Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of the starting position during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background and study aims? We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the starting position during colonoscopy. Patients and methods? We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform through February 2019 to identify studies reporting the comparison between the right/supine/prone/tilt-down and left lateral starting position during colonoscopy. The primary outcomes were mean cecal insertion time and adverse events requiring medication. Two reviewers performed study selection and risk of bias assessment. We determined the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019124360). Results? We identified 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (2083 participants), including three trials on right/tilt-down versus left, two trials on supine/prone versus left, respectively. Mean difference in mean cecal insertion time in supine versus left was -41.0?s (95?% confidence interval [CI] -57.3 to -24.7) in one study and in tilt-down versus left was?-?37.3?s (95?% CI -72.1 to -2.4; I 2 ?=?58?%) in three studies; however, there were no statistically significant differences in prone/right versus left position (very low certainty of evidence). Four of eight studies noted adverse effects requiring medication (moderate certainty of evidence). One RCT applying the tilt-down position was terminated because of increased occurrence of oxygen desaturation. Conclusion? We could not conclusively determine the efficacy and safety of the starting position during colonoscopy because of low certainty of evidence. Further studies are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of the starting potion during colonoscopy.

SUBMITTER: Watanabe J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7297618 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of the starting position during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Watanabe Jun J Park Daeho D Kakehi Eiichi E Inoue Kazuoki K Ishikawa Shizukiyo S Kataoka Yuki Y

Endoscopy international open 20200616 7

<b>Background and study aims </b> We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the starting position during colonoscopy. <b>Patients and methods </b> We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform through February 2019 to identify studies reporting the comparison between the right/supine/prone/tilt-down and left lateral starting position during colonoscopy. The primary outcomes were mean cecal insertion time and adverse events requiring medicat ...[more]

PMID: 32617389

Similar Datasets

Project description:Vancomycin and teicoplanin are the glycopeptides currently in use for the treatment of infections caused by invasive beta-lactam-resistant gram-positive organisms. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that have compared vancomycin and teicoplanin administered systemically for the treatment of suspected or proven infections. A comprehensive search of trials without year, language, or publication status restrictions was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by using the fixed-effect model (RRs of >1 favor vancomycin). Twenty-four trials were included. All-cause mortality was similar overall (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21), and there was no significant heterogeneity. In trials that used adequate allocation concealment, the results favored teicoplanin (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.06), while in trials with unknown methods or inadequate concealment, the results favored vancomycin (RR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.27 to 10.30). The latter trials might have recruited more severely ill patients. No other variable affected the RRs for mortality, including the assessment of glycopeptides administered empirically or for proven infections, neutropenia, the participant's age, and drug dosing. There were no significant differences between teicoplanin and vancomycin with regard to clinical failure (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.05), microbiological failure (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.65), and other efficacy outcomes. Lower RRs (in favor of teicoplanin) for clinical failure were observed with a lower risk of bias and when treatment was initiated for infections caused by gram-positive organisms rather than empirically. Total adverse events (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74), nephrotoxicity (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.61), and red man syndrome were significantly less frequent with teicoplanin. Teicoplanin is not inferior to vancomycin with regard to efficacy and is associated with a lower adverse event rate than vancomycin.

Project description:BackgroundProne position has already been demonstrated to improve survival in non-COVID acute respiratory distress syndrome and has been widely performed in COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure, both in non-intubated and intubated patients. However, the beneficial effect of the prone position in COVID-19 pneumonia still remains controversial. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the prone position compared with the non-prone in non-intubated and intubated COVID-19 patients, respectively.MethodsWe searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, as well as one Korean domestic database, on July 9, 2021, and updated the search 9 times to September 14, 2022. Studies that compared prone and non-prone positions in patients with COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcomes were mortality, need for intubation, and adverse events.ResultsOf the 1259 records identified, 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 23 nonrandomized studies (NRSs) were eligible. In the non-intubated patients, the prone position reduced the intubation rate compared with the non-prone position in 6 RCTs (n = 2156, RR 0.81, P = 0.0002) and in 18 NRSs (n = 3374, RR 0.65, P = 0.002). In the subgroup analysis according to the oxygen delivery method, the results were constant only in the HFNC or NIV subgroup. For mortality, RCTs reported no difference between prone and non-prone groups, but in NRSs, the prone position had a significant advantage in mortality [18 NRSs, n = 3361, relative risk (RR) 0.56, P < 0.00001] regardless of the oxygen delivery methods shown in the subgroup analysis. There was no RCT for intubated patients, and mortality did not differ between the prone and non-prone groups in NRSs. Adverse events reported in both the non-intubated and intubated groups were mild and similar between the prone and non-intubated groups.ConclusionFor non-intubated patients with COVID-19, prone positioning reduced the risk of intubation, particularly in patients requiring a high-flow oxygen system. However, the survival benefit was unclear between the prone and non-prone groups. There was insufficient evidence to support the beneficial effects of prone positioning in intubated patients. Trial registration This study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on February 16, 2022 (Registration No.: CRD42022311150 ).

Project description:ObjectiveWe aimed to review and analyze studies focusing on the efficacy of metronidazole in reducing the risk of preterm birth and the safety of metronidazole taking into account the different doses, duration of treatment and routes of administration.Study designsEmbase, Cochrane Library and PubMed were searched up to 29 July 2019 to identify studies assessing metronidazole exposure during pregnancy. Additional studies were identified from reference lists of retrieved papers. Measured outcomes were preterm births (<37 weeks of gestation) and associated delivery outcomes such as spontaneous abortions (≤ 20 weeks of gestation), stillbirths (≥20 weeks of gestation) and low birth weight (<2500 g) irrespective of the period of exposure and major malformations after first-trimester exposure. Overall effect estimates for RCTs and observational studies were calculated using the random-effects model and pooled using Risk Ratios (RR) and Odds Ratios (OR) respectively. ROB-2 and ROBINS-I tool were used to assess Risk of Bias for RCTs and observational studies, respectively.ResultsTwenty-four studies (17 observational studies and 7 RCTs) were selected. Pooled RR was 1.10 (95 % CI 0.78-1.55; n = 7; I2 = 72 %) for preterm birth. Subgroup analysis found RR 1.67; 95 % CI 1.07-2.62; n = 3; I² = 32 %) for treatment duration of ≤3 days among women with a previous preterm delivery. Pooled OR for spontaneous abortion was 1.72 (95 % CI 1.40-2.12; n = 5; I2 = 72 %) and 1.15 (95 % CI 0.98-1.34; n = 12; I2 = 25 %) for major malformations. After exclusion of studies with critical risk of bias, pooled OR were 1.7 (1.42-2.04; n = 3; I2 = 19 %) and 1.13 (0.93-1.36; n = 9; I2 = 28 %) respectively. Among several specific malformations analyzed, only congenital hydrocephaly was significantly increased at 4.06 (95 % CI 1.75-9.42; n = 2; I² = 0%).ConclusionsData do not confirm the efficacy of metronidazole in reducing the risk of preterm birth and associated delivery outcomes. Further research is required to confirm the effect of high dose and short duration of metronidazole treatment on preterm birth among the high-risk group. Regarding the increased odds of spontaneous abortion, RCTs are required to assess the role of the underlying infection. The need for further studies to confirm the risk of congenital hydrocephaly is paramount.

Project description:IntroductionLiver disease causes 2 million deaths annually, accounting for 4% of all deaths worldwide. Liver surgery is one of the effective therapeutic options. Bleeding is a major complication during liver surgery. Perioperative bleeding and allogeneic blood transfusion may deteriorate the prognosis. Terlipressin (TP), a synthetic analogue of the antidiuretic hormone, may reduceblood loss during abdominal surgery. Several clinical centres have attempted to use TP during liver surgery, but the evidence for its effectiveness in reducing blood loss and the need for allogeneic blood transfusion, as well as its safety during the perioperative period, remains unclear. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TP in reducing blood loss and allogeneic blood transfusion needs during liver surgery.Methods and analysisWe will search PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science for studies on perioperative use of TP during liver surgery from inception to July 2023. We will limit the language to English, and two reviewers will independently screen and select articles. The primary study outcomes are estimated blood loss and the need for allogeneic blood transfusion. Secondary outcomes include operating time, intensive care unit stay, length of stay, intraoperative urine output, acute kidney injury rate, postoperative complications, hepatic and renal function during follow-up, and TP-related adverse effects. We will include studies that met the following criteria: (1) randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies or case-control studies; (2) the publication time was till July 2023; (3) adult patients (≥18 years old) undergoing elective liver surgery; (4) comparison of TP with other treatments and (5) the study includes at least one outcome. We will exclude animal studies, case reports, case series, non-original articles, reviews, paediatric articles, non-controlled trials, unpublished articles, non-English articles and other studies that are duplicates. We will use Review Manager V.5.3 software for meta-analysis and perform stratification analysis for the study quality of RCTs based on the Jadad score. For cohort or case-control studies, the study quality will be analysed based on Newcastle-Ottawa Scale scores. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation will be used to assess confidence in the cumulative evidence. For primary outcomes, we will conduct subgroup analyses based on meta-regression. We will also perform leave-one-out sensitivity analyses to evaluate the effect of each individual study on the combined results by removing the individual studies one by one for outcomes with significant heterogeneity. The protocol follows the Cochrane Handbook for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines.Ethics and disseminationThis study is a secondary analysis of existing data; therefore, it does not require ethical approval. We will disseminate the results through peer-reviewed publications.Prospero registration numberCRD42023450333.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy and safety of enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline and Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 1996 to May 2011.Study selectionRandomised and non-randomised studies comparing enoxaparin with unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention and reporting on both mortality (efficacy end point) and major bleeding (safety end point) outcomes.Data extractionSample size, characteristics, and outcomes, extracted independently and analysed.Data synthesis23 trials representing 30,966 patients were identified, including 10,243 patients (33.1%) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction, 8750 (28.2%) undergoing secondary percutaneous coronary intervention after fibrinolysis, and 11,973 (38.7%) with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome or stable patients scheduled for percutaneous coronary intervention. A total of 13,943 patients (45.0%) received enoxaparin and 17,023 (55.0%) unfractionated heparin. Enoxaparin was associated with significant reductions in death (relative risk 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.76; P<0.001), the composite of death or myocardial infarction (0.68, 0.57 to 0.81; P<0.001), and complications of myocardial infarction (0.75, 0.6 to 0.85; P<0.001), and a reduction in incidence of major bleeding (0.80, 0.68 to 0.95; P=0.009). In patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention, the reduction in death (0.52, 0.42 to 0.64; P<0.001) was particularly significant and associated with a reduction in major bleeding (0.72, 0.56 to 0.93; P=0.01).ConclusionEnoxaparin seems to be superior to unfractionated heparin in reducing mortality and bleeding outcomes during percutaneous coronary intervention and particularly in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction.

Project description:BackgroundCefepime is a fourth-generation cephalosporin antibiotic used to treat a variety of infections. The US Food and Drug Administration approved its use in certain types of infections among pediatric patients, and yet there have been mixed data about its efficacy and safety in this population.ObjectiveThe objective of this review is to compare efficacy and all-cause mortality of cefepime to other clinically indicated antibiotics among children.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, LILACS, and clinicaltrials.gov databases through February 8, 2016. We included randomized controlled trials comparing cefepime to other clinical antibiotics, placebo, or no treatment in children aged 0-19 years in the inpatient setting with clinical signs of infection. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were success rate, treatment failure, and incidence of adverse events. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool.ResultsSeventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. There was a total of 1,285 participants included, 624 participants in the cefepime arm and 661 in the comparison arm. A random effects meta-analysis for all-cause mortality showed no difference in rates of mortality between cefepime and comparator antibiotics with a mortality risk ratio of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.71-1.08). For the secondary outcomes of success rate and treatment failure, a random effects model meta-analysis conducted of the studies showed no difference in rate between cefepime and comparator antibiotics with an overall risk ratio of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.92-1.05) and 1.04 (95% CI: 0.91-1.19), respectively. Adverse events were not statistically assessed given widespread heterogeneity. Overall, the studies had unclear risk of bias and were limited by high heterogeneity and methodological flaws.ConclusionThe efficacy and safety of cefepime in pediatric patients remain unclear despite the inclusion of newer trials since the last index systematic review conducted a decade ago.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of the starting position during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Efficacy and safety of the starting position during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets