METHODS: A systematic search was performed in Ovid Medline PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus and Clinicaltrials.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting a comparison of antiviral agents in the management and prevention of herpes labialis in healthy/immunocompetent adults. The data extracted from the selected RCTs were assessed and a network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed. The interventions were ranked according to the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA).
RESULTS: A total of 52 articles were included for qualitative synthesis and for the quantitative part, 26 articles were analyzed for the primary treatment outcome and 7 studies were analyzed for the primary prevention outcome. The combination therapy of oral valacyclovir and topical clobetasol was the best ranked with a mean reduction in healing time of -3.50 (95% CI -5.22 to -1.78) followed by vidarabine monophosphate of -3.22 (95% CI -4.59 to -1.85). No significant inconsistencies, heterogeneity, and publication bias were reported for TTH outcome analysis. For primary prevention outcomes, only 7 RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria, and none of the interventions was shown to be superior to each other. The absence of adverse events was reported by 16 studies, whereas other studies reported mild side effects only.
CONCLUSION: NMA highlighted that several agents were effective in the management of herpes labialis among which the combination of oral valacyclovir with topical clobetasol therapy was the most effective in reducing the time to heal. However, further studies are required to determine which intervention is the most effective in preventing the recurrence of herpes labialis.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify relevant articles in the electronic databases from January 2000 to June 2017. Two reviewers independently assessed the articles for eligibility and data extraction. SRs and MAs on interventional studies with a minimum of 2 therapeutic strategies in endodontics were included in this SR. Methodologic and reporting quality were assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), respectively. The interobserver reliability was calculated using the Cohen kappa statistic. Statistical analysis with the level of significance at P
METHODS: We searched Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2021 for systematic reviews and meta-analysis reports that include a trial sequential analysis. Only studies with at least two randomised clinical trials analysed in a forest plot and a trial sequential analysis were included. Two independent investigators assessed the studies. We evaluated protocolisation, reporting, and interpretation of the analyses, including their effect on any GRADE evaluation of imprecision.
RESULTS: We included 270 systematic reviews and 274 meta-analysis reports and extracted data from 624 trial sequential analyses. Only 134/270 (50%) systematic reviews planned the trial sequential analysis in the protocol. For analyses on dichotomous outcomes, the proportion of events in the control group was missing in 181/439 (41%), relative risk reduction in 105/439 (24%), alpha in 30/439 (7%), beta in 128/439 (29%), and heterogeneity in 232/439 (53%). For analyses on continuous outcomes, the minimally relevant difference was missing in 125/185 (68%), variance (or standard deviation) in 144/185 (78%), alpha in 23/185 (12%), beta in 63/185 (34%), and heterogeneity in 105/185 (57%). Graphical illustration of the trial sequential analysis was present in 93% of the analyses, however, the Z-curve was wrongly displayed in 135/624 (22%) and 227/624 (36%) did not include futility boundaries. The overall transparency of all 624 analyses was very poor in 236 (38%) and poor in 173 (28%).
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of trial sequential analyses are not transparent when preparing or presenting the required parameters, partly due to missing or poorly conducted protocols. This hampers interpretation, reproducibility, and validity.
STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021273811.
DESIGN: Systematic review and Meta-analysis.
METHODS: We are systematically searching five databases [PubMed, Embase, CT.gov, ICTRP, CINAHL (EBSCO)]. We are following the PRISMA statement and the EPOC guidelines. The meta-analysis will be conducted using Revman-5.4.1 from Cochrane collaboration, UK. This review's protocol was also registered in PROSPERO, University of York, UK (CRD42022299718).
RESULTS: In this meta-analysis, we plan to give a conclusive overview of the available evidence on the efficacy of the medications used to manage gout in reducing COVID-19 mortality, ICU admission, ventilation rate and hospitalization duration. If the results were positive, these drugs would greatly add to the scarce treatment options against COVID-19. Furthermore, these drugs might provide an excellent alternative to inconvenient and expensive drugs. Additionally, most of these drugs have a well-established safety profile for use during nursing, making them a much safer option for nursing mothers with COVID-19.
METHODS: The current investigation extends a recently published study in the International Endodontic Journal (Nagendrababu V, Faggion Jr CM, Pulikkotil SJ, Alatta A, Dummer PM Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics. International Endodontic Journal 2022;55:393-404) that assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool. In the present study, the PRISMA for NMA checklist with 32 items was used to assess the reporting quality of the systematic reviews with NMAs (n = 12). Two independent assessors assigned '1' when an item was completely addressed, '0.5' when it was partially addressed, and '0' when it was not addressed. Disagreements were resolved through reviewer discussion until consensus was reached. If conflicts persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The PRISMA for NMA scores were shared with the relevant authors of the individual reviews to reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation and verify the scores assigned. The results for each individual item of the PRISMA-NMA items were calculated by summing the individual scores awarded; the maximum score for each item was 12.
RESULTS: All the systematic reviews with NMAs adequately reported the following items: Title, Introduction section (Objectives), Methods section (Eligibility criteria and Information sources), Results section (Study selection, Study characteristics and Risk of bias within studies), and Discussion section (Summary of evidence). The items that were reported least often were the "geometry of the network" and "the summary of network geometry" with only 2 manuscripts (17%) including these items.
CONCLUSION: A number of the items in the PRISMA-NMA checklist were adequately addressed in the NMAs; however, none adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. The inadequacies of published NMAs that have been identified should be taken into consideration by authors of NMAs in Endodontics and by editors when managing the peer review process. In future, researchers who are writing systematic reviews with NMAs should comply with the PRISMA-NMA checklist.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: None of the included systematic reviews with NMA adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. Inadequate reporting of a systematic review with NMA increases the possibility that it will provide invalid results. Therefore, authors should follow the PRISMA-NMA guidelines when reporting systematic reviews with NMA in Endodontics.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search of 3 databases (Medline, CENTRAL, Scopus) was performed to identify randomized control trials evaluating the efficacy of RAU interventions published until December 2022. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted on 4 outcomes: reduction in pain, duration of ulceration, the diameter of ulceration, and area of ulceration. The interventions are then arranged using the surface area under cumulative ranking (SUCRA).
RESULTS: A total of 38 trials involving 2773 patients were included were included in quantitative synthesis by NMA. Our analysis showed that Diode laser [MD, -4.865 ± 1.951 (95%CI = (-8.690, -1.041)] was the most effective in reducing the pain score followed by Amlexanox [MD, -2.673 ± 1.075 (95%CI = -4.779, -0.566)]. Iralvex performed the best in reducing the duration of ulceration [MD, -6.481 ± 1.841 (95%CI = -10.090, -2.872)]. Diode laser, acacia nilotica with licorice formulation, and amlexanox were the most effective interventions for reduction of ulcer diameter. Majority of the trials reported absence of any adverse effects and those reported were mild.
CONCLUSION: Our NMA has identified several interventions to be more effective than a placebo. Laser therapy may be an option for promoting pain management, however, most have only been tested in 1 or 2 trials. Further studies with rigorous methodology on larger samples are recommended to strengthen the current evidence.
METHOD: This study will comprehensively review full-text papers published between 2013 and 2023. We will search 3 databases, PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science, using the keyword search strategy to find articles related to the issue. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses will be used to guide the selection of relevant studies. The results will then be assessed using the standard Cochrane Quality assessment method. The outcome is addressed in light of a narrative synthesis that utilizes a theme category and focuses on each component's main conclusions.
RESULT: This protocol describes the planned scope and methodology for the systematic review and meta-analysis that will provide current evidence on; The status of health literacy among the community in protected areas and; The effect of Protected Areas on health literacy according to their types and characteristics.
CONCLUSION: Meta-analysis of low-to-high health literacy status will benefit the development of policy recommendations for protected areas.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis based on randomised controlled trials that compared antifungal agents to placebo or other antifungal agents used in patients undergoing cancer treatment. Relative ranking of antifungal agents was evaluated with surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probability score. A total of 20 randomised controlled trials (3,215 participants) comparing 11 interventions were included.
RESULTS: Compared with placebo, clotrimazole was ranked the best agent for preventing the incidence of oral candidiasis (risk ratio (RR), 0.21 [95% CI 0.08 to 0.55]; SUCRA = 0.89). Fluconazole was ranked the safest among other antifungal agents (SUCRA = 0.80), whereas clotrimazole (SUCRA = 0.36) and amphotericin B (SUCRA = 0.18) were ranked low for safety. Amphotericin B was associated with highest risk of adverse events (RR, 3.52 [95% CI 1.27 to 9.75]).
CONCLUSION: Clotrimazole is the most effective in preventing oral candidiasis, whereas fluconazole has the most favourable risk-benefit profile in patients undergoing cancer treatment. However, we are unable to recommend clotrimazole as the best choice to prevent oral candidiasis due to unavailability of studies comparing clotrimazole with other antifungal agents.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the odds of the major depression classification based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI.
METHODS: We included and standardized data from 3 IPDMA databases. For each IPDMA, separately, we fitted binomial generalized linear mixed models to compare the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of major depression classification, controlling for symptom severity and characteristics of participants, and the interaction between interview and symptom severity. Next, we synthesized results using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS: In total, 69,405 participants (7,574 [11%] with major depression) from 212 studies were included. Controlling for symptom severity and participant characteristics, the MINI (74 studies; 25,749 participants) classified major depression more often than the SCID (108 studies; 21,953 participants; aOR 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.92]). Classification odds for the CIDI (30 studies; 21,703 participants) and the SCID did not differ overall (aOR 1.19; 95% CI 0.79-1.75); however, as screening scores increased, the aOR increased less for the CIDI than the SCID (interaction aOR 0.64; 95% CI 0.52-0.80).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the SCID, the MINI classified major depression more often. The odds of the depression classification with the CIDI increased less as symptom levels increased. Interpretation of research that uses diagnostic interviews to classify depression should consider the interview characteristics.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search was conducted for trials published in Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until July 2023 (PROSPERO: CRD42023451045). A network meta-analysis was performed to assess the comparative efficacy of different denture adhesive types and ranked using the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) system. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to assess the level of certainty of evidence.
RESULTS: Seventeen articles were included in the quantitative analysis. Cream denture adhesives significantly increased bite force in both incisal region (RR = 7.63[95%CI: 3.34, 11.91]) (P
METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of published articles in electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, PEDro, Medline (via Ovid), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, using the following search terms: "stroke"; "upper extremity"; "Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy"; and "Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation." The search included published studies, conferences, and presentations. The article selection, data extraction, and quality evaluation will be conducted independently by 2 reviewers. The 3rd and 4th reviewers will assist in resolving any disagreements that may arise between the 2 reviewers. The risk of bias in the included studies will be assessed using the PEDro scale and Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Narrative synthesis and meta-analysis will be performed based on the characteristics of the included articles, including the risk of bias (if sufficient information is available).
RESULTS: This review summarizes the available evidence and could assist therapists in choosing the best treatment for poststroke upper extremity dysfunction.
CONCLUSION: This study will provide the available evidence on the effectiveness of CIMT and NMES on upper extremity function in patients with stroke.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required because the review will be based on publicly available literature. The findings of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, and updates will be made depending on whether sufficient additional evidence modifies the conclusions of the review. Any changes made to the methods throughout the review will be stated in the article.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023415645.
METHODS: Real-world evidence (RWE) studies evaluating the incidence, prevalence, or recurrence of HD, as well as SLRs including a meta-analytic component reporting on the efficacy of systemic or topical pharmacological treatments for adults with HD, were included. Systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
RESULTS: The SLR identified 44 eligible publications. Consistent data were limited on the epidemiology of HD or HD recurrence. Specifically, incidence and prevalence reported across geographies were impacted by differences in data collection. Reported risk factors for HD were sedentary behavior, constipation, male gender, and age. Twenty-three RWE studies and one meta-analysis reported HD recurrence rates ranging from 0 to 56.5% following surgery or phlebotonics, with most (n = 19) reporting rates of 20% or less. In addition to time since treatment, risk factors for recurring disease were similar to those for HD in general. With respect to treatment, micronized purified flavonoid fractions significantly improved the main symptoms of HD compared to other pharmacological treatments.
CONCLUSION: The SLRs did not identify any RWE studies reporting recurrence in patients receiving systemic or topical treatments, highlighting the need for future research in this area. Further, more studies are needed to understand the optimum duration of medical treatment to prevent recurrence.