Local Therapy for Cytomegalovirus Retinitis

1998 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 248-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Curtis L Smith
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Local Therapy ◽  
Hiv Treatment ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Cmv Retinitis ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Drug Concentrations ◽  
Cmv Disease

OBJECTIVE: To examine the role of intraocular therapy in the management of cytomegalovirus (CMV) retinitis associated with AIDS. DATA SOURCES: A MEDLINE search was conducted for the years 1980–1997. In addition, relevant articles were cross-referenced to screen for additional information. The AIDS/HIV Treatment Directory was searched for information on ongoing studies. STUDY SELECTION/DATA EXTRACTION: Data regarding the use of local antiviral therapy for CMV retinitis are cited. Emphasis was placed on randomized, controlled trials, but descriptive studies are also included. DATA SYNTHESIS: Intraocular drug administration is an alternative therapy for CMV retinitis that avoids some of the disadvantages associated with systemic treatment. Intravitreal ganciclovir 200–2000 μg once weekly has been studied in a number of nonrandomized studies. Although initially effective, intravitreal ganciclovir is associated with a significant relapse rate and development of contralateral CMV retinitis. Intraocular ganciclovir implants offer the advantage of less frequent interventions and constant drug concentrations in the vitreous. Time to progression is significantly longer in patients receiving implants versus intravenous therapy; however, there is a higher incidence of contralateral eye retinitis and extraocular CMV disease with the implants. Currently, the intraocular implant is being studied in combination with oral ganciclovir to decrease the incidence of systemic CMV disease. Foscarnet and cidofovir have also been administered intravitreally for CMV retinitis. Cidofovir may offer the advantage of a long intracellular half-life, which would allow infrequent dosing; however, further study is needed to determine a safe and effective intraocular dosage. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic therapy continues as standard management for CMV retinitis. Local therapy has some advantages and disadvantages, but larger, randomized, controlled trials comparing systemic therapy with local therapy must be completed to define its exact role. Data from an ongoing trial of local plus oral therapy will better define this role.

Thirty Years of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Children: Analysis of Meta-Analyses

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (05) ◽  
pp. 420-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joachim F. Kuebler ◽  
Jens Dingemann ◽  
Benno M. Ure ◽  
Nagoud Schukfeh
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
Pediatric Surgery ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Lower Complication ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Introduction In the last three decades, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been widely used in pediatric surgery. Meta-analyses (MAs) showed that studies comparing minimally invasive with the corresponding open operations are available only for selected procedures. We evaluated all available MAs comparing MIS with the corresponding open procedure in pediatric surgery. Materials and Methods A literature search was performed on all MAs listed on PubMed. All analyses published in English, comparing pediatric minimally invasive with the corresponding open procedures, were included. End points were advantages and disadvantages of MIS. Results of 43 manuscripts were included. MAs evaluating the minimally invasive with the corresponding open procedures were available for 11 visceral, 4 urologic, and 3 thoracoscopic types of procedures. Studies included 34 randomized controlled trials. In 77% of MAs, at least one advantage of MIS was identified. The most common advantages of MIS were a shorter hospital stay in 20, a shorter time to feeding in 11, and a lower complication rate in 7 MAs. In 53% of MAs, at least one disadvantage of MIS was found. The most common disadvantages were longer operation duration in 16, a higher recurrence rate of diaphragmatic hernia in 4, and gastroesophageal reflux in 2 MAs. A lower native liver survival rate after laparoscopic Kasai-portoenterostomy was reported in one MA. Conclusion In the available MAs, the advantages of MIS seem to outnumber the disadvantages. However, for some types of procedures, MIS may have considerable disadvantages. More randomized controlled trials are required to confirm the advantage of MIS for most procedures.

scholarly journals Randomized Controlled Trials for Comparison of Laparoscopic Versus Conventional Open Catheter Placement in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients: A Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mei-Lan Sun ◽  
Yong Zhang(Former Corresponding Author) ◽  
Bo Wang ◽  
Tean Ma ◽  
Hong Jiang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peritoneal Dialysis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Catheter Placement ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Large Sample Size ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Aim: The application of laparoscopic catheterization technology in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients has recently increased. However, the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic versus conventional open PD catheter placement are still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the complications of catheterization in PD patients and to provide a reference for choosing a PD-catheter placement technique in the clinic.Methods: We searched numerous databases, including Embase, PubMed, CNKI and the Cochrane Library, for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Results: Eight relevant studies (n=646) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results showed a lower incidence of catheter migration (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.90, P: 0.03) and catheter removal (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.79, P: 0.008) but a higher incidence of bleeding (OR: 3.25, 95% CI: 1.18 to 8.97, P: 0.02) with a laparoscopic approach than with a conventional approach. There was no significant difference in the incidence of omentum adhesion (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.05 to 2.10, P: 0.24), hernia (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.09 to 1.68, P: 0.20), leakage (OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.26, P: 0.23), intestinal obstruction (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.91, P: 0.90) or perforation (OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.06 to 15.42, P: 0.97). The statistical analysis showed no significant difference in early (OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.33, P: 0.15) , late (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.41 to 1.90, P: 0.76) or total (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.12, P: 0.13) peritonitis infections between the 2 groups, and there are no no significant difference in early ( OR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.06 to 2.36, P: 0.30), late ( OR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.78 to 2.33, P: 0.16) or total ( OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.02, P: 0.17) tunnel or exit-site infections between the 2 groups.Conclusion: Laparoscopic catheterization and conventional open catheter placement in PD patients have unique advantages, but laparoscopic PD catheterization may be superior to conventional open catheter placement. However, this conclusion needs to be confirmed with further large-sample-size, multi-centre, high-quality RCTs.

scholarly journals Review of Pro- and/or Prebiotics in Extensively Hydrolyzed or Amino Acid-Based Infant Formula for Food Allergy

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-38
Author(s):  
Nichole Giardina ◽  
Barbara Marriage
Keyword(s):  
Food Allergy ◽  
Amino Acid ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Inflammatory Responses ◽  
The United States ◽  
Health Concern ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background:The incidence of food allergy is a growing health concern in the United States. Research suggests that there is a link between the gut microbiota and the development of allergy. As a result, researchers propose that gut microbial populations could affect the development and management of immunological disease.Objectives:The purpose of this review is to present current evidence of the advantages and disadvantages of probiotic and/or prebiotic addition to extensively hydrolyzed protein (EHF) and amino acid-based infant formulas (AAF) for the management of food allergy.Method:Only randomized controlled trials were included for review. The randomized controlled trials were limited to human subjects less than 12 years of age with a confirmed case of food allergy who were consuming EHF or AAF supplemented with probiotics and/or prebiotics.Results:Eleven studies were included for review. Probiotic and synbiotic addition was associated with an improvement in SCORAD index in EHF and AAF, and EHF significantly moderated immunologic and/or inflammatory responses. Probiotic addition to EHF benefited patients exhibiting hematochezia, and synbiotic addition resulted in softer stool, higher stool frequency, and decreased incidence of infection in some studies.Conclusion:Although few studies report statistically significant effects upon feeding prebiotics or probiotics with EHF and AAF on food allergy, this review sheds light on evidence that such inclusion may have positive impacts on SCORAD index, stool quality, immunologic and inflammatory factors, and incidence of infection.

scholarly journals Randomized Controlled Trials for Comparison of Laparoscopic Versus Conventional Open Catheter Placement in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients: A Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mei-lan Sun ◽  
Bo Wang ◽  
Piao Zhang ◽  
yong zhang
Keyword(s):  
Peritoneal Dialysis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Catheter Placement ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Large Sample Size ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Aim The application of laparoscopic catheterization technology in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients has recently increased. However, the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic versus conventional open catheterization are still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess complications of catheterization in PD patients and to provide a reference for the clinical choice of PD catheter placement technique. Methods We searched numerous databases, including Embase, PubMed, CNKI and the Cochrane Library, for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Results Eight relevant studies (n=646) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results showed a lower incidence of catheter migration (P: 0.03, OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.90) and malfunction (P: 0.008, OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.79) but a higher incidence of bleeding (P: 0.02, OR: 3.25, 95% CI: 1.18 to 8.97) with a laparoscopic approach than with a conventional approach. There was no significant difference in the incidence of obstruction (P: 0.24, OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.05 to 2.10), hernia (P: 0.20, OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.09 to 1.68), leakage (P: 0.23, OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.26), mechanical dysfunction (P: 0.90, OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.91), malfunction (P: 0.008, OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.79), perforation (P: 0.97, OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.06 to 15.42), peritonitis (P: 0.13, OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.12) or tunnel or exit-site infections (P: 0.49, OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.02). Conclusion Laparoscopic catheterization and conventional open catheter placement in PD patients have unique advantages, but laparoscopic catheterization may be superior to conventional open catheter placement. However, this conclusion needs to be confirmed with further large-sample-size, multi-centre, high-quality RCTs.

Discordance Between Conclusions Stated in the Abstract and Conclusions in the Article: Analysis of Published Randomized Controlled Trials of Systemic Therapy in Lung Cancer

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (28) ◽  
pp. 3552-3557 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdullah K. Altwairgi ◽  
Christopher M. Booth ◽  
Wilma M. Hopman ◽  
Tara D. Baetz
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
The Body ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Main Body ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
The Difference

Purpose Clinicians may read only the abstract of an article to keep abreast of newly published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, discordances have been noticed in summary conclusions in the abstracts and the main body of some articles. This article evaluated such discordances in detail. Methods RCTs of systemic therapy for lung cancer published between 2004 and 2009 were considered. Conclusions in the body of the articles and those in the abstracts were graded by using a 7-point Likert scale; 1 for strong endorsement of the control arm, 4 for a neutral statement, and 7 for strong endorsement of the experimental arm. Conclusions were classified as discordant if the difference in scores was ≥ 2. χ2 tests and logistic regression were used to identify factors associated with discordance. Results From among 114 eligible RCTs identified (90 for non–small-cell and 24 for small-cell lung cancer), 11 (10%) articles presented discordant conclusions in the abstract and in the body of the articles. Discordance was most common when the experimental arm was strongly supported in the abstract but not in the body of the article (nine of 11; 82%); however, the converse was much less common (two of 11; 18%; P < .001). Intraclass correlations for the two reviewers were ≥ 0.9. The discordances were found to be independent of trial-related factors. Conclusion Conclusive statements in the abstract can differ from those in the full text. Clinicians should use caution when they consider making changes in their practice on the basis of reading only the abstract of a published RCT.

scholarly journals Randomized Controlled Trials for Comparison of Laparoscopic Versus Conventional Open Catheter Placement in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients: A Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mei-lan Sun ◽  
Bo Wang ◽  
Piao Zhang ◽  
yong zhang
Keyword(s):  
Peritoneal Dialysis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Catheter Placement ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Large Sample Size ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Aim The application of laparoscopic catheterization technology in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients has recently increased. However, the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic versus conventional open catheterization are still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess complications of catheterization in PD patients and to provide a reference for the clinical choice of PD catheter placement technique. Methods We searched numerous databases, including Embase, PubMed, CNKI and the Cochrane Library, for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Results Eight relevant studies (n=646) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results showed a lower incidence of catheter migration (P: 0.03, OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.90) and malfunction (P: 0.008, OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.79) but a higher incidence of bleeding (P: 0.02, OR: 3.25, 95% CI: 1.18 to 8.97) with a laparoscopic approach than with a conventional approach. There was no significant difference in the incidence of obstruction (P: 0.24, OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.05 to 2.10), hernia (P: 0.20, OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.09 to 1.68), leakage (P: 0.23, OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.26), mechanical dysfunction (P: 0.90, OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.91), malfunction (P: 0.008, OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.79), perforation (P: 0.97, OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.06 to 15.42), peritonitis (P: 0.13, OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.12) or tunnel or exit-site infections (P: 0.49, OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.02). Conclusion Laparoscopic catheterization and conventional open catheter placement in PD patients have unique advantages, but laparoscopic catheterization may be superior to conventional open catheter placement. However, this conclusion needs to be confirmed with further large-sample-size, multi-centre, high-quality RCTs.

scholarly journals Research Methods in Healthcare Epidemiology and Antimicrobial Stewardship: Randomized Controlled Trials

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (6) ◽  
pp. 629-634 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deverick J. Anderson ◽  
Manisha Juthani-Mehta ◽  
Daniel J. Morgan
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Antimicrobial Stewardship ◽  
Clinical Evidence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cluster Randomization ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Outcome Selection ◽  
Healthcare Epidemiology ◽  
Cluster Level

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) produce the strongest level of clinical evidence when comparing interventions. RCTs are technically difficult, costly, and require specific considerations including the use of patient- and cluster-level randomization and outcome selection. In this methods paper, we focus on key considerations for RCT methods in healthcare epidemiology and antimicrobial stewardship (HE&AS) research, including the need for cluster randomization, conduct at multiple sites, behavior modification interventions, and difficulty with identifying appropriate outcomes. We review key RCTs in HE&AS with a focus on advantages and disadvantages of methods used. A checklist is provided to aid in the development of RCTs in HE&AS.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:629–634

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document