scholarly journals There Is Inadequate Evidence to Determine the Effectiveness of Nonpharmacological and Nonsurgical Interventions for Hand Osteoarthritis: An Overview of High-Quality Systematic Reviews

2009 ◽  
Vol 89 (12) ◽  
pp. 1363-1370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rikke H. Moe ◽  
Ingvild Kjeken ◽  
Till Uhlig ◽  
Kåre Birger Hagen
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Hand Osteoarthritis ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Topical Capsaicin

Background Patients with hand osteoarthritis are commonly treated by health care professionals (allied to medicine). Practice should be informed by updated evidence from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials. Purpose The purpose of this overview is to summarize the evidence from systematic reviews of the effectiveness of nonpharmacological and nonsurgical interventions for patients with hand osteoarthritis. Data Sources and Study Selection Systematic reviews published between January 2000 and October 2008 were identified by a comprehensive literature search. Data Extraction and Synthesis Two reviewers independently selected reviews for inclusion, assessed their methodological quality, and extracted and synthesized data according to predefined criteria. Four systematic reviews finally were included. Based on single randomized controlled trials, there is some evidence of the effect of pain relief from topical capsaicin compared with placebo and for favorable functional outcomes for exercise and education compared with osteoarthritis information alone. Limitations In overviews, results are dependent on available systematic reviews. They are important tools to guide choice of interventions and locate areas where more research is needed, but they might not be useful for deciding specifically how interventions should be carried out. Conclusions There currently is insufficient high-quality evidence regarding nonpharmacological and nonsurgical interventions for hand osteoarthritis. Considering the limited research evidence and the prevalence and impact of the disease, there is an urgent need for more trials of nonpharmacological and nonsurgical interventions for hand osteoarthritis.

scholarly journals Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Xingnaojing Treatment for Stroke

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weijun Peng ◽  
Jingjing Yang ◽  
Yang Wang ◽  
Weihao Wang ◽  
Jianxia Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Conventional Treatment ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Mild Impairment

Objective. Xingnaojing injection (XNJ) is a well-known traditional Chinese patent medicine (TCPM) for stroke. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of XNJ for stroke including ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), and subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH).Methods. An extensive search was performed within using eight databases up to November 2013. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on XNJ for treatment of stroke were collected. Study selection, data extraction, quality assessment, and meta-analysis were conducted according to the Cochrane standards, and RevMan5.0 was used for meta-analysis.Results. This review included 13 RCTs and a total of 1,514 subjects. The overall methodological quality was poor. The meta-analysis showed that XNJ combined with conventional treatment was more effective for total efficacy, neurological deficit improvement, and reduction of TNF-αlevels compared with those of conventional treatment alone. Three trials reported adverse events, of these one trial reported mild impairment of kidney and liver function, whereas the other two studies failed to report specific adverse events.Conclusion. Despite the limitations of this review, we suggest that XNJ in combination with conventional medicines might be beneficial for the treatment of stroke. Currently there are various methodological problems in the studies. Therefore, high-quality, large-scale RCTs are urgently needed.

scholarly journals Cochrane Schizophrenia Group’s Study-Based Register of Randomized Controlled Trials: Development and Content Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Farhad Shokraneh ◽  
Clive E Adams
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Gis Mapping ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Review Team

Abstract Background Study-based registers facilitate systematic reviews through shortening the process for review team and reducing considerable waste during the review process. Such a register also provides new insights about trends of trials in a sub-specialty. This paper reports development and content analysis of Cochrane Schizophrenia Group’s Study-Based Register. Methods The randomized controlled trials were collected through systematic searches of major information sources. Data points were extracted, curated and classified in the register. We report trends using regression analyses in Microsoft Excel and we used GIS mapping (GunnMap 2) to visualize the geographical distribution of the origin of schizophrenia trials. Results Although only 17% of trials were registered, the number of reports form registered trials is steadily increasing and registered trials produce more reports. Clinical trial registers are main source of trial reports followed by sub-specialty journals. Schizophrenia trials have been published in 23 languages from 90 countries while 105 nations do not have any reported schizophrenia trials. Only 9.7% of trials were included in at least one Cochrane review. Pharmacotherapy is the main target of trials while trials targeting psychotherapy are increasing in a continuous rate. The number of people randomized in trials is on average 114 with 60 being the most frequent sample size. Conclusions Curated datasets within the register uncover new patterns in data that have implications for research, policy, and practice for testing new interventions in trials or systematic reviews.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation for treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 030006052110066
Author(s):  
Hua Zhang ◽  
Bo Wang ◽  
Jie He ◽  
Zhongju Du
Keyword(s):  
Radiofrequency Ablation ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Methods A literature review was conducted using the PubMed, Cochrane Review, Embase, and Google Scholar databases. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of all retrieved studies. The research was reported based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to ensure the reliability and verity of the results. The statistical analysis was performed using STATA version 13.0. Results Nine randomized controlled trials were collected for the data extraction and meta-analysis. Significant differences in the pain score at 4, 12, and 24 weeks were found between patients treated with radiofrequency ablation and those treated with placebo. Furthermore, the use of radiofrequency ablation was associated with an improved outcome of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index at 4, 12, and 24 weeks. No serious adverse events were observed in any patients who underwent radiofrequency ablation. Conclusion Radiofrequency ablation is efficacious and safe for reducing pain and improving knee function in patients with knee osteoarthritis, without increasing the risk of adverse effects.

scholarly journals Critical analysis of the drafting of physical therapy randomized controlled trials published in Portuguese

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 421-427
Author(s):  
Ercole da Cruz Rubini ◽  
Fabio Dutra Pereira ◽  
Renato Sobral Monteiro-Junior ◽  
Patricia Zaidan ◽  
Cintia Pereira de Souza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Physical Therapists ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Methodological Procedures

Abstract Introduction: randomized controlled trials are high quality studies. Many problems related to the drafting of these studies have been identified and consequently various national and international journals, in an attempt to improve this writing, have adopted the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials recommendations. Regarding the studies written specifically by physical therapists, until now, the quality of the drafting in Portuguese has been unknown. Aim: To critically analyze the drafting of RCTs in the area of physical therapy, published in Portuguese, in relation to the CONSORT recommendations. Materials and Methods: On 17th Oct, 2012, 548 RCTs in Portuguese were recovered from the MEDLINE and PEDro databases, which were divided among four evaluators who, after reading the abstracts, selected those related to physical therapy. Of these studies, 78 RCTs were related to physical therapy, which were divided among the four evaluators for the analysis of the drafting according to the CONSORT recommendations. The four evaluators who participated in this study previously obtained a median kappa above 70% when their analyses were compared to the analyses of the evaluator considered the gold standard due to having greater experience. Results: The quantity of items of the CONSORT recommendations according to year of publication was very small, corresponding to a mean of 43% of the items in the articles analyzed. Conclusion: The results make very clear the need to improve the quality of the drafting of the RCTs related to physical therapy in Portuguese and to include more rigorous methodological procedures, such as sample size, randomization and blinding. The dissemination and adoption of the CONSORT recommendations by physical therapy researchers would, without doubt, be a big step towards improving this quality.

Assessment of the content reporting for therapeutic exercise interventions among existing randomized controlled trials on knee osteoarthritis

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (7) ◽  
pp. 980-984 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer O’Neil ◽  
Daniel McEwen ◽  
Michael J Del Bel ◽  
Donguk Jo ◽  
Odette Thevenot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Sports Medicine ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Exercise Interventions ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Standardized Reporting

Purpose/Rationale: Physical exercise interventions for the management of knee osteoarthritis are well known to be effective and accessible forms of rehabilitation and symptom management. However, without adequate reporting of these interventions, accurate replication and clinical use is negatively impacted. Objectives: The main objective of this article was to assess content reporting using The Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template list and 2016 American College of Sports Medicine guidelines among moderate- to high-quality exercise interventions randomized controlled trials (total score of ≥6/10 on the PEDro scale) involving individuals with knee osteoarthritis. Results: The Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template mean total score for all 47 included randomized controlled trials was 4.42 out of 19, demonstrating generally low quality of reporting. The Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template list and the 2016 American College of Sports Medicine guidelines scores were moderately correlated (based on 95% confidence interval, intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.508) for aerobic interventions only. Conclusion: The content analysis of exercise interventions in knee osteoarthritis demonstrated low scores for moderate- to high-quality trials. Improved standardized reporting is recommended to ensure knowledge transfer and replication of effective exercise programs for individuals with knee osteoarthritis.

Tools to Assess the External Validity of Randomized Controlled Trials in Systematic Reviews: a Systematic Review of Measurement Properties

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andres Jung ◽  
Julia Balzer ◽  
Tobias Braun ◽  
Kerstin Luedtke
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
External Validity ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background: Internal and external validity are the most relevant components when critically appraising randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for systematic reviews. However, there is no gold standard to assess external validity. This might be related to the heterogeneity of terminology as well as to unclear evidence of the measurement properties of available tools. The aim of this review was to identify tools to assess the external validity of RCTs in systematic reviews and to evaluate the quality of evidence regarding their measurement properties.Methods: A two-phase systematic literature search was performed in four databases: MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO via OVID, and CINAHL via EBSCO. First, tools to assess the external validity of RCTs were identified. Second, studies aiming to investigate the measurement properties of these tools were selected. The measurement properties of each included tool were appraised using an adapted version of the COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines.Results: 34 publications reporting on the development or validation of 26 included tools were included. For 62% of the included tools, there was no evidence of any measurement property. For the remaining tools, reliability was assessed most frequently. Reliability was judged as “sufficient” for three tools (very low quality of evidence). Content validity was rated as “sufficient” for one tool (moderate quality of evidence).Conclusions: Based on these results, no available tool can be fully recommended to assess the external validity of RCTs in systematic reviews. Several steps are required to overcome the identified difficulties to either adapt and validate available tools or to develop a new one. There is a need for more research for this purpose.Trial registration: Prospective registration at Open Science Framework (OSF): https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PTG4D

scholarly journals Interventions to Reduce Aerosolized Microbes in Dental Practice: A Systematic Review with Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 99 (11) ◽  
pp. 1228-1238 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Koletsi ◽  
G.N. Belibasakis ◽  
T. Eliades
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Bacterial Load ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Dental Practice ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
State Of Research

The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to identify and rank the effectiveness of different interventions used in dental practice to reduce microbial load in aerosolized compounds. Seven electronic databases were searched to April 6, 2020, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or nonrandomized prospective studies in the field. Study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment were performed for all included studies, while the outcome of interest pertained to differences in bacterial load quantification through the use of different interventions prior to aerosol-generating procedures in dental practices. Random effects frequentist network meta-analysis was performed, with mean difference (MD) and 95% CI as the effect measure. Confidence in the documented evidence was assessed through the newly fueled CINeMA framework (Confidence in Network Meta-analysis) based on the GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Twenty-nine clinical trials were deemed eligible, 21 RCTs and 8 nonrandomized studies, while 11 RCTs contributed to the network meta-analysis, comprising 10 competing interventions. Tempered chlorhexidine (CHX) 0.2% as compared with nonactive control mouth rinse, prior to routine ultrasonic scaling, was most effective toward reduced postprocedural bacterial load with an MD of −0.92 (95% CI, −1.54 to −0.29) in log10 bacterial CFUs (colony-forming units). For CHX 0.2%, an MD of −0.74 (95% CI, −1.07 to −0.40) was observed as compared with control. Tempered CHX 0.2% presented the highest probabilities of being ranked the most effective treatment (31.2%). Level of confidence varied from very low to moderate across all formulated comparisons. These findings summarize the current state of research evidence in the field of aerosolized bacteria in dentistry. Instigated by the era of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the stipulation of a broader evaluation of the aerosolized microbes, including viruses, potentially coupled with disinfectant-based prevention schemes should be prioritized.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document