Dataset Information

Fever therapy in febrile adults: systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To investigate the effects of fever therapy compared with no fever therapy in a wide population of febrile adults.

Design

Systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials.

Data sources

CENTRAL, BIOSIS, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection, searched from their inception to 2 July 2021.

Eligibility criteria

Randomised clinical trials in adults diagnosed as having fever of any origin. Included experimental interventions were any fever therapy, and the control intervention had to be no fever therapy (with or without placebo/sham).

Data extraction and synthesis

Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Primary outcomes were all cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were quality of life and non-serious adverse events. Aggregate data were synthesised with meta-analyses, subgroup analyses, and trial sequential analyses, and the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Results

Forty two trials assessing 5140 participants were included. Twenty three trials assessed 11 different antipyretic drugs, 11 trials assessed physical cooling, and eight trials assessed a combination of antipyretic drugs and physical cooling. Of the participants, 3007 were critically ill, 1892 were non-critically ill, 3277 had infectious fever, and 1139 had non-infectious fever. All trials were assessed as being at high risk of bias. Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis showed that the hypothesis that fever therapy reduces the risk of death (risk ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.19; I²=0%; P=0.62; 16 trials; high certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (risk ratio 1.02, 0.89 to 1.17; I²=0%; P=0.78; 16 trials; high certainty evidence) could be rejected. One trial assessing quality of life was included, showing no difference between fever therapy and control. Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis showed that the hypothesis that fever therapy reduces the risk of non-serious adverse events could be neither confirmed nor rejected (risk ratio 0.92, 0.67 to 1.25; I²=66.5%; P=0.58; four trials; very low certainty evidence).

Conclusions

Fever therapy does not seem to affect the risk of death and serious adverse events.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42019134006.

SUBMITTER: Holgersson J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9274300 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Tinnitus is a common disorder characterized by sound in the ear in the absence of external or internal stimuli. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) was discovered enhancing tissue repair via increasing the blood microcirculation and cell proliferation in 1960s. In the last two decades, LLLT delivered to the cochlea has frequently been used to reduce the severity of tinnitus. However, whether LLLT effectively attenuates the severity of tinnitus remains controversial. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of low-level laser therapy on adult patients with complaints of tinnitus. Systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT). Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) score; improvement rates of the visual analog scale (VAS), verbal rating scale (VRS) and numeric rating scale (NRS) scores. We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception through 17 September 2020. Randomized control trials that involved adult patients with complaints of tinnitus, compared LLLT to a placebo and provided sufficient information for meta-analysis were considered eligible. Overall, 11 studies involving 670 patients were included. No significant difference in the overall effect according to the THI score (mean difference (MD), -2.85; 95% CI, -8.99 to 3.28; p = 0.362; I2 = 0%) and the rating scale score improvement rate (risk ratio (RR), 1.35; 95% CI, 0.81 to 2.27; p = 0.250; I2 = 67%) was demonstrated between patients receiving LLLT and those receiving a placebo. None of the subgroup analyses showed significant differences, regardless of underlying sensorineural hearing loss, the number of irradiation sessions or the wavelength used. Our meta-analysis suggests that the value of LLLT in controlling the severity of tinnitus remains unclear, in part due to the relatively small number of patients and underlying heterogeneity. More large-scale investigations of LLLT for tinnitus related to inner ear disease are required to further elucidate the therapeutic effects.

Project description:IntroductionGlucocorticosteroids (steroids) are widely used for sepsis patients. However, the potential benefits and harms of both high and low dose steroids remain unclear. A systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) might shed light on this clinically important question.MethodsA systematic review was conducted according to a published protocol and The Cochrane Handbook methodology including meta-analyses, TSA of randomised clinical trials, and external validity estimation (GRADE). Randomised clinical trials evaluating steroids were included for sepsis patients (systemic inflammatory response syndrome, sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock) aged >18 years. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Cinahl were searched until 18 February 2015. No language restrictions were applied. Primary outcomes were mortality at longest follow-up and serious adverse events.ResultsA total of 35 trials randomising 4682 patients were assessed and reviewed in full text. All trials but two had high risk of bias. No statistically significant effect was found for any dose of steroids versus placebo or no intervention on mortality at maximal follow-up [relative risk (RR) 0.89; TSA adjusted confidence interval (CI) 0.74-1.08]. Two trials with low risk of bias also showed no statistically significant difference (random-effects model RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.06-2.42). Similar results were obtained in subgroups of trials stratified according to high (>500 mg) or low (? 500 mg) dose hydrocortisone (or equivalent) (RR 0.87; TSA-adjusted CI 0.38-1.99; and RR 0.90; TSA-adjusted CI 0.49-1.67, respectively). There were also no statistically significant effects on serious adverse events other than mortality (RR 1.02; TSA-adjusted CI 0.7-1.48). The effects did not vary according to the degree of sepsis. TSA showed that many more randomised patients are needed before definitive conclusions may be drawn.ConclusionEvidence to support or negate the use of steroids in any dose in sepsis patients is lacking. The results of ongoing and future well-designed, large randomised clinical trials are needed.

Project description:BackgroundThe evidence concerning which physical exercise characteristics are most effective for older adults is fragmented. We aimed to characterize the extent of this diversity and inconsistency and identify future directions for research by undertaking a systematic review of meta-analyses of exercise interventions in older adults.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science for articles that met the following criteria: (1) meta-analyses that synthesized measures of improvement (e.g., effect sizes) on any outcome identified in studies of exercise interventions; (2) participants in the studies meta-analyzed were adults aged 65+ or had a mean age of 70+; (3) meta-analyses that included studies of any type of exercise, including its duration, frequency, intensity, and mode of delivery; (4) interventions that included multiple components (e.g., exercise and cognitive stimulation), with effect sizes that were computed separately for the exercise component; and (5) meta-analyses that were published in any year or language. The characteristics of the reviews, of the interventions, and of the parameters improved through exercise were reported through narrative synthesis. Identification of the interventions linked to the largest improvements was carried out by identifying the highest values for improvement recorded across the reviews. The study included 56 meta-analyses that were heterogeneous in relation to population, sample size, settings, outcomes, and intervention characteristics.ResultsThe largest effect sizes for improvement were found for resistance training, meditative movement interventions, and exercise-based active videogames.ConclusionThe review identified important gaps in research, including a lack of studies investigating the benefits of group interventions, the characteristics of professionals delivering the interventions associated with better outcomes, and the impact of motivational strategies and of significant others (e.g., carers) on intervention delivery and outcomes.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the benefits and harms of targeting intensive versus conventional glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.DesignA systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials.Data sourcesThe Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and LILACS to January 2013.Study selectionRandomised clinical trials that prespecified different targets of glycaemic control in participants at any age with type 1 diabetes mellitus were included.Data extractionTwo authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data.Results18 randomised clinical trials included 2254 participants with type 1 diabetes mellitus. All trials had high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant effect of targeting intensive glycaemic control on all-cause mortality (risk ratio 1.16, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.08) or cardiovascular mortality (0.49, 0.19 to 1.24). Targeting intensive glycaemic control reduced the relative risks for the composite macrovascular outcome (0.63, 0.41 to 0.96; p=0.03), and nephropathy (0.37, 0.27 to 0.50; p<0.00001. The effect estimates of retinopathy, ketoacidosis and retinal photocoagulation were not consistently statistically significant between random and fixed effects models. The risk of severe hypoglycaemia was significantly increased with intensive glycaemic targets (1.40, 1.01 to 1.94). Trial sequential analyses showed that the amount of data needed to demonstrate a relative risk reduction of 10% were, in general, inadequate.ConclusionsThere was no significant effect towards improved all-cause mortality when targeting intensive glycaemic control compared with conventional glycaemic control. However, there may be beneficial effects of targeting intensive glycaemic control on the composite macrovascular outcome and on nephropathy, and detrimental effects on severe hypoglycaemia. Notably, the data for retinopathy and ketoacidosis were inconsistent. There was a severe lack of reporting on patient relevant outcomes, and all trials had poor bias control.