Effect of plateletpheresis on total platelet count and mean platelet volume: A meta-analysis

Effectiveness of Maitland and Mulligan mobilization methods for adults with knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As a serious global problem, knee osteoarthritis (KOA) often leads to pain and disability. Manual therapy is widely used as a kind of physical treatment for KOA.

AIM

To explore further the efficacy of Maitland and Mulligan mobilization methods for adults with KOA.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMbase, Web of Science and Google Scholar from inception to September 20, 2020 to collect studies comparing Maitland and Mulligan mobilization methods in adults with KOA. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale for randomized controlled trials. Data analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.0 software.

RESULTS

A total of 341 articles were screened from five electronic databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMbase, Web of Science and Google Scholar) after excluding duplicates. Ultimately, eight trials involving 471 subjects were included in present systematic review and meta-analysis. The mean PEDro scale score was 6.6. Mulligan mobilization was more effective in alleviating pain [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.17 to 1.03, P = 0.007; I 2 = 60%, P = 0.020) and improving Western Ontario and McMaster Universities function score (SMD = 7.41; 95%CI: 2.36 to 12.47, P = 0.004; I 2 = 92%, P = 0.000). There was no difference in the effect of the two kinds of mobilization on improving the range of motion (SMD = 9.63; 95%CI: -1.23 to 20.48, P = 0.080; I 2 = 97%, P = 0.000).

CONCLUSION

Mulligan mobilization technique is a promising intervention in alleviating pain and improving function score in KOA patients.

The efficacy and safety of intermittent preventive treatment with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine vs artemisinin-based drugs for malaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Malaria is one of the most serious global problems. The objective of this study is to assess whether intermittent preventive treatment (IPT) using artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) was a promising alternative to IPT with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (IPT-SP).

METHODS

We searched the following sources up to 12 August 2020: PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, CBM, VIP and WanFang Database from inception. The randomized controlled trials comparing SP with ACTs for malaria were included. Data were pooled using Stata.14 software. We performed subgroup analysis based on the different types of ACTs groups and participants.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies comprising 5180 people were included. The meta-analysis showed that ACTs had the lower risk of number of any parasitemia (RR=0.46; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.96, p=0.039; I2=90.50%, p<0.001), early treatment failure (RR=0.17; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.48, p<0.001; I2=66.60%, p=0.011) and late treatment failure (RR=0.34; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.92, p<0.001; I2=87.80%, p<0.001) compared with SP. There was no significant difference in adequate clinical response, average hemoglobin and adverse neonatal outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Combinations with ACTs appear promising as suitable alternatives for IPT-SP.