Tissue Fillers for the Nasolabial Fold Area: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Stefura T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8481177 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:YVOIRE Classic s (YC) and Restylane (RES) have similar rheological properties, which suit mid-dermis injection, while the rheological properties of YVOIRE Volume s (YV) are comparable to those of Perlane (PER), which suit deep dermis injection to treat deep wrinkles. Two similarly designed studies aimed to evaluate the performance and safety of YC and YV injected into the nasolabial folds (NLFs).MethodsThese were split-face designed, evaluator-blind, noninferiority studies. Fifty-eight subjects with moderate-to-severe NLFs were enrolled in the first study and treated with YC and RES, and 57 subjects were enrolled in the second study and treated with YV and PER. The Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale ranged from 1 (no visible fold) to 5 (extremely deep and long folds), and subject satisfaction was evaluated.ResultsThe least squares mean Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale scores (standard error) at week 26 were 2.56 (0.09) for both YC- and RES-treated NLFs and 2.89 (0.08) and 2.91 (0.08) for YV- and PER-treated NLFs, respectively. The difference between the groups was 0 and 0.02, and the lower limit of its 95% confidence interval was -0.0725 and -0.0125, which was greater than the predefined margin (-0.29), proving the noninferiority of YC and YV to RES and PER, respectively. The safety profiles and subject satisfaction of YC and YV were similar to those of RES and PER, respectively.ConclusionYC is comparable to RES and YV is comparable to PER in terms of performance and safety profiles, with NLF-correcting effects lasting for up to 26 weeks.
| S-EPMC7413804 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe goal of this systematic review was to analyze, in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), regenerative techniques used to treat peri-implantitis (PI).MethodsThree databases (PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and On-Line Knowledge Library) were accessed, applying the PICO strategy (Population [P], Intervention [I], Comparison [C], and Outcomes [O]), with the following focused questions: (i) "In patients who received regenerative treatments for peri-implantitis (P), is the regenerative surgical treatment (I) clinically effective and predictable compared to non-regenerative (C) to treat PI (O)?"; and (ii) "In patients who received regenerative treatments for peri-implantitis (P), the regenerative approach (I), compared to non-regenerative (C), significantly increase the prognosis and implant survival rate in the mid- and long-term (O)?" The inclusion criteria were RCTs published in English between 2012 and 2022, with at least a one-year follow-up, which applied regenerative techniques to treat peri-implantitis. Cochrane's collaboration tool for assessing the risk of bias was used.Main resultsNine articles were included with 404 patients (225 females and 179 males; mean age of 60.44 years). One study evaluated patients after 48 months and another after 88 months. The techniques and devices used were: (i) implantoplasty with Er:YAG laser, (ii) blood concentrate (growth factors), and (iii) EMD, with no statistically significant outcome. Two studies considered the use of titanium granules with a significant increase in radiographic bone identification, whereas regenerative techniques with bone graft (autogenous, alloplastic, and xenograft) were the majority chosen, associated or not, with a collagen membrane. Xenograft had better results radiographically when compared to the autogenous bone graft and presented better results for bone level. There was an overall decrease in bleeding on probing, independent of the control or test group, and a reduction in pocket depth in the groups analyzed. Titanium granules, EMD, Er:YAG laser, and CGF had non-significant results; better results were observed when using bone grafts. The RoB showed a low risk in four studies (44.44%), three with moderate (33.33%), and two with high risk (22.23%).ConclusionSurgical regenerative treatment was a predictable option in the management of PI and in improving the clinical parameters of peri-implant tissues in the short term, mainly when using porous titanium granules, alloplastic bone grafts, and xenografts.
| S-EPMC10562100 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We aimed to summarize the evidence from randomized clinical trials studies examining the efficacy of ischemic postconditioning (IPost) in ST-elevation myocardial infarction.The study was a systematic review and critical appraisal, with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.We searched the literature. A total of 21 randomized clinical trials were identified. Both fixed effect and random effects models were used to synthesize the results of individual studies. Heterogeneity between studies was examined by subgroup and random effects meta-regression analyses, considering ptient-related and study-level variables. Publication bias, or "small-study effect", was evaluated.Substantial heterogeneity was present. The random effects model pooled estimate for the outcome infarct size assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance was estimated by the standardized mean difference (SMD) =-0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.34 to 0.21, ie, no effect of IPost. For the end point infarct size, estimated by biomarkers of myocardial necrosis, an overall pooled effect was SMD =-0.58, 95% CI: -0.96 to -0.19. This effect disappeared in powered and nonbiased studies (SMD =0.03, 95% CI: -0.48 to 0.55). Finally, for the outcome left ventricular ejection fraction, SMD =0.47 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.74. Unfortunately, selection bias (small-study effect) was present. For this outcome, the meta-regression showed that both presence of hypertension and the inclusion of nonbiased studies explained 28.3% of the heterogeneity among the studies. Simulation by the "trim and fill" method, which controlled for selection bias using random effects model, diluted the effect (SMD =0.17 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.48). No effects by IPost on ST-segment resolution or on the majority of adverse clinical events were observed during follow up, except the incidence of congestive heart failure was found.Evidence from this study suggests no cardioprotection from IPost, on surrogate and the majority of clinical end points. A possible beneficial effect on the incidence of congestive heart failure needs to be replicated by a large clinical trial.
| S-EPMC4134024 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Well designed and conducted systematic reviews are essential to clinical practice. Surgical intervention is more complex than medical intervention when considering special items related to procedures. There has been no cross-sectional study of the reporting quality of systematic reviews of surgical randomized trials focused on special items relating to surgical interventions. METHODS:A cross-sectional survey of systematic reviews of surgical randomized trials published in 2007 and 2017 was undertaken via a PubMed search. Quality of reporting was assessed by the PRISMA checklist, with intervention details containing 27 items. Univariable and multivariable linear regression was used to explore factors in the checklist as indicators of reporting quality. RESULTS:A total of 204 systematic reviews were identified. The median score for the PRISMA checklist was 22 (i.q.r. 20-24), and systematic reviews published in 2017 had a significantly higher median score than those from 2007 (22 (i.q.r. 21-24) versus 20 (17-22); P < 0·001). Among the 27 items, 15 were reported adequately and three were reported poorly (in less than 50 per cent of reports). The proportion of other items reported ranged from 54·4 to 77·9 per cent. In multivariable analysis, systematic reviews published in 2017 (coefficient 0·59, 95 per cent c.i. 0·50 to 0·69) and Cochrane reviews (coefficient 0·67, 0·55 to 0·81) were associated with better reporting. CONCLUSION:The quality of reporting of systematic reviews of surgical randomized trials has improved in the past 10 years. Some information relating to specific surgical interventions is, however, still reported poorly.
| S-EPMC7260405 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cannabidiol (CBD) is being investigated as a treatment for several medical disorders but there is uncertainty about its safety. We conducted the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the adverse effects of CBD across all medical indications. Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials lasting ≥7 days were included. Twelve trials contributed data from 803 participants to the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, CBD was associated with an increased likelihood of withdrawal for any reason (OR 2.61, 95% CI: 1.38-4.96) or due to adverse events (OR 2.65, 95% CI: 1.04-6.80), any serious adverse event (OR 2.30, 95% CI: 1.18-4.48), serious adverse events related to abnormal liver function tests (OR 11.19, 95% CI: 2.09-60.02) or pneumonia (OR 5.37, 95% CI: 1.17-24.65), any adverse event (OR 1.55, 95% CI: 1.03-2.33), adverse events due to decreased appetite (OR 3.56, 95% CI: 1.94-6.53), diarrhoea (OR 2.61, 95% CI: 1.46-4.67), somnolence (OR 2.23, 95% CI: 1.07-4.64) and sedation (OR 4.21, 95% CI: 1.18-15.01). Associations with abnormal liver function tests, somnolence, sedation and pneumonia were limited to childhood epilepsy studies, where CBD may have interacted with other medications such as clobazam and/or sodium valproate. After excluding studies in childhood epilepsy, the only adverse outcome associated with CBD treatment was diarrhoea (OR 5.03, 95% CI: 1.44-17.61). In summary, the available data from clinical trials suggest that CBD is well tolerated and has relatively few serious adverse effects, however interactions with other medications should be monitored carefully. Additional safety data from clinical trials outside of childhood epilepsy syndromes and from studies of over-the-counter CBD products are needed to assess whether the conclusions drawn from clinical trials can be applied more broadly.
| S-EPMC7608221 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Parkinson's disease (PD) is a debitlitating, chronic, progressive neurodegenerative disorder without modifying therapy. Here, we aimed to evaluate the available evidence of herbal medicine (HM) formulas for patients with PD according to randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials. Methods: HM formulas for PD were searched in eight main databases from their inception to February 2018. The methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results: Fourteen trials with Seventeen comparisons comprising 1,311 patients were identified. Compared with placebo groups, HM paratherapy (n = 16 comparisons) showed significant better effects in the assessments of total Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) (WMD: -5.43, 95% CI:-8.01 to -2.86; P < 0.0001), UPDRS I (WMD: -0.30, 95% CI: -0.54 to -0.06; P = 0.02), UPDRS II (WMD: -2.21, 95% CI: -3.19 to -1.22; P < 0.0001), UPDRS III (WMD: -3.26, 95% CI:-4.36 to -2.16; P < 0.00001), Parkinson's Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire (p < 0.01) and Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39 (WMD: -7.65, 95% CI: -11.46 to -3.83; p < 0.0001), Non-motor Symptoms Questionnaire (p < 0.01) and Non-Motor Symptoms Scale (WMD: -9.19, 95% CI: -13.11 to -5.28; P < 0.00001), Parkinson's Disease Sleep Scale (WMD: 10.69, 95% CI: 8.86 to 12.53; P < 0.00001), and Hamilton depression rating scale (WMD: -5.87, 95% CI: -7.06 to -4.68; P < 0.00001). The efficiency of HM monotherapy (n = 1 comparison) was not superior to the placebo according to UPDRS II, UPDRS III and total UPDRS score in PD patients who never received levodopa treatment, all P > 0.05. HM formulas paratherapy were generally safe and well tolerated for PD patients (RR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.80; P = 0.009). Conclusion: The findings of present study supported the complementary use of HM paratherapy for PD patients, whereas the question on the efficacy of HM monotherapy in alleviating PD symptoms is still open.
| S-EPMC6236206 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundBrucellosis is a persistent health problem in many developing countries throughout the world, and the search for simple and effective treatment continues to be of great importance.Methods and findingsA search was conducted in MEDLINE and in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Clinical trials published from 1985 to present that assess different antimicrobial regimens in cases of documented acute uncomplicated human brucellosis were included. The primary outcomes were relapse, therapeutic failure, combined variable of relapse and therapeutic failure, and adverse effect rates. A meta-analysis with a fixed effect model was performed and odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. A random effect model was used when significant heterogeneity between studies was verified. Comparison of combined doxycycline and rifampicin with a combination of doxycycline and streptomycin favors the latter regimen (OR = 3.17; CI95% = 2.05-4.91). There were no significant differences between combined doxycycline-streptomycin and combined doxycycline-gentamicin (OR = 1.89; CI95% = 0.81-4.39). Treatment with rifampicin and quinolones was similar to combined doxycycline-rifampicin (OR = 1.23; CI95% = 0.63-2.40). Only one study assessed triple therapy with aminoglycoside-doxycycline-rifampicin and only included patients with uncomplicated brucellosis. Thus this approach cannot be considered the therapy of choice until further studies have been performed. Combined doxycycline/co-trimoxazole or doxycycline monotherapy could represent a cost-effective alternative in certain patient groups, and further studies are needed in the future.ConclusionsAlthough the preferred treatment in uncomplicated human brucellosis is doxycycline-aminoglycoside combination, other treatments based on oral regimens or monotherapy should not be rejected until they are better studied. Triple therapy should not be considered the current treatment of choice.
| S-EPMC3290537 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHuperzine A is a Chinese herb extract used for Alzheimer's disease. We conducted this review to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effect of Huperzine A for treatment of Alzheimer's disease.MethodsWe searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of Huperzine A for Alzheimer's disease in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and four major Chinese electronic databases from their inception to June 2013. We performed meta-analyses using RevMan 5.1 software. (Protocol ID: CRD42012003249).Results20 RCTs including 1823 participants were included. The methodological quality of most included trials had a high risk of bias. Compared with placebo, Huperzine A showed a significant beneficial effect on the improvement of cognitive function as measured by Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) at 8 weeks, 12 weeks and 16 weeks, and by Hastgawa Dementia Scale (HDS) and Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS) at 8 weeks and 12 weeks. Activities of daily living favored Huperzine A as measured by Activities of Daily Living Scale (ADL) at 6 weeks, 12 weeks and 16 weeks. One trial found Huperzine A improved global clinical assessment as measured by Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR). One trial demonstrated no significant change in cognitive function as measured by Alzheimer's disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) and activity of daily living as measured by Alzheimer's disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living Inventory (ADCS-ADL) in Huperzine A group. Trials comparing Huperzine A with no treatment, psychotherapy and conventional medicine demonstrated similar findings. No trial evaluated quality of life. No trial reported severe adverse events of Huperzine A.ConclusionsHuperzine A appears to have beneficial effects on improvement of cognitive function, daily living activity, and global clinical assessment in participants with Alzheimer's disease. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution due to the poor methodological quality of the included trials.
| S-EPMC3781107 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCardiac contractility modulation (CCM) is a device therapy for systolic heart failure (HF) in patients with narrow QRS. We aimed to perform an updated meta-analysis of the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to assess the efficacy and safety of CCM therapy.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) between January 2001 and June 2018. Outcomes of interest were peak oxygen consumption (peak VO2), 6-Minute Walk Distance (6MWD), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), HF hospitalizations, cardiac arrhythmias, pacemaker/ICD malfunctioning, all-cause hospitalizations, and mortality. Data were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) or odds ratio (OR).ResultsFour RCTs including 801 patients (CCM n = 394) were available for analysis. The mean age was 59.63 ± 0.84 years, mean ejection fraction was 29.14 ± 1.22%, and mean QRS duration was 106.23 ± 1.65 msec. Mean follow-up duration was six months. CCM was associated with improved MLWHFQ (SMD -0.69, p = 0.0008). There were no differences in HF hospitalizations (OR 0.76, p = 0.12), 6MWD (SMD 0.67, p = 0.10), arrhythmias (OR 1.40, p = 0.14), pacemaker/ICD malfunction/sensing defect (OR 2.23, p = 0.06), all-cause hospitalizations (OR 0.73, p = 0.33), or all-cause mortality (OR 1.04, p = 0.92) between the CCM and non-CCM groups.ConclusionsShort-term treatment with CCM may improve MLFHQ without significant difference in 6MWD, arrhythmic events, HF hospitalizations, all-cause hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality. There is a trend towards increased pacemaker/ICD device malfunction. Larger RCTs might be needed to determine if the CCM therapy will be beneficial with longer follow-up.
| S-EPMC6739758 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe dropout rate is an important determinant of outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and should be carefully controlled. This study explored the current dropout rate in studies of Korean medicine (KM) interventions by systematic evaluation of RCTs conducted in the past 10 years.MethodsThree clinical trial registries (Clinical Research Information Service, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched to identify RCT protocols for KM interventions, such as acupuncture, herbal medicine, moxibustion, or cupping, and studies of mixed interventions, registered in Korea from 2009 to 2019. The PubMed, Embase, and OASIS databases were searched for the full reports of these RCTs, including published journal articles and theses. Dropout rates and the reasons for dropping out were analyzed in each report. The risk of bias in each of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The risk difference for dropping out between the treatment and control groups was calculated with the 95% confidence interval in a random effects model.ResultsForty-nine published studies were included in the review. The median dropout rate was 10% in the treatment group (interquartile range 6.7%, 17.0%) and 14% in the control group (interquartile range 5.4%, 16.3%) and was highest in acupuncture studies (12%), followed by herbal medicine (10%), moxibustion (8%), and cupping (7%). Loss to follow-up was the most common reason for dropping out. The risk difference for dropping out between the intervention and control groups was estimated to be 0.01 (95% confidence interval - 0.02, 0.03) in KM intervention studies.ConclusionsThis review found no significant difference in the dropout rate between studies according to the type of KM intervention. We recommend allowance for a minimum dropout rate of 15% in future RCTs of KM interventions.Review protocol registrationPROSPERO CRD42020141011.
| S-EPMC7923634 | biostudies-literature