Systematic review and case report: Systemic lupus erythematosus with renal tubular acidosis.

Immune profile assessment-particularly for SLE-and subsequent specific therapy are beneficial in patients with persisting unexplained hyperkalemic or hypokalemic paralysis, especially in case of isolated RTA.

Efficacy of kinesio taping in treatment of shoulder pain and disability: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Kinesio tape is an elastic therapeutic tape used for treating sports injuries and various other disorders. A systematic review and network meta-analysis approach was used to synthesise all related evidence on the clinical effectiveness of kinesio taping for the treatment of shoulder pain. METHODS: A literature search was performed using 10 major databases. Randomised clinical trials reporting usage of kinesio taping for shoulder pain have been included. Quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's quality assessment tool. Meta-analysis was conducted to calculate standardised mean differences and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). The corresponding 95% CI of pooled effect size were calculated using a fixed-effects or random-effects model based on the level of heterogeneity. In addition, meta-regression was used to assess the influence of underlying shoulder disease on the efficacy of kinesio taping. RESULTS: This systematic review and meta-analysis included 12 studies, with a total of 555 participants. Pairwise comparisons inferred that kinesio taping only showed significant improvement of shoulder pain and disability when combined with exercise. However, kinesio taping did not produce better results than placebo or treatment with steroids. The duration of treatment and underlying shoulder pathology did not influence the efficacy of kinesio taping. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence to support the use of kinesio taping in clinical practice as a treatment for shoulder pain. However, there is limited evidence of its benefit as a complementary treatment in shoulder pain syndromes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42017065881.

Torasemide versus furosemide in treatment of heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIM: Diuretics are a cornerstone in treatment of heart failure (HF). Torasemide is a loop diuretic with a potential advantage over other diuretics. We aim to meta-analyse and compare the effect of torasemide with furosemide in HF patients. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search using 12 databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing furosemide and torasemide in HF patients were included and meta-analysed. We assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016046112). RESULTS: Eighteen RCTs with 1598 patients were included. There was a significant difference between torasemide 20 mg and furosemide 40 mg in increasing the urine volume (standard difference of the mean (SDM) [95% confidence interval] = -0.78 [-1.52 to -0.053], P = .036). Torasemide 10 mg and 10 to 20 mg have a significant effect on potassium excretion in comparison with furosemide 25 to 40 mg (P = .018 and .023, respectively). In general, torasemide and furosemide have no significant difference in mortality, edema improvement, weight loss, heart rate, and reducing systolic/diastolic blood pressure. However, oral torasemide has a significant lower hospital stay P < .001 and superior effect in improving ejection fraction P = .029. CONCLUSION: Although not all results are statistically significant, torasemide has potential advantages on multiple aspects of HF management when compared with furosemide. More studies are needed to clarify these effects.