-
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and... Aug 2021Wide controversy is still ongoing regarding efficiency of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). This systematic review and meta-analysis, aims to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Wide controversy is still ongoing regarding efficiency of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). This systematic review and meta-analysis, aims to identify the patient age group that benefits from PGT-A and the best day to biopsy.
METHODS
A systematic search of the literature was performed on MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Library up to May 2020. Eleven randomized controlled trials employing PGT-A with comprehensive chromosomal screening (CCS) on Day-3 or Day-5 were eligible.
RESULTS
PGT-A did not improve live-birth rates (LBR) per patient in the general population (RR:1.11; 95%CI:0.87-1.42; n=1513; I=75%). However, PGT-A lowered miscarriage rate in the general population (RR:0.45; 95%CI:0.25-0.80; n=912; I=49%). Interestingly, the cumulative LBR per patient was improved by PGT-A (RR:1.36; 95%CI:1.13-1.64; n=580; I=12%). When performing an age-subgroup analysis PGT-A improved LBR in women over the age of 35 (RR:1.29; 95%CI:1.05-1.60; n=692; I=0%), whereas it appeared to be ineffective in younger women (RR:0.92; 95%CI:0.62-1.39; n=666; I=75%). Regarding optimal timing, only day-5 biopsy practice presented with improved LBR per ET (RR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.03-1.82; I=72%).
CONCLUSION
PGT-A did not improve clinical outcomes for the general population, however PGT-A improved live-birth rates strictly when performed on blastocyst stage embryos of women over the 35-year-old mark.
Topics: Adult; Aneuploidy; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Genetic Testing; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Pregnancy; Preimplantation Diagnosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34036455
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-021-02227-9 -
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) May 2019Guidelines recommend exercise as a core treatment for osteoarthritis (OA). However, it is unclear which type of exercise is most effective, leading to inconsistency... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Guidelines recommend exercise as a core treatment for osteoarthritis (OA). However, it is unclear which type of exercise is most effective, leading to inconsistency between different recommendations.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to investigate the relative efficacy of different exercises (aerobic, mind-body, strengthening, flexibility/skill, or mixed) for improving pain, function, performance and quality of life (QoL) for knee and hip OA at, or nearest to, 8 weeks.
METHODS
We searched nine electronic databases up until December 2017 for randomised controlled trials that compared exercise with usual care or with another exercise type. Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to estimate the relative effect size (ES) and corresponding 95% credibility interval (CrI) (PROSPERO registration: CRD42016033865).
FINDINGS
We identified and analysed 103 trials (9134 participants). Aerobic exercise was most beneficial for pain (ES 1.11; 95% CrI 0.69, 1.54) and performance (1.05; 0.63, 1.48). Mind-body exercise, which had pain benefit equivalent to that of aerobic exercise (1.11; 0.63, 1.59), was the best for function (0.81; 0.27, 1.36). Strengthening and flexibility/skill exercises improved multiple outcomes at a moderate level. Mixed exercise was the least effective for all outcomes and had significantly less pain relief than aerobic and mind-body exercises. The trend was significant for pain (p = 0.01), but not for function (p = 0.07), performance (p = 0.06) or QoL (p = 0.65).
CONCLUSION
The effect of exercise varies according to the type of exercise and target outcome. Aerobic or mind-body exercise may be the best for pain and function improvements. Strengthening and flexibility/skill exercises may be used for multiple outcomes. Mixed exercise is the least effective and the reason for this merits further investigation.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain Management; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30830561
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-019-01082-0 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2023Physical exercise has been recommended as an important nonpharmacological therapeutic strategy for managing attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We conducted... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative effectiveness of various physical exercise interventions on executive functions and related symptoms in children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Physical exercise has been recommended as an important nonpharmacological therapeutic strategy for managing attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the comparative impact of different physical exercise modalities on enhancing executive functions (EFs) and alleviating symptoms in children and adolescents with ADHD.
METHODS
We searched Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, CNKI, and clinical trials databases from inception to October 20, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies investigating physical exercise for ADHD-related symptoms of hyperactivity/impulsivity and inattention, and executive functions were included. The frequentist random-effect NMA method was applied to pool the results.
RESULTS
A total of 59 studies (including 39 RCTs, 5 quasi-RCTs, and 15 self-controlled trials) published between 1983 and 2022 were incorporated into the systematic review, of which 44 studies with 1757 participants were eligible for meta-analysis. All types of physical exercise were effective in improving EFs (SMD = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.83 to 1.46), and open-skill activities which require participants to react in a dynamically changing and externally paced environment induced the most incredible benefits for executive functions (SUCRA = 98.0%, SMD = 1.96, and 95% CI: 1.15 to 2.77). Subgroup analyses for EFs revealed varied findings that open-skill activities were the most promising physical exercise type for improving inhibitory control (SUCRA = 99.1%, SMD = 1.94, and 95% CI: 1.24 to 2.64), and closed-skill activities dominated by aerobic exercises had a slightly higher probability of being the most promising physical exercise intervention for working memory (SUCRA = 75.9%, SMD = 1.21, and 95% CI: -0.22 to 2.65), and multicomponent physical exercise tended to be the most effective in cognitive flexibility (SUCRA = 70.3%, SMD = 1.44, and 95% CI: -0.19 to 3.07). Regarding ADHD-related symptoms, closed-skill activities dominated by aerobic exercises might be more advantageous for hyperactivity/impulsivity (SUCRA = 72.5%, SMD = -1.60, and 95% CI: -3.02 to -0.19) and inattention (SUCRA = 96.3%, SMD = -1.51, and 95% CI: -2.33 to -0.69) improvement.
CONCLUSION
Physical exercise can significantly help to alleviate the symptoms of ADHD and improve executive functions in children and adolescents with ADHD. Most of all, to promote adherence to treatment, they should be encouraged to perform the physical exercises that they enjoy most.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Humans; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Executive Function; Exercise; Exercise Therapy; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 37033046
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1133727 -
Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2022This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2017. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2017. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term remission from seizures, and most achieve that remission shortly after starting antiepileptic drug treatment. Most people with epilepsy are treated with a single antiepileptic drug (monotherapy) and current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom for adults and children recommend carbamazepine or lamotrigine as first-line treatment for focal onset seizures and sodium valproate for generalised onset seizures; however, a range of other antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments are available, and evidence is needed regarding their comparative effectiveness in order to inform treatment choices.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure of 12 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, eventrate, zonisamide, eslicarbazepine acetate, lacosamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with focal onset seizures (simple focal, complex focal or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus).
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 12 April 2021: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to April 09, 2021). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This was an individual participant data (IPD) and network meta-analysis (NMA) review. Our primary outcome was 'time to treatment failure', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', and 'time to first seizure post-randomisation'. We performed frequentist NMA to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 12 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct 'pairwise' estimates and NMA results via node splitting. Results are presented as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and we assessed the certainty of the evidence using the CiNeMA approach, based on the GRADE framework. We have also provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
IPD were provided for at least one outcome of this review for 14,789 out of a total of 22,049 eligible participants (67% of total data) from 39 out of the 89 eligible trials (43% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 50 trials in analysis for a variety of reasons, such as being unable to contact an author or sponsor to request data, data being lost or no longer available, cost and resources required to prepare data being prohibitive, or local authority or country-specific restrictions. No IPD were available from a single trial of eslicarbazepine acetate, so this AED could not be included in the NMA. Network meta-analysis showed high-certainty evidence that for our primary outcome, 'time to treatment failure', for individuals with focal seizures; lamotrigine performs better than most other treatments in terms of treatment failure for any reason and due to adverse events, including the other first-line treatment carbamazepine; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for lamotrigine versus: eventrate 1.01 (0.88 to 1.20), zonisamide 1.18 (0.96 to 1.44), lacosamide 1.19 (0.90 to 1.58), carbamazepine 1.26 (1.10 to 1.44), oxcarbazepine 1.30 (1.02 to 1.66), sodium valproate 1.35 (1.09 to 1.69), phenytoin 1.44 (1.11 to 1.85), topiramate 1.50 (1.23 to 1.81), gabapentin 1.53 (1.26 to 1.85), phenobarbitone 1.97 (1.45 to 2.67). No significant difference between lamotrigine and eventrate was shown for any treatment failure outcome, and both AEDs seemed to perform better than all other AEDs. For people with generalised onset seizures, evidence was more limited and of moderate certainty; no other treatment performed better than first-line treatment sodium valproate, but there were no differences between sodium valproate, lamotrigine or eventrate in terms of treatment failure; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for sodium valproate versus: lamotrigine 1.06 (0.81 to 1.37), eventrate 1.13 (0.89 to 1.42), gabapentin 1.13 (0.61 to 2.11), phenytoin 1.17 (0.80 to 1.73), oxcarbazepine 1.24 (0.72 to 2.14), topiramate 1.37 (1.06 to 1.77), carbamazepine 1.52 (1.18 to 1.96), phenobarbitone 2.13 (1.20 to 3.79), lacosamide 2.64 (1.14 to 6.09). Network meta-analysis also showed high-certainty evidence that for secondary remission outcomes, few notable differences were shown for either seizure type; for individuals with focal seizures, carbamazepine performed better than gabapentin (12-month remission) and sodium valproate (six-month remission). No differences between lamotrigine and any AED were shown for individuals with focal seizures, or between sodium valproate and other AEDs for individuals with generalised onset seizures. Network meta-analysis also showed high- to moderate-certainty evidence that, for 'time to first seizure,' in general, the earliest licensed treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for individuals with focal seizures; phenobarbitone performed better than both first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine. There were no notable differences between the newer drugs (oxcarbazepine, topiramate, gabapentin, eventrate, zonisamide and lacosamide) for either seizure type. Generally, direct evidence (where available) and network meta-analysis estimates were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping. There was no important indication of inconsistency between direct and network meta-analysis results. The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders; however, reporting of adverse events was highly variable across AEDs and across studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
High-certainty evidence demonstrates that for people with focal onset seizures, current first-line treatment options carbamazepine and lamotrigine, as well as newer drug eventrate, show the best profile in terms of treatment failure and seizure control as first-line treatments. For people with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types), current first-line treatment sodium valproate has the best profile compared to all other treatments, but lamotrigine and eventrate would be the most suitable alternative first-line treatments, particularly for those for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option. Further evidence from randomised controlled trials recruiting individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types) is needed.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Child; Epilepsies, Partial; Epilepsy; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Phenytoin
PubMed: 35363878
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011412.pub4 -
BMC Geriatrics Oct 2022Exercises are an effective treatment in Parkinson's disease (PD), but there is still controversy over which types should be used. We aimed to compare and rank the types... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Exercises are an effective treatment in Parkinson's disease (PD), but there is still controversy over which types should be used. We aimed to compare and rank the types of exercise that improve PD symptoms by quantifying information from randomised controlled trials.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis and searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from their inception date to June 30, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials of 24 types of exercise for the interventional treatment of adults (≥ 50 years old) with PD. Effect size measures were standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The confidence of evidence was examined using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA).
RESULTS
We identified 10 474 citations and included 250 studies involving 13 011 participants. Results of NMA showed that power training (PT) had the best benefits for motor symptoms compared with the control group (CON), with SMDs (95% CrI) (-1.46, [-2.18 to -0.74]). Body weight support treadmill training (BWS_TT) showed the best improvement in balance (1.55, [0.72 to 2.37]), gait velocity (1.15 [0.57 to 1.31]) and walking distance (1.96, [1.18 to 2.73]), and robotic assisted gait training (RA_GT) had the most benefits for freezing of gait (-1.09, [-1.80 to -0.38]). For non-motor symptoms, Dance showed the best benefits for depression (-1.71, [-2.79 to -0.73]). Only Yoga significantly reduced anxiety symptom compared with CON (-0.53, [0.96 to -0.11]). Only resistance training (RT) significantly enhanced sleep quality and cognition (-1.42, [-2.60 to -0.23]; 0.51, [0.09 to 0.94]). For muscle strength, PT showed the best advance (1.04, [0.64 to 1.44]). For concern of falling, five types of exercise were more effective than CON.
CONCLUSIONS
There is low quality evidence that PT, Yoga, BWS_TT, Dance, and RT are the most effective treatments, pending outcome of interest, for adults with PD.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42021220052).
Topics: Humans; Parkinson Disease; Network Meta-Analysis; Gait Disorders, Neurologic; Exercise Therapy; Gait
PubMed: 36271367
DOI: 10.1186/s12877-022-03510-9 -
Zeitschrift Fur Evidenz, Fortbildung... Aug 2022Delphi techniques are conducted across different subfields in the health sciences. The reporting practices of studies using Delphi techniques vary, and current reporting... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Delphi techniques are conducted across different subfields in the health sciences. The reporting practices of studies using Delphi techniques vary, and current reporting guidelines for Delphi techniques focus on individual subfields of the health sciences or on different aspects of research and are therefore of limited applicability. The aim of this article was to identify similarities, differences, and possible shortcomings of existing Delphi reporting guidelines and to draft an initial proposal for a comprehensively applicable reporting guideline.
METHODS
A systematic literature search for reporting guidelines on Delphi studies was performed in existing data resources based on databases in the health sciences (Scopus, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Epistemonikos) including publications from 2016 to 2021. In June 2021, we conducted an additional search in PubMed and included further studies by contacting experts of the scientific Delphi expert network (DeWiss). Title and abstract screening of articles was performed, followed by a full-text screening of the articles included. We qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated, compared and contrasted the reporting guidelines identified using content analysis and discussed the results among the members of the Delphi expert network.
RESULTS
We retrieved ten health science articles with reporting guidelines for Delphi studies. In analyzing them, we identified nine main categories (Justification, Expert panel, Questionnaire, Survey design, Process regulation, Analyses, Results, Discussion, Methods reflection & Ethics). The current reporting guidelines vary significantly, with only the aspect of consensus appearing in all of them. Frequency distributions show that most of the subcategories are only addressed in individual articles (e.g., meeting of participants, proceeding with the survey method, transfer of the results, validation, prevention of bias) and that epistemological foundations of the Delphi technique are rarely mentioned or reflected on. We drafted an initial proposal for Delphi reporting guidelines for the health science sector.
DISCUSSION
A well-justified position concerning epistemological foundations of Delphi studies is necessary to make the quality of the process assessable and, along with the reporting of the process, to classify and compare study results. This will increase the acceptance of both the method in the health science sector and the results in medical practice. A Delphi reporting guideline must, above all, take into account the diversity of variants, subfield-related objectives and application areas, and their modifications of the Delphi technique in order to be comprehensively applicable in the health sciences.
CONCLUSION
The results of our methodological review do not provide a final reporting guideline. The newly developed proposal is intended to encourage discussion and agreement in further analyses.
Topics: Consensus; Delphi Technique; Germany; Humans; Research Design; Research Report
PubMed: 35718726
DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2022.04.025 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Mar 2022To determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of psychological interventions for chronic low back pain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of psychological interventions for chronic low back pain.
DESIGN
Systematic review with network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and CINAHL from database inception to 31 January 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION
Randomised controlled trials comparing psychological interventions with any comparison intervention in adults with chronic, non-specific low back pain. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and confidence in the evidence. Primary outcomes were physical function and pain intensity. A random effects network meta-analysis using a frequentist approach was performed at post-intervention (from the end of treatment to <2 months post-intervention); and at short term (≥2 to <6 months post-intervention), mid-term (≥6 to <12 months post-intervention), and long term follow-up (≥12 months post-intervention). Physiotherapy care was the reference comparison intervention. The design-by-treatment interaction model was used to assess global inconsistency and the Bucher method was used to assess local inconsistency.
RESULTS
97 randomised controlled trials involving 13 136 participants and 17 treatment nodes were included. Inconsistency was detected at short term and mid-term follow-up for physical function, and short term follow-up for pain intensity, and were resolved through sensitivity analyses. For physical function, cognitive behavioural therapy (standardised mean difference 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.44), and pain education (0.62, 0.08 to 1.17), delivered with physiotherapy care, resulted in clinically important improvements at post-intervention (moderate quality evidence). The most sustainable effects of treatment for improving physical function were reported with pain education delivered with physiotherapy care, at least until mid-term follow-up (0.63, 0.25 to 1.00; low quality evidence). No studies investigated the long term effectiveness of pain education delivered with physiotherapy care. For pain intensity, behavioural therapy (1.08, 0.22 to 1.94), cognitive behavioural therapy (0.92, 0.43 to 1.42), and pain education (0.91, 0.37 to 1.45), delivered with physiotherapy care, resulted in clinically important effects at post-intervention (low to moderate quality evidence). Only behavioural therapy delivered with physiotherapy care maintained clinically important effects on reducing pain intensity until mid-term follow-up (1.01, 0.41 to 1.60; high quality evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
For people with chronic, non-specific low back pain, psychological interventions are most effective when delivered in conjunction with physiotherapy care (mainly structured exercise). Pain education programmes (low to moderate quality evidence) and behavioural therapy (low to high quality evidence) result in the most sustainable effects of treatment; however, uncertainty remains as to their long term effectiveness. Although inconsistency was detected, potential sources were identified and resolved.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42019138074.
Topics: Adult; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Humans; Low Back Pain; Network Meta-Analysis; Psychosocial Intervention; Research Design
PubMed: 35354560
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-067718 -
Gut Aug 2020National guidelines for the management of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) recommend that psychological therapies should be considered, but their relative efficacy is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
National guidelines for the management of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) recommend that psychological therapies should be considered, but their relative efficacy is unknown, because there have been few head-to-head trials. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to try to resolve this uncertainty.
DESIGN
We searched the medical literature through January 2020 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing efficacy of psychological therapies for adults with IBS, compared with each other, or a control intervention. Trials reported a dichotomous assessment of symptom status after completion of therapy. We pooled data using a random effects model. Efficacy was reported as a pooled relative risk (RR) of remaining symptomatic, with a 95% CI to summarise efficacy of each comparison tested, and ranked by therapy according to P score.
RESULTS
We identified 41 eligible RCTs, containing 4072 participants. After completion of therapy, the psychological interventions with the largest numbers of trials, and patients recruited, demonstrating efficacy included self-administered or minimal contact cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.83, P score 0.66), face-to-face CBT (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.80, P score 0.65) and gut-directed hypnotherapy (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.91, P score 0.57). After completion of therapy, among trials recruiting only patients with refractory symptoms, group CBT and gut-directed hypnotherapy were more efficacious than either education and/or support or routine care, and CBT via the telephone, contingency management, CBT via the internet and dynamic psychotherapy were all superior to routine care. Risk of bias of trials was high, with evidence of funnel plot asymmetry; the efficacy of psychological therapies is therefore likely to have been overestimated.
CONCLUSIONS
Several psychological therapies are efficacious for IBS, although none were superior to another. CBT-based interventions and gut-directed hypnotherapy had the largest evidence base and were the most efficacious long term.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
The study protocol was published on the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (registration number CRD 42020163246).
Topics: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Humans; Hypnosis; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32276950
DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-321191 -
Journal of the Formosan Medical... Dec 2022Orthokeratology (Ortho-K), atropine eye drops and combined atropine with Ortho-K are proven to be effective ways to prevent myopic progression in many studies, but there... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE
Orthokeratology (Ortho-K), atropine eye drops and combined atropine with Ortho-K are proven to be effective ways to prevent myopic progression in many studies, but there is scarce evidence regarding the comparative efficacy of different dosages of atropine,Ortho-K, and combined atropine with Ortho-K for childhood myopia.
METHODS
We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the relative efficacy of the aforementioned interventions for myopic progression; moreover, we calculated the surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) to determine the relative ranking of treatments.
RESULTS
We identified 19 randomized controlled trials (3435 patients). NMA revealed that 0.01%-1% atropine, Ortho-K, and 0.01% atropine combined with Ortho-K inhibited axial elongation (AL) over one year. For refractive change, SUCRA analysis revealed that the hierarchy was high-dose (0.5%-1%), moderate-dose (0.1%-0.25%), and low-dose (0.01%-0.05%) atropine. Regarding AL, SUCRA analysis revealed the following hierarchy: Ortho-K combined with 0.01% atropine, high-dose atropine, moderate-dose atropine, Ortho-K, and low-dose atropine.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we found that atropine (0.01%-1%), Ortho-K, and 0.01% atropine combined with Ortho-K could significantly slow down myopia progression. The atropine efficacy followed a dose-related pattern; moreover, Ortho-K and low-dose atropine showed similar efficacy. There was a synergistic effect of using 0.01% atropine combined with Ortho-K, and it showed comparable efficacy to that of high-dose atropine.
Topics: Humans; Child; Orthokeratologic Procedures; Atropine; Axial Length, Eye; Network Meta-Analysis; Myopia
PubMed: 35688780
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfma.2022.05.005 -
PloS One 2017Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a debilitating mental health problem hampering the child's development. The underlying causes include both genetic and... (Review)
Review
Diet and ADHD, Reviewing the Evidence: A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses of Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trials Evaluating the Efficacy of Diet Interventions on the Behavior of Children with ADHD.
INTRODUCTION
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a debilitating mental health problem hampering the child's development. The underlying causes include both genetic and environmental factors and may differ between individuals. The efficacy of diet treatments in ADHD was recently evaluated in three reviews, reporting divergent and confusing conclusions based on heterogeneous studies and subjects. To address this inconsistency we conducted a systematic review of meta-analyses of double-blind placebo-controlled trials evaluating the effect of diet interventions (elimination and supplementation) on ADHD.
METHODS
Our literature search resulted in 14 meta-analyses, six of which confined to double-blind placebo-controlled trials applying homogeneous diet interventions, i.e. artificial food color (AFC) elimination, a few-foods diet (FFD) and poly-unsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) supplementation. Effect sizes (ES) and Confidence intervals (CI) of study outcomes were depicted in a forest plot. I2 was calculated to assess heterogeneity if necessary and additional random effects subgroup meta-regression was conducted if substantial heterogeneity was present.
RESULTS
The AFC ESs were 0.44 (95% CI: 0.16-0.72, I2 = 11%) and 0.21 (95% CI: -0.02-0.43, I2 = 68%) [parent ratings], 0.08 (95% CI: -0.07-0.24, I2 = 0%) [teacher ratings] and 0.11 (95% CI: -0.13-0.34, I2 = 12%) [observer ratings]. The FFD ESs were 0.80 (95% CI: 0.41-1.19, I2 = 61%) [parent ratings] and 0.51 (95% CI: -0.02-1.04, I2 = 72%) [other ratings], while the PUFA ESs were 0.17 (95% CI: -0.03-0.38, I2 = 38%) [parent ratings], -0.05 (95% CI: -0.27-0.18, I2 = 0%) [teacher ratings] and 0.16 (95% CI: 0.01-0.31, I2 = 0%) [parent and teacher ratings]. Three meta-analyses (two FFD and one AFC) resulted in high I2 without presenting subgroup results. The FFD meta-analyses provided sufficient data to perform subgroup analyses on intervention type, resulting in a decrease of heterogeneity to 0% (diet design) and 37.8% (challenge design).
CONCLUSION
Considering the small average ESs PUFA supplementation is unlikely to provide a tangible contribution to ADHD treatment, while further research is required for AFC elimination before advising this intervention as ADHD treatment. The average FFD ES is substantial, offering treatment opportunities in subgroups of children with ADHD not responding to or too young for medication. Further FFD research should focus on establishing the underlying mechanisms of food (e.g. incrimination of gut microbiota) to simplify the FFD approach in children with ADHD.
Topics: Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Child; Child Behavior; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Problem Behavior; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28121994
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169277