scholarly journals Systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials of psychological interventions to improve glycaemic control in children and adults with type 1 diabetes

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 735-746 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Winkley ◽  
R. Upsher ◽  
D. Stahl ◽  
D. Pollard ◽  
A. Brennan ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-172
Author(s):  
Sumanta Saha

  Background: Several clinical trials have tested the safety profile of sodium-glucose co-transport inhibitors’ (SGLTis) in adult type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) patients. However, no systematic review has yet compared its variation between large and low dose SGLTis. Henceforth, a review protocol is proposed here to review it. Methods: Different electronic databases will be searched for randomized-controlled trials (published in the English language) studying the above objective, irrespective of their publication date. After selecting the eligible trials, their data on the study design, population characteristics, compared interventions, and outcomes of interest will be extracted. Then, utilizing the Cochrane tool, each trial's risk of selection bias, detection bias, performance bias, attrition bias, reporting bias, and other bias will be judged. Next, depending on clinical heterogeneity among the trials, a random-effect or fixed-effect model meta-analysis will be used to compare the respective outcomes. Via the Chi2 and I2 statistics, the statistical inconsistency among the trials will be estimated. When this is substantial, subgroup analysis will follow. Publication bias will be evaluated by funnel plots and Egger’s test. A sensitivity analysis will be done to check different assumptions. If a quantitative juxtaposition is not possible, a narrative reporting will ensue. Conclusion: The proposed study will perform a dose-wise juxtaposition of the safety profile of SGLTis in insulin-treated T1DM patients. Registration: Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (Registration no. CRD42019146578)    


Author(s):  
Sumanta Saha ◽  
Sujata Saha

Background and Purpose: The dapagliflozin’s safety profile in insulin-treated adult type-1 diabetes mellites (T1DM) patients remains poorly explored. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis compared the risk of all-cause side effects, study discontinuation of participants due to side effects, urinary tract infection (UTI), diabetic ketoacidosis, and hypoglycemia between dapagliflozin 10 mg and dapagliflozin 5 mg, dapagliflozin 10 mg and placebo, and dapagliflozin 5 mg and placebo.Materials and Methods: Parallel-arm randomized controlled trials juxtaposing the above outcomes between the afore-mentioned interventions were eligible for inclusion in this study and were searched in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. Utilizing the Cochrane tool, the risk of bias was assessed in the recruited trials. Finally, by random-effect meta-analysis, each outcome was compared among the above interventions, and the risk ratio was estimated.Results: Four trials of varying length (1-52 weeks) sourcing data from almost 1760 participants from about 32 nations were reviewed. Overall, the trials had a low or unclear risk of bias, and only one was at a high risk of bias.  Compared to the placebo, the risk of side effects was higher in those treated with dapagliflozin 5 mg (RR=1.10; 95% CI=1.02-1.18; p=0.014; I2=0%). UTI risk was less with the 10mg dapagliflozin than its lower dose (RR=0.50; 95% CI=0.32-0.79; p-value=0.003; I2=0%). All the remaining comparisons were statistically not significantly different between the juxtaposed intervention pairs.Conclusion: In contrast to placebo, dapagliflozin 5mg increased the risk of overall adversities in insulin-treated type-1 diabetes, and dapagliflozin 10 mg had a reduced risk of UTI than its 5mg preparation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S174-S174
Author(s):  
Rebeca Pardo Cebrián ◽  
Eduardo González-Fraile ◽  
Teresa Sánchez-Gutiérrez ◽  
Sara Barbeito ◽  
Belén Fernández-Castilla ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Although the use of technological advances in psychiatric treatment is relatively recent, the availability and sophistication of technologies are growing, research on psychological interventions for patients with psychosis has incorporated the use of various electronic applications, social networks, and other similar tools to provide new methods/routes of communication between therapists and patients. This new therapeutic approach may provide patients with personalized, flexible, and evidence-based interventions in their communities and even in their own homes. The aim of this study is reviewing the scientific literature about the use of online intervention for patients with psychosis to show the current state of online intervention and asses the effectiveness of these treatments. Methods The review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We have identified articles from Pubmed and Medline databases. We included all randomized controlled trials designed to test the efficacy of the online intervention or web-based intervention to patients with psychosis. We excluded observational trials, non-randomised trial and protocol study. Studies with RCT design and the participants must not have more than 5 to 10 years of evolution since the diagnosis, and the papers have been published between 2010 and 2019, in English language. The researchers independently assessed the articles and the discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Results We presented data about all randomized controlled trials of online interventions/ e-Health interventions/ App-mobile based and/or computer based intervention programs than were specifically designed for people with first episode psychosis or psychotic symptoms that had measured changes in functioning, quality of life or positive/negative symptoms. As unique treatment or as a complementary treatment with other psychological or psychopharmacology intervention. Discussion Online psychological interventions can play an important role in the well-being of people with schizophrenia. The strengths and limitations of our systematic review and meta-analysis will be discussed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document