-
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology,... Aug 2014A systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted to evaluate the efficiency and safety of periarticular multimodal drug... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
A systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted to evaluate the efficiency and safety of periarticular multimodal drug injection in total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
METHODS
Periarticular injection with the use of multimodal drugs is an efficient alternative for postoperative analgesia in TKA. A systematical electronic search was performed to identify the eligible RCTs in the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. Two independent reviewers completed data collection and assessment of methodological quality. The quality of evidence of outcomes was judged using GRADE criteria. Meta-analysis was performed for the outcomes of pain, straight leg raise, operating time, hospital stay and complications.
RESULTS
Ten RCTs including eight studies with 1,216 TKAs in 835 patients met the inclusion criteria. Periarticular injection with multimodal drugs in TKA was associated with short-term benefits in terms of pain relief, straight leg raise, narcotic consumption, and the rates of nausea, vomiting, rash and pruritus. There were no statistically significant differences in operating time, hospital stay, wound complications and deep vein thrombosis between both groups.
CONCLUSIONS
The current evidence suggests that periarticular multimodal drug injection in TKA provides short-term advantages in pain relief, straight leg raise and postoperative complications.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Arthralgia; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Epinephrine; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Injections, Intra-Articular; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 23783531
DOI: 10.1007/s00167-013-2566-0 -
BMJ Paediatrics Open 2019Routine retinopathy of prematurity eye examinations are an important part of neonatal care, and mydriatic medicines are essential in dilating the pupil for the eye...
INTRODUCTION
Routine retinopathy of prematurity eye examinations are an important part of neonatal care, and mydriatic medicines are essential in dilating the pupil for the eye examination. There are concerns about the level of evidence for efficacy and safety of these mydriatic medicines.
OBJECTIVE
This review evaluates both efficacy and safety evidence of mydriatics used during the retinopathy of prematurity eye examination.
METHOD
Systematic literature review.
RESULTS
There is limited evidence guiding clinical practice for safety and efficacy of mydriatics. The majority of publications are underpowered and with an unclear to high level of bias. There are a wide variety of mydriatic regimens evaluated for efficacy and safety, and multiple regimens are associated with case reports.
CONCLUSIONS
Current international guideline seems unnecessarily high, especially when the reviewed literature suggest that lower doses are effective, albiet from underpowered studies. The lowest effective combination regimen appears to be phenylephrine 1% and cyclopentolate 0.2% (1 drop). Microdrop administration of this regimen would further increase the safety profile, however, efficacy needs to be assessed.
PubMed: 31206081
DOI: 10.1136/bmjpo-2019-000448 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Cataract surgery is one of the most common surgical procedures performed worldwide. Achieving appropriate intraoperative mydriasis is one of the critical factors... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Cataract surgery is one of the most common surgical procedures performed worldwide. Achieving appropriate intraoperative mydriasis is one of the critical factors associated with the safety and performance of the surgery. Inadequate pupillary dilation or constriction of the pupil during cataract surgery can impair the surgeon's field of view and make it difficult to maneuver instruments.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the relative effectiveness of achieving pupillary dilation during phacoemulsification for cataract extraction using three methods of pupillary dilation: topical mydriatics, intracameral mydriatics, or depot delivery systems. We also planned to document and compare the risk of intraoperative and postoperative complications following phacoemulsification for cataract extraction, as well as the cost-effectiveness of these methods for pupillary dilation.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2021, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 22 January 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included only randomized controlled trial (RCTs) in which participants underwent phacoemulsification for cataract extraction.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 14 RCTs (1670 eyes of 1652 participants) in this review. Of the 14 trials, 7 compared topical versus intracameral mydriatics, 6 compared topical mydriatics versus depot delivery systems, and 1 compared all three methods. We were unable to calculate overall estimates of comparative effectiveness for most outcomes due to statistical heterogeneity among the estimates from individual studies or because outcome data were available from only a single study. Furthermore, the certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low, due primarily to imprecision and risk of bias. Comparison 1: topical mydriatics versus intracameral mydriatics Four RCTs (739 participants, 757 eyes) of the 8 RCTs that had compared these two methods reported mean pupillary diameters at the time surgeons had performed capsulorhexis; all favored topical mydriatics, but heterogeneity was high (I = 95%). After omitting 1 RCT that used a paired-eyes design, evidence from three RCTs (721 participants and eyes) suggests that mean pupil diameter at the time of capsulorhexis may be greater with topical mydriatics than with intracameral mydriatics, but the evidence is of low certainty (mean difference 1.06 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 mm to 1.31 mm; I = 49%). Four RCTs (224 participants, 242 eyes) reported mean pupillary diameter at the beginning of cataract surgery; the effect estimates from all trials favored topical mydriatics, with very low-certainty evidence. Five RCTs (799 participants, 817 eyes) reported mean pupillary diameter at the end of cataract surgery. Data for this outcome from the largest RCT (549 participants and eyes) provided evidence of a small difference in favor of intracameral mydriasis. On the other hand, 2 small RCTs (78 participants, 96 eyes) favored topical mydriatics, and the remaining 2 RCTs (172 participants) found no meaningful difference between the two methods, with very low-certainty evidence. Five RCTs (799 participants, 817 eyes) reported total intraoperative surgical time. The largest RCT (549 participants and eyes) reported decreased total intraoperative time with intracameral mydriatics, whereas 1 RCT (18 participants, 36 eyes) favored topical mydriatics, and the remaining 3 RCTs (232 participants) found no difference between the two methods, with very low-certainty evidence. Comparison 2: topical mydriatics versus depot delivery systems Of the 7 RCTs that compared these two methods, none reported mean pupillary diameter at the time surgeons performed capsulorhexis. Six RCTs (434 participants) reported mean pupillary diameter at the beginning of cataract surgery. After omitting 1 RCT suspected to be responsible for high heterogeneity (I = 80%), meta-analysis of the other 5 RCTs (324 participants and eyes) found no evidence of a meaningful difference between the two methods, with very low-certainty evidence. Three RCTs (210 participants) reported mean pupillary diameter at the end of cataract surgery, with high heterogeneity among effect estimates for this outcome. Estimates of mean differences and confidence intervals from these three RCTs were consistent with no difference between the two methods. A fourth RCT reported only means for this outcome, with low-certainty evidence. Two small RCTs (118 participants) reported total intraoperative time. Surgical times were lower when depot delivery was used, but the confidence interval estimated from one trial was consistent with no difference, and only mean times were reported from the other trial, with very low-certainty evidence. Comparison 3: Intracameral mydriatics versus depot delivery systems Only one RCT (60 participants) compared intracameral mydriatics versus depot delivery system. Mean pupillary diameter at the time the surgeon performed capsulorhexis, phacoemulsification time, and cost outcomes were not reported. Mean pupil diameter at the beginning and end of cataract surgery favored the depot delivery system, with very low-certainty evidence. Adverse events Evidence from one RCT (555 participants and eyes) comparing topical mydriatics versus intracameral mydriatics suggests that ocular discomfort may be greater with topical mydriatics than with intracameral mydriatics at one week (risk ratio (RR) 10.57, 95% CI 1.37 to 81.34) and one month (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.65) after cataract surgery, with moderate-certainty evidence at both time points. Another RCT (30 participants) reported iris-related complications in 11 participants in the intracameral mydriatics group versus no complications in the depot delivery system group, with very low-certainty evidence. Cardiovascular related adverse events were rarely mentioned.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Data from 14 completed RCTs were inadequate to establish the superiority of any of three methods to achieve mydriasis for cataract surgery, based on pupillary dilation at different times during the surgery or on time required for surgery. Only one trial had a sample size adequate to yield a robust effect estimate. Larger, well-designed trials are needed to provide robust estimates for the comparison of mydriasis approaches for beneficial and adverse effects.
Topics: Aged; Bias; Cataract Extraction; Delayed-Action Preparations; Humans; Intraoperative Complications; Intraoperative Period; Middle Aged; Mydriatics; Phacoemulsification; Pupil; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 34043237
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012830.pub2 -
Nutrients Feb 2022Currently, no synthesis of in-school policies, practices and teachers and school staff's food allergy-related knowledge exists. We aimed to conduct a scoping review on... (Review)
Review
Currently, no synthesis of in-school policies, practices and teachers and school staff's food allergy-related knowledge exists. We aimed to conduct a scoping review on in-school food allergy management, and perceived gaps or barriers in these systems. We conducted a PRISMA-ScR-guided search for eligible English or French language articles from North America, Europe, or Australia published in OVID-MedLine, Scopus, and PsycINFO databases. Two reviewers screened 2010 articles' titles/abstracts, with 77 full-text screened. Reviewers differed by language. Results were reported descriptively and thematically. We included 12 studies. Among teachers and school staff, food allergy experiences, training, and knowledge varied widely. Food allergy experience was reported in 10/12 studies (83.4%); 20.0-88.0% had received previous training (4/10 studies; 40.0%) and 43.0-72.2% never had training (2/10 studies; 20.0%). In-school policies including epinephrine auto-injector (EAI) and emergency anaphylaxis plans (EAP) were described in 5/12 studies (41.7%). Educational interventions (8/12 studies; 66.7%) increased participants' knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and confidence to manage food allergy and anaphylaxis vs. baseline. Teachers and school staff have more food allergy-related experiences than training and knowledge to manage emergencies. Mandatory, standardized training including EAI use and evaluation, and the provision of available EAI and EAPs may increase school staff emergency preparedness.
Topics: Anaphylaxis; Epinephrine; Europe; Food Hypersensitivity; Humans; Schools
PubMed: 35215382
DOI: 10.3390/nu14040732 -
Survey of Ophthalmology 2022In order to evaluate the accuracy of commercially available handheld fundus cameras for a variety of ophthalmic diagnoses, we conducted a systematic review, searching... (Review)
Review
In order to evaluate the accuracy of commercially available handheld fundus cameras for a variety of ophthalmic diagnoses, we conducted a systematic review, searching PubMed and PubMed Central and performing a bivariate analysis to determine the pooled sensitivity and specificity of handheld fundus cameras. Eleven studies validating handheld fundus cameras against a gold-standard method for disease diagnosis were included. For nonmydriatic images, pooled sensitivity was 83% (95% confidence interval (CI): 77-88%) and specificity was 92% (95% CI: 79-97%). For mydriatic images, pooled sensitivity was 87% (95% CI: 79-92%) and specificity was 90% (95% CI: 78-96%). Overall pooled sensitivity was 85% (95% CI: 80-89%) and specificity was 91% (95% CI: 83-95%). Of the 11 studies included, 5 assessed the diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy, for which sensitivity was 87% (95% CI: 80-92%) and specificity was 95% (95% CI: 85-98%). For all other diagnoses combined, sensitivity was 81% (95% CI: 74-87%) and specificity was 83% (95% CI: 76-89%). These findings suggest that handheld fundus cameras are capable of achieving acceptable sensitivity and specificity values for eye disease, with mydriatic images being more sensitive for disease. Diabetic retinopathy was the single diagnosis with the strongest data to support the use of handheld fundus cameras for disease screening.
Topics: Diabetic Retinopathy; Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological; Fundus Oculi; Humans; Mydriatics; Photography; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 34822849
DOI: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2021.11.006 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2014Clinical egg allergy is a common food allergy. Current management relies upon strict allergen avoidance. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) might be an optional treatment, through... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Clinical egg allergy is a common food allergy. Current management relies upon strict allergen avoidance. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) might be an optional treatment, through desensitization to egg allergen.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to assess the successful desensitization and development of tolerance to egg protein and the safety of egg oral and sublingual immunotherapy in children and adults with immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated egg allergy as compared to a placebo treatment or an avoidance strategy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched 13 databases for journal articles, conference proceedings, theses and unpublished trials using a combination of subject headings and text words (the last search was on 5 December 2013).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. All age groups with clinical egg allergy were to be included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We retrieved 83 studies from the electronic searches. We selected studies, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality. We attempted to contact the study investigators to obtain the unpublished data, wherever possible. We used the I² statistic to assess statistical heterogeneity. We estimated a pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome using a Mantel-Haenzel fixed-effect model if statistical heterogeneity was low (I² value less than 50%).
MAIN RESULTS
We included four RCTs with a total of 167 recruited individuals (OIT 100; control 67 participants), all of whom were children (aged four to 15 years). One study used a placebo and three studies used an avoidance diet as the control. Each study used a different OIT protocol. Thirty nine per cent of OIT participants were able to tolerate a full serving of egg compared to 11.9% of the controls (RR 3.39, 95% CI 1.74 to 6.62). Forty per cent of OIT participants could ingest a partial serving of egg (1 g to 7.5 g; RR 5.73, 95% CI 3.13 to 10.50). Sixty nine per cent of the participants presented with mild-to-severe adverse effects (AEs) during OIT (RR 6.06, 95% CI 3.11 to 11.83). Five of the 100 participants receiving OIT required epinephrine. We cannot comment on whether over- or under-reporting of AEs was a concern based on the available data. Overall there was inconsistent methodological rigour in the trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The studies were small and the quality of evidence was low. Current evidence suggests that OIT can desensitize a large number of egg-allergic patients, although it remains unknown whether long-term tolerance develops. A major difficulty of OIT is the frequency of AEs, though these are usually mild and self-limiting. The use of epinephrine while on OIT seems infrequent. There are no standardized protocols for OIT and guidelines would be required prior to incorporating desensitization into clinical practice.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Child; Child, Preschool; Desensitization, Immunologic; Egg Hypersensitivity; Egg Proteins, Dietary; Epinephrine; Humans; Immunoglobulin E; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sublingual Immunotherapy
PubMed: 25405335
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010638.pub2 -
BJS Open Sep 2023Conflicting evidence exists regarding the optimal waiting time for stable analgesic and vasoconstrictive effects after local infiltration of lidocaine with epinephrine....
BACKGROUND
Conflicting evidence exists regarding the optimal waiting time for stable analgesic and vasoconstrictive effects after local infiltration of lidocaine with epinephrine. An objective review is needed to dispel surgical dogma.
METHODS
This systematic review (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022362414) included RCTs and prospective cohort studies. Primary outcomes were (1) onset of analgesia and (2) onset of stable hypoperfusion, assessed directly, or measured indirectly using perfusion imaging. Other data extracted include waiting strategies, means of outcome assessment, anaesthetic concentrations, volume/endpoint of infiltration, and injection sites. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. Articles describing waiting strategies were critically appraised by the Joanna Briggs Institute tools.
RESULTS
Twenty-four articles were analysed, comprising 1013 participants. Ten investigated analgesia onset. Their pooled mean was 2.1 min (range 0.4-9.0 min). This varied with anatomic site and targeted nerve diameter. Fourteen articles investigated onset of stable hypoperfusion. Four observed bleeding intraoperatively, finding the minimum time to hypoperfusion at 7.0 min in the eyelid skin and 25.0 min in the upper limb. The ten remaining studies used perfusion imaging, reporting a wide range of results (0.0-30.0 min) due to differences in anatomic sites and depth, resolution and artefacts. Studies using near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy and hyperspectral imaging correlated with clinical observations. Thirteen articles discussed waiting strategies, seven relating to large-volume tumescent local infiltration anaesthesia. Different waiting strategies exist for emergency, arthroscopic and cosmetic surgeries, according to the degree of hypoperfusion required. In tumescent liposuction, waiting 10.0-60.0 min is the norm.
CONCLUSION
Current literature suggests that around 2 min are required for most patients to achieve complete analgesia in all sites and with all anaesthesia concentrations. Waiting around 7 min in eyelids and at least 25 min in other regions results in optimal hypoperfusion. The strategies discussed inform decisions of when and how long to wait.
Topics: Humans; Anesthesia, Local; Prospective Studies; Pain Management; Epinephrine; Lidocaine
PubMed: 37768699
DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrad089 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Jun 2023Food-dependent exercise-induced allergic reactions can manifest with wheals, angioedema, and anaphylaxis, alone or in combination.
BACKGROUND
Food-dependent exercise-induced allergic reactions can manifest with wheals, angioedema, and anaphylaxis, alone or in combination.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the clinical manifestation, culprit foods and exercise, augmenting factors, comorbidities, and treatment options of each phenotype.
METHODS
Using predefined search terms, we assessed and analyzed the relevant literature until June 2021. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis recommendations were applied to this systematic review.
RESULTS
A total of 231 studies with 722 patients were included. The most common phenotype was anaphylaxis with wheals, angioedema, or both, reported in 80% of patients. This was associated with a higher number of anaphylactic episodes, augmenting factors, and use of on-demand antihistamine compared with the least common phenotype, anaphylaxis without wheals or angioedema, reported in 4% of patients. Anaphylaxis with wheals/angioedema was also associated with distinct characteristics compared with stand-alone wheals, angioedema, or both, in 17% of patients. Patients with anaphylaxis were older at the time of disease onset, less often had a history of atopy, showed more positive results in response to food and exercise provocation tests, had a more restricted spectrum of culprit foods, and more often used on-demand epinephrine.
CONCLUSIONS
The three phenotypes of allergic reactions to food and exercise differ in clinical characteristics, triggers, and response to treatment. Knowledge of these differences may help with patient education and counseling as well as disease management.
Topics: Humans; Anaphylaxis; Urticaria; Angioedema; Epinephrine; Food Hypersensitivity; Allergens; Phenotype
PubMed: 36997120
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2023.03.035 -
Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics : the... Mar 2024To review the rebound effect after cessation of different myopia control treatments. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To review the rebound effect after cessation of different myopia control treatments.
METHODS
A systematic review that included full-length randomised controlled studies (RCTs), as well as post-hoc analyses of RCTs reporting new findings on myopia control treatments rebound effect in two databases, PubMed and Web of Science, was performed according to the PRISMA statement. The search period was between 15 June 2023 and 30 June 2023. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to analyse the quality of the selected studies.
RESULTS
A total of 11 studies were included in this systematic review. Unifying the rebound effects of all myopia control treatments, the mean rebound effect for axial length (AL) and spherical equivalent refraction (SER) were 0.10 ± 0.07 mm [-0.02 to 0.22] and -0.27 ± 0.2 D [-0.71 to -0.03] after 10.2 ± 7.4 months of washout, respectively. In addition, spectacles with highly aspherical lenslets or defocus incorporated multiple segments technology, soft multifocal contact lenses and orthokeratology showed lower rebound effects compared with atropine and low-level light therapy, with a mean rebound effect for AL and SER of 0.04 ± 0.04 mm [0 to 0.08] and -0.13 ± 0.07 D [-0.05 to -0.2], respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
It appears that the different treatments for myopia control produce a rebound effect after their cessation. Specifically, optical treatments seem to produce less rebound effect than pharmacological or light therapies. However, more studies are required to confirm these results.
Topics: Humans; Myopia; Atropine; Contact Lenses, Hydrophilic; Refraction, Ocular; Eyeglasses
PubMed: 38193312
DOI: 10.1111/opo.13277 -
The Journal of Obstetrics and... Jul 2023The aim of this study is to perform a Bayesian network meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of prophylactic bolus of different doses of ephedrine,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
The aim of this study is to perform a Bayesian network meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of prophylactic bolus of different doses of ephedrine, phenylephrine, and norepinephrine for the prevention of spinal hypotension during cesarean section.
METHODS
The Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library were searched until to May 20, 2022. The indicators included incidence of hypotension, reactive hypertension, bradycardia, nausea and vomiting, umbilical artery pH, and Apgar scores.
RESULTS
About 3125 related records were obtained and 17 RCTs met our eligibility criteria. Based on the results, prophylactic bolus injection of 21-30 mg ephedrine (82%) was the best efficacious option for preventing hypotension, followed by 13-16 μg norepinephrine and 81-120 mg phenylephrine; 121-150 μg phenylephrine had the highest probability (62%) caused reactive hypertension, followed by 11-30 mg ephedrine; phenylephrine was most likely to cause bradycardia in a dose-dependent manner; 81-120 μg phenylephrine had the highest probability (37%) which associated with IONV; 6-12 μg norepinephrine (31%) had the lowest influence on IONV and had highest probability (34%) associated with improving umbilical arterial pH; 13-16 μg norepinephrine had highest probability (67% at 1 min, 49% at 5 min) which associated with improving Apgar scores.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on this study, 5-10 mg ephedrine and 13-16 μg norepinephrine prophylactic bolus injection may be the optimum dosage of three drugs prevent spinal-induced hypotension, which has the least impact on maternal and neonatal outcomes.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Humans; Female; Phenylephrine; Ephedrine; Norepinephrine; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Cesarean Section; Bradycardia; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Anesthesia, Spinal; Hypotension; Hypertension; Anesthesia, Obstetrical; Double-Blind Method
PubMed: 37170779
DOI: 10.1111/jog.15671