scholarly journals A Meta-Analysis of Treatment Effects on Viral Pneumonia Using TCM Injections Specified in the Clinical Guideline for COVID-19 in China

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 107-121
Author(s):  
Hea Sun Chun ◽  
Su Hyeon Choi ◽  
Ho Sueb Song
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Clinical Guideline ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Viral Pneumonia

scholarly journals AB0116 THE EFFECTS OF DISEASE MODIFYING ANTI-RHEUMATIC DRUGS ON PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES; PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND NETWORK META-ANALYSIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1087.1-1087
Author(s):  
M. Van den Dikkenberg, Msc ◽  
N. Luurssen-Masurel ◽  
M. Kuijper ◽  
M. R. Kok ◽  
P. De Jong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Activity Limitations ◽  
Definitive Answer ◽  
Preliminary Results ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Standard Set ◽  
Disease Modifying

Background:The need to involve patient reported outcomes (PROs) in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) increases, since PROs quantify patient relevant outcomes. Although PROs have been incorporated in the core-outcome sets in clinical trials, knowledge about the treatment effects on these PROs is scarce. Therefore, we performed a systematic review on the effects of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), of any type, on relevant PRO domains mentioned in the ICHOM standard set. This might support rheumatologists and RA patients during treatment decisions.Objectives:To get insight in the treatment effects of DMARDs of any type on three PRO domains that matter to patients (pain, activity limitations and fatigue).Methods:A systematic review was performed in Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane and Google Scholar. Included were all studies that were published before August 2019 and showed DMARD treatment effects in RA on PROs that are part of the ICHOM standard set. Three Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed for the PRO domains pain, activity limitations and fatigue. Preliminary results of DMARDs (in)directly compared to placebo were visualized by forest plots using R.Results:The search strategy yielded n=5974 articles. After selection was performed by 2 independent researchers, n=70 individual articles representing n=53 studies were extracted, over the three PRO domains; pain (n=31), activity limitations (n=41) and fatigue (n=21). In all RCTs, PROs were only reported as secondary or tertiary endpoints. In figure 1, we show the effects on PROs for any type of DMARD investigated compared to placebo. Overall, DMARDs show a greater reduction in pain (standardized mean difference (SMD); -0.97 – -0.22) and most of them in activity limitations (SMD; -0.81 – 0.56). In fatigue, this clear direction is lacking (SMD; -0.86 – 3.5). csDMARDs and anti-TNF seem to perform slightly, but nog significantly, worse than other bDMARDs and tsDMARDs in the first two domains.Conclusion:Within in this systematic review we report a reduction for DMARDs of any type on the domains of pain and activity limitations compared to placebo. However, results are still preliminary and should be interpreted with care. A more comprehensive network analysis might give a more definitive answer which DMARD performs best.Figure 1.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

Evaluation of treatment effects in patients with endometrial cancer and POLE mutations: An individual patient data meta‐analysis

Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica N. McAlpine ◽  
Derek S. Chiu ◽  
Remi A. Nout ◽  
David N. Church ◽  
Pascal Schmidt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endometrial Cancer ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patient Data

Meta-analysis of effect sizes reported at multiple time points: A multivariate approach

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 610-620 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas A Trikalinos ◽  
Ingram Olkin
Keyword(s):  
Random Effects ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Multivariate Analyses ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Multiple Time ◽  
Time Points ◽  
Fixed And Random Effects ◽  
Multiple Time Points ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background Many comparative studies report results at multiple time points. Such data are correlated because they pertain to the same patients, but are typically meta-analyzed as separate quantitative syntheses at each time point, ignoring the correlations between time points. Purpose To develop a meta-analytic approach that estimates treatment effects at successive time points and takes account of the stochastic dependencies of those effects. Methods We present both fixed and random effects methods for multivariate meta-analysis of effect sizes reported at multiple time points. We provide formulas for calculating the covariance (and correlations) of the effect sizes at successive time points for four common metrics (log odds ratio, log risk ratio, risk difference, and arcsine difference) based on data reported in the primary studies. We work through an example of a meta-analysis of 17 randomized trials of radiotherapy and chemotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for the postoperative treatment of patients with malignant gliomas, where in each trial survival is assessed at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post randomization. We also provide software code for the main analyses described in the article. Results We discuss the estimation of fixed and random effects models and explore five options for the structure of the covariance matrix of the random effects. In the example, we compare separate (univariate) meta-analyses at each of the four time points with joint analyses across all four time points using the proposed methods. Although results of univariate and multivariate analyses are generally similar in the example, there are small differences in the magnitude of the effect sizes and the corresponding standard errors. We also discuss conditional multivariate analyses where one compares treatment effects at later time points given observed data at earlier time points. Limitations Simulation and empirical studies are needed to clarify the gains of multivariate analyses compared with separate meta-analyses under a variety of conditions. Conclusions Data reported at multiple time points are multivariate in nature and are efficiently analyzed using multivariate methods. The latter are an attractive alternative or complement to performing separate meta-analyses.

scholarly journals The impact of a run-in period on treatment effects in cardiovascular prevention randomised control trials: A protocol for a comprehensive review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 82
Author(s):  
Robert Murphy ◽  
Emer McGrath ◽  
Aoife Nolan ◽  
Andrew Smyth ◽  
Michelle Canavan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cardiovascular Prevention ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Loss To Follow Up ◽  
Relative Risks ◽  
Prevention Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background: A run-in period is often employed in randomised controlled trials to increase adherence to the intervention and reduce participant loss to follow-up in the trial population. However, it is uncertain whether use of a run-in period affects the magnitude of treatment effect. Methods: We will conduct a sensitive search for systematic reviews of cardiovascular preventative trials and a complete meta-analysis of treatment effects comparing cardiovascular prevention trials using a run-in period (“run-in trials”) with matched cardiovascular prevention trials that did not use a run-in period (“non-run-in trials”). We describe a comprehensive matching process which will match run-in trials with non-run-in trials by patient populations, interventions, and outcomes. For each pair of run-in trial and matched non-run-in trial(s), we will estimate the ratio of relative risks and 95% confidence interval. We will evaluate differences in treatment effect between run-in and non-run-in trials and our and our priamry outcome will be the ratio of relative risks for matched run-in and non-run-in trials for their reported cardiovascular composite outcome. Our secondary outcomes are comparisons of mortality, loss to follow up, frequency of adverse events and methodological quality of trials. Conclusions: This study will answer a key question about what influence a run-in period has on the magnitude of treatment effects in randomised controlled trials for cardiovascular prevention therapies.

Pharmacological and somatic treatment effects on suicide in adults: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel T. Wilkinson ◽  
Daniel Trujillo Diaz ◽  
Zachary W. Rupp ◽  
Anubhav Kidambi ◽  
Karina L. Ramirez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis

A meta‐analysis of treatment effects of imiquimod for basal cell carcinoma

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 218-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meng‐Ya Li ◽  
Xin‐Ping Zhang ◽  
Xin‐Bo Duan ◽  
Xiao‐Ci Cao ◽  
Hai‐Jing Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Basal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Basal Cell ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis

The effect of levosimendan on postoperative bleeding and blood transfusion in cardiac surgical patients: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis

Perfusion ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 026765912096390
Author(s):  
Yun-tai Yao ◽  
Li-xian He ◽  
Yuan-yuan Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Blood Transfusion ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Transfusion Requirement ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Bleeding ◽  
Surgical Patients ◽  
Systemic Review ◽  
Increased Risk

Background: Levosimendan (LEVO), is an inotropic agent which has been shown to be associated with better myocardial performance, and higher survival rate in cardiac surgical patients. However, preliminary clinical evidence suggested that LEVO increased the risk of post-operative bleeding in patients undergoing valve surgery. Currently, there has been no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) designed specifically on this issue. Therefore, we performed present systemic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Electronic databases were searched to identify all RCTs comparing LEVO with Control (placebo, blank, dobutamine, milrinone, etc). Primary outcomes include post-operative blood loss and re-operation for bleeding. Secondary outcomes included post-operative transfusion of red blood cells (RBC), fresh frozen plasma (FFP) and platelet concentrates (PC). For continuous variables, treatment effects were calculated as weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidential interval (CI). For dichotomous data, treatment effects were calculated as odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI. Results: Search yielded 15 studies including 1,528 patients. Meta-analysis suggested that, LEVO administration was not associated with increased risk of reoperation for bleeding post-operatively (OR = 1.01; 95%CI: 0.57 to 1.79; p = 0.97) and more blood loss volume (WMD = 28.25; 95%CI: –19.21 to 75.72; p = 0.24). Meta-analysis also demonstrated that, LEVO administration did not increase post-operative transfusion requirement for RBC (rate: OR = 0.97; 95%CI: 0.72 to 1.30; p = 0.83 and volume: WMD = 0.34; 95%CI: –0.55 to 1.22; p = 0.46), FFP (volume: WMD = 0.00; 95%CI: –0.10 to 0.10; p = 1.00) and PC (rate: OR = 1.01; 95%CI: 0.41 to 2.50; p = 0.98 and volume: WMD = 0.00; 95%CI: –0.05 to 0.04; p = 0.95). Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggested that, peri-operative administration of LEVO was not associated with increased risks of post-operative bleeding and blood transfusion requirement in cardiac surgical patients.

scholarly journals Comparative effectiveness of six Chinese herb formulas for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. e017099 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shaonan Liu ◽  
Jing Chen ◽  
Yihan He ◽  
Lei Wu ◽  
Jiaqi Lai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Clinical Guideline ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Chinese Herb ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionChinese medicine is commonly used to combine with pharmacotherapy for the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). Six Chinese herb formulas involving Weijing decoction, Maxingshigan decoction, Yuebijiabanxia decoction, Qingqihuatan decoction, Dingchuan decoction and Sangbaipi decoction are recommended in Chinese medicine clinical guideline or textbook, to relieve patients with phlegm-heat according to Chinese syndrome differentiation. However, the comparative effectiveness among these six formulas has not been investigated in published randomised controlled trials. We plan to summarise the direct and indirect evidence for these six formulas combined with pharmacotherapy to determine the relative merits options for the management of AECOPD.Methods and analysisWe will perform the comprehensive search for the randomised controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness of six Chinese herb formulas recommended in Chinese medicine clinical guideline or textbook. The combination of pharmacotherapy includes bronchodilators, antibiotics and corticosteroids that are routinely prescribed for AECOPD. The primary outcome will be lung function, arterial blood gases and length of hospital stay. The data screening and extraction will be conducted by two different reviewers. The quality of RCT will be assessed according to the Cochrane handbook risk of bias tool. The Bayes of network meta-analysis (NMA) will be conducted with WinBUGS to compare the effectiveness of six formulas. We will also use the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to obtain the comprehensive rank for these treatments.Ethics and disseminationThis review does not require ethics approval and the results of NMA will be submitted to a peer-review journal.Trial registration numberPROSPERO (CRD42016052699).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document