Intervention Therapies to Reduce Pain-Related Fear in Fibromyalgia Syndrome: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials

Pain Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier Martinez-Calderon ◽  
Mar Flores-Cortes ◽  
Jose Miguel Morales-Asencio ◽  
Alejandro Luque-Suarez
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Full Detail ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Fear Avoidance Beliefs

Abstract Objective This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different interventions at reducing pain-related fear in people with fibromyalgia and to analyze whether the included trials reported their interventions in full detail. Design Systematic review. Setting No restrictions. Methods The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Scopus were searched from their inception to April 2020, along with manual searches and a gray literature search. Randomized clinical trials were included if they assessed pain-related fear constructs as the primary or secondary outcome in adults with fibromyalgia. Two reviewers independently performed the study selection, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist assessment, and grading the quality of evidence. Results Twelve randomized clinical trials satisfied the eligibility criteria, including 11 cohorts with a total sample of 1,441 participants. Exercise, multicomponent, and psychological interventions were more effective than controls were in reducing kinesiophobia. However, there were no differences in decreasing kinesiophobia when self-management and electrotherapy were used. There were also no differences between groups with regard to the rest of the interventions and pain-related constructs (fear-avoidance beliefs, fear of pain, and pain-related anxiety). However, a serious risk of bias and a very serious risk of imprecision were detected across the included trials. This caused the overall certainty of the judged evidence to be low and very low. Additionally, the included trials reported insufficient details to allow the full replication of their interventions. Conclusions This systematic review shows that there are promising interventions, such as exercise, multicomponent, and psychological therapies, that may decrease one specific type of fear in people with fibromyalgia, i.e., kinesiophobia. However, because of the low–very low certainty of the evidence found, a call for action is needed to improve the quality of randomized clinical trials, which will lead to more definitive information about the clinical efficacy of interventions in this field.

scholarly journals Anti-hypertensive drugs deprescribing: an updated systematic review of clinical trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Salvatore Crisafulli ◽  
Nicoletta Luxi ◽  
Raffaele Coppini ◽  
Annalisa Capuano ◽  
Cristina Scavone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Systematic Assessment ◽  
Grade Approach

Abstract Background Polypharmacy is defined as the prescription of at least 5 different medicines for therapeutic or prophylactic effect and is a serious issue among elderly patients, who are frequently affected by multi-morbidity. Deprescribing is one of the proposed approaches to reduce the number of administered drugs, by eliminating those that are inappropriately prescribed. The aim of this systematic review is to provide an updated and systematic assessment of the benefit-risk profile of deprescribing of anti-hypertensive drugs, which are among the most commonly used drugs. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched for studies assessing the efficacy and safety of anti-hypertensive drugs deprescribing in the period between January, 12,016 and December, 312,019. The quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was assessed using the GRADE approach for the evaluation of the main outcomes. The risk of bias assessment was carried out using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Results Overall, two RCTs were identified. Despite summarized evidence was in favor of anti-hypertensive deprescribing, the overall risk of bias was rated as high for each RCT included. According to the GRADE approach, the overall quality of the RCTs included was moderate regarding the following outcomes: systolic blood pressure < 150 mmHg after 12 weeks of follow-up, quality of life, frailty and cardiovascular risk. Conclusions This updated systematic review of the efficacy and safety of anti-hypertensive treatment deprescribing found two recently published RCTs, in addition to the previous guideline of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Evidence points towards non-inferiority of anti-hypertensive deprescribing as compared to treatment continuation, despite the quality of published studies is not high. High quality experimental studies are urgently needed to further assess the effect of deprescribing for this drug class in specific categories of patients.

scholarly journals Photobiomodulation for the Treatment of Primary Headache: Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials

Life ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 98
Author(s):  
Andréa Oliver Gomes ◽  
Ana Luiza Cabrera Martimbianco ◽  
Aldo Brugnera Junior ◽  
Anna Carolina Ratto Tempestini Horliana ◽  
Tamiris da Silva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adjuvant Treatment ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Primary Headache ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Sham Treatment ◽  
Methodological Assessment ◽  
Grade Approach

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of photobiomodulation as an adjuvant treatment for primary headache. A systematic review of randomized clinical trials was performed. For such, electronic searches were performed in the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, LILACS, PEDro, PsycInfo, Clinicaltrials.gov., and WHO/ICTRP databases, with no restrictions imposed regarding language or year of publication. We included studies that assessed any photobiomodulation therapy as an adjuvant treatment for primary headache compared to sham treatment, no treatment, or another intervention. The methodological assessment was conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The certainty of the evidence was classified using the GRADE approach. Four randomized clinical trials were included. Most of the included studies had an overall high risk of bias. Compared to sham treatment, photobiomodulation had a clinically important effect on pain in individuals with primary headache. Despite the benefits reported for other outcomes, the estimates were imprecise, and the certainty of the evidence was graded as low. These findings are considered insufficient to support the use of photobiomodulation in the treatment of primary headache. Randomized clinical trials, with higher methodological quality, are needed to enhance the reliability of the estimated effects.

Silver Diamine Fluoride Has Efficacy in Controlling Caries Progression in Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 51 (5) ◽  
pp. 527-541 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Cláudia Chibinski ◽  
Letícia Maíra Wambier ◽  
Juliana Feltrin ◽  
Alessandro Dourado Loguercio ◽  
Denise Stadler Wambier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Active Material ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Silver Diamine Fluoride ◽  
Caries Progression

A systematic review was performed to evaluate the efficacy of silver diamine fluoride (SDF) in controlling caries progression in children when compared with active treatments or placebos. A search for randomized clinical trials that evaluate the effectiveness of SDF for caries control in children compared to active treatments or placebos with follow-ups longer than 6 months was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO, Cochrane Library, and grey literature. The risk of bias tool from the Cochrane Collaboration was used for quality assessment of the studies. The quality of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Meta-analysis was performed on studies considered at low risk of bias. A total of 5,980 articles were identified. Eleven remained in the qualitative synthesis. Five studies were at “low,” 2 at “unclear,” and 4 studies at “high” risk of bias in the key domains. The studies from which the information could be extracted were included for meta-analysis. The arrestment of caries at 12 months promoted by SDF was 66% higher (95% CI 41-91%; p < 0.00001) than by other active material, but it was 154% higher (95% CI 67-85%; p < 0.00001) than by placebos. Overall, the caries arrestment was 89% higher (95% CI 49-138%; p < 0.00001) than using active materials/placebo. No heterogeneity was detected. The evidence was graded as high quality. The use of SDF is 89% more effective in controlling/arresting caries than other treatments or placebos. The quality of the evidence was graded as high.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of interventions for the prevention of occupational violence against professionals in health services: a protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e036558
Author(s):  
Caroline Vieira Cláudio Okubo ◽  
Renata Cristina Campos Pereira Silveira ◽  
Maria José Quina Galdino ◽  
Daiane Rubinato Fernandes ◽  
Aline Aparecida Oliveira Moreira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Health Sector ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Occupational Violence

IntroductionOccupational violence affects several categories of workers; however, the health sector category has been considered at a high risk, exposing workers to physical and psychological abuse. Thus, occupational violence has decreased the quality of care in health service. This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for the prevention and reduction of occupational violence against health professionals.Methods and analysisThis protocol is consistent with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. Searches will be conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL and LIVIVO along with a comprehensive review of grey literature. The search will be conducted on August 1 st 2020, without language and time restrictions. Following the eligibility criteria, two independent reviewers will select the titles and abstracts and subsequently screen the full articles. If necessary, a third reviewer will assess any disagreements. All references will be imported into EndNote, and any duplicates will be removed. The data will be extracted using an extraction-based form from Cochrane. Statistical analyses will be performed using the software Cochrane Review Manager, and a meta-analysis will be performed if possible for the statistical combination of at least two studies. The risk of bias of the randomised clinical trials will be evaluated by the Risk of Bias tool from Cochrane, and the risk of bias of the non-randomised intervention studies will be evaluated using the Downs and Black scale. The quality of the evidence and strength of the classification recommendations will be assessed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.Ethics and disseminationThis review will not evaluate individual patient information and therefore does not require ethical approval. The results will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals, presentations at conferences and the doctoral thesis of the leading author.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018111383.

Virtual reality therapy to control burn pain: systematic review of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristina Antonia de Jesus Catalã ◽  
Raquel Pan ◽  
Meline Rossetto Kron-Rodrigues ◽  
Noélle de Oliveira Freitas
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Virtual Reality ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Reality Therapy ◽  
Virtual Reality Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Language Restriction

Abstract Background Virtual reality therapy has been shown to be an excellent alternative to non-pharmacological treatment for the control of burn pain. Objective To evaluate the effects of virtual reality therapy on pain control in people who have suffered burns published in the scientific literature. Method Systematic review carried out as recommended by Cochrane®. The search was carried out in the Embase, PubMed, Lilacs and Cochrane Library databases, in the period from March 2021. Randomized clinical trials were included without language restriction and year of publication. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane® tool. Results Of the 3755 articles found, only 17 articles were selected for reading in full. Of these, only four articles met the inclusion criteria. The results of the studies showed that the use of virtual reality therapy reduced the intensity of pain in children and adolescents with burns, despite the fact that most results are not statistically significant. No selected study had a high risk of bias. Conclusions Virtual reality therapy has been shown to be effective in controlling pain, reducing the time spent thinking about it and greater distraction during the procedures. However, most randomized clinical trials results were not statistically significant in at least one of the moments when pain was assessed. It is noteworthy that randomized clinical trials are still necessary to administer virtual reality therapy, especially in adults.

scholarly journals Regenerative endodontic treatment performed with platelet-rich plasma presents better periapical healing than only induced blot clot: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (13) ◽  
pp. e147101321219
Author(s):  
Christine Men Martins ◽  
Milena Filippini Knecht ◽  
Larissa dos Santos de Moraes ◽  
Victor Eduardo de Souza Batista
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Platelet Rich Plasma ◽  
Permanent Teeth ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Periapical Healing ◽  
Regenerative Endodontic Treatment

This study comprehensively reviewed two different treatments for regenerative endodontic: platelet-rich plasma and induced blot clot, in regarding to periapical healing.  Two investigators performed a systematic review. MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library and Scopus supplied relevant data from studies published until December 2020 to answer the PICO question. Primary outcome was periapical healing. Eight randomized clinical trials fulfilled eligibility criteria. Primary outcome indicated that platelet-rich plasma results in similar or better periapical healing compared to blot clot group. The reported failures were related to blot clot group due to incomplete radiographic parameters, pain and reinfection; however, few cases of unsuccess were reported to platelet-rich plasma group. Only two studies observed better results to blot clot group in relation to increase of radiographic area and partial pulp canal obliteration. This review showed that procedures using platelet-rich plasma were successful in treating permanent teeth with root development.

scholarly journals Favipiravir for treating patients with novel coronavirus (COVID-19): protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. e039730 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morteza Arab-Zozani ◽  
Soheil Hassanipour ◽  
Djavad Ghoddoosi-Nejad
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Code Of Ethics ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Randomised Clinical Trials ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity

IntroductionAn outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) was reported in Wuhan, China, in mid-December 2019, and declared a pandemic by the WHO on 11 March 2020. Due to the unknown nature of the disease and the lack of specific drugs, several potential treatments were used for patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis will evaluate studies of the effects of favipiravir in COVID-19 pneumonia.Methods and analysisWe will search electronic databases including LitCovid hub, PubMed, Scopus, ISI Web of Sciences, Cochrane and Embase using keywords related to COVID-19 and favipiravir. We will search the reference lists of all included studies and reviews. We will also search for clinical trial registries, such as ClinicalTrials.gov, for the ongoing clinical trials. All randomised clinical trials investigating the safety and efficacy of favipiravir compared with other control groups for the treatment of patients with confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 will be included. Patients’ survival at the end of the treatment as well as the follow-up will be the primary outcome of the treatment, followed by the time and rate of the patient with a negative COVID-19 test. The desired secondary outcome will consist of a decreased rate of symptoms, proportion of intensive care unit (ICU) transfers, length of the hospital stay, ICU treatments, the quality of life and additional adverse events. Data synthesis will be conducted using CMA V.2. Two independent investigators will be screening titles, abstracts and full texts of included studies, based on eligibility criteria. These investigators will then independently extract the data and appraise the quality of said studies. All potential discrepancies will be resolved through consultation with the third reviewer. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using a standard I2 test. A funnel plot, Egger’s test and Begg’s test will be used for detecting asymmetry to explore possible publication bias.Ethics and disseminationAll findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis will help identify the safety and efficacy of favipiravir for patients with COVID-19. Given that the design of the study is a systematic review, there is no need to follow the code of ethics protocol. The results of this study will be published in a reputable journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020180032.

Comparison of the effect of hyaluronic acid and estrogen on atrophic vaginitis in menopausal women: A systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 100-108
Author(s):  
Maryam Najjarzadeh ◽  
Sakineh Mohammad Alizadeh Charandabi ◽  
Marzyeh Mohammadi ◽  
Mojgan Mirghafourvand
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Hyaluronic Acid ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Random Allocation ◽  
Atrophic Vaginitis

This systematic review was conducted to compare the effectiveness of hyaluronic acid and estrogen on symptoms of atrophic vaginitis (primary outcomes) and corresponding side effects (secondary outcome). We reviewed all parallel clinical trials, systematically, to compare the effectiveness of hyaluronic acid and estrogen on atrophic vaginitis. We searched Pubmed, Embase, Web of Sciences, Cochrane library, Scopus, Google Scholar, Magiran, Scientific Information Database (Iran) and Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials, from inception to July 2018 and the reference lists of retrieved articles. Two reviewers used the Cochrane collaboration tool to assess the risk of bias independently. Five parallel controlled trials with 372 participants were included in the present systematic review. One trial reported estrogen superiority to hyaluronic acid in improving the symptoms of atrophic vaginitis. Three trials failed to show a significant statistical difference between the intervention groups. Only a trial with a high risk of bias in random allocation and blinding indicated that hyaluronic acid was more effective than estrogen in improving the symptoms of atrophic vaginitis. Hyaluronic acid is an effective drug with few side effects for the treatment of atrophic vaginitis symptoms; however, better designed trials are required to show the statistical superiority of hyaluronic acid to vaginal estrogen.

scholarly journals Lumiracoxib for acute postoperative dental pain: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials

2011 ◽  
Vol 129 (5) ◽  
pp. 335-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo Carvalho Lopes Silva ◽  
Rachel Riera ◽  
Humberto Saconato
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Dental Pain ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Electronic Library ◽  
Manual Search ◽  
Postoperative Dental Pain ◽  
Mean Time

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Lumiracoxib is an anti-inflammatory drug that has been used to treat acute dental pain, mainly in postsurgical settings, in which the greatest levels of pain and discomfort are experienced during the first 24 hours. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of lumiracoxib for treating acute postsurgical dental pain. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review developed at the Brazilian Cochrane Centre, Universidade Federal de São Paulo. METHODS: An electronic search was conducted in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Lilacs (Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde), SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online) and Embase databases. A manual search was also performed. Only randomized controlled trials were included, and these were selected and assessed by two researchers with regard to the risk of bias. RESULTS: Three clinical trials with 921 participants were included. Lumiracoxib 400 mg produced onset of analgesia in a shorter time than shown by lumiracoxib 100 mg, celecoxib 200 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg. There was no difference between lumiracoxib 400 mg and rofecoxib 50 mg. In two studies, the mean time taken to attain onset of analgesia for the placebo was not estimated because the number of participants who reached onset was too small. CONCLUSION: There is evidence with a moderate risk of bias that recommends the use of lumiracoxib for acute postoperative dental pain. However, the adverse effects are not completely known. Given that lumiracoxib is currently available in only three countries, further studies are likely to be rare and discouraged.

scholarly journals Mouth-rinses and SARS-CoV-2 viral load in saliva: A living systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akram Hernández-Vásquez ◽  
Antonio Barrenechea-Pulache ◽  
Daniel Comandé ◽  
Diego Azañedo
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Viral Load ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Sterile Water ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Mouth Rinses ◽  
Number Of Patients

ABSTRACTObjectiveTo conduct a living systematic review of the clinical evidence regarding the effect of different mouth-rinses on the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in the saliva of infected patients. The viral load in aerosols, the duration of the reduction in viral load, viral clearance, SARS-CoV-2 cellular infectivity, and salivary cytokine profiles were also evaluated.Materials and methodsThis study was reported using the PRISMA guidelines. An electronic search was conducted in seven databases and in preprint repositories. We included human clinical trials that evaluated the effect of mouth-rinses with antiseptic substances on the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in the saliva of children or adults that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021240561.ResultsFour studies matching eligibility criteria were selected for evaluation (n=32 participants). Study participants underwent oral rinses with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) at 1 %, povidone–iodine (PI) at 0.5% or 1%, chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) at 0.2% or 0.12% or cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) at 0.075%. Only one study included a control group with sterile water. Three of the studies identified a significant reduction in viral load up to 3, 4, and 6 hours after the use of mouthwashes with PI, CHX, and CPC or PI vs. sterile water, respectively, while one study did not identify a significant reduction in viral load after the use of H2O2 rinses.ConclusionsAccording to the present systematic review, the effect of the use of mouth-rinses on SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the saliva of COVID-19 patients remains uncertain. This is mainly due to the limited number of patients included and a high risk of bias present in the studies analyzed. Evidence from well-designed randomized clinical trials is required for further and more objective evaluation of this effect.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document