Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy and safety of analgesics for acute renal colic: A network meta-analysis protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Acute renal colic is one of the most common urological emergencies. While previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and pairwise meta-analyses only looked at the efficacy of 1 or 2 analgesics. It is not fully understood that the comprehensive ranking of the effectiveness and safeness of analgesics from these published articles. Therefore, this network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to compare and rank the different analgesics for treatment of acute renal colic.

Methods and analysis

We will perform a systematic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to identify RCTs of different analgesics for acute renal colic. RCTs assessing active analgesics intervention against active comparator or placebo controls for acute renal colic will be included. We will also screen the reference lists of included studies, previous reviews and meta-analyses to identify other relevant trials. The primary outcomes will be pain variance at 30 minutes, need rescue medicine, complete pain relief or at least 50% pain relief at 30 minutes, and pain relapse within 24?hours. We will also assess secondary outcomes for safeness (side effects: dizziness, vomit, allergic, hypotension, cardiac toxicity, and drug dependence). The risk of bias of included RCTs will be assessed by using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool, and the quality of evidence will be assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) instrument. We will perform pairwise meta-analysis and Bayesian NMA to compare the effectiveness and safeness of different analgesic interventions.

Results

This NMA will compare and rank the different analgesics for treatment of acute renal colic.

Conclusion

This is the first systematic review to use the NMA to comprehensively compare and rank analgesics for relieving pain of acute renal colic in adults based on most important factors deciding the choice of initial analgesia, and the results can provide implications for clinical practice and further research.

SUBMITTER: Fu S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6417635 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative efficacy and safety of analgesics for acute renal colic: A network meta-analysis protocol.

Fu Shimin S Zhang Kebiao K Gu Manping M Liu Zhiping Z Sun Wenzhuo W Xiao Mingzhao M

Medicine 20190301 10

<h4>Introduction</h4>Acute renal colic is one of the most common urological emergencies. While previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and pairwise meta-analyses only looked at the efficacy of 1 or 2 analgesics. It is not fully understood that the comprehensive ranking of the effectiveness and safeness of analgesics from these published articles. Therefore, this network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to compare and rank the different analgesics for treatment of acute renal colic.<h4>Methods and a ...[more]

PMID: 30855462

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHead lice infestation is a major public health problem around the globe. Its treatment is challenging due to product failures resulting from rapidly emerging resistance to existing treatments, incorrect treatment applications and misdiagnosis. Various head lice treatments with different mechanism of action have been developed and explored over the years, with limited report on systematic assessments of their efficacy and safety. This work aims to present a robust evidence summarising the interventions used in head lice.MethodThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis which will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement for network meta-analyses. Selected databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials exploring head lice treatments. Searches will be limited to trials published in English from database inception till 2021. Grey literature will be identified through Open Grey, AHRQ, Grey Literature Report, Grey Matters, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry. Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved via a third reviewer. The primary outcome measure is the relative risk of cure at 7 and 14 days postinitial treatment. Secondary outcome measures may include adverse drug events, ovicidal activity, treatment compliance and acceptability, and reinfestation. Information from direct and indirect evidence will be used to generate the effect sizes (relative risk) to compare the efficacy and safety of individual head lice treatments against a common comparator (placebo and/or permethrin). Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations guideline for network meta-analysis. All quantitative analyses will be conducted using STATA V.16.DiscussionThe evidence generated from this systematic review and meta-analysis is intended for use in evidence-driven treatment of head lice infestations and will be instrumental in informing health professionals, public health practitioners and policy-makers.Prospero registration numberCRD42017073375.

Project description:IntroductionOsteoporosis (OP) is a prevalent skeletal disease with high mortality and morbidity, followed by acute and chronic back pain, severe spinal deformity and dysfunction. First-line drugs for OP work through antiresorptive or anabolic mechanisms. Although with good efficacy, these drugs still have certain limitations in clinical application due to delivery routes, medication cycles and cost issues. Nowadays, statins (3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) appear to be potentially promising drugs for OP. Despite the controversy, previous studies have shown the efficacy of statins in treating OP. Other studies have further indicated that the therapeutic effect of OP in statin-treated patients is dose dependent. However, scientists have not yet reached a consensus on the use of statins for the treatment or which statin to choose first. This study aims to review the literature, ascertaining the relative efficacy and safety of statins for patients with OP using a Bayesian network meta-analysis.Methods and analysisWe will systematically search the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, China Science and Technology Journal Database, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database and preprint servers to include randomised controlled trials that compare different statins for treating OP. Primary outcomes are the incidence of overall fractures and bone mineral density changes. Secondary outcomes contain adverse effects and bone turnover markers. All items of this review will comply with the Cochrane Handbook, and the quality of evidence will be evaluated by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. A traditional pairwise meta-analysis and the Bayesian network meta-analysis will be performed to compare the efficacy of different statins.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required since this is a protocol study for meta-analyses. Results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42021242619.Search datesFrom database inception to February 2022.

Project description:IntroductionThe US Food and Drug Administration has withdrawn the bowel cleansing kit HalfLytely (PEG 3500) with 10 mg bisacodyl tablets due to an increased risk of ischaemic colitis compared with the same kit with only 5 mg bisacodyl. This is of interest in Canada given that the bowel cleansing kit Bi-Peglyte (PEG 3500) with 15 mg bisacodyl is currently approved for use. The objective is to assess the comparative safety of various bowel cleansers with or without bisacodyl, with a primary interest inpolyethylene glycol (PEG)-based and sodium-picosulfate-based products.Methods and analysisGiven the existing volume of the literature, the review will be conducted in two stages. Stage 1 will consist of a scoping exercise by searching MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library (up to 21 November 2017) to identify randomised controlled trials, quasirandomised studies and non-randomised studies in which any bowel cleanser regimens were compared among persons undergoing colonoscopy. The outcomes will be mapped to establish a listing of the studies and their comparisons and outcomes currently available in the literature. From this, a data synthesis plan will be determined. In stage 2, a systematic review with meta-analyses will be pursued, focused on the bowel cleanser comparisons and outcomes of interest identified in stage 1. Two reviewers will screen, extract and quality assess the articles. Outcomes of interest include ischaemic colitis, electrolyte imbalances and their consequences, seizures, bowel perforation and patient tolerability. If sufficient data exist and studies are of sufficient homogeneity, network meta-analyses (NMAs) will be performed.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was not necessary due to study design. Updating the safety profile of bowel cleansers among the generally healthy population undergoing colonoscopy is pertinent given recent approval changes. This will be the first NMA within this population. Policy considerations may be reconsidered to minimise risk during bowel cleanser use.Prospero registration numberCRD42018084720.

Project description:IntroductionAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture can be treated surgically or non-surgically, with several surgical interventions available at present. However, the comparatively effective surgical intervention with relatively fewer side effects remains unknown. This study aims to fill in this gap by conducting a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) and provide a theoretical basis for the clinical application.Method and analysisWe will perform a Bayesian NMA and will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English or Chinese that compare surgical intervention (ie, standard ACL reconstruction, ACL remnant-preserving reconstruction and ACL repair with suture augmentation to conservative therapy or studies that compare one surgical intervention to another for the symptom relief and function recovery of patients with ACL rupture. Primary outcome will be the proportion of patients with symptomatic and functional improvement measured by the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score before and 6 months after treatment, with scores ranging from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). Secondary outcomes will be knee-specific quality of life (ACL QoL), return to activity and level of sport participation (Tegner or modified Tegner score), health-related QoL (EuroQol Group 5-Dimension 5-Level, EQ-5D-5L), resource use, intervention-related complications and patient satisfaction. We have developed search strategies for PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science, retrieving RCTs that meet the inclusion criteria from database inception to 1 December 2023. The methodological quality of the included RCTs will be assessed based on the Cochrane risk of bias table. The relative ranking probability of the best intervention will be estimated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. The Bayesian NMA will be conducted by using WinBUGS V.1.4.3. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be applied to determine our confidence in an overall treatment ranking from the NMA.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for this study is not required because no private or confidential patient data will be used in this study. Findings of this study would be disseminated through the publication in a peer-reviewed medical journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42023437115.

Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy and safety of analgesics for acute renal colic: A network meta-analysis protocol.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparative efficacy and safety of analgesics for acute renal colic: A network meta-analysis protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets