METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Psychological Information Database (PsycINFO), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for all randomized control trials, comparing LC alone or in combination with other standard treatments for the treatment of PCOS from inception till June 2021. We independently screened titles and abstracts to identify available trials, and complete texts of the trials were checked for eligibility. Data on the methods, interventions, outcomes, and risk of bias from the included trials were independently extracted by the authors. The estimation of risk ratios and mean differences with a 95 percent confidence interval (CI) was performed using a random-effects model.
RESULTS: Nine studies with 995 participants were included in this review. Five comparison groups were involved. In one comparison group, LC reduced the fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (mean differences (MD) -5.10, 95% CI [-6.25 to -3.95]; P = 0.00001), serum low-density lipoprotein (LDL) (MD -25.00, 95% CI [-27.93 to -22.07]; P = 0.00001), serum total cholesterol (MD -21.00, 95% CI [-24.14 to -17.86]; P = 0.00001), and serum triglyceride (TG) (MD -9.00, 95% CI [-11.46 to -6.54]; P = 0.00001) with moderate certainty of evidence. Another comparison group demonstrated that LC lowers the LDL (MD -12.00, 95% CI [-15.80 to -8.20]; P = 0.00001), serum total cholesterol (MD -24.00, 95% CI [-27.61 to -20.39]; P = 0.00001), and serum TG (MD -19.00, 95% CI [-22.79 to -15.21]; P = 0.00001) with moderate certainty of evidence.
CONCLUSION: There was low to moderate certainty of evidence that LC improves Body Mass Index (BMI) and serum LDL, TG, and total cholesterol levels in women with PCOS.
DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception to February 10, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION: RCTs evaluating the effect of enteral or IV glutamine supplementation alone in severe adult burn patients were included.
DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characteristics, burn injury characteristics, description of the intervention between groups, adverse events, and clinical outcomes.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Random effects meta-analyses were performed to estimate the pooled risk ratio (RR). Trial sequential analyses (TSA) for mortality and infectious complications were performed. Ten RCTs (1,577 patients) were included. We observed no significant effect of glutamine supplementation on overall mortality (RR, 0.65, 95% CI, 0.33-1.28; p = 0.21), infectious complications (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.63-1.09; p = 0.18), or other secondary outcomes. In subgroup analyses, we observed no significant effects based on administration route or burn severity. We did observe a significant subgroup effect between single and multicenter RCTs in which glutamine significantly reduced mortality and infectious complications in singe-center RCTs but not in multicenter RCTs. However, TSA showed that the pooled results of single-center RCTs were type 1 errors and further trials would be futile.
CONCLUSIONS: Glutamine supplementation, regardless of administration, does not appear to improve clinical outcomes in severely adult burned patients.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed databases up to February 2020 for RCTs that investigated the effect of DHEA supplementation on testosterone levels. The estimated effect of the data was calculated using the weighted mean difference (WMD). Subgroup analysis was performed to identify the source of heterogeneity among studies.
RESULTS: Overall results from 42 publications (comprising 55 arms) demonstrated that testosterone level was significantly increased after DHEA administration (WMD: 28.02 ng/dl, 95% CI: 21.44-34.60, p = 0.00). Subgroup analyses revealed that DHEA increased testosterone level in all subgroups, but the magnitude of increment was higher in females compared to men (WMD: 30.98 ng/dl vs. 21.36 ng/dl); DHEA dosage of ˃50 mg/d compared to ≤50 mg/d (WMD: 57.96 ng/dl vs. 19.43 ng/dl); intervention duration of ≤12 weeks compared to ˃12 weeks (WMD: 44.64 ng/dl vs. 19 ng/dl); healthy participants compared to postmenopausal women, pregnant women, non-healthy participants and androgen-deficient patients (WMD: 52.17 ng/dl vs. 25.04 ng/dl, 16.44 ng/dl and 16.47 ng/dl); and participants below 60 years old compared to above 60 years old (WMD: 31.42 ng/dl vs. 23.93 ng/dl).
CONCLUSION: DHEA supplementation is effective for increasing testosterone levels, although the magnitude varies among different subgroups. More study needed on pregnant women and miscarriage.
METHODS: Electronic databases (Scopus, PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Embase and Google Scholar) were searched for relevant literature published up to February 2020.
RESULTS: Twenty-four qualified trials were included in this meta-analysis. It was found that serum IGF-1 levels were significantly increased in the DHEA group compared to the control (weighted mean differences (WMD): 16.36 ng/ml, 95% CI: 8.99, 23.74; p = .000). Subgroup analysis revealed that a statistically significant increase in serum IGF-1 levels was found only in women (WMD: 23.30 ng/ml, 95% CI: 13.75, 32.87); in participants who supplemented 50 mg/d DHEA (WMD: 15.75 ng/ml, 95% CI: 7.61, 23.89); in participants undergoing DHEA intervention for >12 weeks (WMD: 17.2 ng/ml, 95% CI: 8.02, 26.22); in participants without an underlying comorbidity (WMD: 19.11 ng/ml, 95% CI: 10.69, 27.53); and in participants over the age of 60 years (WMD: 19.79 ng/ml, 95% CI: 9.86, 29.72).
CONCLUSION: DHEA supplementation may increase serum IGF-I levels especially in women and older subjects. However, further studies are warranted before DHEA can be recommended for clinical use.
OBJECTIVES: The study aims to develop and validate scales (direct and indirect) based on a modified Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to measure factors associated with the provision of PCare for HDS users by Thai CPs.
METHOD: Item generation for the scales was based on the theoretical constructs of the modified TPB framework, literature review, and authors' previous qualitative study. Draft items were then subjected to content validity and face validity. Psychometric testing was carried out among CPs in Bangkok, Thailand. Refinement of the scales utilized factor analysis and validity was assessed using factor analysis and Rasch analysis. Internal consistency reliability and construct reliability were used to assess the scales' reliability.
RESULTS: Initially, the direct and indirect scales contained 15 and 28 items, respectively and were reduced to 12 and 16 items, after experts' review. Factor analysis further reduced the number of items of the indirect scale to 13. For both scales, confirmatory factor analysis showed model-data fit. Each construct of the direct scale was significant predictors of intention. Moreover, each construct of the direct scale correlated positively and significantly with the respective construct of the indirect scale, signifying concurrent validity. No misfit item was identified in the Rasch analysis and the majority of items were invariant across gender. Internal consistency reliability and construct reliability of the scales were acceptable.
CONCLUSION: This study presents the development and validation of theoretically-grounded scales to measure the factors associated with the provision of PCare for HDS users by Thai CPs.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Psychological Information Database (PsycINFO) from inception till December 2019.
STUDY SELECTION: All randomised control trials comparing CoQ10 with placebo or used as an adjunct treatment included in this meta-analysis. Cross-over designs and controlled clinical trials were excluded.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Heterogeneity at face value by comparing populations, settings, interventions and outcomes were measured and statistical heterogeneity was assessed by means of the I2 statistic. The treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes were using risk ratios and risk difference, and for continuous outcomes, mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean difference; both with 95% CIs were used. Subgroup analyses were carried out for dosage of CoQ10 and if CoQ10 combined with another supplementation. Sensitivity analysis was used to investigate the impact risk of bias for sequence generation and allocation concealment of included studies.
RESULTS: Six studies with a total of 371 participants were included in the meta-analysis. There is no statistically significant reduction in severity of migraine headache with CoQ10 supplementation. CoQ10 supplementation reduced the duration of headache attacks compared with the control group (MD: -0.19; 95% CI: -0.27 to -0.11; random effects; I2 statistic=0%; p<0.00001). CoQ10 usage reduced the frequency of migraine headache compared with the control group (MD: -1.52; 95% CI: -2.40 to -0.65; random effects; I2 statistic=0%; p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: CoQ10 appears to have beneficial effects in reducing duration and frequency of migraine attack.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019126127.