Effectiveness and safety of acupuncture combined with traditional Chinese medicine in the treatment of chronic prostatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective:Chronic prostatitis (CP) is a common disease in the outpatient department of males and urology. Clinical studies have found that acupuncture combined with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has achieved good results in treating CP, but its efficacy and safety are not completely clear. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture combined with TCM in the treatment of CP.Methods:Randomized controlled trials of acupuncture combined with TCM in treating CP were screened by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, etc. The retrieval time was from the database establishment date to March 31, 2021. The Cochrane Collaborative Risk Bias Assessment tool was used to evaluate literature''s methodological quality of the literature. The RevMan5.4 software was used for the meta-analysis of outcome indicators. The TSA v0.9 software was used for sequential trial analysis (TSA) of effectiveness.Results:In this study, 19 related randomized controlled trial studies were included, with a total of 1831 cases. The results of the meta-analysis showed that acupuncture combined with TCM could significantly improve the clinical efficacy of CP (OR = 3.76, 95%CI: 2.82 to 5.02, P < .00001), reduce the total score of The National Institutes of Health chronic prostatitis symptom index (MD = −4.00, 95%CI: −4.67 to 3.33, P < .00001), and improve patients’ urination symptoms (MD = −1.10, 95%CI: −1.23 to −0.97, P < .00001), alleviated the pain symptoms of patients (MD = −2.38, 95%CI: −2.41 to −2.35, P < .00001), improved the quality of life of patients (MD = −1.69, 95%CI: −1.97 to −1.41, P < .00001), decreased the scores of TCM symptoms of patients (MD = −2.39, 95%CI: −3.45 to −1.33, P < .00001), and did not increase the adverse reactions of patients (MD = 1.09, 95%CI: 0.57 to 2.06, P = .8). The results of publication bias showed that this study was not affected by publication bias, and the conclusion was reliable. TSA showed that acupuncture combined with TCM was effective in treating CP.Conclusion:Acupuncture combined with TCM is safe and effective for alleviating CP. It can be used as an effective treatment for chronic prostatitis in the clinic.Registration number: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/Z8FJM.     

Pooled-analysis of efficacy and safety of minimally invasive versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Background:This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with renal and upper ureteric stones.Methods:We conducted a pooled analysis on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The eligible RCTs were selected from the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The reference lists of retrieved studies were also investigated.Results:Our analysis included 10 RCTs with 1612 patients. Pooled data from 10 RCTs revealed the following: stone-free rate (odds ratio = 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.12,1.88], P = .004), operative time (mean difference [MD]  = 4.10, 95% CI [–1.37,9.56], P = .14), length of hospital stay (MD = –15.31, 95% CI [–29.43,–1.19], P = .03), hemoglobin decrease (MD = –0.86, 95% CI [–1.19,–0.53], P < .00001), postoperative fever (MD = 0.83, 95% CI [0.49,1.40], P = .49), and urine leakage (MD = 0.59, 95% CI [0.25,1.37], P = .22). Besides, we performed sub-group analysis based on vacuum suction effect and multiple kidney stones. For vacuum suction effect, it revealed the following: stone-free rate in vacuum suction group (P = .007) and in non-vacuum suction group (P = .19). Operative time in vacuum suction group (P = .89), non-vacuum suction group (P = .16). Postoperative fever in vacuum suction group (P = .49), non-vacuum suction group (P = .85).Conclusion:This pooled analysis indicated that MPCNL was a safe and effective method for treating renal stones compared with standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Besides, the vacuum suction effect in MPCNL played a more important role. When it comes to multiple or staghorn stones, the longer operative time in MPCNL could not be ignored.     

Effect of probiotics on the nutritional status of severe stroke patients with nasal feeding that receive enteral nutrition: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background:Malnutrition is commonly observed after stroke and is closely associated with poor clinical outcomes. So, early nutrition support is particularly crucial for severe stroke patients. However, a significant number of critically ill patients are intolerant to enteral nutrition (EN). Probiotics have been widely used in malnutrition by various diseases and have a low incidence of enteral intolerance. So, we aim to elucidate the efficacy of probiotics in EN in improving the nutritional status and clinical prognosis of severe stroke patients with nasal feeding.Method:Embase, PubMed, Sinomed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang database, and Vip Journal Integration Platform were searched from inception to March 31, 2021. Randomized controlled trials that applied probiotics in patients with severe stroke were included. The data were extracted and the risk of bias was assessed independently by 2 evaluators.Results:Twenty-four studies comprising 2003 participants of randomized controlled trials were included. The result of pooled analyses showed that probiotics in EN were associated with better outcomes than EN alone on Glasgow Coma Scale score (mean difference [MD] = 1.03, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.78–1.27; P < .00001), infection events (odds ratio [OR] = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.15–0.43; P < .00001), rate of intestinal flora dysbiosis (OR = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.12–0.48; P < .0001), gastrointestinal complications (OR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.16–0.37, P < .00001), time to reach target nutrition (MD = −1.80, 95% CI: −2.42 to 1.18, P < .00001), prealbumin content (MD = 25.83, 95% CI: 13.68–37.99, P < .0001).Conclusion:Our results demonstrated that probiotics supplementation might be an effective intervention for improving the clinical prognosis in severe stroke patients with nasal feeding, but no significant effect on increasing muscle circumference.     

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.     

Clinical effectiveness of arthroscopic vs open ankle arthrodesis for advanced ankle arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:Ankle fusion is the primary treatment for advanced ankle arthritis. With the advancement of arthroscopy technology, ankle arthroscopy fusion has shown many advantages over traditional surgery. However, there are few related studies globally, and evidence-based medicine is needed to verify the reliability and feasibility of ankle arthroscopy fusion.Objective:To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis and open ankle arthrodesis.Methods:We searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure [CNKI], Wanfang Database, and VIP Database for published prospective or retrospective controlled studies of arthroscopic-assisted ankle fusion in the treatment of advanced ankle arthritis. The dates were limited from the construction of the library to June 30, 2019. Literature was included based on the principles and methods of evidence-based medicine. Literature retrieval, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed by 2 independent reviewers using the Cochrane 5.1 risk bias assessment tool. The methodological bias of the literature was evaluated, and a meta-analysis was using by RevMan 5.3 software.Results:A total of 18 studies and 1102 patients were included in the study, including 551 in the arthroscopic surgery group and 551 in the open surgery group. Arthroscopy-assisted surgery for advanced ankle arthritis was more effective than open surgery in terms of fusion rate (odd ratio[OR] = 3.32, 95% confidence interval[CI]:2.16, 5.10), fusion time (mean difference[MD] = −2.31, 95% CI:−4.63, −2.21), intraoperative blood loss (MD = −43.37, 95%CI: −48.49, −38.25), hospital stay (MD = −1.80, 95%CI: −2.28, −1.33), and visual analog scale score (MD = −1.75, 95%CI: −2.04, −1.46). In addition, rate of complications (OR = 0.33, 95%CI: 0.21, 0.52) was superior to open ankle fusion (P < .00001).Conclusion:Arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis has more advantages than open ankle arthrodesis in improving the fusion rate and reducing complications, which is worthy of clinical application.PROSPERO registration number:CRD42020195727.     

Ranibizumab and conbercept for treating wet age-related macular degeneration in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:This study aimed to evaluate the therapeutic effects of ranibizumab and conbercept on wet age-related macular degeneration.Methods:Randomized controlled trials comparing ranibizumab and conbercept in the treatment of wet age-related macular degeneration were searched in the PubMed, Medline, EMbase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang databases, and Weipu Journal. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the methodological quality. Data analysis was performed using Rev Man 5.3 software for statistical analysis.Results:A total of 16 randomized controlled trials, including 1018 patients, were included, and the results showed that the effect of ranibizumab on uncorrected visual acuity was not significantly different from that of conbercept (Mean difference [MD] = -.03, 95% Confidence interval [CI] [-.10-.05], P = .47), and there was no significant difference between the two drugs in the effect on best-corrected visual acuity (MD = .00, 95% CI [-.02-.03], P = .73). The effect of conbercept on intraocular pressure was better than that of ranibizumab (MD = 1.61, 95% CI [1.05-2.17], P < .001). The effect of ranibizumab on central macular thickness was not significantly different from that of conbercept (MD = 1.31, 95% CI [-3.81-6.43], P = .62). Conbercept had a better inhibitory effect on choroidal neovascularization than ranibizumab (MD = .49, 95% CI [.32-.76], P = .001).Conclusion:The effects of ranibizumab on uncorrected visual acuity, best corrected visual acuity, and central macular thickness were not significantly different from those of conbercept. Conbercept is associated with a lower risk of increased intraocular pressure and regression of choroidal neovascularization compared with ranibizumab.     

LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy versus the procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background:LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy and the procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids (PPH) are both relatively new treatments for managing symptomatic hemorrhoids. This review aimed to evaluate and compare their short-term outcomes.Methods:We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database for randomized controlled trials comparing the LigaSure procedure and PPH published in any language from 1998 to October 2013.Results:A total of 5 studies involving 397 participants were included in this review. Pooled analysis showed that the LigaSure procedure was associated with significantly lower recurrence rate [relative risk (RR) = 0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.06 to 0.72, P = .01] and significantly shorter operating time [mean difference (MD) = −6.39, 95% CI: −7.68 to −5.10, P < .001]. The analysis showed no significant difference in postoperative pain between the two techniques (MD = 0.55, 95% CI: −0.15 to 1.25, P = .12] or in time off work or away from normal activity [standard MD = 0.13, 95% CI: −1.80 to 2.06, P = .9]. The two techniques did not show significant differences in postoperative complications or other patient-related outcomes (P > .05).Conclusions:Our review indicates that both LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy and PPH are safe alternatives for the management of hemorrhoids. Available evidence suggests that the LigaSure technique is associated with shorter operating time and lower hemorrhoid recurrence rate, but these conclusions should be further confirmed in large, multicenter randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up.     

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.     

Programmed intermittent epidural bolus in parturients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) in parturientsMethods:The PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (from inception to July 2021) were searched for identification of randomized placebo-controlled trials in which PIEB was applied in parturients. The outcomes were the effect of analgesia, satisfaction score, mode of delivery, duration of labor, neonatal condition, and adverse events. The pooled odds ratios (OR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random- and fixed-effects models.Results:PIEB was found to be associated with decreased total consumption of ropivacaine (WMD = −15.83, 95% CI: −19.06 to −12.60, P < .00001; I² = 61%; P for heterogeneity = .04), total consumption of sufentanil (WMD = −4.93, 95% CI: −6.87 to 2.98, P < .00001; I² = 68%; P for heterogeneity = .05), numbers of patients who require patient-controlled epidural analgesia bolus (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.14–0.51, P < .0001; I² = 65%; P for heterogeneity = .01), the number of attempts (WMD = −4.12, 95% CI: −7.21 to −1.04, P = .009; I² = 100%; P for heterogeneity < .00001), rate of breakthrough pain (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.28–0.80, P = .005; I² = 47%; P for heterogeneity = .09). Eight studies focus on the duration of analgesia. After by meta-analysis, we found that the pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score at 30 minutes, 2 hours, 4 hours, and 5 hours in PIEB group was significantly lower when compared with control group, (WMD = −0.15, 95% CI: −0.26 to −0.04, P = .006; I² = 0%; P for heterogeneity = .64), (WMD = −0.79, 95% CI: −1.32 to 0.25, P = .004; I² = 97%; P for heterogeneity < .00001), (WMD = −1.00, 95% CI: −1.08 to −0.91, P < .00001; I² = 0%; P for heterogeneity = .67), (WMD = −1.81, 95% CI: −3.23 to −0.39, P = .01; I² = 98%; P for heterogeneity < .00001), respectively. Nineteen studies discussed the mode of delivery between 2 groups. The results suggest that the rate of normal delivery is significantly higher in PIEB group compared with control group (OR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.08–1.75, P = .01). The time of first and second stage of labor are significantly shorter in PIEB group compared with control group, the result is (WMD = −10.52, 95% CI: −14.74 to 4.76, P < .00001; I² = 0%; P for heterogeneity = .86), (WMD = −1.48, 95% CI: −2.26 to −0.69, P = .0002; I² = 35%; P for heterogeneity = .10), respectively. Thirteen studies concerned the satisfaction score of patients. The satisfaction score of patients in the PIEB group was significantly higher when compared with control group (WMD = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.42–1.39, P = .0003; I² = 98%; P for heterogeneity < .00001). The Apgar score at 1, 5 minutes in PIEB group are significantly higher (WMD = 0.07, 95% CI: 0.02–0.13 P = .007; I² = 55%; P for heterogeneity = .04), (WMD = −0.08, 95% CI: −0.12 to −0.05, P < .00001; I² = 21%; P for heterogeneity = .27), respectively.Conclusions:PIEB is a good alternative for labor analgesia with better analgesic effect, maternal and infant outcome.     

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.     

Efficiency and safety of ablation procedure for the treatment of atrial fibrillation in valve surgery: A PRISMA-compliant cumulative systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:Atrial fibrillation is the main complication of patients who suffer from valvular heart disease (VHD), which may lead to an increased susceptibility to ventricular tachycardia, atrial dysfunction, heart failure, and stroke. Therefore, seeking a safe and effective therapy is crucial in prolonging the lives of patients with VHD and improving their quality of life.Methods:Our target database included PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library, from which published articles were retrieved from inception to June 2020. We retrieved all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared patients undergoing valve surgery with (VSA) or without ablation (VS) procedure. Studies to be included were screened and data extraction was performed independently by 2 investigators. The Cochrane risk-of-bias table was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included RCTs. The mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and relative risk (RR) ratio was calculated to analyze the data. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I² and chi-square tests. Egger test and the trim and fill analysis were used to further determine publication bias.Results:Fourteen RCTs that included 1376 patients were eventually selected for this meta-analysis. Surgical ablation was found to be effective in restoring sinus rhythm in valvular surgery patients at discharge (RR 2.91, 95% CI [1.17, 7.20], I² 97%, P = .02), 3 to 6 months (RR 2.85, 95% CI [2.27, 3.58], I² 49%, P < .00001), 12 months, and more than 1 year after surgery (RR 3.54, 95% CI [2.78, 4.51], I² 27%, P < .00001). All-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI [0.64, 1.51], I² 0%, P = .94) and stroke (RR 1.29, 95% CI [0.70, 2.39], I² 0%, P = .57) were similar in the VSA and VS groups. Compared with VS, VSA prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass time (MD 30.44, 95% CI [17.55, 43.33], I² 88%, P < .00001) and aortic cross-clamping time (MD 19.57, 95% CI [11.10, 28.03], I² 89%, P < .00001). No significant differences were found between groups with respect to the risk of bleeding (RR 0.64, 95% CI [0.37, 1.12], I² 0%, P = .12), heart failure (RR 1.11, 95% CI [0.63, 1.93], I² 0%, P = .72), and low cardiac output syndrome (RR 1.41, 95% CI [0.57, 3.46], I² 18%, P = .46). However, the demand for implantation of a permanent pacemaker was significantly higher in the VSA group (RR 1.84, 95% CI [1.15, 2.95], I² 0%, P = .01).Conclusion:Although we found high heterogeneity in the restoration of sinus rhythm at discharge, we assume that the comparison is valid at this time, given the current state in the operating room. This study provides evidence of the efficacy and security of concomitant ablation intervention for patients with VHD and atrial fibrillation. Surgical ablation would increase the safety of implantation of a permanent pacemaker in the population that underwent valve surgery.     

Efficacy and Safety of Bisphosphonates for Low Bone Mineral Density After Kidney Transplantation: A Meta-Analysis

In patients with low bone mineral density (BMD) after kidney transplantation, the role of bisphosphonates remains unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of bisphosphonates.We retrieved trials from PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception through May 2015. Only randomized controlled trials that compared bisphosphonate-treated and control groups of patients with low bone mineral density after kidney transplantation were included. The primary outcomes were the percent change in BMD, the absolute change in BMD, and the BMD at the end of study at the lumbar spine. The results were expressed as the mean difference (MD) or relative risk (RR) with the 95% confidence interval (CI). We used a random-effects model to pool the outcomes.We included 17 randomized controlled trials with 1067 patients. Only 1 included trial was found to be at low risk of bias. The rest of the included studies were found to have high to uncertain risk of bias. Compared with the control group, those who received bisphosphonates had a significant increase in percent change in BMD (mean difference [MD] = 5.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.22–7.79, P < 0.00001) and absolute change in BMD (MD = 0.05, 95% CI 0.04–0.05, P < 0.00001), but a nonsignificant increase in BMD at the end of the study (MD = 0.02, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.05, P = 0.25) at the lumbar spine. Bisphosphonates resulted in a significant improvement in percent change in BMD (MD = 4.95, 95% CI 2.57–7.33, P < 0.0001), but a nonsignificant improvement in absolute change in BMD (MD = 0.03, 95% CI −0.00 to 0.06, P = 0.07) and BMD at the end of the study (MD = −0.01, 95% CI −0.04 to 0.02, P = 0.40) at the femoral neck. No significant differences were found in vertebral fractures, nonvertebral fractures, adverse events, and gastrointestinal adverse events.Bisphosphonates appear to have a beneficial effect on BMD at the lumbar spine and do not significantly decrease fracture events in recipients. However, the results should be interpreted cautiously due to the lack of robustness and the heterogeneity among studies.     

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.     

Treatment for overactive bladder: A meta-analysis of transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation versus percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation

Background:We aim to compare the safety and effectiveness of transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (TTNS) versus percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) in treating overactive bladder.Methods:A systematical search on PubMed, Embase, clinicalTrial.gov, and Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1, 1999 to November 1, 2020 was performed. The primary outcomes were the changes in a 3-day voiding diary. Quality of life scores were also evaluated. Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) was applied to conduct all statistical analyses.Results:A total of 4 trials (2 randomized controlled trials, 1 retrospective study, and 1 before-after study) with 142 patients were eventually enrolled. Compared with PTNS, TTNS had a similar performance in the voiding frequency in 24 hours (mean difference [MD] = −0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −1.35 to 0.05, P = .07), the number of urgency episodes in 24 hours (MD = 0.13, 95% CI: −0.36 to 0.62, P = .60), the number of incontinence episodes in 24 hours (MD = 0.01, 95% CI: −0.13 to 0.14, P = .93), as well as in the nocturia frequency (MD = −0.14, 95% CI: −0.52 to 0.24, P = .47). Moreover, comparable results were observed regarding HRQL scores (P = .23) and incontinence quality of life scores (P = .10) in both groups. The total complication rate in the current study was 2.1% (3/142). No adverse events were identified in the TTNS group.Conclusion:Current data supported that TTNS is as effective as PTNS for the treatment of overactive bladder, moreover, with no reported adverse events. However, the evidence is low-grade and well-designed prospective studies with a large sample size are warranted to verify our findings.     

Comparison of clinical efficacy of robotic right colectomy and laparoscopic right colectomy for right colon tumor: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of robotic right colectomy (RRC) and laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) in the treatment of right colon tumor.Methods:We systematically searched PubMed, Web of science, EMBASE ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane Central Register for studies (studies published between January 2011 and June 2020). The included studies compared the clinical efficacy of RRC and LRC in the treatment of right colon tumor, and analyzed the perioperative data.Results:Our meta-analysis included 10 studies involving 1180 patients who underwent 2 surgical procedures, RRC and LRC. This study showed that compared with LRC, there was no significant difference in first flatus passage (weighted mean difference [WMD]: −0.37, 95% CI: −1.09–0.36, P = .32), hospital length of stay (WMD: −0.23, 95% CI: −0.73–0.28, P = .32), reoperation (OR: 1.66, 95% CI: 0.67–4.10, P = .27), complication (OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.60–1.14, P = .25), mortality (OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.02–11.22, P = .63), wound infection (OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.34–1.25, P = .20), and anastomotic leak (OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.33–1.63, P = .44). This study showed that compared with LRC, the lymph nodes retrieved (WMD: 1.47, 95% CI: −0.00–2.94, P = .05) of RRC were similar, with slight advantages, and resulted in longer operative time (WMD: 65.20, 95% CI: 53.40–77.01, P < .00001), less estimated blood loss (WMD: −13.43, 95% CI: −20.65–6.21, P = .0003), and less conversion to open surgery (OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.17–0.54, P < .0001).Conclusions:RRC is equivalent to LRC with respect to first flatus passage, hospital length of stay, reoperation, complication, and results in less conversion to LRC.     

Evaluation of astragaloside IV in hepatic fibrosis: A meta-analysis

To evaluate the effect of astragaloside IV for hepatic fibrosis.The multiple databases like Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane databases, and China National Knowledge database were used to search for the relevant studies, and full-text articles involved in the evaluation on effect of astragaloside IV for hepatic fibrosis. Review Manager 5.2 was adopted to estimate the effects of the results among selected articles. Forest plots, sensitivity analysis and bias analysis for the articles included were also conducted.Finally, 7 eligible studies were eventually satisfied the included criteria. Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) in model was higher than astragaloside group (mean difference [MD] = −58.01, 95% confidential interval (CI) [−93.97, −22.05], P = .002; I² = 99%). The meta-analysis suggested that aspartate aminotransferase (AST) in model group was more than that in astragaloside group (MD = −39.94, 95% CI [−129.38, 49.50], P = .38; I² = 100%). Model group had higher α - smooth muscle actin (α-SMA) than astragaloside group (MD was −1.13, P of heterogeneity <.0001, I² = 94%, Z = 5.18, P of over effect <.0001). Transforming growth factor β (TGF-β) in model group was higher than that in astragaloside group (MD was −0.55, P of heterogeneity <.00001, I² = 97%, Z = 2.54, P of over effect = .01). Limited publication bias was observed in this study.Astragaloside IV is a potential clinical drug for the treatment of liver fibrosis considering liver function and hepatic fibrosis related protein factor in experimental rats are improved.     

Safety and efficacy of left bundle branch pacing in comparison with conventional right ventricular pacing: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:Right ventricular pacing (RVP) has been widely accepted as a traditional pacing strategy, but long-term RVP has detrimental impact on ventricular synchrony. However, left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) that evolved from His-bundle pacing could maintain ventricular synchrony and overcome its clinical deficiencies such as difficulty of lead implantation, His bundle damage, and high and unstable thresholds. This analysis aimed to appraise the clinical safety and efficacy of LBBP.Methods:The Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases from inception to November 2020 were searched for studies comparing LBBP and RVP.Results:Seven trials with 451 patients (221 patients underwent LBBP and 230 patients underwent RVP) were included in the analysis. Pooled analyses verified that the paced QRS duration (QRSd) and left ventricular mechanical synchronization parameters of the LBBP capture were similar with the native-conduction mode (P > .7),but LBBP showed shorter QRS duration (weighted mean difference [WMD]: −33.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], −40.44 to −26.19, P < .001), better left ventricular mechanical synchrony (standard mean differences: −1.5; 95% CI: −1.85 to −1.14, P < .001) compared with RVP. No significant differences in Pacing threshold (WMD: 0.01; 95% CI: −0.08 to 0.09, P < .001), R wave amplitude (WMD: 0.04; 95% CI: −1.12 to 1.19, P = .95) were noted between LBBP and RVP. Ventricular impedance of LBBP was higher than that of RVP originally (WMD: 19.34; 95% CI: 3.13–35.56, P = .02), and there was no difference between the 2 groups after follow-up (WMD: 11.78; 95% CI: −24.48 to 48.04, P = .52). And follow-up pacing threshold of LBBP kept stability (WMD: 0.08; 95% CI: −0.09 to 0.25, P = .36). However, no statistical difference existed in ejection fraction between the 2 groups (WMD: 1.41; 95% CI: −1.72 to 4.54, P = .38).Conclusions:The safety and efficacy of LBBP was firstly verified by meta-analysis to date. LBBP markedly preserve ventricular electrical and mechanical synchrony compared with RVP. Meanwhile, LBBP had stable and excellent pacing parameters. However, LBBP could not be significant difference in ejection fraction between RVP during short- term follow-up.     

Efficacy of greater occipital nerve block for pain relief in patients with postdural puncture headache: A meta-analysis

Background:This study aimed at assessing the therapeutic effectiveness of greater occipital nerve block (GONB) against postdural puncture headache (PDPH).Methods:Studies investigating analgesic effects of GONB against PDPH in adults were retrieved from the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google scholar, and Cochrane central databases from their inception dates to May, 2021. Pain score at postprocedural 24 hours was the primary endpoint, while secondary endpoints were pain score at postprocedural 1 hour and 12 hours as well as the risk of intervention failure.Results:Of the 7 studies (randomized controlled trials [RCTs], n = 4; non-RCTs, n = 3) that recruited 275 patients, 2 investigated female patients undergoing cesarean section and the other 5 were conducted in both obstetric and nonobstetric settings. Pooled results showed a lower mean pain score at 24 hours (i.e., primary outcome) (mean difference [MD] = –2.66, 95%: CI: –3.98 to –1.33, P < .001; I² = 97%, 6 studies), 1 hour (MD = –4.23, 95% confidence interval [CI]: –5.08 to –3.37, P < .00001; I² = 86%, 5 studies), and 6 hours (MD = –2.78, 95% CI: –4.99 to –0.57, P = .01; I² = 98%, 4 studies) in patients with GONB compared to those without. Trial sequential analysis supported the robustness of evidence at postprocedural 24 hours. The use of GONB also decreased the risk of intervention failure (relative ratio [RR] = 0.4, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.82, P = .01; I² = 96%, 6 studies, 277 patients).Conclusion:Our results suggested a therapeutic effect of greater occipital nerve block against postdural puncture headache up to postprocedural 24 hours. Further large-scale studies are warranted to evaluate its therapeutic benefit beyond the acute stage.     

Comparison of laparoscopic and open living donor hepatectomy: A meta-analysis

Laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (LDH), accepted as a minimally invasive approach, has become increasingly popular for living donor liver transplant. However, the outcomes of LDH remain to be fully clarified when compared with open living donor hepatectomy. Thus, our meta-analysis was designed to assess the efficacy of laparoscopic in comparison with conventional open donor hepatectomy.The PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase electronic databases were searched to identify the articles concerning the comparison of the efficacy of laparoscopic versus open surgery in treatment of living donor liver transplantation updated to March, 2020. The main search terms and medical Subject Heading terms were: “living donor,” “liver donor,” “minimally invasive,” “laparoscopic surgery,” and “open surgery.” After rigorous evaluation on quality, the data was extracted from eligible publications. The outcomes of interest included intraoperative and postoperative results.The inclusion criteria were met by a total of 20 studies. In all, 2001 subjects involving 633 patients who received laparoscopic surgery and 1368 patients who received open surgery were included. According to the pooled result of surgery duration, the laparoscopic surgery was associated with shorter duration of hospital stay (MD = −1.07, 95% CI −1.85 to −0.29; P = .007), less blood loss (MD = −57.57, 95% CI −65.07 to −50.07; P < .00001), and less postoperative complications (OR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.44–0.85; P = .003). And the open donor hepatectomy achieved a trend of shorter operation time (MD = 30.31, 95% CI 13.93–46.69; P = .0003) than laparoscopic group. Similar results were found in terms of ALT (P = .52) as well as the AST (P = .47) peak level between the 2 groups.LDH showed the better perioperative outcomes as compared with open donor hepatectomy. The findings revealed that LDH may be a feasible and safe procedure for the living donor liver transplantation.     

Dose-Effectiveness Relationships Determining the Efficacy of Ibandronate for Management of Osteoporosis: A Meta-Analysis

The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis on the efficacy of ibandronate by evaluating the effect sizes of different dosing regimens.Major electronic databases were searched from 1985 to February 2015. A random effects meta-analysis was performed in STATA.Data from 34 studies (13,639 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. Ibandronate treatment significantly improved lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) as shown by the percent change from baseline (4.80%, P < 0.0001, 95% confidence interval [CI] [4.14, 5.45]). The respective effect sizes for oral intake and intravenous (IV) infusion were 4.57% and 5.22% (P < 0.0001, CIs [3.71, 5.42] and [4.37, 6.07]), respectively. All doses led to a significant increase in BMD except 2 oral dose regimens (1 mg/d: 4.65%, P = 0.285, 95% CI [−3.87, 13.18] and 0.5 mg/d: 3.60%, P = 0.38, 95% CI [−4.43, 11.64]. Ibandronate treatment (overall as well as dose wise) also significantly improved the total hip BMD—2.30% overall, 2.13% oral, and 2.63% IV (P < 0.0001, 95% CIs [1.96, 2.64], [1.70, 2.55], and [2.07, 3.20]), respectively. Ibandronate administration significantly decreased serum markers of bone resorption to −46.53% for C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen, −24.03% for bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, and −50.17% for procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (P < 0.0001, 95% CIs [−53.16, −39.91], [−31.28, −16.77], and [−64.13, −36.20]), respectively. Parathyroid hormone levels remained unaffected by ibandronate treatment (3.03%, P = 0.439, 95% CI [−5.06, 11.66]).There was no significant difference in the efficacy of ibandronate between oral or IV administration. Predominant dose regimens for IV administration were 1 to 3 mg/3 mo and 150 mg/mo oral and 2.5 mg/d for oral ibandronate treatment.