Faculty Opinions recommendation of Ultrasound compared with nerve stimulation guidance for peripheral nerve catheter placement: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Abstract Background Several neuromodulation methods exists for migraine treatment. The aim of the present study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on migraine treatment using neurostimulation methods. Methods We searched Medline and Embase up to July 1, 2020 for RCTs reporting acute or preventive treatment of migraine with either non-invasive or invasive neurostimulation methods. Two researchers independently assessed the eligibility of the retrieved studies and extracted data. Outcomes for the quantitative synthesis were 2 h pain free for acute treatment and headache days per month for preventive treatment. We performed subgroup analyses by treatment (stimulation method and site of application). Estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Results Thirty-eight articles were included in the qualitative analysis (7 acute, 31 preventive) and 34 in the quantitative evaluation (6 acute, 28 preventive). Remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) was effective for acute treatment. Data were insufficient to draw conclusions for any other techniques (single studies). Invasive occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) was effective for migraine prevention, with a large effect size but considerable heterogeneity, whereas supra-orbital transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS), and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) were effective, with small to medium effect sizes. Vagus-nerve stimulation, left prefrontal cortex rTMS, and cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the M1 had no significant effect and heterogeneity was high. Conclusion Several neuromodulation methods are of potential interest for migraine management, but the quality of the evidence is very poor. Future large and well-conducted studies are needed and could improve on the present results.

Download Full-text

Randomized Controlled Trials for Comparison of Laparoscopic Versus Conventional Open Catheter Placement in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients: A Meta-Analysis

10.21203/rs.2.12772/v3 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Mei-Lan Sun ◽

Yong Zhang(Former Corresponding Author) ◽

Bo Wang ◽

Tean Ma ◽

Hong Jiang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Peritoneal Dialysis ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Catheter Placement ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Large Sample Size ◽

Advantages And Disadvantages ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Aim: The application of laparoscopic catheterization technology in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients has recently increased. However, the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic versus conventional open PD catheter placement are still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the complications of catheterization in PD patients and to provide a reference for choosing a PD-catheter placement technique in the clinic.Methods: We searched numerous databases, including Embase, PubMed, CNKI and the Cochrane Library, for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Results: Eight relevant studies (n=646) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results showed a lower incidence of catheter migration (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.90, P: 0.03) and catheter removal (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.79, P: 0.008) but a higher incidence of bleeding (OR: 3.25, 95% CI: 1.18 to 8.97, P: 0.02) with a laparoscopic approach than with a conventional approach. There was no significant difference in the incidence of omentum adhesion (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.05 to 2.10, P: 0.24), hernia (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.09 to 1.68, P: 0.20), leakage (OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.26, P: 0.23), intestinal obstruction (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.91, P: 0.90) or perforation (OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.06 to 15.42, P: 0.97). The statistical analysis showed no significant difference in early (OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.33, P: 0.15) , late (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.41 to 1.90, P: 0.76) or total (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.12, P: 0.13) peritonitis infections between the 2 groups, and there are no no significant difference in early ( OR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.06 to 2.36, P: 0.30), late ( OR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.78 to 2.33, P: 0.16) or total ( OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.02, P: 0.17) tunnel or exit-site infections between the 2 groups.Conclusion: Laparoscopic catheterization and conventional open catheter placement in PD patients have unique advantages, but laparoscopic PD catheterization may be superior to conventional open catheter placement. However, this conclusion needs to be confirmed with further large-sample-size, multi-centre, high-quality RCTs.

Download Full-text