Dataset Information

Effect of systemic steroids on post-tonsillectomy bleeding and reinterventions: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the risk of postoperative bleeding and reintervention with the use of systemic steroids in patients undergoing tonsillectomy.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Data sources

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, Intute, Biosis, OpenSIGLE, National Technical Information Service, and Google Scholar were searched. References from reviews identified in the search and from included studies were scanned.

Review methods

Randomised controlled trials comparing the administration of systemic steroids during tonsillectomy with any other comparator were eligible. Primary outcome was postoperative bleeding. Secondary outcomes were the rate of admission for a bleeding episode, reintervention for a bleeding episode, blood transfusion, and mortality.

Results

Of 1387 citations identified, 29 randomised controlled trials (n=2674) met all eligibility criteria. Seven studies presented a low risk of bias, but none was specifically designed to systematically identify postoperative bleeding. Administration of systemic steroids did not significantly increase the incidence of post-tonsillectomy bleeding (29 studies, n=2674 patients, odds ratio 0.96 (95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.40), I²=0%). We observed a significant increase in the incidence of operative reinterventions for bleeding episodes in patients who received systemic steroids (12, n=1178, 2.27 (1.03 to 4.99), I²=0%). No deaths were reported. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the findings.

Conclusions

Although systemic steroids do not appear to increase bleeding events after tonsillectomy, their use is associated with a raised incidence of operative reinterventions for bleeding episodes, which may be related to increased severity of bleeding events. Systemic steroids should be used with caution, and the risks and benefits weighed, for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after tonsillectomy before further research is performed to clarify their condition of use.

SUBMITTER: Plante J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3429364 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients' preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:RPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed. RESULTS:In total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%-100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%-99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI -0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502). CONCLUSIONS:Patients' preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019094438.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Several studies have investigated the effects of dexamethasone on post-operative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) or post-operative delirium (POD); however, their conclusions have been inconsistent. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis to determine the effects of dexamethasone on POCD and POD in adults following general anaesthesia. METHODS:The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2018, Issue 11 of 12) in the Cochrane Library (searched 17 November 2018), MEDLINE OvidSP (1946 to 16 November 2018) and Embase OvidSP (1974 to 16 November 2018) were searched for randomised controlled trials that evaluated the incidence of POCD and POD following dexamethasone administration in adults (age ≥ 18 years) under general anaesthesia. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework to assess the quality of the evidence. RESULTS:Five studies were included (three studies with 855 participants in the dexamethasone group and 538 participants in the placebo group for the incidence of POCD, and two studies with 410 participants in the dexamethasone group and 420 participants in the placebo group for the incidence of POD). There was no significant difference between the dexamethasone group and the placebo group in terms of the incidence of POCD 30 days after surgery (RR [relative risk] 1.00; 95% CI [confidence interval: 0.51, 1.96], P = 1.00, I2 = 77%) or the incidence of POD (RR 0.96; 95% CI [0.68, 1.35], P = 0.80, I2 = 0%). However, both analyses had some limitations because of limited evidence and clinical heterogeneity, and we considered the quality of the evidence for the post-operative incidence of POCD and POD to be very low. CONCLUSIONS:This meta-analysis revealed that prophylactic dexamethasone did not reduce the incidence of POCD and POD. Trials of alternative preventive strategies for POCD and POD, as well as a better understanding of the pathophysiology of those complex syndromes, are still needed to make progress in this field. TRIAL REGISTRATIONR:This study is registered with PROSPERO, 23 October 2018, number CRD42018114552. Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails .

Project description:Objective(s)Edoxaban, a factor Xa inhibitor, is a new oral anticoagulant that has been developed as an alternative to vitamin K antagonists. However, its safety remains unexplored.MethodsMedline, Embase and Web of Science were searched to March 8, 2014 for prospective, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the safety profile of edoxaban with warfarin. Safety outcomes examined included bleeding risk and mortality.ResultsFive trials including 31,262 patients that met the inclusion criteria were pooled. Overall, edoxaban was associated with a significant decrease in major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events [risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.82, p<0.001] and any bleeding events [RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.85, p<0.001]. Edoxaban also showed superiority to warfarin both in all-cause mortality [RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.99, p = 0.02] and cardiovascular mortality [RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, p = 0.004]. Subgroup analyses indicated that RRs of edoxaban 30, 60 or 120 mg/d were 0.67 (p<0.001), 0.87 (p<0.001) and 3.3 (p = 0.004) respectively in major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding; 0.71 (p<0.001), 0.89 (p<0.001) and 2.29 (p = 0.002) respectively in any bleeding; as well as 0.86 (p = 0.01), 0.87 (p = 0.01) and 0.28 (p = 0.41) respectively in cardiovascular death… Meanwhile, paramount to note that pooled results other than the largest trial showed edoxaban was still associated with a decrease in the rate of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding event (p = 0.02) and any bleeding (p = 0.002), but neither in all-cause death (p = 0.66) nor cardiovascular death (p = 0.70).ConclusionsEdoxaban, a novel orally available direct factor Xa inhibitor, seems to have a favorable safety profiles with respect to bleeding risk and non-inferior in mortality when compared to warfarin. Further prospective RCTs are urgently needed to confirm the results of this meta-analysis.

Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the effects of physical activity in adult patients after completion of main treatment related to cancer.DesignMeta-analysis of randomised controlled trials with data extraction and quality assessment performed independently by two researchers.Data sourcesPubmed, CINAHL, and Google Scholar from the earliest possible year to September 2011. References from meta-analyses and reviews.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials that assessed the effects of physical activity in adults who had completed their main cancer treatment, except hormonal treatment.ResultsThere were 34 randomised controlled trials, of which 22 (65%) focused on patients with breast cancer, and 48 outcomes in our meta-analysis. Twenty two studies assessed aerobic exercise, and four also included resistance or strength training. The median duration of physical activity was 13 weeks (range 3-60 weeks). Most control groups were considered sedentary or were assigned no exercise. Based on studies on patients with breast cancer, physical activity was associated with improvements in insulin-like growth factor-I, bench press, leg press, fatigue, depression, and quality of life. When we combined studies on different types of cancer, we found significant improvements in body mass index (BMI), body weight, peak oxygen consumption, peak power output, distance walked in six minutes, right handgrip strength, and quality of life. Sources of study heterogeneity included age, study quality, study size, and type and duration of physical activity. Publication bias did not alter our conclusions.ConclusionsPhysical activity has positive effects on physiology, body composition, physical functions, psychological outcomes, and quality of life in patients after treatment for breast cancer. When patients with cancer other than breast cancer were also included, physical activity was associated with reduced BMI and body weight, increased peak oxygen consumption and peak power output, and improved quality of life.