Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy and safety of interventions for treating head lice: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Head 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.

Method

This 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.

Discussion

The 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 number

CRD42017073375.

SUBMITTER: Stevenson B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8112437 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionFamily interventions are effective and are strongly recommended for psychotic disorders. However, there is a variety of intervention types, and their differential efficacy is widely unclear. The aim of the planned network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare the efficacy of family interventions that differ in content (eg, psychoeducation, mutual support, skills training) and format (eg, number of sessions, inclusion of patients, form of delivery).Methods and analysisWe will include randomised controlled trials comparing psychosocial interventions directed at the adult relatives, friends or non-professional carers of people with a diagnosis of a psychotic disorder (schizophrenia spectrum) to any kind of control condition. The main outcomes will be global clinical state for the patients and coping with psychosis as well as attitudes towards psychosis for the relatives. Additional outcomes will be severity of symptoms, functioning, burden and compliance/drop-out. We conducted a comprehensive search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE(R), PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (8 August 2019) and reference lists of review articles. Full-text assessment of eligibility, data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment will be done by two independent reviewers. An NMA will be conducted for any of the planned outcomes and intervention characteristics for which sufficient and appropriate data are available. The analyses will make use of a random effects model within a frequentist framework. Estimates for all pairwise treatment effects will be obtained using standardised mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes. Interventions will be ranked according to their relative efficacy. We will address the assumption of transitivity, heterogeneity and inconsistency using theoretical and statistical approaches. The possibility of publication bias and the strength of evidence will also be examined.Ethics and disseminationThere are no ethical concerns. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at practitioners' conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42020148728.

Project description:IntroductionAcute 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 analysisWe 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.ResultsThis NMA will compare and rank the different analgesics for treatment of acute renal colic.ConclusionThis 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.

Project description:Introduction Although several non-pharmacological interventions have been tested in the management of Fibromyalgia (FM), there is little consensus regarding the best options for the treatment of this health condition. The purpose of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to investigate the comparative efficacy and acceptability of non-pharmacological interventions for FM, in order to assist clinical decision making through a ranking of interventions in relation to the most important clinical outcomes in these patients. Methods and analysis We will perform a systematic search to identify randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions endorsed in guidelines and systematic reviews. Information sources searched will include major bibliographic databases without language or date restrictions (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO and PEDro). Our primary outcomes will be pain intensity, patient-reported quality of life (QoL), and acceptability of treatment will be our secondary outcome. Risk of bias of the included trials will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2). For each pairwise comparison between the different interventions, we will present mean differences (MDs) for pain intensity and QoL outcomes and Relative Risks (RRs) for acceptability, both with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Initially, standard pairwise meta-analyses will be performed using a DerSimonian-Laird random effects model for all comparisons with at least two trials and then we will perform a frequentist NMA using the methodology of multivariate meta-analysis assuming a common heterogeneity parameter, using the mvmeta command and network suite in STATA. In the NMA, two different types of control group, such as placebo/sham and no intervention/waiting list will be combined as one node called “Control”. The competing interventions will be ranked using the P-score, which is the frequentist analogue of surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for the outcomes of interest at immediate- (intervention duration of up to 2 weeks), short- (over 2 weeks up to 12 weeks) and long-terms (over 12 weeks). The confidence in the results from NMA will be assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta‐analysis (CINeMA) framework. Ethics and dissemination This work synthesises evidence from previously published studies and does not require ethics review or approval. A manuscript describing the findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Registration OSF (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7MS25) and registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020216374).

Project description:BackgroundDue to increased resistance and safety concerns with insecticide-based pediculicides, there is growing demand for head lice treatments with a physical mode of action. Certain mineral oils kill lice by blocking spiracles or by disrupting the epicuticular wax layer. The present study was performed to evaluate efficacy and safety of a mineral oil-based shampoo.MethodsThis randomized, controlled, investigator-blinded, monocentric study (EudraCT registration no. 2014-002918-23) was performed from October 2014-June 2015 in Germany. A mineral oil shampoo (Mosquito® Med Läuse Shampoo 10 in Germany, Paranix or Silcap shampoo elsewhere), registered as medical device, was compared to a conventional, locally reimbursed, pyrethroid-based pediculicide (Goldgeist® Forte solution). In total, 107 patients (>1 year) with confirmed head lice infestation were included (test arm: n = 53; control arm: n = 54). All subjects received two applications of either test or control product at day 0 and day 7, according to the instructions for use. Efficacy and safety was evaluated directly, 1h and 24h after first application, before and after second treatment, and at day 10. The main objective was demonstrating a cure rate for the test product, being superior to 70% at day 10.ResultsCure rates at day 10 (corrected for re-infestation) for the test product (96.1%) and control (94%) significantly exceeded the pre-defined target (70%) (p < 0.001, 2-sided, 1-sample, chi-square test) with confirmed non-inferiority for the test product. Over all visits, cure rates were consistently higher for the test product, whereas more initially-cured subjects remained lice-free until end of study (78%; control: 60%). Both products were safe and well tolerated, offering good esthetical effects.ConclusionThis study showed that substance-based medical devices (including the tested mineral oil shampoo) can be safe and effective alternatives for insecticide-based pediculicides, with less risk for development of resistance because of the physical mode of action.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) DRKS00009753 and EudraCT database 2014-002918-23.

Project description:IntroductionSilicones (e.g., dimethicone) are effective and safe alternatives to insecticides for the treatment of head lice. However, silicones are lipophilic substances and do not only leave the hair greasy but they are also difficult to wash out. We have evaluated the efficacy and safety of a potential solution to this problem: an aqueous dispersion of a novel silylated polyol that has the same mode of action as dimethicone (suffocation) without its negative impact on hair characteristics.MethodsThis was a randomized, controlled, investigator-blinded, bicentric study that was conducted at two locations in the state of Florida (USA) to compare the test product (medical device) to a pyrethrum-based pediculicide that is a first-line, prescription-free treatment against head lice in the USA. The subjects (n = 70) were randomly divided into two groups of 35 persons (test product group and reference product group), with each participant receiving two applications (day 0 and 7) of the product to be tested, according to the instructions for use. Efficacy and safety was evaluated at distinct time points. The primary objective was to establish a cure rate for the test product that was better than 70% at study end (day 10). Esthetic effects of the test product versus dimethicone were evaluated in a blinded, cross-over consumer study (n = 100).ResultsAt study end, the cure rate (corrected for re-infestation) of 88.2% with the test product significantly surpassed the pre-defined target of 70%, and thus the superiority of the test product versus the reference product was confirmed. The number of subjects cured (free of head lice) after the first treatment was remarkably higher with the test product than with the reference product (57.1 vs. 2.9%, respectively). Both products were safe and well tolerated and both showed beneficial esthetical effects. The consumer test demonstrated that the test product had better washing-out properties than dimethicone, as reflected by a significantly lower average rinsing time and number of washings required to restore the visual aspect of the hair, especially in terms of greasiness.ConclusionAqueous dispersions of silylated polyols are a promising new class of pediculicides that combine high cure rates with optimal user convenience (short treatment period, easy wash-out with positive effect on hair quality).Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03617926.FundingOystershell Laboratories.

Project description:The safety and efficacy of different drugs in treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) patients who could not maintain normal glucose level only through diet and exercise remains to be debated. We performed this network meta-analysis (NAM) to compare and rank different antidiabetic drugs in glucose level control and pregnancy outcomes in GDM patients.We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase up to December 31, 2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to different drugs in the treatment of GDM patients were enrolled. We extracted the relevant information and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We did pair-wise meta-analyses using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model and then adopted random-effects NAM combining both direct and indirect evidence within a Bayesian framework, to calculate the odds ratio (OR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) and to draw a surface under the cumulative ranking curve of the neonatal and maternal outcomes of different treatments in GDM patients.Thirty-two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this NAM, including 6 kinds of treatments (metformin, metformin plus insulin, insulin, glyburide, acarbose, and placebo). The results of the NAM showed that regarding the incidence of macrosomia and LGA, metformin had lower incidence than glyburide (OR, 0.5411 and 0.4177). In terms of the incidence of admission to the NICU, insulin had higher incidence compared with glyburide (OR, 1.844). As for the incidence of neonatal hypoglycemia, metformin had lower incidence than insulin and glyburide (OR, 0.6331 and 0.3898), and insulin was lower than glyburide (OR, 0.6236). For mean birth weight, metformin plus insulin was lower than insulin (SMD, -0.5806), glyburide (SMD, -0.7388), and placebo (SMD, -0.6649). Besides, metformin was observed to have lower birth weight than glyburide (SMD, 0.2591). As for weight gain, metformin and metformin plus insulin were lower than insulin (SMD, -0.9166, -1.53). Ranking results showed that glyburide might be the optimum treatment regarding average glucose control, and metformin is the fastest in glucose control for GDM patients; glyburide have the highest incidence of macrosomia, preeclampsia, hyperbilirubinemia, neonatal hypoglycemia, shortest gestational age at delivery, and lowest mean birth weight; metformin (plus insulin when required) have the lowest incidence of macrosomia, PIH, LGA, RDS, low gestational age at delivery, and low birth weight. Besides, insulin had the highest incidence of NICU admission, acarbose had the lowest risk of neonatal hypoglycemia.Our study concluded that metformin is fastest in glucose control, with a more favorable pregnancy outcomes-would be a better option, but its rate of glucose control is the lowest.However, glyburide is the optimumtreatment regarding the rate of glucose control, but withmore adverse outcomes. This NAMbased on 32 RCTs will strongly help to guide further development of management for GDM patients, clinicians should carefully balance the risk-benefit profile of different treatments according to various situations.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Major depression is a leading cause of disability and has been associated with adverse effects in older persons. While many pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions have been shown to be effective to address major depression in older persons, there has not been a meta-analysis that consolidates all the available interventions and compare the relative benefits of these available interventions. In this study, we aim to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and acceptability of all the known pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for major depression in older persons. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will search Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and references of other review articles for articles related to the keywords of 'randomised trial', 'major depression', 'older persons' and 'treatments'. Two reviewers will independently select the eligible articles. For each included article, the two reviewers will independently extract the data and assess the risk of bias using the Cochrane revised tool for risk of bias. Bayesian network meta-analyses will be conducted to pool the depression scores (based on standardised mean difference) and the all-cause discontinuation across all included studies. The ranking probabilities for all interventions will be estimated and the hierarchy of each intervention will be summarised as surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Meta-regression and sub-group analyses will also be performed to evaluate the effect of study-level covariates. The quality of the evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The results will be disseminated through conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications. They will provide the consolidated evidence to inform clinicians on the best choice of intervention to address major depression in older persons. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017075756.