Objective To evaluate the efficacy and the adverse reactions of intensive therapy compared with conventional therapy. Methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 3, 2008), MEDLINE (January 1980 to June 2008), EMbase (1984 to June 2008), CBM-disc (January 1980 to June 2008) and CNKI (1994 to June 2008) to get all the randomized control trials (RCTs) about paclitaxel intensive versus conventional therapy for ovarian cancer. We used RevMan 5 to perform meta-analysis. Results Six RCTs involving 572 patients were included. Metaanalysis showed the efficacy of intensive therapy and conventional therapy was similar. There were no significant differences in response rate (RR 1.06, 95%CI 0.94 to 1.20), median survival time, survival rate, median progression free survival and median time to progression between the two groups. When taking safety into consideration, intensive therapy significantly reduced the occurrence of grade Ⅲ or higher neutropenia (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.35 to 0.69, Plt;0.000 1) and Grade Ⅲ or higher neuropathy (RR 0.43, 95%CI 0.24 to 0.78, P=0.006). But there were no significant differences between intensive therapy and conventional therapy in flush, grade Ⅲ or higher vomiting, anemia, leucopenia, grade Ⅲ or higher thrombocytopenia and alopecia. Conclusion Paclitaxel intensive therapy has similar efficacy and adverse reactions compared with conventional therapy in ovarian cancer. Above all, intensive therapy can reduce the incidence of grade Ⅲ or higher neutropenia and neuropathy. It is a good substitution for the conventional therapy.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the application of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI databases were searched for studies on ECMO for COVID-19 from December 1st, 2019 to December 31st, 2020. Two researchers independently screened literature, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was then performed using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 24 studies were included, involving 1 576 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients with COVID-19. The overall mortality of patients was 27.3% (430/1 576). The rate of ECMO treatment was 4.68% (379/1576), and the survival rate was 69.4% (263/379). The mean duration of mechanical ventilation prior to ECMO treatment for ARDS patients ranged from 2.07±0.40 to 15.89±13.0 days, compared with 1.64±0.78 days and 29.9±3.60 days for ECMO treatment. Of the 11 studies included in the meta-analysis, 84.0% (405/482) patients with ARDS received conventional treatment with COVID-19, and 16.0% (77/482) received ECMO treatment on the basis of conventional treatment with ARDS. Results of meta-analysis showed that there was statistically significant difference in the survival rate of ARDS patients with COVID-19 treated with conventional therapy combined with ECMO or with conventional therapy alone (RR=1.27, 95%CI 1.00 to 1.62, P=0.05).ConclusionsThis study suggests that the survival rate of COVID-19 patients after ECMO treatment has a tendency to improve. Due to the limitation of quantity and quality of included studies, the above conclusions are needed to be verified by more high-quality studies.