scholarly journals Ginger on Human Health: A Comprehensive Systematic Review of 109 Randomized Controlled Trials

Nutrients ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nguyen Hoang Anh ◽  
Sun Jo Kim ◽  
Nguyen Phuoc Long ◽  
Jung Eun Min ◽  
Young Cheol Yoon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Population Characteristics ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Clinical Effects ◽  
Evaluation Systems ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Clinical applications of ginger with an expectation of clinical benefits are receiving significant attention. This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive discussion in terms of the clinical effects of ginger in all reported areas. Following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline, randomized controlled trials on the effects of ginger were investigated. Accordingly, 109 eligible papers were fully extracted in terms of study design, population characteristics, evaluation systems, adverse effects, and main outcomes. The reporting quality of the included studies was assessed based on the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials and integrated together with studies that investigated the same subjects. The included studies that examined the improvement of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy, inflammation, metabolic syndromes, digestive function, and colorectal cancer’s markers were consistently supported, whereas other expected functions were relatively controversial. Nevertheless, only 43 clinical trials (39.4%) met the criterion of having a ‘high quality of evidence.’ In addition to the quality assessment result, small populations and unstandardized evaluation systems were the observed shortcomings in ginger clinical trials. Further studies with adequate designs are warranted to validate the reported clinical functions of ginger.

Methodological and Reporting Quality of Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Antibiotic Therapies: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony D Bai ◽  
Adam S Komorowski ◽  
Carson K L Lo ◽  
Pranav Tandon ◽  
Xena X Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Noninferiority Trials ◽  
Noninferiority Margin

Abstract Background Antibiotic noninferiority randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are used for approval of new antibiotics and making changes to antibiotic prescribing in clinical practice. We conducted a systematic review to assess the methodological and reporting quality of antibiotic noninferiority RCTs. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Food and Drug Administration drug database from inception until November 22, 2019, for noninferiority RCTs comparing different systemic antibiotic therapies. Comparisons between antibiotic types, doses, administration routes, or durations were included. Methodological and reporting quality indicators were based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials reporting guidelines. Two independent reviewers extracted the data. Results The systematic review included 227 studies. Of these, 135 (59.5%) studies were supported by pharmaceutical industry. Only 83 (36.6%) studies provided a justification for the noninferiority margin. Reporting of both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were done in 165 (72.7%) studies. The conclusion was misleading in 34 (15.0%) studies. The studies funded by pharmaceutical industry were less likely to be stopped early because of logistical reasons (3.0% vs 19.1%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], .04–.37) and to show inconclusive results (11.1% vs 42.9%; OR = 0.17; 95% CI, .08–.33). The quality of studies decreased over time with respect to blinding, early stopping, reporting of ITT with PP analysis, and having misleading conclusions. Conclusions There is room for improvement in the methodology and reporting of antibiotic noninferiority trials. Quality can be improved across the entire spectrum from investigators, funding agencies, as well as during the peer-review process. There is room for improvement in the methodology and reporting of antibiotic noninferiority trials including justification of noninferiority margin, reporting of intention-to-treat analysis with per-protocol analysis, and having conclusions that are concordant with study results. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020165040.

scholarly journals A Qualitative Systematic Review of the Homeopathic Outcome Studies in Patients with HIV/AIDS

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (42) ◽  
pp. 2-12
Author(s):  
Subhranil Saha ◽  
Malay Mundle ◽  
Shubhamoy Ghosh ◽  
Munmun Koley ◽  
Sk. Intaj Hossain
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Outcome Studies ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Hiv Aids

Background & Aim: Systematic reviews of high-quality randomized controlled trials are crucial to evidence-based medicine. The objective of this review is to test whether there is enough evidence of efficacy of homeopathy from conducted clinical trials in humans suffering from HIV/AIDS. Methods: The study design was criteria-based systematic review of cumulative research and assessment of the methodological quality of only 5 published clinical trials and one review article. Among the clinical outcome studies, 3 studies were of open-label, non-randomized, non-controlled format, 2 were randomized controlled trials and one was a set of replication study. The qualities of the trials were evaluated using a list of validated and pre-defined criteria of good methodology, and the outcomes of the trials were interpreted in relation to their quality. Main outcome measures were methodological qualities in terms of consideration of threats to external, internal, construct and statistical conclusion validity. Results: Trials were too few in number and were not of very high quality. The results showed a positive trend regardless of the quality of the trial or the variety of homeopathy used. The results of this review may be complicated by publication bias. Conclusions: At this moment, the evidences are not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions. So, further evaluation of homeopathy by well-performed controlled trials of high methodological quality is required.

The effect of almond intake on lipid profile: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Omid Asbaghi ◽  
Vihan Moodi ◽  
Amir Hadi ◽  
Elham Eslampour ◽  
Mina Shirinbakhshmasoleh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Lipid Profile ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

A number of clinical trials have examined the effect of almond intake on the lipid profile in recent years; however, the results remain equivocal.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document