METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a single-centre double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial. Sixty-eight patients will be randomised to receive under ultrasound guidance either a single injection of leucocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) or normal saline. All patients will undergo a standardised hamstring rehabilitation programme under the supervision of a sports physiotherapist. Outcome data will be collected before intervention (baseline), and thereafter on a weekly basis. The primary outcome measure is the duration to return-to-play. It is defined as the duration (in days) from the date on which the injury occurred until the patients were pain-free, able to perform the active knee extension test and have regained hamstring muscle strength. Secondary outcome measures include assessment of pain intensity and the effect of pain on to day-to-day functions using the self-reported Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form questionnaire. Both the primary and secondary outcomes were assessed at baseline and thereafter once a week until return to play. Also, hamstring injury recurrence within the first 6 months after recovery will be monitored via telephone. The results of this study will provide insights into the effect of LR-PRP in muscle and may help to identify the best PRP application protocol for muscle injuries.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval were obtained from the Medical Research Ethics Committee of the University of Malaya Medical Centre. Results of this trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN76844299.
METHODS: This is a pragmatic randomized control trial study where elective admitted patients will be randomly divided into the intervention (SS) or control (NN) group. All data will be collected during a face-to-face interview, anthropometric measurement, blood sampling (albumin, white blood count, hemoglobin, and c-reactive protein), handgrip strength, and postoperative complications. Group SS will be receiving a tailored lifestyle and intensively supplemented with oral nutrition support as compared to Group NN that will receive standard medical care. The primary outcome for this study is the length of stay in the hospital. Additional outcome measures are changes in biochemical profile and nutritional and functional status. The effects of intervention between groups on the outcome parameters will be analyzed by using the SPSS General Linear Model (GLM) for the repeated measure procedure.
DISCUSSION: The intervention implemented in this study will serve as baseline data in providing appropriate nutritional management in patients undergoing gastrointestinal and oncological surgery.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System (PRS) NCT04347772 . Registered on 20 November 2019.
OBJECTIVE: The systematic review and meta-analysis in this study aimed to explore the effect of exercise intervention on health-related quality of life of colorectal cancer survivors.
METHODS: The current study followed guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 (PRISMA 2020) to identify relevant literature. Comprehensive searches were conducted using EBSCOhost, Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, Science Direct, and PubMed. The inclusion criteria included are randomised control trials studies written in English, with no restrictions for the time of publication that reported the effects of exercise intervention on health-related quality of live among colorectal cancer survivors. Meta-analysis was conducted by pooling the mean and standard deviation of post-intervention scores across randomised control trial studies using a random effects model.
RESULT: A total of 467 articles were identified but only seven articles were randomised control trials (RCT) (n = 7) with PEDro scores ranging from 6 to 9 showing good internal validity were included in the review. The results of the meta-analysis of pooled data from six RCTs studies on HRQoL showed no significant effect of exercise intervention on HRQoL in the intervention group compared to control group [SMD = 0.25; 95% CI; -0.0, 0.51; Z = 1.88; p = 0.06; I2 = 30.8%].
CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis provides key insights into the effect of exercise on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. Therefore, more experimental studies should be carried out with rigorous methodology to evaluate the effectiveness of exercise interventions before it is recommended as a routine activity in post-treatment management for CRC survivors.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of autologous cells derived from different sources, prepared using different protocols, administered at different doses, and delivered via different routes for the treatment of 'no-option' CLI patients.
SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and trials registries (16 May 2018). Review authors searched PubMed until February 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 'no-option' CLI patients comparing a particular source or regimen of autologous cell-based therapy against another source or regimen of autologous cell-based therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of the trials. We extracted outcome data from each trial and pooled them for meta-analysis. We calculated effect estimates using a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), or a mean difference (MD) with 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTs with a total of 359 participants. These studies compared bone marrow-mononuclear cells (BM-MNCs) versus mobilised peripheral blood stem cells (mPBSCs), BM-MNCs versus bone marrow-mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs), high cell dose versus low cell dose, and intramuscular (IM) versus intra-arterial (IA) routes of cell implantation. We identified no other comparisons in these studies. We considered most studies to be at low risk of bias in random sequence generation, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting; at high risk of bias in blinding of patients and personnel; and at unclear risk of bias in allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors. The quality of evidence was most often low to very low, with risk of bias, imprecision, and indirectness of outcomes the major downgrading factors.Three RCTs (100 participants) reported a total of nine deaths during the study follow-up period. These studies did not report deaths according to treatment group.Results show no clear difference in amputation rates between IM and IA routes (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.18; three RCTs, 95 participants; low-quality evidence). Single-study data show no clear difference in amputation rates between BM-MNC- and mPBSC-treated groups (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.45 to 5.24; 150 participants; low-quality evidence) and between high and low cell dose (RR 3.21, 95% CI 0.87 to 11.90; 16 participants; very low-quality evidence). The study comparing BM-MNCs versus BM-MSCs reported no amputations.Single-study data with low-quality evidence show similar numbers of participants with healing ulcers between BM-MNCs and mPBSCs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.83; 49 participants) and between IM and IA routes (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.76; 41 participants). In contrast, more participants appeared to have healing ulcers in the BM-MSC group than in the BM-MNC group (RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.92; one RCT, 22 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Researchers comparing high versus low cell doses did not report ulcer healing.Single-study data show similar numbers of participants with reduction in rest pain between BM-MNCs and mPBSCs (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 104 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and between IM and IA routes (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.64; 32 participants; low-quality evidence). One study reported no clear difference in rest pain scores between BM-MNC and BM-MSC (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.61; 37 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Trials comparing high versus low cell doses did not report rest pain.Single-study data show no clear difference in the number of participants with increased ankle-brachial index (ABI; increase of > 0.1 from pretreatment), between BM-MNCs and mPBSCs (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.40; 104 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and between IM and IA routes (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.00; 35 participants; very low-quality evidence). In contrast, ABI scores appeared higher in BM-MSC versus BM-MNC groups (MD 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09; one RCT, 37 participants; low-quality evidence). ABI was not reported in the high versus low cell dose comparison.Similar numbers of participants had improved transcutaneous oxygen tension (TcO₂) with IM versus IA routes (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.72; two RCTs, 62 participants; very low-quality evidence). Single-study data with low-quality evidence show a higher TcO₂ reading in BM-MSC versus BM-MNC groups (MD 8.00, 95% CI 3.46 to 12.54; 37 participants) and in mPBSC- versus BM-MNC-treated groups (MD 1.70, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.99; 150 participants). TcO₂ was not reported in the high versus low cell dose comparison.Study authors reported no significant short-term adverse effects attributed to autologous cell implantation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Mostly low- and very low-quality evidence suggests no clear differences between different stem cell sources and different treatment regimens of autologous cell implantation for outcomes such as all-cause mortality, amputation rate, ulcer healing, and rest pain for 'no-option' CLI patients. Pooled analyses did not show a clear difference in clinical outcomes whether cells were administered via IM or IA routes. High-quality evidence is lacking; therefore the efficacy and long-term safety of autologous cells derived from different sources, prepared using different protocols, administered at different doses, and delivered via different routes for the treatment of 'no-option' CLI patients, remain to be confirmed.Future RCTs with larger numbers of participants are needed to determine the efficacy of cell-based therapy for CLI patients, along with the optimal cell source, phenotype, dose, and route of implantation. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm the durability of angiogenic potential and the long-term safety of cell-based therapy.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of cell-based therapy for people with ALS/MND, compared with placebo or no treatment.
SEARCH METHODS: On 31 July 2019, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched two clinical trials registries for ongoing or unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that assigned people with ALS/MND to receive cell-based therapy versus a placebo or no additional treatment. Co-interventions were allowed, provided that they were given to each group equally.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS: Two RCTs involving 112 participants were eligible for inclusion in this review. One study compared autologous bone marrow-mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSC) plus riluzole versus control (riluzole only), while the other study compared combined intramuscular and intrathecal administration of autologous mesenchymal stem cells secreting neurotrophic factors (MSC-NTF) to placebo. The latter study was reported as an abstract and provided no numerical data. Both studies were funded by biotechnology companies. The only study that contributed to the outcome data in the review involved 64 participants, comparing BM-MSC plus riluzole versus control (riluzole only). It reported outcomes after four to six months. It had a low risk of selection bias, detection bias and reporting bias, but a high risk of performance bias and attrition bias. The certainty of evidence was low for all major efficacy outcomes, with imprecision as the main downgrading factor, because the range of plausible estimates, as shown by the 95% confidence intervals (CIs), encompassed a range that would likely result in different clinical decisions. Functional impairment, expressed as the mean change in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) score from baseline to six months after cell injection was slightly reduced (better) in the BM-MSC group compared to the control group (mean difference (MD) 3.38, 95% CI 1.22 to 5.54; 1 RCT, 56 participants; low-certainty evidence). ALSFRS-R has a range from 48 (normal) to 0 (maximally impaired); a change of 4 or more points is considered clinically important. The trial did not report outcomes at 12 months. There was no clear difference between the BM-MSC and the no treatment group in change in respiratory function (per cent predicted forced vital capacity; FVC%; MD -0.53, 95% CI -5.37 to 4.31; 1 RCT, 56 participants; low-certainty evidence); overall survival at six months (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 64 participants; low-certainty evidence); risk of total adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.19; 1 RCT, 64 participants; low-certainty evidence) or serious adverse events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.72; 1 RCT, 64 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure muscle strength.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is a lack of high-certainty evidence to guide practice on the use of cell-based therapy to treat ALS/MND. Uncertainties remain as to whether this mode of therapy is capable of restoring muscle function, slowing disease progression, and improving survival in people with ALS/MND. Although one RCT provided low-certainty evidence that BM-MSC may slightly reduce functional impairment measured on the ALSFRS-R after four to six months, this was a small phase II trial that cannot be used to establish efficacy. We need large, prospective RCTs with long-term follow-up to establish the efficacy and safety of cellular therapy and to determine patient-, disease- and cell treatment-related factors that may influence the outcome of cell-based therapy. The major goals of future research are to determine the appropriate cell source, phenotype, dose and method of delivery, as these will be key elements in designing an optimal cell-based therapy programme for people with ALS/MND. Future research should also explore novel treatment strategies, including combinations of cellular therapy and standard or novel neuroprotective agents, to find the best possible approach to prevent or reverse the neurological deficit in ALS/MND, and to prolong survival in this debilitating and fatal condition.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of mobile phone text messaging in patients with established arterial occlusive events on adherence to treatment, fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events, and adverse effects.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on Web of Science on 7 November 2016, and two clinical trial registers on 12 November 2016. We contacted authors of included studies for missing information and searched reference lists of relevant papers. We applied no language or date restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials with at least 50% of the participants with established arterial occlusive events. We included trials investigating interventions using short message service (SMS) or multimedia messaging service (MMS) with the aim to improve adherence to medication for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events. Eligible comparators were no intervention or other modes of communication.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. In addition, we attempted to contact all authors on how the SMS were developed.
MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials (reported in 13 reports) with 1310 participants randomised. Follow-up ranged from one month to 12 months. Due to heterogeneity in the methods, population and outcome measures, we were unable to conduct meta-analysis on these studies. All seven studies reported on adherence, but using different methods and scales. Six out of seven trials showed a beneficial effect of mobile phone text messaging for medication adherence. Dale 2015a, reported significantly greater medication adherence score in the intervention group (Mean Difference (MD) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.97; 123 participants randomised) at six months. Khonsari 2015 reported less adherence in the control group (Relative Risk (RR) 4.09, 95% CI 1.82 to 9.18; 62 participants randomised) at eight weeks. Pandey 2014 (34 participants randomised) assessed medication adherence through self-reported logs with 90% adherence in the intervention group compared to 70% in the control group at 12 months. Park 2014a (90 participants randomised) reported a greater increase of the medication adherence score in the control group, but also measured adherence with an event monitoring system for a number of medications with adherence levels ranging from 84.1% adherence to 86.2% in the intervention group and 79.7% to 85.7% in the control group at 30 days. Quilici 2013, reported reduced odds of non-adherence in the intervention group (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.43, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.86, 521 participants randomised) at 30 days. Fang 2016, reported that participants given SMS alone had reduced odds of being non-adherent compared to telephone reminders (OR 0.40 95% CI 0.18 to 0.63; 280 patients randomised). Kamal 2015 reported higher levels of adherence in the intervention arm (adjusted MD 0.54, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.85; 200 participants randomised). Khonsari 2015 was the only study to report fatal cardiovascular events and only reported two events, both in the control arm. No study reported on the other primary outcomes. No study reported repetitive thumb injury or road traffic crashes or other adverse events that were related to the intervention.Four authors replied to our questionnaire on SMS development. No study reported examining causes of non-adherence or provided SMS tailored to individual patient characteristics.The included studies were small, heterogeneous and included participants recruited directly after acute events. All studies were assessed as having high risk of bias across at least one domain. Most of the studies came from high-income countries, with two studies conducted in an upper middle-income country (China, Malaysia), and one study from a lower middle-income country (Pakistan). The quality of the evidence was found to be very low. There was no obvious conflicts of interest from authors, although only two declared their funding.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While the results of this systematic review are promising, there is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of text message-based interventions for adherence to medications for secondary prevention of CVD. Sufficiently powered, high-quality randomised trials are needed, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.
Materials and Methods: The articles published in different journals were retrieved by searching many research databases such as Cochrane library, Europe PMC, PubMed, and Web of Science; we searched these databases for all published articles till November 2018.
Results and Discussion: The searching results using Cochrane library showed an increase in the number of randomized clinical trials that related to the keyword of "antimicrobial stewardship" specially in the last 5 years. Using Europe PMC, we found 6178 results. From these results, there are 3874 free full texts. In addition, there are 2132 original articles in PubMed and by searching Web of Science database till November 8 there are 3085 results. These results show that the number of trusted published articles was increased continuously; this shows the increasing interest of the researchers in ASPs. These researches will help health-care providers to use antibiotics appropriately and to overcome the barriers of implementing ASPs.
Conclusion: The results of this study show that the researchers had high levels of interest in participating in research activities related to the appropriate use on antibiotics and the implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs.
METHODOLOGY: The Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science 'All Databases' was used to search and analyse the 100 most frequently cited randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses having 'randomized', 'randomised', 'randomized controlled', 'randomised controlled', 'randomized controlled trial', 'randomized controlled trials', 'clinical trial', 'systematic', 'systematic review', 'meta-analysis', and 'meta-analyses' in the title section. The 'International Endodontic Journal', 'Journal of Endodontics', 'Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology and Endodontology', 'Australian Endodontic Journal', 'Endodontics & Dental Traumatology', 'Endo-Endodontic Practice Today' and 'European Endodontic Journal' were included in the publication name section. After ranking the articles in a descending order based on their citation counts, each article was cross-matched with the citation counts in Elsevier's Scopus and Google Scholar. The articles were analysed, and information on citation counts, citation density, year of publication, contributing authors, institutions and countries, journal of publication, study design, topic of the article and keywords was extracted.
RESULTS: The citation counts of the 100 most-cited articles varied from 235 to 20 (Web of Science), 276 to 17 (Scopus) and 696 to 1 (Google Scholar). The year in which the top 100 articles were published was 2010 (n = 13). Among 373 authors, the greatest number of articles was associated with three individuals namely Reader A (n = 5), Beck M (n = 5) and Kvist T (n = 5). Most of the articles originated from the United States (n = 24) with the greatest contribution from Ohio State University (USA) (n = 5). Randomized controlled trials were the most frequent study design (n = 45) followed by systematic reviews (n = 30) with outcome studies of root canal treatment being the major topic (n = 35). The Journal of Endodontics published the largest number of included articles (n = 70) followed by the International Endodontic Journal (n = 27). Among 259 unique keywords, meta-analysis (n = 23) and systematic review (n = 23) were the most frequently used.
CONCLUSION: This study has revealed that year of publication had no obvious impact on citation count. The bibliometric analysis highlighted the quantity and quality of research, and the evolution of scientific advancements made in the field of Endodontology over time. Articles before 1996, that is prior to the CONSORT statement that encouraged authors to include specific terms in the title and keywords, may not have been included in this electronic search.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The addressed focused question was "Is there a difference in the resistin levels between individuals with CP and those without CP?" four electronic databases: Medline, PubMed (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda), EMBASE, and Science direct databases from 1977 up to March 2016 for appropriate articles addressing the focused question. EMBASE and Medline were accessed using OVID interface which facilitated simultaneous search of text words, MeSH or Emtree. Unpublished studies (gray literature) were identified by searching the Open-GRAY database and references of the included studies (cross referencing) were performed to obtain new studies. In-vitro studies, animal studies, studies that reported levels of other cytokines but not resistin, letters to the editor and review papers were excluded.
RESULTS: Ten studies were included. Nine studies compared resistin levels between CP and periodontally healthy (H) individuals and reported higher mean serum and GCF levels of resistin in CP patients than the H controls. Two studies showed comparable resistin levels from GCF and serum between diabetes mellitus with CP (DMCP) and CP groups. Three studies included obese subjects and showed comparable serum and GCF resistin levels between obese subjects with CP (OBCP) and CP subjects.
CONCLUSIONS: CP patients were presented with elevated levels of GCF or serum resistin as compared with H individuals. Resistin modulates inflammation in chronic periodontal disease and may be used as surrogate measure to identify subjects at risk for periodontitis. Resistin levels in patients with CP and systemic inflammatory disorders such as diabetes, obesity, or rheumatoid arthritis was not significantly higher than the levels in patients with only CP.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A 2×2 cross-over randomised mechanistic dietary trial will allocate 16 participants with NAFLD to a 2-week either HGI or LGI diet followed by a 4-week wash-out period and then the LGI or HGI diet, alternative to that followed in the first 2 weeks. Baseline and postintervention (four visits) outcome measures will be collected to assess liver fat content (using MRI/S and controlled attenuation parameter-FibroScan), gut microbiota composition (using 16S RNA analysis) and blood biomarkers including glycaemic, insulinaemic, liver, lipid and haematological profiles, gut hormones levels and short-chain fatty acids.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Study protocol has been approved by the ethics committees of The University of Nottingham and East Midlands Nottingham-2 Research Ethics Committee (REC reference 19/EM/0291). Data from this trial will be used as part of a Philosophy Doctorate thesis. Publications will be in peer-reviewed journals.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04415632.
METHODS AND ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A cluster randomized controlled study will be conducted, involving 250 Middle Eastern adolescents, in Arabic schools in Malaysia. The participants will be randomly assigned to the intervention and control groups. While the intervention group participates in six weeks of fortnightly six sessions (45 minutes per session), the control group will carry on with their regular curriculums, and normal physical activity routines. The variables which will be evaluated include anthropometric measurements, knowledge, attitude, daily routines, physical activity, sedentary behaviour, food assessment, eating attitudes test-26, and a structured questionnaire based on the HBM. Data will be collected from the intervention and control groups at baseline, post-intervention, and two months following the intervention. Data analysis will be performed by way of the SPSS Statistics software version 26. The generalized estimating equation (GEE) will be used, to test the effect of the intervention program, with regards to the selected variables (outcomes), between and within-group at baseline, as well as six weeks and two months following intervention, after adjusting for clustering. Outcomes will be assessed at each time point, along with a derived average over all three-time points; thus, ensuring that both the cumulative and overall effects are determined.
CONCLUSIONS: This trial will provide useful information for improving the knowledge, attitude, and practices of Middle Eastern adolescents, with regards to body weight status, physical activity level, nutrition status (BMI and dietary intake), and disordered eating. This will go a long way, towards ensuring their adherence to appropriate physical activities, and a healthy diet, to keep non-communicable diseases at bay.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at NCT: NCT05694143.
METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search in Web of Science, PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Embase databases from inception up to January 2020. We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We used weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) to assess the influence of omega-3 supplementation on serum 25(OH)D levels using the random-effects model.
RESULTS: Our pooled results of 10 RCTs demonstrated an overall significant increase in 25(OH)D levels following omega-3 intake (WMD = 3.77 ng/ml, 95% CI: 1.29, 6.25). In addition, 25(OH)D levels were significantly increased when the intervention duration lasted >8 weeks and when the baseline serum 25(OH)D level was ˂20 ng/ml. Moreover, omega-3 intake ≤1000 mg/day resulted in higher 25(OH)D levels compared to omega-3 intake >1000 mg/day.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, omega-3 supplementation increased 25(OH)D concentrations, particularly with dosages ≤1000 mg/day and intervention durations >8 weeks.
AIM: This review aimed to explore the effects of psychoeducational interventions on improving outcome measures for patients diagnosed with schizophrenia.
METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guideline was used in this systematic review. Two reviewers were involved in screening articles for inclusion and in the data extraction process. The selected studies were assessed for quality using the 'Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial (CONSORT)' checklist. Out of the 441 records identified, 11 papers were considered for full review (from 2000 to 2018).
RESULTS: The psychoeducational interventions showed a consistent improvement in many outcome measures. Most of the reviewed studies focused on outpatients and the method of delivering the psychoeducational interventions was mostly in lecture format.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review of randomized controlled trial studies emphasizes the positive impact of psychoeducational interventions for patients diagnosed with schizophrenia concerning various outcome measures. The findings of this review have important implications for both nursing practice and research, as the information presented can be used by the administrators and stakeholders of mental health facilities to increase their understanding and awareness of the importance of integrating psychoeducational interventions in the routine care of patients diagnosed with schizophrenia.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline & CINAHL, Turning Research into Practice (TRIP), ProQuest Theses & Dissertations Databases, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from inception till March 15, 2021. The primary outcome measure was a reduction in respiratory illness; decrease in frequency, symptoms, and duration. Random-effects model was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We used Cochrane's RoB-2 to appraise the risk of bias of included RCTs.
RESULTS: A total of nine RCTs were eligible for this review, of which six were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, two studies demonstrated a high risk of bias. The meta-analysis revealed a significantly reduced odds of developing respiratory infections with the use of Lf relative to the control (pooled odds ratio = 0.57; 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 0.74, n = 1,194), with sufficient evidence against the hypothesis of 'no significant difference' at the current sample size.
CONCLUSIONS: The administration of Lf shows promising efficacy in reducing the risk of RTIs. Current evidence also favours Lf fortification of infant formula. Lf may also have a beneficial role in managing symptoms and recovery of patients suffering from RTIs and may have potential for use as an adjunct in COVID-19, however this warrants further evidence from a large well-designed RCT.