Efficacy and safety of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials: A PRISMA-compliant article

Background:To investigate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with heart failure, relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were analyzed.Methods:We used Cochrane Library, PubMed web of science, CNKI, VIP, Medline, ISI Web of Science, CBMdisc, and Wanfang database to conduct a systematic literature research. A fixed-effects model was used to evaluate the standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals. We conducted sensitivity analysis and analyzed publication bias to comprehensively estimate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with heart failure.Results:Among 132 retrieved studies, 5 relevant RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The result showed that left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was improved after sacubitril-valsartan in patients with heart failure, with an SMD (95% CI of 1.1 [1.01, 1.19] and P < .00001 fixed-effects model). Combined outcome indicators showed that, combined outcome indicators showed that, compared with control group, the left ventricular volume index (LAVI) (WMD = −2.18, 95% CI [−3.63, −0.74], P = .003), the E/e’ (WMD = −1.01, 95% CI [−1.89, −0.12], P = .03), the cardiovascular death (RR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.83, 0.96], P = .003], and the rehospitalization rate of heart failure (RR = 0.83, 95% CI [0.78, 0.88], P < .01) decreased more significantly, but it had no effect on renal function (WMD = 0.74, 95% CI [0.54, 1.01], P = .06).Conclusions:The present meta-analysis suggested that sacubitril-valsartan may improve the cardiac function of heart failure. Given the limited number of included studies, additional large sample-size RCTs are required to determine the long-term effect of cardiac function of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with heart failure.     

Effectiveness of tocilizumab in the treatment of hospitalized adults COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:Since December 2019, the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has spread worldwide, leading to a global health threat. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients.Methods:We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to March 10, 2021 for randomized controlled trials in which patients were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab plus usual care or usual care alone in hospitalized adults with COVID-19. A random-effects meta-analysis model was used to pool studies. All data analyses were performed using Review Manager version 5.4.Results:Eleven studies with 6579 patients were included in our meta-analysis, of which 3406 and 3173 were assigned to tocilizumab and control groups, respectively. Tocilizumab significantly reduced the 28 to 30-day mortality (relative risk [RR] = 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-0.99, P = .04), incidence of mechanical ventilation (MV) (RR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.89, P < .001), composite outcome of MV or death (RR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.90, P < .001), time-to-hospital discharge (hazard ratio = 1.30, 95% CI 1.16-1.45, P < .001), intensive care unit admission (RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.47-0.88, P = .006), serious infection (RR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.40-0.94, P = .02), and number of serious adverse events (RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.47-0.86, P = .004).Conclusion:Tocilizumab reduced short-term mortality, incidence of MV, composite outcome of death or MV, intensive care unit admission, serious infection, serious adverse events, and time-to-hospital discharge in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Further studies are required to determine the optimal dose.     

Corticosteroid therapy for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background:Corticosteroid treatment is an effective and common therapeutic strategy for various inflammatory lung pathologies and may be an effective treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature was to investigate the clinical outcomes associated with corticosteroid treatment of COVID-19.Methods:We systematically searched PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus databases through March 10, 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of corticosteroid therapies for COVID-19 treatment. Outcomes of interest were mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, serious adverse events (SAEs), and superinfection.Results:A total of 7737 patients from 8 RCTs were included in the quantitative meta-analysis, of which 2795 (36.1%) patients received corticosteroids plus standard of care (SOC) while 4942 (63.9%) patients received placebo and/or SOC alone. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in patients that received corticosteroids as compared to SOC (odds ratio [OR] = 0.85 [95% CI: 0.76; 0.95], P = .003). Corticosteroid treatment reduced the odds of a need for mechanical ventilation as compared to SOC (OR = 0.76 [95% CI: 0.59; 0.97], P = .030). There was no significant difference between the corticosteroid and SOC groups with regards to SAEs and superinfections.Conclusion:Corticosteroid treatment can reduce the odds for mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation in severe COVID-19 patients.     

The efficacy and safety of simple-needling for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea compared with ibuprofen: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:Needling and ibuprofen are often used clinically to treat primary dysmenorrhea (PD). However, the difference between the efficacy and safety of the treatment of PD is not clear. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of simple-needling for PD patients through a comparison with ibuprofen.Methods:A comprehensive search of 7 electronic databases and relevant medical journals, from the establishment of the publication to December 2020. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that met the inclusion criteria, and a meta-analysis was performed with the Review Manager version (RevMan version 5.3).Results:Twenty three RCTs were included. The meta-analysis reported that simple-needling groups had better than ibuprofen groups on cure rate (relative risk = 2.29, 95% CI [1.96, 2.68], P < .00001) and total effective rate (relative risk = 1.24, 95% CI [1.19, 1.29], P < .00001) and VAS score (MD = −1.24, 95% CI [−1.92, −0.55], P = .0004). Seven studies reported adverse events, of which 4 studies had mild adverse events.Conclusion:Simple-needling is superior to ibuprofen treatment in terms of clinical efficacy and improvement of pain symptoms. A small number of studies reported whether simple-needling produced adverse events, so there is not enough evidence to support the safety of simple-needling in the treatment of PD.PROSPERO registration number:CRD42021233403     

Efficacy and safety of acupuncture for urinary retention after hysterectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective:The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture in the treatment of urinary retention after hysterectomy in women.Methods:This research searched for 6 database documents, and the deadline is July 23, 2020. This study included a randomized controlled trial of women with urinary retention after hysterectomy. These randomized controlled trials compare acupuncture with bladder function training or other nonacupuncture treatments, and measure urodynamics, effectiveness (BR), and urinary tract infection rates (UIR). Four independent reviewers participated in data extraction and evaluation. Assess the risk of bias in each article, and conduct a meta-analysis according to the type of acupuncture. The result is expressed as a mean difference (MD) or relative risk (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).Results:The meta-analysis contains 12 studies. Most studies indicate low risk or unknown risk, but the GRADE scores of the combined results show low or moderate levels. After the combined analysis, we found that acupuncture versus bladder function exercise and other nonacupuncture therapies can significantly improve the values of post voided residual urine (PVR) (MD = −25.29; 95% CI [−30.45 to −20.73]), maximal cystometric capacity (MD = 39.54; 95% CI [10.30–68.78]), bladder capacity for first voiding desire (MD = −61.98; 95% CI [−90.69 to −33.26]) and maximal flow rate (MFR) (MD = 7.58; 95% CI [5.19–9.97]). And compared with the control group, acupuncture still has advantages in BR (RR = 1.36; 95% CI [1.18–1.56]) and UIR (RR = 0.22; 95% CI [0.08–0.82]). These heterogeneities have been resolved through subgroup analysis, and their main sources are related to different intervention times, the time to start the intervention, and different PVR requirements.Conclusions:There is insufficient evidence that acupuncture can increase the patient''s MFR, BR, and UIR. However, acupuncture can effectively improve the PVR, maximal cystometric capacity, and bladder capacity for first voiding desire values of patients with urinary retention after hysterectomy. Although limited due to the quality and methodological limitations of the included studies, acupuncture can still be used as an effective and safe treatment for women with urinary retention after hysterectomy.Registration:The research has been registered and approved on the PROSPERO website. The registration number is CRD42019119238.     

Analgesic comparison of dezocine plus propofol versus fentanyl plus propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: A meta-analysis

Introduction:As the adjunctive anesthesia to propofol, both dezocine and fentanyl showed some potential for gastrointestinal endoscopy. This meta-analysis aimed to compare their efficacy and safety.Methods:PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of dezocine versus fentanyl for the anesthesia of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were included.Results:Five RCTs involving 677 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with fentanyl plus propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy, dezocine plus propofol resulted in the reduction in propofol dose(mean difference [MD] = −11.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] = −22.83 to −0.61; P = .04), awakening time (std. MD = −1.79; 95% CI = −3.31 to −0.27; P = .02) and hypopnea (risk ratio [RR] = 0.16; 95% CI = 0.06–0.41; P = .0002), but had no remarkable effect on induction time (MD = 1.20; 95% CI = −0.98 to 3.39; P = .28), postoperative pain score (MD = −0.38; 95% CI = −1.00 to 0.24; P = .24), nausea or vomiting (RR = 0.45; 95% CI = 0.10–1.98; P = .29).Conclusion:Dezocine plus propofol may be better for the anesthesia of gastrointestinal endoscopy than fentanyl plus propofol.     

The comparison of ketamine with tramadol for postoperative pain relief on children following adenotonsillectomy or tonsillectomy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction:The comparison of ketamine with tramadol for pain control remains controversial in pediatric adenotonsillectomy or tonsillectomy. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the efficacy of ketamine vs tramadol for pain relief in children following adenotonsillectomy or tonsillectomy.Methods:We have searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through October 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of ketamine vs tramadol for pediatric adenotonsillectomy or tonsillectomy. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effects model.Results:Six RCTs are included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared to ketamine group for pediatric adenotonsillectomy or tonsillectomy, tramadol is associated with substantially lower CHEOPS at 1 h (SMD = 1.56; 95% CI = 0.20–2.92; P = .02; low quality) and longer first time of additional pain medication (SMD = −0.47; 95% CI = −0.74 to −0.19; P = .0008; low quality), but demonstrates no obvious effect on CHEOPS at 6 h (SMD = 0.51; 95% CI = −1.17 to 2.19; P = .55; low quality), sedation scale at 1 h (SMD = −0.80; 95% CI = −3.07 to 1.48; P = .49; low quality) or additional pain medication (RR = 1.31; 95% CI = 0.85–2.02; P = .23; moderate quality).Conclusions:Tramadol may be better to alleviate the postoperative pain after pediatric adenotonsillectomy or tonsillectomy.     

Therapeutic efficacy and safety of Kangfuxin in combination with rabeprazole in the treatment of peptic ulcer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:Kangfuxin (KFX), a well-known Chinese patent medicine which extracted from Periplaneta americana, is widely used as an adjuvant in the treatment of peptic ulcers (PUs) with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) such as rabeprazole, in China. However, no clear consensus has been reached on the efficacy for PU treatment.Methods:We searched in 7 electronic databases to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) completed before May 31, 2020 to explore the clinical efficiency of KFX plus rabeprazole in the treatment of PU. Risk ratio (RR) corresponding to 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated to estimate the outcomes. Publication bias was assessed by both Egger''s and Begg''s tests. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4 and Stata version 10.0.Results:Twenty-five RCTs, comprising 2555 PU patients, were included in this study. Meta-analysis showed that, when compared with rabeprazole-based treatment alone, KFX plus rabeprazole significantly improved the healing rate (RR = 1.34, 95% CI 1.25–1.44) and overall response rate of ulcers (RR = 1.16, 95% CI 1.13–1.20), alleviated the clinical symptoms of PU (RR = 1.14, 95% CI 1.08–1.21), and reduced the recurrence of PU (RR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.24–0.61) without an increase in the occurrence of adverse events (RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.66–1.28).Conclusion:Our study suggests that KFX combined with rabeprazole showed positive therapeutic effects and is safe for treating PU, which may provide more reliable evidence for the clinical use of KFX in the treatment of PU.     

Traditional herbal medicine combined with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a major health burden in many countries. This review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of traditional herbal medicine (THM) combined with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (PBCT) for the treatment of advanced NSCLC.Methods:From inception to April 2021, relevant studies were retrieved from 9 electronic databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing survival outcomes of THM + PBCT treatment with PBCT treatment in patients with advanced NSCLC were reviewed. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Overall survival, 1-year survival, progression-free survival or time to progression, tumor response rate, and adverse effects were analyzed.Results:Sixteen RCTs comprising 1445 patients were included. The meta-analysis indicated that THM + PBCT treatment, compared to PBCT alone, could improve overall survival (median survival ratio = 1.24, 95% confidence intervals [CI] [1.11, 1.39], P < .001), progression-free survival/time to progression (median survival ratio = 1.22, 95% CI [1.09, 1.37], P < .001), and the 1-year survival rate (risk ratio [RR] = 1.56, 95% CI [1.31, 1.86], P < .001). THM + PBCT also led to a higher tumor response rate (RR = 1.39, 95% CI [1.22, 1.59], P < .001) and lower incidence of thrombocytopenia (RR = 0.72, 95% CI [0.56, 0.92], P = .009) and nausea/vomiting (RR = 0.35, 95% CI [0.21, 0.57], P < .001), while there was no significant effect observed on leukopenia (RR = 0.68, 95% CI [0.34, 1.36], P = .27).Conclusion:THM, when used in combination with PBCT, might increase survival and the tumor response rate while decreasing the side effects caused by chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC. However, considering the limited methodological qualities of the included trials, more rigorous RCTs are needed.     

The effect of glucocorticoids on mortality in severe COVID-19 patients: Evidence from 13 studies involving 6612 cases

Background:Since the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there is an urgent need for effective therapies for patients with COVID-19. In this study, we aimed to assess the therapeutic efficacy of glucocorticoids in severe COVID-19.Methods:A systematic literature search was performed across PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (up to June 26, 2021). The literature investigated the outcomes of interest were mortality and invasive mechanical ventilation.Results:The search identified 13 studies with 6612 confirmed severe COVID-19 patients. Our meta-analysis found that using glucocorticoids could significantly decrease COVID-19 mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45–0.79, P < .001), relative to non-use of glucocorticoids. Meanwhile, using glucocorticoids also could significantly decrease the risk of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation for severe COVID-19 patients (HR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.58–0.83, P < .001). Compared with using dexamethasone (HR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.50–0.92, P = .012), methylprednisolone use had a better therapeutic effect for reducing the mortality of patients (HR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.19–0.64, P = .001).Conclusion:The result of this meta-analysis showed that using glucocorticoids could reduce mortality and risk of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation in severe COVID-19 patients.     

Use of traditional Chinese medicine as an adjunctive treatment for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:This review aims to evaluate the supportive effects of frequently used traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).Methods:Five databases were searched through July 7, 2020. Randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of TCM for use in the treatment of COVID-19 were included. Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) and modified Jadad score were used for the evaluation of the methodological quality of the included studies. Weighted mean difference, odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated for pooling out results. Data were extracted for conducting a meta-analysis using STATA version 12.0.Results:Eight studies with a total of 750 patients were included in this meta-analysis. All included trial groups involved treatment with TCM and Western medicine, while the control groups were treated only with Western medicine. The intervention therapy significantly improved the overall effective rate (n = 346, OR = 2.5, 95% CIs = 1.46–4.29), fever symptom disappearance rate (n = 436; OR = 3.6; 95% CIs = 2.13–6.08), fatigue symptom disappearance rate (n = 436; OR = 3.04; 95% CIs = 1.76–5.26), cough symptom disappearance rate (n = 436; OR = 2.91; 95% CIs = 1.36–6.19), and sputum production reduction (n = 436; OR = 5.51; 95% CIs = 1.94–15.64). Based on the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale assessment, 6 studies received a score of 4, and 1 study achieved a score of 5. One study was assessed using the modified Jadad score, achieving a score of 6.Conclusions:The integration of TCM with Western medicine has significantly improved the treatment for COVID-19 patients compared to Western medicine treatment alone. Combined therapy using TCM and Western medicine revealed the potential adjunctive role of TCM in treating COVID-19. However, high-quality clinical studies are still required to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of TCM in the treatment of COVID-19.     

The efficacy of dexmedetomidine for the prevention of catheter-related bladder discomfort: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:The effective therapy to reduce postoperative catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) remained unknown.Objective:We attempted to manage the systematic review and a meta-analysis to clarify the efficacy of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in potential prevention on CRBD.Methods:We performed the meta-analysis on randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and searched the databases from Web of Sciences, Embase and referred Cochrane Library published from October 2016 to September 2020. Data extraction was carefully conducted by 2 authors, respectively. Meta-analysis that was applied synthetically concerns the incidence and severity of CRBD and the treatment effect of DEX on CRBD.Results:We acquired 5 RCTs with interventions of DEX on CRBD. Meta-analysis showed DEX has significantly reduced the incidence and severity of CRBD compared with control at 0 hour (risk ratios [RR] = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.53–0.29, P < .01), 1 hour (RR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.34–0.57, P < .01), and 2 hours (RR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.32–0.58, P < .01) and 6 hours (RR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.29–0.63, P < .01). DEX was also associated with lower incidence of moderate to severe CRBD at 0, 1, and 6 hours after surgery. There were no significant differences in adverse events other than bradycardia, hypotension, and hypertension.Conclusion:The 5 RCTs showed great effectiveness in reducing the incidence and severity of the early and later postoperative CRBD. Meta-analysis showed that DEX interventions were useful in preventing the early and later postoperative CRBD without significant side effects.     

Low vision rehabilitation in improving the quality of life for patients with impaired vision: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 52 randomized clinical trials

Background & aim:Low vision rehabilitation optimizes the use of residual vision after severe vision loss, but also teaches skills to improve visual functioning in daily life. These skills promote independence and active participation in society. This meta-analysis was designed to evaluate the efficacy of low vision rehabilitation in improving the quality of life (QoL) in visually impaired adults.Methods:We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science up to January 1, 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared rehabilitation interventions with active or inactive controls were included. The standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated to compare outcomes. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed trial quality independently. All statistical analyses were performed using the standard statistical procedures of RevMan 5.2.Results:A total of 52 RCTs with 6,239 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to inactive comparators including waiting list or no care, low vision rehabilitation improved vision-related QoL, visual functioning (QoL: psychological aspect), and self-efficacy or self-esteem (QoL: psychological aspect), with pooled SMDs of −0.61 (95% CI −0.95 to −0.26; P = .0006), -1.14 (95% CI −1.69 to −0.59; P < .0001), and −0.84 (95% CI −1.47 to −0.22; P < .0001), respectively. Compared to active comparators, low vision rehabilitation improved vision-related QoL (SMD −0.26; 95% CI −0.46 to −0.06; P = .01) and activities of daily living (QoL: physical aspect) (SMD −0.39; 95% CI −0.67 to −0.12 P < .0001). However, no significant difference in health-related QoL and adaptation to vision loss (QoL: psychological aspect) was found between low vision rehabilitation and inactive comparators.Conclusions:This meta-analysis indicated that low vision rehabilitation interventions, particularly psychological therapies and methods of enhancing vision, may improve vision-related QoL and visual functioning in people with sight loss compared to usual care. Further studies should explore longer maintenance effects and the costs of several types of low vision rehabilitation. Studies characterizing the mechanisms of rehabilitation interventions in different settings, including low-income countries, are also required.     

Integrative treatment of herbal medicine with western medicine on coronary artery lesions in children with Kawasaki disease

Background:Kawasaki disease (KD) is a major cause of coronary artery lesions (CALs) in children. Approximately 10% to 20% of children treated with intravenous immunoglobulin are intravenous immunoglobulin-resistant. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of adding herbal medicine to conventional western medicines versus conventional western medicines alone for CALs in children with KD.Methods:This study searched 9 electronic databases until August 31, 2021. The inclusion criteria were the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the CALs in children with KD and compared integrative treatment with conventional western treatments. Two authors searched independently for RCTs, including eligible articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was conducted using Cochrane Collaboration''s Review Manager 5.4 software. The effect size was presented as the risk ratio (RR), and the fixed-effect models were used to pool the results.Results:The finally selected 12 studies included a total of 1030 KD patients. According to a meta-analysis, the integrative treatment showed better results than the conventional treatment in the CAL prevalence rate (RR = 2.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.49–2.71; P < .00001), CAL recovery rate (RR = 1.27; 95% CI, 1.05–1.54; P = .02), and total effective rate (RR = 1.17; 95% CI, 1.11–1.23; P < .00001). Only 2 studies referred to the safety of the treatment. The asymmetrical funnel plot of the CAL prevalence rate indicated the possibility of potential publication bias.Conclusions:This review found the integrative treatment to be more effective in reducing the CAL prevalence rate and increasing the CAL recovery rate and total effective rate in KD patients than conventional western treatment. However, additional well-designed RCTs will be needed further to compensate restrictions of insufficient trials on safety, methodological quality, and publication bias.     

Femoral nerve block versus fascia iliaca block for pain control in knee and hip arthroplasties: A meta-analysis

Background:This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficiency of fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) and femoral nerve block (FNB) for pain management in knee and hip surgeries.Methods:We searched four electronic databases (Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library database, Web of Science) from inception to January 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Two review authors independently extracted data for each included study. Primary outcomes were visual analogue scale at 12 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours, total morphine consumption, the length of hospital stay and the occurrence of nausea and vomiting. Standardized mean difference (SMD) or risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous outcomes and discontinuous outcomes respectively. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to assess risk of bias. Stata 12.0 was used for meta-analysis.Results:Finally, 7 RCTs involving 508 patients (FICB = 254, FNB = 254) were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with FNB group, FICB has no benefit for visual analogue scale at 12 hours (SMD = 0.02, 95% CI, −0.15 to 0.19; P = .820), 24 hours (SMD = −0.02, 95% CI, −0.22 to 0.18; P = .806), and 48 hours (SMD = −0.02, 95% CI, −0.22 to 0.19; P = .872). No significant differences were found regarding total morphine consumption (SMD = −0.07, 95% CI, −0.29 to 0.15; P = .533). What''s more, there was no significant difference between the length of hospital stay and the occurrence of nausea and vomiting (P > .05).Conclusion:FICB has equivalent pain control and morphine-sparing efficacy when compared with FNB. More high-quality RCTs are needed to identify the optimal drugs and volume of local infiltration protocols.     

Hydromorphone vs sufentanil in patient-controlled analgesia for postoperative pain management: A meta-analysis

Background:Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) is an effective method of postoperative pain, there have been many studies performed that have compared the efficacy of hydromorphone with continuous sufentanil. The purpose of this systematic review is to compare the efficacy and safety of hydromorphone and sufentanil.Methods:Seven databases were searched for controlled trials to compare the efficacy and safety of hydromorphone and sufentanil. After selecting the studies, extracting the data, and assessing study quality, the meta-analysis was performed on several of the studies with RevMan 5.3.Results:Thirteen studies comprised of 812 patients were found. The pain intensity of the hydromorphone group was significantly lower than that of the sufentanil group at 12 hours. With no statistical difference at 24 to 48 hours (MD₁₂ = −1.52, 95% CI [−2.13, −1.97], P <.05). The sedation intensity of the hydromorphone group at 12, 24, and 48 hours were lower than those of the sufentanil group, with no statistical difference (MD₁₂ = −0.03, 95% CI [−0.18, 0.12], P > .05; MD₂₄ = −0.20, 95% CI [−0.42, 0.03], P > .05; MD₄₈ = −0.03, 95% CI [−0.18, 0.11)], P > .05). The PCA requests in the hydromorphone group were less than that in the sufentanil group, and there was no significant difference (RR = −0.20, 95% CI [−1.93,1.53], P > .05). The incidence of adverse events in the hydromorphone group was less than that in the sufentanil group, and there was a statistical difference: (RR = 0.61, 95% CI [0.47,0.79], P < .05).Conclusion:Compared with sufentanil, PCA with hydromorphone was more effective in relieving pain and PCA requests 12, 24, and 48 hours after operation, and significantly reduced the incidence of adverse events, but it did not have an advantage in sedation intensity.     

Efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy compared with microscopic decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective:Systematic evaluation of the efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.Methods:We conducted a systematic literature search and compared the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) and microscopic decompression (MD) in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis from several databases.Results:Seven studies were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that the operation time of UBE was shorter than that of MD. [SMD = −0.443, 95% CI (−0.717, −0.169), P = .002]. Compared with MD, the patients’ back pain was slighter on the 1st day, 1–2 months and 6 months after UBE. During the long-term follow-up, there was no significant difference in back pain between MD and UBE [SMD = −0.519, 95% CI (−0.934, −0.104), P = .014]. There was no significant difference in lower limb visual analogue score (VAS) score between UBE decompression and MD [SMD = −0.105, 95% CI (−0.356, 0.146), P = .412]. The results of meta-analysis showed that the C-reactive protein (CRP) level of UBE was lower than that of MD [weighted mean difference = −1.437, 95% CI (−2.347, −0.527), P = .002]. There was no significant difference in other clinical effects between the 2 groups.Conclusion:The operation time of UBE was shorter than that of MD, and it was superior to micro decompression in early back VAS score, lower limb VAS score and early postoperative CRP level. There was no statistical difference between UBE and MD in other outcomes.     

Comparison between acupuncture and antidepressant therapy for the treatment of poststroke depression: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:In this paper, a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to compare the efficacies of acupuncture and antidepressant therapy for the treatment of poststroke depression (PSD).Methods:The research team searched RCTs published on PubMed; Medline; Cochrane library; Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI); Wanfang; Embase; Scopus, and Sinomed from their respective establishments to January 2019. We evaluated the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) scores, Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale (TESS) scores, National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores, and total clinical efficacy using fixed effects models.Results:Fourteen RCTs, representing a total of 1124 patients, were studied. Results showed that acupuncture was more effective in improving HAMD scores at 3 weeks after administration (mean difference [MD] = −1.17, 95%CI = −2.18 to −0.16), at 4 weeks (MD = −4.44, 95% CI = −5.64 to −3.23), at 6 weeks (MD = −1.02, 95% CI = −1.68 to −0.36), and at 8 weeks (MD = −4.33, 95% CI = −4.96 to −3.70). Similarly, acupuncture more dramatically decreased NIHSS scores (MD = −2.31, 95% CI = −2.53 to −2.09), and TESS scores (MD = −4.70, 95% CI = −4.93 to −4.48) than conventional Western medicinal therapy. Further, the total clinical efficacy in the acupuncture group was significantly higher than in the antidepressants group (risk ratio [RR] = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.08–1.21).Conclusions:The results of this study suggest that acupuncture not only can reduce the severity of PSD, but also has significant effects on decreasing the appearance of other adverse events.     

Comparative effectiveness of nonsurgical interventions in the treatment of patients with knee osteoarthritis: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background:To find out, based on the available recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs), if the nonsurgical interventions commonly used for knee osteoarthritis patients are valid and quantify their efficiency.Methods:The database of MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for RCTs evaluating nonsurgical treatment strategies on patients with mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis. A Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis was performed. The primary outcome was the mean change from baseline in the Western Ontario and McMaster university (WOMAC) total score at 12 months. Raw mean differences with 95% credibility intervals were calculated. Treatments were ranked by probabilities of each treatment to be the best.Results:Thirteen trials assessed 7 strategies with WOMAC at 12 months: injection of platelet rich plasma (PRP), corticosteroids, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), hyaluronic acid, ozone, administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with or without the association of physiotherapy. For treatment-specific effect size, a greater association with WOMAC decrease was found significantly for MSCs (mean difference, −28.0 [95% CrI, −32.9 to −22.4]) and PRP (mean difference, −19.9 [95% CrI, −24.1 to −15.8]). Rank probabilities among the treatments indicated that MSCs had a much higher probability (P = .91) of being the best treatment compared with other treatments, while PRP ranked as the second-best treatment (P = .89).Conclusion:In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, the outcomes of treatments using MSCs and PRP for the management of knee osteoarthritis were associated with long-term improvements in pain and function. More high quality RCTs would be needed to confirm the efficiency of MSCs and PRP for the treatment of patients with knee osteoarthritis.     

The analgesic efficacy of pregabalin for shoulder arthroscopy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction:The efficacy of pregabalin for pain management of shoulder arthroscopy remains controversial. We conduct this meta-analysis to explore the influence of pregabalin versus placebo on the postoperative pain intensity of shoulder arthroscopy.Methods:We have searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through November 2019 for randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of pregabalin versus placebo on pain control of shoulder arthroscopy. This meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model.Results:Three randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with control group for shoulder arthroscopy, pregabalin remarkably decreased pain scores at 0 to 1 hour (Std. MD = −0.57; 95% CI = −1.04 to −0.09; P = .02) and 12 hours (Std. MD = −0.37; 95% CI = −0.72 to −0.02; P = .04), as well as analgesic consumption (Std. MD = −1.84; 95% CI = −2.24 to −1.44; P < .00001), but showed no notable influence on pain scores at 24 hours (Std. MD = −0.54; 95% CI = −1.47 to 0.38; P = .25), nausea or vomiting (RR = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.53–1.33; P = .45), dizziness (RR = 1.14; 95% CI = 0.89–1.47; P = .30).Conclusions:Pregabalin may benefit to pain control after shoulder arthroscopy.