Dataset Information

Nonhormonal Hot Flash Management for Breast Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Materials and Methods:We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Chinese Biomedicine Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan Fang, and VIP up to May 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting nonhormonal hot flash treatments for breast cancer survivors were included. Primary outcome measurements were hot flash frequency and hot flash score of posttreatment. The methodological quality of each study was assessed with Cochrane's risk of bias tool. Results:16 RCTs involving 2,349 participants were included. The nonhormonal therapies used in the included studies were classified as follows: lifestyle changes, mind-body techniques, dietary/supplements, SSRIs/SNRIs, other medications, and other therapies. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that the general effect of nonhormonal management was statistically more effective than no treatment/placebo/sham in reducing hot flash frequency (SMD?=?-0.60, 95% CI [-1.13, -0.06]; P=0.03)) and hot flash score (SMD?=?-0.38, 95% CI [-0.68, -0.08]). For hot flash frequency, results from the NMA showed that there was no statistically significant difference between any two of the nonhormonal treatments. Another NMA result indicated that acupuncture (other therapies) was 16.05 points more effective in reducing hot flash scores than no treatment/waitlist (SMD?=?-16.05, 95% CI [-30.2, -1.99]). These results were statistically significant. Acupuncture was also ranked the optimal nonhormonal therapy for both hot flash frequency and hot flash score. The safety analysis showed that there were few related adverse events during acupuncture and that drug related adverse reactions could have also occurred in studies using drug interventions. Conclusions:This network meta-analysis comparing nonhormonal treatments suggested that acupuncture might be more effective in improving hot flashes for breast cancer survivors. A pronounced placebo response was found during hot flash treatments. The evidence of safety for nonhormonal therapies was also insufficient. Therefore, at present, we cannot make confirmative recommendations of nonhormonal hot flash management for breast cancer survivors. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018082008).

SUBMITTER: Liu J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7204350 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Nonhormonal Hot Flash Management for Breast Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Liu Jian J Nie Guangning G Li Yang Y Wen Zehuai Z Lu Liming L Xie Li L Cao Dongdong D Lai Yafang Y Yang Hongyan H

Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM 20200428

<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Chinese Biomedicine Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan Fang, and VIP up to May 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting nonhormonal hot flash treatments for breast cancer survivors were included. Primary outcome measurements were hot flash frequency and hot flash score of posttreatment. The methodological quality ...[more]

PMID: 32419803

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThere is a plethora of treatment options for patients with de Quervain tenosynovitis (DQT), but there are limited data on their effectiveness and no definitive management guidelines.ObjectiveTo assess and compare the effectiveness associated with available treatment options for DQT to guide musculoskeletal practitioners and inform guidelines.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central, Scopus, OpenGrey.eu, and WorldCat.org were searched for published studies, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, The European Union Clinical Trials Register, and the ISRCTN registry were searched for unpublished and ongoing studies from inception to August 2022.Study selectionAll randomized clinical trials assessing the effectiveness of any intervention for the management of DQT.Data extraction and synthesisThis study was prospectively registered on PROSPERO and conducted and reported per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions (PRISMA-NMA) and PRISMA in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport Medicine and Sports Science (PERSIST) guidance. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations tool were used for risk of bias and certainty of evidence assessment for each outcome.Main outcomes and measuresPairwise and network meta-analyses were performed for patient-reported pain using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and for function using the quick disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (Q-DASH) scale. Mean differences (MD) with their 95% CIs were calculated for the pairwise meta-analyses.ResultsA total of 30 studies with 1663 patients (mean [SD] age, 46 [7] years; 80% female) were included, of which 19 studies were included in quantitative analyses. From the pairwise meta-analyses, based on evidence of moderate certainty, adding thumb spica immobilization for 3 to 4 weeks to a corticosteroid injection (CSI) was associated with statistically but not clinically significant functional benefits in the short-term (MD, 10.5 [95% CI, 6.8-14.1] points) and mid-term (MD, 9.4 [95% CI, 7.0-11.9] points). In the network meta-analysis, interventions that included ultrasonography-guided CSI ranked at the top for pain. CSI with thumb spica immobilization had the highest probability of being the most effective intervention for short- and mid-term function.Conclusions and relevanceThis network meta-analysis found that adding a short period of thumb spica immobilization to CSI was associated with statistically but not clinically significant short- and mid-term benefits. These findings suggest that administration of CSI followed by 3 to 4 weeks immobilization should be considered as a first-line treatment for patients with DQT.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of management strategies for uninvestigated dyspepsia.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, Embase Classic, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to September 2019, with no language restrictions. Conference proceedings between 2001 and 2019.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of management strategies for uninvestigated dyspepsia in adult participants (age ≥18 years). Strategies of interest were prompt endoscopy; test for Helicobacter pylori and perform endoscopy in participants who test positive; test for H pylori and eradication treatment in those who test positive ("test and treat"); empirical acid suppression; or symptom based management. Trials reported dichotomous assessment of symptom status at final follow-up (≥12 months).ResultsThe review identified 15 eligible randomised controlled trials that comprised 6162 adult participants. Data were pooled using a random effects model. Strategies were ranked according to P score, which is the mean extent of certainty that one management strategy is better than another, averaged over all competing strategies. "Test and treat" ranked first (relative risk of remaining symptomatic 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.02, P score 0.79) and prompt endoscopy ranked second, but performed similarly (0.90, 0.80 to 1.02, P score 0.71). However, no strategy was significantly less effective than "test and treat." Participants assigned to "test and treat" were significantly less likely to receive endoscopy (relative risk v prompt endoscopy 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.31, P score 0.98) than all other strategies, except symptom based management (relative risk v symptom based management 0.60, 0.30 to 1.18). Dissatisfaction with management was significantly lower with prompt endoscopy (P score 0.95) than with "test and treat" (relative risk v "test and treat" 0.67, 0.46 to 0.98), and empirical acid suppression (relative risk v empirical acid suppression 0.58, 0.37 to 0.91). Upper gastrointestinal cancer rates were low in all trials. Results remained stable in sensitivity analyses, with minimal inconsistencies between direct and indirect results. Risk of bias of individual trials was high; blinding was not possible because of the pragmatic trial design.Conclusions"Test and treat" was ranked first, although it performed similarly to prompt endoscopy and was not superior to any of the other strategies. "Test and treat" led to fewer endoscopies than all other approaches, except symptom based management. However, participants showed a preference for prompt endoscopy as a management strategy for their symptoms.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42019132528.

Dataset Information

Nonhormonal Hot Flash Management for Breast Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Nonhormonal Hot Flash Management for Breast Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets