scholarly journals Reevaluating the Role of Corticosteroids in Septic Shock: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xingji Lian ◽  
Daozheng Huang ◽  
Yinshu Cao ◽  
Yanxing Wei ◽  
Zhiwen Lian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Septic Shock ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

scholarly journals Vitamin D supplementation, COVID-19 and disease severity: a meta-analysis

QJM ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
K Shah ◽  
D Saxena ◽  
D Mavalankar
Keyword(s):  
Vitamin D ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vitamin D Supplementation ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Objective: Current meta-analysis aims to understand the effect of oral supplementation of vitamin D on intensive care unit (ICU) requirement and mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods: Databases PubMed, preprint servers, and google scholar were searched from December 2019 to December 2020. Authors searched for the articles assessing role of vitamin D supplementation on COVID-19. Cochrane RevMan tool was used for quantitative assessment of the data, where heterogeneity was assessed using I2 and Q statistics and data was expressed using odds ratio with 95% confidence interval. Results: Final meta-analysis involved pooled data of 532 hospitalized patients (189 on vitamin D supplementation and 343 on usual care/placebo) of COVID-19 from three studies (Two randomized controlled trials, one retrospective case-control study). Statistically (p<0.0001) lower ICU requirement was observed in patients with vitamin D supplementation as compared to patients without supplementations (odds ratio: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.210-0.626). However, it suffered from significant heterogeneity, which reduced after sensitivity analysis. In case of mortality, vitamin D supplements has comparable findings with placebo treatment/usual care (odds ratio: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.413-2.113; p=0.87). The studies did not show any publication bias and had fair quality score. Subgroup analysis could not be performed due to limited number of studies and hence dose and duration dependent effect of vitamin D could not be evaluated. Conclusions: Although the current meta-analysis findings indicate potential role of vitamin D in improving COVID-19 severity in hospitalized patients, more robust data from randomized controlled trials are needed to substantiate its effects on mortality.

Mechanical Thromboprophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2006 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 402-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Limpus ◽  
Wendy Chaboyer ◽  
Ellen McDonald ◽  
Lukman Thalib
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Intensive Care Patients ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Confounding Variables

• Objective To systematically review the randomized trials, observational studies, and survey evidence on compression and pneumatic devices for thromboprophylaxis in intensive care patients. • Methods Published studies on the use of compression and pneumatic devices in intensive care patients were assessed. A meta-analysis was conducted by using the randomized controlled trials. • Results A total of 21 relevant studies (5 randomized controlled trials, 13 observational studies, and 3 surveys) were found. A total of 811 patients were randomized in the 5 randomized controlled trials; 3421 patients participated in the observational studies. Trauma patients only were enrolled in 4 randomized controlled trials and 4 observational studies. Meta-analysis of 2 randomized controlled trials with similar populations and outcomes revealed that use of compression and pneumatic devices did not reduce the incidence of venous thromboembolism. The pooled risk ratio was 2.37, indicative of favoring the control over the intervention in reducing the deep venous thrombosis; however, the 95% CI of 0.57 to 9.90 indicated no significant differences between the intervention and the control. A range of methodological issues, including bias and confounding variables, make meaningful interpretation of the observational studies difficult. • Conclusions The limited evidence suggests that use of compressive and pneumatic devices yields results not significantly different from results obtained with no treatment or use of low-molecular-weight heparin. Until large randomized controlled trials are conducted, the role of mechanical approaches to thromboprophylaxis for intensive care patients remains uncertain.

Role of Decompressive Craniectomy in Traumatic Brain Injury – A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 67 (5) ◽  
pp. 1225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kanwaljeet Garg ◽  
PreetM Singh ◽  
Raghav Singla ◽  
Ankita Aggarwal ◽  
Anuradha Borle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Decompressive Craniectomy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document