Search

The relative efficacy of various mind–body exercises in the treatment of depressive symptoms remains uncertain. We examined the optimal modalities (Tai Chi, qigong, yoga) and dose of mind–body exercise to improve depressive symptoms in adults. A systematic search of six electronic databases for randomized controlled trials on the relationship between exercise and depression was carried out, encompassing data from their inception up to November 2023. Pairwise analyses, network analyses and dose–response meta‐analyses using random‐effects models were performed to analyse the effect of exercise on depression. Forty studies were included. Results showed that Yoga [standardised mean difference (SMD) = −0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI): (−0.76, −0.35)] was the most effective form of exercise for improving depressive symptoms, followed by Qigong (SMD = −0.52; 95%CI: −0.92, −0.11) and Tai Chi exercise (SMD = −0.42; 95%CI: −0.71, −0.13). In addition, a non‐linear dose–response relationship was found between overall mind–body exercise dose and depression levels and a significant response was observed after 260 METs‐min. Our study examined the effectiveness of different types of mind–body exercise in improving depression and found that yoga may be the most effective adjunctive intervention. There was a non‐linear dose–response relationship between total exercise and depression levels. However, caution should be exercised in interpreting and applying these results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Objective To compare the outcomes associated with the use of lasmiditan, rimegepant, ubrogepant, and zavegepant for the acute management of migraine headaches. Methods We searched four electronic databases from database inception to August 31, 2023, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that report efficacy and safety for the acute treatment of migraine. The risk of bias in the included RCTs was evaluated according to the Cochrane tool, and the certainty of evidence using the CINeMA approach. We conducted frequentist network meta-analyses (NMA) to summarise the evidence. Data were analyzed using R-4.3.1. Results A total of 18 eligible studies including 10 different types of interventions with 22,429 migraine patients were included. NMA results showed that compared to ubrogepant (25 mg and 50 mg) and zavegepant, lasmiditan (100 mg and 200 mg) exhibits an elevated probability of achieving pain relief within a 2-hour interval. Similarly, relative to zavegepant, rimegepant (75 mg) and ubrogepant (50 mg and 100 mg) demonstrate an enhanced likelihood of sustaining pain relief over a 24-hour period. Furthermore, in contrast to ubrogepant (25 mg) and lasmiditan (50 mg), rimegepant (75 mg) presents a heightened probability of achieving freedom from photophobia within 2 h. Regarding safety, lasmiditan carries the highest risk of adverse events, which are associated with an increased incidence of adverse effects, including dizziness, somnolence, asthenia, paresthesia, and fatigue. Conclusions In this NMA, a spectrum of evidence ranging from very low to high levels underscores the favorable efficacy and tolerability of rimegepant 75 mg and ubrogepant 100 mg, positioning them as potential candidates for the acute management of migraine. Concurrently, lasmiditan (100 mg and 200 mg) exhibits notable efficacy, albeit accompanied by an increased susceptibility to adverse events. These findings should still be approached with caution, primarily due to the intrinsic limitations associated with indirect comparisons.

Abstract Background Network meta-analyses can be valuable for decision-makers in guiding clinical practice. However, for network meta-analysis results to be reliable, the assumptions of both transitivity and coherence must be met, and the methodology should adhere to current best practices. We aimed to assess whether network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing interventions for proximal humerus fractures provide reliable estimates of intervention effects. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for network meta-analyses comparing interventions for proximal humerus fractures. We critically assessed the methodology regarding the development of a protocol, search strategy, trial inclusion, outcome extraction, and the methods used to conduct the network meta-analyses. We assessed the transitivity and coherence of the network graphs for the Constant score (CS), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score (DASH), and additional surgery. Transitivity was assessed by comparing probable effect modifiers (age, gender, fracture morphology, and comorbidities) across intervention comparisons. Coherence was assessed using Separating Indirect from Direct Evidence (SIDE) (Separating Indirect from Direct Evidence) and the design-by-treatment interaction test. We used CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-analyses) to assess the confidence in the results. Results None of the three included network meta-analyses had a publicly available protocol or data-analysis plan, and they all had methodological flaws that could threaten the validity of their results. Although we did not detect incoherence for most comparisons, the transitivity assumption was violated for CS, DASH, and additional surgery in all three network meta-analyses. Additionally, the confidence in the results was ‘very low’ primarily due to within-study bias, reporting bias, intransitivity, imprecision, and heterogeneity. Conclusions Current network meta-analyses of RCTs comparing interventions for proximal humerus fractures do not provide reliable estimates of intervention effects. We advise caution in using these network meta-analyses to guide clinical practice. To improve the utility of network meta-analyses to guide clinical practice, journal editors should require that network meta-analyses are done according to a predefined analysis plan in a publicly available protocol and that both coherence and transitivity have been adequately assessed and reported.

Objective: To compare the outcomes associated with the use of lasmiditan, rimegepant, ubrogepant, and zavegepant for the acute management of migraine headaches. Methods: We searched four electronic databases from database inception to August 31, 2023, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that report efficacy and safety for the acute treatment of migraine. The risk of bias in the included RCTs was evaluated according to the Cochrane tool, and the certainty of evidence using the CINeMA approach. We conducted frequentist network meta-analyses (NMA) to summarise the evidence. Data were analyzed using R-4.3.1. Results: A total of 18 eligible studies including 10 different types of interventions with 22,429 migraine patients were included. NMA results showed that compared to ubrogepant (25 mg and 50 mg) and zavegepant, lasmiditan (100 mg and 200 mg) exhibits an elevated probability of achieving pain relief within a 2-hour interval. Similarly, relative to zavegepant, rimegepant (75 mg) and ubrogepant (50 mg and 100 mg) demonstrate an enhanced likelihood of sustaining pain relief over a 24-hour period. Furthermore, in contrast to ubrogepant (25 mg) and lasmiditan (50 mg), rimegepant (75 mg) presents a heightened probability of achieving freedom from photophobia within 2 h. Regarding safety, lasmiditan carries the highest risk of adverse events, which are associated with an increased incidence of adverse effects, including dizziness, somnolence, asthenia, paresthesia, and fatigue. Conclusions: In this NMA, a spectrum of evidence ranging from very low to high levels underscores the favorable efficacy and tolerability of rimegepant 75 mg and ubrogepant 100 mg, positioning them as potential candidates for the acute management of migraine. Concurrently, lasmiditan (100 mg and 200 mg) exhibits notable efficacy, albeit accompanied by an increased susceptibility to adverse events. These findings should still be approached with caution, primarily due to the intrinsic limitations associated with indirect comparisons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses (NMAs) in Endodontics using the the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) for NMA checklist. Methods: The current investigation extends a recently published study in the International Endodontic Journal (Nagendrababu V, Faggion Jr CM, Pulikkotil SJ, Alatta A, Dummer PM Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with network meta‐analyses in Endodontics. International Endodontic Journal 2022;55:393–404) that assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool. In the present study, the PRISMA for NMA checklist with 32 items was used to assess the reporting quality of the systematic reviews with NMAs (n = 12). Two independent assessors assigned '1' when an item was completely addressed, '0.5' when it was partially addressed, and '0' when it was not addressed. Disagreements were resolved through reviewer discussion until consensus was reached. If conflicts persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The PRISMA for NMA scores were shared with the relevant authors of the individual reviews to reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation and verify the scores assigned. The results for each individual item of the PRISMA-NMA items were calculated by summing the individual scores awarded; the maximum score for each item was 12. Results: All the systematic reviews with NMAs adequately reported the following items: Title, Introduction section (Objectives), Methods section (Eligibility criteria and Information sources), Results section (Study selection, Study characteristics and Risk of bias within studies), and Discussion section (Summary of evidence). The items that were reported least often were the "geometry of the network" and "the summary of network geometry" with only 2 manuscripts (17%) including these items. Conclusion: A number of the items in the PRISMA-NMA checklist were adequately addressed in the NMAs; however, none adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. The inadequacies of published NMAs that have been identified should be taken into consideration by authors of NMAs in Endodontics and by editors when managing the peer review process. In future, researchers who are writing systematic reviews with NMAs should comply with the PRISMA-NMA checklist. Clinical relevance: None of the included systematic reviews with NMA adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. Inadequate reporting of a systematic review with NMA increases the possibility that it will provide invalid results. Therefore, authors should follow the PRISMA-NMA guidelines when reporting systematic reviews with NMA in Endodontics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Objective: The efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) on Parkinson's disease (PD) varies across the stimulation targets. This study aims to estimate the effect of different TMS targets on motor symptoms in PD. Methods: A Bayesian hierarchical model was built to assess the effects across different TMS targets, and the rank probabilities and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values were calculated to determine the ranks of each target. The primary outcome was the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part-III. Inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons was assessed using the node-splitting method. Results: Thirty-six trials with 1,122 subjects were included for analysis. The pair-wise meta-analysis results showed that TMS could significantly improve motor symptoms in PD patients. Network meta-analysis results showed that the high-frequency stimulation over bilateral M1, bilateral DLPFC, and M1+DLPFC could significantly reduce the UPDRS-III scores compared with sham conditions. The high-frequency stimulation over both M1 and DLPFC had a more significant effect when compared with other parameters, and ranked first with the highest SCURA value. There was no significant inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons. Conclusion: Considering all settings reported in our research, high-frequency stimulation over bilateral M1 or bilateral DLPFC has a moderate beneficial effect on the improvement of motor symptoms in PD (high confidence rating). High-frequency stimulation over M1+DLPFC has a prominent beneficial effect and appears to be the most effective TMS parameter setting for ameliorating motor symptoms of PD patients (high confidence rating). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Network meta-analysis (NMA) has been widely used in the field of medicine and health, but the research topics and development trends are still unclear. This study aimed to identify the cooperation of countries and institutes and explore the hot topics and future prospects in the field of NMA. Methods Data of publications were downloaded from the Web of Science Core Collection. We used CiteSpace V, HistCite 2.1, and Excel 2016 to analyze literature information, including years, journals, countries, institutes, authors, keywords, and co-cited references. Results NMA research developed gradually before 2010 and rapidly in the following years. 2846 NMA studies were published in 771 journals in six languages. The PLoS One (110, 3.9%) was the most productive journal, and N Engl J Med (5904 co-citations) was the most co-cited journal. The most productive country was the United States (889, 31%) and the most productive institute was the University of Bristol (113, 4.0%). The active collaborations were observed between developed countries and between productive institutes. Of the top 10 authors, four were from the UK, and among the top 10 co-cited authors, six were from the UK. Randomized evidence, oral anti-diabetic drugs, coronary artery bypass, certolizumab pegol, non-valvular atrial fibrillation, and second-line antihyperglycemic therapy were the hot topics in this field. Conclusions NMA studies have significantly increased over the past decade, especially from 2015 to 2017. Compared with developing countries, developed countries have contributed more to these publications and have closer cooperation, indicating that cooperation between developed and developing countries should be further strengthened. The treatment of diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and immune rheumatism are the main hot topics.

Aim: The aims of the study were to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews with network meta‐analyses (NMAs) in Endodontics using the 'A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews' (AMSTAR 2) tool, and to evaluate the overall confidence in the results of the individual reviews included in the analysis. Methodology: Systematic reviews with NMAs within the specialty of Endodontics published in English were identified from the PubMed, EbBSCOhost and SCOPUS databases from inception to July 2021. Two reviewers were involved independently in the selection of the reviews, data extraction, methodological quality assessment and overall confidence rating. Disagreements were resolved by discussion between the reviewers to achieve consensus; if disagreements persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The methodological quality of the included NMAs was appraised using the AMSTAR 2 checklist, which contains 16 items. The reviewers scored each item—'Yes'—when the item was fully addressed, 'Partial Yes'—when the item was not fully addressed, or 'No'—when the item was not addressed. The overall confidence in the results of each review was classified as 'High', 'Moderate', 'Low' or 'Critically low' based on the criteria reported by the AMSTAR 2 developers. Results: Twelve systematic reviews with NMAs were included. All the NMAs adequately reported Item 1 ('Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO?'), Item 8 ('Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?'), Item 9 ('Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?') and Item 16 ('Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?'), whereas only one NMA reported Item 10 adequately ('Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?'). The overall confidence in the results of eight reviews was categorized as 'Critically low', one review was 'Low', two reviews were 'Moderate' and one review was 'High'. Conclusion: The overall confidence in the results for the majority of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics was judged to be 'Critically low' as their methodological quality was below the necessary standard. AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA for NMA guidelines are available to guide authors to produce high‐quality systematic reviews with NMAs and for editors and peer‐reviewers when assessing submissions to journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The 2018 World Health Organization HIV guidelines were based on the results of a network meta-analysis (NMA) of published trials. This study employed individual patient-level data (IPD) and aggregate data (AgD) and meta-regression methods to assess the evidence supporting the WHO recommendations and whether they needed any refinements. Methods Access to IPD from three trials was granted through ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com (CSDR). Seven modelling approaches were applied and compared: 1) Unadjusted AgD network meta-analysis (NMA) – the original analysis; 2) AgD-NMA with meta-regression; 3) Two-stage IPD-AgD NMA; 4) Unadjusted one-stage IPD-AgD NMA; 5) One-stage IPD-AgD NMA with meta-regression (one-stage approach); 6) Two-stage IPD-AgD NMA with empirical-priors (empirical-priors approach); 7) Hierarchical meta-regression IPD-AgD NMA (HMR approach). The first two were the models used previously. Models were compared with respect to effect estimates, changes in the effect estimates, coefficient estimates, DIC and model fit, rankings and between-study heterogeneity. Results IPD were available for 2160 patients, representing 6.5% of the evidence base and 3 of 24 edges. The aspect of the model affected by the choice of modeling appeared to differ across outcomes. HMR consistently generated larger intervals, often with credible intervals (CrI) containing the null value. Discontinuations due to adverse events and viral suppression at 96 weeks were the only two outcomes for which the unadjusted AgD NMA would not be selected. For the first, the selected model shifted the principal comparison of interest from an odds ratio of 0.28 (95% CrI: 10.17, 0.44) to 0.37 (95% CrI: 0.23, 0.58). Throughout all outcomes, the regression estimates differed substantially between AgD and IPD methods, with the latter being more often larger in magnitude and statistically significant. Conclusions Overall, the use of IPD often impacted the coefficient estimates, but not sufficiently as to necessitate altering the final recommendations of the 2018 WHO Guidelines. Future work should examine the features of a network where adjustments will have an impact, such as how much IPD is required in a given size of network.

Abstract Background The use of individual patient data (IPD) in network meta-analyses (NMA) is rapidly growing. This study aimed to determine, through simulations, the impact of select factors on the validity and precision of NMA estimates when combining IPD and aggregate data (AgD) relative to using AgD only. Methods Three analysis strategies were compared via simulations: 1) AgD NMA without adjustments (AgD-NMA); 2) AgD NMA with meta-regression (AgD-NMA-MR); and 3) IPD-AgD NMA with meta-regression (IPD-NMA). We compared 108 parameter permutations: number of network nodes (3, 5 or 10); proportion of treatment comparisons informed by IPD (low, medium or high); equal size trials (2-armed with 200 patients per arm) or larger IPD trials (500 patients per arm); sparse or well-populated networks; and type of effect-modification (none, constant across treatment comparisons, or exchangeable). Data were generated over 200 simulations for each combination of parameters, each using linear regression with Normal distributions. To assess model performance and estimate validity, the mean squared error (MSE) and bias of treatment-effect and covariate estimates were collected. Standard errors (SE) and percentiles were used to compare estimate precision. Results Overall, IPD-NMA performed best in terms of validity and precision. The median MSE was lower in the IPD-NMA in 88 of 108 scenarios (similar results otherwise). On average, the IPD-NMA median MSE was 0.54 times the median using AgD-NMA-MR. Similarly, the SEs of the IPD-NMA treatment-effect estimates were 1/5 the size of AgD-NMA-MR SEs. The magnitude of superior validity and precision of using IPD-NMA varied across scenarios and was associated with the amount of IPD. Using IPD in small or sparse networks consistently led to improved validity and precision; however, in large/dense networks IPD tended to have negligible impact if too few IPD were included. Similar results also apply to the meta-regression coefficient estimates. Conclusions Our simulation study suggests that the use of IPD in NMA will considerably improve the validity and precision of estimates of treatment effect and regression coefficients in the most NMA IPD data-scenarios. However, IPD may not add meaningful validity and precision to NMAs of large and dense treatment networks when negligible IPD are used.

Background: Network meta-analysis (NMA) has been widely used in the field of medicine and health, but the research topics and development trends are still unclear. This study aimed to identify the cooperation of countries and institutes and explore the hot topics and future prospects in the field of NMA.Methods: Data of publications were downloaded from the Web of Science Core Collection. We used CiteSpace V, HistCite 2.1, and Excel 2016 to analyze literature information, including years, journals, countries, institutes, authors, keywords, and co-cited references.Results: NMA research developed gradually before 2010 and rapidly in the following years. 2846 NMA studies were published in 771 journals in six languages. The PLoS One (110, 3.9%) was the most productive journal, and N Engl J Med (5904 co-citations) was the most co-cited journal. The most productive country was the United States (889, 31%) and the most productive institute was the University of Bristol (113, 4.0%). The active collaborations were observed between developed countries and between productive institutes. Of the top 10 authors, four were from the UK, and among the top 10 co-cited authors, six were from the UK. Randomized evidence, oral anti-diabetic drugs, coronary artery bypass, certolizumab pegol, non-valvular atrial fibrillation, and second-line antihyperglycemic therapy were the hot topics in this field.Conclusions: NMA studies have significantly increased over the past decade, especially from 2015 to 2017. Compared with developing countries, developed countries have contributed more to these publications and have closer cooperation, indicating that cooperation between developed and developing countries should be further strengthened. The treatment of diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and immune rheumatism are the main hot topics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The 2018 World Health Organization HIV guidelines were based on the results of a network meta-analysis (NMA) of published trials. This study employed individual patient-level data (IPD) and aggregate data (AgD) and meta-regression methods to assess the evidence supporting the WHO recommendations and whether they needed any refinements. Methods: Access to IPD from three trials was granted through ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com (CSDR). Seven modelling approaches were applied and compared: 1) Unadjusted AgD network meta-analysis (NMA) – the original analysis; 2) AgD-NMA with meta-regression; 3) Two-stage IPD-AgD NMA; 4) Unadjusted one-stage IPD-AgD NMA; 5) One-stage IPD-AgD NMA with meta-regression (one-stage approach); 6) Two-stage IPD-AgD NMA with empirical-priors (empirical-priors approach); 7) Hierarchical meta-regression IPD-AgD NMA (HMR approach). The first two were the models used previously. Models were compared with respect to effect estimates, changes in the effect estimates, coefficient estimates, DIC and model fit, rankings and between-study heterogeneity. Results: IPD were available for 2160 patients, representing 6.5% of the evidence base and 3 of 24 edges. The aspect of the model affected by the choice of modeling appeared to differ across outcomes. HMR consistently generated larger intervals, often with credible intervals (CrI) containing the null value. Discontinuations due to adverse events and viral suppression at 96 weeks were the only two outcomes for which the unadjusted AgD NMA would not be selected. For the first, the selected model shifted the principal comparison of interest from an odds ratio of 0.28 (95% CrI: 10.17, 0.44) to 0.37 (95% CrI: 0.23, 0.58). Throughout all outcomes, the regression estimates differed substantially between AgD and IPD methods, with the latter being more often larger in magnitude and statistically significant. Conclusions: Overall, the use of IPD often impacted the coefficient estimates, but not sufficiently as to necessitate altering the final recommendations of the 2018 WHO Guidelines. Future work should examine the features of a network where adjustments will have an impact, such as how much IPD is required in a given size of network. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Decreasing orthodontic treatment duration is at the forefront of innovation for clinical orthodontics. This network meta-analysis aimed to determine the relative efficacy and safety of treatments for accelerated orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) in patients undergoing extraction of maxillary first premolars followed by canine retraction in any orthodontic setting. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL and SCOPUS were searched (from inception to 20 April 2020). Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were meta-analysed to estimate the rate of tooth movement, 95% credible interval and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) in the first 3 months following the application of the adjunctive accelerative method. Eligible RCTs were assessed by Cochrane risk of bias tool, and quality of evidence was assessed by GRADE approach, obtained from CINeMA web application. Interventions were ranked for efficacy and reviewed for safety. Nineteen studies pertaining to eight interventions, with data from 415 patients were included. Quality of evidence was very low to moderate. Very low-to low-quality evidence suggests that corticotomy is an efficacious and safe adjunctive treatment to accelerate OTM in comparison with conventional treatment in the first 2 months of treatment. Low-quality evidence suggests that piezocision and micro-osteoperforations (MOP) are efficacious and safe adjunctive treatments only in the first month of treatment. Frequent MOP in conjunction with low-level laser therapy appeared to be an efficacious and safe adjunctive treatment only in the first month following its initial application but not thereafter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of individual patient data (IPD) in network meta-analyses (NMA) is rapidly growing. This study aimed to determine, through simulations, the impact of select factors on the validity and precision of NMA estimates when combining IPD and aggregate data (AgD) relative to using AgD only.Methods: Three analysis strategies were compared via simulations: 1) AgD NMA without adjustments (AgD-NMA); 2) AgD NMA with meta-regression (AgD-NMA-MR); and 3) IPD-AgD NMA with meta-regression (IPD-NMA). We compared 108 parameter permutations: number of network nodes (3, 5 or 10); proportion of treatment comparisons informed by IPD (low, medium or high); equal size trials (2-armed with 200 patients per arm) or larger IPD trials (500 patients per arm); sparse or well-populated networks; and type of effect-modification (none, constant across treatment comparisons, or exchangeable). Data were generated over 200 simulations for each combination of parameters, each using linear regression with Normal distributions. To assess model performance and estimate validity, the mean squared error (MSE) and bias of treatment-effect and covariate estimates were collected. Standard errors (SE) and percentiles were used to compare estimate precision.Results: Overall, IPD-NMA performed best in terms of validity and precision. The median MSE was lower in the IPD-NMA in 88 of 108 scenarios (similar results otherwise). On average, the IPD-NMA median MSE was 0.54 times the median using AgD-NMA-MR. Similarly, the SEs of the IPD-NMA treatment-effect estimates were 1/5 the size of AgD-NMA-MR SEs. The magnitude of superior validity and precision of using IPD-NMA varied across scenarios and was associated with the amount of IPD. Using IPD in small or sparse networks consistently led to improved validity and precision; however, in large/dense networks IPD tended to have negligible impact if too few IPD were included. Similar results also apply to the meta-regression coefficient estimates.Conclusions: Our simulation study suggests that the use of IPD in NMA will considerably improve the validity and precision of estimates of treatment effect and regression coefficients in the most NMA IPD data-scenarios. However, IPD may not add meaningful validity and precision to NMAs of large and dense treatment networks when negligible IPD are used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Second-line (2L) treatment for metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) remains challenging due to limited information comparing the available options and the influence of newly expanding first-line (1L) choices. • Based on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), the combination Lenvatinib+everolimus yielded superior, followed by cabozantinib and lenvatinib monotherapies • Nivolumab and pazopanib had the lowest odds of severe adverse events (SAEs). • The availability of newer front-line combinations of immune-checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine-kinase inhibitors will influence 2L decision-making. Deciding on the optimal second-line (2L) treatment for metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) remains challenging due to the limited information comparing each of the available options and the influence of the newly expanding first-line (1L) agents. We identified phase II/III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating 2L treatments in metastatic ccRCC. This Network Meta-analysis (NMA) evaluates the overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and severe adverse events (SAE). We used normal likelihood model to incorporate log hazard ratios (HRs), odds ratios (OR), and 95%-confidence-intervals (CI). Treatment p-scores were used for ranking. Data was analyzed in a fixed-effects model using the netmeta package in R v.1.5-0. All therapies demonstrated some benefits over placebo. Lenvatinib + everolimus ranked first for OS (HR = 0.44; 95%CI = 0.24–0.82; p-score = 0.92), PFS (HR = 0.13; 95%CI = 0.07–0.24, p-score = 0.98), and ORR (OR = 35.95; 95%CI = 11.55–111.87; p-score = 0.93) compared to placebo, though with a higher SAE (OR = 5.27; p-score = 0.23). Cabozantinib ranked second for OS (HR = 0.57, p-score = 0.80), PFS (HR = 0.19; p-score = 0.86), and ORR (OR = 27.24, p-score = 0.84). Nivolumab was third for ORR (p-score = 0.79), fourth for OS (p-score = 0.69), fifth for PFS (p-score = 0.61), and last for SAE (p-score = 0.83). Lenvatinib monotherapy ranked worst SAE (OR = 5.89, p-score = 0.17) and third for OS and PFS. The latest drug, tivozanib, was sixth for PFS, OS, and ORR. The NMA matrix revealed no differential OS benefit between cabozantinib, lenvatinib + everolimus, and nivolumab. Other regimens had no significant OS benefit when compared to placebo. Based on OS and PFS, the lenvtatinib + everolimus combination yielded superior, followed by cabozantinib and Lenvatinib monotherapies; all were limited by a worse SAE profile. Nivolumab and pazopanib had the lowest odds of SAEs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The aim of this network meta‐analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy of different oral hygiene products for chemical biofilm control, in 6‐month home‐use, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), in terms of changes in gingival index (GI). Material and Methods: Six‐month RCTs assessing GI were identified and screened for inclusion. Relevant information was extracted, and quality and potential risk of bias were estimated. Mean differences between baseline and end were calculated to obtain standardized mean differences (SMDs). NMA protocols were applied to assess direct and indirect comparisons among products using Löe & Silness GI, modified GI and gingival severity index. Results: Fifty‐three papers were included, 19 studies for mouth rinses, 32 for dentifrices, comprising data from 5,775 and 2,682 subjects, respectively. When ranking treatments, similar results were observed for all tested dentifrices, with the lowest effect observed for sanguinarine and baking soda. For mouth rinses, essential oils, triclosan–copolymer, chlorhexidine (at concentrations ≥ 0.10%) and cetylpyridinium chloride (>0.05%) demonstrated the greatest effect. Conclusion: Although NMA revealed significant differences when comparing placebo versus some active agents, when comparing among active agents, no differences were found for dentifrices, while mouth rinses containing essential oils showed the greatest effect on GI scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The aim is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4-I: sitagliptin, saxagliptin, linagliptin, vildagliptin and alogliptin) in patients with type 2 diabetes.Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Wanfang Database from inception to April, 2018. Randomized controlled trials were included if they compared the different versions of DPP4-I with each other or with placebo in treatment of type 2 diabetes. Bayesian network meta-analysis and pairwise meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the different kinds of DPP4-I and placebo. The data were analyzed using STATA 12.0 and WinBUGS1.4 software.Results: We identified 58 eligible studies (with 31356 patients) involving 14 treatment arms. Indirect comparison results showed that except for alogliptin, a decrease was found for all DPP4-I versus the placebo for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) with vildagliptin50 twice daily (BID) showing the highest probability. Linagliptin5 once daily (QD) decreased the level of fasting plasma glucose (FPG) the most for all DPP4-I versus the placebo; when comparing them with each other, alogliptin25QD was more effective when compared with sitagliptin100QD and vildaglipti50BID; linagliptin5qd had the highest decrease impact on body mass index (BMI). Except for hypoglycemia and upper respiratory tract infection (URTI), there are no statistical significance on incidence of adverse events and the body weight when DPP4-I are compared with each other or with placebo.Conclusion: Our network meta-analysis presents the associations of DPP4-I versus placebos on HbA1c, FPG, 2 h postprandial blood glucose (2HPPG), BMI, body weight and adverse events. DPP4-I have a lowering effect on the glycemic level (HbA1c, FPG), especially vildaglipti50BID and linagliptin10QD, respectively. Besides, linagliptin5QD has the greatest probabilities of reducing BMI. In addition, DPP4-I were associated with not increasing the incidence of adverse events. Among them, vildagliptin100QD and sitagliptin100QD have the lowest probability in reducing the incidence of hypoglycemia and URTI, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Objective This study aimed to assess and compare the clinical efficacy and safety of acupuncture and related therapies (ARTs) add-on to conventional treatment (CT) for heart failure (HF) through pairwise and network meta-analyses. Methods Six electronic databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang Database were searched from inceptions to December 2017. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding ARTs combining with CT for HF were eligible. The primary outcomes were changes in heart function classification (HFC) according to New York Heart Association class and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Risk of bias assessment was conducted by two independent authors. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed using STATA 13.0 and WinBUGS 1.4.3 software. Results A total of 26 RCTs were enrolled for analyses, with 5 kinds of ARTs and 2116 patients in all. Pairwise meta-analyses showed that acupoint application (OR: 3.28, 95%CI[2.26, 4.76]), acupuncture (OR: 2.78, 95%CI[1.21, 6.41]), acupoint injection (OR: 3.33, 95%CI[1.85, 6.00]) and moxibustion (OR: 2.51, 95%CI[1.02, 6.21]) could significantly improve HFC when they were used as add-on to CT. Acupoint application (MD: 3.57, 95%CI[1.45, 5.70]), acupuncture (MD: 7.75, 95%CI[2.33, 13.17]), acupoint injection (MD: 4.81, 95%CI[2.99, 6.63]) and moxibustion (MD: 6.99, 95%CI[3.62, 10.36]) were significantly beneficial in improving LVEF. Network meta-analyses showed that acupoint injection (SUCRA = 70.0%) and acupuncture (SUCRA = 90.4%) respectively had the greatest probability in improving HFC and LVEF. Conclusion Most of the included ARTs add-on to CT was effective in improving HFC and LVEF. Acupoint injection and acupuncture may respectively have better effect than others for HFC and LVEF. However, due to the small sample size and poor quality of the included studies, hence well-designed RCTs are needed to confirm our findings. This study was registered in PROSPERO, CRD42018087700. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The standard first-line systemic therapy for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) is imatinib. However, most GISTS develop imatinib resistance, highlighting the need for new agents in the imatinib-refractory setting. Currently, no randomized studies have directly compared the available post-first-line treatments. Methods In a systematic review, the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases, and American Society of Clinical Oncology abstracts to July 2014 were searched to identify randomized controlled trials that included gist patients treated with post-first-line therapies. Hazard ratios (HRS) for progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were extracted. Direct pairwise meta-analyses and indirect comparisons using the Butcher method were performed. Results Four studies were identified for the systematic review. One study showed that sunitinib in the second-line setting (vs. placebo) was associated with improved PFS, but not improved OS. Three studies examined the third-line setting (imatinib resumption vs. placebo, regorafenib vs. placebo, nilotinib vs. best supportive care). In the third-line settings, the two placebo-controlled and the non-placebo-controlled trials showed significant heterogeneity (I2 = 98%). Indirect comparisons of imatinib resumption and regorafenib suggested that the hr for PFS was 0.59 (95% confidence interval: 0.31 to 1.12; p = 0.10), trending in favour of regorafenib. Indirect comparisons found that toxicities were higher in the regorafenib group, with a risk difference of 27.8% for any-grade toxicities and 19.5% for grades 3 and 4 toxicities. Conclusions Because a head-to-head study of imatinib resumption compared with regorafenib is unlikely ever to be conducted, our study suggests that, in terms of PFS, regorafenib might be the preferred treatment. However, given the increased toxicity observed with regorafenib, clinicians should interpret that evidence with caution at an individual patient level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The safety of front-line chemotherapies for the treatment of extensive stage small-cell lung cancer ( ED-SCLC) is uncertain. We carried out a network meta-analysis to compare the toxicity of different therapies for ED-SCLC. Methods We searched EMBASE, PubMed, CENTRAL and . We performed network meta-analysis on hematological (anemia, leukopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia) and non-hematological toxicities (diarrhea, infection, and nausea and vomiting). Results Nine studies with 2317 patients were included. Etoposide with carboplatin ( EC) was associated with a higher incidence of anemia (odds ratio [ OR] 2.02, 95% confidence interval [ CI] 1.13-3.63), leukopenia ( OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.25-5.72), neutropenia ( OR 12.08, 95% CI 2.13-68.66), and thrombocytopenia ( OR 2.73, 95% CI 1.27-5.85) compared with irinotecan with carboplatin ( IC). Similarly, etoposide with cisplatin ( EP) was associated with a higher incidence of anemia ( OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.13-2.56), leukopenia ( OR 2.65, 95% CI 1.34-5.28), neutropenia ( OR 5.70, 95% CI 2.93-11.10), and thrombocytopenia ( OR 3.26, 95% CI 1.66-6.38) compared with irinotecan with cisplatin ( IP). EC was associated with a lower incidence of diarrhea ( OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10-0.68) compared with IC, and EP was associated with a lower incidence of diarrhea ( OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03-0.25) and nausea and vomiting ( OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33-0.84) than IP. Conclusions Hematological toxicities were most common in EC-treated patients, while the lowest incidence occurred with IP treatment. The IP regimen was associated with the highest incidence of toxicities of the digestive tract, while the lowest incidence occurred with EC treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy of different anti-plaque chemical agents, in 6-month, home-use, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), in terms of plaque index (PlI) changes. Material and Methods RCTs assessing PlI were identified, screened, and evaluated for inclusion. Relevant information was extracted, and quality and risk of bias were assessed. Mean differences between baseline-end were calculated to obtain weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. NMA protocols were applied to assess direct and indirect comparisons among products using Turesky PlI. Results Eighty-three papers were included: 49 examined dentifrices, 32 mouthrinses and 2 both. The NMA analysed 51 studies including data from 4242 and 4180 subjects for dentifrices and mouthrinses respectively. For dentifrices, triclosan-copolymer and chlorhexidine showed the greatest effect, with significant differences when compared with stannous fluoride. For mouthrinses, essential oils and chlorhexidine showed the greatest effect, with significant differences when compared with delmopinol, alexidine and cetylpyridinium chloride. Conclusion Within the limitations of this study (including the severe imbalance in the amount of evidence), dentifrices containing triclosan-copolymer or chlorhexidine and mouthrinses containing essential oils or chlorhexidine showed the greatest effect on PlI scores as assessed with NMA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rise over recent years in the use of network meta-analyses (NMAs) in clinical research and health economic analysis is little short of meteoric driven, in part, by a desire from decision makers to extend inferences beyond direct comparisons in controlled clinical trials. But is the increased use and reliance of NMAs justified? Do such analyses provide a reliable basis for the relative effectiveness assessment of medicines and, in turn, for critical decisions relating to healthcare access and provisioning? And can such analyses also be used earlier, as part of the evidence base for licensure? Despite several important publications highlighting inherently unverifiable assumptions underpinning NMAs, these assumptions and associated potential for serious bias are often overlooked in the reporting and interpretation of NMAs. A more cautious, and better informed, approach to the use and interpretation of NMAs in clinical research is warranted given the assumptions that sit behind such analyses. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pressure injury is a common complication after a spinal cord injury. Long-term multidisciplinary follow-up is difficult after such patients have been discharged. Telemedicine promises to provide convenient and effective support for the prevention and treatment of pressure injury, but previous attempts to demonstrate that have produced inconsistent results. Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of telemedicine in preventing and treating pressure injury among community-dwelling patients with spinal cord injury, and determine which telemedicine form is more effective. Methods: This systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA-NMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Network Meta-Analysis) standards. Ten databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies related to the effectiveness of telemedicine intervention in patients with spinal cord injury. Two researchers worked independently and blindly selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The results were described as relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference and 95% CI. Results: The 35 studies comprised 25 randomized controlled trials and 10 quasi-experimental studies involving 3131 patients. The results showed that telemedicine can significantly (P <.05) reduce the incidence of pressure injury (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.14-0.41; P <.05; I 2=0%), promote faster healing (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.85; P <.05; I 2=0%), and yield lower scores on the pressure ulcer scale of healing (weighted mean difference=–1.98, 95% CI –3.51 to –0.46; P <.05; I 2=0%). Cumulative ranking estimates showed that combining telemedicine with conventional intervention (93.5%) was the most effective approach. Conclusions: Telemedicine is a feasible way to prevent pressure injury among patients with spinal cord injuries. It can decrease the incidence and severity of pressure injury and accelerate patients' healing without imposing economic burden. It is best used in tandem with other, more conventional interventions. Due to the limited quality and quantity of included studies, large-scale and well-designed randomized controlled trials are warranted. J Med Internet Res 2022;24(9):e37618 doi:10.2196/37618 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Network meta-analyses (NMAs) aim to rank the benefits (or harms) of interventions, based on all available randomized controlled trials. Thus, the identification of relevant data is critical. We assessed the conduct of the literature searches in NMAs. Study Design: Published NMAs were retrieved by searching electronic bibliographic databases and other sources. Two independent reviewers selected studies and five trained reviewers abstracted data regarding literature searches, in duplicate. Search method details were examined using descriptive statistics. Results: Two hundred forty-nine NMAs were included. Eight used previous systematic reviews to identify primary studies without further searching, and five did not report any literature searches. In the 236 studies that used electronic databases to identify primary studies, the median number of databases was 3 (interquartile range: 3-5). MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were the most commonly used databases. The most common supplemental search methods included reference lists of included studies (48%), reference lists of previous systematic reviews (40%), and clinical trial registries (32%). None of these supplemental methods was conducted in more than 50% of the NMAs. Conclusion: Literature searches in NMAs could be improved by searching more sources, and by involving a librarian or information specialist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]