scholarly journals Antioxidant Therapy for Pain Relief in Patients with Chronic Pancreatitis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2013 ◽  
Vol 6;16 (6;11) ◽  
pp. E521-E532
Author(s):  
Sheng-Xi Wu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Pancreatitis ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Antioxidant Therapy ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Mean Differences

Background: Currently, there is no specific therapy for chronic pancreatitis (CP). The treatment of micronutrient antioxidant therapy for painful CP has been sporadically used for more than 30 years, however, its efficacy are still poorly understood. Objective: The purpose of this meta-analysis is to investigate the safety and efficacy of antioxidant therapy for pain relief in patients with CP. Setting: University Hospital in China Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis Methods: Two authors independently reviewed the search results and extracted data and disagreements were resolved by discussion. Effects were summarized using standardized mean differences (SMDs), weighted mean differences, or odds ratio (OR) according to the suitable effect model. MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 1980 through December 2012. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that studied antioxidant supplementation for pain relief in patients with CP were analyzed. Results: Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 390 patients were included. Overall, there was no association of antioxidant therapy with pain reduction in CP patients (SMD, −0.55; 95% CI, −1.22 to 0.12; P = 0.67). However, antioxidant therapy significantly increased blood levels of antioxidants in CP patients versus the placebo group (SMD, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.43; P < 0.00001). Interestingly, combined antioxidant (selenium, β-carotene, vitamin C, vitamin E, methionine) therapy was found to be associated with pain relief (SMD, -0.93; 95% CI, -1.72 to -0.14; P = 0.02), while the trials in which a single antioxidant was used revealed no significant pain relief (SMD, -0.12; 95% CI, -1.23 to 0.99; P = 0.83) in CP patients. Strong evidence was obtained that the antioxidants increased adverse effects (OR, 6.09; 95% CI, 2.29 to 16.17, P < 0.01); nevertheless, none was serious. Limitations: Because of the small sample, a consolidated conclusion cannot be reached based on current RCTs. Large-sample RCTs are needed to clarify the analgesic effect of antioxidants in CP patients. Conclusions: Combined antioxidant therapy seems to be a safe and effective therapy for pain relief in CP patients. Measures of total antioxidant status may not help to monitor the efficacy of antioxidant therapy for patients with CP. Key words: Antioxidant, pain, chronic pancreatitis, meta-analysis

scholarly journals Effect of Berry Polyphenols on Glucose Metabolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Theresa F Rambaran ◽  
Jonathan Bergman ◽  
Peter Nordström ◽  
Anna Nordström
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Glucose Metabolism ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Inverse Variance ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Mean Differences

ABSTRACT The effect of berry polyphenols on glucose metabolism has been evaluated in several studies; however, the results are conflicting. A systematic review and meta-analysis was therefore conducted to evaluate the effect of berry polyphenol consumption on glucose metabolism in adults with impaired glucose tolerance or insulin resistance. PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL (EBSCO), and Scopus were searched for randomized controlled trials published by June 2019. Of the 3240 articles found, 21 met inclusion criteria. Study-specific effects were calculated as mean differences, which were pooled using fixed-effect, inverse-variance weighting. Overall, berry polyphenol consumption did not have a clear effect on biomarkers of glucose metabolism compared with placebo or no treatment. Although some analyses showed statistically significant effects, these effects were too small to be of clinical relevance. The review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews as CRD42019130811.

scholarly journals Melatonin and Cardioprotection in Humans: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Domínguez-Rodríguez ◽  
Pedro Abreu-González ◽  
Néstor Báez-Ferrer ◽  
Russel J. Reiter ◽  
Pablo Avanzas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Favorable Effect ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Weighted Mean ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Mean Differences

Myocardial ischemia/reperfusion (IR) injury represents a critical problem associated with interventional approaches for coronary reperfusion. Pharmacological cardioprotective interventions are advocated to ameliorate IR injury. Melatonin is an anti-inflammatory and antioxidant agent with a wide range of therapeutic properties that may contribute to its cardioprotective effects. No systematic review or meta-analysis has compared melatonin vs. placebo as a cardioprotective agent in humans. The present study, based on a systematic review and meta-analysis, was carried out to assess melatonin's efficacy as a cardioprotective treatment. We performed a systematic review of the available literature. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified and information was extracted using predefined data extraction forms. The primary outcomes were (a) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and (b) blood troponin levels in patients who underwent myocardial revascularization and were randomized to melatonin or placebo. The inverse-variance random-effects method was used to pool the estimates. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed. Weighted mean differences or standardized mean differences were calculated. A total of 283 records were screened and seven RCTs met all the inclusion criteria. After the pooled analysis, the results on LVEF were consistent across all studies, and a significant heterogeneity was found in the results on troponin levels. The melatonin-treated patients had on average higher LVEF than the placebo-treated individuals with a weighted mean difference = 3.1% (95% CI 0.6–5.5, p = 0.01). Five works compared the levels of troponin after melatonin or placebo treatment. The melatonin-treated patients had lower levels of troponin with a standardized mean difference = −1.76 (95% CI −2.85 to −0.67, p = 0.002). The findings of this meta-analysis revealed that melatonin administration in humans as a cardioprotective agent attenuated heart dysfunction with a favorable effect on the LVEF.

scholarly journals The Analgesic Effect of Electroencephalographic Neurofeedback for People With Chronic Pain: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

10.2196/22821 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e22821
Author(s):  
Negin Hesam-Shariati ◽  
Wei-Ju Chang ◽  
James H McAuley ◽  
Andrew Booth ◽  
Zina Trost ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Analgesic Effect ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Placebo Control ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background Chronic pain is a global health problem, affecting around 1 in 5 individuals in the general population. The understanding of the key role of functional brain alterations in the generation of chronic pain has led researchers to focus on pain treatments that target brain activity. Electroencephalographic neurofeedback attempts to modulate the power of maladaptive electroencephalography frequency powers to decrease chronic pain. Although several studies have provided promising evidence, the effect of electroencephalographic neurofeedback on chronic pain is uncertain. Objective This systematic review aims to synthesize the evidence from randomized controlled trials to evaluate the analgesic effect of electroencephalographic neurofeedback. In addition, we will synthesize the findings of nonrandomized studies in a narrative review. Methods We will apply the search strategy in 5 electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL) for published studies and in clinical trial registries for completed unpublished studies. We will include studies that used electroencephalographic neurofeedback as an intervention for people with chronic pain. Risk-of-bias tools will be used to assess methodological quality of the included studies. We will include randomized controlled trials if they have compared electroencephalographic neurofeedback with any other intervention or placebo control. The data from randomized controlled trials will be aggregated to perform a meta-analysis for quantitative synthesis. The primary outcome measure is pain intensity assessed by self-report scales. Secondary outcome measures include depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and sleep quality measured by self-reported questionnaires. We will investigate the studies for additional outcomes addressing adverse effects and resting-state electroencephalography analysis. Additionally, all types of nonrandomized studies will be included for a narrative synthesis. The intended and unintended effects of nonrandomized studies will be extracted and summarized in a descriptive table. Results Ethics approval is not required for a systematic review, as there will be no patient involvement. The search for this systematic review commenced in July 2020, and we expect to publish the findings in early 2021. Conclusions This systematic review will provide recommendations for researchers and health professionals, as well as people with chronic pain, about the evidence for the analgesic effect of electroencephalographic neurofeedback. Trial Registration International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42020177608; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=177608 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) PRR1-10.2196/22821

scholarly journals Pharmacologic and Non-Pharmacologic Interventions for HIV-Neuropathy Pain. A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis

Medicina ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (12) ◽  
pp. 762 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aikaterini Amaniti ◽  
Chrysanthi Sardeli ◽  
Varvara Fyntanidou ◽  
Panagiota Papakonstantinou ◽  
Ioannis Dalakakis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Pain Control ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Pain Reduction ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Pharmacologic Therapies

Background and Objectives: Among HIV infection symptoms, sensory neuropathy (HIV-SN) remains a main cause of suffering, with incidence varying from 13–50%. So far, numerous pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments have been tested, although few evidence-based analgesic options are available. We conducted an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature in order to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatments for pain control, in patients with HIV neuropathy. Materials and Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus/Elsevier, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), USA Clinical Trials registry, and The International Web of Science up to April 2019. All randomized controlled trials evaluating efficacy and safety of non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic therapies were included. Efficacy was defined as pain reduction during the study period. Safety was estimated from adverse events. A meta-analysis was performed whenever possible. Results: 27 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included for analysis (7 evaluating non pharmacologic interventions, 20 pharmacologic therapies). Non-pharmacologic studies (n = 742) involved seven different therapeutic modalities. Only Acupuncture/Moxibustion showed pain reduction over placebo, Gracely Pain Scale Mean (SD): Acu/Moxa 0.85 (0.12), placebo 1.10 (0.09), p = 0.05. Pharmacologic studies, involving 2516 patients revealed efficacy for capsaicin 8% over placebo (mean difference −8.04 [95% CI: −14.92 −1.15], smoked cannabis (where pooling data for meta-analysis was not possible) and recombinant Nerve Growth Factor. Conclusion: Despite various modalities for pain control in HIV-SN, strongest evidence exists for capsaicin 8% and smoked cannabis, although of low methodological quality. Among non-pharmacologic modalities, only Acu/Moxa gave a marginal beneficial effect in one study, possibly limited by inherent methodological flaws.

scholarly journals Auricular Acupuncture for Preoperative Anxiety—Protocol of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Medicines ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. 73
Author(s):  
Joanna Dietzel ◽  
Mike Cummings ◽  
Kevin Hua ◽  
Klaus Hahnenkamp ◽  
Benno Brinkhaus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Recovery ◽  
Preoperative Anxiety ◽  
Auricular Acupuncture ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Ethical Approval

Background: Preoperative anxiety causes profound psychological and physiological reactions that may lead to a worse postoperative recovery, higher intensity of acute and persistent postsurgical pain and impaired quality of life in the postoperative period. Previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest that auricular acupuncture (AA) is safe and effective in the treatment of preoperative anxiety; however there is a lack of systematic evidence on this topic. Therefore, this protocol was developed following the PRISMA guidelines to adequately evaluate the existing literature regarding the value of AA for the reduction in anxiety in patients in a preoperative setting, compared to other forms of acupuncture, pharmacological, or no control interventions and measured with questionnaires regarding anxiety and fear. Methods: The following databases will be searched: MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ISI Web of Science, and Scopus Database. RCTs will be included if an abstract is available in English. Data collection and analysis will be conducted by two reviewers independently. Quality and risk assessment of included studies will be done using the Cochrane 5.1.0 handbook criteria and meta-analysis of effectiveness and symptom scores will be conducted using the statistical software RevMan V.5.3. Conclusions: This systematic review will evaluate the efficacy and safety of AA for preoperative anxiety. Since all data used in this systematic review and meta-analysis have been published, this review does not require ethical approval. The results may be published in a peer-reviewed journal or be presented in relevant conferences. Registration number: PROSPERO ID CRD42020.

scholarly journals The Effects of Melatonin Supplementation on Glycemic Control: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (11) ◽  
pp. 783-790 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amin Doosti-Irani ◽  
Vahidreza Ostadmohammadi ◽  
Naghmeh Mirhosseini ◽  
MohammadAli Mansournia ◽  
Russel Reiter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Glycemic Control ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Fasting Glucose ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Insulin Levels ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThis systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to clarify the effect of melatonin supplementation on glycemic control. Databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched until July 30th, 2018. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias for included trials. Heterogeneity among included studies was assessed using Cochran’s Q test and I-square (I2) statistic. Data were pooled using random-effect models and standardized mean difference (SMD) was considered as the overall effect size. Twelve trials out of 292 selected reports were identified eligible to be included in current meta-analysis. The pooled findings indicated that melatonin supplementation significantly reduced fasting glucose (SMD=–6.34; 95% CI, –12.28, –0.40; p=0.04; I2: 65.0) and increased the quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICKI) (SMD=0.01; 95% CI, 0.00, 0.02; p=0.01; I2: 0.0). However, melatonin administration did not significantly influence insulin levels (SMD=–1.03; 95% CI, –3.82, 1.77; p=0.47; I2: 0.53), homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) (SMD=–0.34; 95% CI, –1.25, 0.58; p=0.37; I2: 0.37) or HbA1c levels (SMD=–0.22; 95% CI, –0.47, 0.03; p=0.08; I2: 0.0). In summary, the current meta-analysis showed a promising effect of melatonin supplementation on glycemic control through reducing fasting glucose and increasing QUICKI, yet additional prospective studies are recommended, using higher supplementation doses and longer intervention period, to confirm the impact of melatonin on insulin levels, HOMA-IR and HbA1c.

scholarly journals Influency of pentoxifylline treatment for neonatal sepsis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

2019 ◽  
pp. 102490791986424
Author(s):  
Peiyun Peng ◽  
Yunfeng Xia
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Risk Ratio ◽  
Neonatal Sepsis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Mean Differences

Introduction: Pentoxifylline may be an important approach to treat neonatal sepsis. However, its use has not been well established. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of pentoxifylline treatment for neonatal sepsis. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials are searched. Randomized controlled trials assessing the influence of pentoxifylline treatment on neonatal sepsis are included. Two investigators independently have searched articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model. Results: Seven randomized controlled trials involving 439 patients are included in the meta-analysis. Compared with control intervention for neonatal sepsis, pentoxifylline treatment is associated with reduced hospital stay (standard mean differences = −0.61; 95% confidence interval = −0.93 to −0.29; p = 0.0002) and metabolic acidosis (risk ratio = 0.38; 95% confidence interval = 0.22 to 0.66; p = 0.0006), but has no remarkable impact on mortality (risk ratio = 0.59; 95% confidence interval = 0.30 to 1.16; p = 0.13), serum tumor necrosis factor-α (standard mean differences = −0.38; 95% confidence interval = −1.29 to 0.52; p = 0.41), serum C-reactive protein (standard mean differences = −0.25; 95% confidence interval = −0.92 to 0.42; p = 0.47), plasma interleukin-6 (standard mean differences = −0.13; 95% confidence interval = −0.41 to 0.15; p = 0.37), disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (risk ratio = 0.55; 95% confidence interval = 0.25 to 1.21; p = 0.14), and oliguria/anuria (risk ratio = 0.77; 95% confidence interval = 0.28 to 2.16; p = 0.62). Conclusion: Pentoxifylline treatment may be associated with reduced mortality and hospital stay in neonatal sepsis with caution.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document