-
Neurologia 2018Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common peripheral neuropathy. It is characterised by the compression of the median nerve in the carpal tunnel. CTS presents a...
BACKGROUND
Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common peripheral neuropathy. It is characterised by the compression of the median nerve in the carpal tunnel. CTS presents a high prevalence and it is a disabling condition from the earliest stages. Severe cases are usually treated surgically, while conservative treatment is recommended in mild to moderate cases. The aim of this systematic review is to present the conservative treatments and determine their effectiveness in mild-to-moderate cases of CTS over the last 15 years.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA criteria. We used the Medline, PEDro, and Cochrane databases to find and select randomised controlled clinical trials evaluating the effects of conservative treatment on the symptoms and functional ability of patients with mild to moderate CTS; 32 clinical trials were included. There is evidence supporting the effectiveness of oral drugs, although injections appear to be more effective. Splinting has been shown to be effective, and it is also associated with use of other non-pharmacological techniques. Assessments of the use of electrotherapy techniques alone have shown no conclusive results about their effectiveness. Other soft tissue techniques have also shown good results but evidence on this topic is limited. Various treatment combinations (drug and non-pharmacological treatments) have been proposed without conclusive results.
CONCLUSIONS
Several conservative treatments are able to relieve symptoms and improve functional ability of patients with mild-to-moderate CTS. These include splinting, oral drugs, injections, electrotherapy, specific manual techniques, and neural gliding exercises as well as different combinations of the above. We have been unable to describe the best technique or combination of techniques due to the limitations of the studies; therefore, further studies of better methodological quality are needed.
Topics: Carpal Tunnel Syndrome; Conservative Treatment; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27461181
DOI: 10.1016/j.nrl.2016.05.018 -
Journal of Dentistry Jul 2015A systematic review was conducted to determine whether the etch-and-rinse or self-etching mode is the best protocol for dentin and enamel adhesion by universal adhesives. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
A systematic review was conducted to determine whether the etch-and-rinse or self-etching mode is the best protocol for dentin and enamel adhesion by universal adhesives.
DATA
This report followed the PRISMA Statement. A total of 10 articles were included in the meta-analysis.
SOURCES
Two reviewers performed a literature search up to October 2014 in eight databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, BBO, SciELO, LILACS, IBECS and The Cochrane Library.
STUDY SELECTION
In vitro studies evaluating the bond strength of universal adhesives to dentin and/or enamel by the etch-and-rinse and self-etch strategies were eligible to be selected. Statistical analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). A global comparison was performed with random-effects models at a significance level of p<0.05.
RESULTS
The analysis of dentin micro-tensile bond strength showed no statistically significant difference between the etch-and-rinse and self-etch strategies for mild universal adhesives (p≥0.05). However, for the ultra-mild All-Bond Universal adhesive, the etch-and-rinse strategy was significantly different than the self-etch mode in terms of dentin micro-tensile bond strength, as well as in the global analysis of enamel micro-tensile and micro-shear bond strength (p≤0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
The enamel bond strength of universal adhesives is improved with prior phosphoric acid etching. However, this effect was not evident for dentin with the use of mild universal adhesives with the etch-and-rinse strategy.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Selective enamel etching prior to the application of a mild universal adhesive is an advisable strategy for optimizing bonding.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dentin; Dentin-Bonding Agents; Materials Testing; Methacrylates; Resin Cements; Surface Properties
PubMed: 25882585
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.04.003 -
Neural Regeneration Research Nov 2022Blood exosomes, which are extracellular vesicles secreted by living cells into the circulating blood, are regarded as a relatively noninvasive novel tool for monitoring... (Review)
Review
Blood exosomes, which are extracellular vesicles secreted by living cells into the circulating blood, are regarded as a relatively noninvasive novel tool for monitoring brain physiology and disease states. An increasing number of blood cargo-loaded exosomes are emerging as potential biomarkers for preclinical and clinical Alzheimer's disease. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review of molecular biomarkers derived from blood exosomes to comprehensively analyze their diagnostic performance in preclinical Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment, and Alzheimer's disease. We performed a literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library from their inception to August 15, 2020. The research subjects mainly included Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment, and preclinical Alzheimer's disease. We identified 34 observational studies, of which 15 were included in the quantitative analysis (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score 5.87 points) and 19 were used in the qualitative analysis. The meta-analysis results showed that core biomarkers including Aβ, P-T181-tau, P-S396-tau, and T-tau were increased in blood neuron-derived exosomes of preclinical Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment, and Alzheimer's disease patients. Molecules related to additional risk factors that are involved in neuroinflammation (C1q), metabolism disorder (P-S312-IRS-1), neurotrophic deficiency (HGF), vascular injury (VEGF-D), and autophagy-lysosomal system dysfunction (cathepsin D) were also increased. At the gene level, the differential expression of transcription-related factors (REST) and microRNAs (miR-132) also affects RNA splicing, transport, and translation. These pathological changes contribute to neural loss and synaptic dysfunction. The data confirm that the above-mentioned core molecules and additional risk-related factors in blood exosomes can serve as candidate biomarkers for preclinical and clinical Alzheimer's disease. These findings support further development of exosome biomarkers for a clinical blood test for Alzheimer's disease. This meta-analysis was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (Registration No. CRD4200173498, 28/04/2020).
PubMed: 35535875
DOI: 10.4103/1673-5374.335832 -
Human Reproduction Update Feb 2021Mild ovarian stimulation has emerged as an alternative to conventional IVF with the advantages of being more patient-friendly and less expensive. Inadequate data on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Mild ovarian stimulation has emerged as an alternative to conventional IVF with the advantages of being more patient-friendly and less expensive. Inadequate data on pregnancy outcomes and concerns about the cycle cancellation rate (CCR) have prevented mild, or low-dose, IVF from gaining wide acceptance.
OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE
To evaluate parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on IVF where comparisons were made between a mild (≤150 IU daily dose) and conventional stimulation in terms of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness in patients described as poor, normal and non-polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) hyper-responders to IVF.
SEARCH METHODS
Searches with no language restrictions were performed using Medline, Embase, Cochrane central, Pre-Medicine from January 1990 until April 2020, using pre-specified search terms. References of included studies were hand-searched as well as advance access articles to key journals. Only parallel-group RCTs that used ≤150 IU daily dose of gonadotrophin as mild-dose IVF (MD-IVF) and compared with a higher conventional dose (CD-IVF) were included. Studies were grouped under poor, normal or hyper-responders as described by the authors in their inclusion criteria. Women with PCOS were excluded in the hyper-responder group. The risk of bias was assessed as per Cochrane Handbook for the included studies. The quality of evidence (QoE) was assessed according to the GRADE system. PRISMA guidance was followed for review methodology.
OUTCOMES
A total of 31 RCTs were included in the analysis: 15 in the poor, 14 in the normal and 2 in the hyper-responder group. Live birth rates (LBRs) per randomisation were similar following use of MD-IVF in poor (relative risk (RR) 0.91 (CI 0.68, 1.22)), normal (RR 0.88 (CI 0.69, 1.12)) and hyper-responders (RR 0.98 (CI 0.79, 1.22)) when compared to CD-IVF. QoE was moderate. Cumulative LBRs (5 RCTs, n = 2037) also were similar in all three patient types (RR 0.96 (CI 0.86 1.07) (moderate QoE). Risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome was significantly less with MD-IVF than CD-IVF in both normal (RR 0.22 (CI 0.10, 0.50)) and hyper-responders (RR 0.47 (CI 0.31, 0.72)), with moderate QoE. The CCRs were comparable in poor (RR 1.33 (CI 0.96, 1.85)) and hyper-responders (RR 1.31 (CI 0.98, 1.77)) but increased with MD-IVF among normal responders (RR 2.08 (CI 1.38, 3.14)); all low to very low QoE. Although fewer oocytes were retrieved and fewer embryos created with MD-IVF, the proportion of high-grade embryos was similar in all three population types (low QoE). Compared to CD-IVF, MD-IVF was associated with less gonadotrophin use and lower cost.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS
This updated review provides reassurance on using MD-IVF not only for the LBR per cycle but also for the cumulative LBR, with moderate QoE. With risks identified with 'freeze-all' strategies, it may be time to recommend mild-dose ovarian stimulation for IVF for all categories of women i.e. hyper, poor and normal responders to IVF.
Topics: Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Live Birth; Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic
PubMed: 33146690
DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmaa035 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Jan 2022VISSER, K., M. Koggel, J. Blaauw, H.J.v.d. Horn, B. Jacobs, and J.v.d. Naalt. Blood based biomarkers of inflammation in mild traumatic brain injury: A systematic review.... (Review)
Review
VISSER, K., M. Koggel, J. Blaauw, H.J.v.d. Horn, B. Jacobs, and J.v.d. Naalt. Blood based biomarkers of inflammation in mild traumatic brain injury: A systematic review. NEUROSCI BIOBEHAV REV XX(X) XXX-XXX, 2021. - Inflammation is an important secondary physiological response to traumatic brain injury (TBI). Most of the current knowledge on this response is derived from research in moderate and severe TBI. In this systematic review we summarize the literature on clinical studies measuring blood based inflammatory markers following mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and identify the value of inflammatory markers as biomarkers. Twenty-three studies were included. This review suggests a distinct systemic inflammatory response following mTBI, quantifiable within 6 h up to 12 months post-injury. Interleukin-6 is the most promising biomarker for the clinical diagnosis of brain injury while interleukin-10 is a potential candidate for triaging CT scans. The diagnostic and prognostic utility of inflammatory markers may be more fully appreciated as a component of a panel of biomarkers. However, discrepancies in study design, analysis and reporting make it difficult to draw any definite conclusions. For the same reasons, a meta-analysis was not possible. We provide recommendations to follow standardized methodologies to allow for reproducibility of results in future studies.
Topics: Biomarkers; Brain Concussion; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Humans; Inflammation; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 34826510
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.11.036 -
The Saudi Dental Journal Feb 2022The aim of this systematic review was to address the clinical effectiveness of space maintainers and space regainers in the prevention and correction of dental arch... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The aim of this systematic review was to address the clinical effectiveness of space maintainers and space regainers in the prevention and correction of dental arch decreases in mixed dentition.
METHODS
An electronic search was conducted using five databases: the Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, EBSCO Host, ScienceDirect, PubMed, and Scopus (until February 2021) and 6 relevant journals. Inclusion criteria were: Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials (RCTs), Controlled Clinical Trials (CCTs), cohort studies and case-control studies of children in the mixed dentition requiring a space maintainer or a space regainer, children with mild to moderate crowding, and with Class I and mild Class II or Class III skeletal pattern. All articles included in this review were examined independently by three teams of investigators to assess the level of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tools RoB 2.0 (for RCTs) and ROBINS-I (for non-RCTs).
RESULTS
Following the three phases of a systematic search, 11 studies were included for the final analysis, of which nine used space maintainers (a lower lingual arch) and two used space regainers (one lip bumper and one transpalatal arch) with contradicting results. Four of the former and one of the latter devices showed a significant increase in arch length. Out of the 11 articles, one was found to be of critical risk, two of serious risk and eight of moderate risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
There is very low evidence to suggest that space maintainers and regainers are effective in preserving arch length and preventing mild to moderate crowding in children during the mixed dentition stage at the expense of lower incisor proclination. However, considering the low evidence provided by this systematic review, high-quality studies are needed.
PubMed: 35241896
DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2021.09.025 -
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience 2021Virtual reality (VR) intervention is an innovative and efficient rehabilitative tool for patients affected by stroke, Parkinson's disease, and other neurological...
Virtual reality (VR) intervention is an innovative and efficient rehabilitative tool for patients affected by stroke, Parkinson's disease, and other neurological disorders. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effects of VR intervention on cognition and motor function in older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia. Seven databases were systematically searched for relevant articles published from inception to April 2020. Randomized controlled trials examining VR intervention in adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia aged >60 years were included. The primary outcome of the study was cognitive function, including overall cognition, global cognition, attention, executive function, memory, and visuospatial ability. The secondary outcome was motor function, consisting of overall motor function, balance, and gait. A subgroup analysis was also performed based on study characteristics to identify the potential factors for heterogeneity. Eleven studies including 359 participants were included for final analysis. Primary analysis showed a significant moderate positive effect size (ES) of VR on overall cognition ( = 0.45; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.31-0.59; < 0.001), attention/execution ( = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.26-0.72; < 0.001), memory ( = 0.57; 95% CI = 0.29-0.85; < 0.001), and global cognition ( = 0.32; 95% CI = 0.06-0.58; = 0.02). Secondary analysis showed a significant small positive ES on overall motor function ( = 0.28; 95% CI = 0.05-0.51; = 0.018). The ES on balance ( = 0.43; 95% CI = 0.06-0.80; = 0.02) was significant and moderate. The ES on visuospatial ability and gait was not significant. In the subgroup analysis, heterogeneity was detected in type of immersion and population diagnosis. VR intervention is a beneficial non-pharmacological approach to improve cognitive and motor function in older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia, especially in attention/execution, memory, global cognition, and balance. VR intervention does not show superiority on visuospatial ability and gait performance.
PubMed: 34025384
DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2021.586999 -
International Psychogeriatrics Apr 2019ABSTRACTObjective:To compare the accuracy of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in tracking mild cognitive impairment...
Is the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) screening superior to the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in the detection of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's Disease (AD) in the elderly?
UNLABELLED
ABSTRACTObjective:To compare the accuracy of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in tracking mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's Disease (AD).
METHOD
A Systematic review of the PubMed, Bireme, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, and PsycInfo databases was conducted. Using inclusion and exclusion criteria and staring with 1,629 articles, 34 articles were selected. The quality of the selected research was evaluated through the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool (QUADAS-2).
RESULT
More than 80% of the articles showed MoCA to be superior to MMSE in discriminating between individuals with mild cognitive impairment and no cognitive impairment. The area under the curve varied from 0.71 to 0.99 for MoCA, and 0.43 to 0.94 for MMSE, when evaluating the ability to discriminate MCI in the cognitively healthy elderly individuals, and 0.87 to 0.99 and 0.67 to 0.99, respectively, when evaluating the detection of AD. The AUC mean value for MoCA was significantly larger compared to the MMSE in discriminating MCI from control [0.883 (CI 95% 0.855-0.912) vs MMSE 0.780 (CI 95% 0.740-0.820) p < 0.001].
CONCLUSION
The screening tool MoCA is superior to MMSE in the identification of MCI, and both tests were found to be accurate in the detection of AD.
Topics: Aged; Alzheimer Disease; Cognitive Dysfunction; Geriatric Assessment; Humans; Mass Screening; Mental Status and Dementia Tests
PubMed: 30426911
DOI: 10.1017/S1041610218001370 -
Neuro-Chirurgie May 2021Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and whiplash are two pathologies which appear in the follow-up of a cranio-cervical trauma. The objective of this study is to review... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and whiplash are two pathologies which appear in the follow-up of a cranio-cervical trauma. The objective of this study is to review their definitions, to discuss each entity.
METHODS
Whiplash and mTBI were defined. Then, a systematic literature review was carried out using the Pubmed database. Relevant studies after 1995 were selected, with 16 articles describing a link between whiplash and mTBI. 8 articles were analyzed after reading their abstracts.
RESULTS
Whiplash and mTBI have many similarities (symptoms, biomechanics, cognitive disorders, presence of diffuse axonal lesions on functional imaging) and some differences (in posture, more vestibular and balance disorders in whiplash). mTBIs result from linear accelerations between 60- 160g (gravity), studies on whiplash have shown that they can appear from 4.5g, which could explain biomechanically the frequent concomitant appearance. Cervical joint dysfunction can appear in persistent concussive syndrome, with upper cervical pain, less endurance of the cervical flexor muscles, and an increase in cervical stiffness leading to tension headache. This could explain neck pain in mTBI and headache in whiplash. An explanation to vestibular and cochlear disorders is given, and the two pathologies concomitantly could increase the symptoms.
CONCLUSION
To our knowledge, no studies define distinct boundaries between these two pathologies, which overlap on many points. An explanation is their concomitant onset, due to the biomechanics of the trauma and anatomical reasons. Larger-scale studies of rigorous scientific quality are needed to answer the question of the difference between whiplash and mTBI.
Topics: Biomechanical Phenomena; Brain Concussion; Humans; Whiplash Injuries
PubMed: 33529694
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuchi.2021.01.016 -
Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience 2017Assessment of therapies for the key consequences of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI)/concussion is required. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Assessment of therapies for the key consequences of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI)/concussion is required.
OBJECTIVE
Identify all RCTs of mTBI/concussion therapy, risks of bias, and therapies with significant positive results.
METHODS
17 electronic, 9 grey-literature databases searched without language/date restrictions; independent assessment of 1450 Abstracts/titles, 141 fulltext articles, 14 included RCTs.
RESULTS
Four RCTs used American Congress of Rehabilitation TBI definition, others used unique definitions. Risk of bias: 43% low risk randomization; 14% concealed assignments; 21% blinded participants/personnel; 57% blinded assessors; 64% low risk attrition; 100% no selective reporting. Eleven RCTs included only mTBI. Ten significant positive results: six cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), three videotape, pagers or personal digital assistants, and one physical therapy. One of referrals to health professionals no significant positive results. Three RCTs included both mTBI and moderate TBI. We wished to assess if authors proved using same interventions with both groups is appropriate. Two used CBT, one used pagers. All three RCTs significant positive results but results for their mild and moderate TBI patients were not separated. Two RCTs assessed return to work and no differences between intervention.
CONCLUSION
Of 14 RCTs, six CBT, four digital assistants or videotape feedback and one physical therapy all had significant positive results. One referred patients to consultants and no significant positive results. Two assessed return to employment and no differences between interventions. Limitations are: (1) only four RCTs used the same concussion definition; (2) average age 38 (except for one study of adolescents, (3) all studies used unique interventions; (4) most authors used multiple interventions and effects could not be separated; (5) substantial attrition from eligibles to randomization, (4) only 64% at low risk from randomization, (5) 80 different outcome measures and meta-analysis was not possible, (6) only two studies assessed return to work.
Topics: Brain Injuries; Databases, Factual; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29172011
DOI: 10.3233/RNN-170761