Re: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Do Clinical Trials Testing Antimuscarinic Agents for Overactive Bladder Adequately Measure Central Nervous System Adverse Events?

2012 ◽  
Vol 187 (1) ◽  
pp. 209-210
Author(s):  
Tomas L. Griebling
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Central Nervous System ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Nervous System ◽  
Overactive Bladder ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Antimuscarinic Agents

scholarly journals A Case for Rimantadine to Be Marketed in Canada for Prophylaxis of Influenza a Virus Infection

2003 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 381-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fawziah Marra ◽  
Carlo A Marra ◽  
H Grant Stiver
Keyword(s):  
Central Nervous System ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Nervous System ◽  
Virus Infection ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Influenza A ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treated Group ◽  
Influenza A Virus Infection

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of amantadine and rimantadine, the first generation antivirals, for the prophylaxis of influenza virus.DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of the English language literature using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents and the Cochrane database from 1966 to April 2002, as well as a manual search of references from retrieved articles, were performed.STUDY SELECTION: Prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trials evaluating amantadine and rimantadine for prophylaxis of naturally occurring influenza A illness were considered. The control arm used either a placebo or an antiviral agent.DATA EXTRACTION: Each trial was assessed by two authors to determine the adequacy of randomization and description of withdrawals. Efficacy data were extracted according to a predefined protocol. Discrepancies in data extraction among the investigators were solved by consensus. Nine prophylaxis studies of amantadine and rimantadine met the criteria for this systematic review.DATA SYNTHESIS: Seven amantadine versus placebo trials (n=1797), three rimantadine versus placebo trials (n=688) and two amantadine versus rimantadine studies (n=455) were included for the meta-analysis on the prevention of influenza A illness. The summary of results for the relative odds of illness indicated a 64% reduction in the amantadine group compared with placebo (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.55, P≤0.001), a 75% reduction in illness for the rimantadine group compared with placebo (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.97, P=0.05) and no significant differences in the odds of illness for the amantadine versus rimantadine groups (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.32, P=0.32). The summary of results examining adverse events showed significantly higher odds of central nervous system adverse reactions and premature withdrawal from the clinical trials in the amantadine-treated group than in the placebo-treated group. Compared with the placebo-treated group, the rimantadine-treated group did not have a significantly higher rate of withdrawal or central nervous system events. However, there was a significant increase in the odds of gastrointestinal adverse events for those treated with rimantadine compared with those treated with placebo (OR 3.34, 95% CI 1.17 to 9.55, P=0.03). In the comparative trials of amantadine to rimantadine, rimantadine was associated with an 82% reduction in the odds of central nervous system events (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.00, P=0.05) and a 60% reduction in the odds of discontinuing treatment (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.79, P=0.009).CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis demonstrates that amantadine and rimantadine are superior to placebo in the prevention of influenza A illness. Both antiviral agents have an increased number of adverse events compared with placebo; however, the use of amantadine is associated with significantly higher numbers of central nervous system events and treatment withdrawals compared with rimantadine. Thus, rimantadine should be the preferred agent in this class for the prevention of influenza A virus infection and should be made available in Canada.

scholarly journals Leap Motion Controller Video Game-Based Therapy for Upper Extremity Motor Recovery in Patients with Central Nervous System Diseases. A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Sensors ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 2065
Author(s):  
Irene Cortés-Pérez ◽  
Noelia Zagalaz-Anula ◽  
Desirée Montoro-Cárdenas ◽  
Rafael Lomas-Vega ◽  
Esteban Obrero-Gaitán ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Central Nervous System ◽  
Nervous System ◽  
Motor Function ◽  
Video Game ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Leap Motion ◽  
Motion Controller ◽  
Motor Dexterity ◽  
Quality Evidence

Leap Motion Controller (LMC) is a virtual reality device that can be used in the rehabilitation of central nervous system disease (CNSD) motor impairments. This review aimed to evaluate the effect of video game-based therapy with LMC on the recovery of upper extremity (UE) motor function in patients with CNSD. A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed in PubMed Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, and PEDro. We included five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with CNSD in which LMC was used as experimental therapy compared to conventional therapy (CT) to restore UE motor function. Pooled effects were estimated with Cohen’s standardized mean difference (SMD) and its 95% confidence interval (95% CI). At first, in patients with stroke, LMC showed low-quality evidence of a large effect on UE mobility (SMD = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.47, 1.45). In combination with CT, LMC showed very low-quality evidence of a large effect on UE mobility (SMD = 1.34; 95% CI = 0.49, 2.19) and the UE mobility-oriented task (SMD = 1.26; 95% CI = 0.42, 2.10). Second, in patients with non-acute CNSD (cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, and Parkinson’s disease), LMC showed low-quality evidence of a medium effect on grip strength (GS) (SMD = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.03, 0.90) and on gross motor dexterity (GMD) (SMD = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.28, 1.17) in the most affected UE. In combination with CT, LMC showed very low-quality evidence of a high effect in the most affected UE on GMD (SMD = 0.80; 95% CI = 0.06, 1.15) and fine motor dexterity (FMD) (SMD = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.07, 1.57). In stroke, LMC improved UE mobility and UE mobility-oriented tasks, and in non-acute CNSD, LMC improved the GS and GMD of the most affected UE and FMD when it was used with CT.

scholarly journals Pre and Probiotics Involved in the Modulation of Oral Bacterial Species: New Therapeutic Leads in Mental Disorders?

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 1450
Author(s):  
Yoann Maitre ◽  
Rachid Mahalli ◽  
Pierre Micheneau ◽  
Alexis Delpierre ◽  
Marie Guerin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Central Nervous System ◽  
Nervous System ◽  
Oral Health ◽  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Bacterial Species ◽  
Oral Microbiome ◽  
Oral Microbiota ◽  
Therapeutic Leads

This systematic review aims to identify probiotics and prebiotics for modulating oral bacterial species associated with mental disorders. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guideline, we search the electronic MEDLINE database published till January 2021 to identify the studies on probiotics and/or prebiotics for preventing and treating major oral dysbiosis that provokes mental disorders. The outcome of the search produces 374 records. After excluding non-relevant studies, 38 papers were included in the present review. While many studies suggest the potential effects of the oral microbiota on the biochemical signalling events between the oral microbiota and central nervous system, our review highlights the limited development concerning the use of prebiotics and/or probiotics in modulating oral dysbiosis potentially involved in the development of mental disorders. However, the collected studies confirm prebiotics and/or probiotics interest for a global or targeted modulation of the oral microbiome in preventing or treating mental disorders. These outcomes also offer exciting prospects for improving the oral health of people with mental disorders in the future.

scholarly journals Central nervous system manifestations in COVID‐19 patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shahrzad Nazari ◽  
Amirhossein Azari Jafari ◽  
Seyyedmohammadsadeq Mirmoeeni ◽  
Saeid Sadeghian ◽  
Mohammad Eghbal Heidari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Central Nervous System ◽  
Nervous System ◽  
Meta Analysis

675 FUNDOPLICATION VERSUS ORAL PROTON PUMP INHIBITORS FOR GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Luca Schiliró Tristão ◽  
Francisco Tustumi ◽  
Guilherme Tavares ◽  
Letícia Nogueira Datrino ◽  
Maria Carolina Andrade Serafim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease ◽  
Gastroesophageal Reflux ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Proton Pump ◽  
Reflux Disease ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Intake

Abstract   Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a widely studied and highly prevalent condition. However, few is reported about the exact efficacy and safety of fundoplication (FPT) compared to oral intake proton-pump inhibitors (PPI). This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT) aims to compare PPI and FPT in relation to the efficacy, as well as the adverse events associated with these therapies. Methods This systematic review was guided by PRISMA statement. Search carried out in June 2020 was conducted on Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE and LILACS. The inclusion criteria were (I) patients with GERD; (II) Randomized clinical trials, comparing oral intake PPI with FPT; (III) relevant outcomes for this review. The exclusion criteria were (I) reviews, case reports, editorials and letters (II) transoral or endoscopic FPT (III) studies with no full text. No restrictions were set for language or period. Certainty of evidence and risk of bias were assessed with GRADE Pro and with Review Manager Version 5.4 bias assessment tool. Results Ten RCT were included. Meta-analysis showed that heartburn (RD = −0.19; 95% CI = −0.29, −0.09) was less frequently reported by patients that underwent FPT. Furthermore, patients undergoing surgery had greater pressure on the lower esophageal sphincter than those who used PPI (MD = 7.81; 95% CI 4.79, 10.83). There was no significant difference between groups in the percentage of time with pH less than 4 in 24 hours, sustained remission and Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale. Finally, FPT did not increase significantly the risk for adverse events such as postoperative dysphagia and impaired belching. Conclusion FPT is a more effective therapy than PPI treatment for GERD, without significantly increasing the risk for adverse events. However, before indicating a possible surgical approach, it is extremely important to correctly assess and select the patients who would benefit from FPT, such as those with severe erosive esophagitis, severe respiratory symptoms, low adherence to continuous drug treatment and patients with non-acid reflux, to ensure better results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document