scholarly journals Safety and Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Different Vaccines at Phase 3

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 989
Author(s):  
Yu-Jing Fan ◽  
Kwok-Hung Chan ◽  
Ivan Fan-Ngai Hung
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Viral Vector ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Inactivated Vaccine ◽  
Vaccine Platform ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Inactivated Vaccines

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccines according to vaccine platform and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) infection severity. Articles published between 24 January 2020 and 30 May 2021 were retrieved via a PubMed and EMBASE search. A total of 12 reports on phase-3 clinical trials and observational studies of COVID-19 vaccines were included in the review. In terms of vaccine safety, mRNA vaccines showed more relevance to serious adverse events than viral vector and inactivated vaccines, but no solid evidence indicated that COVID-19 vaccines directly caused serious adverse events. Serious metabolic, musculoskeletal, immune-system, and renal disorders were more common among inactivated vaccine recipients, and serious gastrointestinal complications and infections were more common among viral vector and inactivated vaccine recipients. The occurrence of serious vessel disorders was more frequent in mRNA vaccines. In terms of efficacy, two mRNA vaccine doses conferred a lesser risk of SARS-COV-2 infection (odds ratio: 0.05; 95% confidence interval: 0.02–0.13) than did vaccination with viral vector and inactivated vaccines. All vaccines protected more against symptomatic than asymptomatic cases (risk ratio, 0.11 vs. 0.34), but reduced the risk of severe SARS-COV-2 infection. The COVID-19 vaccines assessed in this study are sufficiently safe and effective. The results indicate that two mRNA vaccine doses prevent SARS-COV-2 infection most effectively, but further research is needed due to the high degree of heterogeneity among studies in this sample. Interventions should be implemented continuously to reduce the risks of infection after one vaccine dose and asymptomatic infection.

scholarly journals The Safety and Efficacy of Ferumoxytol in the Treatment of Iron Deficiency: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4894-4894
Author(s):  
Jameel Abdulrehman ◽  
Grace Tang ◽  
Michael Auerbach ◽  
Michelle Sholzberg
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Oral Iron ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Iv Iron ◽  
Quality Evidence

Abstract Background Iron deficiency (ID) is one of the most common nutritional deficiencies worldwide, with an increased prevalence in pathological states such as end stage renal disease and inflammatory bowel disorders. Iron stores can be replenished by either oral or intravenous (IV) formulations, however IV formulations are known to raise iron stores more quickly and reliably. Ferumoxytol is an IV iron formulation used in the treatment of ID that, advantageously, can be given in large doses over a short period of time. Despite the initial large quantity of post-marketing reports of serious adverse events (SAEs), multiple clinical trials have failed to demonstrate a significant safety signal. Objectives To determine the safety and efficacy of ferumoxytol in the treatment of ID compared to other IV and oral iron formulations, and placebo. Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the Cochrane Handbook, and was reported as per Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, and EMBASE from inception until February 2018 as well as trial registries and reference lists of relevant articles. All randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing ferumoxytol to alternate IV iron, oral iron, or placebo were included. Outcomes included treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs), treatment related adverse events (TRAEs), SAEs, related serious adverse events (RSAEs), hypotension or hypersensitivity reactions (HHR) and composite cardiovascular outcomes (CCO). Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed included studies for risk of bias. If required, additional data was sought from trial authors. Meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager 5.3. Data was pooled using random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool Risk of Bias. The GRADE approach was used to assess quality of evidence. Results The review included nine studies, one of which was a cross-over trial. These included 5691 participants (mean age 54.3, study mean range 30 to 65.1 years). Ferumoxytol was compared to alternate IV iron in three studies, to oral iron in two, and to placebo in four. Overall, studies were at low risk of bias (see figure 1). There was high quality evidence that relative to other IV iron formulations, ferumoxytol has little to no increase in the achievement of a minimum 1g/dL increase in hemoglobin (Relative Risk [RR] 1.04, 95%Confidence Interval [CI] 0.96 to 1.12; 767 participants pooled (pp) from 2 trials)), low quality evidence that it has little to no decrease in TEAE (RR 0.88, 95%CI 0.80 to 0.97; 2764 pp from 3 trials), little to no decrease in TRAEs (RR 0.73, 95%CI 0.61 to 0.88; 2764 pp from 3 trials), little to no increase on SAEs (RR 1.13, 95%CI 0.77 to 1.67; 2764 pp from 3 trials), and little to no decrease in RSAEs (RR 0.58, 95%CI 0.13 to 2.55; 2764 pp from 3 trials), very low quality evidence that it has little to no decrease in HHR (RR 0.58, 95%CI 0.31 to 1.09; 2764 pp from 3 trials) and moderate quality evidence that it has little to no decrease on CCO (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.29; 2602 pp from 2 trials). Compared to oral iron, ferumoxytol had less TEAEs (RR 0.78, 95%CI 0.61 to 0.98; 515 pp from 2 trials), but compared to placebo ferumoxytol had more (RR 1.62, 95%CI 1.01 to 2.61; 2348 pp from 3 trials). Publication bias was not assessed due to the limited number of studies included. Conclusions Upon review of the available evidence, ferumoxytol is probably as efficacious as alternative IV iron formulations with no clear safety concerns. In addition, ferumoxytol had less TEAEs compared to oral iron formulations, but more compared to placebo. Disclosures Auerbach: AMAG Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacosmos A/S: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review of published and unpublished data with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Juul ◽  
Faiza Siddiqui ◽  
Marija Barbateskovic ◽  
Caroline Kamp Jørgensen ◽  
Michael Pascal Hengartner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Harmful Effects

Abstract Background Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide. Antidepressants are frequently used to treat major depressive disorder. It has been shown repeatedly that antidepressants seem to reduce depressive symptoms with a statistically significant effect, but the clinical importance of the effect sizes seems questionable. Both beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants have not previously been sufficiently assessed. The main objective of this review will be to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. Methods/design A systematic review with meta-analysis will be reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2 (ROB2), our eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, Trial Sequential Analysis will be conducted to control for random errors, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. To identify relevant trials, we will search both for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases from their inception to the present. Clinical study reports will be obtained from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Two review authors will independently screen the results of the literature searches, extract data, and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include any published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing one or more antidepressants with placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The following active agents will be included: agomelatine, amineptine, amitriptyline, bupropion, butriptyline, cianopramine, citalopram, clomipramine, dapoxetine, demexiptiline, desipramine, desvenlafaxine, dibenzepin, dosulepin, dothiepin, doxepin, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, imipramine, iprindole, levomilnacipran, lofepramine, maprotiline, melitracen, metapramine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, nortriptyline, noxiptiline, opipramol, paroxetine, protriptyline, quinupramine, reboxetine, sertraline, trazodone, tianeptine, trimipramine, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine. Primary outcomes will be depressive symptoms, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be suicide or suicide attempt, suicidal ideation, and non-serious adverse events. Discussion As antidepressants are commonly used to treat major depressive disorder in adults, a systematic review evaluating their beneficial and harmful effects is urgently needed. This review will inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of this highly prevalent and burdensome disorder. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020220279

Safety and Efficacy of Fremanezumab for the Prevention of Migraine: a Meta-analysis from Random Clinical Trails

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bixi Gao ◽  
Nan Sun ◽  
Yanbo Yang ◽  
Yue Sun ◽  
Mingjia Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Neurological Diseases ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Therapeutic Drugs ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
Calcitonin Gene ◽  
Clinical Trails

Abstract Background Fremanezumab (TEV-48125) is a fully humanized immunoglobulin G isotype 2a selective monoclonal antibody that potently binds to calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP). It is one of novel therapeutic drugs for the prevention of migraine, which is one of the most common neurological diseases worldwide. Several clinical trails have been conducted to investigate the safety and efficacy of fremanezumab, but there is no systematic review of existing literature has been performed. Hence, we performed a meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of fremanezumab for prevention of migraine. Method Pubmed (MEDLINE), Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from January 2001 to August 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Five RCTs with 3379 patients were finally included in our study. Result We pooled 3379 patients from 5 RCTs, the primary endpoints were mean monthly migraine and headache days, baseline to week 12. We found that fremanezumab led to a significant reduction in migraine days (P < 0.0001) and headache days (P < 0.0001) during 12 weeks compared with placebo. In addition, after using fremanezumab, the risk of at least one adverse event (P=0.001) or related to the trail regimen (P=0.0005) significantly increase compared with placebo. Conclusions Fremanezumab has good efficacy for the prevention of migraine. The administration of fremanezumab can cause some mild adverse events but not serious adverse events.

scholarly journals Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review with network meta-analysis including individual patient data (The LIVING VACCINE Project)

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Kwasi Korang ◽  
Sophie Juul ◽  
Emil Eik Nielsen ◽  
Joshua Feinberg ◽  
Faiza Siddiqui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Viral Vector ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Harmful Effects

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) which has rapidly spread worldwide. Several human randomized clinical trials assessing potential vaccines are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living systematic review that continuously assesses the beneficial and harmful effects of all available vaccines for COVID-19. Methods/design We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any vaccine aiming to prevent COVID-19 (including but not limited to messenger RNA; DNA; non-replicating viral vector; replicating viral vector; inactivated virus; protein subunit; dendritic cell; other vaccines) with any comparator (placebo; “active placebo;” no intervention; standard care; an “active” intervention; another vaccine for COVID-19) for participants in all age groups. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality; a diagnosis of COVID-19; and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be quality of life and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analyses, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Within-study bias will be assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) and Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approaches will be used to assess certainty of evidence. Observational studies describing harms identified during the search for trials will also be included and described and analyzed separately. Discussion COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review assessing the beneficial and harmful effects of different vaccines is urgently needed. This living systematic review will regularly inform best practice in vaccine prevention and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020196492

scholarly journals Adverse events of exercise therapy in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (18) ◽  
pp. 1073-1080 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andre Niemeijer ◽  
Hans Lund ◽  
Signe Nilssen Stafne ◽  
Thomas Ipsen ◽  
Cathrine Luhaäär Goldschmidt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Relative Risk ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Exercise Therapy ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveTo evaluate the relative risk (RR) of serious and non-serious adverse events in patients treated with exercise therapy compared with those in a non-exercising control group.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPrimary studies were identified based on The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews investigating the effect of exercise therapy.Eligibility criteriaAt least two of the authors independently evaluated all identified reviews and primary studies. Randomised controlled trials were included if they compared any exercise therapy intervention with a non-exercising control. Two authors independently extracted data. The RR of serious and non-serious adverse events was estimated separately.Results180 Cochrane reviews were included and from these, 773 primary studies were identified. Of these, 378 studies (n=38 368 participants) reported serious adverse events and 375 studies (n=38 517 participants) reported non-serious adverse events. We found no increase in risk of serious adverse events (RR=0.96 (95%CI 0.90 to 1.02, I2: 0.0%) due to exercise therapy. There was, however, an increase in non-serious adverse events (RR=1.19 (95%CI 1.09 to 1.30, I2: 0.0%). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome for non-serious adverse events was 6 [95%CI 4 to 11).ConclusionParticipating in an exercise intervention increased the relative risk of non-serious adverse events, but not of serious adverse events. Exercise therapy may therefore be recommended as a relatively safe intervention.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42014014819.

scholarly journals Second-generation antipsychotic drugs and short-term somatic serious adverse events: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (9) ◽  
pp. 753-765 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Schneider-Thoma ◽  
Orestis Efthimiou ◽  
Irene Bighelli ◽  
Carola Dörries ◽  
Maximilian Huhn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Antipsychotic Drugs ◽  
Second Generation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Second Generation Antipsychotic

scholarly journals Long-acting muscarinic antagonists vs. long-acting β 2 agonists in COPD exacerbations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 302-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Israel Silva Maia ◽  
Mariângela Pimentel Pincelli ◽  
Victor Figueiredo Leite ◽  
João Amadera ◽  
Anna Maria Buehler
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Therapeutic Effects ◽  
Muscarinic Antagonists ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Exacerbation Rate ◽  
Copd Exacerbations ◽  
Long Acting

ABSTRACT Objective: To determine whether long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) provide superior therapeutic effects over long-acting β2 agonists (LABAs) for preventing COPD exacerbations. Methods: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials involving patients with stable, moderate to severe COPD according to the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease criteria, treated with a LAMA (i.e., tiotropium bromide, aclidinium, or glycopyrronium), followed for at least 12 weeks and compared with controls using a LABA in isolation or in combination with a corticosteroid. Results: A total of 2,622 studies were analyzed for possible inclusion on the basis of their title and abstract; 9 studies (17,120 participants) were included in the analysis. In comparison with LABAs, LAMAs led to a greater decrease in the exacerbation rate ratio (relative risk [RR] = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.84-0.93]; a lower proportion of patients who experienced at least one exacerbation (RR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.87-0.94; p < 0.00001); a lower risk of exacerbation-related hospitalizations (RR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.69-0.87; p < 0.0001); and a lower number of serious adverse events (RR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.67-0.96; p = 0.0002). The overall quality of evidence was moderate for all outcomes. Conclusions: The major findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis were that LAMAs significantly reduced the exacerbation rate (exacerbation episodes/year), as well as the number of exacerbation episodes, of hospitalizations, and of serious adverse events.

scholarly journals Manipulation and Mobilization for Treating Chronic Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for an Appropriateness Panel

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (22.2) ◽  
pp. E55-E70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian D. Coulter
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Chronic Neck Pain ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Sample Sizes ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Multiple Treatment

Background: Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used by patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain; however, questions remain around efficacy, dosing, and safety, as well as how these approaches compare to other therapies. Objectives: Based on published trials, to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic nonspecific neck pain. Study Design: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Methods: We identified studies published between January 2000 and September 2017, by searching multiple electronic databases, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation and/or mobilization therapies to sham, no treatment, each other, and other active therapies, or when combined as multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias by using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. When possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project was funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under award number U19AT007912 and ultimately used to inform an appropriateness panel. Results: A total of 47 randomized trials (47 unique trials in 53 publications) were included in the systematic review. These studies were rated as having low risk of bias and included a total of 4,460 patients with nonspecific chronic neck pain who were being treated by a practitioner using various types of manipulation and/or mobilization interventions. A total of 37 trials were categorized as unimodal approaches and involved thrust or nonthrust compared with sham, no treatment, or other active comparators. Of these, only 6 trials with similar intervention styles, comparators, and outcome measures/timepoints were pooled for meta-analysis at 1, 3, and 6 months, showing a small effect in favor of thrust plus exercise compared to an exercise regimen alone for a reduction in pain and disability. Multimodal approaches appeared to be effective at reducing pain and improving function from the 10 studies evaluated. Health-related quality of life was seldom reported. Some 22/47 studies did not report or mention adverse events. Of the 25 that did, either no or minor events occurred. Limitations: The current evidence is heterogeneous, and sample sizes are generally small. Conclusions: Studies published since January 2000 provide low-moderate quality evidence that various types of manipulation and/or mobilization will reduce pain and improve function for chronic nonspecific neck pain compared to other interventions. It appears that multimodal approaches, in which multiple treatment approaches are integrated, might have the greatest potential impact. The studies comparing to no treatment or sham were mostly testing the effect of a single dose, which may or may not be helpful to inform practice. According to the published trials reviewed, manipulation and mobilization appear safe. However, given the low rate of serious adverse events, other types of studies with much larger sample sizes would be required to fully describe the safety of manipulation and/or mobilization for nonspecific chronic neck pain. Key words: Chronic neck pain, nonspecific, chiropractic, manipulation, mobilization, systematic review, meta-analysis, appropriateness

scholarly journals Prone Positioning of Non-intubated Patients with COVID-19 - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mallikarjuna Reddy PONNAPA REDDY ◽  
Ashwin SUBRAMANIAM ◽  
Zheng Jie LIM ◽  
Alexandr ZUBAREV ◽  
Afsana AFROZ ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Prone Positioning ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Lack Of Control ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Substantial Heterogeneity ◽  
Major Adverse Events

Abstract Purpose: Several studies have reported adopting prone positioning (PP) in non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related hypoxaemic respiratory failure. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the impact of PP on oxygenation and clinical outcomes.Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase and the COVID-19 living systematic review from December 1, 2019 to July 23, 2020. We included studies that reported using PP in hypoxaemic, non-intubated adult patients with COVID-19. Primary outcome measureed was the weighted mean difference (MD) in oxygenation parameters (PaO2/FiO2, PaO2 or SpO2) pre and post-PP. Results: Fifteen single arm observational studies reporting PP in 449 patients were included. Substantial heterogeneity was noted in terms of, location within hospital where PP was instituted, respiratory supports during PP, and frequency and duration of PP. Significant improvement in oxygenation was reported post-PP: PaO2/FiO2 (MD 37.6, 95% CI 18.8-56.5); PaO2 (MD 30.4 mmHg, 95% CI 10.9 to 49.9); and SpO2 (MD 5.8%, 95% CI 3.7 to 7.9). Patients with a pre-PP PaO2/FiO2 ≤150 experienced greater oxygenation improvements compared with those with a pre-PP PaO2/FiO2 >150 (MD 40.5, 95% CI -3.5 to 84.6) vs. 37, 95% CI 17.1 to 56.9). Respiratory rate decreased post-PP (MD -2.9, 95% CI -5.4 to -0.4). Overall intubation and mortality rates were 21% (90/426) and 26% (101/390) respectively. There were no major adverse events reported. Conclusions: Despite the significant variability in frequency and duration of PP and respiratory supports applied, PP was associated with improvements in oxygenation parameters without any reported serious adverse events. The results are limited by lack of control arm and adjustment for confounders. Clinical trials are required to determine the effect of awake PP on patient-centred outcomes.Systematic review registration: Registration/protocol in PROSPERO (CRD42020194080).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document