-
BMJ Clinical Evidence May 2015Seborrhoeic dermatitis affects a variable proportion of the general population, ranging from 3% to 10%. Malassezia yeast species (previously referred to as Pityrosporum)... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Seborrhoeic dermatitis affects a variable proportion of the general population, ranging from 3% to 10%. Malassezia yeast species (previously referred to as Pityrosporum) are thought to be the responsible organisms, and cause inflammation by still poorly defined mechanisms. Seborrhoeic dermatitis tends to relapse after treatment.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of topical treatments for seborrhoeic dermatitis of the scalp in adults? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to November 2013 (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 14 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: bifonazole, ciclopirox, ketoconazole, pyrithione zinc, selenium sulfide, tar shampoo, terbinafine, and topical corticosteroids (betamethasone valerate, clobetasol propionate, clobetasone butyrate, hydrocortisone, mometasone furoate).
Topics: Administration, Topical; Dermatitis, Seborrheic; Humans
PubMed: 26016669
DOI: No ID Found -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Jun 2014Opioids can increase sensitivity to noxious stimuli and cause opioid-induced hyperalgesia. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the clinical consequences of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Opioids can increase sensitivity to noxious stimuli and cause opioid-induced hyperalgesia. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the clinical consequences of intra-operative doses of opioid.
METHODS
We identified randomized controlled trials which compared intra-operative opioid to lower doses or placebo in adult patients undergoing surgery from MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILAC, Cochrane, and hand searches of trial registries. We pooled data of postoperative pain intensity, morphine consumption, incidence of opioid-related side-effects, primary and secondary hyperalgesia. For dichotomous outcomes relative risks [95% confidence intervals (CIs)] and for continuous outcomes mean differences (MDs) or standardized mean difference (SMD; 95% CI) were calculated.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven studies involving 1494 patients were included in the analysis. Patients treated with high intra-operative doses of opioid reported higher postoperative pain intensity than the reference groups (MD: 9.4 cm; 95% CI: 4.4, 14.5) at 1 h, (MD: 7.1 cm; 95% CI: 2.8, 11.3) at 4 h, and (MD: 3 cm; 95% CI: 0.4, 5.6) at 24 h on a 100 cm visual analogue scale. They also showed higher postoperative morphine use after 24 h (SMD: 0.7; 95% CI: 0.37, 1.02). There was no difference in the incidences of nausea, vomiting, and drowsiness. These results were mainly associated with the use of remifentanil. The impact of other opioids is less clear because of limited data.
DISCUSSION
This review suggests that high intra-operative doses of remifentanil are associated with small but significant increases in acute pain after surgery.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Hyperalgesia; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Piperidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remifentanil
PubMed: 24829420
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aeu137 -
Anaesthesia Jun 2019Intra-operative remifentanil is associated with increased postoperative analgesic requirements and opioid consumption. Dexmedetomidine has characteristics suggesting it... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Intra-operative remifentanil is associated with increased postoperative analgesic requirements and opioid consumption. Dexmedetomidine has characteristics suggesting it may substitute for intra-operative remifentanil during general anaesthesia, but existing literature has reported conflicting results. We undertook this meta-analysis to investigate whether general anaesthesia including dexmedetomidine would result in less postoperative pain than general anaesthesia including remifentanil. The MEDLINE and PubMed electronic databases were searched up to October 2018. Only randomised trials including patients receiving general anaesthesia and comparing dexmedetomidine with remifentanil administration were included. Meta-analyses were performed mostly employing a random effects model. The primary outcome was pain score at rest (visual analogue scale, 0-10) at two postoperative hours. The secondary outcomes included: pain score at rest at 24 postoperative hours; opioid consumption at 2 and 24 postoperative hours; and rates of hypotension, bradycardia, shivering and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Twenty-one randomised trials, including 1309 patients, were identified. Pain scores at rest at two postoperative hours were lower in the dexmedetomidine group, with a mean difference (95%CI) of -0.7 (-1.2 to -0.2), I = 85%, p = 0.004, and a moderate quality of evidence. Secondary pain outcomes were also significantly better in the dexmedetomidine group. Rates of hypotension, shivering and postoperative nausea and vomiting were at least twice as frequent in patients who received remifentanil. Time to analgesia request was longer, and use of postoperative morphine and rescue analgesia were less, with dexmedetomidine, whereas episodes of bradycardia were similar between groups. There is moderate evidence that intra-operative dexmedetomidine during general anaesthesia improves pain outcomes during the first 24 postoperative hours, when compared with remifentanil, with fewer side effects.
Topics: Analgesia; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthesia, General; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Intraoperative Care; Pain, Postoperative; Remifentanil
PubMed: 30950522
DOI: 10.1111/anae.14657 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2020Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a relatively common chronic T cell-mediated disease, which can cause significant pain, particularly in its erosive or ulcerative forms. As... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a relatively common chronic T cell-mediated disease, which can cause significant pain, particularly in its erosive or ulcerative forms. As pain is the indication for treatment of OLP, pain resolution is the primary outcome for this review. This review is an update of a version last published in 2011, but focuses on the evidence for corticosteroid treatment only. A second review considering non-corticosteroid treatments is in progress.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects and safety of corticosteroids, in any formulation, for treating people with symptoms of oral lichen planus.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases to 25 February 2019: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, CENTRAL (2019, Issue 1), MEDLINE Ovid, and Embase Ovid. ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. There were no restrictions on language or date of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of any local or systemic corticosteroid treatment compared with a placebo, a calcineurin inhibitor, another corticosteroid, any other local or systemic (or both) drug, or the same corticosteroid plus an adjunctive treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently scanned the titles and abstracts of all reports identified, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool and extracted data from included studies. For dichotomous outcomes, we expressed the estimates of effects of an intervention as risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For continuous outcomes, we used mean differences (MD) and 95% CI. The statistical unit of analysis was the participant. We conducted meta-analyses only with studies of similar comparisons reporting the same outcome measures. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 35 studies (1474 participants) in this review. We assessed seven studies at low risk of bias overall, 11 at unclear and the remaining 17 studies at high risk of bias. We present results for our main outcomes, pain and clinical resolution measured at the end of the treatment course (between one week and six months), and adverse effects. The limited evidence available for comparisons between different corticosteroids, and corticosteroids versus alternative or adjunctive treatments is presented in the full review. Corticosteroids versus placebo Three studies evaluated the effectiveness and safety of topical corticosteroids in an adhesive base compared to placebo. We were able to combine two studies in meta-analyses, one evaluating clobetasol propionate and the other flucinonide. We found low-certainty evidence that pain may be more likely to be resolved when using a topical corticosteroid rather than a placebo (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.36; 2 studies, 72 participants; I² = 0%). The results for clinical effect of treatment and adverse effects were inconclusive (clinical resolution: RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.76 to 47.58; 2 studies, 72 participants; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence; adverse effects RR 1.48, 95% 0.48 to 4.56; 3 studies, 88 participants, I² = 0%, very low-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids versus calcineurin inhibitors Three studies compared topical clobetasol propionate versus topical tacrolimus. We found very low-certainty evidence regarding any difference between tacrolimus and clobetasol for the outcomes pain resolution (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.88; 2 studies, 100 participants; I² = 80%), clinical resolution (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.99; 2 studies, 52 participants; I² = 95%) and adverse effects (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.83; 2 studies, 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence) . One study (39 participants) compared topical clobetasol and ciclosporin, and provided only very low-certainty evidence regarding the rate of clinical resolution with clobetasol (RR 3.16, 95% CI 1.00 to 9.93), pain resolution (RR 2.11, 95% CI 0.76 to 5.86) and adverse effects (RR 6.32, 95% CI 0.84 to 47.69). Two studies (60 participants) that compared triamcinolone and tacrolimus found uncertain evidence regarding the rate of clinical resolution (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.35; very low-certainty evidence) and that there may be a lower rate of adverse effects in the triamcinolone group (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.99; low-certainty evidence). These studies did not report on pain resolution.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Corticosteroids have been first line for the treatment of OLP. This review found that these drugs, delivered topically as adhesive gels or similar preparations, may be more effective than placebo for reducing the pain of symptomatic OLP; however, with the small number of studies and participants, our confidence in the reliability of this finding is low. The results for clinical response were inconclusive, and we are uncertain about adverse effects. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that calcineurin inhibitors, specifically tacrolimus, may be more effective at resolving pain than corticosteroids, although there is some uncertainty about adverse effects and clinical response to tacrolimus showed conflicting results.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Calcineurin Inhibitors; Clobetasol; Cyclosporine; Humans; Lichen Planus, Oral; Oral Health; Pain Management; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tacrolimus
PubMed: 32108333
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001168.pub3 -
Current Clinical Pharmacology 2019Opioid analgesics are commonly used along with propofol during general anesthesia. Due to the dearth of data on the quality of anesthesia achieved with this combination,... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparison of Fentanyl, Remifentanil, Sufentanil and Alfentanil in Combination with Propofol for General Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
BACKGROUND
Opioid analgesics are commonly used along with propofol during general anesthesia. Due to the dearth of data on the quality of anesthesia achieved with this combination, the present meta-analysis was carried out.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched for appropriate studies using a suitable search strategy. Randomized clinical trials comparing the combination of remifentanil/sufentanil/alfentanil with propofol with fentanyl and propofol, were included. The outcome measures were as follows: total propofol dose to achieve the desired general anesthesia; time of onset and duration of general anesthesia; depth of general anesthesia; and recovery time (time for eye-opening and time taken for extubation). Risk of bias was assessed and Forest plots were generated for eligible outcomes. The weighted mean difference [95% confidence intervals] was used as the effect estimate.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies were included in the systematic review and 13 were included in the metaanalysis. Statistically significant differences were observed for remifentanil in comparison to fentanyl when combined with propofol: Propofol dose (in mg) -76.18 [-94.72, -57.64]; time of onset of anesthesia (min) -0.44 [-0.74, -0.15]; time taken for eye-opening (min) -3.95 [-4.8, -3.1]; and time for extubation (min) -3.53 [-4.37, -2.7]. No significant differences were observed for either sufentanil or alfentanil about the dose of propofol required and due to scanty data, pooling of the data could not be attempted for other outcome measures for either sufentanil or alfentanil.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, we found that remifentanil has a statistically significant anesthetic profile than fentanyl when combined with propofol. Scanty evidence for both alfentanil and sufentanil precludes any such confirmation.
Topics: Alfentanil; Anesthesia, General; Anesthesia, Intravenous; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Fentanyl; Humans; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remifentanil; Sufentanil
PubMed: 30868958
DOI: 10.2174/1567201816666190313160438 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Dec 2010Seborrhoeic dermatitis affects at least 10% of the population. Malassezia (Pityrosporum) ovale is thought to be the causative organism, and causes inflammation by still... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Seborrhoeic dermatitis affects at least 10% of the population. Malassezia (Pityrosporum) ovale is thought to be the causative organism, and causes inflammation by still poorly defined mechanisms. Seborrhoeic dermatitis tends to relapse after treatment.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of topical treatments for seborrhoeic dermatitis of the scalp in adults? What are the effects of topical treatments for seborrhoeic dermatitis of the face and body in adults? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2010 (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 12 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: bifonazole, emollients, ketoconazole, lithium succinate, selenium sulphide, tar shampoo, terbinafine, and topical corticosteroids (betamethasone valerate, clobetasol propionate, clobetasone butyrate, hydrocortisone, mometasone furoate).
Topics: Antifungal Agents; Betamethasone Valerate; Dermatitis, Seborrheic; Emollients; Hair Preparations; Humans; Hydrocortisone; Severity of Illness Index; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 21418692
DOI: No ID Found -
Nutrients Oct 2020The prevalence of type 2 diabetes is on the increase worldwide, and it represents about 90% of adults who are diagnosed with diabetes. Overweight and obesity, lifestyle,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The prevalence of type 2 diabetes is on the increase worldwide, and it represents about 90% of adults who are diagnosed with diabetes. Overweight and obesity, lifestyle, genetic predisposition and gut microbiota dysbiosis have been implicated as possible risk factors in the development of type 2 diabetes. In particular, low intake of dietary fibre and consumption of foods high in fat and sugar, which are common in western lifestyle, have been reported to contribute to the depletion of specific bacterial taxa. Therefore, it is possible that intake of high dietary fibre may alter the environment in the gut and provide the needed substrate for microbial bloom.
AIM
The current review is a systematic review and meta-analysis which evaluated the role of dietary fibre in modulating gut microbiota dysbiosis in patients with type 2 diabetes.
METHODS
This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials which relied on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework. Electronic searches were conducted using EBSCOHost with links to Health Sciences Research Databases, EMBASE and Google Scholar. The reference lists of articles were also searched for relevant studies. Searches were conducted from date of commencement of the database to 5 August 2020. The search strategy was based on the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Studies (PICOS) framework and involved the use of synonyms and medical subject headings (MesH). Search terms were combined with Boolean operators (OR/AND).
RESULTS
Nine studies which met the inclusion criteria were selected for the systematic review and meta-analysis, and four distinct areas were identified: the effect of dietary fibre on gut microbiota; the role of dietary fibre on short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs); glycaemic control; and adverse events. There was significant difference ( < 0.01) in the relative abundance of Bifidobacterium with a mean difference of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.56, 0.89) between the dietary fibre group compared with placebo. In relation to the meta-analysis for SCFAs, while there was significant difference ( = 0.02) between the dietary fibre group and placebo with a standardised mean difference of 0.5 (95% CI, 0.08, 0.91) regarding total SCFAs, the differences were not significant ( > 0.05) in relation to acetic acid, propionic acid and butyric acid. There was only significant improvement ( = 0.002) with respect to glycated haemoglobin with a mean difference of -0.18 (95% CI, -0.29, -0.06) between the dietary fibre group and placebo group. Differences between the two groups were not significant ( > 0.05) in relation to fasting blood glucose and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). Furthermore, there were no significant differences between the two groups in subjects who reported adverse events. It is possible that the promotion of SCFA producers in greater diversity and abundance by dietary fibre in this review led to improvement in glycated haemoglobin, partly due to increased glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) production. In addition, Bifidobacterium lactis has been reported to increase glycogen synthesis, decrease expression of hepatic gluconeogenesis genes, improve translocation of glucose transport-4 and promote glucose uptake. It is also possible that the reduction in body weight of participants in the intervention group compared with control may have contributed to the observed improvement in glycated haemoglobin.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis have demonstrated that dietary fibre can significantly improve ( < 0.05) the relative abundance of Bifidobacterium, total SCFAs and glycated haemoglobin. However, dietary fibre did not appear to have significant effect ( > 0.05) on fasting blood glucose, HOMA-IR, acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid and adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Dietary Fiber; Dysbiosis; Fatty Acids, Volatile; Female; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Glucagon-Like Peptide 1; Glycated Hemoglobin; Glycemic Control; Humans; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33113929
DOI: 10.3390/nu12113239 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jul 2007Seborrhoeic dermatitis affects at least 1-3% of the population. Malassezia (Pityrosporum) ovale is thought to be the causative organism, and causes inflammation... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Seborrhoeic dermatitis affects at least 1-3% of the population. Malassezia (Pityrosporum) ovale is thought to be the causative organism, and causes inflammation involving T cells and complement. Seborrhoeic dermatitis tends to relapse after treatment.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of topical treatments for seborrhoeic dermatitis of the scalp in adults? What are the effects of topical treatments for seborrhoeic dermatitis of the face and body in adults? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to February 2006 (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 nine 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: bifonazole, emollients, ketoconazole, lithium succinate, selenium sulphide, tar shampoo, terbinafine, and topical steroids (betamethasone valerate, clobetasol propionate, clobetasone butyrate, hydrocortisone, mometasone furate).
Topics: Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Dermatitis, Seborrheic; Face; Humans; Ketoconazole; Lithium; Malassezia; Remission Induction; Scalp Dermatoses
PubMed: 19454093
DOI: No ID Found -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Apr 2024There is insufficient systematized evidence on the effectiveness of individual intranasal medications in allergic rhinitis (AR).
BACKGROUND
There is insufficient systematized evidence on the effectiveness of individual intranasal medications in allergic rhinitis (AR).
OBJECTIVES
We sought to perform a systematic review to compare the efficacy of individual intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines against placebo in improving the nasal and ocular symptoms and the rhinoconjunctivitis-related quality of life of patients with perennial or seasonal AR.
METHODS
The investigators searched 4 electronic bibliographic databases and 3 clinical trials databases for randomized controlled trials (1) assessing adult patients with seasonal or perennial AR and (2) comparing the use of intranasal corticosteroids or antihistamines versus placebo. Assessed outcomes included the Total Nasal Symptom Score, the Total Ocular Symptom Score, and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. The investigators performed random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences for each medication and outcome. The investigators assessed evidence certainty using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.
RESULTS
This review included 151 primary studies, most of which assessed patients with seasonal AR and displayed unclear or high risk of bias. Both in perennial and seasonal AR, most assessed treatments were more effective than placebo. In seasonal AR, azelastine-fluticasone, fluticasone furoate, and fluticasone propionate were the medications with the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements in the Total Nasal Symptom Score and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Azelastine-fluticasone displayed the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements of Total Ocular Symptom Score. Overall, evidence certainty was considered "high" in 6 of 46 analyses, "moderate" in 23 of 46 analyses, and "low"/"very low" in 17 of 46 analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
Most intranasal medications are effective in improving rhinitis symptoms and quality of life. However, there are relevant differences in the associated evidence certainty.
PubMed: 38685482
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2024.04.016 -
Respiratory Medicine Nov 2022This network meta-analysis (NMA) compared fixed-dose, twice daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/Sal) vs. inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and other ICS/long-acting... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This network meta-analysis (NMA) compared fixed-dose, twice daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/Sal) vs. inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and other ICS/long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) treatments, including when administered using maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) regimens, in terms of improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The relationship between changes in asthma control and HRQoL was assessed.
METHODS
Articles published between 2001 and 2021, reporting change from baseline (CFB) in Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma, were identified by a systematic review. Random effects Bayesian NMAs derived estimates of the mean difference in CFB in AQLQ vs. other interventions connected to the network (included 15 studies). Sensitivity analyses explored the impacts of differences in follow-up duration, baseline asthma control, the inclusion of observational studies, adjusting for baseline FEV, and low-medium ICS dose arms only. Linear regression analysis compared CFBs in AQLQ and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score.
RESULTS
Mean CFB in AQLQ with FP/Sal vs. comparators demonstrated expected ranked effects: mean difference 0.65 [95% credible interval: 0.54, 0.78] versus placebo, 0.58 [ 0.33, 0.84] versus LABA, 0.21 [ 0.13, 0.31] versus ICS alone, 0.06 [-0.04, 0.19] versus other ICS/LABA, and 0.00 [-0.13, 0.14] versus ICS/formoterol MART. Sensitivity analyses largely showed consistent results. Improvements in AQLQ and ACQ were strongly correlated (R = 0.94).
CONCLUSIONS
This NMA demonstrates that HRQoL is responsive to treatment, is strongly related to asthma control and that it can be well-managed in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma using regular treatment with inhaled FP/Sal.
Topics: Humans; Fluticasone-Salmeterol Drug Combination; Quality of Life; Bronchodilator Agents; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Administration, Inhalation; Asthma; Formoterol Fumarate; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Fluticasone; Drug Combinations
PubMed: 36257125
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2022.106993