Faculty Opinions recommendation of The safety and efficacy of red cell transfusions in neonates: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Author(s):  
Saskia de Wildt ◽  
Erik Buijs
2012 ◽  
Vol 158 (3) ◽  
pp. 370-385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vidheya Venkatesh ◽  
Rizwan Khan ◽  
Anna Curley ◽  
Sally Hopewell ◽  
Carolyn Doree ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chunxia Huang ◽  
Zunjiang Li ◽  
Yingxin Long ◽  
Dongli Li ◽  
Manhua Huang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: The sedative effect of intraoperative sedation in elderly surgery exerts critical influence on the prognosis. Comparison on the safety and efficacy between Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam in many clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were inconsistent and suspicious. We aimed to comprehensively evaluate the safety and efficacy between Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam for intraoperative sedation in the elderly via meta-analysis and systematic reviews.Methods: RCTs regarding to the comparison of sedative effects and safety between Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam in elderly patients (aged ≥ 60 years) will be comprehensively searched from 2000.10 to 2021.05 through 4 English databases and 4 Chinese databases. After extraction in duplicate, the systematic review and meta-analysis will be performed on the primary outcomes (hemodynamic changes, sedative effect, cognitive function) and secondary outcomes (analgesic effect, surgical characteristics, complications or adverse reactions) for assessing the two therapy methods using Review manage software (Version 5.3). Sensitivity analysis will be conducted to evaluate the heterogeneity of the results, funnel plot and Egger’s test will be performed to analyze publication bias of the included studies, and test sequential analysis will be applied to assess the robustness and reliability of preliminary meta-analysis results. Finally, rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations on the meta results will be summarized by rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations (GRADE) approach. Discussion: This systematic review and meta-analysis will evaluate the safety and efficacy between Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam for intraoperative sedation in the elderly, it will give an insight on the application of Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam, and will provide evidences-based reference for clinical decision makings.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO (CRD42021221897).


2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. E53-E65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naghmeh Foroutan ◽  
Robert B. Hopkins ◽  
Jean-Eric Tarride ◽  
Ivan D. Florez ◽  
Mitchell Levine

Objective: The objective of this study was to systematically review and conduct a direct and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that have examined the clinical safety and efficacy of using passive and active immunotherapies in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Research questions: (1) Is amyloid-based immunotherapy in patients with mild-to-moderate AD associated with more efficacy benefits compared to placebo? (2) Which immunotherapy agent is associated with more comparative benefit? (3) Is passive or active immunotherapy associated with more benefits? Data sources: A systematic review of published randomized controlled trials was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane library. Review methods and meta-analysis: Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data and assessed risk of bias. Important AD cognitive scales as clinical efficacy outcomes were ADAS-cog, CDR and MMSE whereas edema, neoplasms and mortality were included as safety outcomes. A direct comparison meta-analysis using a random effect model and a network (direct and indirect) comparison was conducted to calculate mean differences in treatment effects, SUCRA and ranking probabilities for each medicine per safety and efficacy outcome. Quality of network results were assessed using GRADE methodology. Principle findings: Thirteen RCT-assessed patients with mild-to-moderate AD were included in the final analysis. The results showed that immunotherapies compared with placebo produced a statistically, but not clinically significant, improvement in ADAS-cog (MD=-0.39; 95% CI -0.42, -0.35, P=0.00) and MMSE. In terms of safety, the rate of ARIA-E was significantly higher with monoclonal antibodies. Solanezumab and AN1792 (vaccine) were the drugs of choice both from efficacy and safety perspectives. Conclusion: In terms of efficacy, the review showed a statistically, but not clinically significant, improvement in favor of immunotherapy versus placebo. Further clinical trials are required to demonstrate any cognitive benefits of immunotherapies in mild-to-moderate AD.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document