-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) due to opioid withdrawal may result in disruption of the mother-infant relationship, sleep-wake abnormalities, feeding difficulties,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) due to opioid withdrawal may result in disruption of the mother-infant relationship, sleep-wake abnormalities, feeding difficulties, weight loss, seizures and neurodevelopmental problems.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of using a sedative versus control (placebo, usual treatment or non-pharmacological treatment) for NAS due to withdrawal from opioids and determine which type of sedative is most effective and safe for NAS due to withdrawal from opioids.
SEARCH METHODS
We ran an updated search on 17 September 2020 in CENTRAL via CRS Web and MEDLINE via Ovid. We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included trials enrolling infants with NAS born to mothers with an opioid dependence with more than 80% follow-up and using randomised, quasi-randomised and cluster-randomised allocation to sedative or control.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and independently extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 trials (581 infants) with NAS secondary to maternal opioid use in pregnancy. There were multiple comparisons of different sedatives and regimens. There were limited data available for use in sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias. Phenobarbital versus supportive care: one study reported there may be little or no difference in treatment failure with phenobarbital and supportive care versus supportive care alone (risk ratio (RR) 2.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 7.94; 62 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No infant had a clinical seizure. The study did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. There may be an increase in days' hospitalisation and treatment from use of phenobarbital (hospitalisation: mean difference (MD) 20.80, 95% CI 13.64 to 27.96; treatment: MD 17.90, 95% CI 11.98 to 23.82; both 62 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Phenobarbital versus diazepam: there may be a reduction in treatment failure with phenobarbital versus diazepam (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.62; 139 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. One study reported there may be little or no difference in days' hospitalisation and treatment (hospitalisation: MD 3.89, 95% CI -1.20 to 8.98; 32 participants; treatment: MD 4.30, 95% CI -0.73 to 9.33; 31 participants; both low-certainty evidence). Phenobarbital versus chlorpromazine: there may be a reduction in treatment failure with phenobarbital versus chlorpromazine (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.92; 138 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), and no infant had a seizure. The studies did not report mortality and neurodevelopmental disability. One study reported there may be little or no difference in days' hospitalisation (MD 7.00, 95% CI -3.51 to 17.51; 87 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 0/100 infants had an adverse event. Phenobarbital and opioid versus opioid alone: one study reported no infants with treatment failure and no clinical seizures in either group (low-certainty evidence). The study did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. One study reported there may be a reduction in days' hospitalisation for infants treated with phenobarbital and opioid (MD -43.50, 95% CI -59.18 to -27.82; 20 participants; low-certainty evidence). Clonidine and opioid versus opioid alone: one study reported there may be little or no difference in treatment failure with clonidine and dilute tincture of opium (DTO) versus DTO alone (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.59; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All five infants with treatment failure were in the DTO group. There may be little or no difference in seizures (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.68; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All three infants with seizures were in the DTO group. There may be little or no difference in mortality after discharge (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.37 to 131.28; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All three deaths were in the clonidine and DTO group. The study did not report neurodevelopmental disability. There may be little or no difference in days' treatment (MD -4.00, 95% CI -8.33 to 0.33; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One adverse event occurred in the clonidine and DTO group. There may be little or no difference in rebound NAS after stopping treatment, although all seven cases were in the clonidine and DTO group. Clonidine and opioid versus phenobarbital and opioid: there may be little or no difference in treatment failure (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.98 to 5.25; 2 studies, 93 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One study reported one infant in the clonidine and morphine group had a seizure, and there were no infant mortalities. The studies did not report neurodevelopmental disability. There may be an increase in days' hospitalisation and days' treatment with clonidine and opioid versus phenobarbital and opioid(hospitalisation: MD 7.13, 95% CI 6.38 to 7.88; treatment: MD 7.57, 95% CI 3.97 to 11.17; both 2 studies, 91 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in adverse events (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 5.40; 2 studies, 93 participants; very low-certainty evidence). However, there was oversedation only in the phenobarbital and morphine group; and hypotension, rebound hypertension and rebound NAS only in the clonidine and morphine group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is very low-certainty evidence that phenobarbital increases duration of hospitalisation and treatment, but reduces days to regain birthweight and duration of supportive care each day compared to supportive care alone. There is low-certainty evidence that phenobarbital reduces treatment failure compared to diazepam and very low-certainty evidence that phenobarbital reduces treatment failure compared to chlorpromazine. There is low-certainty evidence of an increase in days' hospitalisation and days' treatment with clonidine and opioid compared to phenobarbital and opioid. There are insufficient data to determine the safety and incidence of adverse events for infants treated with combinations of opioids and sedatives including phenobarbital and clonidine.
Topics: Bias; Chlorpromazine; Clonidine; Diazepam; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infant, Newborn; Narcotics; Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome; Opioid-Related Disorders; Phenobarbital; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34002380
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002053.pub4 -
Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology 2022Traditional meta-analyses on the diagnostic accuracy of oral lesions have been conducted, but they were inherently limited to direct pairwise comparisons between a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Traditional meta-analyses on the diagnostic accuracy of oral lesions have been conducted, but they were inherently limited to direct pairwise comparisons between a single method and a single alternative, while multiple diagnostic options and the ranking thereof were methodologically not possible.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the diagnostic values of various methods in patients with oral potential malignant disease by performing a network meta-analysis.
METHODS
Two authors independently searched the databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and Google scholar) up to June 2020 for studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of various tools (autofluorescence, chemiluminescence, cytology, narrow band imaging, and toluidine blue) with visual examination or other tools. The outcomes of interest for this analysis were sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value and accuracy. Both a standard pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis were conducted.
RESULTS
Treatment networks consisting of six interventions were defined for the network meta-analysis. The results of traditional meta-analysis showed that, among six methods, narrow band imaging showed higher sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and accuracy compared to visual examination. The results of network meta-analysis showed that autofluorescence, chemiluminescence, and narrow band imaging had higher sensitivity compared with visual examination, and that chemiluminescence and narrow band imaging had higher negative predictive value compared with visual examination. However, autofluorescence and chemiluminescence had lower specificity compared with visual examination. There were no significant differences in positive predictive value and accuracy among the six interventions.
CONCLUSION
This study demonstrated that narrow banding imaging has superiority in terms of sensitivity and negative predictive value compared with the other five tested agents.
Topics: Humans; Sensitivity and Specificity; Early Detection of Cancer; Mouth Neoplasms; Tolonium Chloride; Narrow Band Imaging; Mouth Diseases
PubMed: 33642212
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2020.12.019 -
Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology 2022Early detection of potentially malignant oral cavity disorders is critical for a good prognosis, and it is unclear whether the use of chemiluminescence as an adjunctive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Early detection of potentially malignant oral cavity disorders is critical for a good prognosis, and it is unclear whether the use of chemiluminescence as an adjunctive diagnostic screening method improves diagnostic accuracy.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the accuracy of chemiluminescence for diagnosis of oral cancer and precancerous lesions.
METHODS
Sixteen prospective and retrospective studies from PubMed, Cochrane database, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar were reviewed. Oral mucosal disorder, as detected by chemiluminescence, was compared with oral mucosal disorder detected by toluidine blue or visual examination. True-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative rates were extracted for each study. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (ver. 2).
RESULTS
Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of the use of toluidine blue were 0.832 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.692-0.917), 0.429 (95% CI 0.217-0.672), 0.747 (95% CI 0.607-0.849), and 4.061 (95% CI 1.528-10.796; I=9.128%), respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was 0.743. Compared with toluidine blue, as used in 12 studies, chemiluminescence had a higher sensitivity (0.831 vs. 0.694); it had a lower specificity (0.415 vs. 0.734), negative predictive value (0.674 vs. 0.729), and DOR (3.891 vs. 7.705). Compared with clinical examination, as used in three studies, chemiluminescence had lower DOR (4.576 vs. 5.499) and area under the curve (0.818 vs. 0.91).
CONCLUSION
Although chemiluminescence itself has good sensitivity for diagnostic work-up of oral cancer and precancer, the diagnostic accuracy of chemiluminescence is comparable to or worse than toluidine blue and clinical examination. Diagnostic accuracy was therefore insufficient for reliable use of chemiluminescence alone.
Topics: Early Detection of Cancer; Humans; Luminescence; Mouth Diseases; Mouth Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Sensitivity and Specificity; Tolonium Chloride
PubMed: 32847738
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2020.06.011 -
Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer... May 2020Either blue dye (BD) or radioisotope (RI) is mainly used for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in breast cancer patients. Unlike the BD, RI has lower false-negative rate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Versus Blue Dye or Radioisotope Regarding Detection Rate of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy and Nodes Removed in Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
Either blue dye (BD) or radioisotope (RI) is mainly used for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in breast cancer patients. Unlike the BD, RI has lower false-negative rate of SLNB. However, its lymphoscintigraphy, difficulty in preoperative injection, and undetected sentinel lymph nodes in some cases cause surgeons to rely only on BD. Currently, indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence method (ICG-SLNB) is increasingly used as an alternative to the conventional mapping methods in many centers. This systematic review compared ICG with the conventional method of BD or RI in terms of detection rate of SLNB and the number of sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) removed in.
METHODS
We searched all relevant studies published between January 2000 and October 2019. All data on for evaluation of SLN detection rate, number of SLNs removed per patient, and tumor positive rate of SLNB were extracted.
RESULTS
A total of 30 studies, including 4,216 SLN procedures were retrieved. There was a statistically significant difference between ICG and BD method in terms of SLN detection rate (OR, 6.73; 95% CI, 4.20-10.78). However, there was no significant difference between ICG and RI in this regard (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.40-2.03). The number of SLNs removed per patient were 2.35 (1.46-5.4), 1.92 (1.0-3.64), and 1.72 (1.35-2.08) for ICG, BD, and RI, respectively. Only in 8 studies, the tumor positive rates in SLNB could be analyzed (ICG, 8.5-20.7%; BD, 12.7-21.4%; RI, 11.3-16%).
CONCLUSION
ICG-SLNB could be an additional or an alternative method for axillary node mapping in breast cancer.
.Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Coloring Agents; Female; Fluorescence; Humans; Indocyanine Green; Methylene Blue; Prognosis; Radiopharmaceuticals; Sentinel Lymph Node
PubMed: 32458621
DOI: 10.31557/APJCP.2020.21.5.1187 -
Pediatric Critical Care Medicine : a... Jun 2020Shock refractory to fluid and catecholamine therapy has significant morbidity and mortality in children. The use of methylene blue to treat refractory shock in children...
OBJECTIVES
Shock refractory to fluid and catecholamine therapy has significant morbidity and mortality in children. The use of methylene blue to treat refractory shock in children is not well described. We aim to collect and summarize the literature and define physicians' practice patterns regarding the use of methylene blue to treat shock in children.
DESIGN
We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane for studies involving the use of methylene blue for catecholamine-refractory shock from database inception to 2019. Collected studies were analyzed qualitatively. To describe practice patterns of methylene blue use, we electronically distributed a survey to U.S.-based pediatric critical care physicians. We assessed physician knowledge and experience with methylene blue. Survey responses were quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated.
SETTING
Pediatric critical and cardiac care units.
PATIENTS OR SUBJECTS
Patients less than or equal to 25 years old with refractory shock treated with methylene blue.
INTERVENTIONS
None.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS
One-thousand two-hundred ninety-three abstracts met search criteria, 139 articles underwent full-text review, and 24 studies were included. Studies investigated refractory shock induced by a variety of etiologies and found that methylene blue was generally safe and increased mean arterial blood pressure. There is overall lack of studies, low number of study patients, and low quality of studies identified. Our survey had a 22.5% response rate, representing 125 institutions. Similar proportions of physicians reported using (40%) or never even considering (43%) methylene blue for shock. The most common reasons for not using methylene blue were unfamiliarity with this drug, its proper dosing, and lack of evidentiary support.
CONCLUSIONS
Methylene blue appears safe and may benefit children with refractory shock. There is a stark divide in familiarity and practice patterns regarding its use among physicians. Studies to formally assess safety and efficacy of methylene blue in treating pediatric shock are warranted.
Topics: Adult; Catecholamines; Child; Humans; Methylene Blue; Shock; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 32453920
DOI: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000002295 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Delirium is a syndrome characterised by an acute disturbance of attention and awareness which develops over a short time period and fluctuates in severity over the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Delirium is a syndrome characterised by an acute disturbance of attention and awareness which develops over a short time period and fluctuates in severity over the course of the day. It is commonly experienced during inpatient admission in the terminal phase of illness. It can cause symptoms such as agitation and hallucinations and is distressing for terminally ill people, their families and staff. Delirium may arise from any number of causes and treatment should aim to address these causes. When this is not possible, or treatment is unsuccessful, drug therapy to manage the symptoms may become necessary. This is the second update of the review first published in 2004.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of drug therapies to manage delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO from inception to July 2019, reference lists of retrieved papers, and online trial registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of drug therapies in any dose by any route, compared to another drug therapy, a non-pharmacological approach, placebo, standard care or wait-list control, for the management of delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults (18 years or older).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently screened citations, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were delirium symptoms; agitation score; adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: use of rescue medication; cognitive status; survival. We applied the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome and we include eight 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four studies (three new to this update), with 399 participants. Most participants had advanced cancer or advanced AIDS, and mild- to moderate-severity delirium. Meta-analysis was not possible because no two studies examined the same comparison. Each study was at high risk of bias for at least one criterion. Most evidence was low to very low quality, downgraded due to very serious study limitations, imprecision or because there were so few data. Most studies reported delirium symptoms; two reported agitation scores; three reported adverse events with data on extrapyramidal effects; and none reported serious adverse events. 1. Haloperidol versus placebo There may be little to no difference between placebo and haloperidol in delirium symptoms within 24 hours (mean difference (MD) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.07 to 0.75; 133 participants). Haloperidol may slightly worsen delirium symptoms compared with placebo at 48 hours (MD 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.88; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Haloperidol may reduce agitation slightly compared with placebo between 24 and 48 hours (MD -0.14, 95% -0.28 to -0.00; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Haloperidol probably increases extrapyramidal adverse effects compared with placebo (MD 0.79, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.41; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). 2. Haloperidol versus risperidone There may be little to no difference in delirium symptoms with haloperidol compared with risperidone within 24 hours (MD -0.42, 95% CI -0.90 to 0.06; 126 participants) or 48 hours (MD -0.36, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.20; 106 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Agitation scores and adverse events were not reported for this comparison. 3. Haloperidol versus olanzapine We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with olanzapine within 24 hours (MD 2.36, 95% CI -0.75 to 5.47; 28 participants) or 48 hours (MD 1.90, 95% CI -1.50 to 5.30, 24 participants). Agitation scores and adverse events were not reported for this comparison. 4. Risperidone versus placebo Risperidone may slightly worsen delirium symptoms compared with placebo within 24 hours (MD 0.76, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.22; 129 participants); and at 48 hours (MD 0.85, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.38; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). There may be little to no difference in agitation with risperidone compared with placebo between 24 and 48 hours (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.09; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Risperidone may increase extrapyramidal adverse effects compared with placebo (MD 0.73 95% CI 0.09 to 1.37; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). 5. Lorazepam plus haloperidol versus placebo plus haloperidol We are uncertain whether lorazepam plus haloperidol compared with placebo plus haloperidol improves delirium symptoms within 24 hours (MD 2.10, 95% CI -1.00 to 5.20; 50 participants with moderate to severe delirium), reduces agitation within 24 hours (MD 1.90, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.80; 52 participants), or increases adverse events (RR 0.70, 95% CI -0.19 to 2.63; 31 participants with moderate to severe delirium). 6. Haloperidol versus chlorpromazine We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with chlorpromazine at 48 hours (MD 0.37, 95% CI -4.58 to 5.32; 24 participants). Agitation scores were not reported. We are uncertain whether haloperidol increases adverse events compared with chlorpromazine (MD 0.46, 95% CI -4.22 to 5.14; 24 participants). 7. Haloperidol versus lorazepam We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with lorazepam at 48 hours (MD -4.88, 95% CI -9.70 to 0.06; 17 participants). Agitation scores were not reported. We are uncertain whether haloperidol increases adverse events compared with lorazepam (MD -6.66, 95% CI -14.85 to 1.53; 17 participants). 8. Lorazepam versus chlorpromazine We are uncertain whether lorazepam reduces delirium symptoms compared with chlorpromazine at 48 hours (MD 5.25, 95% CI 0.38 to 10.12; 19 participants), or increases adverse events (MD 7.12, 95% CI 1.08 to 15.32; 18 participants). Agitation scores were not reported.
SECONDARY OUTCOMES
use of rescue medication, cognitive impairment, survival There were insufficient data to draw conclusions or assess GRADE.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of drug therapy for delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults. We found low-quality evidence that risperidone or haloperidol may slightly worsen delirium symptoms of mild to moderate severity for terminally ill people compared with placebo. We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that haloperidol and risperidone may slightly increase extrapyramidal adverse events for people with mild- to moderate-severity delirium. Given the small number of studies and participants on which current evidence is based, further research is essential.
Topics: Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Chlorpromazine; Delirium; Haloperidol; Humans; Lorazepam; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Terminally Ill
PubMed: 31960954
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004770.pub3 -
International Journal of Molecular... Jul 2019The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature followed by a meta-analysis about the efficacy of photodynamic therapy (PDT) on the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature followed by a meta-analysis about the efficacy of photodynamic therapy (PDT) on the microorganisms responsible for dental caries. The research question and the keywords were constructed according to the PICO strategy. The article search was done in Embase, Lilacs, Scielo, Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Science Direct, and Pubmed databases. Randomized clinical trials and in vitro studies were selected in the review. The study was conducted according the PRISMA guideline for systematic review. A total of 34 articles were included in the qualitative analysis and four articles were divided into two subgroups to perform the meta-analysis. Few studies have achieved an effective microbial reduction in microorganisms associated with the pathogenesis of dental caries. The results highlight that there is no consensus about the study protocols for PDT against cariogenic microorganisms, although the results showed the PDT could be a good alternative for the treatment of dental caries.
Topics: Bacteroidaceae Infections; Biofilms; Candida; Candidiasis; Curcumin; Dental Caries; Humans; Methylene Blue; Photochemotherapy; Photosensitizing Agents; Porphyromonas gingivalis; Rosaniline Dyes; Streptococcal Infections; Streptococcus; Tolonium Chloride; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31340425
DOI: 10.3390/ijms20143585