Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy of pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments for chronic idiopathic constipation in China: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:To provide evidence for medical management of chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) in China based on comparisons of all clinical practical interventions using Bayesian network meta-analysis. METHODS:We conducted a systematic literature review by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Wanfang Database (inception to May 2019) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for CIC in Chinese people. Only RCTs that recruited participants aged over 18 and diagnosed with CIC by the Rome II, III or IV criteria were included. We used three outcomes to examine efficacy. The risk ratio (RR) of the responder rate, based on ?3 spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) per week after treatment, was the primary outcome, and the SBM count per week and the Bristol score (BS) were secondary outcomes. In addition, adverse effects (AEs) were also considered a secondary outcome to evaluate safety. We conducted Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects, and the RR or mean difference with its 95% credible interval was calculated. In addition, we ranked all treatments via their cumulative curves (SUCRA) and assessed the quality of evidence according to the GRADE criteria. RESULTS:We included a total of 42 trials (6820 participants) of 20 grouped interventions that included pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments. For the primary outcome, fourteen interventions were significantly better than placebo, and Probiotics plus Mosapride (PB?+?MP) appeared superior to others (GRADE quality of evidence: Moderate to Low), followed by Prucalopride (PP) (High to Low) and Electroacupuncture (EA) (High to Low). For SBM, Compound sodium bicarbonate suppository (CSBS) appeared to be best, with an SUCRA value of 90% (High to Low). For BS, Lactulose plus Probiotics (LT?+?PB) was superior to others (Moderate to Low), followed by Polyethylene glycol (PEG) (High to Moderate). Although all interventions appeared non-significant when compared with placebo in terms of adverse effects, Lactulose plus Mosapride showed greater risk than others on ranking probability. CONCLUSIONS:Given the GRADE assessment, PB?+?MP, PP and EA may be the priory options with moderate certainty in the quality of evidence for the primary outcome. For SBM, a CSBS may be the best option with moderate certainty in the quality of evidence. For BS, PEG may be the priory option with high certainty in the quality of evidence. However, due to a lack of high certainty in the quality of evidence, caution is needed when recommending the interventions. Because of the limitations, an increased number of trials are required for more accurate results.

SUBMITTER: Shi Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6857160 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative efficacy of pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments for chronic idiopathic constipation in China: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Shi Qingyang Q Tan Lizi L Liu Chunxiang C Wang Huijun H Zhang Junhua J Wang Hui H Zhai Jingbo J

BMC complementary and alternative medicine 20191114 1

<h4>Background</h4>To provide evidence for medical management of chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) in China based on comparisons of all clinical practical interventions using Bayesian network meta-analysis.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a systematic literature review by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Wanfang Database (inception to May 2019) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for CIC in Chinese people. Only RCTs that ...[more]

PMID: 31727037

Similar Datasets

Project description:Acne has several effects on physical symptoms, but the main impacts are on the quality of life, which can be improved by treatment. There are several acne treatments but less evidence comparing their relative efficacy. Thus, we assessed the comparative efficacy of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for acne. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to April 2019, to include randomized controlled trials for acne that compared topical antibiotics (TA), benzoyl peroxide (BPO), topical retinoids (TR), oral antibiotics (OA), lasers, light devices including LED device (LED), photodynamic therapy (PDT), and intense pulsed light, chemical peels (CP), miscellaneous therapies or complementary and alternative medicine (MTCAM), or their combinations. We performed Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects for all treatments compared with placebo and each other. Mean differences (MDs) of lesions count and risk ratios of adverse events with their 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated, and all interventions were ranked by the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) values. Additional frequentist additive network meta-analysis was performed to detect the robustness of results and potential interaction effects. Sensitivity analyses were carried out with different priors, and metaregression was to adjust for nine potential effect modifiers. In the result, seventy-three randomized controlled trials (27,745 patients with mild to moderate acne), comparing 30 grouped intervention categories, were included with low to moderate risk of bias. For adverse effects, OA had more risk in combination treatment with others. For noninflammatory lesions reduction, seventeen interventions had significant differences comparing with placebo and three interventions (TR+BPO: MD = -21.89, 95%CrI [-28.97, -14.76]; TR+BPO+MTCAM: -22.48 [-34.13, -10.70]; TA+BPO+CP: -20.63 [-33.97, -7.13]) were superior to others with 94, 94, and 91% SUCRA values, respectively. For inflammatory lesions reduction, nineteen interventions were significantly better than placebo, and three interventions (TR+BPO: MD = -12.13, 95%CrI [-18.41, -5.80]; TR+BPO+MTCAM: -13.21 [-.39, -3.04]; LED: -11.30 [-18.34, -4.42]) were superior to others (SUCRA: 81, 81, and 77%, respectively). In summary of noninflammatory and inflammatory lesions results, TR+BPO and TA+BPO were the best options compared to others. The frequentist model showed similar results as above. In summary, current evidence supports the suggestion that TR+BPO and TA+BPO are the best options for mild to moderate acne. LED is another option for inflammatory lesions when drug resistance occurs. All the combinations involved with OA showed more risk of adverse events than others. However, the evidence of this study should be cautiously used due to the limitations.

Project description:Background: Non-pharmacologic auxiliary treatments have been considered crucial therapies for treating chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) during the past decades worldwide. Several treatment patterns are available, but their relative efficacy is obscure because there are no head-to-head randomized controlled trials, especially in children. We conducted this network meta-analysis to evalute the effectiveness of these therapies in improving defecation function based on their direct comparisons with standard medical care. Methods: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English from inception to October 2020, assessing the efficacy of auxiliary therapies (behavior therapy, physiotherapy, biofeedback, or anorectal manometry) in children with CIC. We extracted data for endpoints, risk of bias, and evidence quality. Eligible studies in the meta-analysis reported the data of a dichotomous assessment of overall response to treatment (response or not) or defecation frequency per week after treatment. The hierarchical Bayesian network meta-analysis was used in the study. We chose a conservative methodology, random effects model, to pool data which could handle the heterogeneity well. The relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous results, weighted mean difference (WMD) with related CIs was calculated. The included treatments were ranked to define the probability of being the best treatment. Results: Seven RCTs (838 patients) met inclusion and endpoint criteria. Based on an endpoint of the absence of constipation (Rome criteria) with laxatives allowed, physiotherapy plus standard medical care (SMC) had the highest probability (84%) to bethe most effective therapy. When the treatment response was defined as an absence of constipation with not laxatives allowed, biofeedback plus SMC ranked first (probability 52%). Physiotherapy plus SMC ranked first when the endpoint was based on defecation frequency per week with laxatives allowed (probability 86%). Conclusion: Almost all auxiliary therapies are effective complementary therapies for treating CIC, but they needed to be used simultaneously with SMC. Nevertheless, because of the small number of eligible studies and their small sample sizes, the differences in treatment duration and the endpoints, large sample RCTs with long-term follow-up are required for further investigation.

Project description:ImportancePosttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a prevalent mental disorder, with a high risk of chronicity, comorbidity, and functional impairment; PTSD is complicated to treat, and the debate on the best treatment approach is ongoing.ObjectiveTo examine comparative outcomes and acceptability of psychotherapeutic and pharmacological treatments and their combinations in adults with PTSD.Data sourcesEmbase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and PSYNDEX were searched for studies published from January 1, 1980, to February 28, 2018. Reference lists of included studies and of previously published guidelines and systematic reviews were also searched.Study selectionOf 11 417 records identified, 12 published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comprising 922 participants, contributing 23 direct comparisons between psychotherapeutic and pharmacological treatments or their combinations were included.Data extraction and synthesisStandardized mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios were aggregated using random-effects network and pairwise meta-analyses. Risk of bias and indirectness was rated for each study, and network confidence was rated using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis framework.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the comparative benefit between 2 treatment approaches to PTSD symptom improvement, and secondary outcome was the comparative acceptability of the treatment approaches, as indicated by patient dropout rates before treatment termination.ResultsNo treatment approach was found to be superior at the end of treatment (for all, 95% CI included 0). At the last follow-up, psychotherapeutic treatments showed greater benefit than pharmacological treatments in both network (SMD, -0.83; 95% CI, -1.59 to -0.07) and pairwise (SMD, -0.63; 95% CI, -1.18 to -0.09, 3 RCTs) meta-analyses. No difference was found between combined treatments and psychotherapeutic treatments at long-term follow-up, and combined treatments were associated with better outcomes than pharmacological treatments in the network meta-analysis (SMD, -0.96; 95% CI, -1.87 to -0.04), but not in the pairwise meta-analysis, which included 2 RCTs (SMD, -1.02; 95% CI, -2.77 to 0.72). No evidence was found for differential acceptability of the 3 treatment approaches.Conclusions and relevanceThese results suggest superiority of psychotherapeutic treatments over pharmacological treatments; network, but not pairwise, meta-analyses suggest superiority of combined treatments over pharmacological treatments in improving PTSD symptom severity in the long term. The scarcity of reported long-term findings hampers definite conclusions and demonstrates the need for robust evidence from large-scaled comparative trials providing long-term follow-up data.

Project description:BackgroundDepressive symptoms play an essential role in cognition decline, while the benefit and acceptability of treatments for depressive symptoms in cognitive impairment are still unknown.ObjectiveTo comprehensively evaluate the comparative efficacy and acceptability of treatments for depressive symptoms in cognitive impairment based on the quantitative Bayesian network meta-analysis method (NMA).MethodWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from inception until August 2022 to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating treatments for depressive symptoms in cognitive impairment. Efficacy was evaluated by the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), and the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) for depression; the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) and the Cohen-Mansfeld Agitation Inventory (CMAI) for behavior; and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) for cognition. Safety was evaluated by total adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, diarrhea, headache, and nausea.ResultsIn this study, 13,043 participants from 107 RCTs were included, involving 28 treatments and the discontinuation of antidepressants. On CSDD, aerobic exercise (MD -4.51, 95%CrI -8.60 to -0.37), aripiprazole (MD -1.85, 95%CrI -3.66 to -0.02), behavioral training (MD -1.14, 95%CrI -2.04 to -0.34), electrical current stimulation (MD -3.30, 95%CrI -5.94 to -0.73), massage (MD -12.67, 95%CrI -14.71 to -10.59), music therapy (MD -2.63, 95%CrI -4.72 to -0.58), and reminiscence therapy (MD -2.34, 95%CrI -3.51 to -1.25) significantly outperformed the placebo. On MMSE, cognitive stimulation therapy (MD 1.42, 95%CrI 0.49 to 2.39), electrical current stimulation (MD 4.08, 95%CrI 1.07 to 7.11), and reminiscence therapy (MD 1.31, 95%CrI 0.04 to 2.91) significantly outperformed the placebo. Additionally, no treatments showed a significantly higher risk than the placebo.ConclusionOur NMAs indicated that non-pharmacological interventions were more efficacious and safe than pharmacological treatments for reducing depressive symptoms as well as improving cognitive impairment. Electrical current stimulation, aerobic exercise, and reminiscence therapy could be first recommended considering their beneficial performance on both depression and cognition. Hence, non-pharmacological treatments deserve more attention and extensive application and should at least be considered as an alternative or assistance in clinical settings.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021239621, identifier: CRD42021239621.

Project description:BackgroundMigraine is a chronic paroxysmal incapacitating neurological disorder, which endangers the health of human worldwide ranking as the third most prevalent medical condition. There are no comprehensive estimates of treatments for migraine. We will conduct this systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to synthesis quantitative and comparative evidence on the efficacy and tolerability of all the known pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for migraine.MethodWe will perform the systematic electronic search of the literature utilizing MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health (CINAHL), and PsycINFO. We will only include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of high quality which appraise the efficacy or safety of any potential pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions in the treatment of patients with migraine. The traditional pairwise meta-analyses will be performed to anticipate the heterogeneities and publication bias and the NMA will be conducted within a Bayesian hierarchical model framework to obtain estimates for all valuable treatments for migraine. The entire heterogeneity will be quantified by Q statistic and I2 index. Other analyses included sensitivity analyses, meta-regression, and subgroup analyses will also be conducted. The whole process will be conducted using in R-3.6.0 software.ResultsThis study will obtain the efficacy and tolerability of all potential treatments for migraine, aiming at providing consolidated evidence to help make the best choice of interventions. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.DiscussionThis Bayesian network meta-analysis may be the first attempt to quantitatively synthesize the efficacy and tolerability of all potential treatments for migraine. And this method can ensure us to fully utilize both the direct and indirect evidence as well as gain the comparative estimates displayed in the derived hierarchies. Besides, we have registered this protocol on the international prospective register of systematic review (PROSPERO) (CRD42020157278).

Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy of pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments for chronic idiopathic constipation in China: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Publications

Comparative efficacy of pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments for chronic idiopathic constipation in China: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets