Effectiveness and Safety of Ozone Therapy in Dental Caries Treatment: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of ozone therapy for treating dental caries. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 8 databases, from inception to April 4, 2020 (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, LILACS, Bibliografia Brasileira de Odontologia, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO, and OpenGrey). Primary outcome measures were antimicrobial effect and adverse events. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to evaluate methodological quality of included RCTs and GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. We used the Review Manager software to conduct meta-analyses. RESULTS: We included 12 RCTs comparing ozone therapy with no ozone, chlorhexidine digluconate, fissure sealants (alone and added to ozone), and fluoride. Considering primary outcomes, ozone therapy showed (a) lower reduction in the bacterial number than chlorhexidine digluconate in children (mean difference [MD]: -5.65 [-9.79 to -1.51]), but no difference was observed in adults (MD: -0.10 [-1.07 to 0.88]); (b) higher reduction in the bacterial number than sealant (MD: 12.60 [3.86-21.34]), but no difference was observed after final excavation (MD: -0.00 [-0.01 to 0.01]). Regarding safety of ozone therapy, results from individual studies presented no adverse events during or after treatment. Most of these results are imprecise and should be interpreted with caution because of clinical and methodological concerns, small sample size, and wide confidence interval, precluding to determine the real effect direction. CONCLUSION: Based on a very low certainty of evidence, there is not enough support from published RCTs to recommend the use of ozone for the treatment of dental caries. Well-conducted studies should be encouraged, measuring mainly the antimicrobial effects of ozone therapy at long term and following the recommendations of the CONSORT statement for the reporting of RCTs.

Quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of vesiculobullous skin diseases. A meta-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are considered high-level evidence to support a decision on therapeutic interventions, and their methodological quality is essential to provide reliable and applicable results. OBJECTIVE: This meta-epidemiological study aimed to map and critically appraise systematic reviews assessing treatments for vesiculobullous skin diseases. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search strategy on MEDLINE (via Pubmed) in December 2022 without restrictions to find systematic reviews evaluating pharmacological interventions for vesiculobullous skin diseases. The methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool, and additional information was extracted. We identified nine systematic reviews published between 2002 and 2021, seven assessing pemphigus. RESULTS: According to the AMSTAR-2 tool, 55.6% were classified as critically low quality, 22.2% as moderate quality, 11.1% as low and 11.1% as high quality. No review assessed the certainty of the evidence (GRADE); 86% of pemphigus reviews had at least two overlapping RCTs. There were some limitations regarding methodological flaws and the AMSTAR-2 tool use CONCLUSIONS: These findings reveal a frail methodological quality of systematic reviews about vesiculobullous diseases treatment that may impact the results. Therefore, methodological rigor is mandatory for future systematic reviews to avoid duplication of effort and increase the certainty of the evidence supporting decision-making.

Work-related musculoskeletal disorders in dockworkers. Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dockworkers are exposed to physical overloads that can contribute to the development of musculoskeletal disorders, leading to functional disability and absenteeism. OBJECTIVE: to map, critically appraise, and synthesize the available evidence on the prevalence of musculoskeletal diseases associated with port occupational activities. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted in structured and unstructured databases in August 2023, with no date or language restriction, to identify observational studies evaluating the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders in dockworkers' occupational activity. The risk of bias was assessed using validated tools based on the included study designs. Data from studies were pooled in meta-analyses. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We identified 12 analytical cross-sectional studies involving 7821 participants in ports of five countries. Most studies (75%) had a moderate methodological quality according to the Joanna Briggs Institute tool. Considering the overall worker categories and any musculoskeletal disorders, the meta-analysis showed a prevalence of 58% (95% Confidence Interval [95% CI] 37% to 78%), with degenerative spinal diseases 42% (95% CI -0.6% to 91%) and low back pain 36% (95% CI 21% to 50%) being the most prevalent conditions. Symptoms were predominantly in foremen and stevedores. The certainty of the evidence was very low. CONCLUSIONS: Musculoskeletal disorders seem prevalent among dockworkers, mainly degenerative spinal diseases and low back pain. Studies with greater methodological consistency are still needed to validate these hypotheses and assist in decision-making for implementing preventive and informational policies in maritime port management organizations. PROSPERO registry CRD42021257677.

Most Cochrane systematic reviews and protocols did not adhere to the Cochrane's risk of bias 2.0 tool.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the frequency of Cochrane systematic reviews and Cochrane systematic reviews protocols using (or planning to use) the risk of bias 2.0 tool to assess the risk of bias of the included randomized clinical trials. STUDY DESIGN: This is a meta-research study. METHODS: We included Cochrane systematic reviews or Cochrane systematic reviews protocols that planned to include randomized clinical trials. We assessed the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and screened for issues published after the launch of risk of bias 2.0 tool (2019-2022). Two independent investigators performed the study selection and data extraction. RESULTS: We analyzed 440 Cochrane systematic reviews and 536 Cochrane systematic reviews protocols. Overall, 4.8% of the Cochrane systematic reviews and 28.5% of the Cochrane systematic reviews protocols used or planned to use risk of bias 2.0 tool. Although low, adherence is increasing over time. In 2019, 0% of Cochrane systematic reviews used risk of bias 2.0 tool, compared to 24.1% in 2022. In Cochrane systematic reviews protocols, adherence increased from 6.9% in 2019 to 41.5% in 2022. A total of 274 (62.1%) Cochrane systematic reviews had their protocols published before 2018; only one used risk of bias 2.0 tool and reported the change of versions in the "Differences between protocol and revision" section. CONCLUSION: The Cochrane's risk of bias 2.0 tool has low adherence among Cochrane protocols and systematic reviews. Further efforts are necessary to facilitate the implementation of this new tool.

A review of Cochrane reviews on pharmacological treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most frequent childhood psychiatric problems. Objective: The objective of this study was to identify, synthesize the results, and critically evaluate all Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) on the pharmacological interventions for children and adolescents (up to age 18) diagnosed with ADHD. Methods: The search was performed in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (via Wiley) in July 2020. Results: The search strategy resulted in four SRs of high methodological quality, analyzing 51 randomized clinical trials (9,013 participants). Compared to placebo, treatment with tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) (desipramine), amphetamine, and methylphenidate showed improvement in symptoms such as difficulty concentrating, impulsivity, and hyperactivity in the short term (up to 6 months). There was an increase in the occurrence of adverse events, such as reduced appetite, difficulty sleeping, and abdominal pain. Insufficient evidence was found to support the effects of supplementation with polyunsaturated fatty acids. Conclusions: The use of TCAs, amphetamine, and methylphenidate in children and adolescents with ADHD seems to present positive effects and higher rates of minor adverse events when compared to placebo.

Déficit de atenção e hiperatividade (TDAH) é uma das mais frequentes condições psiquiátricas da infância. Objetivo: O objetivo deste artigo foi identificar, sintetizar os resultados e avaliar criticamente todas as revisões sistemáticas (RS) da Cochrane sobre as intervenções farmacológicas para crianças e adolescentes (até 18 anos de idade) diagnosticados com transtorno do déficit de atenção com hiperatividade. Métodos: A pesquisa foi realizada na base de dados Cochrane de Revisões Sistemáticas ­ CDSR (via Wiley) em julho de 2020. Resultados: A estratégia de busca resultou em quatro RS de alta qualidade metodológica, que analisavam 51 ensaios clínicos randomizados (9.013 participantes). Comparado ao placebo, o tratamento com antidepressivos tricíclicos (desipramina), anfetamina e metilfenidato apresentou melhora nos sintomas, como dificuldade de concentração, impulsividade e hiperatividade no curto prazo (até seis meses). Houve aumento na ocorr≖ncia de eventos adversos, como redução do apetite, dificuldade para dormir e dor abdominal. Foram encontradas evid≖ncias insuficientes para apoiar os efeitos da suplementação com ácidos graxos poli-insaturados. Conclusões: Com base nos resultados de revisões sistemáticas Cochrane, o uso de antidepressivos tricíclicos, anfetamina e metilfenidato em crianças e adolescentes com TDAH parece apresentar efeitos positivos e taxas mais elevadas de eventos adversos menores quando comparado ao placebo. Dado o alto risco de viés nos estudos primários incluídos nessas RS, ainda são necessários novos ensaios clínicos randomizados com rigor metodológico para apoiar esses achados.

Most Cochrane systematic reviews and protocols did not adhere to the Cochrane's risk of bias 2.0 tool

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the frequency of Cochrane systematic reviews and Cochrane systematic reviews protocols using (or planning to use) the risk of bias 2.0 tool to assess the risk of bias of the included randomized clinical trials. STUDY DESIGN: This is a meta-research study. METHODS: We included Cochrane systematic reviews or Cochrane systematic reviews protocols that planned to include randomized clinical trials. We assessed the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and screened for issues published after the launch of risk of bias 2.0 tool (2019-2022). Two independent investigators performed the study selection and data extraction. RESULTS: We analyzed 440 Cochrane systematic reviews and 536 Cochrane systematic reviews protocols. Overall, 4.8% of the Cochrane systematic reviews and 28.5% of the Cochrane systematic reviews protocols used or planned to use risk of bias 2.0 tool. Although low, adherence is increasing over time. In 2019, 0% of Cochrane systematic reviews used risk of bias 2.0 tool, compared to 24.1% in 2022. In Cochrane systematic reviews protocols, adherence increased from 6.9% in 2019 to 41.5% in 2022. A total of 274 (62.1%) Cochrane systematic reviews had their protocols published before 2018; only one used risk of bias 2.0 tool and reported the change of versions in the "Differences between protocol and revision" section. CONCLUSION: The Cochrane's risk of bias 2.0 tool has low adherence among Cochrane protocols and systematic reviews. Further efforts are necessary to facilitate the implementation of this new tool.

A review of Cochrane reviews on pharmacological treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder / Revisão de revisões Cochrane sobre o tratamento farmacológico para transtorno do déficit de atenção e hiperatividade

ABSTRACT. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most frequent childhood psychiatric problems. Objective: The objective of this study was to identify, synthesize the results, and critically evaluate all Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) on the pharmacological interventions for children and adolescents (up to age 18) diagnosed with ADHD. Methods: The search was performed in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (via Wiley) in July 2020. Results: The search strategy resulted in four SRs of high methodological quality, analyzing 51 randomized clinical trials (9,013 participants). Compared to placebo, treatment with tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) (desipramine), amphetamine, and methylphenidate showed improvement in symptoms such as difficulty concentrating, impulsivity, and hyperactivity in the short term (up to 6 months). There was an increase in the occurrence of adverse events, such as reduced appetite, difficulty sleeping, and abdominal pain. Insufficient evidence was found to support the effects of supplementation with polyunsaturated fatty acids. Conclusions: The use of TCAs, amphetamine, and methylphenidate in children and adolescents with ADHD seems to present positive effects and higher rates of minor adverse events when compared to placebo.

RESUMO. Déficit de atenção e hiperatividade (TDAH) é uma das mais frequentes condições psiquiátricas da infância. Objetivo: O objetivo deste artigo foi identificar, sintetizar os resultados e avaliar criticamente todas as revisões sistemáticas (RS) da Cochrane sobre as intervenções farmacológicas para crianças e adolescentes (até 18 anos de idade) diagnosticados com transtorno do déficit de atenção com hiperatividade. Métodos: A pesquisa foi realizada na base de dados Cochrane de Revisões Sistemáticas — CDSR (via Wiley) em julho de 2020. Resultados: A estratégia de busca resultou em quatro RS de alta qualidade metodológica, que analisavam 51 ensaios clínicos randomizados (9.013 participantes). Comparado ao placebo, o tratamento com antidepressivos tricíclicos (desipramina), anfetamina e metilfenidato apresentou melhora nos sintomas, como dificuldade de concentração, impulsividade e hiperatividade no curto prazo (até seis meses). Houve aumento na ocorr≖ncia de eventos adversos, como redução do apetite, dificuldade para dormir e dor abdominal. Foram encontradas evid≖ncias insuficientes para apoiar os efeitos da suplementação com ácidos graxos poli-insaturados. Conclusões: Com base nos resultados de revisões sistemáticas Cochrane, o uso de antidepressivos tricíclicos, anfetamina e metilfenidato em crianças e adolescentes com TDAH parece apresentar efeitos positivos e taxas mais elevadas de eventos adversos menores quando comparado ao placebo. Dado o alto risco de viés nos estudos primários incluídos nessas RS, ainda são necessários novos ensaios clínicos randomizados com rigor metodológico para apoiar esses achados.