase of panic disorder. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CENTRAL, from inception to 1 Jan 2021 for RCTs. Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines were used. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). The protocol was published in a peer-reviewed journal and in PROSPERO (CRD42020206258). Results We included 136 RCTs in the systematic review. Taking into consideration efficacy (7352 participants), acceptability (6862 participants) and the CINeMA confidence in evidence appraisal, the best interventions in comparison with treatment as usual (TAU) were cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) (for efficacy: standardised mean differences s.m.d. = −0.67, 95% CI −0.95 to −0.39; CINeMA: moderate; for acceptability: relative risk RR = 1.21, 95% CI −0.94 to 1.56; CINeMA: moderate) and short-term psychodynamic therapy (for efficacy: s.m.d. = −0.61, 95% CI −1.15 to −0.07; CINeMA: low; for acceptability: RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.54–1.54; CINeMA: moderate). After removing RCTs at high risk of bias only CBT remained more efficacious than TAU. Conclusions CBT and short-term psychodynamic therapy are reasonable first-line choices. Studies with high risk of bias tend to inflate the overall efficacy of treatments. Results from this systematic review and network meta-analysis should inform clinicians and guidelines.

scholarly journals The Effect of Vitamin D Supplementation on Glycaemic Control in Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. 1716 ◽  
Author(s):  
Omorogieva Ojo ◽  
Sharon M. Weldon ◽  
Trevor Thompson ◽  
Elisabeth J. Vargo
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Vitamin D ◽  
Glycaemic Control ◽  
Gestational Diabetes ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vitamin D Supplementation ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Vitamin D deficiency is highly prevalent amongst pregnant women and is linked to a range of adverse complications, including gestational diabetes. However, there is no consensus among researchers regarding the impact of vitamin D supplementation in alleviating adverse effects in gestational diabetes. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine whether supplementation of vitamin D given to women with gestational diabetes can promote glycaemic control. EMBASE and PubMed were searched up to November, 2018. The selection criteria included randomised controlled trials of the effect of vitamin D supplementation (1000–4762 IU/day) on pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Study data and outcome measures (fasting blood glucose, glycated haemoglobin and serum insulin) were extracted from included studies. Random-effects models were used for meta-analyses. Heterogeneity tests, and analysis of the risk of bias were conducted. Most of the studies were graded as having either low risk or moderate risk of bias although two studies had a high risk of bias in the areas of blinding of participants and personnel, and incomplete outcome data. On the other hand, the heterogeneity statistic (I2) ranged from 0–41% in the studies included. Five randomised controlled trials were selected for this review and meta-analysis (involving a total of 173 participants supplemented with vitamin D and 153 participants as control drawn from the studies). Vitamin D supplementation was associated with a decrease in fasting blood glucose by a mean of 0.46 mmol/L (−0.68, −0.25) (p < 0.001), glycated haemoglobin by a mean of 0.37% (−0.65, −0.08) (p < 0.01) and serum insulin concentration by mean of 4.10 µIU/mL (−5.50, −2.71) (p < 0.001) compared to controls. This review shows evidence that vitamin D supplementation has the potential to promote glycaemic control in women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM). However, due to the limited number of studies in the meta-analysis, the conclusion should be interpreted with caution. Further studies are needed to fully understand the exact mechanism by which vitamin D influences glucose metabolism.

scholarly journals Surgical interventions for women with stress urinary incontinence: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. l1842 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mari Imamura ◽  
Jemma Hudson ◽  
Sheila A Wallace ◽  
Graeme MacLennan ◽  
Michal Shimonovich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Urinary Incontinence ◽  
Stress Urinary Incontinence ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Objectives To compare the effectiveness and safety of surgical interventions for women with stress urinary incontinence. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical interventions for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women. Methods Identification of relevant randomised controlled trials from Cochrane reviews and the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register (searched May 2017), which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Medline In-Process, Medline Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP. The reference lists of relevant articles were also searched. Primary outcomes were “cure” and “improvement” at 12 months, analysed by means of network meta-analyses, with results presented as the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Adverse events were analysed using pairwise meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The quality of evidence for network meta-analysis was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results 175 randomised controlled trials assessing a total of 21 598 women were included. Most studies had high or unclear risk across all risk of bias domains. Network meta-analyses were based on data from 105 trials that reported cure and 120 trials that reported improvement of incontinence symptoms. Results showed that the interventions with highest cure rates were traditional sling, retropubic midurethral sling (MUS), open colposuspension, and transobturator MUS, with rankings of 89.4%, 89.1%, 76.7%, and 64.1%, respectively. Compared with retropubic MUS, the odds ratio of cure for traditional sling was 1.06 (95% credible interval 0.62 to 1.85), for open colposuspension was 0.85 (0.54 to 1.33), and for transobtrurator MUS was 0.74 (0.59 to 0.92). Women were also more likely to experience an improvement in their incontinence symptoms after receiving retropubic MUS or transobturator MUS compared with other surgical procedures. In particular, compared with retropubic MUS, the odds ratio of improvement for transobturator MUS was 0.76 (95% credible interval 0.59 to 0.98), for traditional sling was 0.69 (0.39 to 1.26), and for open colposuspension was 0.65 (0.41 to 1.02). Quality of evidence was moderate for retropubic MUS versus transobturator MUS and low or very low for retropubic MUS versus the other two interventions. Data on adverse events were available mainly for mesh procedures, indicating a higher rate of repeat surgery and groin pain but a lower rate of suprapubic pain, vascular complications, bladder or urethral perforation, and voiding difficulties after transobturator MUS compared with retropubic MUS. Data on adverse events for non-MUS procedures were sparse and showed wide confidence intervals. Long term data were limited. Conclusions Retropubic MUS, transobturator MUS, traditional sling, and open colposuspension are more effective than other procedures for stress urinary incontinence in the short to medium term. Data on long term effectiveness and adverse events are, however, limited, especially around the comparative adverse events profiles of MUS and non-MUS procedures. A better understanding of complications after surgery for stress urinary incontinence is imperative. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42016049339.

scholarly journals Multifactorial e- and mHealth interventions for cardiovascular disease primary prevention: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 205520761989048
Author(s):  
Artur Direito ◽  
Jonathan Rawstorn ◽  
Jacqueline Mair ◽  
Reza Daryabeygi-Khotbehsara ◽  
Ralph Maddison ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cvd Risk ◽  
Health Lifestyle ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Preventative Interventions

Objective Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are a leading cause of mortality and disease burden. Preventative interventions to augment the population-level adoption of health lifestyle behaviours that reduce CVD risk are a priority. Face-to-face interventions afford individualisation and are effective for improving health-related behaviours and outcomes, but they are costly and resource intensive. Electronic and mobile health (e- and mHealth) approaches aimed at modifying lifestyle risk factors may be an effective and scalable approach to reach many individuals while preserving individualisation. This systematic review aims to (a) determine the effectiveness of multifactorial e- and mHealth interventions on CVD risk and on lifestyle-related cardiometabolic risk factors and self-management behaviours among adults without CVD; and (b) describe the evidence on adverse events and on the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. Methods Methods were detailed prior to the start of the review in order to improve conduct and prevent inconsistent decision making throughout the review. This protocol was prepared following the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Public Health Group Specialised Register and CENTRAL electronic databases will be searched between 1991 and September 2019. Eligibility criteria are: (a) population: community-dwelling adults; (b) intervention/comparison: randomised controlled trials comparing e- or mHealth CVD risk preventative interventions with usual care; and (c) outcomes: modifiable CVD risk factors. Selection of study reports will involve two authors independently screening titles and abstracts, followed by a full-text review of potentially eligible reports. Two authors will independently undertake data extraction and assess risk of bias. Where appropriate, meta-analysis of outcome data will be performed. Discussion This protocol describes the pre-specified methods for a systematic review that will provide quantitative and narrative syntheses of current multifactorial e- and mHealth CVD preventative interventions. A systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted following the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and reported according to PRISMA guidelines.

scholarly journals Psychological interventions for positive symptoms in schizophrenia: protocol for a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. e019280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene Bighelli ◽  
Georgia Salanti ◽  
Cornelia Reitmeir ◽  
Sofia Wallis ◽  
Corrado Barbui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Psychological Intervention ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Positive Symptoms ◽  
Psychological Treatments ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionThere is rising awareness that we need multidisciplinary approaches integrating psychological treatments for schizophrenia, but a comprehensive evidence based on their relative efficacy is lacking. We will conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA), integrating direct and indirect comparisons from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to rank psychological treatments for schizophrenia according to their efficacy, acceptability and tolerability.Methods and analysisWe will include all RCTs comparing a psychological treatment aimed at positive symptoms of schizophrenia with another psychological intervention or with a no treatment condition (waiting-list and treatment as usual). We will include studies on adult patients with schizophrenia, excluding specific subpopulations (eg, first-episode patients or patients with psychiatric comorbidities). Primary outcome will be the change in positive symptoms on a published rating scale. Secondary outcomes will be acceptability (dropout), change in overall and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, response, relapse, adherence, depression, quality of life, functioning and adverse events. Published and unpublished studies will be sought through database searches, trial registries and websites. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted by at least two independent reviewers. We will conduct random-effects NMA to synthesise all evidences for each outcome and obtain a comprehensive ranking of all treatments. NMA will be conducted in Stata and R within a frequentist framework. The risk of bias in studies will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the credibility of the evidence will be evaluated using an adaptation of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to NMA, recommended by the Cochrane guidance. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to assess the robustness of the findings.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical issues are foreseen. Results from this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017067795.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document