Dataset Information

Exercise vs Conventional Treatment for Treatment of Primary Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Physical exercise has obvious effects on bone loss, pain relief, and improvement of bone metabolism indexes in patients with osteoporosis, but currently lacks sufficient evidence. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to synthesize and present the best available evidence on the effectiveness and safety of exercises in the treatment of primary osteoporosis.

Methods

Publications pertaining to the effectiveness of exercise on bone mineral density (BMD), visual analog scores (VAS), and biochemical markers of bone metabolism in primary osteoporosis (POP) from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, VIP, CNKI, and Wanfang Database were retrieved from their inception to April 2020.

Results

A total of 20 studies with 1824 participants were included. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that exercise therapy for lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD is statistically different from conventional therapy (lumbar spine BMD: SMD = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.46, 1.10, P < 0.00001, I² = 85%; femoral neck BMD (SMD = 0.80, 95%CI: 0.34, 1.27, P = 0.0007, I² = 88%), exercise therapy can significantly increase the lumbar spine BMD of patients with OP, especially in lumbar spine2-4 BMD (SMD = 0.47; 95%CI: 0.20, 0.75; P = 0.0008; I² = 69%). Compared with conventional treatment, kinesitherapy also has significant differences in alleviating the pain of POP patients (SMD = -1.39, 95%CI: -2.47,-0.31, P = 0.01, I² = 97%). Compared with conventional therapy, kinesitherapy has no significant difference in improving biochemical markers of bone metabolism such as bone glaprotein (BGP) (SMD = 2.59, 95%CI:0.90, 4.28, P = 0.003, I² = 98%), N-terminal pro peptide of type I procollagen (PINP) (SMD = 0.77, 95%CI: -0.44 to 1.98, P = 0.21, I² = 95%), serum phosphorus (SMD = 0.04, 95%CI: -0.13, 0.22, P = 0.61, I² = 30%), alkaline phosphatase (ALP) (SMD = -0.08, 95%CI: -0.44, 0.27, P = 0.64, I² = 76%), and serum calcium (SMD = 0.12, 95%CI: -0.18, 0.43, P = 0.42, I² = 63%) in POP patients.

Conclusions

Kinesitherapy significantly improved lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD, and relieve the pain of patients in the current low-quality evidence. Additional high-quality evidence is required to confirm the effect of exercise therapy on the biochemical markers of bone metabolism in POP patients.

SUBMITTER: Yan Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8313149 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Primary osteoporosis (PO) is a systemic metabolic skeletal disease. Previous studies have shown that moxibustion can reduce pain intensity and enhance response rate, bone mineral density (BMD), and living function of the patients with PO. However, consensus on its efficacy does not exist, and evidence of moxibustion for PO is also insufficient. Methods We searched five English and four Chinese databases with various additional sources and published reviews through December 1, 2021, to evaluate potentially concerned randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two independent researchers addressed selection screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. The data of this meta-analysis were analyzed using the RevMan v.5.4 software. Additionally, the trial sequential analysis v.0.9.5.10 β was used to estimate the sample size. In contrast, the quality of evidence from the RCTs was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool. Results The current meta-analysis included 14 RCTs containing 898 participants. The methodological quality of the RCTs was moderate. The review demonstrated that a combination of moxibustion and conventional medicine (CM) significantly reduced pain intensity and improved the BMD compared with CM. Furthermore, it was found that moxibustion plus CM/moxibustion could improve response rates compared with CM. However, it was found that the reduction of pain intensity and improvement of BMD by moxibustion showed no significant difference compared with CM. It was also evident that the sample size of most outcomes was inadequate. Moreover, all evidence obtained in this study was ranked as low to critically low. Conclusions In conclusion, it was demonstrated that moxibustion is a potentially effective agent for treating PO. However, high-quality studies should be implemented in the future because this study only obtained low-quality evidence. This study was registered in the PROSPERO platform (CRD42021291310).

Project description:BackgroundWhether guided antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is effective in improving net clinical benefits compared with conventional antiplatelet therapy remains controversial. Therefore, we assessed the safety and efficacy of guided antiplatelet therapy in patients with ACS and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.MethodWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases to select the relevant randomized controlled trials comparing the guided and conventional antiplatelet therapy in patients with ACS. The primary and safety outcomes are major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and major bleeding, respectively. The efficacy outcomes included myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, all-cause death, and cardiovascular death. We selected the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as effect size and calculated it using the Review Manager software. In addition, we evaluated the final results by trial sequential analysis (registered by PROSPERO, CRD 42020210912).ResultsWe selected seven randomized controlled trials and included 8,451 patients in this meta-analysis. Guided antiplatelet therapy can significantly reduce the risk of MACE (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.54-0.76, P < 0.00001), myocardial infarction (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49-0.79, P = 0.0001), all-cause death (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44-0.85, P = 0.003), and cardiovascular death (RR 0.66, 0.49-0.90, P = 0.009). In addition, there is no significant difference between the two groups in stent thrombosis (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44-1.03, P = 0.07) and major bleeding (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.65-1.13, P = 0.27). The subgroup analysis showed that the guided group based on genotype tests could bring benefits in MACE and myocardial infarction.ConclusionsThe guided antiplatelet therapy is not only associated with a comparable risk of bleeding but also with a lower risk of MACE, myocardial infarction, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and stent thrombosis than the conventional strategy in patients with ACS.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough laparoscopic surgery has been available for a long time and laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been performed universally, it is still not clear whether open appendectomy (OA) or laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is the most appropriate surgical approach to acute appendicitis. The purpose of this work is to compare the therapeutic effects and safety of laparoscopic and conventional "open" appendectomy by means of a meta-analysis.MethodsA meta-analysis was performed of all randomized controlled trials published in English that compared LA and OA in adults and children between 1990 and 2009. Calculations were made of the effect sizes of: operating time, postoperative length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, return to normal activity, resumption of diet, complications rates, and conversion to open surgery. The effect sizes were then pooled by a fixed or random-effects model.ResultsForty-four randomized controlled trials with 5292 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Operating time was 12.35 min longer for LA (95% CI: 7.99 to 16.72, p < 0.00001). Hospital stay after LA was 0.60 days shorter (95% CI: -0.85 to -0.36, p < 0.00001). Patients returned to their normal activity 4.52 days earlier after LA (95% CI: -5.95 to -3.10, p < 0.00001), and resumed their diet 0.34 days earlier(95% CI: -0.46 to -0.21, p < 0.00001). Pain after LA on the first postoperative day was significantly less (p = 0.008). The overall conversion rate from LA to OA was 9.51%. With regard to the rate of complications, wound infection after LA was definitely reduced (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.59, p < 0.00001), while postoperative ileus was not significantly reduced(OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.47, p = 0.71). However, intra-abdominal abscess (IAA), intraoperative bleeding and urinary tract infection (UIT) after LA, occurred slightly more frequently(OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.43, p = 0.05; OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.54 to 4.48, p = 0.41; OR = 1.76, 95% CI: 0.58 to 5.29, p = 0.32).ConclusionLA provides considerable benefits over OA, including a shorter length of hospital stay, less postoperative pain, earlier postoperative recovery, and a lower complication rate. Furthermore, over the study period it was obvious that there had been a trend toward fewer differences in operating time for the two procedures. Although LA was associated with a slight increase in the incidence of IAA, intraoperative bleeding and UIT, it is a safe procedure. It may be that the widespread use of LA is due to its better therapeutic effect.