Dataset Information

Parathyroid hormone analogues for fracture healing: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Fracture healing is a complex physiological process. Impaired healing will increase the need for care and cause serious complications. Thus, identifying strategies to accelerate the rate of healing, preventing delayed unions and non-unions, is essential. Parathyroid hormone (PTH) is a key systemic regulator of calcium and phosphate metabolism. It has been determined that intermittent administration of PTH and its analogue can exert anabolic effect on bone, increase bone mass and reduce bone loss, leading to an increase in bone formation. Owing to their anabolic effect, there is an increasing interest in its potential in promoting the process of fracture healing. However, in clinical studies, the results are in conflict. This objective of this study is to determine the role of PTH analogues for fracture healing in adults. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases will be searched to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compare the different effects between PTH analogues and any other treatments in adults with any type of fracture. The primary outcome is the functional recovery. And the secondary outcomes are fracture union and adverse events. The meta-analysis will be performed using a random effects model. Heterogeneity will be assessed by the P values and I² statistic. And subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses will be used to explore the heterogeneity. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane tool and the quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval is not required because this proposed systematic review and meta-analysis is based on published data, without including confidential personal data or data on interventions on patients. The findings of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journaland presented at a relevant conference. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017062093.

SUBMITTER: Lou S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5988099 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Vitamin D receptor agonists (VDRAs) are commonly prescribed in chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, their protective effects on bone remain controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of VDRAs on fracture risk and bone mineral density (BMD) in adult patients with CKD. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases from inception to June 19, 2021. We included RCTs comparing VDRAs, to placebo or another medication, in adults with CKD requiring or not dialysis. Conference abstracts and trials involving kidney transplant recipients and/or comparing VDRAs to antiresorptive or anabolic bone therapy were excluded. Primary outcome was fracture at any anatomical site. Secondary outcomes were BMD at femoral neck, lumbar spine, and/or total hip. Prespecified subgroup analyses were conducted according to baseline demographics, overall risk of bias, and follow-up time. From 6868 references retrieved, eight RCTs were eligible: five reported fracture, two reported BMD, and one reported both outcomes. As comparator, one study used no VDRAs, one used nutritional intervention and no medication, and six used placebo. In meta-analysis, VDRAs were not associated with a significant reduction in total fractures in overall (risk ratio = 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.38-1.65, I2 = 0%, six trials, 1507 participants, 27 fractures) or in prespecified subgroup analyses. Three trials reported BMD at different sites and with different BMD measurements; thus, a meta-analysis could not be performed. Two RCTs were at high risk of bias, notably because of deviations from the intended interventions. As limitation, we have to mention the low total number of fractures included in our meta-analysis. In conclusion, current evidence from RCTs is insufficient to associate VDRAs with bone protection in CKD. Further large and long-term studies specifically designed to evaluate the efficacy of VDRAs on bone outcomes are thus required. © 2022 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

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.

Dataset Information

Parathyroid hormone analogues for fracture healing: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets