The impact of plant-based diets on female bone mineral density: Evidence based on seventeen studies

Background:An increase in awareness of plant-based diets has brought forth numerous studies on bone mineral density (BMD). The present systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to compare the effect between plant-based diets and omnivores on female BMD.Methods:We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science and up to July 1, 2020. Mean difference (MD) with its 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated to compare the outcomes of the groups. We compared BMD at the lumbar spine, femoral neck and whole body respectively between plant-based diets and omnivores. In addition, we performed subgroup analyses according to different clinical characteristics for further exploration. Two reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted data independently. All statistical analyses were performed using standard statistical procedures provided in Review Manager 5.2.Results:A total of 17 cross-sectional studies including 13,888 patients were identified for the present meta-analysis. Our pooled result indicated that population with plant-based diets had lower BMD than omnivores at the lumbar spine (MD −0.03; 95% CI −0.04 to −0.02; P < .0001), femoral neck (MD −0.04; 95% CI −0.05 to −0.03; P < .00001) and whole body (MD −0.04; 95% CI −0.06 to −0.01; P = .01), respectively. Further exploration indicated that especially females with plant-based diets experienced significantly lower BMD at lumbar spine (MD −0.03; 95% CI −0.04 to −0.02; 3173 pts), femoral neck (MD −0.04; 95% CI −0.05 to −0.03; 10,656 pts) and whole body (MD −0.05; 95% CI −0.10 to −0.00; P = .04). In addition, we performed subgroup analyses and found lower BMD at lumbar spine and femoral neck in both vegetarians and vegans.Conclusions:The present meta-analysis indicated that plant-based diets may be correlated with lower BMD of women when compared with omnivore population. However, this does not diminish the fact that a plant-based diet can be a harmful option to the overall bone health of population and more prospective researches are needed to clear the impact of plant-based diets on bone health.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Effectiveness of empowerment-based intervention on HbA1c and self-efficacy among cases with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objective:The aim of this study was to determine the effect of empowerment-based interventions on glucose metabolism control and psychosocial self-efficacy in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).Methods:The Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science electronic databases were searched up to 22 February 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of empowerment-based intervention versus conventional treatment in type 2 diabetes cases. At least two investigators independently screened the literature, extracted data and evaluated the methodological quality. We calculated the pooled effect size using the mean difference (MD) or standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) through RevMan V 5.4.1.Results:Fifteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion in the present study. A total of 2344 adults (1128 in the intervention groups and 1216 in the control) were covered. Five of these studies involved 671 cases of psychosocial self-efficacy, and 4 studies included 622 cases of diabetes knowledge. The meta-analysis showed that compared to routine care, empowerment-based intervention was associated with reduced glycated hemoglobin levels (SMD −0.20; 95% CI −0.31 to −0.08; Z = 3.40, P < .001, I² = 42%), increased diabetes empowerment scores (SMD 0.24; 95% CI 0.10–0.37; Z = 3.42, P < .001, I² = 0%), and increased diabetes knowledge scores (SMD 0.96; 95% CI 0.55–1.36; Z = 4.61, P < .001, I² = 80%).Conclusions:Empowerment-based intervention in adults with T2DM results in improvements in glycated hemoglobin, psychosocial self-efficacy and diabetes knowledge.     

Clinical efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine Xiao Yao San in insomnia combined with anxiety

Background:Patients with long-term insomnia generally experience anxiety and depression. Traditional sleeping pills and anti-anxiety drugs have certain limitations. Xiao Yao San (XYS), a complementary and alternative therapy, has been widely used to treat insomnia combined with anxiety. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of XYS in the treatment of insomnia combined with anxiety.Methods:Related literature was retrieved from 8 electronic databases from the establishment time to March 2021. The subjects were diagnosed with insomnia combined with anxiety. We assessed the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) according to the Cochrane Handbook. Data analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software.Results:The analysis includes 9 RCTs involving 681 patients. Meta-analysis supported that as an auxiliary drug for Western medicine (WM), XYS could enhance the clinical efficacy of insomnia calculated according to the traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) syndrome score scale (risk ratio [RR]: 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.13–1.43; P = .0002) and reduced the scores of Hamilton Anxiety Scale (mean difference [MD]: −5.19; 95% CI: −7.78 to −2.60; P < .001), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (MD: −3.35; 95% CI: −4.86 to −1.84; P < .001), Self-rating Anxiety Scale (MD: −9.38; 95% CI: −10.20 to −8.75; P < .001), TCM syndrome score scale for insomnia (MD: −4.45; 95% CI: −6.65 to −2.24; P < .001), and TCM syndrome score scale for anxiety (MD: −5.54; 95% CI: −9.48 to −1.6; P = .006). The summary analysis also shows that the separate use of XYS was advantageous in reducing the scores of the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (MD: −3.70; 95% CI: −6.31 to −1.09; P = .005), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (MD: −1.82; 95% CI: −2.39 to −1.24; P < .001), and Self-rating Anxiety Scale (MD: −10.79; 95% CI: −14.09 to −7.49; P < .001). The incidence of adverse events with XYS as an ancillary drug or used separately was lower than that in the WM.Conclusion:Our systematic evaluation and meta-analysis showed that XYS combined with WM or XYS alone was beneficial for improving sleep quality and relieving anxiety. Due to the low methodological quality, small sample size, and significant heterogeneity of RCTs, more rigorous and scientific clinical trials are required to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of XYS.PROSPERO registration number:CRD42020190613.     

The efficiency and safety of methimazole and propylthiouracil in hyperthyroidism: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Purpose:The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficiency and safety of methimazole (MMI) and propylthiouracil (PTU) in the treatment of hyperthyroidism.Methods:Articles were searched through the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, and QVIP. The primary outcomes were clinical efficacy and thyroid hormone levels in MMI and PTU groups. The secondary outcomes were liver function indexes and adverse reactions in MMI and PTU groups. Results were expressed as weighted mean difference (WMD) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The Begg test was applied to assess the publication bias.Results:Totally, 16 randomized controlled trials were retained in this meta-analysis with 973 patients receiving MMI and 933 receiving PTU. The levels of triiodothyronine (T₃) (WMD = −1.321, 95% CI: −2.271 to −0.372, P = .006), thyroxine (T₄) (WMD = −37.311, 95% CI: −61.012 to −13.610, P = .002), Free T3 (FT3) (WMD = −1.388, 95% CI: −2.543 to −0.233, P = .019), Free T₄ (FT₄) (WMD = −3.613, 95% CI: −5.972 to −1.255, P = .003), and the risk of liver function damage (OR = 0.208, 95% CI: 0.146–0.296, P < .001) in the MMI group were lower than those in the PTU group. The thyroid-stimulating hormone level (WMD = 0.787, 95% CI: 0.380–1.194, P < .001) and the risk of hypothyroidism (OR = 2.738, 95% CI: 1.444–5.193, P = .002) were higher in the MMI group than those in the PTU group.Conclusions:Although MMI might have higher risk of hypothyroidism than PTU, the efficacy of MMI may be better than PTU in patients with hyperthyroidism regarding reducing T₃, T₄, FT₃, and FT₄ levels, decreasing the risk of liver function damage and increasing the level of thyroid-stimulating hormone.Register number:osf.io/ds637 (https://osf.io/search/).     

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.     

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.     

Effects of atorvastatin on the insulin resistance in women of polycystic ovary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:Atorvastatin treatment has been suggested as a therapeutic method for women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) in many clinical studies. Nonetheless, the effects of atorvastatin on insulin resistance in PCOS patients still remain controversial.Objective:The aim of this report was to evaluate the effects of atorvastatin therapy on the insulin resistance in the treatment of PCOS compared to that of placebo, in order to confer a reference for clinical practice.Methods:Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of atorvastatin for PCOS published up to August, 2020 were searched. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated, and heterogeneity was measured by the I² test. Sensitivity analysis was also carried out. The outcomes of interest were as follows: fasting glucose concentration, fasting insulin level, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) or body mass index (BMI) value.Results:Nine RCTs with 406 participants were included. The difference of fasting glucose concentration in PCOS patients between atorvastatin group and placebo group was not statistically significant (8 trials; SMD −0.06, 95% CI −0.31 to 0.20, P = .66). PCOS patients in atorvastatin group had lower fasting insulin level than those in placebo group (7 trials; SMD −1.84, 95% CI −3.06 to −0.62, P < .003). The homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) value showed significant decrease in the atorvastatin therapy compared to placebo (6 trials; SMD −4.12, 95% CI −6.00 to −2.23, P < .0001). In contrast to placebo, atorvastatin therapy did not decrease the BMI value significantly in PCOS patients (7 trials; SMD 0.12, 95% CI −0.07 to 0.31, P = .22).Conclusions:Atorvastatin therapy can reduce insulin resistance in the treatment of patients with PCOS. In addition, further large-sample, multi-center RCTs are needed to identify these findings.     

The Efficacy of Parathyroid Hormone Analogues in Combination With Bisphosphonates for the Treatment of Osteoporosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Parathyroid hormone (PTH) analogues increase bone strength primarily by stimulating bone formation, whereas antiresorptive drugs (bisphosphonates) reduce bone resorption. Therefore, some studies have been designed to test the hypothesis that the concurrent administration of the 2 agents would increase bone density more than the use of either one alone. This meta-analysis aimed to determine whether combining PTH analogues with bisphosphonates would be superior to PTH alone.Electronic databases were searched to identify relevant publications up to March, 2014. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PTH analogues combined bisphosphonates with PTH for osteoporosis were analyzed. According to the Cochrane Handbook for systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.2, we identified eligible studies, evaluated the methodological quality, and abstracted relevant data.Totally 7 studies involving 641 patients were included for meta-analysis. The pooled data showed that there were no significant differences in the percent change of spine BMD (MD_1-year = −0.97, 95% CI −2.81 to 0.86, P = 0.30; MD_2-year =  − 0.57, 95% CI −5.01 to 6.14, P = 0.84), femoral neck BMD (MD_1-year = 0.60, 95% CI −0.91 to 2.10, P = 0.44; MD_2-year = −0.73, 95% CI −4.97 to 3.51, P = 0.74), the risk of vertebral fracture (risk ratio [RR] = 1.27; 95% CI 0.29–5.57; P = 0.75), and the risk of nonvertebral fracture (RR = 0.97; 95% CI 0.40–2.35; P = 0.95) between the 2 groups, whereas combination group improves the percent change of hip BMD at 1 year (MD = 1.16, 95% CI 0.56–1.76; P < 0.01) than PTH analogues group.Our results showed that there was no evidence for the superiority of combination therapy, although significant change was found for hip BMD at 1 year in combination group. Further large multicenter randomized controlled trials are still needed to investigate the efficacy of combination therapy.     

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of subthreshold micropulse laser with photodynamic therapy for the treatment of chronic central serous chorioretinopathy: A meta-analysis

Background:This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the therapeutic effect and safety of subthreshold micropulse laser (SML) vs photodynamic therapy (PDT) in treatment of chronic central serous chorioretinopathy (cCSC).Methods:PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for all relevant studies published up to August 17, 2020. Data of interest were analyzed by STATA (version 14.0) software.Results:Four randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 5 retrospective studies with 790 eyes were included in this meta-analysis after study selection. The results showed that SML significantly improved the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) compared with PDT at 6 to 8 weeks, 6 months, and 7 to 8 months in patients with cCSC (weighted mean difference (WMD) = −0.15, 95% confidence intervals (CI): −0.23 to −0.07, P < .01; WMD = −2.83, 95% CI: −4.79 to −0.87, P < .01; and WMD = −2.61, 95% CI: −4.23 to −1.24, P = .026, respectively). There was also a statistically significant difference between SML and PDT groups in the differences in the complete resolution of subretinal fluid (SRF) (risk radios = 0.388, 95% CI: 0.307 to 0.491, P < .01). There were no significant differences between the SML and PDT in the overall effect with central macular thickness (CMT), adverse events, complete resolution of SRF and treatment response.Conclusions:Based on the available evidence, this meta-analysis demonstrated that SML may be considered as a competitive alternative to PDT for treating cCSC, and as the first-line treatment of cCSC.     

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.     

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.     

Efficacy and safety of intra-articular injection of mesenchymal stem cells in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective:To evaluate the effects and safety of intra-articular injection of mesenchymal stem cells on patients with knee osteoarthritis by a systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods:PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were retrieved. An assessment of the risk of bias was done through the Cochrane Collaborative Bias Risk Tool, publication bias was assessed by plotting funnel plots and Egger tests. Pain and functional improvements in patients with knee osteoarthritis were determined by changes in VAS scores and WOMAC scores at baseline and follow-up endpoints. For the evaluation of MRI, the WORMS score and changes in cartilage volume were used. In addition, the number of adverse events in the intervention group and the control group were counted to explore the safety.Results:A total of 10 randomized controlled trials involving 335 patients were included. In the pooled analysis, compared with the control groups, the VAS scores of MSC groups decreased significantly (MD,−19.24; 95% CI: −26.31 to −12.18, P < .00001. All of the WOMAC scores also improved significantly: the total scores (SMD, − 0.66; 95% CI: − 1.09 to −0.23, P = .003), pain scores (SMD, − 0.46; 95% CI: − 0.75 to −0.17, P = .002), stiffness scores (SMD, −0.32; 95% CI: −0.64 to 0.00 P = 0.05), and functional scores (SMD, −0.36; 95% CI: −0.69 to −0.04, P = .03). Two studies with non-double-blind designs were the main source of heterogeneity. In terms of cartilage repair, there was no significant difference in the WORMS score, but there was a significant increase in cartilage volume in the MSC group (SMD, 0.69; 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.13, P = .002). The proportion of patients with adverse events in the MSCs treatment group was significantly higher than that in the control group (OR, 3.20; 95% CI: 1.50 to 6.83, P = .003).Conclusions:Intra-articular injection of mesenchymal stem cells is effective and safety to relieve pain and improve motor function of patients with knee osteoarthritis in a short term which is different to conclusions of previous study.     

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.     

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.     

Effects of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors on renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:Many studies have shown the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on type 2 diabetes, but the effects in patients with type 2 diabetes with chronic kidney disease remains unclear. This study aims to evaluate the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with chronic kidney disease.Methods:We conducted systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to April 30, 2020 and included randomized controlled trials of SGLT2 inhibitors in adult type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) reporting estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and/or urine albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR) changes and/or acute kidney injury or failure (AKI). Random effects models were adopted to measure the pooled outcomes.Results:Nine studies with 8826 participants were included. SGLT2 inhibitors were not associated with a significant change in eGFR (mean difference (MD), −0.75 ml/minutes per 1.73 m², 95% CI −1.61 to 0.10, P = .09) in type 2 diabetic patients with CKD. UACR reduction after SGLT2 inhibitors was significant in type 2 diabetic patients with CKD (MD −24.27 mg/g, 95% CI −44.46 to −4.09, P = .02). SGLT2 inhibitors associated with AKI in the patients were significant (OR 0.80, 95% CI [0.66 to 0.98], P = .03).Conclusion:SGLT2 inhibitors had no significant effect on kidney function (eGFR measured) in the pooled analysis. And SGLT2 inhibitors effectively reduced UACR in T2DM with CKD. Besides, SGLT2 inhibitors could reduce the incidence of AKI.