Low-level laser therapy for carpal tunnel syndrome: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Splinting is recommended by various organisations as a non-surgical first-line treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), despite the limited evidence supporting its effectiveness. Previous studies on the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) have reported mixed results, and this systematic review aimed to resolve this controversy. OBJECTIVE: To perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) for evaluating the effectiveness of LLLT compared with other conservative treatments for CTS. METHODS: Eighteen electronic databases were searched for potential randomised controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs evaluating LLLT or other non-surgical treatments as an add-on to splinting were included. Included RCTs measured at least one of the following three outcomes with validated instruments: pain, symptom severity and functional status. RESULTS: Six RCTs (418 patients) were included. NMA suggested that LLLT plus splinting has the highest probability (75%) of pain reduction, compared with sham laser plus splinting (61%), ultrasound plus splinting (57%) and splinting alone (8%). However, while LLLT plus splinting is significantly more effective than sham laser plus splinting for pain reduction, the magnitude is not clinically significant (Visual Analogue Scale mean difference -0.53cm, 95% confidence interval -1.01 to -0.05cm; P=0.03, I2=25%). The effect of LLLT plus splinting on symptom severity and functional status was not superior to splinting alone. CONCLUSION: The use of LLLT in addition to splinting for the management of CTS is not recommended, as LLLT offers limited additional benefits over splining alone in terms of pain reduction, reduction of symptom severity or improved functional status. PROSPERO for systematic reviews and meta-analyses registration number CRD42017082650.

Effectiveness of smartphone technologies on glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: systematic review with meta-analysis of 17 trials.

Patient education and behavioural interventions for self-management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are effective but place demands on manpower resources. This systematic review aimed to investigate the effectiveness of smartphone technologies (STs) for improving glycaemic control among T2DM patients. CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and ScienceDirect were searched through December 2016. Randomized controlled trials comparing STs with usual diabetes care among T2DM patients and reporting change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level were included. Seventeen trials (2,225 participants) were included. There was a significant reduction in HbA1c (pooled weighted mean difference: -0.51%; 95% confidence interval: -0.71% to -0.30%; p < 0.001), favouring ST intervention. The pooled weighted mean difference was -0.83% in patients with T2DM <8.5 years and -0.22% in patients with T2DM ≥8.5 years, with significant subgroup difference (p = 0.007). No subgroup differences were found among different follow-up durations, trial locations, patients' age, healthcare provider contract time, baseline body mass index and baseline HbA1c. Compared with usual diabetes care, STs improved glycaemic control among T2DM patients, especially for patients at earlier disease stages (duration of diagnosis <8.5 years). STs could be a complement or alternative to labour-intensive patient education and behavioural interventions, but more studies on up-to-date technologies are needed.

Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for depression: a cross-sectional study.

AIMS: Depression is one of the most common mental disorders and identifying effective treatment strategies is crucial for the control of depression. Well-conducted systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses can provide the best evidence for supporting treatment decision-making. Nevertheless, the trustworthiness of conclusions can be limited by lack of methodological rigour. This study aims to assess the methodological quality of a representative sample of SRs on depression treatments. METHODS: A cross-sectional study on the bibliographical and methodological characteristics of SRs published on depression treatments trials was conducted. Two electronic databases (the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects) were searched for potential SRs. SRs with at least one meta-analysis on the effects of depression treatments were considered eligible. The methodological quality of included SRs was assessed using the validated AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool. The associations between bibliographical characteristics and scoring on AMSTAR items were analysed using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 358 SRs were included and appraised. Over half of included SRs (n = 195) focused on non-pharmacological treatments and harms were reported in 45.5% (n = 163) of all studies. Studies varied in methods and reporting practices: only 112 (31.3%) took the risk of bias among primary studies into account when formulating conclusions; 245 (68.4%) did not fully declare conflict of interests; 93 (26.0%) reported an 'a priori' design and 104 (29.1%) provided lists of both included and excluded studies. Results from regression analyses showed: more recent publications were more likely to report 'a priori' designs [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-1.57], to describe study characteristics fully (AOR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06-1.28), and to assess presence of publication bias (AOR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06-1.19), but were less likely to list both included and excluded studies (AOR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81-0.92). SRs published in journals with higher impact factor (AOR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04-1.25), completed by more review authors (AOR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01-1.24) and SRs on non-pharmacological treatments (AOR 1.62, 95% CI 1.01-2.59) were associated with better performance in publication bias assessment. CONCLUSION: The methodological quality of included SRs is disappointing. Future SRs should strive to improve rigour by considering of risk of bias when formulating conclusions, reporting conflict of interests and authors should explicitly describe harms. SR authors should also use appropriate methods to combine the results, prevent language and publication biases, and ensure timely updates.