-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2023Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic antigen-mediated eosinophilic inflammatory disease isolated to the esophagus. As a clinicopathologic disorder, a diagnosis of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic antigen-mediated eosinophilic inflammatory disease isolated to the esophagus. As a clinicopathologic disorder, a diagnosis of EoE requires a constellation of clinical symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and histologic findings (at least 15 eosinophils/high-powered microscope field (eos/hpf)). Current guidelines no longer require the failure of response to proton pump inhibitor medications to establish a diagnosis of EoE, but continue to suggest the exclusion of other etiologies of esophageal eosinophilia. The treatment goals for EoE are improvement in clinical symptoms, resolution of esophageal eosinophilia and other histologic abnormalities, endoscopic improvement, improved quality of life, improved esophageal function, minimized adverse effects of treatment, and prevention of disease progression and subsequent complications. Currently, there is no cure for EoE, making long-term treatment necessary. Standard treatment modalities include dietary modifications, esophageal dilation, and pharmacologic therapy. Effective pharmacologic therapies include corticosteroids, rapidly emerging biological therapies, and proton pump inhibitor medications.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of medical interventions for people with eosinophilic esophagitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP to 3 March 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any medical intervention or food elimination diet for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis, either alone or in combination, to any other intervention (including placebo).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Pairs of review authors independently selected studies and conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We expressed outcomes as a risk ratio (RR) and as the mean or standardized mean difference (MD/SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcomes were: clinical, histological, and endoscopic improvement, and withdrawals due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: serious and total adverse events, and quality of life.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 41 RCTs with 3253 participants. Eleven studies included pediatric patients while the rest recruited both children and adults. Four studies were in patients with inactive disease while the rest were in patients with active disease. We identified 19 intervention comparisons. In this abstract we present the results of the primary outcomes for the two main comparisons: corticosteroids versus placebo and biologics versus placebo, based on the prespecified outcomes defined of the primary studies. Fourteen studies compared corticosteroids to placebo for induction of remission and the risk of bias for these studies was mostly low. Corticosteroids may lead to slightly better clinical improvement (20% higher), measured dichotomously (risk ratio (RR) 1.74, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.80; 6 studies, 583 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 4; low certainty), and may lead to slightly better clinical improvement, measured continuously (standard mean difference (SMD) 0.51, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.85; 5 studies, 475 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids lead to a large histological improvement (63% higher), measured dichotomously (RR 11.94, 95% CI 6.56 to 21.75; 12 studies, 978 participants; NNTB = 3; high certainty), and may lead to histological improvement, measured continuously (SMD 1.42, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.82; 5 studies, 449 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids may lead to little to no endoscopic improvement, measured dichotomously (RR 2.60, 95% CI 0.82 to 8.19; 5 studies, 596 participants; low certainty), and may lead to endoscopic improvement, measured continuously (SMD 1.33, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.08; 5 studies, 596 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids may lead to slightly fewer withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.96; 14 studies, 1032 participants; low certainty). Nine studies compared biologics to placebo for induction of remission. Biologics may result in little to no difference in clinical improvement, measured dichotomously (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.52; 5 studies, 410 participants; low certainty), and may result in better clinical improvement, measured continuously (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.78; 7 studies, 387 participants; moderate certainty). Biologics result in better histological improvement (55% higher), measured dichotomously (RR 6.73, 95% CI 2.58 to 17.52; 8 studies, 925 participants; NNTB = 2; moderate certainty). We could not draw conclusions for this outcome when measured continuously (SMD 1.01, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.66; 6 studies, 370 participants; very low certainty). Biologics may result in little to no difference in endoscopic improvement, measured dichotomously (effect not estimable, low certainty). We cannot draw conclusions for this outcome when measured continuously (SMD 2.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 5.22; 1 study, 11 participants; very low certainty). There may be no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.74; 8 studies, 792 participants; low certainty).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Corticosteroids (as compared to placebo) may lead to clinical symptom improvement when reported both as dichotomous and continuous outcomes, from the primary study definitions. Corticosteroids lead to a large increase in histological improvement (dichotomous outcome) and may increase histological improvement (continuous outcome) when compared to placebo. Corticosteroids may or may not increase endoscopic improvement (depending on whether the outcome is measured dichotomously or continuously). Withdrawals due to adverse events (dichotomous outcome) may occur less frequently when corticosteroids are compared to placebo. Biologics (as compared to placebo) may not lead to clinical symptom improvement when reported as a dichotomous outcome and may lead to an increase in clinical symptom improvement (as a continuous outcome), from the primary study definitions. Biologics lead to a large increase in histological improvement when reported as a dichotomous outcome, but this is uncertain when reported as a continuous outcome, as compared to placebo. Biologics may not increase endoscopic improvement (dichotomous outcome), but this is uncertain when measured as a continuous outcome. Withdrawals due to adverse events as a dichotomous outcome may occur as frequently when biologics are compared to placebo.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Biological Products; Chronic Disease; Eosinophilic Esophagitis; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Remission Induction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37470293
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004065.pub4 -
Clinical Gastroenterology and... Aug 2023Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) can be treated by proton pump inhibitors, topical corticosteroids, or dietary measures. This study systematically assessed the efficacy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) can be treated by proton pump inhibitors, topical corticosteroids, or dietary measures. This study systematically assessed the efficacy of 4 major dietary treatment regimens in EoE, updating the evidence presented in a meta-analysis from 2014.
METHODS
Electronic databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, and other sources were searched up to September 2022 to identify studies on dietary treatment of EoE. Based on histologic remission criteria, the efficacy of these treatments was pooled and analyzed with respect to the type of dietary regimen: 6-food elimination diet (SFED), 4-food elimination diet (FFED), 1-food elimination diet (OFED), and a targeted elimination diet (TED). Clinical response rates, food sensitization, and efficacies for a pediatric subpopulation were calculated. Influencing variables on efficacies were estimated via meta-regression analyses.
RESULTS
Thirty-four studies with 1762 patients met the inclusion criteria. The overall rate of histologic remission was 53.8% (95% CI, 48.0%-59.6%), and in the individual dietary groups was 61.3% (95% CI, 53.0%-69.3%) for SFED, 49.4% (95% CI, 32.5%-66.3%) for FFED, 51.4% (95% CI, 42.6%-60.1%) for OFED, and 45.7% (95% CI, 32.0%-59.7%) for TED. Dietary regimen and patient age did not significantly affect rates of histologic remission. The overall rate of clinical response was 80.8% (95% CI, 72.3%-88.2%), with response rates of 92.8% (95% CI, 81.2%-99.6%) for SFED, 74.1% (95% CI, 49.8%-92.6%) for FFED, 87.1% (95% CI, 58.4%-99.9%) for OFED, and 69.0% (95% CI, 50.2%85.3%) for TED.
CONCLUSIONS
Dietary therapy is an effective treatment for EoE patients of any age. The current results could support a trend toward less-restrictive dietary regimens as a primary treatment option.
Topics: Child; Humans; Allergens; Diet; Elimination Diets; Eosinophilic Esophagitis; Food; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36731591
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.01.019 -
International Journal of Radiation... Nov 2023Adjuvant proton beam therapy (PBT) is increasingly available to patients with breast cancer. It achieves better planned dose distributions than standard photon radiation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Adjuvant proton beam therapy (PBT) is increasingly available to patients with breast cancer. It achieves better planned dose distributions than standard photon radiation therapy and therefore may reduce the risks. However, clinical evidence is lacking.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
A systematic review of clinical outcomes from studies of adjuvant PBT for early breast cancer published in 2000 to 2022 was undertaken. Early breast cancer was defined as when all detected invasive cancer cells are in the breast or nearby lymph nodes and can be removed surgically. Adverse outcomes were summarized quantitatively, and the prevalence of the most common ones were estimated using meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies (1452 patients) reported clinical outcomes after adjuvant PBT for early breast cancer. Median follow-up ranged from 2 to 59 months. There were no published randomized trials comparing PBT with photon radiation therapy. Scattering PBT was delivered in 7 studies (258 patients) starting 2003 to 2015 and scanning PBT in 22 studies (1041 patients) starting 2000 to 2019. Two studies (123 patients) starting 2011 used both PBT types. For 1 study (30 patients), PBT type was unspecified. Adverse events were less severe after scanning than after scattering PBT. They also varied by clinical target. For partial breast PBT, 498 adverse events were reported (8 studies, 358 patients). None were categorized as severe after scanning PBT. For whole breast or chest wall ± regional lymph nodes PBT, 1344 adverse events were reported (19 studies, 933 patients). After scanning PBT, 4% (44/1026) of events were severe. The most prevalent severe outcome after scanning PBT was dermatitis, which occurred in 5.7% (95% confidence interval, 4.2-7.6) of patients. Other severe adverse outcomes included infection, pain, and pneumonitis (each ≤1%). Of the 141 reconstruction events reported (13 studies, 459 patients), the most prevalent after scanning PBT was prosthetic implant removal (34/181, 19%).
CONCLUSIONS
This is a quantitative summary of all published clinical outcomes after adjuvant PBT for early breast cancer. Ongoing randomized trials will provide information on its longer-term safety compared with standard photon radiation therapy.
Topics: Humans; Female; Breast Neoplasms; Proton Therapy
PubMed: 36868521
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.02.023 -
Advances in Radiation Oncology 2023The aim of this study was to comprehensively review all studies examining clinical outcomes of craniospinal irradiation with proton radiotherapy for medulloblastoma (MB)... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to comprehensively review all studies examining clinical outcomes of craniospinal irradiation with proton radiotherapy for medulloblastoma (MB) to determine whether theoretical dosimetric advantages have translated into superior clinical outcomes (including survival and toxicities) compared with traditional photon-based techniques.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
We performed a systematic review based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Articles reporting on clinical outcomes of pediatric and/or adult patients with MB treated with proton radiotherapy were included. Evidence quality was assessed using a modified Newcastle Ottawa scale and GRADE score.
RESULTS
Thirty-five studies were included, with a total of 2059 patients reported (representing an estimated 630-654 unique patients). None of the studies were randomized, 12 were comparative, 9 were prospective, 3 were mixed, and 22 were retrospective. Average mean/median follow-up was 5.0 years (range, 4 weeks to 12.6 years). The majority of studies (n = 19) reported on treatment with passive scatter proton beams exclusively. Average study quality was 6.0 out of 9 (median, 6; standard deviation, 1.6). Nine studies scored ≥8 out of 9 on the modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale; an overall "moderate" GRADE score was assigned. Well-designed comparative cohort studies with adequate follow-up demonstrate superior neurocognitive outcomes, lower incidence of hypothyroidism (23% vs 69%), sex hormone deficiency (3% vs 19%), greater heights, and reduced acute toxicities in patients treated with protons compared to photons. Overall survival (up to 10 years), progression-free survival (up to 10 years), brain stem injury, and other endocrine outcomes were similar to those reported for photon radiation. There was insufficient evidence to make conclusions on endpoints of quality of life, ototoxicity, secondary malignancy, alopecia, scoliosis, cavernomas, and cerebral vasculopathy.
CONCLUSIONS
Moderate-grade evidence supports proton radiotherapy as a preferred treatment for craniospinal irradiation of MB based on equivalent disease control and comparable-to-improved toxicity versus photon beam radiation therapy.
PubMed: 37008255
DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2023.101189 -
Physical and Engineering Sciences in... Sep 2023In recent years, proton therapy centres have begun to shift from conventional 2D-kV imaging to volumetric imaging systems for image guided proton therapy (IGPT). This is...
In recent years, proton therapy centres have begun to shift from conventional 2D-kV imaging to volumetric imaging systems for image guided proton therapy (IGPT). This is likely due to the increased commercial interest and availability of volumetric imaging systems, as well as the shift from passively scattered proton therapy to intensity modulated proton therapy. Currently, there is no standard modality for volumetric IGPT, leading to variation between different proton therapy centres. This article reviews the reported clinical use of volumetric IGPT, as available in published literature, and summarises their utilisation and workflow where possible. In addition, novel volumetric imaging systems are also briefly summarised highlighting their potential benefits for IGPT and the challenges that need to be overcome before they can be used clinically.
Topics: Proton Therapy; Radiotherapy, Image-Guided; Diagnostic Imaging; Protons
PubMed: 37382744
DOI: 10.1007/s13246-023-01294-9 -
Journal of Ethnopharmacology Sep 2023Functional dyspepsia (FD), a chronic upper gastrointestinal syndrome, seriously affects the quality of life of patients and poses a significant economic burden. Since... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE
Functional dyspepsia (FD), a chronic upper gastrointestinal syndrome, seriously affects the quality of life of patients and poses a significant economic burden. Since the pathological mechanisms of FD have not been fully elucidated, conventional therapies such as prokinetics, proton pump inhibitors, and antidepressants have some limitations. Siho-sogan-san (SHS) is commonly used as a therapeutic alternative in traditional medicine; however, scientific and clinical evidence supporting its application in FD remains insufficient.
AIM OF THE STUDY
This review aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of SHS and in combined with Western medicine (WM) for the treatment of FD.
METHODS
Eleven databases, including EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library, were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on FD published before December 31, 2022. After two independent reveiwers sceened and selected studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, clinical data was pooled and synthesized via Review Manager software. The outcome parameters included total clinical effectiveness rate (TCE), time for symptom improvement, levels of motilin and corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH), and adverse events. Cochrane's risk of bias tool was used for quality assessment.
RESULTS
A total of 12 studies that included 867 participants comparing WM with SHS or combination therapy (SHS plus WM) were identified. Through a meta-analysis of five studies including 363 patients, SHS compared with WM showed a positive result in safely increasing TCE [risk ratio = 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.51, P < 0.00001]. The time for symptom improvement, including abdominal pain, belching, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal distension, was significantly more shortened in the combination therapy than WM group. Furthermore, combination therapy resulted in greater secretion of motilin than WM alone [mean difference = 67.95, 95% CI 39.52 to 96.39, P < 0.00001]. No remarkable difference was observed in CRH levels between the combination therapy and WM groups. For a subgroup analysis, the administration of SHS based on the type of pattern identification (PI) showed larger effect size than in the group that do not consider PI.
CONCLUSIONS
These results suggest that SHS and combination therapy can be considered effective and safe options for the treatment of FD. However, owing to the low quality of the included studies, more well-designed investigational studies and RCTs with longer treatment and follow-up period are needed.
Topics: Humans; Dyspepsia; Motilin; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Phytotherapy; Plants, Medicinal; Medicine, Traditional
PubMed: 37127143
DOI: 10.1016/j.jep.2023.116518 -
Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology :... 2023Vonoprazan-amoxicillin (VA) dual therapy has recently been proposed to eradicate Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) with controversial results. We, therefore, conducted a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Vonoprazan-amoxicillin (VA) dual therapy has recently been proposed to eradicate Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) with controversial results. We, therefore, conducted a meta-analysis to assess the effect of this therapy for H. pylori eradication.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science database from inception until November 2022, collecting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing VA dual therapy with other regimens for H. pylori eradication. Pooled relative risks (RRs) were calculated using random effects model.
RESULTS
Five RCTs were ultimately included. Compared with the vonoprazan-amoxicillin-clarithromycin (VAC) triple therapy, the eradication rate of VA dual therapy was lower in intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (n = 3 RCTs, RR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.88-0.99, P = 0.03), but there was no significant difference between them in the per-protocol (PP) analysis (RR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.91-1.01, P = 0.11). For clarithromycin-resistant H. pylori strains, the eradication rate of VA dual therapy was significantly higher than that of the VAC triple therapy (n = 2 RCTs, RR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.03-1.39, P = 0.02). Compared with the PPI-based triple therapy (PAC), VA dual therapy had a superior eradication rate (n = 2 RCTs, ITT analysis: RR = 1.13, 95% CI: 1.04-1.23, P = 0.003; PP analysis: pooled RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.06-1.22, P = 0.0004). Compared with VAC or PAC triple therapy, VA dual therapy has a similar incidence of total adverse events and compliance.
CONCLUSIONS
VA dual therapy had a similar effect compared to VAC triple therapy and was superior to PAC triple therapy. Future RCTs are needed to ascertain the optimal dosage and duration of vonoprazan and amoxicillin, and the effect of VA dual therapy compared with the mainstream regimens recommended by current guidelines.
Topics: Humans; Amoxicillin; Clarithromycin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Helicobacter pylori; Helicobacter Infections; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Drug Therapy, Combination; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37602635
DOI: 10.4103/sjg.sjg_153_23 -
European Journal of Medical Research Aug 2023To evaluate the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan-amoxicillin (VA) dual therapy for radically eradicating Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan-amoxicillin (VA) dual therapy for radically eradicating Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori).
METHODS
The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang databases were searched up to July 7, 2022, to identify clinical trials comparing the efficacy of VA dual therapy and triple therapy for H. pylori eradication. After evaluating the quality of the included studies, random effects models were conducted, and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to estimate the efficacy and safety of each approach.
RESULTS
Six publications (including four randomized controlled trials) involving 2019 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, the eradication rate for VA dual therapy was 89.9%, while it was 85.2% for triple therapy based on other acid inhibitors. The eradication rate of H. pylori in the VA dual regimen group was higher than that in the PPI-based (omeprazole or lansoprazole) triple therapy group (RR = 1.15, 95% CI 1.07-1.23, p < 0.0001). However, the efficacy of VA dual therapy was comparable with VA-Clarithromycin (VAC) triple therapy (RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.93-1.02). Besides, the incidence of adverse reactions in VA dual therapy was also lower than that in triple therapy (RR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.91, p = 0.0009).
CONCLUSION
Compared with PPI-based triple therapy, VA dual therapy showed a better therapeutic effect, safety and patient compliance rate for eradicating H. pylori, which should be used as a novel curative strategy in the future.
Topics: Humans; Amoxicillin; Helicobacter pylori; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Helicobacter Infections; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Drug Therapy, Combination; Treatment Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37550781
DOI: 10.1186/s40001-023-01249-6 -
Neurosurgical Review Jul 2023Proton beam therapy is considered, by some authors, as having the advantage of delivering dose distributions more conformal to target compared with stereotactic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Proton beam therapy is considered, by some authors, as having the advantage of delivering dose distributions more conformal to target compared with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Here, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of proton beam for VSs, evaluating tumor control and cranial nerve preservation rates, particularly with regard to facial and hearing preservation.
METHODS
We reviewed, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) articles published between 1968 and September 30, 2022. We retained 8 studies reporting 587 patients.
RESULTS
Overall rate of tumor control (both stability and decrease in volume) was 95.4% (range 93.5-97.2%, p heterogeneity= 0.77, p<0.001). Overall rate of tumor progression was 4.6% (range 2.8-6.5%, p heterogeneity < 0.77, p<0.001). Overall rate of trigeminal nerve preservation (absence of numbness) was 95.6% (range 93.5-97.7%, I = 11.44%, p heterogeneity= 0.34, p<0.001). Overall rate of facial nerve preservation was 93.7% (range 89.6-97.7%, I = 76.27%, p heterogeneity<0.001, p<0.001). Overall rate of hearing preservation was 40.6% (range 29.4-51.8%, I = 43.36%, p heterogeneity= 0.1, p<0.001).
CONCLUSION
Proton beam therapy for VSs achieves high tumor control rates, as high as 95.4%. Facial rate preservation overall rates are 93%, which is lower compared to the most SRS series. Compared with most currently reported SRS techniques, proton beam radiation therapy for VSs does not offer an advantage for facial and hearing preservation compared to most of the currently reported SRS series.
Topics: Humans; Neuroma, Acoustic; Proton Therapy; Hearing; Cranial Nerves; Facial Nerve; Radiosurgery; Treatment Outcome; Follow-Up Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37402894
DOI: 10.1007/s10143-023-02060-x -
Cureus Aug 2023Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated condition characterized by inflammation and eosinophilic accumulation of the esophagus, resulting in... (Review)
Review
Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated condition characterized by inflammation and eosinophilic accumulation of the esophagus, resulting in dysphagia and food impaction. While the exact etiology of EoE remains unclear, it is believed to be triggered by food allergens and dynamic environmental factors, resulting in various clinical manifestations, from inflammation to fibrosis. Although clinical presentation varies with age, the number of eosinophils in esophagogastroduodenal endoscopy remains the diagnostic gold standard. While diet elimination, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), topical corticosteroids, and biological therapy are promising treatment options for EoE, there are insufficient data to determine the optimal therapeutic treatment approach. Combination therapies - the use of dietary therapies in conjunction with other treatment modalities, such as PPIs, topical corticosteroids, or biologic agents - have also emerged as a potential management strategy for EoE. In this systematic review, we attempt to highlight the recent advances in EoE therapies and provide updated guidance to their management. From 2017 to 2022, we conducted a comprehensive electronic search of PubMed (MEDLINE) using specific keywords related to our objective and eventually included a total of 44 articles.
PubMed: 37692685
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.43221