scholarly journals Dietary sugars and body weight: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies

BMJ ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 346 (jan15 3) ◽  
pp. e7492-e7492 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Te Morenga ◽  
S. Mallard ◽  
J. Mann
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Body Weight ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Dietary Sugars

scholarly journals Effect of reducing total fat intake on body weight: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies

BMJ ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 345 (dec06 1) ◽  
pp. e7666-e7666 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Hooper ◽  
A. Abdelhamid ◽  
H. J. Moore ◽  
W. Douthwaite ◽  
C. M. Skeaff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Body Weight ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Fat Intake ◽  
Total Fat ◽  
Randomised Controlled

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.

scholarly journals Pharmacotherapy for weight loss in adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Coelho ◽  
Rachel Agius ◽  
James Crane ◽  
Barbara McGowan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Weight Loss ◽  
Body Weight ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Medical Treatments ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background: Clinically significant weight loss improves glycaemic control and cardiovascular disease risk in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM).Aim: To identify and assess the efficacy of medical treatments for weight loss in adults with T2DM.Methods: A systematic review was conducted of peer- reviewed literature between July 2004 and July 2020 via PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, medRxiv and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in English investigating medical treatments for weight loss in patients with T2DM were included. RCTs of pharmacotherapy withdrawn from the market were excluded. No minimum length of follow-up time was established. Outcomes of interest were changes from baseline in body weight (%), changes from baseline in HbA1c (%, mmol/mol) and proportion of patients who achieved ≥5% weight loss. Quality assessment was evaluated using the Jadad score.Results: Fifteen RCTs were included with a total of 4,207 participants with T2DM. Interventions included medications approved for obesity management (orlistat, liraglutide, naltrexone-bupropion and phentermine-topiramate) and other agents investigated for the primary purpose of weight loss (topiramate, metreleptin, dapagliflozin and exenatide) compared with placebo. The duration of the intervention varied from 12 to 56 weeks. Placebo-adjusted body weight loss ranged from 2.2% to 7.3%. Furthermore, 30.5–77.0% of patients achieved ≥5% weight loss. Placebo-adjusted change in glycated haemoglobin was 0.3–1.5% (3.3–16.4 mmol/mol).Conclusion: Current evidence demonstrates that pharmacotherapy for weight loss, except for leptin, is associated with weight loss and glycaemic improvement in patients with T2DM.

scholarly journals Partially randomised patient preference trials as an alternative design to randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analyses

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e031151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karin A Wasmann ◽  
Pieta Wijsman ◽  
Susan van Dieren ◽  
Willem Bemelman ◽  
Christianne Buskens
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
External Validity ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Internal Validity ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Lost To Follow Up

ObjectiveRandomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients’ preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined.DesignSystematic review and meta-analyses.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed.ResultsIn total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%–100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%–99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI −0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502).ConclusionsPatients’ preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019094438.

scholarly journals Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. l352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah A Wilson ◽  
Rob Middleton ◽  
Simon G F Abram ◽  
Stephanie Smith ◽  
Abtin Alvand ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Total Knee Replacement ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Knee Replacement ◽  
Risk Ratio ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Total Knee ◽  
Randomised Controlled

AbstractObjectiveTo present a clear and comprehensive summary of the published data on unicompartmental knee replacement (UKA) or total knee replacement (TKA), comparing domains of outcome that have been shown to be important to patients and clinicians to allow informed decision making.DesignSystematic review using data from randomised controlled trials, nationwide databases or joint registries, and large cohort studies.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), and Clinical Trials.gov, searched between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 2018.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies published in the past 20 years, comparing outcomes of primary UKA with TKA in adult patients. Studies were excluded if they involved fewer than 50 participants, or if translation into English was not available.Results60 eligible studies were separated into three methodological groups: seven publications from six randomised controlled trials, 17 national joint registries and national database studies, and 36 cohort studies. Results for each domain of outcome varied depending on the level of data, and findings were not always significant. Analysis of the three groups of studies showed significantly shorter hospital stays after UKA than after TKA (−1.20 days (95% confidence interval −1.67 to −0.73), −1.43 (−1.53 to −1.33), and −1.73 (−2.30 to −1.16), respectively). There was no significant difference in pain, based on patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), but significantly better functional PROM scores for UKA than for TKA in both non-trial groups (standard mean difference −0.58 (−0.88 to −0.27) and −0.29 (−0.46 to −0.11), respectively). Regarding major complications, trials and cohort studies had non-significant results, but mortality after TKA was significantly higher in registry and large database studies (risk ratio 0.27 (0.16 to 0.45)), as were venous thromboembolic events (0.39 (0.27 to 0.57)) and major cardiac events (0.22 (0.06 to 0.86)). Early reoperation for any reason was higher after TKA than after UKA, but revision rates at five years remained higher for UKA in all three study groups (risk ratio 5.95 (1.29 to 27.59), 2.50 (1.77 to 3.54), and 3.13 (1.89 to 5.17), respectively).ConclusionsTKA and UKA are both viable options for the treatment of isolated unicompartmental osteoarthritis. By directly comparing the two treatments, this study demonstrates better results for UKA in several outcome domains. However, the risk of revision surgery was lower for TKA. This information should be available to patients as part of the shared decision making process in choosing treatment options.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO number CRD42018089972.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document