Efficacy and Safety of Liquid Nitrogen Cryotherapy for Lichen Simplex Chronicus: A Meta-Analysis

Dermatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Lingyuan Zhong ◽  
Qiuyue Wang ◽  
Mao Li ◽  
Pingsheng Hao
Keyword(s):  
Liquid Nitrogen ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Effective Rate ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Treatment Frequency ◽  
Random Effects Models ◽  
Lichen Simplex Chronicus ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Significant Efficacy

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Lichen simplex chronicus (LSC) is characterized by localized lichenification and intense itching. It has been reported that the added use of liquid nitrogen cryotherapy (LNC) for LSC has significant efficacy and notable safety. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis based on existing randomized controlled trials (RCTs). <b><i>Method:</i></b> We searched RCTs on LNC for LSC published up to August 2020 using various databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China Network Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biomedicine (CBM), Chinese Scientific Journals Database (VIP), and WanFang Database. Other studies were manually identified using the references cited in reviews. We applied fixed- or random-effects models, and all analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.4 software. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Twelve RCTs involving 1,066 participants provided eligible data for the meta-analysis. Based on the clinical effective rate, LNC treatment of LSC (risk ratio, RR 1.25, <i>p</i> = 0.005, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 82%) was superior to controls. Subgroup analysis showed that the use of LNC alone (RR 1.04, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 95%, <i>p</i> &#x3e; 0.05) is not more effective than other therapies in the treatment of LSC, but the addition of LNC to the existing treatment increases the total clinical efficacy. Furthermore, the combined effect of LNC and topical medication (RR 1.39, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%, <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.0001) was better than that of LNC and oral medication (RR 1.30, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%, <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.00001). Greater frequency of LNC treatment did not improve the efficacy (thrice a week: RR 1.39 [1.21, 1.60]; twice a week: RR 1.27; once every 2 weeks: RR 1.32). Data from 6 RCTs with 508 participants showed no significant difference in AEs (<i>p</i> = 0.31) associated with added LNC treatment. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> The addition of LNC (applying a cotton swab soaked with liquid nitrogen to wipe the lesion for approximately 10 s each time) to topical ointments, is effective and safe in the treatment of LSC. Increasing the treatment frequency of LNC did not necessarily improve the efficacy.

scholarly journals Hydroxychloroquine for Treatment of COVID‐19 Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vinícius Y Moraes ◽  
Alexandre R Marra ◽  
Leandro L Matos ◽  
Ary Serpa Neto ◽  
Luiz Vicente Rizzo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Risk Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Random Effects Models ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background: We performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS (2019 to March 2021) for patients aged 18 years or older, who had COVID-19 and were treated with hydroxychloroquine versus placebo or standard of care. We also searched the WHO Clinical Trials Registry for ongoing and recently completed studies, and the reference lists of selected articles and reviews for possible relevant studies, with no restrictions regarding language or publication status. Random-effects models were used to obtain pooled mean differences of treatment effect on mortality, and serious adverse effects between hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and the control group (standard of care or placebo); heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 and the Cochran´s Q statistic. Results: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in mortality rate between patients treated with HCQ compared to standard of care or placebo (16.7% vs. 18.5%; pooled risk ratio 1.09; 95%CI: 0.99-1.19). Also, therate of serious adverse effects was similar between both groups, HCQ and control (3.7% vs. 2.9%; pooled risk ratio 1.22; 95%CI: 0.76-1.96). Conclusion: Hydroxychloroquine is not efficacious in reducing mortality of COVID-19 patients.Systematic review registration: Prospero database, registration number: CRD42020197070.

Sulodexide versus Control and the Risk of Thrombotic and Hemorrhagic Events: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (08) ◽  
pp. 908-918
Author(s):  
Behnood Bikdeli ◽  
Saurav Chatterjee ◽  
Ajay J. Kirtane ◽  
Sahil A. Parikh ◽  
Giuseppe M. Andreozzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Cardiovascular Mortality ◽  
Dermatan Sulfate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Arterial Disease ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Random Effects Models ◽  
All Cause Mortality

AbstractThrombotic cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, and venous thromboembolism [VTE]) remains a major cause of death and disability. Sulodexide is an oral glycosaminoglycan containing heparan sulfate and dermatan sulfate. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the cardiovascular efficacy, and safety of sulodexide versus control in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for RCTs reporting cardiovascular outcomes in patients receiving sulodexide versus control (placebo or no treatment). Outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, MI, stroke, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, and bleeding. We used inverse variance random-effects models with odds ratio (OR) as the effect measure. After screening 360 records, 6 RCTs including 7,596 patients (median follow-up duration: 11.6 months) were included. Patients were enrolled for history of MI, VTE, peripheral arterial disease, or cardiovascular risk factors plus nephropathy. Use of sulodexide compared with control was associated with reduced odds of all-cause mortality (OR 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52–0.85, p = 0.001), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22–0.89, p = 0.02), and MI (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51–0.96, p = 0.03), and nonsignificantly reduced odds of stroke (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.45–1.35, p = 0.38). Sulodexide was associated with significantly reduced odds of VTE (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.24–0.81, p = 0.008), including DVT (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.26–0.65, p < 0.001), but not pulmonary embolism (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.40–2.15, p = 0.86). Bleeding events were not significantly different in the two groups (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.47–2.74, p = 0.48). In six RCTs across a variety of clinical indications, use of sulodexide compared with placebo or no treatment was associated with reduced odds of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, MI, and DVT, without a significant increase in bleeding. Additional studies with this agent are warranted.

scholarly journals Comparison of irinotecan and oxaliplatin as the first-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sadayuki Kawai ◽  
Nozomi Takeshima ◽  
Yu Hayasaka ◽  
Akifumi Notsu ◽  
Mutsumi Yamazaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
First Line ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
High Incidence

Abstract Background Irinotecan (IRI) and oxaliplatin (Ox) are standard therapeutic agents of the first-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Previous meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed that treatment with Ox-based compared with IRI-based regimens was associated with better overall survival (OS). However, these reports did not include trials of molecular targeting agents and did not take methods for the administration of concomitant drugs, such as bolus or continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil, into account. A systematic literature review was performed to compare the efficacy and toxicity profiles between IRI- and Ox-based regimens as the first-line treatments for mCRC. Methods This meta-analysis used data from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and SCOPUS. The primary endpoint was OS, and the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). Results Nineteen trials involving 4571 patients were included in the analysis. No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of OS, PFS, and ORR. There was no significant heterogeneity. Regarding ≥ grade 3 AEs, IRI-based regimens were associated with a high incidence of leukopenia, febrile neutropenia, and diarrhea. Moreover, there was a high incidence of thrombocytopenia and peripheral sensory neuropathy in patients who received Ox-based regimens. In a subgroup analysis, IRI combined with bevacizumab was correlated with a better PFS (HR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.82–0.98, P = 0.02), but not with OS (pooled HR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.80–1.03, P = 0.15). Conclusion Although the safety profiles of IRI- and Ox-based regimens varied, their efficacy did not significantly differ. The combination of anti-VEGF antibody and IRI was associated with better PFS compared with anti-VEGF antibody and Ox. Both regimens could be used as the first-line treatments for mCRC with consideration of the patients’ condition or toxicity profiles.

scholarly journals Short Segment versus Long Segment Pedicle Screws Fixation in Management of Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures: Meta-Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 150-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tarek Ahmed Aly
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Pedicle Screw Fixation ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures ◽  
Burst Fractures ◽  
Significant Difference

<p>Posterior pedicle screw fixation has become a popular method for treating thoracolumbar burst fractures. However, it remains unclear whether additional fixation of more segments could improve clinical and radiological outcomes. This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of fixation levels with pedicle screw fixation for thoracolumbar burst fractures. MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Springer, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant randomized and quasirandomized controlled trials that compared the clinical and radiological efficacy of short versus long segment for thoracolumbar burst fractures managed by posterior pedicle screw fixation. Risk of bias in included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Based on predefined inclusion criteria, Nine eligible trials with a total of 365 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Results were expressed as risk difference for dichotomous outcomes and standard mean difference for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence interval. Baseline characteristics were similar between the short and long segment fixation groups. No significant difference was identified between the two groups regarding radiological outcome, functional outcome, neurologic improvement, and implant failure rate. The results of this meta-analysis suggested that extension of fixation was not necessary when thoracolumbar burst fracture was treated by posterior pedicle screw fixation. More randomized controlled trials with high quality are still needed in the future.</p>

scholarly journals Azithromycin in patients with Covid-19; a systematic review and metanalysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis Ayerbe ◽  
Ivo Forgnone ◽  
Carlos Risco-Risco ◽  
Maria Perez-Pinar ◽  
Salma Ayis
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Severity ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Clinical Settings ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Random Effects Models ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Observational Design

Background: Azithromycin (AZM) has been widely used in the management of Covid-19. However, the evidence on its actual effects remains disperse and difficult to apply in clinical settings. This systematic review and metanalysis summarizes the studies on the beneficial and adverse effect of AZM in patients with Covid-19. Methods: The PRISMA 2020 statement criteria were followed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing clinical outcomes of patients treated, and not treated, with AZM, indexed until the 5th of July 2021, were searched in PubMed, Embase, The Web of Science, Scopus, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and MedRXivs. We used Random-effects models to estimate pooled effect size from aggregate data. Results: The initial search produced 4950 results. Finally, 16 studies, five RCTs and 11 with an observational design, with a total of 22984 patients, were included. The metanalysis showed no difference in mortality for those treated, or not, with AZM, OR: 0.95 (0.79-1.13). There was also no significant difference for those treated, and not, with AZM in need for hospital admission or time to admission from ambulatory settings, clinical severity, need for intensive care, or adverse effects. Conclusions: These results presented in this review do not support the use of AZM in the management of Covid-19. They also show that any harm caused to the patient who received it is unlikely. Future research on treatment for patients with Covid-19 may need to focus on other drugs

Use of Prophylaxis for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Isolated Foot or Ankle Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 119 (10) ◽  
pp. 1686-1694 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bavand Bikdeli ◽  
Renuka Visvanathan ◽  
David Jimenez ◽  
Manuel Monreal ◽  
Samuel Z. Goldhaber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Foot And Ankle ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Ankle Surgery ◽  
Significant Difference

AbstractAlthough prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE) is recommended after many surgeries, evidence base for use of VTE prophylaxis after foot or ankle surgery has been elusive, leading into varying guidelines recommendations and notable practice variations. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to determine if use of VTE prophylaxis decreased the frequency of subsequent VTE, including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), compared with control. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov through May 2018, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective controlled observational studies of VTE prophylaxis in patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery. Our search retrieved 263 studies, of which 6 were finally included comprising 1,600 patients. Patients receiving VTE prophylaxis had lower risk for subsequent DVT (risk ratio [RR]: 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55–0.94) and subsequent VTE (RR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.55–0.94). There was only one case of nonfatal PE, no cases of fatal PE, and no change in all-cause mortality (RR: 3.51; 95% CI: 0.14–84.84). There was no significant difference in the risk for bleeding (RR: 2.12; 95% CI: 0.53–8.56). Very few RCTs exist regarding the efficacy and safety of VTE prophylaxis in foot and ankle surgery. Prophylaxis appears to reduce the risk of subsequent VTE, but the event rates are low and symptomatic events are rare. Future studies should determine the subgroups of patients undergoing foot or ankle surgery in whom prophylaxis may be most useful.

scholarly journals Blinding integrity in randomized sham-controlled trials of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for major depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 1173-1181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcelo T. Berlim ◽  
Hannah J. Broadbent ◽  
Frederique Van den Eynde
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Major Depression ◽  
Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Treatment Allocation ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a safe and effective treatment for major depression (MD). However, the perceived lack of a suitable sham rTMS condition might have compromised the success of blinding procedures in clinical trials. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind and sham-controlled trials (RCTs) on high frequency (HF-), low frequency (LF-) and bilateral rTMS for MD. We searched the literature from January 1995 to July 2012 using Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Scopus. The main outcome measure was participants' ability to correctly guess their treatment allocation at study end. We used a random-effects model and risk difference (RD). Overall, data were obtained from seven and two RCTs on HF- and bilateral rTMS, respectively. No RCT on LF-rTMS reporting on blinding success was found. HF- and bilateral rTMS trials enrolled 396 and 93 depressed subjects and offered an average of approximately 13 sessions. At study end, 52 and 59% of subjects receiving HF-rTMS and sham rTMS were able to correctly guess their treatment allocation, a non-significant difference (RD = −0.04; z = −0.51; p = 0.61). Furthermore, 63.3 and 57.5% of subjects receiving bilateral and sham rTMS were able to correctly guess their treatment allocation, also a non-significant difference (RD = 0.05; z = 0.49; p = 0.62). In addition, the use of angulation and sham coil in HF-rTMS trials produced similar results. In summary, existing sham rTMS interventions appear to result in acceptable levels of blinding regarding treatment allocation.

scholarly journals Electroacupuncture for Gastrointestinal Function Recovery after Gynecological Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Xiang Gao ◽  
Yuzhuo Zhang ◽  
Yizhe Zhang ◽  
YuTzu Ku ◽  
Yi Guo
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Ph Value ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Gastrointestinal Function ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Gynecological Surgery ◽  
Function Recovery ◽  
Significant Difference

Background. Evidence for the efficacy and safety of electroacupuncture (EA) on gastrointestinal function recovery after gynecological surgery is unclear. Objective. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of EA on recovery of postoperative gastrointestinal function for patients receiving gynecological surgery. Data sources: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CINAHL), Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Weipu (CQVIP), and Wanfang databases were systematically searched from the inception dates to May 30, 2020, for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Study selection: RCTs that evaluated EA for postoperative gastrointestinal function directly related to gynecological surgery in adults aged 18 years or over. Data extraction and synthesis: paired reviewer independently extracted the data and assessed study quality. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated as the effect measure from a random effects model. Main outcomes and measures: time to first flatus (TFF), time to bowel sounds recovery (TBS), and time to first defecation (TFD) were recorded as primary outcomes; postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), motilin (MTL), gastrin (GAS), pH value of gastric mucosa (pHi), gastric mucosal partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PgCO2), vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP), and adverse event were reported as secondary outcomes. Results. We included eighteen RCTs (1117 participants). Our findings suggested that compared to the control group (CG), electroacupuncture group (EG) showed significant effects on TFF (SMD = −0.98, 95% CI: [−1.28, −0.68], P < 0.00001 , I2 = 69%), TBS (SMD = −0.98, 95% CI: [−1.84, −0.12], P = 0.03 , I2 = 92%), and TFD (SMD = −1.23, 95% CI: [−1.59, −0.88], P < 0.0001 , I2 = 0%). Moreover, the incidence of PONV at postoperative 6 h (OR = 0.42, 95% CI: [0.27, 0.64], P < 0.0001 , I2 = 0%) and 24 h (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: [0.32, 0.68], P < 0.0001 , I2 = 0%) was lower in the EG than that in the CG, whereas no significant difference in ratio of PONV at postoperative 48 h (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: [0.20, 1.51], P = 0.25 , I2 = 0%) was detected between the two groups. Meanwhile, there was a significant effect in favor of EA on the level of MTL at postoperative 6 h (SMD = −0.93, 95% CI: [−1.36, −0.61], P < 0.0001 , I2 = 21%), while no significant effect was observed at postoperative 24 h (SMD = −0.43, 95% CI: [−0.89, 0.02], P = 0.06 , I2 = 69%) in the EG when compared to the CG. Additionally, a large significant effect on decreasing PgCO2 was found in the EG in comparison to the CG, but no significant effect in favor of EA on GAS, VIP, or pHi was observed. It was reported that there was one participant with pain at the needling sites and bruising, and three participants withdrew because they were not intolerant to EA. Conclusions. EA could be a promising strategy for the prevention and treatment of gastrointestinal dysfunction after gynecological surgery, including shortening TFF and TFD, TBS, regulating MTL, and decreasing the ratio of PONV within postoperative 24h. The effects on MTL and PONV varied with different intervention points, and EA used at 30 min prior to surgery might be recommended. However, the evidence quality ranged from low to very low, and large-scale and high-quality RCTs were warranted.

scholarly journals Should syndesmotic screws be removed or retained? A meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wanjin Qin ◽  
Peng Yang ◽  
Nanning Lv ◽  
Kaiwen Chen ◽  
Huilin Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Mean Differences ◽  
American Orthopaedic

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to evaluate the different clinical outcomes after removing or retaining syndesmotic screws, and the difference in clinical outcomes after retaining broken or loose syndesmotic screws was also evaluated. Methods A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. In this meta-analysis, we conducted online searches using the search terms “syndesmotic diastasis”, “syndesmotic injury”, “syndesmotic screw”, “syndesmotic fixation”, and “tibiofibular syndesmosis”. The analysis was performed on individual patient data from all the studies that met the selection criteria. Clinical outcomes were expressed as standard mean differences for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Chi 2 test and the I 2 statistic. Results There were 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 6 observational articles included in this analysis. In the comparison between retained and removed screws and the comparison between broken or loose and removed screws, no significant difference was found in terms of visual analogue scale (VAS), Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle/hindfoot score. Broken or loose screws were associated with better AOFAS scores compared with removed or intact screws, and no significant difference was found in terms of VAS and OMAS scores. Conclusions According to our analysis, there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between removed and retained screws. Broken or loose screws were not associated with bad functional outcomes and may even lead to better function compared with removed or retained screws.

scholarly journals Difluprednate versus Prednisolone Acetate after Cataract Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e026752
Author(s):  
Mahmoud Tawfik KhalafAllah ◽  
Ahmed Basiony ◽  
Ahmed Salama
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cataract Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Prednisolone Acetate ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Topical Steroids ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Small Incision Cataract Surgery ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Evidence Quality

ObjectiveTopical steroids are the cornerstone in controlling the inflammation after cataract surgery. Prednisolone acetate and difluprednate are the two main products for this purpose. However, it is unclear which one should be used in terms of effectiveness and safety.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline via PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of science and clinicaltrials.gov were searched through 10 January 2018, and updated on 20 July 2019, in addition to researching the references’ lists of the relevant articles.Eligibility criteriaRandomised-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing difluprednate and prednisolone acetate regardless of the dosing regimen used.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent authors assessed the included RCTs regarding the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. Relevant data were extracted, and meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to appraise the evidence quality.ResultsWe included six RCTs with 883 patients: 441 received difluprednate and 442 received prednisolone acetate. The evidence quality was graded as moderate for corneal oedema and intraocular pressure and low for anterior chamber (AC) clearance. After small incision cataract surgery, difluprednate was superior in clearing AC cells at 1 week (OR=2.5, p>0.00001) and at 2 weeks (OR=2.5, p=0.04), as well as clearing the AC flare at 2 weeks (OR=6.7, p=0.04). After phacoemulsification, difluprednate was superior in terms of corneal clarity at 1 day (OR=2.6, p=0.02) and 1 week after surgery (OR=1.96, p=0.0007). No statistically significant difference was detected between both agents at 1 month in effectiveness. Also, both agents were safe, evaluated by the ocular hypertension (OR=1.23, p=0.8).ConclusionWith low-to-moderate certainty, difluprednate and prednisolone acetate are safe agents for controlling the inflammation after cataract surgery. Difluprednate showed significant superiority in terms of AC cells and AC flare at 2 weeks postoperatively.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document