Dataset Information

Effectiveness and safety of metoclopramide in treatment of intractable hiccup: a protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Hiccup is a common disease that not only occurred on adults but also on infants, which can severely do harm to patients' physical and psychological health. Metoclopramide has been reported to have effects on intractable hiccup. However, there is a limited evidence that describes the efficacy and safety of metoclopramide in the treatment of intractable hiccup. The aim of this article is to obtain evidence on the effectiveness and safety of metoclopramide in treating patients with intractable hiccup.

Methods and analysis

We will search the following databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CBM, Wan-fang, VIP database, CNKI and MEDLINE from their inception to 11 November 2021. All the randomised controlled trials associated with metoclopramide in treating intractable hiccup will be included. Articles screened, selected and extracted will be performed by two researchers independently. The risk of bias will be assessed by using the Cochrane Collaboration. We will carry out the meta-analysis by using RevMan V.5.4 software.

Prospero registration number

CRD42021293000.

SUBMITTER: Wang D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9540848 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness and safety of metoclopramide in treatment of intractable hiccup: a protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wang Die D Zi Changyan C Zhang Baocheng B Wang Baojia B Chen Tao T Wang Long L Gao Yongxiang Y

BMJ open 20221006 10

<h4>Introduction</h4>Hiccup is a common disease that not only occurred on adults but also on infants, which can severely do harm to patients' physical and psychological health. Metoclopramide has been reported to have effects on intractable hiccup. However, there is a limited evidence that describes the efficacy and safety of metoclopramide in the treatment of intractable hiccup. The aim of this article is to obtain evidence on the effectiveness and safety of metoclopramide in treating patients ...[more]

PMID: 36202584

Similar Datasets

Project description:The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of tigecycline, a newly developed glycylcycline antibiotic, with those of empirical antibiotic regimens which have been reported to possess good efficacy for complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs), complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs), community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), and other infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE). A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase was performed. Eight RCTs involving 4,651 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with therapy with empirical antibiotic regimens, tigecycline monotherapy was associated with similar clinical treatment success rates (for the clinically evaluable [CE] population, odds ratio [OR] = 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.76 to 1.12, P = 0.42; for the clinical modified intent-to-treat [c-mITT] population, OR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.74 to 1.01, P = 0.06) and similar microbiological treatment success rates (for the microbiologically evaluable [ME] population, OR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.69 to 1.07, P = 0.19). The incidence of adverse events in the tigecycline group was significantly higher than that in the other therapy groups with a statistical margin (for the modified intent-to-treat [mITT] population, OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.17 to 1.52, P < 0.0001), especially in the digestive system (mITT population, OR = 2.41, 95% CI = 1.67 to 3.46, P < 0.00001). No difference regarding all-cause mortality and drug-related mortality between tigecycline and the other regimens was found, although numerically higher mortality was found in the tigecycline group. This meta-analysis provides evidence that tigecycline monotherapy may be used as effectively as the comparison therapy for cSSSI, cIAIs, CAP, and infections caused by MRSA/VRE. However, because of the high risk of mortality, AEs, and emergence of resistant isolates, prudence with the clinical use of tigecycline monotherapy in infections is required.

Project description:IntroductionIvermectin is a drug with antiviral properties and has been proposed as an alternative treatment for patients with COVID-19, in some countries; however, there is limited evidence to support its clinical use. Accordingly, the aim of this review and meta-analysis is to obtain superior evidence on the effectiveness and safety of ivermectin in treatment of COVID-19.Methods and analysisWe will search in the medical databases and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases for randomised clinical trials and quasi-randomised trials published from December 2019. The criteria for inclusion are that infection needs to be confirmed by a real-time PCR or serology test, and the effect of ivermectin has been compared with placebo, symptomatic treatment or no treatment. We will exclude observational studies and clinical trials that involved patients with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, but without a laboratorial diagnosis. Outcomes of interest include mortality, time to symptom resolution, time of hospitalisation, frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome, admission to intensive care unit, viral load, PCR-negative status, percentage of infection after prophylactic use, and total incidence of adverse and side effects. Study selection will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Two reviewers will independently select the studies and assess their eligibility. Two other reviewers will independently extract data from each study. Meta-analysis will then be carried out using fixed-effects or random-effects model, using the mean difference for continuous outcomes and the relative risk for dichotomous outcomes. Bias risk will be assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The quality of evidence for each outcome will be assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology. Review Manager V.5.3.5 will be used for synthesis and subgroup analysis.Ethics and disseminationOwing to the nature of the review, ethical approval is not required. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications.Prospero registration numberCRD42020197395.

Project description:Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) causes progressive destruction of pancreatic beta cells leading to absolute insulin deficiency. Treatment of T1DM requires insulin, and some evidence suggests that longer acting insulin analogues might have a higher effectiveness and greater safety profile compared to intermediate-acting insulin. Our objective is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness, safety, and cost of long-acting insulin versus intermediate-acting insulin through a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Studies examining long-acting versus intermediate-acting insulin or placebo preparations for adult T1DM patients will be included. The primary outcome is glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C), and secondary outcomes include emergency department and physician visits, hospital admissions, weight gain, quality of life, microvascular complications (e.g., retinopathy), macrovascular complications (e.g., cardiovascular disease), all-cause mortality, incident cancers, and cost. We will include experimental [randomized clinical trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, non-RCTs], quasi-experimental (controlled before-after, interrupted time series), observational (cohort), and cost studies, of any duration of follow-up, conducted during all time periods, and disseminated in any language.We will conduct comprehensive searches of electronic databases from inception onwards, including MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. We will also search for difficult to locate and unpublished literature by searching dissertation databases, public health organization websites, and trial registries. After a calibration exercise using our eligibility criteria and data abstraction forms, two reviewers will screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data in duplicate. Conflicts will be resolved by team discussion. Using a similar process, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Risk of Bias tool will be used to appraise the risk of bias of experimental and quasi-experimental studies, while the Newcastle Ottawa Scale will be used to assess the methodological quality of cohort studies. If feasible and appropriate, we will conduct a random effects meta-analysis, as well as a network meta-analysis.Our systematic review will be of utility to healthcare providers, policy-makers, T1DM patients and family members regarding treatment options of long-acting versus intermediate-acting insulin preparations.PROSPERO registry number: CRD42013003610.

Project description:IntroductionApproximately 5%-10% of individuals with untreated latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) will progress to active tuberculosis (TB). Children are at a higher risk for progression to TB disease than adults. Isoniazid prophylaxis treatment period is long and can cause liver damage. Alternatives to isoniazid, such as rifamycin containing regimens, should be considered for prophylaxis. Previous systematic reviews, with different study designs and data combining results on children and adults, have evaluated the comparative efficacy and harms of LTBI treatment regimens. We aim to determine the effectiveness and safety of all the different regimens available for the treatment of LTBI for children and adolescents less than 18 years of age, contacts of drug-susceptible TB, without HIV infection.Methods and analysisMEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials without any language or publication date restriction. Screening and extraction will be performed in duplicate. Risk of bias will be performed in duplicate with Cochrane Risk of Bias tool V.2. Pairwise meta-analysis of direct comparisons and network meta-analyses (NMAs) will be performed. Heterogeneity will be assessed using I2 and Cochrane thresholds. Direct and indirect estimates in an NMA will be combined if justifiable. Subgroups analyses will be performed in different mean age and study year groups. Sensitivity analysis based on the risk of bias will be conducted. Publication bias will be investigated using funnel plots and Egger's regression test. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria will assess certainty of the evidence for the direct comparisons. GRADE approach for NMA will assess the quality of the evidence from the indirect and NMA.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as no primary data are collected. This systematic review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42021271512.

Project description:Patient activation interventions (PAIs) engage patients in care by promoting increased knowledge, confidence, and/or skills for disease self-management. However, little is known about the impact of these interventions on a wide range of outcomes for adults with type 2 diabetes (DM2), or which of these interventions, if any, have the greatest impact on glycemic control.Electronic databases were searched from inception through November 2011. Of 16,290 citations, two independent reviewers identified 138 randomized trials comparing PAIs to usual care/control groups in adults with DM2 that reported intermediate or long-term outcomes or harms. For meta-analyses of continuous outcomes, we used a random-effects model to derive pooled weighted mean differences (WMD). For all-cause mortality, we calculated the pooled odds ratio (OR) using Peto's method. We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I (2) statistic and conducted meta-regression using a random-effects model when I (2)?>?50 %. A priori meta-regression primary variables included: intervention strategies, intervention leader, baseline outcome value, quality, and study duration.PAIs modestly reduced intermediate outcomes [A1c: WMD 0.37 %, CI 0.28-0.45 %, I (2) 83 %; SBP: WMD 2.2 mmHg, CI 1.0-3.5 mmHg, I (2) 72 %; body weight: WMD 2.3 lbs, CI 1.3-3.2 lbs, I (2) 64 %; and LDL-c: WMD 4.2 mg/dL, CI 1.5-6.9 mg/dL, I (2) 64 %]. The evidence was moderate for A1c, low/very low for other intermediate outcomes, low for long-term mortality and very low for complications. Interventions had no effect on hypoglycemia (evidence: low) or short-term mortality (evidence: moderate). Higher baseline A1c, pharmacist-led interventions, and longer follow-up were associated with larger A1c improvements. No intervention strategy outperformed any other in adjusted meta-regression.PAIs modestly improve A1c in adults with DM2 without increasing short-term mortality. These results support integration of these interventions into primary care for adults with uncontrolled glycemia, and provide evidence to insurers who do not yet cover these programs.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness and safety of metoclopramide in treatment of intractable hiccup: a protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Prospero registration number

Publications

Effectiveness and safety of metoclopramide in treatment of intractable hiccup: a protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets