scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of vitrectomy for congenital cataract surgery: a systematic review and meta‐analysis based on randomized and controlled trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 97 (3) ◽  
pp. 233-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kai Cao ◽  
Jinda Wang ◽  
Jingshang Zhang ◽  
Mayinuer Yusufu ◽  
Shanshan Jin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cataract Surgery ◽  
Congenital Cataract ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Congenital Cataract Surgery

scholarly journals Comparative efficacy and safety of interventions for treating head lice: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e001129
Author(s):  
Bill Stevenson ◽  
Wubshet Tesfaye ◽  
Julia Christenson ◽  
Cynthia Mathew ◽  
Solomon Abrha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Head Lice ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundHead lice infestation is a major public health problem around the globe. Its treatment is challenging due to product failures resulting from rapidly emerging resistance to existing treatments, incorrect treatment applications and misdiagnosis. Various head lice treatments with different mechanism of action have been developed and explored over the years, with limited report on systematic assessments of their efficacy and safety. This work aims to present a robust evidence summarising the interventions used in head lice.MethodThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis which will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement for network meta-analyses. Selected databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials exploring head lice treatments. Searches will be limited to trials published in English from database inception till 2021. Grey literature will be identified through Open Grey, AHRQ, Grey Literature Report, Grey Matters, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry. Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved via a third reviewer. The primary outcome measure is the relative risk of cure at 7 and 14 days postinitial treatment. Secondary outcome measures may include adverse drug events, ovicidal activity, treatment compliance and acceptability, and reinfestation. Information from direct and indirect evidence will be used to generate the effect sizes (relative risk) to compare the efficacy and safety of individual head lice treatments against a common comparator (placebo and/or permethrin). Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations guideline for network meta-analysis. All quantitative analyses will be conducted using STATA V.16.DiscussionThe evidence generated from this systematic review and meta-analysis is intended for use in evidence-driven treatment of head lice infestations and will be instrumental in informing health professionals, public health practitioners and policy-makers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017073375.

Inhaled Levodopa (CVT-301) for the Treatment of Parkinson Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
pp. 10.1212/CPJ.0000000000001143
Author(s):  
Glenardi Glenardi ◽  
Tutwuri Handayani ◽  
Jimmy Barus ◽  
Ghea Mangkuliguna
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Placebo Group ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Respiratory Symptoms ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Motor Fluctuation ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Improve Motor Function

ABSTRACTPurposeof Review: To investigate the efficacy and safety of CVT-301 for motor fluctuation in Parkinson’s disease (PD).Recent Findings:This study demonstrated that the CVT-301 group had a higher proportion of patients achieving an ON state than the placebo group (OR=2.68; 95% CI: 1.86-3.86; p<0.00001). Moreover, CVT-301 had also shown to improve motor function by UPDRS-III score (SMD=3.83; 95% CI: 2.44-5.23; p<0.00001) and promote an overall improvement of PD by PGIC self-rating (OR=2.95; 95% CI: 1.78-4.9; p<0.00001). The most common adverse events encountered were respiratory symptoms (OR=12.18; 95% CI: 5.01-29.62; p<0.00001) and nausea (OR=3.95; 95% CI: 1.01-15.41; p=0.05).Summary:CVT-301 had the potential to be an alternative or even a preferred treatment for motor fluctuation in PD patients.

scholarly journals The efficacy and safety of antimuscarinics for the prevention or treatment of catheter-related bladder discomfort: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhongbao Zhou ◽  
Yuanshan Cui ◽  
Xiaoyi Zhang ◽  
Youyi Lu ◽  
Zhipeng Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Facial Flushing ◽  
Blurred Vision ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Objectives This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antimuscarinics for the prevention or treatment of catheter related bladder discomfort (CRBD). Methods The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (from 1987 to July 2021) were used to search randomized controlled trials. The PRISMA checklists were followed. RevMan5.4.0 was used for statistical analysis. Results Eleven studies involving 1165 patients were involved in the analysis. The study reported that the incidence of CRBD observed in the antimuscarinics group was significantly lower than that of the control group at 0-, 1-, 2-, and 6-h after drug therapy (P = 0.001, P < 0.0001, P = 0.0005, and P = 0.001, respectively). For side effects, there were not statistical differences between the antimuscarinics group and the control group, mainly including dry mouth (risk ratio (RR) = 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.95 to 1.80, P = 0.09), postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.55 to 1.90, P = 0.87), facial flushing (RR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.43 to 2.61, P = 0.90), and blurred vision (RR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.35 to 2.58, P = 0.91). Besides, rescue analgesics were required less in the antimuscarinics group than in the control group (RR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.32 to 0.80, P = 0.003). Conclusions Compared with the control group, the antimuscarinics group had a significant improvement on CRBD, the patients were well tolerated and the use rate of rescue analgesics was low.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document