-
Frontiers in Oncology 2021Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) in early-stage breast cancer has been studied over the years. However, it has not been demonstrated whether IORT is more suitable as a...
OBJECTIVE
Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) in early-stage breast cancer has been studied over the years. However, it has not been demonstrated whether IORT is more suitable as a therapeutic option for early-stage breast cancer than whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT). Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of IORT to those of WBRT as therapeutic options for early-stage breast cancer patients receiving breast-conserving surgery (INPLASY2020120008).
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to October 2021. Computerized and manual searches were adopted to identify eligible randomized control trials from online databases. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated by random-effect models to assess the relative risk. Potential publication bias was quantified by Begg's and Egger's tests.
RESULTS
Based on our inclusion criteria, 10 randomized control trials involving 5,698 patients were included in this meta-analysis. This meta-analysis showed that the IORT group was associated with a higher local recurrence risk (RR = 2.111, 95% CI, 1.130-3.943, = 0.0191), especially in the long-term follow-up subgroup or published after 2020 subgroup or Caucasian subgroup (RR = 2.404, 95% CI, 1.183-4.885, = 0.0154). Subgroup analysis showed that the IORT group had a higher recurrence risk than the WBRT group in the polycentric randomized controlled trial subgroup (RR = 1.213, 95% CI, 1.030-1.428, = 0.0204). Pooled analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival, recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and cancer-specific survival between IORT and WBRT groups. Additionally, the risk of skin toxicity was reduced, but the incidences of fat toxicity, edema, and scar calcification were significantly increased in the patients who underwent IORT in comparison to those who underwent WBRT.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis revealed that IORT was not a better alternative to WBRT. More large-scale and well-designed clinical trials with longer follow-up periods are encouraged to further investigate the value of IORT.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2020-12-0008/.
PubMed: 34976796
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.737982 -
Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia... Nov 2022Third molar extraction is among the most common surgical procedures performed by oral-maxillofacial surgeons. Postoperative pain, swelling and trismus are common,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Third molar extraction is among the most common surgical procedures performed by oral-maxillofacial surgeons. Postoperative pain, swelling and trismus are common, especially in wisdom teeth, due to trauma to local tissues and the duration of the surgical procedure, among other factors.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the 'Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses' in order to answer the focused question: 'Is the local submucosal injection of tramadol effective at the control of postoperative pain in patients submitted to impacted mandibular third molar extractions?'. We analyzed papers published until March 30, 2021 in the MEDLINE|PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases. Gray literature was also consulted. Standard pairwise meta-analyses of direct comparisons were performed using a fixed-effect model; I2 ≥ 50 % or ≥ 75 % indicated moderate or high heterogeneity, respectively. Risk of bias was assessed by Cochrane Collaboration's tool.
RESULTS
In total, 172 participants (98 males and 74 females, aged 18 or over) from three randomized placebo-controlled trials were considered for analysis. The submucosal injection of 2 ml of tramadol adjacent to the impacted mandibular third molar was effective in controlling pain up to 6-hours after surgery, in increasing the onset of consumption of rescue analgesic and in reducing the total number of rescue analgesics used.
CONCLUSIONS
The submucosal injection of tramadol can be considered a safe and effective procedure for pain control after impacted mandibular third molar extractions.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Molar, Third; Tramadol; Tooth, Impacted; Tooth Extraction; Trismus; Pain, Postoperative; Edema; Analgesics
PubMed: 35975800
DOI: 10.4317/medoral.25498 -
Cells Oct 2021The incidence of spinal cord injury (SCI) is ever-growing, resulting in life-changing neurological deficits which can have devastating long-term impacts on a person's... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The incidence of spinal cord injury (SCI) is ever-growing, resulting in life-changing neurological deficits which can have devastating long-term impacts on a person's quality of life. There is an unmet clinical need for a treatment which will prevent progression of the injury, allowing improved axonal regeneration and functional recovery to occur. The initial mechanical insult, followed by a cascade of secondary mechanisms, leads to the exacerbation and remodelling of the lesion site, thus inhibiting neurological recovery. Oedema rapidly accumulates following SCI and contributes to the detrimental pathophysiology and worsens functional outcomes. This study systematically reviewed the current experimental treatments being explored in the field of SCI, which specifically target oedema. Abiding by PRISMA guidelines and strict inclusion criteria, 14 studies were identified and analysed from three online databases (PubMed, Web of Science and EMBASE). As a result, we identified three key modalities which attenuate oedema: selective inhibition of the main water channel protein, aquaporin 4 (AQP4), modulation of inflammation and surgical interventions. Collectively, however, they all result in the downregulation of AQP4, which crucially leads to a reduction in oedema and improved functional outcomes. We concluded that trifluoperazine (TFP), a calmodulin kinase inhibitor which prevents the cell-surface localisation of AQP4, was the most efficacious treatment, significantly eliminating oedema within 7 days of administration. To date, this study is the most concise analysis of current experimental treatments for oedema, exposing its molecular mechanisms and assessing potential therapeutic pathways for future research.
Topics: Animals; Blood-Brain Barrier; Edema; Humans; Motor Activity; Publication Bias; Rats; Recovery of Function; Risk; Spinal Cord Injuries; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34685662
DOI: 10.3390/cells10102682 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Perineal trauma is common during childbirth and may be painful. Contemporary maternity practice includes offering women numerous forms of pain relief, including the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Perineal trauma is common during childbirth and may be painful. Contemporary maternity practice includes offering women numerous forms of pain relief, including the local application of cooling treatments. This Cochrane Review is an update of a review last updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of localised cooling treatments compared with no treatment, placebo, or other cooling treatments applied to the perineum for pain relief following perineal trauma sustained during childbirth.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (7 October 2019) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Published and unpublished randomised and quasi-randomised trials (RCTs) that compared a localised cooling treatment applied to the perineum with no treatment, placebo, or another cooling treatment applied to relieve pain related to perineal trauma sustained during childbirth.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were double checked for accuracy. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 RCTs that enrolled 1233 women randomised to the use of one cooling treatment (ice, cold gel pad, cooling plus compression, cooling plus compression plus (being) horizontal) compared with another cooling treatment, no treatment, or placebo (water pack, compression). The included trials were at low or uncertain risk of bias overall, with the exception that the inability to blind participants and personnel to group allocation meant that we rated all trials at unclear or high risk for this domain. We undertook a number of comparisons to evaluate the different treatments. Cooling treatment (ice pack or cold gel pad) versus no treatment There was limited very low-certainty evidence that cooling treatment may reduce women's self-reported perineal pain within four to six hours (mean difference (MD) -4.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.07 to -3.85 on a 10-point scale; 1 study, 100 participants) or between 24 and 48 hours of giving birth (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.94; 1 study, 316 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about the various measures of wound healing, for example, wound edges gaping when inspected five days after giving birth (RR 2.56, 95% CI 0.58 to 11.33; 1 study, 315 participants). Women generally rated their satisfaction with perineal care similarly following cooling or no treatment. The potential exception was that there may be a trivially lower mean difference of -0.1 on a five-point scale of psychospiritual comfort with cooling treatment, that is unlikely to be of clinical importance. Cooling treatment (cold gel pad) + compression versus placebo (gel pad + compression) There was limited low-certainty evidence that there may be a trivial MD of -0.43 in pain on a 10-point scale at 24 to 48 hours after giving birth (95% CI -0.73 to -0.13; 1 study, 250 participants) when a cooling treatment plus compression from a well-secured perineal pad was compared with the placebo. Levels of perineal oedema may be similar for the two groups (low-certainty evidence) and perineal bruising was not observed. There was low-certainty evidence that women may rate their satisfaction as being slightly higher with perineal care in the cold gel pad and compression group (MD 0.88, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.38; 1 trial, 250 participants). Cooling treatment (ice pack) versus placebo (water pack) One study reported that no women reported pain after using an ice pack or a water pack when asked within 24 hours of giving birth. There was low-certainty evidence that oedema may be similar for the two groups when assessed at four to six hours (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.86; 1 study, 63 participants) or within 24 hours of giving birth (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.59). No women were observed to have perineal bruising at these times. The trialists reported that no women in either group experienced any adverse effects on wound healing. There was very low-certainty evidence that women may rate their views and experiences with the treatments similarly (for example, satisfied with treatment: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.08; 63 participants). Cooling treatment (ice pack) versus cooling treatment (cold gel pad) The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of using ice packs or cold gel pads on women's self-rated perineal pain, on perineal bruising, or on perineal oedema at four to six hours or within 24 hours of giving birth. Perineal oedema may persist 24 to 48 hours after giving birth in women using the ice packs (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.7; 2 trials, 264 participants; very low-certainty). The risk of gaping wound edges five days after giving birth may be decreased in women who had used ice packs (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.01; 215 participants; very low-certainty). However, this did not appear to persist to day 10 (RR 3.06, 95% CI 0.63 to 14.81; 214 participants). Women may rate their opinion of treatment less favourably following the use of ice packs five days after giving birth (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.68; 1 study, 49 participants) and when assessed on day 10 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92; 1 study, 208 participants), both very low-certainty.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited very low-certainty evidence that may support the use of cooling treatments, in the form or ice packs or cold gel pads, for the relief of perineal pain in the first two days following childbirth. It is likely that concurrent use of several treatments is required to adequately address this issue, including prescription and non-prescription analgesia. Studies included in this review involved the use of cooling treatments for 10 to 20 minutes, and although no adverse effects were noted, these findings came from studies of relatively small numbers of women, or were not reported at all. The continued lack of high-certainty evidence of the benefits of cooling treatments should be viewed with caution, and further well-designed trials should be conducted.
Topics: Combined Modality Therapy; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Hypothermia, Induced; Pain Management; Parturition; Perineum; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33034900
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006304.pub4 -
Journal of Hand and Microsurgery Jul 2021The purpose of this study was to review and compare clinical outcomes between percutaneous needle fasciotomy (PNF) and collagenase (CCH) injection for the treatment...
The purpose of this study was to review and compare clinical outcomes between percutaneous needle fasciotomy (PNF) and collagenase (CCH) injection for the treatment of Dupuytren's contracture. A systematic review was performed including all level I-III evidence studies investigating the clinical outcomes of PNF and CCH injection in the treatment of Dupuytren's contracture. Five studies (278 CCH patients, 225 PNF patients; 285 CCH fingers, 246 PNF fingers, 405 males, and 98 females) were analyzed. Two randomized studies were level I evidence, one randomized study was level II, and two nonrandomized studies were level III. Two studies analyzed a total of 205 patients, each demonstrating statistically superior outcomes in one outcome measure (contracture improvement and Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ) satisfaction subscore) with PNF, while the remaining three studies demonstrated no significant differences in outcomes between the two techniques. Three studies reported a statistically higher rate of minor complications (local pain, edema, ecchymosis, lymphadenopathy, pruritis) with CCH, while the remaining two studies demonstrated no significant difference in complication rates. For the treatment of Dupuytren's contracture, there is some evidence that suggests superior clinical outcomes of PNF compared with CCH and a higher minor complication rate with CCH.
PubMed: 34511831
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1721876 -
Revista Gaucha de Enfermagem 2024To identify the prevalence of errors that caused events supposedly attributable to vaccination or immunization. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To identify the prevalence of errors that caused events supposedly attributable to vaccination or immunization.
METHOD
Systematic literature review with meta-analysis carried out on the Medline, Cochrane Library, Cinahl, Web of Science, Lilacs, Scopus; Embase; Open Grey; Google Scholar; and Grey Lit databases; with studies that presented the prevalence of immunization errors that caused events or that provided data that allowed this indicator to be calculated.
RESULTS
We evaluated 11 articles published between 2010 and 2021, indicating a prevalence of 0.044 errors per 10,000 doses administered (n=762; CI95%: 0.026 - 0.075; I2 = 99%, p < 0.01). The prevalence was higher in children under 5 (0.334 / 10,000 doses; n=14). The predominant events were fever, local pain, edema and redness.
CONCLUSION
A low prevalence of errors causing events was identified. However, events supposedly attributable to vaccination or immunization can contribute to vaccine hesitancy and, consequently, have an impact on vaccination coverage.
Topics: Child; Humans; Prevalence; Vaccination; Immunization; Databases, Factual; Fever
PubMed: 38477748
DOI: 10.1590/1983-1447.2024.20230097.en -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) is one of the most commonly occurring retinal vascular abnormalities. The most common cause of visual loss in people with BRVO is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) is one of the most commonly occurring retinal vascular abnormalities. The most common cause of visual loss in people with BRVO is macular oedema (MO). Grid or focal laser photocoagulation has been shown to reduce the risk of visual loss. Limitations to this treatment exist, however, and newer modalities may have equal or improved efficacy. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) has recently been used successfully to treat MO resulting from a variety of causes.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the efficacy and gather evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the potential harms of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents for the treatment of macular oedema (MO) secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2019, Issue 6); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the last search was 12 June 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating BRVO. Eligible trials had to have at least six months' follow-up where anti-VEGF treatment was compared with another treatment, no treatment, or placebo. We excluded trials where combination treatments (anti-VEGF plus other treatments) were used; and trials that investigated the dose and duration of treatment without a comparison group (other treatment/no treatment/sham).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted the data using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with an improvement from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity of greater than or equal to 15 letters (3 lines) on the Early Treatment in Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) Chart at six months and 12 months of follow-up. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of participants who lost greater than or equal to 15 ETDRS letters (3 lines) and the mean visual acuity (VA) change at six and 12 months, as well as the change in central retinal thickness (CRT) on optical coherence tomography from baseline at six and 12 months. We also collected data on adverse events and quality of life (QoL).
MAIN RESULTS
We found eight RCTs of 1631 participants that met the inclusion criteria after independent and duplicate review of the search results. These studies took place in Europe, North America, Eastern Mediterranean region and East Asia. Included participants were adults aged 18 or over with VA of 20/40 or worse. Studies varied by duration of disease but permitted previously treated eyes as long as there was sufficient treatment-free interval. All anti-VEGF agents (bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept) and steroids (triamcinolone and dexamethasone) were included. Overall, we judged the studies to be at moderate or unclear risk of bias. Four of the eight studies did not mask participants or outcome assessors, or both. One trial compared anti-VEGF to sham. At six months, eyes receiving anti-VEGF were significantly more likely to have a gain of 15 or more ETDRS letters (risk ratio (RR) 1.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 2.49; 283 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mean VA was better in the anti-VEGF group at six months compared with control (mean difference (MD) 7.50 letters, 95% CI 5.29 to 9.71; 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGF also proved more effective at reducing CRT at six months (MD -57.50 microns, 95% CI -108.63 to -6.37; 281 participants; lower CRT is better; moderate-certainty evidence). There was only very low-certainty evidence on adverse effects. There were no reports of endophthalmitis. Mean change in QoL (measured using the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire VFQ-25) was better in people treated with anti-VEGF compared with people treated with sham (MD 7.6 higher score, 95% CI 4.3 to 10.9; 281 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Three RCTs compared anti-VEGF with macular laser (total participants = 473). The proportion of eyes gaining 15 or more letters was greater in the anti-VEGF group at six months (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.05; 2 studies, 201 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mean VA in the anti-VEGF groups was better than the laser groups at six months (MD 9.63 letters, 95% CI 7.23 to 12.03; 3 studies, 473 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was a greater reduction in CRT in the anti-VEGF group compared with the laser group at six months (MD -147.47 microns, 95% CI -200.19 to -94.75; 2 studies, 201 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was only very low-certainty evidence on adverse events. There were no reports of endophthalmitis. QoL outcomes were not reported. Four studies compared anti-VEGF with intravitreal steroid (875 participants). The proportion of eyes gaining 15 or more ETDRS letters was greater in the anti-VEGF group at six months (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.10; 2 studies, 330 participants; high-certainty evidence) and 12 months (RR 1.76, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.28; 1 study, 307 participants; high-certainty evidence). Mean VA was better in the anti-VEGF group at six months (MD 8.22 letters, 95% CI 5.69 to 10.76; 2 studies, 330 participants; high-certainty evidence) and 12 months (MD 9.15 letters, 95% CI 6.32 to 11.97; 2 studies, 343 participants; high-certainty evidence). Mean CRT also showed a greater reduction in the anti-VEGF arm at 12 months compared with intravitreal steroid (MD -26.92 microns, 95% CI -65.88 to 12.04; 2 studies, 343 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). People receiving anti-VEGF showed a greater improvement in QoL at 12 months compared to those receiving steroid (MD 3.10, 95% CI 0.22 to 5.98; 1 study, 307 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence suggested increased risk of cataract and raised IOP with steroids. There was only very low-certainty evidence on APTC events. No cases of endophthalmitis were observed.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The available RCT evidence suggests that treatment of MO secondary to BRVO with anti-VEGF improves visual and anatomical outcomes at six and 12 months.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Bevacizumab; Humans; Intravitreal Injections; Laser Coagulation; Laser Therapy; Macular Edema; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ranibizumab; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Recombinant Fusion Proteins; Retinal Vein Occlusion; Salvage Therapy; Steroids; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 32633861
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009510.pub3 -
Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy Feb 2024This study provides an overview of the effectiveness and safety of PDT for the treatment of HPV-associated precancerous cervical conditions and contains recent findings...
Evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of photodynamic therapy in the treatment of precancerous diseases of the cervix (neoplasia) associated with the human papillomavirus: A systematic review.
This study provides an overview of the effectiveness and safety of PDT for the treatment of HPV-associated precancerous cervical conditions and contains recent findings from relevant research studies. A comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Central Library, and Google Scholar was conducted, including analytic epidemiological studies, and 11 papers were included. The narrative synthesis approach was used to summarize the results of the included studies. Studies were critically appraised using The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tool for assessing the risk of bias. The results of the study demonstrate that CRR for HPV remission ranges from 66.7 % to 92.73 %, whereas for CIN1 it fluctuates from 57.1 % to 83.3 %. The frequency of recurrence of the disease ranged from 3.3 % to 8.9 % during the follow-up period of up to 2 years. Adverse events were observed in 8 (66 %) studies and the most common were cervical stenosis, abdominal pain, vaginal pain, and focal edema. Five types of topical and intravenous applications along with lasers of various wavelengths and intensities were mostly used. However, all studies demonstrated relatively similar results. According to the results, PDT has demonstrated favorable outcomes, but no impressive effect on the treatment of CIN. It should be emphasized, that the effectiveness of PDT for the treatment of HPV-associated CIN may vary depending on some variables, including the kind of PDT agent used, the dosage, duration and frequency of PDT administration, the severity and location of the lesions, and the host immunological response.
Topics: Female; Humans; Cervix Uteri; Human Papillomavirus Viruses; Papillomavirus Infections; Photochemotherapy; Photosensitizing Agents; Precancerous Conditions; Uterine Cervical Dysplasia; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 38070631
DOI: 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2023.103925