Efficacy and safety of desmopressin in nocturia and nocturnal polyuria control of neurological patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Evidence on the efficacy of desmopressin in nocturia in patients with neurological diseases is still very limited except for multiple sclerosis (MS). Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of desmopressin treatment on nocturia in patients with underlying neurological diseases. METHODS: Studies were identified by electronic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, and Google Scholar databases. Studies were considered if they provided information on the effectiveness and safety of desmopressin (1-desamino-8-d-arginine vasopressin, or DDAVP) in the treatment of nocturia and their participants had acquired neurological pathology. Two researchers independently extracted the articles using specified datasets, such as quality-of-study indicators. Statistical meta-analysis was carried out using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4 statistical software (Cochrane Collaboration). RESULTS: Of a total of 1042 articles in the initial search, 14 studies were included. Most of the published papers were related to MS (n = 7), two were on spinal cord injury, and other conditions were neural tube defect, myelodysplasia, Parkinson's disease, stroke, and multiple system atrophy. Overall, a total of 200 patients (mostly females) were enrolled. Thirteen studies evaluated the intranasal formulation of desmopressin and one study evaluated oral desmopressin. A significant decrease in nocturia episodes was reported in seven studies evaluating this topic. An increase in the maximum hours of uninterrupted sleep was reported in the three studies in which this outcome was assessed. A significant reduction in the volume of nocturnal incontinence was found in one study. Three studies were eligible to include in the meta-analysis. The results showed that desmopressin compared to placebo, significantly reduced nighttime urination (mean difference: -0.75, 95% CI: -1.10 to -0.41; p < 0.00001). The rate of adverse events ranged from 0% to 68.42%. The critical appraisal results for all trials showed that most of the studies had low or moderate quality. CONCLUSIONS: Our results emphasized desmopressin's safety and efficacy in reducing nocturia episodes, with transient adverse effects on neurological patients. However, the data were achieved from low or medium-quality trials, and further well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed.

Management of urolithiasis in pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Management of nephrolithiasis is unique in pregnancy and requires multidisciplinary care. To identify the effectiveness or safety of temporary drainage or definitive treatment methods to manage urolithiasis in pregnancy. METHODS: The search strategy aimed to find both published and unpublished studies was conducted in August 2021. Studies published in any language on any date were considered for inclusion. RESULTS: Of a total of 3349 publications, 36 studies were included in our qualitative evaluation and 32 studies in the quantitative synthesis. The commonly reported method was stent insertion (n = 29 studies), pneumatic (n = 12), laser (n = 9) lithotripsy, and stone removal using any devices (basket, grasper, or forceps) (n = 11). In seven studies, the authors reported the outcomes of conservative management, and the results showed that the stone-free rate is 54%, and symptom relief occurred in 62% of women. Seven eligible studies reported that 79.9% of urolithiasis were expulsed through stent insertion, while this rate was 94.6% among percutaneous nephrostomy use in two included studies, 88.5% for pneumatic lithotripsy (n = 7 studies), and 76.4% for laser lithotripsy (n = 4 studies), or 95.4% for stone removal method. In addition, adverse events were reported in less than 10% of pregnant women. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that stent, pneumatic or laser lithotripsy, and ureteroscopic stone removal were the commonest used methods in the included studies. They can be effective and safe treatment approaches without major maternal or neonatal complications, and could be introduced as an effective and safe therapeutic method for urolithiasis during pregnancy. However, most of the included studies had moderate quality according to critical appraisal checklists. Further prospective studies are needed to reach a conclusion.

Quality of the Systematic Reviews in Cochrane Gynecological Cancer Group and Their Understudied RCTs.

Purpose: Gynecological cancers are common neoplasms in clinical settings with a high impact on the economy of communities. The medical literature is an essential resource to guide clinical decision-making, and misconduct in researches undermines the credibility and integrity of research in general. We aimed to evaluate the quality of Cochrane gynecological cancers reviews and their understudies RCTS among the different biases dimensions. Methods: This cross-sectional analytical study was performed on 118 systematic reviews published by the Cochrane gynecological cancers Group up to June 2021. The risk of bias was assessed in each Cochrane survey using the Joanna Bridges Institute (JBI) critical assessment tool consisting of 11 questions. The JBI checklist for systematic reviews and research syntheses is available at https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools. After a systematic critical evaluation of the reviews and meta-analysis, we extracted a different bias from all of their understudied RCTs examined in these systematic reviews, which were evaluated by systematic review authors using a standard bias risk tool developed by the Cochrane Group. Results: Cochrane gynecological cancers reviews had high quality based on appraise results using the JBI appraisal checklist. In addition, all of the included studies used PRISMA standards for reporting their results. However, in their understudied RCTs, the most prevalent risk of bias was unclear selection bias (allocation concealment) and performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel). Also, the highest risk of bias was blinding participants and personnel (performance bias) and incomplete outcome data (attrition bias). Our results showed that the lowest risk of bias was incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) and random sequence generation (selection bias). Conclusion: Although most Cochrane gynecological cancers reviews had high quality, unclear performance bias was the highest in their understudied RCTs, indicating structural deficiencies. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13224-022-01655-6.