The influence of steroid type on outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses have suggested that low-dose steroids are effective in the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Recent guidelines recommend the use of low-dose steroids instead of high-dose steroids. These systematic reviews were conducted based on the concept that the effect of steroids is constant regardless of their type. We discuss whether the type of steroid used influences the outcomes in patients with ARDS. MAIN BODY: From a pharmacological standpoint, methylprednisolone has little activity as a mineralocorticoid and may cause pulmonary hypertension. The results of the rank probability of our previous network meta-analysis revealed that low-dose methylprednisolone might be an optimal treatment compared to using other types of steroids or no steroids in terms of ventilator-free days. Similarly, an analysis of individual data from four randomized controlled trials suggested that low-dose methylprednisolone was associated with decreased mortality in patients with ARDS. Dexamethasone has attracted the attention of clinicians as a novel adjunct therapy for ARDS. CONCLUSION: Recent evidence has shown that low-dose methylprednisolone may be an effective treatment option for ARDS. The timing of initiation and duration of low-dose methylprednisolone therapy should be verified in future studies.

Effect of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation in Patients With Critical Illness: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) is used in the rehabilitation of patients with critical illness. However, it is unclear whether NMES prevents ICU-acquired weakness (ICU-AW). For this purpose, we conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases from April 2019 to November 2022 to identify new randomized controlled trials to the previous meta-analysis. STUDY SELECTION: We systematically searched the literature for all randomized controlled trials on the effect of NMES in patients with critical illness. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently selected the studies and extracted data. They calculated the pooled effect estimates associated with the occurrence of ICU-AW and adverse events as primary outcomes and muscle mass change, muscle strength, length of ICU stay, mortality, and quality of life as secondary outcomes. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. DATA SYNTHESIS: Overall, eight studies were added to the previous 10 studies. Evidence suggests that the use of NMES reduces the occurrence of ICU-AW (six trials; risk ratio [RR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.32-0.72); however, NMES may have little to no effect on pricking sensation in patients (eight trials; RR, 6.87; 95% CI, 0.84-56.50). NMES is likely to reduce the change in muscle mass (four trials; mean difference, -10.01; 95% CI, -15.54 to -4.48) and may increase muscle strength (six trials; standardized mean difference, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.19-0.68). Further, NMES may result in little to no difference in the length of ICU stay, and the evidence is uncertain about the effect on mortality and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: This updated meta-analysis revealed that the use of NMES may result in a lower occurrence of ICU-AW in patients with critical illness, but its use may have little to no effect on pricking sensation in patients.

Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation for impairment and disability in people after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) is a non-invasive treatment method that can penetrate to deeper structures with painless stimulation to improve motor function in people with physical impairment due to brain or nerve disorders. rPMS for people after stroke has proved to be a feasible approach to improving activities of daily living and functional ability. However, the effectiveness and safety of this intervention for people after stroke remain uncertain. This is an update of the review published in 2019. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of rPMS for improving activities of daily living and functional ability in people after stroke. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); PsycINFO; the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED); OTseeker: Occupational Therapy Systematic Evaluation of Evidence; the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro); Ichushi-Web; and six ongoing trial registries on 5 October 2021. We screened reference lists and contacted experts in the field. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted to assess the therapeutic effect of rPMS for people after stroke. The following comparisons were eligible for inclusion: 1) active rPMS only compared with 'sham' rPMS (a very weak form of stimulation or a sound only); 2) active rPMS only compared with no intervention; 3) active rPMS plus rehabilitation compared with sham rPMS plus rehabilitation; and 4) active rPMS plus rehabilitation compared with rehabilitation only. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. The same review authors assessed methods and risk of bias, undertook data extraction, and evaluated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We contacted trial authors to request unpublished information if necessary. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. MAIN RESULTS: We included four trials (three parallel-group RCTs and one cross-over trial) involving a total of 139 participants. This result was unchanged from the review published in 2019. Blinding of participants and physicians was well reported in three trials, with no information on whether personnel were blinded in one trial. We judged the overall risk of bias across trials as low. Only two trials (with 63 and 18 participants, respectively) provided sufficient information to be included in the meta-analysis. We found no clear effect of rPMS on activities of daily living at the end of treatment (mean difference (MD) -3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -16.35 to 10.35; P = 0.66; 1 trial; 63 participants; low-certainty evidence) and at the end of follow-up (MD -2.00, 95% CI -14.86 to 10.86; P = 0.76; 1 trial; 63 participants; low-certainty evidence) when comparing rPMS plus rehabilitation versus sham rPMS plus rehabilitation. We found no statistical difference in improvement of upper limb function at the end of treatment (MD 2.00, 95% CI -4.91 to 8.91; P = 0.57; 1 trial; 63 participants; low-certainty evidence) and at the end of follow-up (MD 4.00, 95% CI -2.92 to 10.92; P = 0.26; 1 trial; 63 participants; low-certainty evidence) when comparing rPMS plus rehabilitation versus sham rPMS plus rehabilitation. We observed a decrease in spasticity of the elbow at the end of follow-up (MD -0.41, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.07; 1 trial; 63 participants; low-certainty evidence) when comparing rPMS plus rehabilitation versus sham rPMS plus rehabilitation. In terms of muscle strength, rPMS treatment was not associated with improved muscle strength of the ankle dorsiflexors at the end of treatment (MD 3.00, 95% CI -2.44 to 8.44; P = 0.28; 1 trial; 18 participants; low-certainty evidence) when compared with sham rPMS. No studies provided information on lower limb function or adverse events, including death. Based on the GRADE approach, we judged the certainty of evidence related to the primary outcome as low, owing to the small sample size of the studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to permit the drawing of any conclusions about routine use of rPMS for people after stroke. Additional trials with large sample sizes are needed to provide robust evidence for rPMS after stroke.

Neonatal jaundice, phototherapy and childhood allergic diseases: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neonatal jaundice and phototherapy have been associated with the development of allergic diseases. It has been suggested, however, that effect estimates of the associations might be smaller than expected. We sought to update the evidence of their associations including recently published large longitudinal studies. METHODS: We sought published and unpublished observational studies through the major databases. We used a random-effect meta-analysis model weighted by the inverse variance estimate, the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool to assess the methodological quality for each study, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of evidence (COE). RESULTS: Nineteen studies were enrolled in the qualitative syntheses, and fourteen studies were synthesized in the meta-analyses. Neonatal jaundice was associated with a higher risk of childhood-onset asthma (odds ratio [OR], 1.46; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.39-1.53; COE, moderate), atopic dermatitis (AD; OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.07-1.57; COE, moderate), and allergic rhinitis (AR; OR, 3.01; 95% CI, 0.8810.30; COE, low). Neonatal phototherapy was also associated with a higher risk of childhood-onset asthma (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.11-1.38; COE, moderate), AD (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.24-1.39; COE, moderate), and AR (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.93-2.04; COE, very low). There were no studies that reported effect estimates of the associations between childhood-onset food allergies and neonatal jaundice and phototherapy. CONCLUSION: Neonatal jaundice and phototherapy were probably a prognostic factor of childhood-onset allergic diseases; however, the associations were likely to be smaller than previously estimated.