scholarly journals Aromatherapy for Symptom Relief in Patients with Burn: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Medicina ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Hye Won Lee ◽  
Lin Ang ◽  
Jung Tae Kim ◽  
Myeong Soo Lee
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Symptom Relief ◽  
Routine Care ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Review Author ◽  
Beneficial Effects ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background and Objectives: This review aimed to provide an updated review of evidence regarding the effects of aromatherapy in relieving symptoms of burn injuries, focusing on pain and physiological distress. Materials and Methods: Fifteen databases (including five English databases, four Korean medical databases, and four Iranian databases) and trial registries were searched for studies published between their dates of inception and July 2021. Two review authors individually performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment, and any discrepancies were solved by a third review author. Results: Eight RCTs met our inclusion criteria and were analyzed in this updated systematic review. Our meta-analyses revealed that inhaled aromatherapy plus routine care showed beneficial effects in relieving pain after dressing, as compared to placebo plus routine care (p < 0.00001) and routine care alone (p = 0.02). Additionally, inhaled aromatherapy plus routine care (p < 0.00001) and aromatherapy massage plus routine care (p < 0.0001) also showed superior effects in calming anxiety, as compared to routine care alone. None of the included studies reported on AEs. Overall, the risk of bias across the studies was concerning. Conclusions: This updated review and synthesis of the studies had brought a more detailed understanding of the potential application of aromatherapy for easing the pain and anxiety of burn patients.

scholarly journals Safety and Efficacy of Pilocarpine, Cevimeline and Diquafosol Compared to Artificial Tears for the Treatment of Dry Eye: Protocol for a Systematic Review.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Gerardo Serrano-Robles ◽  
Ana Karen Pérez-Vázquez ◽  
Alejandro Navas-Pérez ◽  
Enrique O Graue-Hernandez ◽  
Arturo Ramirez-Miranda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Dry Eye ◽  
Ocular Surface ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Review Author ◽  
Artificial Tears ◽  
Ocular Surface Disease Index

Abstract Background: Dry eye disease (DED) is a condition that affects the ocular surface and affects millions of people around the world. In recent years a stepped scheme has been proposed for the treatment of DED, with the use of an artificial tear being the mainstay of treatment. In this scheme, the use of secretagogues is suggested as part of the treatment for patients with moderate to severe affectation. With this systematic review we aim to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of secretagogues for DED.Methods: Electronic databases will be searched; we will include randomized controlled trials that compare secretagogues and artificial tears. Study inclusion will not be restricted on the basis of language or publication status. We will use Google Translate to assess studies written in languages other than English and Spanish. Identification, evaluation, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias will be conducted by two authors of the review, a third review author will resolve any disagreement. The outcomes will be the ocular surface disease index score, osmolarity and tear film break-up time. We will use the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias (RoB) tool for assessing the risk of bias of the included studies. Based on the heterogeneity of the included studies, we will combine the findings in a meta-analysis using a random versus a fixed effect model. If we deem meta-analysis as inappropriate, we will document the reasons and report findings from the individual studies narratively.Discussion: Based on the evidence obtained we will evaluate the effect of Pilocarpine, Cevimeline and Diquafosol and compare it to artificial tears on multiple outcome measures.This systematic review aims to determine the efficacy and safety of the secretagogues pilocarpine, cevimeline and diquafosol to help clinicians in the decision-making process.Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020218407

Effects of Caffeine Supplementation on Physical Performance of Soccer Players: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 194173812199871
Author(s):  
Raphael Einsfeld Simões Ferreira ◽  
Rafael Leite Pacheco ◽  
Carolina de Oliveira Cruz Latorraca ◽  
Rachel Riera ◽  
Ricardo Guilherme Eid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Perceived Exertion ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Rating Of Perceived Exertion ◽  
Soccer Players ◽  
Meta Analyses

Context: Caffeine is 1 of the most popular supplements consumed by athletes, and the evidence for improving soccer performance remains limited. Objective: To investigate and update the effects (benefits and harms) of caffeine to improve performance on soccer players. Data Sources: Electronic search in Medline (via PubMed), CENTRAL, Embase, SPORTDiscus, and LILACS, from inception to March 28, 2020. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of caffeine on the performance of soccer players. Study Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Level of Evidence: Level 1. Data Extraction: Data extraction was conducted independently by 2 authors using a piloted form. We assessed methodological quality (Cochrane risk-of-bias [RoB] table) and the certainty of the evidence (GRADE [Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation] approach). Results: Sixteen RCTs were included. Overall methodological quality was classified as unclear to low risk of bias. When assessing aerobic endurance, meta-analyses did not demonstrate the differences between caffeine and placebo (mean difference [MD], 44.9 m; 95% confidence interval [CI], −77.7 to 167.6). Similarly, no difference was observed during time to fatigue test (MD, 169.8 seconds; 95% CI, −71.8 to 411.6). Considering anaerobic power, meta-analyses also did not find differences for vertical jump (MD, 1.01 cm; 95% CI, −0.68 to 2.69) and repeated sprint tests (MD, −0.02 seconds; 95% CI, −0.09 to 0.04), as well as reaction time agility test (MD, 0.02 seconds; 95% CI, −0.01 to 0.04) and rating of perceived exertion (MD, 0.16 points; 95% CI, −0.55 to 0.87). Regarding safety, a few minor adverse events were reported. Based on the GRADE approach, the certainty of this evidence was classified as very low to low. Conclusions: We found no significant improvement in soccer-related performance with caffeine compared with placebo or no intervention. However, caffeine appears to be safe.

scholarly journals Association between vision impairment and mortality: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e037556
Author(s):  
Joshua R Ehrlich ◽  
Jacqueline Ramke ◽  
David Macleod ◽  
Bonnielin K Swenor ◽  
Helen Burn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Vision Impairment ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Evaluation Approach ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionDue to growth and ageing of the world’s population, the number of individuals worldwide with vision impairment (VI) and blindness is projected to increase rapidly over the coming decades. VI and blindness are an important cause of years lived with disability. However, the association of VI and blindness with mortality, including the risk of bias in published studies and certainty of the evidence, has not been adequately studied in an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods and analysisThe planned systematic review and meta-analysis will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Databases, including MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid and Global Health, will be searched for relevant studies. Two reviewers will then screen studies and review full texts to identify studies for inclusion. Data extraction will be performed, and for included studies, the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence will be assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The prognostic factor in this study is visual function, which must have been measured using a standard objective ophthalmic clinical or research instrument. We will use standard criteria from WHO to categorise VI and blindness. All-cause mortality may be assessed by any method one or more years after baseline assessment of vision. Results from included studies will be meta-analysed according to relevant sections of the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist.Ethics and disseminationThis review will only include published data; therefore, ethics approval will not be sought. The findings of this review and meta-analysis will be published in an open-access, peer-reviewed journal and will be included in the ongoing Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health.

scholarly journals Use of corticoids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatories in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. e0248866
Author(s):  
Mariana Del Grossi Paglia ◽  
Marcus Tolentino Silva ◽  
Luciane Cruz Lopes ◽  
Silvio Barberato-Filho ◽  
Lauren Giustti Mazzei ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Inflammatory Drugs ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Active Controls ◽  
Better Than

Evidence on the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and corticoids for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is inconclusive and is not up to date. This systematic review assessed the effectiveness and safety of these anti-inflammatories (AI) in the treatment of RA. COCHRANE (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and Virtual Health Library were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) with adults which used AI (dose represented in mg/day) compared with placebo or active controls and was carried out up to December of 2019. Reviewers, in pairs and independently, selected studies, performed the data extraction and assessed the risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was assessed by GRADE. Network meta-analyses were performed using the Stata v.14.2. Twenty-six articles were selected (NSAIDs = 21 and corticoids = 5). Naproxen 1,000 improved physical function, reduced pain and the number of painful joints compared to placebo. Etoricoxib 90 reduced the number of painful joints compared to placebo. Naproxen 750 reduced the number of swollen joints, except for etoricoxib 90. Naproxen 1,000, etoricoxib 90 and diclofenac 150 were better than placebo regarding patient assessment. Assessment physician showed that NSAIDs were better than placebo. Meta-analyses were not performed for prednisolone and prednisone. Naproxen 1,000 was the most effective drug and celecoxib 200 showed fewer adverse events. However, the low quality of the evidence observed for the outcomes with NSAIDs, the absence of meta-analyses to assess the outcomes with corticoids, as well as the risk of bias observed, indicate that future RCT can confirm such findings.

scholarly journals Tocilizumab and sarilumab alone or in combination with corticosteroids for COVID-19: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dena Zeraatkar ◽  
Ellen Cusano ◽  
Juan Pablo Diaz Martinez ◽  
Anila Qasim ◽  
Sophia O Mangala ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Analysis Data ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Receptor Blockers ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Grade Approach

Objective: To compare the effects of interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor blockers, with or without corticosteroids, on mortality in patients with COVID-19. Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis Data sources: WHO COVID-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and two prospective meta-analyses Study selection: Trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed COVID-19 were randomized to IL-6 receptor blockers (with or without corticosteroids), corticosteroids, placebo, or standard care. Results: We assessed the risk of bias of included trials using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. We performed a Bayesian fixed effect network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. We identified 45 eligible trials (20,650 patients), 36 (19,350 patients) of which could be included in the network meta-analysis. 27 of 36 trials were rated at high risk of bias, primarily due to lack of blinding. Tocilizumab (20 more per 1000, 15 fewer to 59 more; low certainty) and sarilumab (11 more per 1000, 38 fewer to 55 more; low certainty) alone may not reduce the risk of death. Tocilizumab, in combination with corticosteroids, probably reduces the risk of death compared to corticosteroids alone (35 fewer per 1000, 52 fewer to 18 more; moderate certainty) and sarilumab, in combination with corticosteroids, may reduce the risk of death compared to corticosteroids alone (43 fewer, 73 fewer to 12 more; low certainty). Tocilizumab and sarilumab, both in combination with corticosteroids, may have similar effects (8 more per 1000, 20 fewer to 35 more; low certainty). Conclusion: IL-6 receptor blockers, when added to standard care that includes corticosteroids, in patients with severe or critical COVID-19, probably reduce mortality. Tocilizumab and sarilumab may have similar effectiveness.

scholarly journals Prevalence of retinopathy in prediabetes: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e040997
Author(s):  
Varo Kirthi ◽  
Paul Nderitu ◽  
Uazman Alam ◽  
Jennifer Evans ◽  
Sarah Nevitt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diabetic Retinopathy ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
International Diabetes Federation ◽  
Current Data ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Fundus Photography ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Cochrane Library

IntroductionThere is growing evidence of a higher than expected prevalence of retinopathy in prediabetes. This paper presents the protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis of retinopathy in prediabetes. The aim of the review is to estimate the prevalence of retinopathy in prediabetes and to summarise the current data.Methods and analysisThis protocol is developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. A comprehensive electronic bibliographic search will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library. Eligible studies will report prevalence data for retinopathy on fundus photography in adults with prediabetes. No time restrictions will be placed on the date of publication. Screening for eligible studies and data extraction will be conducted by two reviewers independently, using predefined inclusion criteria and prepiloted data extraction forms. Disagreements between the reviewers will be resolved by discussion, and if required, a third (senior) reviewer will arbitrate.The primary outcome is the prevalence of any standard features of diabetic retinopathy (DR) on fundus photography, as per International Clinical Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale (ICDRSS) classification. Secondary outcomes are the prevalence of (1) any retinal microvascular abnormalities on fundus photography that are not standard features of DR as per ICDRSS classification and (2) any macular microvascular abnormalities on fundus photography, including but not limited to the presence of macular exudates, microaneurysms and haemorrhages. Risk of bias for included studies will be assessed using a validated risk of bias tool for prevalence studies. Pooled estimates for the prespecified outcomes of interest will be calculated using random effects meta-analytic techniques. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the I2 statistic.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as this is a protocol for a systematic review and no primary data are to be collected. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international meetings including Diabetes UK, European Association for the Study of Diabetes, American Diabetes Association and International Diabetes Federation conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020184820.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of Antalgic Therapies in Patients with Vertebral Bone Metastasis: A Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (8) ◽  
pp. 3991
Author(s):  
Antonio Jose Martin-Perez ◽  
María Fernández-González ◽  
Paula Postigo-Martin ◽  
Marc Sampedro Pilegaard ◽  
Carolina Fernández-Lao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Metastasis ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Pharmacological Intervention ◽  
Vertebral Metastasis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials

There is no systematic review that has identified existing studies evaluating the pharmacological and non-pharmacological intervention for pain management in patients with bone metastasis. To fill this gap in the literature, this systematic review with meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of different antalgic therapies (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) in the improvement of pain of these patients. To this end, this protocol has been written according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020135762). A systematic search will be carried out in four international databases: Medline (Via PubMed), Web of Science, Cochrane Library and SCOPUS, to select the randomized controlled clinical trials. The Risk of Bias Tool developed by Cochrane will be used to assess the risk of bias and the quality of the identified studies. A narrative synthesis will be used to describe and compare the studies, and after the data extraction, random effects model and a subgroup analyses will be performed according to the type of intervention, if possible. This protocol aims to generate a systematic review that compiles and synthesizes the best and most recent evidence on the treatment of pain derived from vertebral metastasis.

scholarly journals Epidemiology of hepatitis E virus infection in animals in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdou Fatawou Modiyinji ◽  
Jean Joel Bigna ◽  
Sebastien Kenmoe ◽  
Fredy Brice N. Simo ◽  
Marie A. Amougou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hepatitis E Virus ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hepatitis E ◽  
Epidemiological Studies ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Resource Limited ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Language Restriction

Abstract Background Hepatitis E virus (HEV) is a major cause of acute hepatitis in humans worldwide and have high burden in the resource-limited countries. Better knowledge of the epidemiology of hepatitis in animals in Africa can help to understand the epidemiology among humans. The objective of this study was to summarize the prevalence of HEV infection and distribution of HEV genotypes among animals in Africa. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we comprehensively searched PubMed, EMBASE, African Journals Online, and Africa Index Medicus from January 1st, 2000 to March 22th, 2020 without any language restriction. We considered cross-sectional studies of HEV infection in animals in Africa. Study selection, data extraction, and methodological quality of included studies were done independently by two investigators. Prevalence data were pooled using the random-effects meta-analysis. This review was registered in PROSPERO, CRD42018087684. Results Twenty-five studies (13 species and 6983 animals) were included. The prevalence (antibodies or ribonucleic acid [RNA]) of HEV infection in animals varied widely depending on biological markers of HEV infection measured: 23.4% (95% confidence interval; 12.0–37.2) for anti-HEV immunoglobulins G, 13.1% (3.1–28.3) for anti-HEV immunoglobulins M, and 1.8% (0.2–4.3) for RNA; with substantial heterogeneity. In subgroup analysis, the immunoglobulins G seroprevalence was higher among pigs 37.8% (13.9–65.4). The following HEV genotypes were reported in animals: Rat-HEV genotype 1 (rats and horses), HEV-3 (pigs), HEV-7 (dromedaries), and Bat hepeviruses (bats). Conclusions We found a high prevalence of HEV infection in animals in Africa and HEV genotypes close to that of humans. Some animals in Africa could be the reservoir of HEV, highlighting the need of molecular epidemiological studies for investigating zoonotic transmission.

scholarly journals Comparative efficacy and safety of interventions for treating head lice: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e001129
Author(s):  
Bill Stevenson ◽  
Wubshet Tesfaye ◽  
Julia Christenson ◽  
Cynthia Mathew ◽  
Solomon Abrha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Head Lice ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundHead lice infestation is a major public health problem around the globe. Its treatment is challenging due to product failures resulting from rapidly emerging resistance to existing treatments, incorrect treatment applications and misdiagnosis. Various head lice treatments with different mechanism of action have been developed and explored over the years, with limited report on systematic assessments of their efficacy and safety. This work aims to present a robust evidence summarising the interventions used in head lice.MethodThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis which will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement for network meta-analyses. Selected databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials exploring head lice treatments. Searches will be limited to trials published in English from database inception till 2021. Grey literature will be identified through Open Grey, AHRQ, Grey Literature Report, Grey Matters, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry. Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved via a third reviewer. The primary outcome measure is the relative risk of cure at 7 and 14 days postinitial treatment. Secondary outcome measures may include adverse drug events, ovicidal activity, treatment compliance and acceptability, and reinfestation. Information from direct and indirect evidence will be used to generate the effect sizes (relative risk) to compare the efficacy and safety of individual head lice treatments against a common comparator (placebo and/or permethrin). Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations guideline for network meta-analysis. All quantitative analyses will be conducted using STATA V.16.DiscussionThe evidence generated from this systematic review and meta-analysis is intended for use in evidence-driven treatment of head lice infestations and will be instrumental in informing health professionals, public health practitioners and policy-makers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017073375.

scholarly journals Effects of open-label placebos in clinical trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Melina von Wernsdorff ◽  
Martin Loef ◽  
Brunna Tuschen-Caffier ◽  
Stefan Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Medical Condition ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Cancer Related Fatigue ◽  
Promising Treatment ◽  
Irritable Bowel

AbstractOpen-label placebos (OLPs) are placebos without deception in the sense that patients know that they are receiving a placebo. The objective of our study is to systematically review and analyze the effect of OLPs in comparison to no treatment in clinical trials. A systematic literature search was carried out in February 2020. Randomized controlled trials of any medical condition or mental disorder comparing OLPs to no treatment were included. Data extraction and risk of bias rating were independently assessed. 1246 records were screened and thirteen studies were included into the systematic review. Eleven trials were eligible for meta-analysis. These trials assessed effects of OLPs on back pain, cancer-related fatigue, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, allergic rhinitis, major depression, irritable bowel syndrome and menopausal hot flushes. Risk of bias was moderate among all studies. We found a significant overall effect (standardized mean difference = 0.72, 95% Cl 0.39–1.05, p < 0.0001, I2 = 76%) of OLP. Thus, OLPs appear to be a promising treatment in different conditions but the respective research is in its infancy. More research is needed, especially with respect to different medical and mental disorders and instructions accompanying the OLP administration as well as the role of expectations and mindsets.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document