Network meta-analysis: a technique to gather evidence from direct and indirect comparisons

Meta-analysis and sequential analysis of acupuncture compared to carbamazepine in the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia

BACKGROUND

In this randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing current acupuncture with carbamazepine for trigeminal neuralgia, meta- and sequential analyses were utilized.

AIM

To guide clinical decision making regarding the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia with carbamazepine.

METHODS

The RCT literature on needle comparison was searched in various Chinese biomedical databases including Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Wanfang Data, VIP Database, as well as international databases such as Excerpt Medica Database, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Web of Science, along with related clinical registration platforms such as World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform, ChiCTR, and Clinical Trials up to 1 April 2020. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaborative Risk Bias tool, primary outcome measures (pain reduction) were analyzed using STATA meta-analysis, outcome measures were analyzed using trial sequential analysis 0.9.5.10 Beta sequential analysis, GRADE was used to assess the evidence, and adverse reactions were documented.

RESULTS

This study analyzed 16 RCTs with a total of 1231 participants. The meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in pain reduction between acupuncture and carbamazepine [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 1.47; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99-1.95], although the quality of evidence was deemed to be of extremely low quality. Cumulative meta-analysis based on the year of publication indicated that carbamazepine treatment first demonstrated a statistically significant difference in pain reduction in 2014 and remained relatively stable over time [SMD = 1.84; 95%CI: 0.22-3.47]. Additionally, the number of adverse events associated with acupuncture was significantly lower compared to carbamazepine.

CONCLUSION

Acupuncture for trigeminal neuralgia is better than analgesia and safer than carbamazepine; however, firm conclusions still require a high-quality, multicenter, large-sample RCT to confirm these findings.

A comparison of two models for detecting inconsistency in network meta-analysis

The application of network meta-analysis is becoming increasingly widespread, and for a successful implementation, it requires that the direct comparison result and the indirect comparison result should be consistent. Because of this, a proper detection of inconsistency is often a key issue in network meta-analysis as whether the results can be reliably used as a clinical guidance. Among the existing methods for detecting inconsistency, two commonly used models are the design-by-treatment interaction model and the side-splitting models. While the original side-splitting model was initially estimated using a Bayesian approach, in this context, we employ the frequentist approach. In this paper, we review these two types of models comprehensively as well as explore their relationship by treating the data structure of network meta-analysis as missing data and parameterizing the potential complete data for each model. Through both analytical and numerical studies, we verify that the side-splitting models are specific instances of the design-by-treatment interaction model, incorporating additional assumptions or under certain data structure. Moreover, the design-by-treatment interaction model exhibits robust performance across different data structures on inconsistency detection compared to the side-splitting models. Finally, as a practical guidance for inconsistency detection, we recommend utilizing the design-by-treatment interaction model when there is a lack of information about the potential location of inconsistency. By contrast, the side-splitting models can serve as a supplementary method especially when the number of studies in each design is small, enabling a comprehensive assessment of inconsistency from both global and local perspectives.

Efficacy of adjunctive local periodontal treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with periodontitis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effectiveness of different adjunctive local treatments combined with non-surgical periodontal therapy (NSPT) to reduce pocket depth (PD), gain clinical attachment level (CAL), and/or reduce glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in individuals with both type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and periodontitis in a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Publications were searched in Cochrane databases, EMBASE, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, PubMed, opengrey.eu, and www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov up to May 29, 2024 with no language restriction.

STUDY SELECTION

Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Network meta-analysis utilized frequentist models.

DATA

The network meta-analysis of 30 RCTs involving 1224 patients revealed that, in short-term (2-3 months) and medium-term (4-6 months), adjunctive local treatment involving statins or metformin significantly outperformed scaling and root planning (SRP) with/without additional interventions such as photodynamic and laser therapies (PDT/LT), phytotherapy, doxycycline, bisphosphonates, antibiotics, antiseptics, or placebo for reducing PD and/or gaining CAL. In the long-term (>6 months), statins yielded the most significant additional PD reduction and CAL gain, followed by antibiotics, compared to SRP with antiseptics or placebo. Only PDT/LT demonstrated significantly greater HbA1c reduction in the short term compared to SRP with/without statins, antiseptics, or placebo.

CONCLUSION

This study moderately supports that adding metformin or statins locally to NSPT may enhance PD reduction and CAL gain compared to SRP with/without placebo.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Clinicians are guided to optimize adjunctive therapies, enhancing the health of patients with type 2 diabetes and periodontitis. A strategic approach is proposed to tackle systemic and oral health challenges simultaneously.

Efficacy of topical agents in oral mucositis prevention: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Oral mucositis (OM) is considered one of the most common side effects of patients undergoing cancer therapy. OM prevention plays a crucial role in the effectiveness of cancer treatment and the patient's quality of life. Different preventive treatments have been proposed in clinical trials, however with inconclusive results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database to answer the PICO question: in cancer patients, do specific topical agents compared to standard treatments or placebo reduce the onset and severity of oral mucositis? The risk of bias was assessed, and a network meta-analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Of 2913 results, 30 randomized clinical trials were considered suitable for inclusion. A total of 2564 patients were analyzed, of which 1284 belonged to the test group and 1280 belonged to the control group. Natural products were the most used, followed mainly by antimicrobial agents, coating agents, and basic oral care measures. Topical sucralfate resulted in the most powerful intervention for the OM prevention (OR = 0.04, 95%C.I. = 0.01-0.25, p-value = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Due to its cytoprotective action, low cost, ease of administration, and safety, sucralfate could become a potential ally to prevent the onset of OM during cancer therapy.

A bayesian network meta-analysis to explore modifying factors in randomized controlled trials: what works for whom to reduce depression in nursing home residents?

BACKGROUND

Reviews of depression interventions in nursing home residents resulted in positive findings. However, because of the heterogeneity of the studies, it remains unclear what works for whom. Considering moderator effects may contribute to a comprehensive understanding of depression treatment in residents. Therefore, this study aims to review depression interventions, examining moderator effects of (1) residents' factors, and (2) components specific of interventions.

METHODS

A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials primarily aimed at reducing depressive symptoms among residents was conducted. First, intervention types, e.g., exercise interventions, were compared to care as usual. Second, meta-regression analyses were conducted for moderator effects of residents' factors (i.e., severity of depressive symptoms, physical dependency, and cognitive impairment) and components identified as specific to an intervention (e.g., music, creativity, positivity).

RESULTS

Our search across six databases resulted in 118 eligible studies: 16 on neurobiological interventions, 102 on non-pharmacological interventions. Compared to care as usual, cognitive interventions, such as cognitive behavioral therapy and goal-oriented therapy, showed the strongest effects (MD = -1.00, 95% CrI [-1.40 to -0.66]). Furthermore, the severity of depressive symptoms moderated the effect of interventions (ƅ = -0.63, CrI 95% [-1.04 to -0.22]), while none of fifteen identified intervention-specific components did. In residents with a depression diagnosis, there were larger effect sizes for interventions including daily structure, psychoeducation, healthy food, creativity, positivity, and an activating/encouraging environment, whereas interventions focusing on distraction and relaxation had larger effect sizes in those residents without.

CONCLUSIONS

By examining the moderator effects, we provided an integrative perspective on the observed variations in effects across different target groups, and components of depression interventions. This approach underscores the complex nature of interventions, emphasizing the need for continued transdisciplinary research, and the exploration of potential moderators. Future investigations should carefully assess residents' factors and choose interventions and their components accordingly.

Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in dual antiplatelet therapy after minor stroke or transient ischemic attack: an updated network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with clopidogrel plus aspirin is a well-established practice after a minor stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). However, ticagrelor plus aspirin may be an alternative.

AIMS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central from inception to January 2024. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling adults with acute minor stroke or TIA within 72 hours of the onset of the symptoms.

RESULTS

A total of 8 RCTs were included in our meta-analysis. Ticagrelor plus aspirin (RR, 0.70; 95% CrI 0.52, 0.91) and clopidogrel plus aspirin (RR, 0.79; 95% CrI 0.64, 0.98) were superior to aspirin in preventing stroke recurrence in overall analysis. Excluding studies with dual antiplatelet up to 90 days, ticagrelor plus aspirin was the only strategy that maintained superiority compared with aspirin regarding stroke recurrence (RR, 0.70; 95% CrI 0.51, 0.95) and ischemic stroke (RR, 0.68; 95% CrI 0.47, 0.94). There was no significant difference between treatment groups regarding hemorrhagic stroke, functional disability, and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

DAPTs were superior to aspirin in preventing recurrence or ischemic stroke. Although no significant difference was observed between DAPTs, ticagrelor plus aspirin may be related to worse major bleeding results, including intracranial bleeding. Ticagrelor plus aspirin is a considerable option for patients after a minor stroke or TIA.

Comparison efficacy and safety of acupuncture and moxibustion therapies in breast cancer-related lymphedema: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Although several acupuncture and moxibustion therapies have been tested in managing breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL), there is little consensus regarding the best options for treating this condition. This systematic review and network meta-analysis compared the efficacy of various acupuncture and/or moxibustion therapies for BCRL.

METHODS

Seven databases and two clinical registration centers were searched from their inception to December 1st, 2023. The Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias assessment tool evaluated the quality of included RCTs. A pairwise meta-analysis was performed in STATA 16.0, while a network meta-analysis was performed in R 4.2.2.

RESULTS

18 studies were included in this analysis. Our results showed that acupuncture and moxibustion methods had great advantages in improving BCRL of patients with breast cancer. In particular, needle-warming moxibustion (NWM) could be the optimal acupuncture and moxibustion method for improving clinical effectiveness and reducing the degree of swelling of affected limbs.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that NWM has great potential in treating BCRL. It may reduce arm circumference, lower swelling levels, and improve clinical effectiveness. Nevertheless, more multi-center, high-quality, and large sample RCTs will be needed in the future.

Efficacy and safety of tirzepatide, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and other weight loss drugs in overweight and obesity: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This network meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide compared to glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) and other weight loss drugs in the treatment of overweight and obesity.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched for randomized controlled trials on tirzepatide, GLP-1 RA, and weight loss drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. A network meta-analysis was performed, drawing direct and indirect comparisons between treatment groups. Network diagrams and surface under the cumulative ranking curve analysis were performed for primary (≥5%, ≥10%, ≥15%, absolute weight loss) and secondary outcomes and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Thirty-one randomized controlled trials, involving more than 35,000 patients, were included in this study. Tirzepatide 15 mg ranked in the top three across weight-related parameters, glycemic profile (glycated hemoglobin), lipid parameters (total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides), and blood pressure. Tirzepatide 15 mg had the highest efficacy compared with placebo for achieving ≥15% weight loss (risk ratio 10.24, 95% CI: 6.42-16.34). As compared to placebo, tirzepatide and GLP-1 RA across all doses had significant increases in gastrointestinal adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The superiority of tirzepatide and GLP-1 RA in inducing weight loss and their ability to target multiple metabolic parameters render them promising candidates in the treatment of patients with overweight and obesity.

Tenecteplase versus alteplase for acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized studies

OBJECTIVE

Alteplase is the current standard of care for acute ischemic stroke. Tenecteplase is a newer fibrinolytic agent with preferable administration and lower costs; however, its comparative effectiveness to alteplase remains uncertain. We set out to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to establish the benefits and harms of tenecteplase versus alteplase for acute ischemic stroke.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to April 2023 for randomized and non-randomized studies that compared tenecteplase versus alteplase for acute ischemic stroke. Paired reviewers independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We performed both conventional meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMA) with random-effects models and used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Our primary efficacy outcome was excellent functional outcome at 3 months, defined as a score of 0-1 on the modified Rankin Scale. Our primary safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies were eligible for review, including 12 randomized (n = 5533) and 24 non-randomized studies (n = 44,956). Moderate certainty evidence showed that there was no difference between tenecteplase and alteplase in increasing the proportion of patients achieving excellent functional outcome at 3 months (odds ratio [OR], 1.10; 95% CI 0.98-1.23; risk difference [RD] 2.4%, 95% CI - 0.5 to 5.2), while moderate certainty evidence from NMA suggested that 0.25 mg/kg tenecteplase significantly improved excellent functional outcome at 3 months (OR, 1.16; 95% credible interval 1.02-1.32). Moderate certainty evidence showed that, compared to alteplase, tenecteplase may make little to no difference in the prevalence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR, 1.12; 95% CI 0.79-1.59; RD 0.3%, 95% CI - 0.5 to 1.4), and probably reduces all-cause mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.44; 95% CI 0.30-0.64; RD - 4.6%; 95% CI - 5.8 to - 2.9).

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate certainty evidence suggested that there was little to no difference between tenecteplase and alteplase in increasing the proportion of patients achieving excellent functional outcome at 3 months and the risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, while compared to alteplase, tenecteplase probably reduce all-cause mortality. Administration of 0.25 mg/kg tenecteplase after acute ischemic stroke is suggestive of increasing the proportion of patients that achieve excellent functional outcome at 3 months.

Risk of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Disorders on Biologics and Small Molecules: Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Recent studies raise concern for increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors used to treat immune-mediated inflammatory disorders (IMIDs). We aimed to examine MACE risk with licensed biologics and small molecules used commonly between IMIDs: inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis.

METHODS

Data were obtained from systematic searches (from inception to May 31, 2022) in PubMed, Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Studies that assessed a predefined MACE (myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, unstable angina, cardiovascular death, or heart failure) risk in those ≥18 years of age with IMIDs treated with anti-interleukin (IL)-23 antibodies, anti-IL-12/23, anti-tumor necrosis factor α antibodies (anti-TNF-α), or JAK inhibitors were included in a network meta-analysis using a random-effects model with pooled odds ratios (ORs) reported with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) by drug class and disease state.

RESULTS

Among 3528 studies identified, 40 (36 randomized controlled trials and 4 cohort studies) were included in the systematic review, comprising 126,961 patients with IMIDs. Based on network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, regardless of disease state, anti-TNF-α (OR, 2.49; 95% CrI, 1.14-5.62), JAK inhibitors (OR, 2.64; 95% CrI, 1.26-5.99), and anti-IL-12/23 (OR, 3.15; 95% CrI, 1.01-13.35) were associated with increased MACE risk compared with placebo. There was no significant difference in the magnitude of the MACE risk between classes or based on IMID type.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-IL-12/23, JAK inhibitors, and anti-TNF-α were associated with higher risk of MACE compared with placebo. The magnitude of the increased MACE risk was not different by IMID type. These results require confirmation in larger prospective studies.

Comparative severe dermatologic toxicities of immune checkpoint inhibitors in malignant melanoma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have advanced the therapeutic landscape for malignant melanoma patients. However, they can cause permanent and irreversible dermatologic immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that may lead to interruption of ICI treatment or become life-threatening. To assess the risk of severe dermatologic irAEs (grade 3 or higher) among ICIs for advanced melanoma, we conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

Phase II/III randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) involving ICIs were retrieved from various databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. These trials were published from the inception of databases to October 15, 2022. In addition, the risk of severe dermatologic irAEs associated with ICI types and doses was evaluated and compared by NMA.

RESULTS

This study included 20 Phase II/III RCTs with a total of 10 575 patients. The results indicated that ICIs carry a higher risk of severe dermatologic irAEs compared to chemotherapy. Additionally, the combinational therapy of Nivolumab + Ipilimumab was associated with a higher risk than ICI monotherapy. Comparatively, the latest treatment option involving dual ICI therapy with Relatlimab + Nivolumab showed a lower toxicity risk, but higher than Ipilimumab alone. Lastly, Nivolumab, at a dose of 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, was observed as the lowest-risk dosing regimen for severe dermatologic irAEs in patients with advanced melanoma.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that Nivolumab (1 mg/kg) + Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) administered every 3 weeks should be used cautiously in patients with advanced melanoma at high risk for dermatologic irAEs. While we recommend the preferred regimen of Nivolumab (dose = 3 mg/kg, every 2 weeks).

Effectiveness of Rehabilitation for Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Scoping Review of Network Meta-Analyses

BACKGROUND

 Although an increasing number of network meta-analyses have been conducted on the effectiveness of conservative therapy for knee osteoarthritis, these may have been poorly planned and executed.We aimed to review the qualities of a comprehensive set of network meta-analyses on rehabilitation therapies for knee osteoarthritis and provide an overview of the effectiveness of each therapy.

METHODS

The eligibility criteria were as follows: (i) conservative rehabilitation was the primary treatment in the intervention group, (ii) included patients were diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis, and (iii) patient groups were aged ≤75 years, and rehabilitation interventions comprised exercise, orthotic, or physical therapies or patient education. Two independent reviewers screened the titles and abstracts of the identified records and selected the eligible reviews; their full texts were further assessed for eligibility. Then, a checklist derived from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension statement for the reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of healthcare Interventions was used to validate the completeness of the reporting of each network meta-analysis. Furthermore, the statistical and outcome data regarding the quality of life, knee joint function and pain, adverse events, and physical functions were extracted using a customized spreadsheet.

RESULTS

Overall, 2701 titles and abstracts were screened, and eight network meta-analyses were ultimately selected. Nearly all reviews adequately addressed the PRISMA extension checklist, and the completeness of reporting was adequate; therefore, all expected information could be extracted. However, the methodology used to confirm the transitivity assumption was insufficient in many reviews. The following interventions were effective in reducing pain and improving physical function: (i) strengthening, flexibility, aerobic, and mind-body exercises, (ii) pulsed ultrasound, (iii) focused and radial extracorporeal shockwave therapy, and (iv) continuous ultrasound. The following interventions were effective in improving the quality of life: (i) strengthening, (ii) mixed, and (iii) mind-body exercises.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggested that exercise therapies, including muscle-strengthening, aerobic, flexibility, and mind-body exercises, are likely to be effective for pain relief and functional improvement in knee osteoarthritis. This may be the first review to provide a comprehensive perspective for considering priorities for future rehabilitation interventions for knee osteoarthritis.

Treatment outcomes of regenerative endodontic therapy in immature permanent teeth with pulpal necrosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIM

The aim of this study was to assess which treatment modality regarding scaffold selection for immature permanent teeth with pulpal necrosis will be the most successful for regenerative endodontic treatment (RET).

METHODOLOGY

PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science and Embase, and additional records until August 2022 were searched providing a total of 3021 articles, and nine of these articles were included for quantitative synthesis. The reviewers selected eligible randomized controlled trials and extracted pertinent data. Network meta-analysis was conducted to estimate treatment effects for primary outcomes (clinical and radiographic healing) and secondary outcomes (apical closure, root length and root wall thickness increase) following RET [mean difference (MD); 95% credible interval (CrI) and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA)]. The quality of the included studies was appraised by the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Six interventions from nine included studies were identified: blood clot scaffold (BC), blood clot scaffold with basic fibroblast growth factor, blood clot scaffold with collagen, platelet pellet, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF). The PRP scaffold showed the greatest increase in root lengthening at 6-12 months (MD = 4.2; 95% CrI, 1.2 to 6.8; SUCRA = 89.0%, very low confidence). PRP or PRF achieved the highest level of success for primary and secondary outcomes at 1-6 and 6-12 months. Blood clot scaffold (with collagen or combined with basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF)) achieved the highest level of success for secondary outcomes beyond 12 months follow-up. A very low to low quality of evidence suggests that both PRP and PRF exhibit the greatest success evaluating primary and secondary outcomes within 12 months postoperatively compared to the traditional blood clot scaffold protocol.

CONCLUSION

Limited evidence suggests both PRP and PRF exhibit success in the short-term, not long-term. The value of this information stems in its recommendation for future randomized trials prioritizing both of these materials in their protocol.

A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Targeted Therapies on the Total Length of Hospital Stay in Children with Drug-Induced Stevens-Johnson Syndrome/Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis Syndrome

Background: Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) are rare potentially life-threatening hypersensitivity disorders characterized by widespread skin and mucosal involvement. However, there is no standardized evidence-based treatment to reduce the complications of SJS/TEN. This article aims to compare the efficacy of different treatments for pediatric SJS/TEN in terms of length of hospital stay (LOS) using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). A Bayesian NMA is used to compare and combine evidence from multiple studies and allows clinicians to estimate the relative effectiveness of different treatments/interventions while accounting for heterogeneity in the available evidence. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive electronic database search for studies compatible with our inclusion criteria. Six studies with 103 patients were included in the NMA; of them, 37 patients were treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), 37 with systemic corticosteroids (CS), 23 with IVIG + CS, and 3 with Etanercept (ET) + CS. Patients with a median age of 10 years were included in the study. Results: CS had the highest probability of being the most optimal treatment for SJS/TEN in terms of shorter LOS based on the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking curve levels, and CS + IVIG was associated with a statistically nonsignificant trend toward shorter LOS than IVIG alone. Remarkably, none of the treatments showed a significant benefit over the other interventions in terms of LOS. Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that coadministration of CS and IVIG may be associated with a shorter LOS than IVIG alone. Further research with larger randomized controlled trials is needed to reach a definitive conclusion about the efficacy of specific therapy on LOS in pediatric SJS/TEN and to establish more definitive treatment guidelines.

Effects of first-line nucleot(s)ide analogues on lipid profiles in patients with chronic hepatitis B: a network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Recent studies have found that lipid levels in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) may change during antiviral therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of first-line nucleot(s)ide analogues (NAs) on lipid profiles in patients with CHB using network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Seven electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and four Chinese databases) were searched for cohort studies on the effect of NA on lipids in patients with CHB up to August 1, 2023. The changes of serum total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) were taken as outcomes. The mean difference (MD) of continuous variables and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using RevMan 5.4 and Stata 16.0 software, and network meta-analysis was based on a frequentist framework.

RESULTS

A total of 4194 patients were included in the study, including patients with CHB treated with entecavir (ETV), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF), as well as patients not receiving antiviral therapy [patients with inactive CHB who were not receiving antiviral therapy (referred as inactive CHB patients) and non-HBV-infected patients]. TDF reduced TC levels compared to the non-antiviral group (TDF vs. inactive CHB patients: MD =  - 17.27, 95% CI (- 30.03, - 4.47); TDF vs. non-HBV-infected individuals: MD =  - 17.10, 95% CI (- 20.13, - 14.07)). TC changes in the TAF and ETV groups were not statistically different from the non-antiviral group (TAF vs. inactive CHB patients: MD =  - 2.69, 95% CI (- 14.42, 9.04); TAF vs. non-HBV-infected individuals: MD =  - 2.52, 95% CI (- 8.47, 3.43); ETV vs. inactive CHB patients: MD =  - 4.24, 95% CI (- 17.12, 8.64); ETV vs. non-HBV-infected individuals: MD =  - 4.07, 95% CI (- 9.90, 1.75)). The ranking of the effects for lowering TC is as follows: CHB patients treated with nucleotide analogues [with varying efficacy: TDF (SUCRA = 99.9) > ETV (SUCRA = 59.3) > TAF (SUCRA = 43.6)] > inactive CHB patients (SUCRA = 27.3) > non-HBV-infected individuals (SUCRA = 19.9). As for secondary outcomes, among the three antiviral drugs, TDF had the most significant effect on lowering TG, LDL-C, and HDL-C, but none of the three drugs was statistically different from the non-antiviral group. Subgroup analysis showed that the lipid-lowering effect of TDF was more pronounced in the elderly (≥ 50 years).

CONCLUSION

TDF was effective in lipid reduction, particularly pronounced in the older population. TAF and ETV had a neutral effect to TC, TG, LDL-C, and HDL-C. Despite a relative increase in lipids observed in patients transitioning from TDF to TAF or ETV, these changes remained within acceptable limits.

Twenty-five years of recombinant human growth factors rhPDGF-BB and rhBMP-2 in oral hard and soft tissue regeneration

Contemporary oral tissue engineering strategies involve recombinant human growth factor approaches to stimulate diverse cellular processes including cell differentiation, migration, recruitment, and proliferation at grafted areas. Recombinant human growth factor applications in oral hard and soft tissue regeneration have been progressively researched over the last 25 years. Growth factor-mediated surgical approaches aim to accelerate healing, tissue reconstruction, and patient recovery. Thus, regenerative approaches involving growth factors such as recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor-BB (rhPDGF-BB) and recombinant human bone morphogenetic proteins (rhBMPs) have shown certain advantages over invasive traditional surgical approaches in severe hard and soft tissue defects. Several clinical studies assessed the outcomes of rhBMP-2 in diverse clinical applications for implant site development and bone augmentation. Current evidence regarding the clinical benefits of rhBMP-2 compared to conventional therapies is inconclusive. Nevertheless, it seems that rhBMP-2 can promote faster wound healing processes and enhance de novo bone formation, which may be particularly favorable in patients with compromised bone healing capacity or limited donor sites. rhPDGF-BB has been extensively applied for periodontal regenerative procedures and for the treatment of gingival recessions, showing consistent and positive outcomes. Nevertheless, current evidence regarding its benefits at implant and edentulous sites is limited. The present review explores and depicts the current applications, outcomes, and evidence-based clinical recommendations of rhPDGF-BB and rhBMPs for oral tissue regeneration.

Comparative effectiveness of noninvasive therapeutic interventions for myofascial pain syndrome: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) has an impact on physical health and quality of life for patients, with various noninvasive methods used for relieving myofascial pain. The authors aimed to compare the effectiveness of different noninvasive therapeutic interventions for MPS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus to identify randomized controlled trials describing the effects of any noninvasive treatments in patients with MPS. The primary outcome was pain intensity, while pressure pain threshold and pain-related disability were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The analysis included 40 studies. Manual therapy [mean difference (MD) of pain: -1.60, 95% CI: -2.17 to -1.03; MD of pressure pain threshold: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.86; MD of pain-related disability: -5.34, 95% CI: -8.09 to -2.58], laser therapy (MD of pain: -1.15, 95% CI: -1.83 to -0.46; MD of pressure pain threshold: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.54; MD of pain-related disability: -4.58, 95% CI: -7.80 to -1.36), extracorporeal shock wave therapy (MD of pain: -1.61, 95% CI: -2.43 to -0.78; MD of pressure pain threshold: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.33 to 1.35; MD of pain-related disability: -5.78, 95% CI: -9.45 to -2.12), and ultrasound therapy (MD of pain: -1.54, 95% CI: -2.24 to -0.84; MD of pressure pain threshold: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.31 to 1.22) were more effective than no treatment.

CONCLUSION

Our findings support that manual therapy, laser therapy, and extracorporeal shock wave therapy could effectively reduce pain intensity, pressure pain threshold, and pain-related disability with statistical significance when compared with placebo. This finding may provide clinicians with appropriate therapeutic modalities for patients with MPS among different scenarios.

The Efficacy and Safety of Different Targeted Drugs for the Treatment of Generalized Myasthenia Gravis: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The treatment of generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) has been transformed by the development and approval of new targeted therapies. This analysis aimed to rank and compare the new therapies for gMG using efficacy and safety data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov (up to November 2022) for RCTs of targeted drugs for gMG. We used a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) model and a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) model for statistical analysis. The primary outcome was the change in quantitative myasthenia gravis score (QMGS) from baseline, while the secondary outcome was the risk ratio (RR) of adverse events (AEs) during treatment. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to rank these targeted drugs, with higher SUCRA values indicating better efficacy or lower likelihood of AEs.

RESULTS

In total, 13 studies (872 subjects) were included in this analysis evaluating 10 targeted drugs (batoclimab, belimumab, CFZ533, eculizumab, efgartigimod, nipocalimab, rituximab, ravulizumab, rozanolixizumab, and zilucoplan). With regards to the primary outcome, batoclimab [standardized mean difference (SMD), - 1.61; 95% credible interval (CrI), - 2.78, - 0.43] significantly reduced QMGS in patients with gMG when compared with placebo and was ranked as the most efficacious drug. Ranked second and third were eculizumab (SMD, - 0.67; 95% CrI, 1.43, 0.01) and zilucoplan (SMD, - 0.54; 95% CrI, - 1.56, 0.46), respectively. Nipoclimab (SMD, - 0.02; 95% CrI, - 1.04, 1.00) had the worst efficacy and ranked last among all targeted drugs. In our study, except for batoclimab, there was no statistically significant difference in the reduction of patient QMGS for the remaining targeted agents compared with placebo. With regards to the secondary outcomes, only batoclimab (RR, 0.19; 95% CrI, 0, 0.97) led to a significant reduction in the incidence of AEs when compared with the placebo. Belimumab (RR, 0.85; 95% CrI, 0.57, 1.19), CFZ533 (RR, 0.95; 95% CrI, 0.72, 1.25), eculizumab (RR, 0.99; 95% CrI, 0.85, 1.21), and efgartigimod (RR, 0.93; 95% CrI, 0.76, 1.15) also led to a lower incidence of AEs, although these effects were not significantly different from the placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Batoclimab had the best efficacy and safety for the treatment of gMG and was ranked first out of the 10 targeted drugs included in this study. Eculizumab was ranked second, and nipocalimab had the worst efficacy. With the exception of batoclimab, the incidence of AEs for the remaining drugs was not statistically significantly different from placebo. We note, however, that wide CrIs reflect the uncertainty in this analysis owing to the small number of available studies and low numbers of study participants; moreover, batoclimab had the widest CrI of all drugs in this analysis. More well-designed studies with long-term follow-up are needed to further evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of these drugs in the future.

Probiotics for adults with major depressive disorder compared with antidepressants: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Despite recent advances in antidepressants in treating major depression (MDD), their usage is marred by adverse effects and social stigmas. Probiotics may be an efficacious adjunct or standalone treatment, potentially circumventing the aforementioned issues with antidepressants. However, there is a lack of head-to-head clinical trials between these 2 interventions.

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and acceptability of these 2 interventions in treating MDD.

DATA SOURCES

Six databases and registry platforms for the clinical trial were systematically searched to identify the eligible double-blinded, randomized controlled trials published between 2015 and 2022.

DATA EXACTION

Two authors selected independently the placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants and microbiota-targeted interventions (prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics) used for the treatment of MDD in adults (≥18 years old). Standardized mean differences (SMDs) of depressive symptom scores from individual trials were pooled for network meta-analysis (PROSPERO no. CRD42020222305).

RESULTS

Forty-two eligible trials covering 22 interventions were identified, of which 16 were found to be effective in MDD treatment and the certainty of evidence was moderate to very low. When all trials were considered, compared with placebo, SMDs of interventions ranged from -0.16 (95% credible interval: -0.30, -0.04) for venlafaxine to -0.81 (-1.06, -0.52) for escitalopram. Probiotics were superior to brexpiprazole (SMD [95% credible interval]: -0.42 [-0.68, -0.17]), cariprazine (-0.44 [-0.69, -0.24]), citalopram (-0.37 [-0.66, -0.07]), duloxetine (-0.26, [-0.51, -0.04]), desvenlafaxine (-0.38 [-0.63, -0.14]), ketamine (-0.32 [-0.66, -0.01]), venlafaxine (-0.47 [-0.73, -0.23]), vilazodone (-0.37 [-0.61, -0.12]), vortioxetine (-0.39 [-0.63, -0.15]), and placebo (-0.62 [-0.86, -0.42]), and were noninferior to other antidepressants. In addition, probiotics ranked the second highest in the treatment hierarchy after escitalopram. Long-term treatment (≥8 weeks) using probiotics showed the same tolerability as antidepressants.

CONCLUSION

Probiotics, compared with antidepressants and placebo, may be efficacious as an adjunct or standalone therapy for treating MDD.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration no. CRD42020222305.

Comparative effectiveness of types of denture adhesives in enhancing retention and function of complete dentures: a systematic review with network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this systematic review with network meta-analysis was to assess the comparative efficacy of various types of denture adhesives in complete denture patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A search was conducted for trials published in Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until July 2023 (PROSPERO: CRD42023451045). A network meta-analysis was performed to assess the comparative efficacy of different denture adhesive types and ranked using the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) system. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to assess the level of certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Seventeen articles were included in the quantitative analysis. Cream denture adhesives significantly increased bite force in both incisal region (RR = 7.63[95%CI: 3.34, 11.91]) (P < .05) as well as premolar and molar regions (RR = 33.66[95%CI: 15.15, 52.16]). Cream adhesives significantly improved retention of dentures as assessed by the reduced number of denture dislodgments (RR = -5.35[95%CI: -9.93, -0.77]) (P = 0.022), Kapur's index of retention (maxillary denture) (RR = 0.80[95%CI: 0.18, 1.42]) (P = 0.012) and Kapur's index of retention (mandibular denture) (RR = 1.27[95%CI: 0.67, 1.87]) (P < .05). Powder adhesives significantly increased premolar and molar bite force (RR = 36.00[95%CI: 16.20, 55.79]) (P < .05) and Kapur's index of retention (mandibular denture) (RR = 1.54[95%CI: 0.58, 2.49]) (P = 0.002). None of the adhesives were statistically significant for remaining outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Cream and powder denture adhesives are effective in enhancing the retention of mandibular dentures (Kapur's index) and bite force in the premolar/molar region in complete denture wearers (moderate level of certainty of evidence).

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Cream and powder denture adhesives are effective in improving the retention and function of complete dentures.

Postoperative ileus after digestive surgery: Network meta-analysis of pharmacological intervention

AIMS

Several medicinal treatments for avoiding postoperative ileus (POI) after abdominal surgery have been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This network meta-analysis aimed to explore the relative effectiveness of these different treatments on ileus outcome measures.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed to identify RCTs comparing treatments for POI following abdominal surgery. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. Direct and indirect comparisons of all regimens were simultaneously compared using random-effects network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 38 RCTs were included in this network meta-analysis reporting on 6371 patients. Our network meta-analysis shows that prokinetics significantly reduce the duration of first gas (mean difference [MD] = 16 h; credible interval -30, -3.1; surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA] 0.418), duration of first bowel movements (MD = 25 h; credible interval -39, -11; SUCRA 0.25) and duration of postoperative hospitalization (MD -1.9 h; credible interval -3.8, -0.040; SUCRA 0.34). Opioid antagonists are the only treatment that significantly improve the duration of food recovery (MD -19 h; credible interval -26, -14; SUCRA 0.163).

CONCLUSION

Based on our meta-analysis, the 2 most consistent pharmacological treatments able to effectively reduce POI after abdominal surgery are prokinetics and opioid antagonists. The absence of clear superiority of 1 treatment over another highlights the limits of the pharmacological principles available.

Comparative efficacy and safety of different doses of ponatinib versus other tyrosine kinase inhibitors for the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Ponatinib was recommended with caution because of its high risk of causing arterial occlusion events in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients. The purpose of this study was to understand the efficacy and safety of different doses of ponatinib in the treatment of CML, and to compare it with other tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

METHOD

A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted by searching randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ponatinib in patients with CML to compare the efficacy and safety of ponatinib, and ranked under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to evaluate the optimal treatment.

RESULTS

A total of seven articles with eight RCTs were included in this study, involving 45 mg, 30 mg and 15 mg ponatinib doses. Seven outcome indexes were analyzed. The results showed that 45 mg ponatinib was superior to other doses of ponatinib and other TKIs in CCyR, MCyR and CHR, but the incidence of SAEs and AOEs was significantly higher than other treatment regimens.

CONCLUSION

Ponatinib, with an initial dosage of 45 mg and a gradual reduction to 15 mg, may be a more favorable option for patients with CML at all stages of disease progression, rather than just those in the chronic phase of CML.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Periprocedural antithrombotic strategies in acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Have we discarded bivalirudin too soon?

BACKGROUND

Publication of the BRIGHT-4 trial results has restimulated discussion about the optimal periprocedural antithrombotic strategy for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). It is possible that variation in the infusion duration, may contribute to observed differences in safety-efficacy profiles of bivalirudin in this clinical setting.

METHODS

Up to December 2022, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bivalirudin (either administered peri-procedurally or accompanied by postprocedural infusion) and heparin, both with or without GPI, were searched and entered in a frequentist network meta-analysis. Co-primary endpoints were trial-defined major adverse composite events (MACE) and major bleeding. Incident rate ratios (IRR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were estimated.

RESULTS

10 RCTs (N = 57,137 patients/month) were included. As compared to heparin, prolonged bivalirudin infusion resulted in lower rates of major bleeding (IRR 0.58, 95 % CI 0.36-0.91), but there was no differences in MACE rates between these strategies. With regard to NACE, prolonged bivalirudin infusion yielded lower risk (IRR 0.86, 95 % CI 0.77-0.96), whereas both bivalirudin and heparin increased risk when coupled with GPI (IRR 1.24, 95 % CI 1.01-1.51 and IRR 1.24, 95 % CI 1.06-1.44, respectively). Both these combination strategies also increased minor bleeding rates (IRR 1.49, 95 % CI 1.16-1.93 and IRR 1.58, 95 % CI 1.29-1.95, respectively, for bivalirudin and heparin). Results were consistent across several sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

In patients with ACS undergoing PCI, procedural bivalirudin administration followed by prolonged infusion results in lower major bleeding rates, but there does not appear to be a difference in observed MACE.

Bayesian or frequentist: there is no question when comparing single-inhaler triple therapies via network meta-analysis. Focus on fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol fixed-dose combination in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

OBJECTIVES

Single-inhaler triple therapies (SITTs) have never been directly compared in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Cochrane recommends the Bayesian approach for indirect comparisons but a frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) reported superiority of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) over other SITT. We assessed the most appropriate inference method for NMA characterized by between-study heterogeneity on SITT in COPD.

METHODS

Bayesian and frequentist NMA were performed on RCTs investigating the effect of SITT on exacerbations and trough forced expiratory volume in the 1st second (FEV1) in COPD.

RESULTS

The included RCTs (ETHOS, FULFIL, IMPACT, KRONOS 200812) reported significant between-study heterogeneity (I2 > 99%, p < 0.001). The Bayesian random-effect NMA provided unbiased evidence that FF/UMEC/VI was not superior to other SITT on exacerbations and trough FEV1. The frequentist fixed-effect NMA indicated that FF/UMEC/VI was significantly (p < 0.05) more effective than other SITT, although results were affected by dispersion, asymmetry, and significant risk of bias. Frequentist random-effect NMA provided effect estimates rather similar but not equal to those of Bayesian approach.

CONCLUSION

Indirect comparison should be performed via Bayesian approach instead of frequentist inference with a fixed-effect model. Claiming the superiority of a specific medication over other therapies should be confirmed by findings originating from well-designed RCTs.

Non-invasive Brain Stimulation Techniques for the Improvement of Upper Limb Motor Function and Performance in Activities of Daily Living After Stroke: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation (NiBS) such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), theta-burst stimulation (TBS), and transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) in upper limb stroke rehabilitation.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched from January 2010 to June 2022.

DATA SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of "tDCS", "rTMS", "TBS", or "taVNS" on upper limb motor function and performance in activities of daily livings (ADLs) after stroke.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

DATA SYNTHESIS

87 RCTs with 3750 participants were included. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that all NiBS except continuous TBS (cTBS) and cathodal tDCS were significantly more efficacious than sham stimulation for motor function (standardized mean difference [SMD] range 0.42-1.20), whereas taVNS, anodal tDCS, and both low and high frequency rTMS were significantly more efficacious than sham stimulation for ADLs (SMD range 0.54-0.99). NMA showed that taVNS was more effective than cTBS (SMD:1.00; 95% CI (0.02-2.02)), cathodal tDCS (SMD:1.07; 95% CI (0.21-1.92)), and Physical rehabilitation alone (SMD:1.46; 95% CI (0.59-2.33)) for improving motor function. P-score found that taVNS is best ranked treatment in improving motor function (SMD: 1.20; 95% CI (0.46-1.95)) and ADLs (SMD:1.20; 95% CI (0.45-1.94)) after stroke. After taVNS, excitatory stimulation protocols (intermittent TBS, anodal tDCS, and HF-rTMS) are most effective in improving motor function and ADLs after acute/sub-acute (SMD range 0.53-1.63) and chronic stroke (SMD range 0.39-1.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that excitatory stimulation protocols are the most promising intervention in improving upper limb motor function and performance in ADLs. taVNS appeared to be a promising intervention for stroke patients, but further large RCTs are required to confirm its relative superiority.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Scalp Nerve Block, Local Anesthetic Infiltration, and Postoperative Pain After Craniotomy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

The most efficacious methods for controlling postoperative pain in craniotomy remain unknown. A systematic review and network meta-analysis were performed to compare the efficacies of different strategies of scalp nerve block (SNB), scalp infiltration (SI), and control in patients undergoing craniotomy. MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched for randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was postoperative 24-hour pain score, and the secondary outcome was opioid consumption within the first 24 hour after surgery. The effect was estimated using the between-group mean difference and ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) score. Twenty-four randomized trials were identified for inclusion. SNB using ropivacaine reduced postoperative 24-hour pain score when compared with control (mean difference [95% credible interval], -2.04 [-3.13, -0.94]; low quality), and when compared with SI using ropivacaine (-1.77 [-3.04, -0.51]; low quality) or bupivacaine (-1.96 [-3.65, -0.22]; low quality). SNB using ropivacaine was likely the most efficacious method for pain control (SUCRA, 91%), and also reduced opioid consumption within the first postoperative 24 hours as compared with control (mean difference [95% credible interval], -11.91 [-22.42, -1.4]; low quality). SNB using bupivacaine, lidocaine, and epinephrine combined, and SNB using ropivacaine, were likely the most efficacious methods for opioid consumption reduction (SUCRA, 88% and 80%, respectively). In summary, different methods of SNB / SI seem to have different efficacies after craniotomy. SNB using ropivacaine may be superior to other methods for postcraniotomy pain control; however, the overall quality of evidence was low.

Comparative efficacy of various hypoxic training paradigms on maximal oxygen consumption: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Enhancement in maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) induced by hypoxic training is important for both athletes and non-athletes. However, the lack of comparison of multiple paradigms and the exploration of related modulating factors leads to the inability to recommend the optimal regimen in different situations. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of seven common hypoxic training paradigms on VO2max and associated moderators.

Methods

Electronic (i.e., five databases) and manual searches were performed, and 42 studies involving 1246 healthy adults were included. Pairwise meta-analyses were conducted to compare different hypoxic training paradigms and hypoxic training and control conditions. The Bayesian network meta-analysis model was applied to calculate the standardised mean differences (SMDs) of pre-post VO2max alteration among hypoxic training paradigms in overall, athlete, and non-athlete populations, while meta-regression analyses were employed to explore the relationships between covariates and SMDs.

Results

All seven hypoxic training paradigms were effective to varying degrees, with SMDs ranging from 1.45 to 7.10. Intermittent hypoxia interval training (IHIT) had the highest probability of being the most efficient hypoxic training paradigm in the overall population and athlete subgroup (42%, 44%), whereas intermittent hypoxic training (IHT) was the most promising hypoxic training paradigm among non-athletes (66%). Meta-regression analysis revealed that saturation hours (coefficient, 0.004; P = 0.038; 95% CI [0.0002, 0.0085]) accounted for variations of VO2max improvement induced by IHT.

Conclusion

Efficient hypoxic training paradigms for VO2max gains differed between athletes and non-athletes, with IHIT ranking best for athletes and IHT for non-athletes. The practicability of saturation hours is confirmed with respect to dose-response issues in the future hypoxic training and associated scientific research.

Registration

This study was registered in the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42022333548).

Survival benefit of perioperative locoregional adjuvant treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To identify the optimal strategy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT) by comparing the oncological prognosis of different perioperative locoregional adjuvant treatments.

METHODS

Electronic database were searched for relevant studies. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were pooled by pairwise and network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Fourteen eligible trials with 1927 patients and covering four adjuvant treatments were included. All adjuvant therapies in combination with surgery were shown to be superior to surgery alone. Adjuvant therapy with radiotherapy had the lowest hazard ratio (HR) for both OS (HR: 0.38, 95% CrI: 0.25-0.57) and RFS (HR: 0.27, 95% CrI: 0.11-0.65) compared with other combination treatments, with estimated surface under the cumulative ranking of 93.2% and 82.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative locoregional adjuvant therapy provides OS benefits and reduces the risk of recurrence for patients suffering from HCC with PVTT. Radiotherapy is likely to be the most effective adjuvant regimen.

Comparative Efficacy, Safety, and Acceptability of Pimavanserin and Other Atypical Antipsychotics for Parkinson's Disease Psychosis: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The current comparative efficacy, safety, and acceptability of atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) in treating Parkinson's Disease Psychosis (PDP) are not entirely understood.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate comparative efficacy, safety, and acceptability of AAPs in patients with PDP.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of pimavanserin, quetiapine, olanzapine, clozapine, ziprasidone, and risperidone. We estimated relative standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (OR) for binary outcomes, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

We included 19 unique studies evaluating AAPs in a total of 1,242 persons with PDP. Based on Clinical Global Impression Scale for Severity, pimavanserin (SMD, -4.81; 95% CI, -5.39, -4.24) and clozapine (SMD, -4.25; 95% CI, -5.24, -3.26) significantly improved symptoms compared with placebo. Also, compared to placebo, pimavanserin (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.07, 1.24) significantly improved psychotic symptoms based on Scale for Assessment of Positive Symptoms for Parkinson's Disease Psychosis/Hallucinations and Delusions scores. In comparison to placebo, clozapine (SMD, -0.69; 95% CI, -1.35, -0.02), pimavanserin (SMD, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.56, 0.53), and quetiapine (SMD, 0.00; 95% CI, -0.68, 0.69) did not impair motor function per Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating scale. Based on Mini-Mental State Examination scale, quetiapine (SMD, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.07, 1.14) significantly impaired cognition compared to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with PDP, pimavanserin and clozapine demonstrated significant improvement in psychosis without affecting motor function. With quetiapine being associated with a significant decline in cognition and despite not impairing motor function, our findings suggest that it should be avoided in patients with PDP and reduced cognitive abilities.

Comparative Efficacy of Six Active Warming Systems for Intraoperative Warming in Adult Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Intraoperative hypothermia is very common and harmful in adult patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. A variety of active warming systems has received close attention and has been researched by related scholars. However, the relative efficacy of these systems and which active warming system is preferred for such patients remain unclear. The aim of this study was to compare and rank six active warming systems regarding intraoperative warming efficacy in adult patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy of different active warming systems in warming adult patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery were searched from five English databases and three Chinese databases. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB2). The outcome was the final intraoperative core temperature. We estimated direct effects by using pairwise meta-analysis, estimated relative effects and ranking with the consistency model to conduct an NetworkMeta-Analysis (NMA). We used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) to assess the certainty of the evidence. Sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the results. This study is registered with PROSPERO, with number CRD42022309057. In total, 19 RCTs involving 6 active warming systems and comprising 1364 patients were included in this NMA. The NMA once again confirmed the validity of forced-air warming (FAW) systems compared with other active warming systems, and further showed that underbody FAW was associated with more remarkable warming efficacy in different types of FAW systems. NMA was used to perform an exhaustive comparison of the warming efficacy of six active warming systems and indicated that underbody FAW was most likely to be the most effective warming system in adult patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery; however, considering the sparsity of the network, our results should be cautiously interpreted. Furthermore, a large number of high-quality RCTs comparing the warming efficacy of different competitive active warming systems are needed.

Comparison of external, internal flat-to-flat, and conical implant abutment connections for implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The implant abutment connection interface has been considered one of the major factors affecting the outcome of implant therapy. However, drawbacks of traditional meta-analyses are the inability to compare more than 2 treatments at a time, which complicates the decision-making process for dental clinicians, and the lack of a network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this network meta-analysis was to assess whether the implant abutment connection influences the outcome of implant-supported prostheses.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic search was undertaken to identify all randomized clinical trials comparing the effect of at least 2 different implant abutment connection designs published from 2009 up to May 2020. Outcome variables were implant survival rate, peri-implant marginal bone loss, and biologic and prosthetic complication rates at 12 months after prosthetic loading. Relevant information was extracted, and quality and risk of bias assessed. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses based on a multivariate random-effects meta-regression were performed to assess the comparisons (α=.05 for all analyses).

RESULTS

For peri-implant marginal bone loss and prosthetic complications, conical interfaces were determined to be the most effective, with significant differences when compared with external hexagonal connections (P=.011 and P=.038, respectively). No significant differences were found among the implant abutment connections in terms of survival and biologic complications (P>.05 in all direct, indirect, and mixed comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

After 1 year of loading, conical connections showed lower marginal bone loss and fewer prosthetic complications than external hexagonal connections. However, the implant abutment connection design had no influence on the implant survival and biologic complication rates.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Effectiveness of mouth rinses against COVID-19: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) comprehensively compared the effectiveness of different mouth rinses in reducing the viral load/infectivity of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) (Part I), alleviating clinical symptoms or severity of disease (Part II), and decreasing the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Part III).

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs) with restrictions were searched up to 3rd March 2023. Twenty-three studies (22 RCTs and one NRCT) met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review.

RESULTS

Five RCTs (454 patients and nine interventions) in Part I were eligible for NMA. The NMA results showed that, in comparison with no rinse, sodium chloride (NaCl) was the most effective mouth rinse for reducing the viral load, followed by povidone-iodine (PVP-I), ß-cyclodextrin + citrox (CDCM), hydrogen peroxide (HP), chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX), cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), placebo and hypochlorous acid (HClO). However, these results were not significant. Based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve scores, PVP-I was likely to be the most efficacious mouth rinse for reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral load, followed by CDCM, HP, NaCl, CHX, CPC, placebo, no rinse and HClO.

CONCLUSION

Due to heterogeneity of the primary studies, the effectiveness of different mouth rinses to reduce viral infectivity, improve clinical symptoms or prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection remains inconclusive.

Methodological quality of network meta-analysis in dentistry: a meta-research

This meta-research aimed to provide an overview of the methodological quality and risk of bias of network meta-analyses (NMA) in dentistry. Searches for NMA of randomized clinical trials with clinical outcomes in dentistry were performed in databases up to January 2022. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts, selected full texts, and extracted the data. The adherence to PRISMA-NMA reporting guideline, the AMSTAR-2 methodological quality tool, and the ROBIS risk of bias tool were assessed in the studies. Correlation between the PRISMA-NMA adherence and the AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS results was also investigated. Sixty-two NMA studies were included and presented varied methodological quality. According to AMSTAR-2, half of the NMA presented moderate quality (n = 32; 51.6%). The adherence to PRISMA-NMA also varied. Only 36 studies (58.1%) prospectively registered the protocol. Other issues lacking of reporting were data related were data related to the NMA geometry and the assessment of results consistency, and the evaluation of risk of bias across the studies. ROBIS assessment showed a high risk of bias mainly for domains 1 (study eligibility criteria) and 2 (identification and selection of studies). Correlation coefficients between the PRISMA-NMA adherence and the AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS results showed moderate correlation (rho < 0.6). Overall, NMA studies in dentistry were of moderate quality and at high risk of bias in several domains, especially study selection. Future reviews should be better planned and conducted and have higher compliance with reporting and quality assessment tools.

Comparative efficacy of different noninvasive brain stimulation therapies for recovery of global cognitive function, attention, memory, and executive function after stroke: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Which noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) treatment - transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) or transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) - is more beneficial for stroke patients' cognitive rehabilitation is still up for debate.

Objectives

Our goal is to provide an overview of the research on the effectiveness and safety of various NIBS protocols.

Design

Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

This NMA compared any active NIBS versus sham stimulation in adult stroke survivors to enhance cognitive function, with a focus on global cognitive function (GCF), attention, memory, and executive function (EF) using the databases MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The NMA statistical approach was built on a frequency framework. The effect size was estimated by the standardized mean difference (SMD) and a 95% confidence interval (CI). We compiled a relative ranking of the competing interventions based on their surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).

Results

NMA showed that high-frequency repeated TMS (HF-rTMS) improved GCF compared with sham stimulation (SMD = 1.95; 95% CI: 0.47-3.43), while dual-tDCS improved memory performance versus sham stimulation significantly (SMD = 6.38; 95% CI: 3.51-9.25). However, various NIBS stimulation protocols revealed no significant impact on enhancing attention, executive function, or activities of daily living. There was no significant difference between the active stimulation protocols for TMS and tDCS and sham stimulation in terms of safety. Subgroup analysis demonstrated an effect favoring activation site of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) (SUCRA = 89.1) for enhancing GCF and bilateral DLPFC (SUCRA = 99.9) stimulation for enhancing memory performance.

Conclusion

The HF-rTMS over the left DLPFC appears to be the most promising NIBS therapeutic option for improving global cognitive performance after stroke, according to a comparison of numerous NIBS protocols. Furthermore, for patients with post-stroke memory impairment, dual-tDCS over bilateral DLPFC may be more advantageous than other NIBS protocols. Both tDCS and TMS are reasonably safe.

Registration

PROSPERO ID: CRD42022304865.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Comparative effectiveness of psychological interventions for treating the psychological consequences of sexual abuse in children and adolescents: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Following sexual abuse, children and young people may develop a range of psychological problems, including anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and a range of behaviour problems. Those working with children and young people experiencing these problems may use one or more of a range of psychological approaches.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative effectiveness of psychological interventions compared to other treatments or no treatment controls, to overcome psychological consequences of sexual abuse in children and young people up to 18 years of age. Secondary objectives To rank psychotherapies according to their effectiveness. To compare different 'doses' of the same intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

In November 2022 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 12 other databases and two trials registers. We reviewed the reference lists of included studies, alongside other work in the field, and communicated with the authors of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing psychological interventions for sexually abused children and young people up to 18 years old with other treatments or no treatments. Interventions included: cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), psychodynamic therapy, family therapy, child centred therapy (CCT), and eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR). We included both individual and group formats.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias for our primary outcomes (psychological distress/mental health, behaviour, social functioning, relationships with family and others) and secondary outcomes (substance misuse, delinquency, resilience, carer distress and efficacy). We considered the effects of the interventions on all outcomes at post-treatment, six months follow-up and 12 months follow-up. For each outcome and time point with sufficient data, we performed random-effects network and pairwise meta-analyses to determine an overall effect estimate for each possible pair of therapies. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we report the summaries from single studies. Due to the low number of studies in each network, we did not attempt to determine the probabilities of each treatment being the most effective relative to the others for each outcome at each time point. We rated the certainty of evidence with GRADE for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 studies (1478 participants) in this review. Most of the participants were female (range: 52% to 100%), and were mainly white. Limited information was provided on socioeconomic status of participants. Seventeen studies were conducted in North America, with the remaining studies conducted in the UK (N = 2), Iran (N = 1), Australia (N = 1) and Democratic Republic of Congo (N = 1). CBT was explored in 14 studies and CCT in eight studies; psychodynamic therapy, family therapy and EMDR were each explored in two studies. Management as usual (MAU) was the comparator in three studies and a waiting list was the comparator in five studies. For all outcomes, comparisons were informed by low numbers of studies (one to three per comparison), sample sizes were small (median = 52, range 11 to 229) and networks were poorly connected. Our estimates were all imprecise and uncertain. Primary outcomes At post-treatment, network meta-analysis (NMA) was possible for measures of psychological distress and behaviour, but not for social functioning. Relative to MAU, there was very low certainty evidence that CCT involving parent and child reduced PTSD (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.87, 95% confidence intervals (CI) -1.64 to -0.10), and CBT with only the child reduced PTSD symptoms (SMD -0.96, 95% CI -1.72 to -0.20). There was no clear evidence of an effect of any therapy relative to MAU for other primary outcomes or at any other time point. Secondary outcomes Compared to MAU, there was very low certainty evidence that, at post-treatment, CBT delivered to the child and the carer might reduce parents' emotional reactions (SMD -6.95, 95% CI -10.11 to -3.80), and that CCT might reduce parents' stress. However, there is high uncertainty in these effect estimates and both comparisons were informed only by one study. There was no evidence that the other therapies improved any other secondary outcome. We attributed very low levels of confidence for all NMA and pairwise estimates for the following reasons. Reporting limitations resulted in judgements of 'unclear' to 'high' risk of bias in relation to selection, detection, performance, attrition and reporting bias; the effect estimates we derived were imprecise, and small or close to no change; our networks were underpowered due to the low number of studies informing them; and whilst studies were broadly comparable with regard to settings, the use of a manual, the training of the therapists, the duration of treatment and number of sessions offered, there was considerable variability in the age of participants and the format in which the interventions were delivered (individual or group).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was weak evidence that both CCT (delivered to child and carer) and CBT (delivered to the child) might reduce PTSD symptoms at post-treatment. However, the effect estimates are uncertain and imprecise. For the remaining outcomes examined, none of the estimates suggested that any of the interventions reduced symptoms compared to management as usual. Weaknesses in the evidence base include the dearth of evidence from low- and middle-income countries. Further, not all interventions have been evaluated to the same extent, and there is little evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions for male participants or those from different ethnicities. In 18 studies, the age ranges of participants ranged from 4 to 16 years old or 5 to 17 years old. This may have influenced the way in which the interventions were delivered, received, and consequently influenced outcomes. Many of the included studies evaluated interventions that were developed by members of the research team. In others, developers were involved in monitoring the delivery of the treatment. It remains the case that evaluations conducted by independent research teams are needed to reduce the potential for investigator bias. Studies addressing these gaps would help to establish the relative effectiveness of interventions currently used with this vulnerable population.

Guidance to Best Tools and Practices for Systematic Reviews

» Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.» A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.» Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Comparing interventions for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy: A network meta-analysis

We compare efficacy of treatments for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR) > 3 months. Four treatment classes were considered: photodynamic therapy (PDT), subthreshold laser therapies (SLT), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents. Pairwise and network meta-analyses of the primary outcomes (complete resolution of subretinal fluid (SRF), mean change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (logMAR) and mean change in SRF) and secondary outcomes (mean change in central retinal thickness, and central choroidal thickness (μm), recurrence of SRF, and adverse events) at 3, 6 and 12 months were compared. Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) informed the certainty of NMA evidence. Eleven RCTs of 458 eyes (450 patients) were included. NMA at 3 months showed that both PDT and SLT were superior to control for resolution of SRF (OR 4.83; 95% CI 1.72 to 13.55 and 2.27; 1.14 to 4.49, respectively) and SLT was superior to control for improving BCVA (MD -0.10; -0.17 to -0.04). PDT was superior to SLT for improving CRT (MD-42.88; -75.27 to -10.50). On probability ranking, PDT and SLT were consistently the best-ranked treatments for each outcome at 3 months, but low confidence of evidence and paucity of studies preclude definitive conclusions.

Efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for managing sickle cell disease complications in children and adolescents: Systematic review with network meta-analysis

This study aimed to synthesize the evidence on the effects of disease-modifying agents for managing sickle cell disease (SCD) in children and adolescents by means of a systematic review with network meta-analyses, surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) and stochastic multicriteria acceptability analyses (SMAA) (CRD42022328471). Eightteen randomized controlled trials (hydroxyurea [n = 7], l-arginine [n = 3], antiplatelets [n = 2], immunotherapy/monoclonal antibodies [n = 2], sulfates [n = 2], docosahexaenoic acid [n = 1], niprisan [n = 1]) were analyzed. SUCRA and SMAA demonstrated that hydroxyurea at higher doses (30 mg/kg/day) or at fixed doses (20 mg/kg/day) and immunotherapy/monoclonal antibodies are more effective for preventing vaso-occlusive crisis (i.e., lower probabilities of incidence of this event; 14, 25, and 30%, respectively), acute chest syndrome (probabilities ranging from 8 to 30%), and needing of transfusions (11-31%), while l-arginine (100-200 mg/kg) and placebo were more prone to these events. Therapies were overall considered safe; however, antiplatelets and sulfates may lead to more severe adverse events. Although the evidence was graded as insufficient and weak, hydroxyurea remains the standard of care for this population, especially if a maximum tolerated dose schedule is considered.

Follicle-stimulating hormone effectiveness in male idiopathic infertility: What happens in daily practice?

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) administration in male idiopathic infertility in a clinical setting.

METHODS

A retrospective real-world study was carried out, including all consecutive FSH-treated infertile men attending the Andrology Unit of Modena (Italy) from June 2015 to May 2022. Medical history, physical and andrological examinations, hormonal and seminal parameters, therapeutic management and pregnancy data were collected. The primary endpoint was the number of pregnancies obtained after FSH administration, whereas semen parameters change was the secondary outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 194 of 362 (53.6%) infertile men, eligible according to the Italian Health System regulations, were treated with FSH (mean age 37.9 ± 6.1 years). Following FSH administration (mean therapy duration 9.1 ± 7.1 months), 43 pregnancies were recorded (27.6%), of which 22 occurred naturally and 21 after assisted reproduction. A significant increase in sperm concentration (9.9 ± 12.2 vs. 18.9 ± 38.9 million/mL, p = 0.045) was detected after treatment, together with a significant increase in normozoospermia (from 1.0% to 5.1%, p = .044) and a reduction in azoospermia rate (from 9.8% to 7%, p = 0.044). Dividing the cohort in FSH-responders and non-responders, in terms of pregnancy achieved, higher sperm concentrations (15.7 ± 26.6 vs. 22.2 ± 25.7 million/mL, p = 0.033) and progressive sperm motility (18.0 ± 18.2 vs. 27.3 ± 11.3, p = 0.044) were found in pregnancy group.

CONCLUSION

Our experience suggests that FSH, empirically administered to men with idiopathic infertility, leads to pregnancy in one out of four patients and increases sperm concentration. Although the expected limits because of a real-world data study, the number of FSH-treated patients required to achieve one pregnancy seems to be lower in clinical setting if compared to previously published data.

Two Intramedullary and 1 Extramedullary Cortical Button, With or Without Interference Screw, Show Biomechanical Properties Superior to Native Tendon in Repair of the Distal Biceps Tendon: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Biomechanical Performance

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to use a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the failure strength, maximum strength, stiffness, and displacement of available constructs for distal biceps repair.

METHODS

An NMA was conducted to determine the performance of 2 all-suture suture anchors (2x ASA), 2 intramedullary cortical buttons (2x IM CB), 2 suture anchors (2x SA), extramedullary cortical buttons (EM CB), extramedullary cortical button plus interference screw (EM CB+IFS), interference screw (IFS), single intramedullary cortical button (IM CB), single suture anchor (SA), transosseous suture (TOS), tension slide technique (TST), and tension slide technique plus suture tape (TST+ST). Analysis consisted of arm-based network meta-analysis under Bayesian random-effects model with Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling. Biomechanical outcomes were summarized as treatment effects and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Rank probabilities were calculated and used to generate each treatment's surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve. Biomechanical properties were compared to native tendon. Displacement >10 mm was defined as clinical failure.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were included. For failure strength, no construct outperformed the native tendon but 2× SA, IFS, SA, and TOS demonstrated poorer failure strength. For the maximum load to failure, EM CB+IFS outperformed the native tendon. Compared to native tendon, EM CB+IFS, EM CB, and 2×IM CB were stiffer, while 2x SA and IFS were less stiff. No construct demonstrated >10 mm of displacement, but constructs with displacement above the mean (3.5 mm) included 2× ASA, 2xIM CB, and TOS.

CONCLUSIONS

The fixation constructs that consistently demonstrated comparable or better biomechanical properties (failure strength, maximum strength, and stiffness) to native tendon in distal biceps tendon repair were the extramedullary cortical button with or without interference screw and two intramedullary cortical buttons. No construct demonstrated displacement beyond standard definitions for clinical failure.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This network meta-analysis of biomechanical studies suggests that extramedullary cortical button and two intramedullary cortical buttons may be the most stable construct for distal biceps repair fixation, with equivalent or better biomechanical properties compared to native tendon.

Antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of lacunar stroke: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To comprehensively compare the efficacy of different antiplatelet therapies for secondary prevention of lacunar stroke (LS).

METHODS

The relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Collaboration Database up to May 2022. Cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events were chosen to evaluate the efficacy of antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention. Loop-specific approach and node-splitting analysis were used to evaluate consistency and inconsistency, respectively. The value of the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) was calculated and ranked. Funnel-plot symmetry was used to evaluate publication bias. The meta-analysis was performed by using STATA 16.0.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies with a total of 33,011 subjects were included in this network meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, aspirin, clopidogrel, cilostazol, ticlopidine, aspirin plus dipyridamole, and aspirin plus clopidogrel were associated with reducing cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. The SUCRA estimated relative ranking of treatments showed that cilostazol may be the most effective (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42-0.74, SUCRA 95.8). No significant inconsistency or publication bias was found in the study.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that cilostazol may be a priority option for secondary prevention of patients with LS. These findings still need further study in the future.

Cardiotoxicity of lung cancer-related immunotherapy versus chemotherapy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Previous clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) cause various toxicities during cancer treatment, but the effects of different inhibitors in combination with chemotherapy for cardiotoxicity remain controversial. The aim of the present study was to assess cardiotoxicity caused by programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), programmed cell death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1), and cytotoxic T lymphocyte associate protein-4 (CTLA-4) in combination with chemotherapy to treat lung cancer.

Methods

The following ICIs were included in the present study: durvalumab, avelumab, ipilimumab, atezolizumab, pembrolizumab, cemiplimab, and nivolumab. The relevant information was extracted using a predefined data extraction table, and the risk of bias was assessed in randomized controlled trials using the Cochrane Bias Risk tool. The main outcomes were hypertension, heart failure, pericardial effusion, and other adverse cardiac events. The random effects model was used to conduct a paired meta-analysis, and a random effects network meta-analysis was then performed within a Bayesian framework.

Results

In total, 17 RCTs were included in the present study. There were 11,063 individuals in the experimental and control groups, with an average age greater than 60 years. Based on the evaluation of all drug classes in RCTs, CTLA-4+chemotherapy (RR, -0.69 [95% CI, 2.91-1.52] and PD-L1 (RR, -0.21 [95% CI, -1.03-0.60]) were less cardiotoxic than the control arm, which indicated they were safer options for adverse cardiac events. PD-L1 alone was less cardiotoxic than PD-1 alone (RR, -0.57 [95% CI, -1.96-0.82]). Further, the dual immunotarget inhibitor, PD-1+CTLA-4, had the lowest SUCRA value and had the highest cardiotoxicity (SUCRA=9).

Conclusion

When classified according to drug type, CTLA-4+chemotherapy is associated with fewer cardiac adverse events compared to other treatments. Dual immunotarget inhibitors are more likely to have adverse cardiac reactions. Therefore, clinicians should consider this evidence when developing an ICI immunotherapy regimen for lung cancer.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42023360931.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews1

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.