-
BMJ Clinical Evidence May 2010Between 12% and 37% of people will die in the year after a hip fracture, and 10% to 20% of survivors will move into a more dependent residence. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Between 12% and 37% of people will die in the year after a hip fracture, and 10% to 20% of survivors will move into a more dependent residence.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of surgical interventions in people with hip fracture? What are the effects of perisurgical medical interventions on surgical outcome and prevention of complications in people with hip fracture? What are the effects of rehabilitation interventions and programmes after hip fracture? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 55 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: anaesthesia (general, regional); antibiotic regimens; arthroplasty; choice of implant for internal fixation; conservative treatment; co-ordinated multidisciplinary approaches for inpatient rehabilitation of older people; cyclical compression of the foot or calf; early supported discharge followed by home-based rehabilitation; extramedullary devices; fixation (external, internal); graduated elastic compression; intramedullary devices; mobilisation strategies; nerve blocks for pain control; nutritional supplementation (oral multinutrient feeds, nasogastric feeds); perioperative prophylaxis with antibiotics, with antiplatelet agents, or with heparin (low molecular weight or unfractionated); preoperative traction to the injured limb; and systematic multicomponent home-based rehabilitation.
Topics: Fracture Fixation, Internal; Hip Fractures; Humans; Inpatients; Physical Therapy Modalities
PubMed: 21726483
DOI: No ID Found -
The European Journal of Contraception &... Feb 2019A systematic review was carried out of studies of women with endometriosis, to examine the evidence for efficacy of the use of hormonal contraception to improve...
OBJECTIVE
A systematic review was carried out of studies of women with endometriosis, to examine the evidence for efficacy of the use of hormonal contraception to improve disease-related pain and decrease postoperative risk of disease recurrence.
METHODS
A search of the Medline/PubMed and Embase databases was performed to identify all published English language studies on hormonal contraceptive therapies (combined hormonal contraceptives [CHCs], combined oral contraceptives [COCs], progestin-only pills [POPs] and progestin-only contraceptives [POCs]) in women with a validated endometriosis diagnosis, in comparison with placebo, comparator therapies or other hormonal therapies. Main outcome measures were endometriosis-related pain (dysmenorrhoea, pelvic pain and dyspareunia), quality of life (QoL) and postoperative rate of disease recurrence during treatment.
RESULTS
CHC and POC treatments were associated with clinically significant reductions in dysmenorrhoea, often accompanied by reductions in non-cyclical pelvic pain and dyspareunia and an improvement in QoL. Only two COC preparations (ethinylestradiol [EE]/norethisterone acetate [NETA] and a flexible EE/drospirenone regimen) demonstrated significantly increased efficacy compared with placebo. Only three studies found that the postoperative use of COCs (EE/NETA, EE/desogestrel and EE/gestodene) reduced the risk of disease recurrence. There was no evidence that POCs reduced the risk of disease recurrence.
CONCLUSIONS
CHCs and POCs are effective for the relief of endometriosis-related dysmenorrhoea, pelvic pain and dyspareunia, and improve QoL. Some COCs decreased the risk of disease recurrence after conservative surgery, but POCs did not. There is insufficient evidence, however, to reach definitive conclusions about the overall superiority of any particular hormonal contraceptive.
Topics: Adult; Androstenes; Contraception; Contraceptives, Oral, Combined; Contraceptives, Oral, Hormonal; Desogestrel; Drug Combinations; Endometriosis; Ethinyl Estradiol; Female; Humans; Norethindrone; Pelvic Pain; Progestins; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30664383
DOI: 10.1080/13625187.2018.1550576 -
Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome Oct 2022Μany studies suggest the use of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) as an appropriate preventive measure for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) due to the increased... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Μany studies suggest the use of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) as an appropriate preventive measure for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) due to the increased possibility of an impaired wound healing and infections after surgical procedures in the oral cavity. Existing recommendations regarding antibiotic prophylaxis before surgical procedures are not definitive and are based on expert opinions. The purpose of this study was to review the available scientific data about the necessity of administrating AP as a preventive measure prior to oral surgical procedures.
METHOD
PubMed®, Scopus® και Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were used as databases to search for published research. All articles were initially identified and classified based on the title and subsequently on their abstract. For the next level the full scientific paper was read and evaluated.
RESULTS
Overall, 22 articles were included in the study, of which 2 were systematic reviews, 2 cohort studies, 2 case-control studies, 1 case series, 8 case reports and 7 professional association publications.
CONCLUSIONS
In the scientific literature, there is a wide range of recommendations and inconsistency regarding the need to administer AP prior to surgical dental operations in patients with DM, while there is no scientific evidence demonstrating its' effectiveness as a precautionary measure. Both blood glucose level measurements and recent HbA1c measurement should be evaluated before any dental procedure. Poor regulation may result to life-threatening infections after tooth extraction. AP is recommended prior to the placement of dental implant. Randomized, controlled, clinical trials with large number of participants and greater variety of surgical dental procedures are needed.
Topics: Humans; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Blood Glucose; Dental Implants; Glycated Hemoglobin; Oral Surgical Procedures; Diabetes Mellitus; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 36183455
DOI: 10.1016/j.dsx.2022.102621 -
International Journal of Oral and... Jan 2014The purpose of this study was to systematically review and perform a comprehensive meta-analysis of the current literature to answer the following question: among... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The purpose of this study was to systematically review and perform a comprehensive meta-analysis of the current literature to answer the following question: among patients receiving dental implants, does the use of antibiotics, when compared with a control group, reduce the frequency of implant failure and postoperative infection? A manual and electronic PubMed search of the literature was made to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy of antibiotics compared with a control group (not receiving antibiotics or receiving placebo). Four RCTs were included in the final review. These four RCTs grouped a total of 2063 implants and a total of 1002 patients. Antibiotic use significantly lowered the implant failure rate (P = 0.003), with an odds ratio of 0.331, implying that antibiotic treatment reduced the odds of failure by 66.9%. The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one patient from having an implant failure was 48 (95% confidence interval 31-109). In contrast, antibiotic use did not significantly reduce the incidence of postoperative infection (P = 0.754). Based on the results of this meta-analysis, and pending further research in the field, it can be concluded that there is evidence in favour of systematic antibiotic use in patients receiving dental implants, since such treatment significantly reduces implant failure. In contrast, antibiotic use does not exert a significant preventive effect against postoperative infection. Our recommendations for future research focus on the performance of large-scale RCTs to identify the best choice of antibiotic, timing of administration, and dose. Increased effort is also required to reach consensus and define the most effective antibiotic treatment protocol for patients who are allergic to beta-lactams and for those who are not.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Dental Implants; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 23809986
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2013.05.019 -
International Journal of Implant... Sep 2023This systematic review aimed to evaluate the incidence of microleakage events (IME) and to identify the potential factors influencing the sealing ability of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
This systematic review aimed to evaluate the incidence of microleakage events (IME) and to identify the potential factors influencing the sealing ability of the implant-abutment interface (IAI) under in vitro investigation.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic search of MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and Web of Science databases, combined with a manual literature search was conducted up to September 2022. In vitro studies that reported the degree of microleakage at IAI under dynamic loading conditions were included. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate the mean values of the incidence of microleakage events. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were conducted to further investigate the effect of different variables.
RESULTS
675 studies were identified following the search process and 17 in vitro studies were selected according to the eligibility criteria. The weighted mean incidence of microleakage events was 47% (95% confidence interval: [0.33, 0.60]), indicating that contamination was observed in nearly half of the samples. Concerning possible factors that may influence microleakage (e.g., loading condition, assessment method, implant-abutment connection design, types of abutment material, the use of sealing agents), loading condition (p = 0.016) was the only variable that significantly influenced IME in the meta-regression analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
The results demonstrated that dynamic loading significantly increases the potential of bacterial penetration at the implant-abutment junction. The results should be interpreted carefully due to the data heterogeneity and further well-conducted in vitro studies with homogeneous samples are needed to standardize the methodologies.
Topics: Dental Implants; Databases, Factual; Drug Contamination; Electronics; Eligibility Determination
PubMed: 37733145
DOI: 10.1186/s40729-023-00494-y -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Jun 2023To answer the following PICOS question: "In adult patients with peri-implantitis, what is the efficacy of surgical therapy with chemical surface decontamination of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To answer the following PICOS question: "In adult patients with peri-implantitis, what is the efficacy of surgical therapy with chemical surface decontamination of implant surfaces in comparison with surgical therapy alone or surgery with placebo decontamination, on probing pocket depth (PD) reduction and bleeding on probing (BoP)/suppuration on probing (SoP), in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs with at least 6 months of follow-up?"
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Six databases were searched from their inception up to 20 May 2022. Data on clinical outcome variables were pooled and analysed using mean differences (MDs), risk ratios (RRs), or risk differences (RDs) as appropriate, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and prediction intervals (PIs) in the case of significant heterogeneity. Primary outcomes were determined as changes in PD and BoP/SoP. Secondary outcomes were radiographic marginal bone loss (MBL), implant loss, and disease resolution. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022325603.
RESULTS
Six RCTs-two with moderate, three with high, and one with low risk of bias (RoB)-were included. These studies test the adjunctive effect of photodynamic therapy (PDT), chlorhexidine (CHX), and administration of local antibiotics (LAbs) during surgery on the clinical outcome. In a single 12-month study, the adjunctive use of local antibiotics showed a clinically relevant reduction of PD [MD = 1.44; 95%CI (0.40 to -2.48)] and MBL [MD = 1.21; 95%CI (0.44-1.98); one trial, 32 participants]. PDT showed a small but significant reduction in BoP [MD = 7.41%; 95%CI (0.81-14.00); p = 0.028; two trials; 42 participants]. Treatment with CHX resulted in no significant changes in PD, BoP, or MBL compared to placebo (saline solution). None of the interventions affected disease resolution and implant loss. Certainty of the evidence was very low for all outcome measures assessed.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this systematic review and the meta-analysis, adjunctive use of chemicals such as PDT, CHX, and LAbs for surface decontamination during surgery of peri-implantitis cannot be recommended as superior to standard debridement procedures (mechanical debridement with or without saline).
Topics: Adult; Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chlorhexidine; Decontamination; Dental Implants; Peri-Implantitis; Disinfection
PubMed: 36792071
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13794 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Aug 2015A woman has premenstrual syndrome (PMS) if she complains of recurrent psychological and/or physical symptoms occurring during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
A woman has premenstrual syndrome (PMS) if she complains of recurrent psychological and/or physical symptoms occurring during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle, and often resolving by the end of menstruation. Symptom severity can vary between women. Premenstrual symptoms occur in 95% of women of reproductive age. Severe, debilitating symptoms occur in about 5% of those women. There is no consensus on how symptom severity should be assessed for PMS, which has led to the use of a wide variety of symptom scores and scales, thus making it difficult to synthesise data on treatment efficacy. The cyclical nature of the condition also makes it difficult to conduct RCTs.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic overview, aiming to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of continuous hormonal treatments in women with premenstrual syndrome? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2014 (Clinical Evidence overviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this overview).
RESULTS
At this update, searching of electronic databases retrieved 132 studies. After deduplication and removal of conference abstracts, 132 records were screened for inclusion in the overview. Appraisal of titles and abstracts led to the exclusion of 102 studies and the further review of 30 full publications. Of the 30 full articles evaluated, one systematic review and three RCTs were added to this overview. We performed a GRADE evaluation for three PICO combinations.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic overview, we categorised the efficacy for three interventions based on information relating to the effectiveness and safety of continuous combined oral contraceptives, continuous transdermal estradiol, and continuous subcutaneous estradiol implants.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Contraceptives, Oral, Combined; Drug Implants; Estradiol; Female; Humans; Infusions, Subcutaneous; Premenstrual Syndrome
PubMed: 26303988
DOI: No ID Found -
Contraception May 2024To summarize and update information regarding drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between antiretrovirals (ARVs) and hormonal contraceptives (HCs). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To summarize and update information regarding drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between antiretrovirals (ARVs) and hormonal contraceptives (HCs).
DESIGN
Systematic review METHODS: We searched seven databases for peer-reviewed publications from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2023, including studies of women using ARVs and HCs concurrently with outcomes including therapeutic effectiveness or toxicity, pharmacokinetics (PK), or pharmacodynamics. We summarized findings and used checklists to assess evidence quality.
RESULTS
We included 49 articles, with clinical, ARV or HC PK outcomes reported by 39, 25, and 30 articles, respectively, with some articles reporting outcomes in two or more categories. Fifteen of 18 articles assessing DDIs between efavirenz and progestin implants, emergency contraception, or combined hormonal intravaginal rings found higher pregnancy rates, luteal progesterone levels suggesting ovulation, or reduced progestin PK values. Five studies documented that CYP2B6 single nucleotide polymorphisms exacerbated this DDI. One cohort detected doubled bone density loss with concomitant depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)-containing ART use versus TDF alone. No other studies described DDIs impacting clinical outcomes. Few adverse events were attributed to ARV-HC use with none exceeding Grade 2. Evidence quality was generally moderate, with dis-similar treatment and control groups, identifying and controlling for confounding, and minimizing attrition bias in the study design being the most frequent limitations.
CONCLUSION
Most ARVs and HCs may be used safely and effectively together. TDF-DMPA DDIs warrant longer-term study on bone health and consideration of alternate combinations. For efavirenz-based ART, client counselling on relative risks, including both potential increase in pregnancy rate with concomitant efavirenz and implant use and lower pregnancy rates compared to other HCs even with concomitant efavirenz use, should continue to allow users comprehensive method choice.
PubMed: 38762199
DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2024.110490 -
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive &... Nov 2023New concerns have been raised by the US Food and Drug Administration regarding breast implant capsule-associated squamous cell carcinoma (BICA-SCC) but very little is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
New concerns have been raised by the US Food and Drug Administration regarding breast implant capsule-associated squamous cell carcinoma (BICA-SCC) but very little is known about this emerging topic. To gain a better understanding of the disease, a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of patients with BICA-SCC were performed.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were searched from inception to 26th February 2023 for studies including patients with BICA-SCC. Individual patient data were extracted and pooled. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool.
RESULTS
A total of 16 studies reported 19 patients with BICA-SCC, commonly presented with swelling (84.2%), pain (73.7%), and erythema (21.1%). The median age at SCC diagnosis was 52.0 (interquartile range [IQR] 46.0-60.0) years. The median time from breast augmentation to SCC diagnosis was 20.0 (IQR 15.0-35.0) years. The majority of patients (68.4%) were found to have extracapsular spread at SCC diagnosis. All patients with breast implants in situ underwent implant removal with at least 60.0% of patients undergoing capsulectomy. The mean follow-up period was 17.6 months with 1-year overall survival of 80.8% and 1-year disease-free survival of 53.0%.
CONCLUSION
While rare, surgeons should counsel patients on the risks of malignancy including BICA-SCC before breast implantation and consider the possibility of BICA-SCC when treating patients with late-onset peri-implant changes. A centralized registry is needed to better understand and improve outcomes in patients with BICA-SCC.
Topics: Humans; Middle Aged; Female; Breast Implants; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Breast Neoplasms; Breast; Breast Implantation
PubMed: 37666057
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2023.08.002 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Oct 2007Between 12% and 37% of people will die in the year after a hip fracture, and 10-20% of survivors will move into a more dependent residence. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Between 12% and 37% of people will die in the year after a hip fracture, and 10-20% of survivors will move into a more dependent residence.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of surgical interventions in people with hip fracture? What are the effects of perisurgical medical interventions on surgical outcome and prevention of complications in people with hip fracture? What are the effects of rehabilitation interventions and programmes after hip fracture? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to January 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 52 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: anaesthesia (general, regional), antibiotic regimens, arthroplasty, choice of implant for internal fixation, conservative treatment, coordinated multidisciplinary approaches for inpatient rehabilitation of older people, cyclical compression of the foot or calf, early supported discharge followed by home-based rehabilitation, extramedullary devices, fixation (external, internal), graduated elastic compression, intramedullary devices, mobilisation strategies, nerve blocks for pain control, nutritional supplementation (oral multinutrient feeds, nasogastric feeds), perioperative prophylaxis with antibiotics, antiplatelet agents, or heparin (low molecular weight or unfractionated), preoperative traction to the injured limb, surgery, and systematic multicomponent home-based rehabilitation.
Topics: Gene Library; Hip Fractures; Pressure; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 19450358
DOI: No ID Found