Nonglycaemic Effects of Sitagliptin—Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Six Published Randomised Controlled Clinical Trials

Diabetes ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 67 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2313-PUB
Author(s):  
GIRISH KHURANA ◽  
VIPUL GUPTA ◽  
BRIJ M. MAKKAR ◽  
JUGAL K. SHARMA ◽  
HARDIK KHURANA ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Minocycline for the treatment of mental health and neurological conditions: study protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. e035080
Author(s):  
Chiara C Bortolasci ◽  
Wolfgang Marx ◽  
Adam J Walker ◽  
Kyoko Hasebe ◽  
Bianca E Kavanagh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Neurological Disorders ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionDue to the anti-inflammatory, antioxidant and anti-apoptotic properties of minocycline, clinical trials have evaluated the potential of this drug to treat several psychiatric and neurological disorders, including major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, stroke and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. This protocol proposes a systematic review (and potential meta-analysis) that aims to identify and critically evaluate randomised controlled trials of minocycline for treating psychiatric and neurological disorders.Methods and analysisPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, PsycINFO and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) will be used to identify randomised controlled trials that used minocycline to treat psychiatric and neurological disorders. Double-blind, randomised, controlled, clinical trials of participants aged 18 years or older and written in English will be included in the review. Data will be extracted by two independent reviewers. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines will be followed and the Cochrane Collaboration’s ‘Risk of Bias’ tool will be used to assess the risk of bias in all studies included in the systematic review. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system will be used to access the overall quality of the level of evidence of the studies. If sufficient evidence is identified, a meta-analysis will be conducted using the standardised mean difference approach and reported with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity of evidence will be evaluated using the I2model.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will evaluate only published data; therefore, ethical approval is not required. The systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant research conferences.Trial registration numberCRD42020153292.

scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness of convalescent plasma in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 175346662110280
Author(s):  
Roberto Ariel Abeldaño Zuñiga ◽  
Ruth Ana María González-Villoria ◽  
María Vanesa Elizondo ◽  
Anel Yaneli Nicolás Osorio ◽  
David Gómez Martínez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trials

Aims: Given the variability of previously reported results, this systematic review aims to determine the clinical effectiveness of convalescent plasma employed in the treatment of hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of controlled clinical trials assessing treatment with convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The outcomes were mortality, clinical improvement, and ventilation requirement. Results: A total of 51 studies were retrieved from the databases. Five articles were finally included in the data extraction and qualitative and quantitative synthesis of results. The overall risk of bias in the reviewed articles was established at low-risk only in two trials. The meta-analysis suggests that there is no benefit of convalescent plasma compared with standard care or placebo in reducing the overall mortality and the ventilation requirement. However, there could be a benefit for the clinical improvement in patients treated with plasma. Conclusion: Current results led to assume that the convalescent plasma transfusion cannot reduce the mortality or ventilation requirement in hospitalized patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. More controlled clinical trials conducted with methodologies that ensure a low risk of bias are still needed. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document