This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intra-articular vancomycin powder in reducing prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) in primary hip and knee arthroplasty through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

A research in Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed to identify randomized clinical trials comparing intra-articular vancomycin use to conventional antibiotic prophylaxis in total hip or knee arthroplasty patients, assessing postoperative infection rates, adverse drug reactions, and venous thrombotic events. Statistical analysis was performed using R (RStudio 2024.04.2), and heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 test.

A total of 1485 patients from five randomized clinical trials were included, with 737 receiving intra-articular vancomycin. The infection rate was 0.54 % in the intervention group and 1.73 % in the control group (RR 0.37; 95 % CI 0.02-8.95; p = 0.369; I2 = 49 %), showing no statistically significant difference between the groups. Adverse reactions to the glycopeptide were reported in six cases (0.8 %) in the intervention group compared to four cases (0.5 %) in the control group (RR 1.50; 95 % CI 1.50-150; p = 0.001; I2 = 0 %). Regarding thrombotic events, there was one case in 647 patients in the intervention group and three cases in 660 patients in the control group (RR 0.45; 95 % CI 0.03-7.02; p = 0.169; I2 = 0 %).

Although no significant difference was found, the intervention group showed a trend toward lower infection rates. Additional RCTs with larger sample sizes are required to confirm these findings.

The prospective registration of the meta-analysis was conducted on PROSPERO in July 2024 with the protocol number 565988.

Autism spectrum disorder encompasses diverse patterns of social communication and repetitive, restricted behaviours. Various interventions have been developed to reduce the negative consequences of this disorder and improve levels of functioning, and recently interest in parent-mediated interventions has increased. Previous reviews and meta-analyses have investigated the effects of the parent-mediated interventions, however; a systematic review with meta-analysis of high quality has not been performed since 2013. This protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis aims to describe the methods and purpose of synthesising current evidence regarding the effects (both positive and adverse) of parent-mediated interventions in both children with autism and their parents.

Electronic searches will be conducted in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), American Psychological Association PsycInfo (PsycInfo) and Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED). Randomised clinical trials of parent-mediated interventions for children with autism and control groups of usual care, waiting list or no treatment will be included. Two reviewers will independently screen, select and collect data. Methodological quality of included studies will be evaluated using Cochrane methodology. The primary outcome will be autism symptom severity as measured by the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule. Secondary outcomes will be adaptive functioning, adverse effects, child language, child´s quality of life, parental quality of life and parental stress. Meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analysis will be performed.

This is the study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of parent-mediated interventions versus usual care for children with ASD. Results of the review will inform clinicians and parents about the current evidence of the effects, both positive and negative, of parent-mediated interventions on younger children with autism and their parents, through improved methodology and inclusion of new studies. PROSPERO registration number: 385188.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects (i.e. benefits and harms) of psychological therapies for post-traumatic stress disorder and complex post-traumatic stress disorder in children and adolescents.

The superiority of radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy versus standard distal pancreatectomy has never been demonstrated.

A systematic review was performed to identify all comparative studies about radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy versus standard distal pancreatectomy. Random-effects analysis was performed, and hazard ratios, odds ratios, and mean differences were calculated. Using trial sequential analysis, type I and II errors were evaluated by comparing the accrued sample size with the required sample size. When the required sample size is superior to the accrued sample size, type I or II errors can be hypothesized. The critical endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints were disease-free survival, R0 resection rate, major morbidity and mortality rate, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, length of stay, and operative time.

The accrued sample size and required sample size were 1,172 and 176 for the primary endpoint, respectively. The overall survival was similar between the 2 groups, with a hazard ratio of 1.33 (95% confidence interval: 0.89-2.00). The required sample size reached, and false-negative equivalence can be excluded. Disease-free survival, R0 resection rate, major morbidity and mortality rate, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, and operative time are similar and reached required sample sizes, suggesting that false equivalence can be excluded. Length of stay was shorter in radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy than in standard distal pancreatectomy (-3.48 days; -6.66 to -0.31 days). The accrued sample size was 826, and the required sample size was not reached. False-positive results cannot be excluded.

Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy was not superior in guaranteeing a better overall survival and disease-free survival. The data are robust, and further retrospective comparative studies are unnecessary.

Sophorae flavescentis (kushen) preparations are widely used to control malignant pleural effusion (MPE) through intrapleural perfusion.

This analysis aims to verify the therapeutic values of perfusion with kushen preparations for controlling MPE, reveal the optimal treatment plan, suitable population, and usage, and to demonstrate their clinical effectiveness and safety.

We performed and reported this systematic review/meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42023430139) following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning perfusion with kushen preparation for MPE were collected from Chinese and English databases. We clustered all eligible studies into multiple homogeneous treatment units, assessed their methodological quality using a RoB 2, pooled the data from each unit, and summarized the quality of the evidence.

We included 83 RCTs reporting three types of kushen preparation: compound kushen injection (CKI), kang'ai injection, and matrine injection. All trials were clustered into perfusion with CKI alone or with the addition of sclerosants, kang'ai, or matrine-plus platinum for controlling MPE. Compared with cisplatin alone, perfusion with CKI alone displayed a similar complete response, pleurodesis failure, and pleural progression (odds ratios =1.10, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.60; 0.80, 0.56 to 1.14; 0.63, 0.33 to 1.21). Of 14 homogeneous treatment plans, perfusion with CKI and cisplatin significantly improved the complete response (2.71, 2.30 to 3.19) and showed low pleurodesis failure (0.26, 0.22 to 0.32), pleural progression (0.22, 0.14 to 0.36), myelosuppression (0.34, 0.24 to 0.47), neutropenia (0.35, 0.26 to 0.46), gastrointestinal reaction (0.36, 0.29 to 0.44), hepatorenal toxicity (0.42, 0.28 to 0.63 and 0.32, 0.24 to 0.44), and fever (0.50, 0.30 to 0.82). These results were moderate quality (⊕⊕⊕Ο) supported by firm or conclusive information. Additionally, perfusion with kang'ai or matrine and cisplatin also improved the complete response (3.04, 1.76 to 5.26 and 1.87, 1.26 to 2.78) and displayed low pleurodesis failure (0.23, 0.14 to 0.41 and 0.27, 0.17 to 0.44). The results were moderate to low quality (⊕⊕⊕Ο to ⊕⊕ΟΟ).

Current moderate evidence demonstrates that CKI may be an effective palliative intervention for MPE which, combined with cisplatin, may be an optimal treatment plan. Kang'ai or matrine may be other potential choices.

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023430139.

Chronic hepatitis B is a major worldwide public health concern. Entecavir, one nucleos(t)ide analogue antiviral therapy option, is recommended as the first-line drug for chronic hepatitis B in many clinical guidelines. However, none of the guideline recommendations are based on the findings of a systematic review with meta-analysis, where entecavir versus no treatment or placebo are compared directly.

To evaluate the benefits and harms of entecavir versus no treatment or placebo in children and adults with chronic hepatitis B, who are either hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg)-positive or HBeAg-negative.

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, three other databases, online trial registries, and reference lists, and contacted authors. The latest search was on 19 July 2024.

We included randomised clinical trials comparing entecavir versus no treatment or placebo in children or adults, or both, with chronic hepatitis B, and irrespective of treatment history with other antiviral drugs and other viral co-infections. We allowed co-interventions when administered equally to all intervention groups.

The outcomes reported in this abstract and in the summary of findings table are all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, and proportion of people with serious adverse events at the longest follow-up.

We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias in the included trials.

We used a random-effects model to meta-analyse outcome results, where possible, and presented the results as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Where there was considerable heterogeneity, we performed a narrative analysis. We used a fixed-effect model for sensitivity analysis. We used GRADE to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

We included 22 randomised clinical trials (published from 2005 to 2022) with 2940 participants diagnosed with chronic hepatitis B. All trials had a parallel-group design. The experimental intervention was oral entecavir, with a follow-up duration of 5 weeks to 228 weeks. The comparator in 12 trials was no treatment, and in 10 trials was placebo. Fourteen trials equally administered co-interventions to the trial participants in the entecavir and no treatment and placebo groups. One trial included participants between 14 years and 55 years of age, one trial included only children, 19 trials included only adults, and one trial did not provide the age of participants.

Twenty trials contributed data to the quantitative analysis. Ten trials (1379 participants) reported all-cause mortality with a mean follow-up duration of 48.9 weeks (range 5 to 100 weeks). The result was not estimable because no deaths occurred in any of the entecavir and no treatment or placebo groups. None of the trials provided data on health-related quality of life. We are very uncertain about the effect of entecavir versus no treatment or placebo on the proportion of people with serious adverse events (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.32; absolute risk difference 22 fewer per 1000 (from 44 fewer to 21 more); 15 trials, 1676 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The mean follow-up duration was 58.4 weeks (range 5 weeks to 228 weeks). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for these outcomes to very low, mainly because the overall risk of bias in most trials was with some concerns or high, and serious imprecision (no events or few events).

Given the issues of risk of bias and insufficient power of the included trials and the very low certainty of the available evidence, we could not determine the effect of entecavir versus no treatment or placebo on critical outcomes such as all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. There is a lack of data on health-related quality of life. Given the first-line recommendation and wide usage of entecavir in people with chronic hepatitis B, further evidence on clinically important outcomes, analysed in this review, is needed.

This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.

Registration: Entecavir for children and adults with chronic hepatitis B, CD015536 via DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD015536.

Trial sequential methods have been introduced to address issues related to increased likelihood of incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis in meta-analyses due to repeated significance testing. Between-study variance (τ2) and its estimate ( τ ^ 2) play a crucial role in both meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis with the random-effects model. Therefore, we investigated how different τ ^ 2 impact the results of and quantities used in trial sequential analysis.

This case study was grounded in a Cochrane review that provides data for smaller (< 10 randomized clinical trials, RCTs) and larger (> 20 RCTs) meta-analyses. The review compared various outcomes between video-laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation, and we used outcomes including hypoxemia and failed intubation, stratified by difficulty, expertise, and obesity. We calculated odds ratios using inverse variance method with six estimators for τ2, including DerSimonian-Laird, restricted maximum-likelihood, Paule-Mandel, maximum-likelihood, Sidik-Jonkman, and Hunter-Schmidt. Then we depicted the relationships between τ ^ 2 and quantities in trial sequential analysis including diversity, adjustment factor, required information size (RIS), and α-spending boundaries.

We found that diversity increases logarithmically with τ ^ 2, and that the adjustment factor, RIS, and α-spending boundaries increase linearly with τ ^ 2. Also, the conclusions of trial sequential analysis can differ depending on the estimator used for between-study variance.

This study highlights the importance of τ ^ 2 in trial sequential analysis and underscores the need to align the meta-analysis and the trial sequential analysis by choosing estimators to avoid introducing biases and discrepancies in effect size estimates and uncertainty assessments.

Cardiovascular diseases remain the leading cause of mortality worldwide. Tirzepatide is approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and overweight and is increasingly used. The adverse effects with tirzepatide may not be disease-specific and have not been assessed previously.

We will conduct a systematic review and search major medical databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S)) and clinical trial registries from their inception and onwards to identify relevant randomised clinical trials. We expect to conduct the literature search in January 2025. Two review authors will independently extract data and perform risk of bias assessments. We will include randomised clinical trials comparing tirzepatide versus placebo or no intervention in all patient groups with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be myocardial infarction, stroke, all-cause hospitalisation and non-serious adverse events. Data will be synthesised by meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analysis, risk of bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2. We will systematically assess if the thresholds for statistical and clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations.

This protocol does not present any results. Findings of this systematic review will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals.

CRD42024599035.

Randomized controlled trials comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation with surgical aortic valve replacement demonstrate conflicting evidence, particularly in low-risk patients. We aim to reevaluate the evidence using trial sequential analysis, balancing type I and II errors, and compare with conventional meta-analysis.

Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials, which were divided into higher-risk and lower-risk randomized controlled trials according to a pragmatic risk classification. Primary outcomes were death and a composite end point of death or disabling stroke assessed at 1 year and maximum follow-up. Conventional meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis were performed, and the required information size was calculated considering a type I error of 5% and a power of 90%.

Eight randomized controlled trials (n = 5274 higher-risk and 3661 lower-risk patients) were included. Higher-risk trials showed no significant reduction in death at 1 year with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (relative risk, 0.93, 95% CI, 0.81-1.08, P = .345). Lower-risk trials suggested lower death risk on conventional meta-analysis (relative risk, 0.67, 95% CI, 0.47-0.96, P = .031), but trial sequential analysis indicated potential spurious evidence (P = .116), necessitating more data for conclusive benefit (required information size = 5944 [59.8%]). For death or disabling stroke at 1 year, higher-risk trials lacked evidence (relative risk, 0.90, 95% CI, 0.79-1.02, P = .108). In lower-risk trials, transcatheter aortic valve implantation indicated lower risk in conventional meta-analysis (relative risk, 0.68, 95% CI, 0.50-0.93, P = .014), but trial sequential analysis suggested potential spurious evidence (P = .053), necessitating more data for conclusive benefit (required information size = 5122 [69.4%]). Follow-up results provided inconclusive evidence for both primary outcomes across risk categories.

Conventional meta-analysis methods may have prematurely declared an early reduction of negative outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation when compared with surgical aortic valve replacement.

We aimed to reevaluate randomized controlled trial data on outcomes of cerebral embolic protection device use during transcatheter aortic valve implantation. A conventional meta-analysis followed by trial sequential analysis was conducted to evaluate the strength of the current evidence.

Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials. Primary outcomes included all stroke, disabling stroke, and all-cause mortality. Conventional study-level meta-analysis was performed using random-effects modeling. Trial sequential analysis was conducted to generate adjusted significance boundaries, futility boundaries, and the required information size considering a type I error of 5% and a power of 90%. Seven trials were included with a total of 4031 patients, of whom 2171 were treated with a device and 1860 were not. Conventional meta-analysis showed no significant difference in all stroke (relative risk [RR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.61-1.18]; P=0.339) and disabling stroke (RR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.30-1.13]; P=0.113) with device use. The trial sequential analysis determined an absence of evidence for all stroke (required information size of 71 650 [5.6%]) and disabling stroke (required information size of 337 256 [1.2%]). Conventional meta-analysis determined no significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.49-2.17]; P=0.928) with device use. The trial sequential analysis determined that the futility boundary was reached (required information size of 5772 [69.3%]).

There are insufficient randomized controlled trial data on cerebral embolic protection device use to provide conclusive meta-analytic findings for stroke outcomes.

The DEFUSE-3 and DAWN studies established the benefits of endovascular therapy for patients with stroke with large vessel occlusion in a 6-24 h time window. However, the effectiveness of endovascular therapy performed beyond 24 h remains uncertain. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the difference in prognosis between thrombectomies performed beyond 24 h and within 24 h from ischemic stroke onset.

A systematic review was conducted using the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases from database inception until 1 February 2024. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

This study included seven cohort articles involving 6137 participants who received endovascular therapy, with 395 patients in the beyond 24 h group and the remainder in the within 24 h group. The results for functional independence, successful reperfusion, any intracranial hemorrhage, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and 90-day mortality rates were similar between the two groups, with odds ratios of 1.06 (95% confidence interval: 0.51-2.19), 1.03 (0.72-1.48), 0.88 (0.64-1.21), 0.76 (0.41-1.40), and 1.32 (0.55-3.19), respectively. Furthermore, all trial sequential analysis results were inconclusive.

Functional independence, successful reperfusion, mortality, and intracranial hemorrhage rates did not significantly differ between endovascular therapies performed beyond and within 24 h from ischemic stroke onset. Therefore, endovascular therapy may be considered for patients experiencing ischemic stroke for more than 24 h. However, randomized controlled trials and more cohort studies are needed to confirm these conclusions.

Traumatic brain injury is a leading cause of death and disability. Tranexamic acid, an antifibrinolytic agent, holds the potential for managing intracranial hemorrhages secondary to traumatic brain injury. However, its efficacy and safety remain subjects of ongoing debate.

To better clarify the efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid in that context and to evaluate the need for further studies.

We conducted a comprehensive search of seven electronic databases, eight study repositories, and tertiary sources between January 2021 and 2022 for randomized controlled trials involving victims of traumatic brain injury aged 15 or older who received tranexamic acid versus placebo or standard care. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and hemorrhagic complications during treatment. This review incorporated elements of PRISMA guidelines, Cochrane's Risk of Bias assessment, and GRADE to assess evidence quality. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted.

Out of 6,958 references retrieved, 14 of the 17 randomized controlled trials were analyzed, encompassing a total of 15,017 patients. Analyses for all-cause mortality did not reach statistical significance (RR= 0.95, 95%CI= 0.88-1.02 | trial sequential analysis RR= 0.95, 95%CI= 0.87-1.03). However, the analysis of hemorrhagic complications during treatment showed statistical significance for progressive intracranial hemorrhage (RR= 0.82, 95%CI= 0.68-0.99 | trial sequential analysis RR= 0.82, 95%CI= 0.38-1.78). Analyses of secondary outcomes, namely unfavorable neurological outcome and other adverse effects, did not demonstrate statistical significance.

Tranexamic acid use did not demonstrate efficacy based on all-cause mortality but showed a favorable safety profile. Additional clinical trials may shed light on remaining clinical uncertainties. Prospero database registration: CRD42021221949.

The objective of this scoping review is to describe existing guidance documents or studies reporting on the conduct of meta-analyses in updated systematic reviews (USRs) or living systematic reviews (LSRs).

The rapid increase in the medical literature poses a substantial challenge in keeping systematic reviews up to date. In LSRs, a review is updated with a pre-specified frequency or when some other signalling criterion is triggered. While the LSR framework is well-established, there is uncertainty regarding the most appropriate methods for conducting repeated meta-analyses over time, which may result in sub-optimal decision-making.

Studies of any design (including commentaries, books, manuals) providing guidance on conducting meta-analysis in USRs or LSRs.

This review will use the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. We will search multiple medical bibliographic databases (Cochrane Library, Embase, ERIC, MEDLINE, JBI Evidence Synthesis , and PsycINFO), statistical and mathematics databases (COBRA, Current Index to Statistics, MathSciNet, Project Euclid Complete, and zbMATH), pre print archives (Arvix, BioRxiv, and MedRxiv), and unpublished (or gray) literature sources. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts, and full-text documents, and extract data. Characteristics of recommendations for meta-analysis in USRs and LSRs will be presented using descriptive statistics and categorized concepts.

Open Science Framework https://osf.io/9c27g.

Trial sequential analysis (TSA) is an increasingly used tool in systematic reviews to monitor synthesized evidence. However, the current practice of TSAs often overlooks the order of same-year studies, which are typically ordered alphabetically based on the last names of the studies' authors by default in the widely used TSA software application. This practice is inappropriate and contrary to the TSA's definition. This issue is particularly concerning in systematic reviews on time-sensitive topics, such as COVID-19, where reviews include many studies within a short period. In this article, we use a case study to illustrate the impact of the order of same-year studies on TSA conclusions. It shows dramatically different patterns of evidence accumulation when same-year studies are ordered alphabetically vs in their actual temporal order. This article offers suggestions for authors to pay attention to study ordering in future TSAs.

Sepsis-associated hypotension or shock is a critical stage of sepsis, and a current clinical emergency that has high mortality and multiple complications. A new restrictive fluid resuscitation therapy has been applied, and its influence on patients' renal function remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the influence of restrictive fluid resuscitation on incidence of severe acute kidney injury (AKI) in adult patients with sepsis hypotension and shock compared with usual care.

Systematic review and meta-analysis using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched through 1 November 2024.

We included randomised controlled trials that compared restrictive fluid resuscitation with liberal fluid therapy on patients with sepsis-associated hypotension and shock, to find out their effect on the incidence of severe AKI. Severe AKI was defined as the AKI network score 2-3 or Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes stages 2 and 3.

Two independent reviewers used standardised methods to search, screen and code included trials. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Systematic Review Handbook for randomised clinical trials. Meta-analysis was conducted using random effects models. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses, trial sequential analysis (TSA), Egger's test and the trim-and-fill method were performed. Findings were summarised in GRADE evidence profiles and synthesised qualitatively.

Nine trials (3718 participants) were included in this research and the analysis was conducted in random effects model. There was a significant difference in the incidence of severe AKI (risk ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, p=0.006; I2=0%) and the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference -41.14, 95% CI -68.80 to -13.48; p=0.004; I2=74%) between patients receiving restrictive fluid resuscitation and patients receiving liberal fluid resuscitation. TSA showed that the cumulative amount of participants met the required information size, the positive conclusion had been confirmed. The GRADE assessment results demonstrated moderate confidence in the incidence of severe AKI, as well as the results of all second outcomes except the Intensive Care Unit length of stay (ICU LOS), which received limited confidence. The result of incidence of worse AKI was rated as of high certainty.

It is conclusive that fluid restriction strategy is superior to usual care when it comes to reducing the incidence of severe AKI in sepsis-associated hypotension and shock. Shorter duration of ventilation is concerned with fluid restriction as well, but the heterogeneity is substantial. GRADE assessments confirmed moderate and above certainty. Traditional fluid resuscitation therapy has the potential to be further explored for improvements to be more precise and appropriate for a better prognosis.

CRD42023449239.

Mirtazapine is used to treat depression worldwide, and the effects of mirtazapine on depression rating scales are well-known. Our primary objective was to assess the risks of adverse events with mirtazapine for major depressive disorder.

We searched relevant sources from inception to 7 March 2024 for randomised clinical trials comparing mirtazapine versus placebo in adults with major depressive disorder. The primary outcomes were suicides or suicide attempts, serious adverse events, and non-serious adverse events. Data were synthesised using meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

We included 17 trials randomising 2,131 participants to mirtazapine versus placebo. All results were at high risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence was very low. The included trials assessed outcomes at a maximum of 12 weeks after randomisation. Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis showed insufficient information to determine the effects of mirtazapine on the risks of suicides or suicide attempts and serious adverse events. Meta-analyses showed that mirtazapine increased the risks of somnolence, weight gain, dry mouth, dizziness, and increased appetite but decreased the risk of headaches.

There is a lack of evidence on the effects of mirtazapine on suicides and serious adverse events. Mirtazapine increases the risks of somnolence, weight gain, dry mouth, dizziness, and increased appetite. Mirtazapine might decrease the risk of headaches. The long-term effects of mirtazapine are unknown.

CRD42022315395.

Interleukin 6 (IL6) is an inflammatory biomarker linked to central and peripheral nervous system diseases. This study combined bioinformatics and statistical meta-analysis to explore potential associations between IL6 gene variants (rs1800795, rs1800796, and rs1800797) and neurological disorders (NDs) and brain cancer. The meta-analysis was conducted on substantial case-control datasets and revealed a significant correlation between IL6 SNPs (rs1800795 and rs1800796) with overall NDs (p-value < 0.05). The disease-stratified analysis of rs1800795 revealed significant correlations with Schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's diseases (p-value < 0.05), while rs1800796 showed a substantial connection with Celiac disease (p-value < 0.05). The ethnicity-stratified analysis revealed noteworthy associations between rs1800795 in both Asians and Caucasians (p-value < 0.05), while rs1800796 showed significant associations across all ethnic groups analyzed (p-value < 0.05). Furthermore, integrated Bioinformatics analyses using GTEx and TCGA datasets highlighted IL6's involvement in NDs and its potential role in brain cancer. Specifically, IL6 SNPs (rs1800795 and rs1800797) showed a significant association with Glioma (p-value < 0.001). Copy number alterations and increased IL6 expressions were linked to cancer severity (p-value < 0.001) and hypoxia (p-value < 0.0001). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated that elevated IL6 expression was strongly associated with decreased overall survival in brain cancer patients (p-value < 0.0001). In conclusion, this study identified notable correlations between IL6 SNPs and NDs, underscoring their potential as valuable prognostic biomarkers for various neurological conditions.

There is still debate over whether opioid-free anaesthesia (OFA) can improve the patient-reported quality of recovery (QoR).

A search was conducted across Pubmed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE until June 2024 for randomized controlled trials comparing the impact of OFA and opioid-based anaesthesia (OBA) on QoR in adult patients undergoing general anaesthesia. The primary outcome was the quality of recovery measured with the QoR scale. The secondary outcomes were the five dimensions of the QoR scale.

The analysis included 15 studies, and showed that compared with OBA, OFA improved the global QoR score at postoperative 24 h (SMD 0.87; 95% CI, 0.48-1.27; I2: 92%; low-level evidence). Among them, 10 studies revealed a greater QoR-40 score at postoperative 24 h in the OFA than in the OBA (MD 6.59; 95% CI, 2.84-10.34; I2: 93%; moderate-level evidence), which exceeded the minimal clinically important difference of 6.3. Conversely, the synthetic data of 4 studies did not reveal an improvement in the global QoR-15 score at postoperative 24 h (MD 9.94; 95% CI, -0.15 to 12.35; I2: 97%; low-level evidence). Regarding different domains of scale, OFA had positive effects on physical comfort (SMD 0.75; 95% CI, 0.25-1.25; I2: 93%; moderate-level evidence) and pain (SMD 0.59; 95% CI, 0.15-1.03; I2: 91%; moderate-level evidence).

The meta-analysis indicate OFA can improve the quality of recovery at postoperative 24 h, particularly in terms of enhancing physical comfort and reducing pain. However, due to significant heterogeneity and moderate-to-low level of evidence, the external validity of OFA for improving postoperative recovery remains to be further validated.

The protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database on December 07, 2023 (CRD42023486235).

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder among children and adolescents. The disorder negatively influences their academic performance and social relations, and their quality of life (QoL) is lower than that of peers without ADHD. The majority of children and adolescents with ADHD are treated with medication that potentially has an insufficient effect or frequently occurring adverse events. Physical activity is thought to alter the physiology of ADHD by affecting the same catecholaminergic system in the brain which is targeted by medication.

This protocol is written in accordance with the 'Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols' guideline. Randomised clinical trials with participating children and adolescents between the ages of 3 and 18 years with a primary diagnosis of ADHD or hyperkinetic disorder will be included in the systematic review. The main objective of the review is to examine the effect of physical activity on QoL, executive functions, symptoms and functional impairment in this population. Previous systematic reviews on the effect of physical activity in children and adolescents with ADHD have several methodological and conceptual limitations. These reviews, for example, included both randomised and non-randomised clinical trials or had restrictions regarding the frequency and intensity of the physical activity interventions they included. The present review will include the newest studies in the field and follow the main principles outlined in the 'Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions'. Furthermore, it will be the first review in the field to include QoL as an outcome and to apply trial sequential analysis as part of the meta-analysis.

As the systematic review is a secondary analysis of data from primary trials, approval from an ethics committee is not required. The results of the review will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and presented at relevant conferences.

This protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 16 August 2024 (CRD42024576670).

A body of evidence has suggested bidirectional relationships among gallstone disease (GSD), non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and kidney stone disease (KSD). However, the results are inconsistent, and studies on this topic in China are relatively few. Our goal is to explore the bidirectional associations among these three diseases through a multicenter study, systematic review, and meta-analysis.

To explore the bidirectional associations among these three diseases through a multicenter study, systematic review, and meta-analysis. The results may help to investigate the etiology of these diseases and shed light on the individualized prevention of these three diseases.

Subjects who participated in physical examinations in Beijing, Tianjin, Chongqing in China were recruited. Multivariable logistic regression was employed to explore the bidirectional relationships among GSD, KSD, and NAFLD. Systematic review and meta-analysis were initiated to confirm the epidemiologic evidence from previous observational studies. Furthermore, trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted to evaluate whether the evidence was sufficient and conclusive.

Significant bidirectional associations were detected among the three diseases, independent of potential confounding factors. The pooled results of the systematic review and meta-analysis also corroborated the aforementioned results. The combined evidence from the multicenter study and meta-analysis was significant [pooled odds ratio (OR) = 1.42, 95%CI: 1.16-1.75, KSD → GSD; pooled OR = 1.48, 95%CI: 1.31-1.67, GSD → KSD; pooled OR = 1.31, 95%CI: 1.17-1.47, GSD → NAFLD; pooled OR = 1.37, 95%CI: 1.26-1.50, NAFLD → GSD; pooled OR = 1.28, 95%CI: 1.08-1.51, NAFLD → KSD; pooled OR = 1.21, 95%CI: 1.16-1.25, KSD → NAFLD]. TSA indicated that the evidence was sufficient and conclusive.

The present study presents relatively sufficient evidence for the positive bidirectional associations among GSD, KSD, and NAFLD. The results may provide clues for investigating the etiology of these three diseases and offer a guideline for identifying high-risk patients.

Offspring of parents with a mental disorder are at high risk of a range of adverse outcomes, highlighting the need for preventive interventions. However, a comprehensive overview of the beneficial and harmful effects of preventive interventions for parents with mental disorders on offspring outcomes are uncertain. The main objective of this systematic review will be to assess the effects of preventive interventions versus any control intervention for parents with a mental disorder on offspring outcomes.

We will conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis and report it as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2 (ROB2), an eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, trial sequential analysis will be conducted to control for random errors, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. To identify relevant trials, we will search for published trials in several electronic databases from their inception to the present. We will also search for unpublished trials and grey literature. Two review authors will independently screen the articles, extract data, and perform a risk of bias assessment. We will include any published or unpublished randomized clinical trial comparing a psychological preventive intervention versus any control intervention for parents with any mental disorder. The primary outcomes will be quality of life and incidence of a mental disorder. Secondary outcomes will include internalizing symptoms, externalizing symptoms, serious adverse events, out-of-home placement, and absence from school or daycare. Exploratory outcomes include trauma, socioemotional development, and language development. All outcomes will be assessed in offsping only.

There is an urgent need for a comprehensive, updated systematic review of the beneficial and harmful effects of preventive interventions for children of parents with a mental disorder. The findings of this systematic review are expected to provide evidence-based information for policymakers, clinicians, and researchers to help them make informed decisions about the most effective interventions and guide future research for this highly prevalent population.

PROSPERO CRD42023463421.

Autonomy-supporting interventions may be a prerequisite to achieve better long-term management of type 2 diabetes. Evidence suggests that the guided self-determination (GSD) method might improve haemoglobin A1c and diabetes distress in people with type 1 diabetes. The evidence of an effect of a GSD intervention compared with an attention control group in adults with type 2 diabetes is unknown.

The trial is designed as a pragmatic, investigator-initiated, dual-centre, randomised, parallel-group, assessor-blinded, superiority clinical trial of persons with type 2 diabetes. A nurse will administer GSD intervention versus an attention control. The primary outcome is diabetes distress, and secondary outcomes are quality of life, depressive symptoms, and non-serious adverse events. Exploratory outcomes are haemoglobin A1c, motivation, and serious adverse events. Participants are assessed at baseline, 5-, and 12-month follow-up. Here, we present a detailed, comprehensive plan of all statistical analyses, including methods to handle missing data, and assessments of the underlying statistical assumptions. The statistical analyses will be conducted independently by two statisticians following the present plan.

To mitigate the risk of analysis bias and increase the validity of the OVEROME trial, this statistical analysis plan was developed prior to unblinding of the trial results in concordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the Conference on Harmonization of Good Clinical Practice Guidelines.

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04601311. Registered on October 2020.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) involves the formation of a blood clot in a vein, and includes deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE). The annual incidence for VTE varies from 0.75 to 2.69 per 1000 individuals, with about 40 million people worldwide impacted by VTE. Statins, 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl (HMG)-coenzyme A (CoA) reductase inhibitors, inhibit cholesterol biosynthesis and display several vascular-protective effects, including antithrombotic properties. However, the potential role of statins in the primary prevention of VTE is still not clear.

To evaluate the benefits and risks of statins in preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE) in individuals with no prior history of VTE.

We used standard Cochrane search methods. The search was last updated on 13 March 2023.

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing statins with any control intervention (including placebo and usual care) in healthy individuals or participants with conditions other than VTE. There were no restrictions on the dose, duration, route, or timing of statins.

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were VTE, DVT, and PE. Our secondary outcomes were serious adverse events, adverse events, and mortality. We used the trial sequential analysis (TSA) method to judge whether the evidence was sufficient, and we used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

We included 27 RCTs involving 122,601 adults (aged 18 years and above) who were healthy, had various medical conditions (e.g. hypercholesterolemia), or were at risk for cardiovascular disease. Both males and females were included in all studies. Two studies focused solely on participants over 60 years of age. We deemed four studies to have a low risk of bias overall, while 19 were at high risk of bias, and four were unclear. The 27 studies compared use of statins versus placebo or usual care in individuals who had never experienced VTE. The statins used in the studies were atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, pravastatin, lovastatin, fluvastatin, and simvastatin. Twenty-three studies followed up participants for over a year, with six of those extending follow-ups for over five years. Twenty-five studies were based in hospitals, and 24 studies were funded by industry. Only one study used VTE as a primary endpoint. The median incidence of VTE in the statins group was 0.72% (ranging from 0% to 10.53%), and in the control group it was 0.89% (ranging from 0% to 6.83%). Our pooled analysis of the 27 studies showed that, relative to control groups, statins may slightly reduce the overall incidence of VTE (odds ratio (OR) 0.86, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.76 to 0.98; 27 studies, 122,601 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of the statins we evaluated, only rosuvastatin seemed to be associated with a reduced incidence of VTE, albeit the reduction in incidence was very small. The evidence did not clearly indicate a difference between groups in the incidence of DVT (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.18; six studies, 40,305 participants; low-certainty evidence), PE (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.52; five studies, 28,427 participants; low-certainty evidence), or myopathy (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.45; 10 studies, 75,551 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nonetheless, statin use might slightly decrease the incidence of any serious adverse event (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.99; 13 studies, 67,020 participants; low-certainty evidence) and any death (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.95; 24 studies, 116,761 participants; low-certainty evidence), compared to control.

Using statins for the primary prevention of VTE may slightly reduce the incidence of VTE and all-cause mortality. However, this effect is likely too weak to be considered significant. Statin use may not decrease the occurrence of DVT and PE. The current evidence is insufficient to draw strong conclusions because of the risk of bias in the studies, imprecision in the effect estimates, and potential publication bias. More evidence from well conducted and fully reported RCTs is needed to assess the preventive effects of different types of statins, as well as the effects of different dosages and treatment durations in various populations.

Venlafaxine is used to treat depression worldwide. Previous reviews have demonstrated that venlafaxine lowers scores on depression rating scales, producing statistically significant results but the relevance to patients remains uncertain. Knowledge of the incidence of the adverse effects associated with venlafaxine has previously been based on the results of non-randomised studies. Our primary objective was to assess the risks of adverse events with venlafaxine in the treatment of adults with major depressive disorder in randomised trials.

We searched relevant databases and other sources from inception to 7 March 2024 for randomised clinical trials comparing venlafaxine versus placebo or no intervention in adults with major depressive disorder. Data were synthesised using meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis. The primary outcomes were suicides or suicide attempts, serious adverse events and non-serious adverse events.

We included 28 trials randomising 6,253 participants to venlafaxine versus placebo. All results were at high risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence was very low. All trials assessed outcomes at a maximum of 12 weeks after randomisation. Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis showed insufficient information to assess the effects of venlafaxine on the risks of suicides or suicide attempts. Meta-analysis showed evidence of harm of venlafaxine versus placebo on serious adverse events (risk ratio: 2.66; 95% confidence interval: 1.67-4.25; p < 0.01; 22 trials), mainly due to a higher risk of sexual dysfunction and anorexia. Meta-analysis showed that venlafaxine also increased the risk of several non-serious adverse events: nausea, dry mouth, dizziness, sweating, somnolence, constipation, nervousness, insomnia, asthenia, tremor and decreased appetite.

Short-term results show that venlafaxine has uncertain effects on the risks of suicides but increases the risks of serious adverse events (especially sexual dysfunction and anorexia) and many non-serious adverse events. The long-term effects of venlafaxine for major depressive disorder are unknown. It is a particular cause for concern that there are no data on the long-term adverse effects of venlafaxine given that so many people use these drugs for several years.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), recently renamed metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), is the most common liver disease worldwide, affecting an estimated 3 in 10 people. The available treatment is far from optimal. Diet and lifestyle changes to promote weight loss and weight loss maintenance are the basic management of NAFLD, but these are difficult to achieve and maintain. Vitamin E has shown beneficial effects on oxidative stress, which plays a major role in the pathogenesis of NAFLD. However, there is uncertainty about the effects of vitamin E for people with NAFLD.

To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin E alone, or vitamin E in combination with other vitamins or minerals, versus placebo or no intervention in people with NAFLD.

We used recommended Cochrane search methods. The latest search was performed on 2 February 2024.

We included randomised clinical trials that compared vitamin E alone, or in combination with other vitamins or minerals, at any dose, duration, and route of administration, versus placebo or no intervention, in people with NAFLD of any age, sex, or ethnic origin. We included participants with imaging techniques or histology-proven NAFLD and minimal alcohol intake, and participants with steatohepatitis who had liver biopsies.

Our critical outcomes were all-cause mortality, liver-related mortality, and serious adverse events. Our important outcomes were liver-related morbidity, health-related quality of life, non-serious adverse events, biochemical response, and imaging assessment of the degree of fatty liver.

We used Cochrane's RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias for each of the predefined outcomes.

We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

We included 16 randomised clinical trials involving 1066 paediatric and adult participants with NAFLD. Experimental groups received vitamin E alone (14 trials) or vitamin E in combination with vitamin C (2 trials). Control groups received placebo in 13 trials and no intervention in three trials. Daily dosages of oral vitamin E ranged from 298 international units (IU) to 1000 IU. Co-interventions were lifestyle and low-calorie diet interventions in 13 trials, ursodeoxycholic acid in one trial, unchanged diet and physical activity in one trial, and baseline treatments for type 2 diabetes in one trial. Nine trials had more than two intervention groups, but we used only the groups in which vitamin E alone or vitamin E in combination with vitamin C were compared with placebo or no intervention. In total, 7.9% (84/1066) of participants dropped out. Follow-up ranged from 2 months to 24 months.

Vitamin E versus placebo or no intervention The effects of vitamin E versus placebo or no intervention on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 3.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 20.86; 3 trials, 351 participants; very low certainty evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.30 to 12.01; 2 trials, 283 participants; very low certainty evidence) are very uncertain. There were no data on liver-related mortality or liver-related morbidity. The effects of vitamin E versus placebo or no intervention on physical health-related quality of life (mean difference (MD) 0.74, 95% CI -0.52 to 2.01; 2 trials, 251 participants; higher scores indicate better quality of life; very low certainty evidence); psychosocial health-related quality of life (MD -0.57, 95% CI -4.11 to 2.97; 2 trials, 251 participants; higher scores indicate better quality of life; very low certainty evidence); and non-serious adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.17; 2 trials, 283 participants; very low certainty evidence) are also very uncertain. There were no data on proportion of participants without a decrease in liver enzymes. Vitamin E likely slightly reduces serum alanine transaminase (ALT) (MD -9.29, 95% CI -13.69 to -4.89; 11 trials, 708 participants; moderate certainty evidence) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) (MD -4.90, 95% CI -7.24 to -2.57; 11 trials, 695 participants; moderate certainty evidence) levels compared with placebo or no intervention. Vitamin E may slightly reduce serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels (MD -5.21, 95% CI -9.88 to -0.54; 5 trials, 416 participants; very low certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Vitamin E plus vitamin C versus placebo There were no data on all-cause mortality, liver-related mortality, serious adverse events, liver-related morbidity, health-related quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. The effects of vitamin E plus vitamin C on reducing serum ALT (MD -0.50, 95% CI -4.58 to 3.58; 2 trials, 133 participants; very low certainty evidence), AST (MD 0.09, 95% CI -3.39 to 3.57; 1 trial, 88 participants; very low certainty evidence), and gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) levels (MD 1.58, 95% CI -3.22 to 6.38; 1 trial, 88 participants; very low certainty evidence) are very uncertain. We identified three ongoing trials, and six trials are awaiting classification.

Given the very low certainty evidence, we do not know if long-term treatment (18 months to 24 months) with vitamin E administered alone affects all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, quality of life, or non-serious adverse events in people with NAFLD when compared with placebo or no intervention. We found no data on liver-related mortality, liver-related morbidity, or proportion of participants without a decrease in liver enzymes. Vitamin E likely reduces ALT and AST slightly when compared with placebo, but whether this has any impact on the clinical course in people with NAFLD is unknown. The trials on vitamin E plus vitamin C did not report on all-cause mortality, liver-related mortality, serious adverse events, liver-related morbidity, health-related quality of life, or non-serious adverse events. Given the very low certainty evidence, we do not know the effects of vitamin E plus vitamin C on liver enzymes in people with NAFLD when compared with placebo.

Three trials disclosed no external funding. Five trials were industry funded. Five trials were funded by organisations with no vested interests. Three trials did not provide any information on clinical trial support or sponsorship.

Protocol: doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015033.

Asthma is one of the most common reasons for hospital admission among children, with significant economic burden and impact on quality of life. Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) is increasingly used in the care of children with acute asthma, although the evidence supporting it is weak, and clinical guidelines do not offer any recommendations on its routine use. However, NPPV might be an effective way to improve outcomes for some children with asthma. A previous review did not demonstrate a clear benefit, but was limited by few studies with small sample sizes. This is an update of the previous review.

To assess the benefits and harms of NPPV as an add-on therapy to usual care (e.g. bronchodilators and corticosteroids) in children (< 18 years) with acute asthma.

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. We searched all databases from their inception to March 2023, with no restrictions on language of publication.

We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) assessing NPPV as add-on therapy to usual care versus usual care for children hospitalised for acute asthma exacerbations.

We used standard Cochrane methods.

We included three RCTs randomising 60 children with acute asthma to NPPV and 60 children to control. All included trials assessed the effects of bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) for acute asthma in a paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) setting. None of the trials used continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). The controls received standard care. The median age of children ranged from three to six years, and asthma severity ranged from moderate to severe. Our primary outcome measures were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and asthma symptom score. Secondary outcomes were non-serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, arterial blood gases and pH, pneumonia, cost, and PICU length of stay. None of the trials reported any deaths or serious adverse events (except one trial that reported intubation rate). Two trials reported asthma symptom score, each demonstrating reductions in asthma symptoms in the BiPAP group. In one trial, the asthma symptom score was (mean difference (MD) -2.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.70 to -0.30, P = 0.03; 19 children) lower in the BiPAP group. In the other trial, a cross-over trial, BiPAP was associated with a lower mean asthma symptom score (MD -3.7; 16 children; very low certainty evidence) before cross-over, but investigators did not report a standard deviation, and it could not be estimated from the first phase of the trial before cross-over. The reduction in both trials was above our predefined minimal important difference. Overall, NPPV with standard care may reduce asthma symptom score compared to standard care alone, but the evidence is very uncertain. The only reported serious adverse event was intubation rate in one trial. The trial had an intubation rate of 40% and showed that BiPAP may result in a large reduction in intubation rate (risk ratio 0.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.95; 78 children), but the evidence is very uncertain. Post hoc analysis showed that BiPAP may result in a slight decrease in length of PICU stay (MD -0.87 day, 95% CI -1.52 to -0.22; 100 children), but the evidence is very uncertain. Meta-analysis or Trial Sequential Analysis was not possible because of insufficient reporting and different scoring systems. All three trials had high risk of bias with serious imprecision of results, leading to very low certainty of evidence.

The currently available evidence for NNPV is uncertain. NPPV may lead to an improvement in asthma symptom score, decreased intubation rate, and slightly shorter PICU stay; however, the evidence is of very low certainty. Larger RCTs with low risk of bias are warranted.

Systematic reviews and data synthesis of randomised clinical trials play a crucial role in clinical practice, research, and health policy. Trial sequential analysis can be used in systematic reviews to control type I and type II errors, but methodological errors including lack of protocols and transparency are cause for concern. We assessed the reporting of trial sequential analysis.

We searched Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2021 for systematic reviews and meta-analysis reports that include a trial sequential analysis. Only studies with at least two randomised clinical trials analysed in a forest plot and a trial sequential analysis were included. Two independent investigators assessed the studies. We evaluated protocolisation, reporting, and interpretation of the analyses, including their effect on any GRADE evaluation of imprecision.

We included 270 systematic reviews and 274 meta-analysis reports and extracted data from 624 trial sequential analyses. Only 134/270 (50%) systematic reviews planned the trial sequential analysis in the protocol. For analyses on dichotomous outcomes, the proportion of events in the control group was missing in 181/439 (41%), relative risk reduction in 105/439 (24%), alpha in 30/439 (7%), beta in 128/439 (29%), and heterogeneity in 232/439 (53%). For analyses on continuous outcomes, the minimally relevant difference was missing in 125/185 (68%), variance (or standard deviation) in 144/185 (78%), alpha in 23/185 (12%), beta in 63/185 (34%), and heterogeneity in 105/185 (57%). Graphical illustration of the trial sequential analysis was present in 93% of the analyses, however, the Z-curve was wrongly displayed in 135/624 (22%) and 227/624 (36%) did not include futility boundaries. The overall transparency of all 624 analyses was very poor in 236 (38%) and poor in 173 (28%).

The majority of trial sequential analyses are not transparent when preparing or presenting the required parameters, partly due to missing or poorly conducted protocols. This hampers interpretation, reproducibility, and validity.

PROSPERO CRD42021273811.

Previous meta-analyses only examined the association between single or several gene polymorphisms and osteoarthritis (OA), whereas no studies have concluded that there are existing all gene loci that associate with OA.

To assess whether a definite conclusion of the association between the gene loci and OA can be drawn.

Decisive gene strategy (DGS), a literature-based approach, was used to search PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for all meta-analyses that associated gene polymorphisms and OA. Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) examined the sufficiency of the cumulative sample size. Finally, we assessed the importance of gene loci in OA based on whether there were enough sample sizes and the heterogeneity of the literatures with I2 value.

After excluding 179 irrelevant publications, 80 meta-analysis papers were recruited. Among Caucasians, SMAD3 rs12901499 (OR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.12-1.29) was a risk factor with validation of sufficient sample sizes through TSA model. Among Asians, there were 3 gene loci risk factors with validation of sufficient sample sizes through TSA model: ESR1 rs2228480, SMAD3 rs12901499, and MMP-1 rs1799750 (OR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.08-1.69; OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.07-1.69; OR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.18-1.74, respectively). Besides, 3 gene loci, DVWA rs7639618, GDF5 rs143383, and VDR rs7975232 (OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.67-0.90; OR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.67-0.81; OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.35-0.90, respectively) were identified as protective factors through TSA model.

We used DGS to identify conclusive gene loci associated with OA. These findings provide implications of precision medicine in OA and may potentially advance genetic therapy.

This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of adaptive support ventilation (ASV) in facilitating postoperative weaning from mechanical ventilation in cardiac surgery patients.

A systematic review and meta-analysis to assess ASV in weaning postoperative cardiac surgery patients. Outcomes included early extubation, reintubation rates, time to extubation, and lengths of intensive care units and hospital stays.

We searched electronic databases from inception to March 2023 and included randomized controlled trials that compared ASV with conventional ventilation methods in this population.

Postoperative cardiac surgery patients.

A random effects model was used for meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted to assess result robustness. The meta-analysis included 11 randomized controlled trials with a total of 1027 randomized patients. ASV was associated with a shorter time to extubation compared to conventional ventilation (random effects, mean difference -68.30 hours; 95% confidence interval, -115.50 to -21.09) with TSA providing a conclusive finding. While ASV indicated improved early extubation rates, no significant differences were found in reintubation rates or lengths of intensive care unit and hospital stays, with these TSA results being inclusive.

ASV appears to facilitate a shorter time to extubation in postoperative cardiac surgery patients compared to conventional ventilation, suggesting benefits in accelerating the weaning process and reducing mechanical ventilation duration.

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common type of liver cancer, accounting for 70% to 85% of individuals with primary liver cancer. Tamoxifen has been evaluated in randomised clinical trials in people with hepatocellular cancer. The reported results have been inconsistent.

To evaluate the benefits and harms of tamoxifen or tamoxifen plus any other anticancer drugs compared with no intervention, placebo, any type of standard care, or alternative treatment in adults with hepatocellular carcinoma, irrespective of sex, administered dose, type of formulation, and duration of treatment.

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and major trials registries, and handsearched reference lists up to 26 March 2024.

Parallel-group randomised clinical trials including adults (aged 18 years and above) diagnosed with advanced or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Had we found cross-over trials, we would have included only the first trial phase. We did not consider data from quasi-randomised trials for analysis.

Our critical outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our important outcomes were disease progression, and adverse events considered non-serious.

We assessed risk of bias using the RoB 2 tool.

We used standard Cochrane methods and Review Manager. We meta-analysed the outcome data at the longest follow-up. We presented the results of dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous data as mean difference (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the random-effects model. We summarised the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

We included 10 trials that randomised 1715 participants with advanced, unresectable, or terminal stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Six were single-centre trials conducted in Hong Kong, Italy, and Spain, while three were conducted as multicentre trials in single countries (France, Italy, and Spain), and one trial was conducted in nine countries in the Asia-Pacific region (Australia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and Thailand). The experimental intervention was tamoxifen in all trials. The control interventions were no intervention (three trials), placebo (six trials), and symptomatic treatment (one trial). Co-interventions were best supportive care (three trials) and standard care (one trial). The remaining six trials did not provide this information. The number of participants in the trials ranged from 22 to 496 (median 99), mean age was 63.7 (standard deviation 4.18) years, and mean proportion of men was 74.7% (standard deviation 42%). Follow-up was three months to five years.

Ten trials evaluated oral tamoxifen at five different dosages (ranging from 20 mg per day to 120 mg per day). All trials investigated one or more of our outcomes. We performed meta-analyses when at least two trials assessed similar types of tamoxifen versus similar control interventions. Eight trials evaluated all-cause mortality at varied follow-up points. Tamoxifen versus the control interventions (i.e. no treatment, placebo, and symptomatic treatment) results in little to no difference in mortality between one and five years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 8 trials, 1364 participants; low-certainty evidence). In total, 488/682 (71.5%) participants died in the tamoxifen groups versus 487/682 (71.4%) in the control groups. The separate analysis results for one, between two and three, and five years were comparable to the analysis result for all follow-up periods taken together. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tamoxifen versus no treatment on serious adverse events at one-year follow-up (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.06; 1 trial, 36 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A total of 5/20 (25.0%) participants in the tamoxifen group versus 9/16 (56.3%) participants in the control group experienced serious adverse events. One trial measured health-related quality of life at baseline and at nine months' follow-up, using the Spitzer Quality of Life Index. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tamoxifen versus no treatment on health-related quality of life (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.51; 1 trial, 420 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A second trial found no appreciable difference in global health-related quality of life scores. No further data were provided. Tamoxifen versus control interventions (i.e. no treatment, placebo, or symptomatic treatment) results in little to no difference in disease progression between one and five years' follow-up (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.14; 4 trials, 720 participants; low-certainty evidence). A total of 191/358 (53.3%) participants in the tamoxifen group versus 198/362 (54.7%) participants in the control group had progression of hepatocellular carcinoma. Tamoxifen versus control interventions (i.e. no treatment or placebo) may have little to no effect on adverse events considered non-serious during treatment, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.06; 4 trials, 462 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A total of 10/265 (3.8%) participants in the tamoxifen group versus 6/197 (3.0%) participants in the control group had adverse events considered non-serious. We identified no trials with participants diagnosed with early stages of hepatocellular carcinoma. We identified no ongoing trials.

Based on the low- and very low-certainty evidence, the effects of tamoxifen on all-cause mortality, disease progression, serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, and adverse events considered non-serious in adults with advanced, unresectable, or terminal stage hepatocellular carcinoma when compared with no intervention, placebo, or symptomatic treatment could not be established. Our findings are mostly based on trials at high risk of bias with insufficient power (fewer than 100 participants), and a lack of trial data on clinically important outcomes. Therefore, firm conclusions cannot be drawn. Trials comparing tamoxifen administered with any other anticancer drug versus standard care, usual care, or alternative treatment as control interventions were lacking. Evidence on the benefits and harms of tamoxifen in participants at the early stages of hepatocellular carcinoma was also lacking.

This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.

Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014869.

The liver is affected by two groups of malignant tumours: primary liver cancers and liver metastases. Liver metastases are significantly more common than primary liver cancer, and five-year survival after radical surgical treatment of liver metastases ranges from 28% to 50%, depending on primary cancer site. However, R0 resection (resection for cure) is not feasible in most people; therefore, other treatments have to be considered in the case of non-resectability. One possible option is based on the concept that the blood supply to hepatic tumours originates predominantly from the hepatic artery. Transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) of the peripheral branches of the hepatic artery can be achieved by administering a chemotherapeutic drug followed by vascular occlusive agents and can lead to selective necrosis of the cancer tissue while leaving normal liver parenchyma virtually unaffected. The entire procedure can be performed without infusion of chemotherapy and is then called bland transarterial embolisation (TAE). These procedures are usually applied over a few sessions. Another possible treatment option is systemic chemotherapy which, in the case of colorectal cancer metastases, is most commonly performed using FOLFOX (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) and FOLFIRI (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and irinotecan) regimens applied in multiple sessions over a long period of time. These therapies disrupt the cell cycle, leading to death of rapidly dividing malignant cells. Current guidelines determine the role of TAE and TACE as non-curative treatment options applicable in people with liver-only or liver-dominant metastatic disease that is unresectable or non-ablatable, and in people who have failed systemic chemotherapy. Regarding the treatment modalities in people with colorectal cancer liver metastases, we found no systematic reviews comparing the efficacy of TAE or TACE versus systemic chemotherapy.

To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of transarterial embolisation (TAE) or transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) compared with systemic chemotherapy in people with liver-dominant unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases.

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and three additional databases up to 4 April 2024. We also searched two trials registers and the European Medicines Agency database and checked reference lists of retrieved publications.

We included randomised clinical trials assessing beneficial and harmful effects of TAE or TACE versus systemic chemotherapy in adults (aged 18 years or older) with colorectal cancer liver metastases.

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality; overall survival (time to mortality); and any adverse events or complications. Our secondary outcomes were cancer mortality; health-related quality of life; progression-free survival; proportion of participants dying or surviving with progression of the disease; time to progression of liver metastases; recurrence of liver metastases; and tumour response measures (complete response, partial response, stable disease, and progressive disease). For the purpose of the review and to perform necessary analyses, whenever possible, we converted survival rates to mortality rates, as this was our primary outcome. For the analysis of dichotomous outcomes, we used the risk ratio (RR); for continuous outcomes, we used the mean difference; and for time to event outcomes, we calculated hazard ratios (HRs), all with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the standardised mean difference with 95% CIs when the trials used different instruments. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. We based our conclusions on outcomes analysed at the longest follow-up.

We included three trials with 118 participants randomised to TACE versus 120 participants to systemic chemotherapy. Four participants were excluded; one due to disease progression prior to treatment and three due to decline in health. The trials reported data on one or more outcomes. Two trials were performed in China and one in Italy. The trials differed in terms of embolisation techniques and chemotherapeutic agents. Follow-up ranged from 12 months to 50 months. TACE may reduce mortality at longest follow-up (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.94; 3 trials, 234 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. TACE may have little to no effect on overall survival (time to mortality) (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.01; 1 trial, 70 participants; very low-certainty evidence), any adverse events or complications (3 trials, 234 participants; very low-certainty evidence), health-related quality of life (2 trials, 154 participants; very low-certainty evidence), progression-free survival (1 trial, 70 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and tumour response measures (presented as the overall response rate) (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.96; 3 trials, 234 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. No trials reported cancer mortality, proportion of participants dying or surviving with progression of the disease, and recurrence of liver metastases. We found no trials comparing the effects of TAE versus systemic chemotherapy in people with colorectal cancer liver metastases.

The evidence regarding effectiveness of TACE versus systemic chemotherapy in people with colorectal cancer liver metastases is of very low certainty and is based on three trials. Our confidence in the results is limited due to the risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision. It is very uncertain whether TACE confers benefits with regard to reduction in mortality, overall survival (time to mortality), reduction in adverse events or complications, improvement in health-related quality of life, improvement in progression-free survival, and tumour response measures (presented as the overall response rate). Data on cancer mortality, proportion of participants dying or surviving with progression of the disease, and recurrence of liver metastases are lacking. We found no trials assessing TAE versus systemic chemotherapy. More randomised clinical trials are needed to strengthen the body of evidence and provide insight into the benefits and harms of TACE or TAE in comparison with systemic chemotherapy in people with liver metastases from colorectal cancer.

Evidence has been mixed regarding the effect of topical vancomycin (VCM) powder in reducing surgical site infection (SSI).

To clarify the effect of topical VCM powder for the prevention of SSI in major orthopaedic surgeries.

The MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched from their inception to September 25th, 2023. Randomized controlled trials comparing topical VCM powder and controls for the prevention of SSI in major orthopaedic surgeries were included. Two reviewers independently screened the title and abstract and extracted relevant data, followed by the assessment of the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence. Main outcome measures were overall SSI, reoperation, and adverse events. Summary results were obtained using random-effects meta-analysis. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed.

Eight randomized controlled trials yielded data on 4307 participants. VCM powder showed no difference in reducing overall SSI. The cumulative number of patients did not exceed the required information size of 19,233 in our TSA, and the Z-curves did not cross the trial sequential monitoring or futility boundary, suggesting an inconclusive result of the meta-analysis. No difference was found for reoperation. Among SSIs, VCM powder showed a statistically significant difference in reducing Gram-positive cocci SSI. However, the certainty of this evidence was very low.

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests inconclusive results regarding the effect of VCM powder in reducing SSI in major orthopaedic surgeries. Further trials using rigorous methodologies are required to elucidate the effect of this intervention.

The use of balanced crystalloids over normal saline for perioperative fluid management during kidney transplantation and its benefits on acid-base and electrolyte balance along with its influence on postoperative clinical outcomes remains a topic of controversy. Therefore, we conducted this review to assess the impact of balanced solutions compared to normal saline on outcomes for kidney transplant patients.

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing balanced lower-chloride solutions to normal saline in renal transplant patients. Our main outcome of interest was delayed graft function (DGF). Additionally, we examined acid-base and electrolyte measurements, along with postoperative renal function. We computed relative risk (RR) using the Mantel-Haenszel test for binary outcomes, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, and applied DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models to address heterogeneity. Furthermore, we performed a trial sequential analysis (TSA) for all outcomes.

Twelve RCTs comprising a total of 1668 patients were included; 832 (49.9%) were assigned to receive balanced solutions. Balanced crystalloids reduced the occurrence of DGF compared to normal saline, with RR of 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.94), P = .005; I² = 0%. The occurrence was 25% (194 of 787) in the balanced crystalloids group and 34% (240 of 701) in the normal saline group. Moreover, our TSA supported the primary outcome result and suggests that the sample size was sufficient for our conclusion. End-of-surgery chloride (MD, -8.80 mEq·L -1 ; 95% CI, -13.98 to -3.63 mEq.L -1 ; P < .001), bicarbonate (MD, 2.12 mEq·L -1 ; 95% CI, 1.02-3.21 mEq·L -1 ; P < .001), pH (MD, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.04-0.07; P < .001), and base excess (BE) (MD, 2.41 mEq·L -1 ; 95% CI, 0.88-3.95 mEq·L -1 ; P = .002) significantly favored the balanced crystalloids groups and the end of surgery potassium (MD, -0.17 mEq·L -1 ; 95% CI, -0.36 to 0.02 mEq·L -1 ; P = .07) did not differ between groups. However, creatinine did not differ in the first (MD, -0.06 mg·dL -1 ; 95% CI, -0.38 to 0.26 mg·dL -1 ; P = .71) and seventh (MD, -0.06 mg·dL -1 ; 95% CI, -0.18 to 0.06 mg·dL -1 ; P = .30) postoperative days nor urine output in the first (MD, -1.12 L; 95% CI, -3.67 to 1.43 L; P = .39) and seventh (MD, -0.01 L; 95% CI, -0.45 to 0.42 L; P = .95) postoperative days.

Balanced lower-chloride solutions significantly reduce the occurrence of DGF and provide an improved acid-base and electrolyte control in patients undergoing kidney transplantation.

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing whether the use of antipsychotic medications in critically ill adult patients with delirium impacts patient-important outcomes.

A medical librarian searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, APA PsycInfo, and Wiley's Cochrane Library as well as clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to November 2023.

Independently and in duplicate, reviewers screened abstracts and titles for eligibility, then full text of qualifying studies. We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included critically ill adult patients with delirium. The intervention group was required to receive antipsychotic medications at any dose, whereas the control group received usual care or placebo.

Reviewers extracted data independently and in duplicate using a piloted abstraction form. Statistical analyses were conducted using RevMan software (version 5.4).

Five RCTs ( n = 1750) met eligibility criteria. The use of antipsychotic medications compared with placebo did not increase the number of delirium- or coma-free days (mean difference 0.90 d; 95% CI, -0.32 to 2.12; moderate certainty), nor did it result in a difference in mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU, or hospital length of stay. The use of antipsychotics did not result in an increased risk of adverse events (risk ratio 1.27; 95% CI, 0.71-2.30; high certainty). Subgroup analysis of typical versus atypical antipsychotics did not identify any subgroup effect for any outcome.

In conclusion, our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated with moderate certainty that there is no difference in delirium- or coma-free days when delirious critically ill adults are treated with antipsychotic medications. Further studies in the subset of patients with hyperactive delirium may be of benefit.