Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Celecoxib and Naproxen for treating osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis.Methods Such databases as EMbase, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Journal Full-text Database (CJFD), and Chinese Scientific Journal Full-text Database (CSJD) were searched to collect the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Celecoxib and Naproxen for treating osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the included studies and extracted the data. The Review Manager (version 5.0) software was used to analyze the data. Results Four RCTs involving 2 931 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses were as follows: a) There were significant differences in the dose of Celecoxib and Naproxen for treating rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis; b) There was no significant difference in gastrointestinal reaction between the Celecoxib group and the placebo group (RR=1.29, 95%CI 0.93 to 1.79); c) The were significant differences in gastrointestinal reaction between the Celecoxib group and the Naproxen group (RR=0.78, 95%CI 0.64 to 0.95); d) There were significant differences in inducing the severity of Stomach and Duodenum Endoscopy Score between the Celecoxib group and the Naproxen group when treating rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis (RR=1.29, 95%CI 0.93 to 1.79). As the Intention-To-Treat (ITT) analysis showed, there were significant differences in inducing the severity of gastrointestinal reaction between the Celecoxib group and the Naproxen group when treating rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis (RR=0.84, 95%CI 0.77 to 0.92). Conclusion Compared with Naproxen, there are significant differences in efficacy for treating rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis with Celecoxib in different doses. The Celecoxib has no significant difference in gastrointestinal reaction compared with the placebo group. The Celecoxib group has fewer gastrointestinal side-effects as compared with the Naproxen group, so it can be used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis in clinic. The results still need to be confirmed by high-quality RCTs.
Objective To overview the systematic review(SR) of efficacy and safety of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) in clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Methods PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data databases and related website (http://scholar.google.com/) were electronically searched to collect SR and meta-analysis on FMT of CDI. The quality of collected documents and evidences were evaluated by OQAQ (Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation), respectively. Results Eleven SRs were included, in which 4 were completed by meta-analysis. The results of OQAQ showed that the score of one review was 2, the others SR received scores from 5 to 9. There were 9 SRs had reported the CDI clinical resolution rate (CRR), of which one SR showed CRR was 36.2%, and the others showed CRR were about 90%. Compared to upper gastrointestinal FMT, all studies showed lower gastrointestinal FMT (colonoscopy, enemas, etc.) had a higher CRR. The outcomes of selection and random fecal donor had no significant differences, and authors suggested that there should be made a standardization of donor screening table for safe fecal. Present evidence showed FMT were safety, and the majority of adverse events of FMT appeared to be mild, self-limiting and gastrointestinal in nature. The GRADE quality level of SR indicated from very low to moderate. Conclusion FMT, as a treatment for CDI, shows significant efficacy and safety, but need more high-level evidences because of its clinical translation difficulties. The study also give a reference to develop standardized clinical pathways of FMT to policy researchers.