-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2016Published audits have demonstrated that corneal abrasions are a common presenting eye complaint. Eye patches are often recommended for treating corneal abrasions despite... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Published audits have demonstrated that corneal abrasions are a common presenting eye complaint. Eye patches are often recommended for treating corneal abrasions despite the lack of evidence for their use. This systematic review was conducted to determine the effects of the eye patch when used to treat corneal abrasions.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the effects of patching for corneal abrasion on healing and pain relief.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to May 2016), EMBASE (January 1980 to May 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to May 2016), System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (OpenGrey) (January 1995 to May 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 9 May 2016. We also searched the reference lists of included studies, unpublished 'grey' literature and conference proceedings and contacted pharmaceutical companies for details of unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared patching the eye with no patching to treat simple corneal abrasions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. Investigators were contacted for further information regarding the quality of trials. The primary outcome was healing at 24, 48 and 72 hours while secondary outcomes included measures of pain, quality of life and adverse effects. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 12 trials which randomised a total of 1080 participants in the review. Four trials were conducted in the United Kingdom, another four in the United States of America, two in Canada, one in Brazil and one in Switzerland. Seven trials were at high risk of bias in one or more domains and one trial was judged to be low risk of bias in all domains. The rest were a combination of low risk or unclear.People receiving a patch may be less likely to have a healed corneal abrasion after 24 hours compared to those not receiving a patch (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.00, 7 trials, 531 participants, low certainty evidence). Similar numbers of people in the patch and no-patch groups were healed by 48 hours (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.02, 6 trials, 497 participants, moderate certainty evidence) and 72 hours (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.05, 4 trials, 430 participants, moderate certainty evidence). Participants receiving a patch took slightly longer to heal but the difference was small and probably unimportant (mean difference (MD) 0.14 days longer, 95% CI 0 to 0.27 days longer, 6 trials, 642 participants, moderate certainty evidence).Ten trials reported pain scores. Most studies reported pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS). It was not possible to pool the data because it was skewed. In general, similar pain ratings were seen between patch and no-patch groups. Data from two trials reporting presence or absence of pain at 24 hours was inconclusive. There was a higher risk of reported pain in the patch group but wide confidence intervals compatible with higher or lower risk of pain (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.65, 2 trials, 193 participants, low certainty evidence). Five trials compared analgesic use between the patch and no-patch groups. Data from three of these trials could be combined and suggested similar analgesic use in the patch and no-patch groups but with some uncertainty (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.32, 256 participants, low certainty evidence). Frequently reported symptoms included photophobia, lacrimation, foreign body sensation and blurred vision but there was little evidence to suggest any difference in these symptoms in people with or without a patch.Activities of daily living (ADL) were assessed in one study involving children. There was little difference in ADL with the exception of walking which was reported to be more difficult with a patch on: VAS 1.7 cm (SD 2.1) versus 0.3 cm (SD 0.7).Complication rates were low across studies and there is uncertainty about the relative effects of patching or not patching with respect to these (RR 3.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 12.05, 8 trials, 660 participants, low certainty evidence). Three trials reporting rates of compliance to treatment found that 22% of participants did not have their eye patches during follow-up. No-patch groups generally received more adjuvant treatment with antibiotics or cycloplegics, or both, than the patch group. There were limited data on the effect of patching on abrasions greater than 10mm(2) in size.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Trials included in this review suggest that treating simple corneal abrasions with a patch may not improve healing or reduce pain. It must be noted that, in these trials, participants who did not receive a patch were more likely to receive additional treatment, for example with antibiotics. Overall we judged the certainty of evidence to be moderate to low. Further research should focus on designing and implementing better quality trials and examining the effectiveness of patching for large abrasions.
Topics: Analgesics; Corneal Injuries; Eye Foreign Bodies; Humans; Occlusive Dressings; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Wound Healing
PubMed: 27457359
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004764.pub3 -
Complementary Therapies in Clinical... May 2022Conjunctivitis is the inflammation of the conjunctiva. Although data on clinical efficacy and safety of various ayurvedic treatments in conjunctivitis is published,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Conjunctivitis is the inflammation of the conjunctiva. Although data on clinical efficacy and safety of various ayurvedic treatments in conjunctivitis is published, systematic review is not done. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ayurvedic treatments in conjunctivitis.
METHODS
A literature search of the Cochrane Library (Cochrane central register of controlled trials: issue 6 of 12, June 2018), Pub Med, AYUSH research portal (Govt. of India), DHARA portal, Google scholar and online clinical trials registers was done. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized controlled trials (QRCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and multiple arms clinical trials were identified in which Ayurveda treatments with any dose, type, schedule, drug, dosage form, and advised Pathayapathya (lifestyle changes) were selected.
RESULTS
We identified 13 eligible RCTs, five CCTs and two multiple arms clinical trials which includes a total of 816 participants. Meta analysis of data from five trials showed that ayurvedic treatments benefitted more compared with non-ayurveda interventions in symptoms like itching (SMD = -0.98, 95% CI (-1.30,-0.65) p < 0.00001, I = 38%), pain (SMD = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.87, -0.29, P = 0.0001, I = 0%), ropy discharge (SMD = -1.02, 95% CI(-1.45, -0.59), P < 0.00001, I = 0%), conjunctival congestion (SMD = -0.67, 95% CI (-0.91, -0.43), p < 0.00001, I = 0%), foreign body sensation (SMD = -0.68, 95% CI(-1.06, -0.29), p = 0.0006, I = 46%, Fig. 8) and lid heaviness (SMD = -0.66, 95% CI(- 0.98, -0.33), p < 0.0001, I = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS
Although some findings confirm the benefit of ayurveda as opposed to non ayurveda for the treatment of conjunctivitis, since the studies have high risk of bias and are of lower quality, the findings could not be generalized. There is a need for high quality studies in ayurveda in this regard.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42019129436.
Topics: Conjunctivitis; Humans; India; Medicine, Ayurvedic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35259570
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2022.101568 -
Medicine Feb 2023The pregabalin is approved for the management of persistent pain. The aim of this study is to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the use of pregabalin in eye...
BACKGROUND
The pregabalin is approved for the management of persistent pain. The aim of this study is to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the use of pregabalin in eye pain management.
METHODS
The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched until January 2022 for randomized controlled trials. Randomized, double-blinded trials comparing pregabalin with placebo in eye pain management were included. The primary outcome was visual analog scale or numerical rating scale at acute (24 hours) and chronic (≥7 days after surgery) timepoints. The secondary outcomes were analgesic medication requirements and pregabalin-related complications (nausea, vomiting, dizziness, and headache). We also compared the effect of pregabalin on dry-eye syndrome.
MAIN RESULTS
Six relevant articles were identified that studied the use of pregabalin as pain relief for photorefractive keratectomy (n = 2), laser epithelial keratomileusis (n = 1), laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (n = 1), eyelid surgery (n = 1), and dacryocystorhinostomy (n = 1). Pregabalin was associated with a significant reduction in pain scores (95% confidence interval = -0.41 [-0.76--0.06]) 24 hours after surgical procedures. The data were insufficient to draw conclusions regarding dry eye symptoms. Because of the high heterogeneity of outcomes regarding adverse effects, there is no conclusion regarding the safety of pregabalin in eye pain.
CONCLUSIONS
Pregabalin reduced acute eye pain but had no significant effect on long-term analgesia after ophthalmological surgery in adults. It had no effect on dry-eye symptoms after ocular surgery. Further studies on the safety of pregabalin in eye pain management are required to draw solid conclusions.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Pregabalin; Eye Pain; Analgesics; Analgesia; Acute Pain; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 36820573
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000032875 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015Cataract is a major cause of blindness worldwide. Unless medically contraindicated, cataract surgery is usually performed under local (regional) anaesthesia. Local... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cataract is a major cause of blindness worldwide. Unless medically contraindicated, cataract surgery is usually performed under local (regional) anaesthesia. Local anaesthesia involves the blockage of a nerve subserving a given part of the body. It involves infiltration of the area around the nerve with local anaesthetic. The two main approaches in the eye are retrobulbar and peribulbar. There is debate over whether the peribulbar approach provides more effective, safer anaesthesia for cataract surgery than retrobulbar block.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the effects of peribulbar anaesthesia (PB) compared to retrobulbar anaesthesia (RB) on pain scores, ocular akinesia, patient acceptability and ocular and systemic complications.
SEARCH METHODS
In the previous version of our review, we searched the databases until December 2007. In this updated version, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (March 2015); MEDLINE (1960 to March 2015); and EMBASE (1980 to March 2015).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled clinical trials comparing peribulbar anaesthesia and retrobulbar anaesthesia for cataract surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted trial authors for additional information, study methodology and missing data. We carried out a descriptive narrative of results as the included studies used varied methods for reporting the outcomes. We performed a subgroup analysis for globe akinesia.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six trials involving 1438 participants. Three of the six trials had adequate sequence generation while all the trials had unclear allocation concealment There was no evidence of any difference in pain perception during surgery with either retrobulbar or peribulbar anaesthesia. Both were largely effective. There was no evidence of any difference in complete akinesia or the need for further injections of local anaesthetic. Conjunctival chemosis was more common after peribulbar block (relative risk (RR) 2.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.46 to 3.05) and lid haematoma was more common after retrobulbar block (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.88). Retrobulbar haemorrhage was uncommon and occurred only once, in a patient who had a retrobulbar block.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is little to choose between peribulbar and retrobulbar block in terms of anaesthesia and akinesia during surgery measuring acceptability to patients, need for additional injections and development of severe complications. Severe local or systemic complications were rare for both types of block.
Topics: Anesthesia, Local; Cataract Extraction; Humans; Nerve Block; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26133124
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004083.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Sleep bruxism is an oral activity characterized by involuntary teeth grinding or clenching during sleep. Several forms of treatment have been proposed for this disorder,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Sleep bruxism is an oral activity characterized by involuntary teeth grinding or clenching during sleep. Several forms of treatment have been proposed for this disorder, including behavioural, dental and pharmacological strategies.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological therapy for the treatment of sleep bruxism compared with other drugs, no treatment or placebo.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 8, 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2014), EMBASE (1980 to August 2013) and LILACS (1982 to August 2014). We identified additional reports from the reference lists of retrieved reports and from reviews on treatment of sleep bruxism. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared drugs with other drugs, no treatment or placebo in people with sleep bruxism.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Review authors carried out data extraction and quality assessment of the included trials independently and in duplicate. We discussed discrepancies until we reached consensus. We consulted a third review author in cases of persistent disagreement. We contacted authors of primary studies when necessary.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 18 potentially relevant RCTs, but only seven met the inclusion criteria. All studies had a small number of participants, ranging from seven to 16 people per study and had a cross-over design. Three studies were of low risk of bias, while four were of uncertain risk. Amitriptyline (three studies), bromocriptine (one study), clonidine (one study), propranolol (one study), levodopa (Prolopa®) (one study) and tryptophan (one study) were compared with placebo. Studies evaluating bromocriptine, clonidine, propranolol and levodopa reported our primary outcome of indices of bruxism motor activity.Results were imprecise and consistent with benefit, no difference or harm. These were the specific findings for each of the drugs according to specific outcomes: 1. Amitriptyline versus placebo for masseteric electromyography (EMG) activity per minute: standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.28 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.91 to 0.34; P value = 0.37), 2. bromocriptine versus placebo for bruxism episodes per hour: mean difference (MD) 0.60 (95% CI -2.93 to 4.13), bruxism bursts per hour: MD -2.00 (95% CI -53.47 to 49.47), bruxism bursts per episode: MD 0.50 (95% CI -1.85 to 2.85) or number of episodes with grinding noise: MD 2.40 (95% CI -24.00 to 28.80), 3. clonidine versus placebo for number of bruxism episodes per hour: MD -2.41 (95% CI -4.84 to 0.02), 4. propranolol versus placebo for the number of bruxism episodes per hour: MD 1.16 (95% CI -1.89 to 4.21), 5. L-tryptophan versus placebo for masseteric EMG activity per second: SMD 0.08 (95% CI -0.90 to 1.06) and 6. levodopa versus placebo for bruxism episodes per hour of sleep: MD -1.47 (95% CI -3.64 to 0.70), for bruxism bursts per episode: MD 0.06 (95% CI -2.47 to 2.59).We combined several secondary outcomes (sleep duration, masseteric EMG activity per minute and pain intensity) in a meta-analysis for comparison of amitriptyline with placebo. The results for most comparisons were uncertain because of statistical imprecision. One study reported that clonidine reduced rapid eye movement (REM) sleep stage and increased the second stage of sleep. However, results for other sleep-related outcomes with clonidine were uncertain. Adverse effects were frequent in people who took amitriptyline (5/10 had drowsiness, difficulty awakening in the morning, insomnia or xerostomia compared with 0/10 in the placebo group), as well as in people who received propranolol (7/16 had moderate-to-severe xerostomia compare with 2/16 in the placebo group). Clonidine was associated with prolonged morning hypotension in three of 16 participants. The use of preventive medication avoided any adverse effects in people treated with levodopa and bromocriptine.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was insufficient evidence on the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for the treatment of sleep bruxism. This systematic review points to the need for more, well-designed, RCTs with larger sample sizes and adequate methods of allocation, outcome assessment and duration of follow-up. Ideally, parallel RCTs should be used in future studies to avoid the bias associated with cross-over studies. There is a need to standardize the outcomes of RCTs on treatments for sleep bruxism.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Bromocriptine; Clonidine; Humans; Levodopa; Propranolol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Bruxism; Tryptophan
PubMed: 25338726
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005578.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2018Recurrent corneal erosion is a common cause of disabling ocular symptoms and predisposes the cornea to infection. It may follow corneal trauma. Measures to prevent the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Recurrent corneal erosion is a common cause of disabling ocular symptoms and predisposes the cornea to infection. It may follow corneal trauma. Measures to prevent the development of recurrent corneal erosion following corneal trauma have not been firmly established. Once recurrent corneal erosion develops, simple medical therapy (standard treatment) may lead to resolution of the episode. However, some people continue to suffer when such therapy fails and repeated episodes of erosion develop. A number of treatment and prophylactic options are then available but there is no agreement as to the best option. This review version is an update to the original version published in 2007 and a previous update published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of regimens for the prophylaxis of further recurrent corneal erosion episodes, the treatment of recurrent corneal erosion and prophylaxis of the development of recurrent corneal erosion following trauma.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; MEDLINE; Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 14 December 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compared a prophylactic or treatment regimen with another prophylaxis/treatment or no prophylaxis/treatment for people with recurrent corneal erosion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies using the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias. We considered the following outcome measures: resolution of symptoms after treatment; recurrence after complete or partial resolution; symptoms (pain); adverse effects (corneal haze, astigmatism). We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE for the three most clinically relevant comparisons.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight randomised and two quasi-randomised controlled trials in the review, encompassing 505 participants. Seven studies were from Europe (Germany, Sweden and the UK), two from East Asia (Hong Kong and Japan) and one from Australia. Nine of the studies examined treatments for episodes of recurrent corneal erosions and one study considered prophylaxis to prevent development of recurrent corneal erosions after injury. Two of the nine treatment studies also enrolled participants in a study of prophylaxis to prevent further episodes of recurrent corneal erosions. The studies were poorly reported; we judged only one study low risk of bias on all domains.Two studies compared therapeutic contact lens with topical lubrication but one of these studies was published over 30 years ago and used a therapeutic contact lens that is no longer in common use. The more recent study was a two-centre UK study with 29 participants. It provided low-certainty evidence on resolution of symptoms after treatment with similar number of participants in both groups experiencing resolution of symptoms at four months (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 1.53). There was very low-certainty evidence on recurrence after partial or total resolution at seven months' follow-up (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.54). There was no evidence of an important difference in pain score (score of 3 in the contact lens group and score of 2 in the topical lubrication group, low-certainty evidence) and no adverse effects were reported. The older study, using a contact lens no longer in common use, found an increased risk of pain and complications with the contact lens compared with hypromellose drops and paraffin ointment at night.A single-centre, Australian study, with 33 participants, provided low-certainty evidence of an increased risk of recurrence with phototherapeutic keratectomy compared with alcohol delamination but with wide confidence intervals, compatible with increased or decreased risk (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.37). Time to recurrence was similar in both groups (6.5 and 6 months, low-certainty evidence). On average people receiving phototherapeutic keratectomy reported less pain but confidence intervals included no difference or greater pain (mean difference (MD) -0.70, 95% CI -2.23 to 0.83, low-certainty evidence). No adverse effects were reported.A 48-participant study in Hong Kong found recurrences were less common in people given diamond burr superficial keratectomy after epithelial debridement compared with sham diamond burr treatment after epithelial debridement (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.50, moderate-certainty evidence). The study did not report pain scores but adverse effects such as corneal haze (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.87, low-certainty evidence) and astigmatism (0.88 versus 0.44 dioptres, moderate-certainty evidence) were similar between the groups.A study comparing transepithelial versus subepithelial excimer laser ablation in 100 people found low-certainty evidence of a small increased risk of recurrence of corneal erosion at one-year follow-up in people given the transepithelial compared with subepithelial technique, however, the confidence intervals were wide and compatible with increased or decreased risk (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.48, low-certainty evidence). Other outcomes were not reported.Other treatment comparisons included in this review were only addressed by studies published two decades or more ago. The results of these studies were inconclusive: excimer laser ablation (after epithelial debridement) versus no excimer laser ablation (after epithelial debridement), epithelial debridement versus anterior stromal puncture, anterior stromal puncture versus therapeutic contact lens, oral oxytetracycline and topical prednisolone (in addition to 'standard therapy') versus oral oxytetracycline (in addition to 'standard therapy') versus 'standard therapy'.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Well-designed, masked, randomised controlled trials using standardised methods are needed to establish the benefits of new and existing prophylactic and treatment regimes for recurrent corneal erosion. Studies included in this review have been of insufficient size and quality to provide firm evidence to inform the development of management guidelines. International consensus is also needed to progress research efforts towards evaluation of the major effective treatments for recurrent corneal erosions.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Contact Lenses; Corneal Diseases; Corneal Injuries; Debridement; Eye Infections; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Keratectomy; Lubricant Eye Drops; Pain Measurement; Prednisolone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Secondary Prevention; Tetracycline
PubMed: 29985545
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001861.pub4 -
BMC Oral Health Jun 2023The application of rubber dams is a widely accepted method of tooth isolation in dental practice. Placement of the rubber dam clamp might be associated with levels of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The application of rubber dams is a widely accepted method of tooth isolation in dental practice. Placement of the rubber dam clamp might be associated with levels of pain and discomfort, especially in younger patients. The purpose of the present systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy of the methods for reducing pain and discomfort associated with rubber dam clamp placement in children and adolescents.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
English-language literature from inception until September 6, 2022 was searched in MEDLINE (via PubMed), SCOPUS, Web of Science, Cochrane, EMBASE, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database Global for articles. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing methods of reducing the pain and/or discomfort associated with rubber dam clamp placement in children and adolescents were retrieved. Risk of bias assessment was performed using a Cochrane risk of bias-2 (RoB-2) risk assessment tool and the certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence profile. Studies were summarized and pooled estimates of pain intensity scores and incidence of pain were calculated. The meta-analysis was conducted in the following groups according to type of interventions (LA, audiovisual (AV) distraction, behavior management (BM), electronic dental anesthesia (EDA), mandibular infiltration, inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB), TA), outcome (intensity or incidence of pain), and assessment tool (face - legs - activity - cry - consolability (FLACC), color scale, sounds - motor - ocular changes, and faces pain scale (FPS)): (a) pain intensity using (LA + AV) vs (LA + BM), (b) pain intensity using EDA vs LA (c) presence or absence of pain using EDA vs LA (d) presence or absence of pain using mandibular infiltration vs IANB (e) Comparing pain intensity using TA vs placebo (f) Presence or absence of pain using TA vs placebo. Meta-analysis was conducted using StataMP software, version 17.0 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas). Restricted maximum-likelihood random effect model (REML), Mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval, and log odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI were calculated were calculated.
RESULTS
Initially, 1452 articles were retrieved. Sixteen RCTs were finally included for reviewing and summarizing. Nine articles with a total of 867 patients were included for quantitative meta-analysis. The differences in pain intensity scores were not significant in any comparison groups (group a: [MD = -0.04 (95% CI = - 0.56, 0.47), P = 0.87, I = 0.00%], group b: [MD = 0.25 (95% CI = -0.08, 0.58), P = 0.14, I = 0.00%], group c [MD = -0.48 (95% CI = -1.41, 0.45), P = 0.31, I 2 = 0.00%], group d: [MD = -0.67 (95% CI = -3.17, 1.83), P = 0.60, I 2 = 0.00%], group e: [MD = -0.46 (95% CI = -l.08, 0.15), P = 0.14, I 2 = 90.67%], and group f: [MD = 0.61 (95% CI = -0.01, 1.23), P = 0.06, I 2 = 41.20%]. Eight studies were judged as having some concern for risk of bias and the remaining studies were considered as low risk for bias. The certainty of evidence was considered medium for all comparison groups.
DISCUSSION
In the present meta-analysis, a considerable difference was obtained between the included studies regarding intervention methods and pain assessment tools and the analysis was performed in groups with small numbers of the studies. Owing to the mentioned variabilities and the small number of studies, the results of the analysis should be interpreted with caution. The indistinguishability of the manifestations of pain/discomfort from fear/anxiety, particularly in children, should also be considered while using the results of the present study. Within the limitations of the current study, no significant differences were found between the proposed methods for reducing pain and discomfort associated with rubber dam clamp placement in children and adolescents. A larger number of more homogenous studies regarding intervention methods and pain assessment tools need to be conducted in order to draw stronger conclusions.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This study was registered in PROSPERO (ID number: CRD42021274835) and research deputy of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences with ID number 4000838 ( https://research.mums.ac.ir/ ).
Topics: Child; Humans; Adolescent; Rubber Dams; Pain; Dental Instruments; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37328861
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-03115-7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Glaucoma is a leading cause of blindness worldwide. It results in a progressive loss of peripheral vision and, in late stages, loss of central vision leading to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Glaucoma is a leading cause of blindness worldwide. It results in a progressive loss of peripheral vision and, in late stages, loss of central vision leading to blindness. Early treatment of glaucoma aims to prevent or delay vision loss. Elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) is the main causal modifiable risk factor for glaucoma. Aqueous outflow obstruction is the main cause of IOP elevation, which can be mitigated either by increasing outflow or reducing aqueous humor production. Cyclodestructive procedures use various methods to target and destroy the ciliary body epithelium, the site of aqueous humor production, thereby lowering IOP. The most common approach is laser cyclophotocoagulation.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of cyclodestructive procedures for the management of non-refractory glaucoma (i.e. glaucoma in an eye that has not undergone incisional glaucoma surgery). We also aimed to compare the effect of different routes of administration, laser delivery instruments, and parameters of cyclophotocoagulation with respect to IOP control, visual acuity, pain control, and adverse events.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; LILACS; the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the search was 7 August 2017. We also searched the reference lists of reports from included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials of participants who had undergone cyclodestruction as a primary treatment for glaucoma. We included only head-to-head trials that had compared cyclophotocoagulation to other procedural interventions, or compared cyclophotocoagulation using different types of lasers, delivery methods, parameters, or a combination of these factors.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search results, assessed risks of bias, extracted data, and graded the certainty of the evidence in accordance with Cochrane standards.
MAIN RESULTS
We included one trial (92 eyes of 92 participants) that evaluated the efficacy of diode transscleral cyclophotocoagulation (TSCPC) as primary surgical therapy. We identified no other eligible ongoing or completed trial. The included trial compared low-energy versus high-energy TSCPC in eyes with primary open-angle glaucoma. The trial was conducted in Ghana and had a mean follow-up period of 13.2 months post-treatment. In this trial, low-energy TSCPC was defined as 45.0 J delivered, high-energy as 65.5 J delivered; it is worth noting that other trials have defined high- and low-energy TSCPC differently. We assessed this trial to have had low risk of selection bias and reporting bias, unclear risk of performance bias, and high risk of detection bias and attrition bias. Trial authors excluded 13 participants with missing follow-up data; the analyses therefore included 40 (85%) of 47 participants in the low-energy group and 39 (87%) of 45 participants in the high-energy group.Control of IOP, defined as a decrease in IOP by 20% from baseline value, was achieved in 47% of eyes, at similar rates in the low-energy group and the high-energy groups; the small study size creates uncertainty about the significance of the difference, if any, between energy settings (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.65; 79 participants; low-certainty evidence). The difference in effect between energy settings based on mean decrease in IOP, if any exists, also was uncertain (mean difference (MD) -0.50 mmHg, 95% CI -5.79 to 4.79; 79 participants; low-certainty evidence).Decreased vision was defined as the proportion of participants with a decrease of 2 or more lines on the Snellen chart or one or more categories of visual acuity when unable to read the eye chart. Twenty-three percent of eyes had a decrease in vision. The size of any difference between the low-energy group and the high-energy group was uncertain (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.76; 79 participants; low-certainty evidence). Data were not available for mean visual acuity and proportion of participants with vision change defined as greater than 1 line on the Snellen chart.The difference in the mean number of glaucoma medications used after cyclophotocoagulation was similar when comparing treatment groups (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.63; 79 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Twenty percent of eyes were retreated; the estimated effect of energy settings on the need for retreatment was inconclusive (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.84; 79 participants; low-certainty evidence). No data for visual field, cost effectiveness, or quality-of-life outcomes were reported by the trial investigators.Adverse events were reported for the total study population, rather than by treatment group. The trial authors stated that most participants reported mild to moderate pain after the procedure, and many had transient conjunctival burns (percentages not reported). Severe iritis occurred in two eyes and hyphema occurred in three eyes. No instances of hypotony or phthisis bulbi were reported. The only adverse outcome that was reported by the treatment group was atonic pupil (RR 0.89 in the low-energy group, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.68; 92 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to evaluate the relative effectiveness and safety of cyclodestructive procedures for the primary procedural management of non-refractory glaucoma. Results from the one included trial did not compare cyclophotocoagulation to other procedural interventions and yielded uncertainty about any difference in outcomes when comparing low-energy versus high-energy diode TSCPC. Overall, the effect of laser treatment on IOP control was modest and the number of eyes experiencing vision loss was limited. More research is needed specific to the management of non-refractory glaucoma.
Topics: Glaucoma, Open-Angle; Humans; Intraocular Pressure; Laser Coagulation
PubMed: 29694684
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009313.pub2 -
Pain and Therapy Jun 2023Previous research highlights burning eye syndrome (BES) and burning mouth syndrome (BMS) as chronic complications of COVID-19 infection. The aim of this systematic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Previous research highlights burning eye syndrome (BES) and burning mouth syndrome (BMS) as chronic complications of COVID-19 infection. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to establish the prevalence of COVID-19-related BES and COVID-19-related BMS and describe their phenomenology.
METHODOLOGY
A literature search in the PubMed database was performed, and seven papers (five on BES and two on BMS) were eligible to be included in this systematic review and meta-analysis.
RESULTS
The pooled prevalence of COVID-19-related BES was 9.9% (95% CI 3.4-25.4%). The frequency of COVID-19-related BMS is only reported in isolated cases and ranges from 4% in mild-to-moderate cases to 15% in severe, hospitalized cases, with female patients being mostly affected. COVID-19 severity is a potential risk factor for both BES and BMS. Neither syndrome occurs in isolation. COVID-19-related BES usually appears within the first week post-infection, persisting up to 9 weeks later. COVID-19-related BMS occurs during and after initial infection, and may also persist as a chronic disease.
CONCLUSIONS
Both BES and BMS are neuropathic COVID-19 infection complications, still under-studied and under-investigated, despite the fact that both are prevalent. Both COVID-19-related BES and COVID-19-related BMS could potentially be initial long COVID syndrome manifestations, and further research should be carried out in this field.
PubMed: 36917411
DOI: 10.1007/s40122-023-00492-3 -
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases Apr 2021Recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB) is a genetic collagen disorder characterized by skin fragility leading to blistering, wounds, and scarring. There are... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE
Recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB) is a genetic collagen disorder characterized by skin fragility leading to blistering, wounds, and scarring. There are currently no approved curative therapies. The objective of this manuscript is to provide a comprehensive literature review of the disease burden caused by RDEB.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted in MEDLINE and Embase in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Observational and interventional studies on the economic, clinical, or humanistic burden of RDEB were included.
RESULTS
Sixty-five studies were included in the review. Patients had considerable wound burden, with 60% reporting wounds covering more than 30% of their body. Increases in pain and itch were seen with larger wound size. Chronic wounds were larger and more painful than recurrent wounds. Commonly reported symptoms and complications included lesions and blistering, anemia, nail dystrophy and loss, milia, infections, musculoskeletal contractures, strictures or stenoses, constipation, malnutrition/nutritional problems, pseudosyndactyly, ocular manifestations, and dental caries. Many patients underwent esophageal dilation (29-74%; median dilations, 2-6) and gastrostomy tube placement (8-58%). In the severely affected population, risk of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) was 76% and mortality from SCC reached 84% by age 40. Patients with RDEB experienced worsened quality of life (QOL), decreased functioning and social activities, and increased pain and itch when compared to other EB subtypes, other skin diseases, and the general population. Families of patients reported experiencing high rates of burden including financial burden (50-54%) and negative impact on private life (79%). Direct medical costs were high, though reported in few studies; annual payer-borne total medical costs in Ireland were $84,534 and annual patient-borne medical costs in Korea were $7392. Estimated annual US costs for wound dressings ranged from $4000 to $245,000. Patients spent considerable time changing dressings: often daily (13-54% of patients) with up to three hours per change (15-40%).
CONCLUSION
Patients with RDEB and their families/caregivers experience significant economic, humanistic, and clinical burden. Further research is needed to better understand the costs of disease, how the burden of disease changes over the patient lifetime and to better characterize QOL impact, and how RDEB compares with other chronic, debilitating disorders.
Topics: Adult; Cost of Illness; Dental Caries; Epidermolysis Bullosa; Epidermolysis Bullosa Dystrophica; Humans; Quality of Life; Republic of Korea
PubMed: 33849616
DOI: 10.1186/s13023-021-01811-7