Meta Analysis
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

163801
(FIVE YEARS 105475)

H-INDEX

576
(FIVE YEARS 182)

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 275-287
Author(s):  
Dhan Bahadur Shrestha ◽  
Pravash Budhathoki ◽  
Sumit Raut ◽  
Sugat Adhikari ◽  
Prinska Ghimire ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Wenhao Luo ◽  
Ye Li

IntroductionBoth Dmab and ZA have been widely used in the prevention and treatment of bone-related diseases, while which drug is an optimal treatment in terms of safety and efficacy remains controversial.Material and methodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched up to 1st January 2021, and were evaluated by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Randomized controlled trials comparing Dmab versus ZA in patients with bone-related diseases were included.ResultsA total of 13 studies involving 21042 participants were included. The incidence of total adverse events was significantly lower in patients receiving Dmab treatment than in those undergoing ZA treatment(OR= 0.84, 95% CI = 0.75–0.94, P = 0.003). 9 trials comparing Dmab with ZA further showed that Dmab was significantly better than ZA in controlling serious adverse events (OR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.85–0.99, P = 0.02). Compared to ZA, Dmab was correlated with a lower incidence of skeletal-related events (OR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.70–0.85, P = 0.00001). However, no significant difference was found in the rate of infection events between Dmab and ZA (OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.93–1.20, P =0.39).ConclusionsThis study demonstrated superiority of Dmab over ZA in treating bone-related diseases in terms of safety and efficacy.


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (11) ◽  
pp. 106102
Author(s):  
Silja Räty ◽  
Georgios Georgiopoulos ◽  
Karoliina Aarnio ◽  
Nicolas Martinez-Majander ◽  
Eberhard Uhl ◽  
...  

2022 ◽  
Vol 138 ◽  
pp. 130-145
Author(s):  
Maria-Angeliki Trompeta ◽  
Kalipso Karantinou ◽  
Christos Koritos ◽  
Tammo H.A. Bijmolt

2021 ◽  
Vol 237 ◽  
pp. 153-165
Author(s):  
Urvakhsh Meherwan Mehta ◽  
Ferose Azeez Ibrahim ◽  
Manu S. Sharma ◽  
Ganesan Venkatasubramanian ◽  
Jagadisha Thirthalli ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 206622032110384
Author(s):  
Marina Richter ◽  
Barbara Ryser ◽  
Ueli Hostettler

Electronic monitoring (EM) serves as an alternative sanction to incarceration. An important aspect that remains only scarcely debated in the literature is EM’s punitiveness and, more specifically, exactly how punitive EM is in comparison to different forms of incarceration. Responding to this gap, we propose a systematic meta-analysis of relevant studies that scrutinizes and compares different studies on EM and its punitive effects (or perceptions of its degree of punitiveness) in relation to incarceration. Ultimately, there is no simple and straightforward answer: EM’s level of punitiveness differs with the various sociodemographic variables of respondents included in the studies and the various characteristics of the penal system. It is necessary to assess the degree of punitiveness of EM to determine the conditions under and terms with which it should be applied, for example, as a humane substitute for incarceration or as an additional pain of the penal system.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document