Fever control interventions versus placebo, sham or no intervention in adults: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

Fever therapy in febrile adults: systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of fever therapy compared with no fever therapy in a wide population of febrile adults.

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials.

DATA SOURCES

CENTRAL, BIOSIS, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection, searched from their inception to 2 July 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials in adults diagnosed as having fever of any origin. Included experimental interventions were any fever therapy, and the control intervention had to be no fever therapy (with or without placebo/sham).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Primary outcomes were all cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were quality of life and non-serious adverse events. Aggregate data were synthesised with meta-analyses, subgroup analyses, and trial sequential analyses, and the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

Forty two trials assessing 5140 participants were included. Twenty three trials assessed 11 different antipyretic drugs, 11 trials assessed physical cooling, and eight trials assessed a combination of antipyretic drugs and physical cooling. Of the participants, 3007 were critically ill, 1892 were non-critically ill, 3277 had infectious fever, and 1139 had non-infectious fever. All trials were assessed as being at high risk of bias. Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis showed that the hypothesis that fever therapy reduces the risk of death (risk ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.19; I²=0%; P=0.62; 16 trials; high certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (risk ratio 1.02, 0.89 to 1.17; I²=0%; P=0.78; 16 trials; high certainty evidence) could be rejected. One trial assessing quality of life was included, showing no difference between fever therapy and control. Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis showed that the hypothesis that fever therapy reduces the risk of non-serious adverse events could be neither confirmed nor rejected (risk ratio 0.92, 0.67 to 1.25; I²=66.5%; P=0.58; four trials; very low certainty evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

Fever therapy does not seem to affect the risk of death and serious adverse events.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019134006.

Effects of adding adjunctive hyperbaric oxygen therapy to standard wound care for diabetic foot ulcers: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

INTRODUCTION

Diabetic foot ulcer represents a major health problem globally. Preliminary studies have indicated that systemic treatment of diabetic foot ulcer patients with hyperbaric oxygen therapy have beneficial effects on wound healing, risk of amputation, glycaemic control, atherosclerosis, inflammatory markers and other clinical and laboratory parameters. This protocol for a systematic review aims at identifying the beneficial and harmful effects of adding hyperbaric oxygen therapy to standard wound care for diabetic foot ulcers.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol was performed following the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration and the eight-step assessment procedure suggested by Jakobsen and colleagues. We plan to include all relevant randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcer versus any control group with any intervention defined as standard wound care or similar, together with sham interventions. Our primary outcome will be: all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes will be: healing of index wound, major amputation and wound infection. Any eligible trial will be assessed and classified as either high risk of bias or low risk of bias, and our conclusions will be based on trials with low risk of bias. The analyses of the extracted data will be performed using Review Manager 5 and Trial Sequential Analysis. For both our primary and secondary outcomes, we will create a 'Summary of Findings' table and use GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) assessment to assess the quality of the evidence.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

We use publicly accessible documents as evidence, there is no participant involvement at an individual level and an institutional ethics approval is not required. The results of the review will be sought published in a peer-reviewed journals, also in the event of insignificant results or null results, and thereby it will be disseminated to clinicians and public available.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019139256.