RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In recent years, oral frailty was proposed as a new concept regarding dental and oral health in older adults. Poor oral health is linked to preserving general health and has become a geriatric public health problem that deeply affects healthy aging. While in present, evidence on the prevalence associated with oral frailty in older adults remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the prevalence of oral frailty among older adults, stratified by relevant factors such as gender, source, study design, region, and the evaluation scales for oral frailty and provide an evidence-based foundation for healthcare professionals and policymakers to formulate relevant measures. METHODS: Ten electronic databases were systematically searched from inception to September 2023, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI), Chinese Biomedical Database (Sinomed), Weipu Database, and Wanfang database. Based on the Stata 15.0 software package, a random effect model was used to calculate the pooled prevalence of oral frailty among older adults. In addition, sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and meta-regression were conducted based on different study characteristics to detect heterogeneity sources. Funnel plots, Begg's and Egger's tests were used to evaluate the publication bias. RESULTS: Eighteen studies with a total of 12,932 older adults were included for meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of oral frailty and oral pre-frailty was 24% (95% CI: 20-28%) and 57% (95% CI: 52-61%) respectively. Based on different assessment tools of oral frailty, the pooled prevalence of oral frailty was higher when using the OFI-8 scale (44.1%; 95% CI: 35.4-52.8%) than the OFI-6 scale (18.3%; 95% CI: 15.8-20.8%) or OF checklist (22.1%; 95% CI: 17.4-26.7%). The prevalence of oral frailty was higher among older adults in females (23.8%; 95% CI: 18.4-29.2%), hospital settings (31%, 95% CI: 16.6-45.5%), cross-sectional design (26.7%, 95% CI: 19.2-34.2%), and China (45.9%, 95% CI: 34.4-57.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that oral frailty was common among older adults and various characteristics may affect its prevalence. Thus, healthcare professionals and policymakers should take oral frailty seriously in clinical practice and program planning and develop more preventive measures for oral frailty among older adults.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The effectiveness and long-term efficacy of edaravone, a recommended treatment for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), has not been examined in real-world settings. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and long-term efficacy of edaravone. METHODS: The OVID Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science databases were searched for articles published between January 1, 2000, and May 1, 2023. Two investigators independently screened the retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, or single-arm trials that evaluated the effect of edaravone on amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The risk of bias was evaluated using the revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias (RoB 2.0) tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the Risk-of-Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for observational studies. The primary outcome was the ALSFRS-R score assessed at month 6, with secondary outcomes including the ALSFRS-R scores evaluated at months 9, 12, and 18, forced vital capacity (FVC), and adverse events. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: The analysis included 16 studies with a total of 4828 participants. Among these, four were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 12 were observational studies. Of the RCTs, four were rated as having a low risk of bias, while six of the observational studies were rated as having a low risk of bias. Edaravone was associated with slightly slower progression in the reduction of ALSFRS-R score at month 6 compared to placebo (mean difference 1.01, 95%CI -0.87 to 3.09, p = 0.293), as shown by evidence from RCTs. However, observational studies did not show any benefit of adding edaravone to routine practice (mean difference 1.85, 95%CI -2.05 to 5.75, p = 0.352). The change from baseline in ALSFRS-R score was -2.1, -4.04, -7.5, -6.82, and -7.9 at months 3, 6, 9, 12, and 18, respectively. The GRADE assessment indicated moderate certainty for evidence from RCTs, while evidence from observational studies had very low certainty. CONCLUSION: Due to the limited number of studies and confounding issues in observational studies, further examination of the added benefits of edaravone to routine practice is necessary through RCTs, particularly regarding its long-term efficacy.
RESUMEN
Purpose: Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) is an important complementary and alternative therapy for the management of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Previous meta-analyses suggested that CHM is effective for IBS; nonetheless, its effectiveness is inconclusive owing to repeated significance testing. We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of CHM for IBS through a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). Methods: We searched OVID Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science from January 1, 1980, to September 20, 2020. The primary outcome was adequate relief of global IBS symptoms. The secondary outcomes included relief of abdominal pain and treatment-related adverse events. The relative ratio (RR) and required information size (RIS) were calculated for each outcome. Results: Ten trials recruiting 2,501 participants were included. Seven (70%) trials were at low risk of bias (RoB). Compared with placebo, CHM was associated with a significantly higher proportion of adequate relief of global IBS symptoms [RR 1.76 (95% confidence interval (95%CI), 1.33-2.33); I 2 = 81.1%; p < 0.001]. The RIS was 1,083 for the primary outcome, and the accrued information size was 1,716. The analysis of the relief of abdominal pain (three trials with 916 participants) showed similar results compared with placebo [RR 1.85 (95%CI, 1.59-2.14); I 2 = 0%; p < 0.001; RIS = 197 participants]. CHM was associated with a higher proportion of adverse events compared with placebo [RR 1.51 (95%CI, 1.14-2); I 2 = 0%; p = 0.004]. Conclusion: CHM was effective in relieving IBS symptoms but caused a higher adverse event rate than placebo. TSA analysis confirmed the findings with sufficient information size.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: As one of the important manifestations of neurogenic bowel dysfunction, constipation is characterized by high incidence and harmful effects. It has a negative impact on both physical and psychological health of patients. And there are no effective treatment options for this type of disease clinically. Therefore, this study is designed to examine the effect of the therapy of "combination 3 methods progression" in patients with neurogenic bowel dysfunction (constipated type). METHODS: This is a randomized, controlled, parallel-design clinical trial. A total of 60 patients with neurogenic bowel dysfunction (constipated type) will be randomly assigned to intervention group and control group. The control group will receive 4âweeks of usual rehabilitation care, the intervention group will receive 4âweeks of the therapy of "combination 3 methods progression" in addition to usual rehabilitation care. The primary outcome is the number of spontaneous bowel movement per week. Secondary outcomes are stool characteristics, degree of difficulty in defecation, level of anxiety, level of depression, and level of self-efficacy. DISCUSSION: The interventions of this protocol have been programmed to alleviate constipation in patients with neurogenic bowel dysfunction. Findings may provide preliminary evidence for clinical efficacy of the therapy of "combination 3 methods progression." TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, IDF: ChiCTR2000041463. Registered on December 26, 2020.
