Effect of Nuts on Anthropometric and Glycemic Indexes and Blood Pressure in Secondary Cardiovascular Prevention: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

CONTEXT: Nut-enriched diets have a positive impact on cardiovascular risk factors, such as body mass, blood pressure, and fasting blood glucose. However, studies in individuals undergoing secondary cardiovascular prevention show controversial results. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review with meta-analysis assessed the effect of nut supplementation on anthropometric, glycemic, and blood pressure indices in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, as well as the frequency of adverse events. DATA SOURCES: Six databases were used for the search-PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, BVS (Biblioteca Virtual da Saude), Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov-until February 2023, with no language restrictions. DATA EXTRACTION: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions methodology and the PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Setting/design) strategy were used. Seven independent reviewers were involved in data extraction and resolution of disagreements. Certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. DATA ANALYSIS: From 5187 records identified, 6 publications containing data referring to 5 randomized clinical trials (n = 436) were included in the final analyses. The nuts evaluated were almonds, pecans, Brazil nuts, and mixed nuts, with portions that varied between 5 g and 85 g (median: 30 g/day). The intervention period varied between 6 and 12 weeks. The nuts had no effect on fasting glucose and anthropometric indices, although the certainty of the evidence for most of these outcomes was low or very low. They also had no effect on systolic (mean difference [MD]: -1.16 mmHg [95% CI, -5.68 to 3.35], I2 = 0%-moderate certainty of evidence) or diastolic (MD: 0.10 mmHg [95% CI, -2.30 to 2.51], I2 = 0%-high certainty of evidence) blood pressure. It was not possible to aggregate data on adverse events. CONCLUSION: Nut supplementation had no effect on blood pressure, fasting glucose, or anthropometric profile in the context of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42020163456.

Values and Preferences of Patients and Caregivers Regarding Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis (Eczema): A Systematic Review.

Importance: Patient values and preferences can inform atopic dermatitis (AD) care. Systematic summaries of evidence addressing patient values and preferences have not previously been available. Objective: To inform American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI)/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI) Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guideline development, patient and caregiver values and preferences in the management of AD were systematically synthesized. Evidence Review: Paired reviewers independently screened MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases from inception until March 20, 2022, for studies of patients with AD or their caregivers, eliciting values and preferences about treatment, rated risk of bias, and extracted data. Thematic and inductive content analysis to qualitatively synthesize the findings was used. Patients, caregivers, and clinical experts provided triangulation. The GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research) informed rating of the quality of evidence. Findings: A total of 7780 studies were identified, of which 62 proved eligible (n = 19 442; median age across studies [range], 15 years [3-44]; 59% female participants). High certainty evidence showed that patients and caregivers preferred to start with nonmedical treatments and to step up therapy with increasing AD severity. Moderate certainty evidence showed that adverse effects from treatment were a substantial concern. Low certainty evidence showed that patients and caregivers preferred odorless treatments that are not visible and have a minimal effect on daily life. Patients valued treatments capable of relieving itching and burning skin and preferred to apply topical corticosteroids sparingly. Patients valued a strong patient-clinician relationship. Some studies presented varied perspectives and 18 were at high risk for industry sponsorship bias. Conclusions and Relevance: In the first systematic review to address patient values and preferences in management of AD to our knowledge, 6 key themes that may inform optimal clinical care, practice guidelines, and future research have been identified.

Probiotics for the treatment of depression and anxiety: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND & AIM: Probiotics in the gut have been suggested to have a beneficial effect on anxiety response and depressive disorder. Hence we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the effects of probiotics associated with or without pharmacological or psychological therapies in patients with depressive and/or anxiety symptoms or disorders. METHODS: We conducted searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ProQuest, LILACS, and Web of Science up to February 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of probiotics associated with or without pharmacological or psychological therapies for patient-important outcomes including relief of depressive, anxiety and stress symptoms, cognitive functions, adverse events and quality of life. We used the GRADE approach to rate the overall certainty of the evidence by outcome. The protocol of the systematic review was registered with PROPSERO and published under the number CRD4202016329. RESULTS: 16 RCTs including 1,125 patients proved eligible. Results suggested a significant improvement in using Beck Depression Index (MD, -3.20 [95% CI, -5.91 to -0.49], p = 0.02; I2 = 21%, p = 0.28) for depression symptoms and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) (MD, -6.88 [95% CI, -12.35 to -1.41], p = 0.01; I2 = 24%, p = 0.25) for anxiety with overall certainty in evidence rated as moderate and low, respectively. However, Depression Scale (DASS-Depression) (MD, 2.01 [95% CI, -0.80 to 4.82], p = 0.16; I2 = 0%, p = 0.62), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRAS) (MD, -2,41 [95% CI, -10,55 to 5,72], p = 0,56; I2 = 87%, p = 0,006), Anxiety scale (DASS-Anxiety) (MD, 0.49 [95% CI, -4.05 to 5.02], p = 0.83; I2 = 74%, p = 0.05), and Stress Scale (DASS-Stress) (MD, 0.84 [95% CI, -2.64 to 4.33], p = 0.64; I2 = 34%, p = 0.22) showed no significant decrease in the relief of depression, anxiety and stress symptoms of probiotics compared to placebo with overall certainty in evidence rated as very low for all outcomes. We also found no differences in the Beck Anxiety Index (BAI) (MD, -3.21 [95% CI, -6.50 to 0.08], p = 0.06; I2 = 0%, p = 0.88) with overall certainty in evidence rated as low. Results suggested a non-statistically significantly effect of probiotics in the adverse events outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The current review suggests that probiotics may improve symptoms of depression and anxiety in clinical patients. However, given the limitations in the included studies, RCTs with long-term follow-up and large sample sizes are needed.

Addition of corticosteroids to local anaesthetics for chronic non-cancer pain injections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Despite common use, the benefit of adding steroids to local anaesthetics (SLA) for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) injections is uncertain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of English-language RCTs to assess the benefit and safety of adding steroids to local anaesthetics (LA) for CNCP. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from inception to May 2019. Trial selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Outcomes were guided by the Initiative in Methods, Measurements, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) statement with pain improvement as the primary outcome and pooled using random effects model and reported as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Among 5097 abstracts, 73 trials were eligible. Although SLA increased the rate of success (42 trials, 3592 patients; RR=1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.25; number needed to treat [NNT], 13), the effect size decreased by nearly 50% (NNT, 22) with the removal of two intrathecal injection studies. The differences in pain scores with SLA were not clinically meaningful (54 trials, 4416 patients, MD=0.44 units; 95% CI, 0.24-0.65). No differences were observed in other outcomes or adverse events. No subgroup effects were detected based on clinical categories. Meta-regression showed no significant association with steroid dose or length of follow-up and pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of cortico steroids to local anaesthetic has only small benefits and a potential for harm. Injection of local anaesthetic alone could be therapeutic, beyond being diagnostic. A shared decision based on patient preferences should be considered. If used, one must avoid high doses and series of steroid injections. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO #: CRD42015020614.

Effects of oral supplementation with probiotics or synbiotics in overweight and obese adults: a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized trials.

CONTEXT: Recent evidence suggests that modulation of the gut microbiota may contribute to body weight control. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to assess the effects of oral supplementation with probiotics or synbiotics on body weight, body mass index (BMI), and waist circumference in overweight and obese adults (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2). DATA SOURCES: Five electronic databases-PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library/CENTRAL, LILACS, and Web of Science-were searched from inception to August 2017. No language restrictions were applied. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized and quasi-randomized parallel trials that assessed the effects of oral supplementation with probiotics or synbiotics vs any other intervention but bariatric surgery or fecal transplantation in overweight or obese adults were selected. DATA EXTRACTION: Three teams of 2 authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data from the included trials. Data were pooled using inverse-variance random-effects meta-analyses. The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. RESULTS: Nineteen randomized trials (28 publications, 1412 participants) were included. There were no differences in mean body weight change [mean difference (MD), -0.54 kg; 95%CI, -1.09 to 0.01; I2 = 0%; moderate quality of evidence) or mean BMI change (MD, -0.19 kg/m2; 95%CI, -0.43 to 0.04; I2 = 51%; low quality of evidence) between groups who received probiotics or synbiotics and control groups. Oral supplementation with probiotics or synbiotics reduced mean waist circumference compared with control (MD, -0.82 cm; 95%CI, -1.43 to -0.21; I2 = 46%; low quality of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that oral supplementation with probiotics or synbiotics has a small effect to reduce waist circumference but no effect on body weight or BMI, although the quality of evidence is low to moderate. Therefore, the current evidence is not definitive. Large-scale trials are needed and may help to better inform clinical practice. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42018075126.

Electronic nicotine delivery systems and/or electronic non-nicotine delivery systems for tobacco smoking cessation or reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: A systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the impact of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and/or electronic non-nicotine delivery systems (ENNDS) versus no smoking cessation aid, or alternative smoking cessation aids, in cigarette smokers on long-term tobacco use. DATA SOURCES: Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, CENTRAL and Web of Science up to December 2015. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies. DATA EXTRACTION: Three pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles, extracted data from included studies on populations, interventions and outcomes and assessed their risk of bias. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate overall certainty of the evidence by outcome. DATA SYNTHESIS: Three randomised trials including 1007 participants and nine cohorts including 13 115 participants proved eligible. Results provided by only two RCTs suggest a possible increase in tobacco smoking cessation with ENDS in comparison with ENNDS (RR 2.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 4.38; p=0.07; I2=0%, risk difference (RD) 64/1000 over 6 to 12 months, low-certainty evidence). Results from cohort studies suggested a possible reduction in quit rates with use of ENDS compared with no use of ENDS (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.00; p=0.051; I2=56%, very low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: There is very limited evidence regarding the impact of ENDS or ENNDS on tobacco smoking cessation, reduction or adverse effects: data from RCTs are of low certainty and observational studies of very low certainty. The limitations of the cohort studies led us to a rating of very low-certainty evidence from which no credible inferences can be drawn. Lack of usefulness with regard to address the question of e-cigarettes' efficacy on smoking reduction and cessation was largely due to poor reporting. This review underlines the need to conduct well-designed trials measuring biochemically validated outcomes and adverse effects.

Systematic survey of randomized trials evaluating the impact of alternative diagnostic strategies on patient-important outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To provide a perspective on the current practice of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of diagnostic strategies focusing on patient-important outcomes. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE and included RCTs published in full-text reports that evaluated alternative diagnostic strategies. RESULTS: Of 56,912 unique citations, we sampled 7,500 and included 103 eligible RCTs, therefore suggesting that MEDLINE includes approximately 781 diagnostic RCTs. The 103 eligible trials reported on: mortality (n = 41; 39.8%); morbidities (n = 63; 61.2%); symptoms/quality of life/functional status (n = 14; 13.6%); and on composite end points (n = 10; 9.7%). Of the studies that reported statistically significant results (n = 12; 11.6%), we judged 7 (58.3%) as at low risk of bias with respect to missing outcome data and 4 (33.3%) as at low risk of bias regarding blinding. Of the 41 RCTs that reported on mortality, only one (2.4%) reported statistically significant results. Of 63 RCTs addressing morbidity outcomes, 11 (17.5%) reported statistically significant results, all of which reported relative effects of greater than 20%. CONCLUSION: RCTs of diagnostic tests are not uncommon, and sometimes suggest benefits on patient-important outcomes but often suffer from limitations in sample size and conduct.

The quality of reporting of trial abstracts is suboptimal: survey of major general medical journals.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality of reporting of abstracts describing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in four major general medical journals. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic survey of published RCT abstracts, with two reviewers independently extracting data. We searched MEDLINE and identified 227 RCT abstracts published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), British Medical Journal (BMJ), and The Lancet in the year 2006. RESULTS: Most abstracts identified the study as a randomized trial (98.7%), reported the objectives (92.5%), described the population (90.3%), detailed the intervention (81.5%), and defined the primary outcome (71.3%). Methodological quality was poorly reported: one (0.4%) described allocation concealment; 21 (9.3%) clearly specified blinding; 51 (22.5%) described intention-to-treat analysis; and 32 (14.1%) outlined losses to follow-up. Most of the abstracts reported the effect size and the confidence intervals (62.3%), but just half of them reported side effects or harms. CONCLUSION: The quality of reporting of RCT abstracts published in main general medical journals is suboptimal. Space limitations notwithstanding, with the recent recommendations from the CONSORT for Abstracts, it is expected that the transparency of abstract reporting can and should improve.