Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 699
Filtrar
1.
BMJ ; 367: l5476, 2019 Oct 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31601578

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of different oral antithrombotic drugs that prevent saphenous vein graft failure in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from inception to 25 January 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials of participants (aged ≥18) who received oral antithrombotic drugs (antiplatelets or anticoagulants) to prevent saphenous vein graft failure after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy endpoint was saphenous vein graft failure and the primary safety endpoint was major bleeding. Secondary endpoints were myocardial infarction and death. RESULTS: This review identified 3266 citations, and 21 articles that related to 20 randomised controlled trials were included in the network meta-analysis. These 20 trials comprised 4803 participants and investigated nine different interventions (eight active and one placebo). Moderate certainty evidence supports the use of dual antiplatelet therapy with either aspirin plus ticagrelor (odds ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.31 to 0.79, number needed to treat 10) or aspirin plus clopidogrel (0.60, 0.42 to 0.86, 19) to reduce saphenous vein graft failure when compared with aspirin monotherapy. The study found no strong evidence of differences in major bleeding, myocardial infarction, and death among different antithrombotic therapies. The possibility of intransitivity could not be ruled out; however, between-trial heterogeneity and incoherence were low in all included analyses. Sensitivity analysis using per graft data did not change the effect estimates. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this network meta-analysis suggest an important absolute benefit of adding ticagrelor or clopidogrel to aspirin to prevent saphenous vein graft failure after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Dual antiplatelet therapy after surgery should be tailored to the patient by balancing the safety and efficacy profile of the drug intervention against important patient outcomes. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42017065678.


Assuntos
Ponte de Artéria Coronária/efeitos adversos , Fibrinolíticos/uso terapêutico , Inibidores da Agregação de Plaquetas/uso terapêutico , Trombose/prevenção & controle , Humanos , Meta-Análise em Rede , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto
2.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 98(40): e17436, 2019 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31577763

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) are common in clinical practice, caused by a mixture of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, increase the risk of mortality. Carbapenems and tigecycline (TGC) are recommended for antimicrobial therapies for cIAIs. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of different carbapenems vs TGC for the treatment of cIAIs. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Medline (via Ovid SP) and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different carbapenems vs TGC for the treatment of cIAIs. The pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% credible interval (CrI) was calculated by Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. We estimated summary ORs using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. RESULTS: Fifteen studies involving 6745 participants were included in the analysis. Five different carbapenems and TGC were ultimately evaluated in this study. Although, the efficacy of carbapenems and TGC by ORs with corresponding 95% CrIs had not yet reached statistical differences, the cumulative rank probability indicated that clinical treatment success from best to worst was doripenem (DOPM), meropenem (MEPM), imipenem/cilastatin (IC), biapenem (BAPM), TGC and imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam (ICRB); microbiological treatment success from best to worst was DOPM, MEPM, IC, BAPM, ICRB and TGC. As for the risk of adverse events (AEs), TGC showed higher risk of AEs compared with IC (OR = 1.53, 95% CrI = 1.02-2.41), the remain antibiotic agents from lower to higher was MEPM, IC, BAPM, DOPM, ICRB and TGC. The risk of mortality from lower to higher was BAPM, DOPM, MEPM, IC, TGC and ICRB. CONCLUSION: No differences in clinical and microbiological outcomes were observed between different carbapenems and TGC. Balancing the evidence for drug efficacy and side effects, DOPM appears to be the best available treatment for cIAIs. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider that DOPM is one of the best carbapenem monotherapy for cIAIs. MEPM and IC was also associated with higher rates of clinical and microbiological treatment success following DOPM. Empiric antimicrobial treatment of patients with cIAIs should be selected in light of the local bacterial epidemiology and patterns of resistance.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Carbapenêmicos/uso terapêutico , Infecções Intra-Abdominais/tratamento farmacológico , Tigeciclina/uso terapêutico , Teorema de Bayes , Humanos , Meta-Análise em Rede
3.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 98(40): e17460, 2019 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31577775

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to perform a network meta-analysis to evaluate the therapeutic effect and safety of various modalities in treating advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Typically, the modalities of interest were comprised of sorafenib, transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), sorafenib combined with TACE, TACE combined with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), and sorafenib combined with hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC). METHODS: Potentially eligible studies were systemically retrieved from the electronic databases (including PubMed and Cochrane Library) up to September 2018. The overall survival (OS) associated with the 5 modalities of interest enrolled in this study was compared by means of network meta-analysis. Meanwhile, major adverse events (AEs) were also evaluated. RESULTS: The current network meta-analysis enrolled 7 published randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and the pooled results indicated that the TACE-TCM regimen displayed the highest efficacy in treating advanced HCC, followed by HAIC-sorafenib. By contrast, the TACE alone and sorafenib alone regimens had the least efficacy. Relative to other regimens of interest, the TACE-TCM regimen was associated with less incidence of treatment-associated AEs. CONCLUSION: The TACE-TCM regimen was associated with higher treatment responses in advanced HCC patients than those of the other regimens of interest.


Assuntos
Carcinoma Hepatocelular/terapia , Neoplasias Hepáticas/terapia , Humanos , Meta-Análise em Rede , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Resultado do Tratamento
5.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 98(39): e17064, 2019 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31574805

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Most systematic reviews have explored the efficacy of treatments on symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which is a chronic and often disabling condition. Previous network meta-analysis (NMA) had limitations such as focusing on pharmacological or psychotherapies. Our review is aims to explore the relative effectiveness of both pharmacological and psychotherapies and we will establish the differential efficacy of interventions for PTSD in consideration of both symptom reduction and functional recovery. METHODS: We will conduct a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating treatment interventions for PTSD. We will systematically search Medline, PILOT, Embase, CINHAL, AMED, Psychinfo, Health Star, DARE and CENTRAL to identify trials that: (1) enroll adult patients with PTSD, and (2) randomize them to alternative interventions or an intervention and a placebo/sham arm. Independent reviewers will screen trials for eligibility, assess risk of bias using a modified Cochrane instrument, and extract data. Our outcomes of interest include PTSD symptom reduction, quality of life, functional recovery, social and occupational impairment, return to work and all-cause drop outs. RESULTS: We will conduct frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis to assess relative effects of competing interventions. We will use a priori hypotheses to explore heterogeneity between studies, and assess the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. CONCLUSION: This network meta-analysis will determine the comparative effectiveness of therapeutic options for PTSD on both symptom reduction and functional recovery. Our results will be helpful to clinicians and patients with PTSD, by providing a high-quality evidence synthesis to guide shared-care decision making.


Assuntos
Transtornos de Estresse Pós-Traumáticos/terapia , Protocolos Clínicos , Pesquisa Comparativa da Efetividade , Avaliação da Deficiência , Humanos , Meta-Análise em Rede , Psicoterapia , Qualidade de Vida , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Retorno ao Trabalho , Transtornos de Estresse Pós-Traumáticos/tratamento farmacológico
6.
BMJ ; 367: l5460, 2019 10 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31591158

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of first line treatments for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and several international conference databases, from inception to 20 May 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing two or more treatments in the first line setting for patients with advanced EGFR mutated NSCLC were included in a bayesian network meta-analysis. Eligible studies reported at least one of the following clinical outcome measures: progression free survival, overall survival, objective response rate, and adverse events of grade 3 or higher. RESULTS: 18 eligible trials involved 4628 patients and 12 treatments: EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs; osimertinib, dacomitinib, afatinib, erlotinib, gefitinib, and icotinib), pemetrexed based chemotherapy, pemetrexed free chemotherapy, and combination treatments (afatinib plus cetuximab, erlotinib plus bevacizumab, gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy, and gefitinib plus pemetrexed). Consistent with gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy (hazard ratio 0.95, 95% credible interval 0.72 to 1.24), osimertinib showed the most favourable progression free survival, with significant differences versus dacomitinib (0.74, 0.55 to 1.00), afatinib (0.52, 0.40 to 0.68), erlotinib (0.48, 0.40 to 0.57), gefitinib (0.44, 0.37 to 0.52), icotinib (0.39, 0.24 to 0.62), pemetrexed based chemotherapy (0.24, 0.17 to 0.33), pemetrexed free chemotherapy (0.16, 0.13 to 0.20), afatinib plus cetuximab (0.44, 0.28 to 0.71), and gefitinib plus pemetrexed (0.65, 0.46 to 0.92). Osimertinib and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy were also consistent (0.94, 0.66 to 1.35) in providing the best overall survival benefit. Combination treatments caused more toxicity in general, especially erlotinib plus bevacizumab, which caused the most adverse events of grade 3 or higher. Different toxicity spectrums were revealed for individual EGFR-TKIs. Subgroup analyses by the two most common EGFR mutation types indicated that osimertinib was associated with the best progression free survival in patients with the exon 19 deletion, and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy was associated with the best progression free survival in patients with the Leu858Arg mutation. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that osimertinib and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy were associated with the best progression free survival and overall survival benefits for patients with advanced EGFR mutated NSCLC, compared with other first line treatments. The treatments resulting in the best progression free survival for patients with the exon 19 deletion and Leu858Arg mutations were osimertinib and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy, respectively. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018111954.


Assuntos
Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/genética , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/terapia , Mutação , Biomarcadores Tumorais/genética , Receptores ErbB/genética , Humanos , Meta-Análise em Rede
7.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 98(43): e17353, 2019 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31651840

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Patients with simple obesity suffer from poor quality of life, as well as high risk of hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular accidents. Lots of Clinical trials suggested that acupuncture is beneficial for simple obesity, and it aims to gather solid evidence in order to provide reliable reference in establishing guidelines for acupuncture treatment of simple obesity in this study. METHODS: Relevant databases including Cochrane Library, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline University Resource Center, Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure will be retrieved from January 1950 to November 2018. Two authors will screen studies independently according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and extract the data in a form of sheet. Quality evaluations and bias risk assessments will be performed for the methodology of included studies. Dichotomous data will be analyzed using odds ratio (OR), and continuous data using mean differences. Network meta-analysis will be conducted by using Stata 14.0. The Development and Evaluation approach will be used to rate the certainty of the evidence of estimates derived from meta-analysis. The primary outcome is body mass index (BMI), and the secondary outcomes are triglycerides, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, effective rate, adverse effects, and recurrence rate. Trial registration number is CRD42019117387. RESULTS: Based on current evidence, this review will rank the efficacy and safety of the various acupuncture regimen in decreasing BMI, triglycerides, total cholesterol of patients with simple obesity, and to summarize a prioritization regimen. CONCLUSION: This evidence may be useful for clinicians, patients, and guideline-makers to select the optimum proposal of acupuncture for the simple obesity treatment.


Assuntos
Terapia por Acupuntura/métodos , Obesidade/terapia , Adulto , Índice de Massa Corporal , Colesterol/sangue , Protocolos Clínicos , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Meta-Análise em Rede , Projetos de Pesquisa , Revisão Sistemática como Assunto , Resultado do Tratamento , Triglicerídeos/sangue
8.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 98(43): e17647, 2019 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31651885

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Opioids are frequently prescribed for the management of patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Previous meta-analyses of efficacy and harms have combined treatment effects across all opioids; however, specific opioids, pharmacokinetic properties (ie, long acting vs short acting), or the type of formulation (ie, immediate vs extended release) may be a source of heterogeneity for pooled effects. METHODS: We will conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials evaluating opioids for CNCP. We will acquire eligible studies through systematic searches of EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Eligible studies will have randomly allocated adult CNCP patients to an oral or transdermal opioid versus another type of opioid (or formulation) or placebo, and follow patients for ≥ 4 weeks. We will collect outcome data for pain intensity, physical function, nausea, vomiting, and constipation. Pairs of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, abstract data from eligible trials and assess risk of bias using a modified Cochrane tool. We will assess coherence of our networks through both a global test, and by comparing direct and indirect evidence for each comparison with node-splitting. RESULTS: Using a frequentist approach, we will conduct random effects multiple treatment meta-analysis to establish treatment effects of individual opioids for each outcome. The certainty of evidence for pooled treatment effects will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We will categorize interventions from most to least effective based on the effect estimates obtained from NMAs and their associated certainty of evidence, as follows: superior to both placebo and alternatives; superior to placebo, but inferior to alternatives; and no better than placebo. CONCLUSION: This NMA will determine the relative effectiveness and adverse effects of individual opioids among patients with CNCP. Our results will help inform the appropriateness of assuming similar beneficial and adverse effects of varying opioid formulations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This systematic review is registered with Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, an international prospective register of systematic reviews (registration no.: CRD42018110331), available at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=110331.


Assuntos
Analgésicos Opioides/administração & dosagem , Dor Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Preparações de Ação Retardada , Humanos , Meta-Análise em Rede , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Projetos de Pesquisa
9.
Lancet ; 394(10202): 900-902, 2019 09 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31526722
10.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 98(36): e17050, 2019 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31490400

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is one of the most common chronic diseases and an increasingly public-health challenge worldwide. Previous meta-analyses evaluated the effects of azilsartan medoxomil compared to placebo or other antihypertensive drugs in patients with hypertension. However, it is still unclear which dose of azilsartan is optimal. This study will perform a network meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of different doses of azilsartan medoxomil in patients with hypertension. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE.com, the Cochrane library, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception to May 2019. Randomized controlled trials reporting efficacy and safety of different doses of azilsartan medoxomil on hypertension will be included if they compared 1 dose of azilsartan medoxomil with another dose of azilsartan medoxomil or with a placebo. Risk of bias of the included trials will be evaluated according to the Cochrane Handbook 5.1.0. NMA will be performed in a Bayesian hierarchical framework using WinBUGS 14. RESULTS: The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. CONCLUSION: This study will summarize all the available data to provide reliable evidence of the value of different doses of azilsartan medoxomil for the treatment of hypertension. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019136882.


Assuntos
Bloqueadores do Receptor Tipo 1 de Angiotensina II/administração & dosagem , Benzimidazóis/administração & dosagem , Hipertensão/tratamento farmacológico , Oxidiazóis/administração & dosagem , Humanos , Meta-Análise em Rede
11.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 98(36): e17055, 2019 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31490403

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is an immune-mediated polygenic hereditary skin disease quality of the patients' life because of the great trouble it causes to patients. Whereas, there is variability when we regard the selection of traditional Chinese medicine treatments in practice and most choices are made based on personal experience or preference of clinician. This study uses network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of different forms of TCM for psoriasis and assesses the evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. METHODS: We will search for PubMed, Cochrane Library, AMED, EMbase, WorldSciNet; Nature, Science online and China Journal Full-text Database (CNKI), China Biomedical Literature CD-ROM Database (CBM), and related randomized controlled trials included in the China Resources Database. The time is limited from the construction of the library to April 2019. The quality of the included RCTs will be evaluated by the risk of bias (ROB) tool and the evidence will be evaluated by GRADE. STATA 13.0 and WinBUGS 1.4.3 through the GeMTC package will be used to perform a network meta-analysis to synthesize direct and indirect evidence. RESULTS: The results of this network meta-analysis (NMA) will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42019137250.


Assuntos
Medicina Tradicional Chinesa , Psoríase/terapia , Teorema de Bayes , Humanos , Meta-Análise em Rede
12.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD011749, 2019 09 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31479532

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Although delirium is typically an acute reversible cognitive impairment, its presence is associated with devastating impact on both short-term and long-term outcomes for critically ill patients. Advances in our understanding of the negative impact of delirium on patient outcomes have prompted trials evaluating multiple pharmacological interventions. However, considerable uncertainty surrounds the relative benefits and safety of available pharmacological interventions for this population. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective1. To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for treatment of delirium on duration of delirium in critically ill adults with confirmed or documented high risk of deliriumSecondary objectivesTo assess the following:1. effects of pharmacological interventions on delirium-free and coma-free days; days with coma; delirium relapse; duration of mechanical ventilation; intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay; mortality; and long-term outcomes (e.g. cognitive; discharge disposition; health-related quality of life); and2. the safety of such treatments for critically ill adult patients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from their inception date to 21 March 2019: Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid MEDLINE® In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase Classic+Embase, and PsycINFO using the Ovid platform. We also searched the Cochrane Library on Wiley, the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Web of Science. We performed a grey literature search of relevant databases and websites using the resources listed in Grey Matters developed by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). We also searched trial registries and abstracts from annual scientific critical care and delirium society meetings. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including quasi-RCTs, of any pharmacological (drug) for treatment of delirium in critically ill adults. The drug intervention was to be compared to another active drug treatment, placebo, or a non-pharmacological intervention (e.g. mobilization). We did not apply any restrictions in terms of drug class, dose, route of administration, or duration of delirium or drug exposure. We defined critically ill patients as those treated in an ICU of any specialty (e.g. burn, cardiac, medical, surgical, trauma) or high-dependency unit. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified studies from the search results; four review authors (in pairs) performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias independently. We performed data synthesis through pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA). Our hypothetical network structure was designed to be analysed at the drug class level and illustrated a network diagram of 'nodes' (i.e. drug classes) and 'edges' (i.e. comparisons between different drug classes from existing trials), thus describing a treatment network of all possible comparisons between drug classes. We assessed the quality of the body of evidence according to GRADE, as very low, low, moderate, or high. MAIN RESULTS: We screened 7674 citations, from which 14 trials with 1844 participants met our inclusion criteria. Ten RCTs were placebo-controlled, and four reported comparisons of different drugs. Drugs examined in these trials were the following: antipsychotics (n = 10), alpha2 agonists (n = 3; all dexmedetomidine), statins (n = 2), opioids (n = 1; morphine), serotonin antagonists (n = 1; ondansetron), and cholinesterase (CHE) inhibitors (n = 1; rivastigmine). Only one of these trials consistently used non-pharmacological interventions that are known to improve patient outcomes in both intervention and control groups.Eleven studies (n = 1153 participants) contributed to analysis of the primary outcome. Results of the NMA showed that the intervention with the smallest ratio of means (RoM) (i.e. most preferred) compared with placebo was the alpha2 agonist dexmedetomidine (0.58; 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.26 to 1.27; surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) 0.895; moderate-quality evidence). In order of descending SUCRA values (best to worst), the next best interventions were atypical antipsychotics (RoM 0.80, 95% CrI 0.50 to 1.11; SUCRA 0.738; moderate-quality evidence), opioids (RoM 0.88, 95% CrI 0.37 to 2.01; SUCRA 0.578; very-low quality evidence), and typical antipsychotics (RoM 0.96, 95% CrI 0.64 to1.36; SUCRA 0.468; high-quality evidence).The NMAs of multiple secondary outcomes revealed that only the alpha2 agonist dexmedetomidine was associated with a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (RoM 0.55, 95% CrI 0.34 to 0.89; moderate-quality evidence), and the CHE inhibitor rivastigmine was associated with a longer ICU stay (RoM 2.19, 95% CrI 1.47 to 3.27; moderate-quality evidence). Adverse events often were not reported in these trials or, when reported, were rare; pair-wise analysis of QTc prolongation in seven studies did not show significant differences between antipsychotics, ondansetron, dexmedetomidine, and placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified trials of varying quality that examined six different drug classes for treatment of delirium in critically ill adults. We found evidence that the alpha2 agonist dexmedetomidine may shorten delirium duration, although this small effect (compared with placebo) was seen in pairwise analyses based on a single study and was not seen in the NMA results. Alpha2 agonists also ranked best for duration of mechanical ventilation and length of ICU stay, whereas the CHE inhibitor rivastigmine was associated with longer ICU stay. We found no evidence of a difference between placebo and any drug in terms of delirium-free and coma-free days, days with coma, physical restraint use, length of stay, long-term cognitive outcomes, or mortality. No studies reported delirium relapse, resolution of symptoms, or quality of life. The ten ongoing studies and the six studies awaiting classification that we identified, once published and assessed, may alter the conclusions of the review.


Assuntos
Antipsicóticos/uso terapêutico , Estado Terminal , Delírio/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Meta-Análise em Rede , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto
13.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD012692, 2019 09 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31486548

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Clinical management for unexplained infertility includes expectant management as well as active treatments, including ovarian stimulation (OS), intrauterine insemination (IUI), OS-IUI,  and in vitro fertilisation (IVF) with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).Existing systematic reviews have conducted head-to-head comparisons of these interventions using pairwise meta-analyses. As this approach allows only the comparison of two interventions at a time and is contingent on the availability of appropriate primary evaluative studies, it is difficult to identify the best intervention in terms of effectiveness and safety. Network meta-analysis compares multiple treatments simultaneously by using both direct and indirect evidence and provides a hierarchy of these treatments, which can potentially better inform clinical decision-making. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different approaches to clinical management (expectant management, OS, IUI, OS-IUI, and IVF/ICSI) in couples with unexplained infertility. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We searched electronic databases including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL, up to 6 September 2018, as well as reference lists, to identify eligible studies. We also searched trial registers for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing at least two of the following clinical management options in couples with unexplained infertility: expectant management, OS, IUI, OS-IUI, and IVF (or combined with ICSI). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts identified by the search strategy. We obtained the full texts of potentially eligible studies to assess eligibility and extracted data using standardised forms. The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of cumulative live birth or ongoing pregnancy, and the primary safety outcome was multiple pregnancy. We performed a network meta-analysis within a random-effects multi-variate meta-analysis model. We presented treatment effects by using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For the network meta-analysis, we used Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA) to evaluate the overall certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 RCTs (4349 couples) in this systematic review and 24 RCTs (3983 couples) in a subsequent network meta-analysis. Overall, the certainty of evidence was low to moderate: the main limitations were imprecision and/or heterogeneity.Ten RCTs including 2725 couples reported on live birth. Evidence of differences between OS, IUI, OS-IUI, or IVF/ICSI versus expectant management was insufficient (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.98; low-certainty evidence; OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.43; low-certainty evidence; OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.94; low-certainty evidence; OR 1.88, 95 CI 0.81 to 4.38; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following expectant management is assumed to be 17%, the chance following OS, IUI, OS-IUI, and IVF would be 9% to 28%, 11% to 33%, 15% to 37%, and 14% to 47%, respectively. When only including couples with poor prognosis of natural conception (3 trials, 725 couples) we found OS-IUI and IVF/ICSI increased live birth rate compared to expectant management (OR 4.48, 95% CI 2.00 to 10.1; moderate-certainty evidence; OR 4.99, 95 CI 2.07 to 12.04; moderate-certainty evidence), while there was insufficient evidence of a difference between IVF/ICSI and OS-IUI (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.60; low-certainty evidence).Eleven RCTs including 2564 couples reported on multiple pregnancy. Compared to expectant management/IUI, OS (OR 3.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 9.41; low-certainty evidence) and OS-IUI (OR 3.34 95% CI 1.09 to 10.29; moderate-certainty evidence) increased the odds of multiple pregnancy, and there was insufficient evidence of a difference between IVF/ICSI and expectant management/IUI (OR 2.66, 95% CI 0.68 to 10.43; low-certainty evidence). These findings suggest that if the chance of multiple pregnancy following expectant management or IUI is assumed to be 0.6%, the chance following OS, OS-IUI, and IVF/ICSI would be 0.6% to 5.0%, 0.6% to 5.4%, and 0.4% to 5.5%, respectively.Trial results show insufficient evidence of a difference between IVF/ICSI and OS-IUI for moderate/severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (OR 2.50, 95% CI 0.92 to 6.76; 5 studies; 985 women; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of moderate/severe OHSS following OS-IUI is assumed to be 1.1%, the chance following IVF/ICSI would be between 1.0% and 7.2%. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence of differences in live birth between expectant management and the other four interventions (OS, IUI, OS-IUI, and IVF/ICSI). Compared to expectant management/IUI, OS may increase the odds of multiple pregnancy, and OS-IUI probably increases the odds of multiple pregnancy. Evidence on differences between IVF/ICSI and expectant management for multiple pregnancy is insufficient, as is evidence of a difference for moderate or severe OHSS between IVF/ICSI and OS-IUI.


Assuntos
Infertilidade Feminina/terapia , Taxa de Gravidez , Técnicas de Reprodução Assistida , Coeficiente de Natalidade , Feminino , Fármacos para a Fertilidade Feminina/uso terapêutico , Fertilização In Vitro/métodos , Humanos , Infertilidade Feminina/etiologia , Meta-Análise em Rede , Indução da Ovulação/métodos , Gravidez , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Injeções de Esperma Intracitoplásmicas/métodos
14.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD013103, 2019 09 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31513287

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Hepatorenal syndrome is defined as renal failure in people with cirrhosis in the absence of other causes. In addition to supportive treatment such as albumin to restore fluid balance, the other potential treatments include systemic vasoconstrictor drugs (such as vasopressin analogues or noradrenaline), renal vasodilator drugs (such as dopamine), transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and liver support with molecular adsorbent recirculating system (MARS). There is uncertainty over the best treatment regimen for hepatorenal syndrome. OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of different treatments for hepatorenal syndrome in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trial registers until December 2018 to identify randomised clinical trials on hepatorenal syndrome in people with cirrhosis. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in adults with cirrhosis and hepatorenal syndrome. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previously undergone liver transplantation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently identified eligible trials and collected data. The outcomes for this review included mortality, serious adverse events, any adverse events, resolution of hepatorenal syndrome, liver transplantation, and other decompensation events. We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio (OR), rate ratio, hazard ratio (HR), and mean difference (MD) with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 25 trials (1263 participants; 12 interventions) in the review. Twenty-three trials (1185 participants) were included in one or more outcomes. All the trials were at high risk of bias, and all the evidence was of low or very low certainty. The trials included participants with liver cirrhosis of varied aetiologies as well as a mixture of type I hepatorenal syndrome only, type II hepatorenal syndrome only, or people with both type I and type II hepatorenal syndrome. Participant age ranged from 42 to 60 years, and the proportion of females ranged from 5.8% to 61.5% in the trials that reported this information. The follow-up in the trials ranged from one week to six months. Overall, 59% of participants died during this period and about 35% of participants recovered from hepatorenal syndrome. The most common interventions compared were albumin plus terlipressin, albumin plus noradrenaline, and albumin alone.There was no evidence of a difference in mortality (22 trials; 1153 participants) at maximal follow-up between the different interventions. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. There was no evidence of differences in the proportion of people with serious adverse events (three trials; 428 participants), number of participants with serious adverse events per participant (two trials; 166 participants), proportion of participants with any adverse events (four trials; 402 participants), the proportion of people who underwent liver transplantation at maximal follow-up (four trials; 342 participants), or other features of decompensation at maximal follow-up (one trial; 466 participants). Five trials (293 participants) reported number of any adverse events, and five trials (219 participants) reported treatment costs. Albumin plus noradrenaline had fewer numbers of adverse events per participant (rate ratio 0.51, 95% CrI 0.28 to 0.87). Eighteen trials (1047 participants) reported recovery from hepatorenal syndrome (as per definition of hepatorenal syndrome). In terms of recovery from hepatorenal syndrome, in the direct comparisons, albumin plus midodrine plus octreotide and albumin plus octreotide had lower recovery from hepatorenal syndrome than albumin plus terlipressin (HR 0.04; 95% CrI 0.00 to 0.25 and HR 0.26, 95% CrI 0.07 to 0.80 respectively). There was no evidence of differences between the groups in any of the other direct comparisons. In the network meta-analysis, albumin and albumin plus midodrine plus octreotide had lower recovery from hepatorenal syndrome compared with albumin plus terlipressin. FUNDING: two trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies; five trials were funded by parties who had no vested interest in the results of the trial; and 18 trials did not report the source of funding. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on very low-certainty evidence, there is no evidence of benefit or harm of any of the interventions for hepatorenal syndrome with regards to the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, serious adverse events (proportion), number of serious adverse events per participant, any adverse events (proportion), liver transplantation, or other decompensation events. Low-certainty evidence suggests that albumin plus noradrenaline had fewer 'any adverse events per participant' than albumin plus terlipressin. Low- or very low-certainty evidence also found that albumin plus midodrine plus octreotide and albumin alone had lower recovery from hepatorenal syndrome compared with albumin plus terlipressin.Future randomised clinical trials should be adequately powered; employ blinding, avoid post-randomisation dropouts or planned cross-overs (or perform an intention-to-treat analysis); and report clinically important outcomes such as mortality, health-related quality of life, adverse events, and recovery from hepatorenal syndrome. Albumin plus noradrenaline and albumin plus terlipressin appear to be the interventions that should be compared in future trials.


Assuntos
Síndrome Hepatorrenal/terapia , Cirrose Hepática/complicações , Qualidade de Vida , Adulto , Teorema de Bayes , Feminino , Humanos , Transplante de Fígado , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Meta-Análise em Rede , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Vasoconstritores/uso terapêutico
15.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD013210, 2019 Sep 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31513295

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic disease of the gut. About 75% of people with CD undergo surgery at least once in their lifetime to induce remission. However, as there is no known cure for the disease, patients usually experience a recurrence even after surgery. Different interventions are routinely used in maintaining postsurgical remission. There is currently no consensus on which treatment is the most effective. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects and harms of interventions for the maintenance of surgically induced remission in Crohn's disease and rank the treatments in order of effectiveness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to 15 January 2019. We also searched reference lists of relevant articles, abstracts from major gastroenterology meetings, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP. There was no restriction on language, date, or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered for inclusion randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different interventions used for maintaining surgically induced remission in people with CD who were in postsurgical remission. Participants had to have received maintenance treatment for at least three months. We excluded studies assessing enteral diet, diet manipulation, herbal medicine, and nutritional supplementation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected relevant studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or by arbitration of a third review author when necessary. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) using a Bayesian approach through Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation. For the pairwise comparisons carried out in Review Manager 5, we calculated risk ratios (RR) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). For the NMA, we presented hazard ratios (HR) with corresponding 95% credible intervals (95% CrI) and reported ranking probabilities for each intervention. For the NMA, we focused on three main outcomes: clinical relapse, endoscopic relapse, and withdrawals due to adverse events. Data were insufficient to assess time to relapse and histologic relapse. Adverse events and serious adverse events were not sufficiently or objectively reported to permit an NMA. We used CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) methods to evaluate our confidence in the findings within networks, and GRADE for entire networks. MAIN RESULTS: We included 35 RCTs (3249 participants) in the review. The average age of study participants ranged between 33.6 and 38.8 years. Risk of bias was high in 18 studies, low in four studies, and unclear in 13 studies. Of the 35 included RCTs, 26 studies (2581 participants; 9 interventions) were considered eligible for inclusion in the NMA. The interventions studied included 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA), adalimumab, antibiotics, budesonide, infliximab, probiotics, purine analogues, sulfasalazine, and a combination of sulfasalazine and prednisolone. This resulted in 30 direct contrasts, which informed 102 mixed-treatment contrasts.The evidence for the clinical relapse network (21 studies; 2245 participants) and endoscopic relapse (12 studies; 1128 participants) were of low certainty while the evidence for withdrawal due to adverse events (15 studies; 1498 participants) was of very low certainty. This assessment was due to high risk of bias in most of the studies, inconsistency, and imprecision across networks. We mainly judged individual contrasts as of low or very low certainty, except 5-ASA versus placebo, the evidence for which was judged as of moderate certainty.We ranked the treatments based on effectiveness and the certainty of the evidence. For clinical relapse, the five most highly ranked treatments were adalimumab, infliximab, budesonide, 5-ASA, and purine analogues. We found some evidence that adalimumab (HR 0.11, 95% Crl 0.02 to 0.33; low-certainty evidence) and 5-ASA may reduce the probability of clinical relapse compared to placebo (HR 0.69, 95% Crl 0.53 to 0.87; moderate-certainty evidence). However, budesonide may not be effective in preventing clinical relapse (HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.27 to 1.34; low-certainty evidence). We are less confident about the effectiveness of infliximab (HR 0.36, 95% CrI 0.02 to 1.74; very low-certainty evidence) and purine analogues (HR 0.75, 95% CrI 0.55 to 1.00; low-certainty evidence). It was unclear whether the other interventions reduced the probability of a clinical relapse, as the certainty of the evidence was very low.Due to high risk of bias and limited data across the network, we are uncertain about the effectiveness of interventions for preventing endoscopic relapse. Whilst there might be some evidence of prevention of endoscopic relapse with adalimumab (HR 0.10, 95% CrI 0.01 to 0.32; low-certainty evidence), no other intervention studied appeared to be effective.Due to high risk of bias and limited data across the network, we are uncertain about the effectiveness of interventions for preventing withdrawal due to adverse events. Withdrawal due to adverse events appeared to be least likely with sulfasalazine (HR 1.96, 95% Crl 0.00 to 8.90; very low-certainty evidence) and most likely with antibiotics (HR 53.92, 95% Crl 0.43 to 259.80; very low-certainty evidence). When considering the network as a whole, two adverse events leading to study withdrawal (i.e. pancreatitis and leukopenia) occurred in more than 1% of participants treated with an intervention. Pancreatitis occurred in 2.8% (11/399) of purine analogue participants compared to 0.17% (2/1210) of all other groups studied. Leukopenia occurred in 2.5% (10/399) of purine analogue participants compared to 0.08% (1/1210) of all other groups studied. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to low-certainty evidence in the networks, we are unable to draw conclusions on which treatment is most effective for preventing clinical relapse and endoscopic relapse. Evidence on the safety of the interventions was inconclusive, however cases of pancreatitis and leukopenia from purine analogues were evident in the studies. Larger trials are needed to further understand the effect of the interventions on endoscopic relapse.


Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/uso terapêutico , Doença de Crohn/prevenção & controle , Quimioterapia de Manutenção/métodos , Anti-Inflamatórios não Esteroides/uso terapêutico , Antimetabólitos/uso terapêutico , Doença de Crohn/tratamento farmacológico , Doença de Crohn/cirurgia , Humanos , Imunossupressores/uso terapêutico , Meta-Análise em Rede , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Recidiva , Indução de Remissão , Prevenção Secundária
16.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD013120, 2019 09 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31524949

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Approximately 2.5% of all hospitalisations in people with cirrhosis are for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP). Antibiotics, in addition to supportive treatment (fluid and electrolyte balance, treatment of shock), form the mainstay treatments of SBP. Various antibiotics are available for the treatment of SBP, but there is uncertainty regarding the best antibiotic for SBP. OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of different antibiotic treatments for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until November 2018 to identify randomised clinical trials on people with cirrhosis and SBP. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in adults with cirrhosis and SBP. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previously undergone liver transplantation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified eligible trials and collected data. The outcomes for this review included mortality, serious adverse events, any adverse events, resolution of SBP, liver transplantation, and other decompensation events. We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio, rate ratio, and hazard ratio with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) based on an available-case analysis, according to the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Decision Support Unit guidance. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 12 trials (1278 participants; 13 antibiotics) in the review. Ten trials (893 participants) were included in one or more outcomes in the review. The trials that provided the information included patients having cirrhosis with or without other features of decompensation of varied aetiologies. The follow-up in the trials ranged from one week to three months. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Only one trial was included under each comparison for most of the outcomes. Because of these reasons, there is very low certainty in all the results. The majority of the randomised clinical trials used third-generation cephalosporins, such as intravenous ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, or ciprofloxacin as one of the interventions.Overall, approximately 75% of trial participants recovered from SBP and 25% of people died within three months. There was no evidence of difference in any of the outcomes for which network meta-analysis was possible: mortality (9 trials; 653 participants), proportion of people with any adverse events (5 trials; 297 participants), resolution of SBP (as per standard definition, 9 trials; 873 participants), or other features of decompensation (6 trials; 535 participants). The effect estimates in the direct comparisons (when available) were very similar to those of network meta-analysis. For the comparisons where network meta-analysis was not possible, there was no evidence of difference in any of the outcomes (proportion of participants with serious adverse events, number of adverse events, and proportion of participants requiring liver transplantation). Due to the wide CrIs and the very low-certainty evidence for all the outcomes, significant benefits or harms of antibiotics are possible.None of the trials reported health-related quality of life, number of serious adverse events, or symptomatic recovery from SBP. FUNDING: the source of funding for two trials were industrial organisations who would benefit from the results of the trial; the source of funding for the remaining 10 trials was unclear. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Short-term mortality after SBP is about 25%. There is significant uncertainty about which antibiotic therapy is better in people with SBP.We need adequately powered randomised clinical trials, with adequate blinding, avoiding post-randomisation dropouts (or performing intention-to-treat analysis), and using clinically important outcomes, such as mortality, health-related quality of life, and adverse events.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Cirrose Hepática/complicações , Peritonite/tratamento farmacológico , Qualidade de Vida , Teorema de Bayes , Humanos , Cirrose Hepática/terapia , Transplante de Fígado , Meta-Análise em Rede , Peritonite/etiologia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto
17.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 98(34): e16787, 2019 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31441850

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of techniques with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) patients via a protocol for systemic review and network meta-analysis. METHODS: We will search PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from inception to October 1, 2018. The reference lists of the retrieved articles are also consulted. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) will be used to assess the risk of bias in each study. The direct meta-analyses, network meta-analyses, and ranking of competing diagnostic tests will be used by STATA 12.0 and WINBUGS 1.4. Heterogeneity and inconsistency are assessed. RESULTS: This study is ongoing, will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal publication once completed. CONCLUSION: This study will provide a comprehensive evidence summary of diagnostic test accuracy in detecting the CTEPH, and can help patients and clinicians to select appropriate or best diagnostic test. ETHICS AND COMMUNICATION: No ethical approval and patient consent are required, because it is based on published researches. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019121279.


Assuntos
Diagnóstico por Imagem/métodos , Hipertensão Pulmonar/diagnóstico , Doença Crônica , Humanos , Imagem por Ressonância Magnética/métodos , Meta-Análise em Rede , Projetos de Pesquisa , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Tomografia Computadorizada com Tomografia Computadorizada de Emissão de Fóton Único/métodos , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X/métodos , Cintilografia de Ventilação/Perfusão/métodos
18.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 98(34): e16880, 2019 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31441862

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Saphenous vein graft (SVG) is the most common conduit used for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. Unfortunately, SVG are associated with poor long-term patency rates; a significant predictor of re-operation rates and survival. As such, medical therapy to prevent SVG narrowing or occlusion is of paramount importance. Aspirin (ASA) monotherapy is the standard of care after CABG, to improve long-term major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and graft patency. Benefits of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) have not been well established in all CABG patients. We present a protocol for a network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing the effects of various antiplatelet therapy regimens on SVG patency, mortality, and bleeding among adult patients following CABG. METHODS: We will search CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL ACPJC, and grey literature sources (AHA, ACC, ESC, and CCC conference proceedings, ISRCTN Register, and WHO ICTRP) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which fit our criteria. RCTs that evaluate different antiplatelet regimens at least 3-months after CABG and have any of SVG patency, mortality, MACE, and major bleeding as outcomes will be selected. We will perform title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction independently and in duplicate. Two independent reviewers will also assess risk of bias (ROB) for each study, as well as evaluate quality of evidence using the GRADE framework. We will use R to perform the NMA and use low-dose ASA as reference within our network. We will report results as odds ratios with confidence intervals for direct comparisons, and credible intervals for indirect or mixed comparisons. We will use the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to estimate the ranking of interventions. DISCUSSION: Given the limited direct comparison of various antiplatelet regimens, a network approach is ideal to clarify the optimum antiplatelet therapy after CABG. We hope that our NMA will be the largest quantitative synthesis evaluating antiplatelet regimens among patients requiring CABG. It should inform clinicians and guideline developers in selecting the most effective and safest antiplatelet regimen.Systematic Review registration: International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO)-CRD42019127695.


Assuntos
Ponte de Artéria Coronária/efeitos adversos , Inibidores da Agregação de Plaquetas/uso terapêutico , Ponte de Artéria Coronária/métodos , Ponte de Artéria Coronária/mortalidade , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/cirurgia , Humanos , Meta-Análise em Rede , Veia Safena/transplante , Revisão Sistemática como Assunto , Resultado do Tratamento
19.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 98(33): e16855, 2019 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31415417

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Endometrial cancer (EC) is one of the most common gynecologic tumors, with a high incidence in developed countries. Although the overall prognosis is good, some women have invasive tumors, the risk of recurrence, and death is high. The common surgical methods used in EC are total-abdominal hysterectomy (TAH), total-vaginal hysterectomy (TVH), laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH), and total-laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) including both conventional and robotically assisted. METHODS: The literature search was performed in The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will be included. The search date is until June 2019. The risk of bias of included RCTs was assessed by 2 investigators according to the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Network meta-analysis will be conducted by R software. RESULTS: This study is ongoing and the results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. CONCLUSION: This network meta-analysis will provide clinical staff with current and reliable information on the best surgical approach for EC. Ethical approval is not applicable, since this is a network mate-analysis based on published articles. The protocol has been registered on PROSPERO under the number CRD42019128094.


Assuntos
Neoplasias do Endométrio/cirurgia , Histerectomia Vaginal/métodos , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/cirurgia , Neoplasias do Endométrio/mortalidade , Feminino , Humanos , Laparoscopia/métodos , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/mortalidade , Meta-Análise em Rede , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos/métodos
20.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 98(33): e16881, 2019 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31415431

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a universal chronic nonspecific intestinal inflammatory disease of unknown etiology. Although 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) is used as a first-line treatment for mild-to-moderate UC, some patients do not react well to it. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) plays a complementary role in the management of UC. A large number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that TCM has a significant effect in the treatment of mild-to-moderate UC. However, due to the diversity of TCM treatments, its relative effectiveness and safety remains unclear. Therefore, we aim to compare the effectiveness and safety of TCM for mild-to-moderate UC by implementing a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) and provide a reference for clinical treatment. METHODS: According to the Cochrane Handbook, PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CHKD-CNKI), Chinese Biomedical Literature database (CBM), and WANFANG database will be searched. Related randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared one TCM intervention with another or with 5-ASA (placebo) for mild-to-moderate UC from inceptions to February 2019 will be included. Two authors will screen the literature and extract data independently based on predesigned rules, and evaluate the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Both classical pair-wise meta-analysis and Bayesian NMA will be conducted using R-3.4.4 and WinBUGS-1.4.3 software. The ranking probabilities for all interventions will be estimated and the hierarchy of each intervention will be summarized as surface under the cumulative ranking curve. The consistency within network will be evaluated with Cochrane Q statistic and net-heat plot. The quality of evidence will be assessed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: The study results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal publication or conference presentation. CONCLUSIONS: The findings will provide a systematic evidence-based medical evidence of TCM interventions in the treatment of UC and help clinical practitioners, UC patients, and policy-makers make more informed choices in the decision-making. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval and informed consent are not required since this is a protocol for a network meta-analysis based on published studies. The findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal publication or conference presentation. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019133962.


Assuntos
Colite Ulcerativa/terapia , Medicina Tradicional Chinesa/métodos , Terapia por Acupuntura , Teorema de Bayes , Medicamentos de Ervas Chinesas/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Meta-Análise em Rede , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Resultado do Tratamento
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA