Treatment Effects of Action Observation Therapy in Stroke Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 97 (10) ◽  
pp. e142
Author(s):  
Jun-Ding Zhu ◽  
Yu-Hsuan Lin ◽  
Yu-Wei Hsieh
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Stroke Rehabilitation ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Action Observation ◽  
Meta Analysis

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

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

scholarly journals Is dezocine effective and safe in preventing opioids-induced cough during general anaesthesia induction? A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e035691
Author(s):  
Li-xian He ◽  
Ken Shao ◽  
Jie Ma ◽  
Yuan-yuan Zhao ◽  
Yun-tai Yao
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Systemic Review ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Anaesthesia Induction

IntroductionCough is often observed when administrating a bolus of opioids. Opioid-induced cough (OIC) is mostly transient, benign and self-limiting, but could be associated with adverse effects. Numerous pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions have been used to manage OIC with controversial efficacy and safety. Recent studies suggested that, pretreatment of intravenous dezocine (DZC) could completely suppress OIC during anaesthesia induction. To address this knowledge lack, we will perform a systemic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of DZC on OIC and possible complications. We provide here a protocol that will outline the methods and analyses planned for the systematic review.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science as well as Chinese BioMedical Literature & Retrieval System (SinoMed), China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data and VIP Data will be searched from 1978 to 31 December 2019 to identify all randomised controlled trials comparing DZC with placebo on the incidence and severity of OIC. Primary outcomes of interest include the incidence and severity of OIC. Secondary outcomes of interest include possible complications or adverse effects of DZC. Two authors will independently extract relevant variables and outcome data. For continuous variables, treatment effects will be calculated as weighted mean difference and 95% CI. For dichotomous data, treatment effects will be calculated as OR and 95% CI. Each outcome will be tested for heterogeneity, and randomised-effects or fixed-effects model will be used in the presence or absence of significant heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses will be done by examining the influence of statistical model and individual trial(s) on estimated treatment effects. Publication bias will be explored through visual inspection of funnel plots of the outcomes. Statistical significance will be defined as p<0.05.Ethics and disseminationThis study is a protocol of meta-analysis of previously published literatures, ethical approval was not necessary according to the Ethical Committee of Fuwai Hospital. The study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated via research presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019141255.

scholarly journals Using a distribution-based approach and systematic review methods to derive minimum clinically important differences

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer A. Watt ◽  
Areti Angeliki Veroniki ◽  
Andrea C. Tricco ◽  
Sharon E. Straus
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Minimum Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Disease Assessment ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Clinical Interpretation ◽  
Analytic Treatment ◽  
Clinical Scenarios ◽  
Using Data

Abstract Background Clinical interpretation of changes measured on a scale is dependent on knowing the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for that scale: the threshold above which clinicians, patients, and researchers perceive an outcome difference. Until now, approaches to determining MCIDs were based upon individual studies or surveys of experts. However, the comparison of meta-analytic treatment effects to a MCID derived from a distribution of standard deviations (SDs) associated with all trial-specific outcomes in a meta-analysis could improve our clinical understanding of meta-analytic treatment effects. Methods We approximated MCIDs using a distribution-based approach that pooled SDs associated with baseline mean or mean change values for two scales (i.e. Mini-Mental State Exam [MMSE] and Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale – Cognitive Subscale [ADAS-Cog]), as reported in parallel randomized trials (RCTs) that were included in a systematic review of cognitive enhancing medications for dementia (i.e. cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine). We excluded RCTs that did not report baseline or mean change SD values. We derived MCIDs at 0.4 and 0.5 SDs of the pooled SD and compared our derived MCIDs to previously published MCIDs for the MMSE and ADAS-Cog. Results We showed that MCIDs derived from a distribution-based approach approximated published MCIDs for the MMSE and ADAS-Cog. For the MMSE (51 RCTs, 12,449 patients), we derived a MCID of 1.6 at 0.4 SDs and 2 at 0.5 SDs using baseline SDs and we derived a MCID of 1.4 at 0.4 SDs and 1.8 at 0.5 SDs using mean change SDs. For the ADAS-Cog (37 RCTs, 10,006 patients), we derived a MCID of 4 at 0.4 SDs and 5 at 0.5 SDs using baseline SDs and we derived a MCID of 2.6 at 0.4 SDs and 3.2 at 0.5 SDs using mean change SDs. Conclusion A distribution-based approach using data included in a systematic review approximated known MCIDs. Our approach performed better when we derived MCIDs from baseline as opposed to mean change SDs. This approach could facilitate clinical interpretation of outcome measures reported in RCTs and systematic reviews of interventions. Future research should focus on the generalizability of this method to other clinical scenarios.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document