Dataset Information

Bright Light Therapy for Parkinson Disease: A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT: Sleep disorders and depression are significant nonmotor symptoms (NMSs) of Parkinson disease (PD). However, few effective, evidence-proven medical treatments are available for alleviating these symptoms. Bright light therapy (BLT) is a well-established treatment for circadian rhythm sleep disorders and seasonal affective disorder. The present study conducted a literature review for the effect of BLT on PD, especially a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched for studies using the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases. The major outcomes were the effects on sleep and depression. The effect on motor symptoms was also analyzed as a secondary outcome. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020204454). Six studies were included in the literature review only, and the other five RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Despite the positive effects of BLT on PD patients, which were demonstrated in noncontrolled studies, in the meta-analysis of the RCTs, BLT did not significantly improve the depressive symptoms (standardized mean difference (SMD): -0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.48 to 0.17, p = 0.36) and excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) (SMD: -0.12, 95% CI: -0.49 to 0.25, p = 0.53) in PD patients. Regarding motor symptoms, no significant beneficial effects were conferred (SMD: -0.11, 95% CI: -0.44 to 0.21, p = 0.49). In conclusion, BLT did not significantly alleviate depression and sleepiness. The inconsistency between BLT protocols, such as the varied timing, dosages, and treatment durations, may render BLT's efficacy difficult to demonstrate. The small effect size obtained from the present meta-analysis indicates that future RCTs are necessary, for which BLT protocols are standardized and more patients are enrolled to determine whether a significant therapeutic benefit was conferred.

SUBMITTER: Huang HT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8614737 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To systematically assess the evidence of Craniosacral Therapy (CST) for the treatment of chronic pain. METHODS:PubMed, Central, Scopus, PsycInfo and Cinahl were searched up to August 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of CST in chronic pain patients were eligible. Standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for pain intensity and functional disability (primary outcomes) using Hedges' correction for small samples. Secondary outcomes included physical/mental quality of life, global improvement, and safety. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. RESULTS:Ten RCTs of 681 patients with neck and back pain, migraine, headache, fibromyalgia, epicondylitis, and pelvic girdle pain were included. CST showed greater post intervention effects on: pain intensity (SMD = -0.32, 95%CI = [- 0.61,-0.02]) and disability (SMD = -0.58, 95%CI = [- 0.92,-0.24]) compared to treatment as usual; on pain intensity (SMD = -0.63, 95%CI = [- 0.90,-0.37]) and disability (SMD = -0.54, 95%CI = [- 0.81,-0.28]) compared to manual/non-manual sham; and on pain intensity (SMD = -0.53, 95%CI = [- 0.89,-0.16]) and disability (SMD = -0.58, 95%CI = [- 0.95,-0.21]) compared to active manual treatments. At six months, CST showed greater effects on pain intensity (SMD = -0.59, 95%CI = [- 0.99,-0.19]) and disability (SMD = -0.53, 95%CI = [- 0.87,-0.19]) versus sham. Secondary outcomes were all significantly more improved in CST patients than in other groups, except for six-month mental quality of life versus sham. Sensitivity analyses revealed robust effects of CST against most risk of bias domains. Five of the 10 RCTs reported safety data. No serious adverse events occurred. Minor adverse events were equally distributed between the groups. DISCUSSION:In patients with chronic pain, this meta-analysis suggests significant and robust effects of CST on pain and function lasting up to six months. More RCTs strictly following CONSORT are needed to further corroborate the effects and safety of CST on chronic pain. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION AT PROSPERO:CRD42018111975.

Project description:In 2012, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning regarding potential adverse effects of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) on cognition, based on the Adverse Events Reporting System and a review of the medical literature. We aimed to synthesize randomized clinical trial (RCTs) evidence on the association between statin therapy and cognitive outcomes.We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL through December 2012, and reviewed published systematic reviews of statin treatment. We sought RCTs that compared statin treatment versus placebo or standard care, and reported at least one cognitive outcome (frequency of adverse cognitive events or measurements using standard neuropsychological cognitive test scores). Studies reporting sufficient information to calculate effect sizes were included in meta-analyses. Standardized and unstandardized mean differences were calculated for continuous outcomes for global cognition and for pre-specified cognitive domains. The main outcome was change in cognition measured by neuropsychological tests; an outcome of secondary interest was the frequency of adverse cognitive events observed during follow-up.We identified 25 RCTs (all placebo-controlled) reporting cognitive outcomes in 46,836 subjects, of which 23 RCTs reported cognitive test results in 29,012 participants. Adverse cognitive outcomes attributable to statins were rarely reported in trials involving cognitively normal or impaired subjects. Furthermore, meta-analysis of cognitive test data (14 studies; 27,643 participants) failed to show significant adverse effects of statins on all tests of cognition in either cognitively normal subjects (standardized mean difference 0.01, 95% confidence interval, CI, -0.01 to 0.03, p?=?0.42) or Alzheimer's disease subjects (standardized mean difference -0.05, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10, p?=?0.38).Statin therapy was not associated with cognitive impairment in RCTs. These results raise questions regarding the continued merit of the FDA warning about potential adverse effects of statins on cognition.

Project description:BackgroundStudies of cardiac resynchronization therapy in addition to an implantable cardioverter defibrillator in patients with mild to moderate congestive heart failure had not been shown to reduce mortality until the recent RAFT trial (Resynchronization/Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial). We performed a meta-analysis including the RAFT trial to determine the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable defibrillator on mortality.MethodsWe searched electronic databases and other sources for reports of randomized trials using a parallel or crossover design. We included studies involving patients with heart failure receiving optimal medical therapy that compared cardiac resynchronization therapy with optimal medical therapy alone, or cardiac resynchronization therapy plus an implantable defibrillator with a standard implantable defibrillator. The primary outcome was mortality. The optimum information size was considered to assess the minimum amount of information required in the literature to reach reliable conclusions about cardiac resynchronization therapy.ResultsOf 3071 reports identified, 12 studies (n = 7538) were included in our meta-analysis. Compared with optimal medical therapy alone, cardiac resynchronization therapy plus optimal medical therapy significantly reduced mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.85). Compared with an implantable defibrillator alone, cardiac resynchronization therapy plus an implantable defibrillator significantly reduced mortality (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72-0.96). This last finding remained significant among patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I or II disease (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67-0.96) but not among those with class III or IV disease (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69-1.07). Analysis of the optimum information size showed that the sequential monitoring boundary was crossed, which suggests no need for further clinical trials.InterpretationThe cumulative evidence is now conclusive that the addition of cardiac resynchronization to optimal medical therapy or defibrillator therapy significantly reduces mortality among patients with heart failure.

Project description:BackgroundThe primary objective of this systematic review is to examine the characteristics of pilot randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the orthopaedic surgery literature, including the proportion framed as feasibility trials and those that lead to definitive RCTs. This review aim to answer the question of whether pilot RCTs lead to definitive RCTs, whilst investigating the quality, feasibility and overall publication trends of orthopaedic pilot trials.MethodsPilot RCTs in the orthopaedic literature were identified from three electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Pubmed) searched from database inception to January 2018. Search criteria included the evaluation of at least one orthopaedic surgical intervention, research on humans, and publication in English. Two reviewers independently screened the pool of pilot trials, and conducted a search for corresponding definitive trials. Screened pilot RCTs were assessed for feasibility outcomes related to efficiency, cost, and/or timeliness of a large-scale clinical trial involving a surgical intervention. The quality of the pilot and definitive trials were assessed using the Checklist to Evaluate a Report of a Non-Pharmacological Trial (CLEAR NPT).ResultsThe initial search for pilot RCTs yielded 3857 titles, of which 49 articles were relevant for this review. 73.5% (36/49) of the orthopaedic pilot RCTs were framed as feasibility trials. Of these, 5 corresponding definitive trials (10.2%) were found, of which four were published and one ongoing. Based on author responses, the lack of a definitive RCT following the pilot trial was attributed to a lack of funding, inadequacies in recruitment, and belief that the pilot RCT sufficiently answered the research question.ConclusionsBased on this systematic review, most pilot RCTs were characterized as feasibility trials. However, the majority of published pilot RCTs did not lead to definitive trials. This discrepancy was mainly attributed to poor feasibility (e.g. poor recruitment) and lack of funding for an orthopaedic surgical definitive trial. In recent years this discrepancy may be due to researchers saving on time and cost by rolling their pilot patients into the definitive RCT rather than publish a separate pilot trial.

Dataset Information

Bright Light Therapy for Parkinson Disease: A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets