Objective To assess the effectiveness and safety of irbesartan for hypertensive patients with hyperuricaemia. Methods The databases such as The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2010), MEDLINE (by the end of April 2010), SCI (by the end of April 2010), CBM (by the end of April 2010) and CNKI (by the end of April 2010) were searched to collected randomized controlled trails (RCTs) on irbesartan for hypertensive combined with hyperuricaemia. Studies were screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria; data were extracted; the methodological quality was evaluated; and meta-analyses were conducted by using RevMan 5.0.0 software. Results Nine studies involving 977 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that compared with the control group, irbesartan was superior in decreasing serum uric acid (SUA) (MD=57.12, 95%CI 16.08 to 98.15, P=0.006); it was similar in controlling blood pressure (Systolic pressure: MD= –0.24, 95%CI –2.19 to 1.71, P=0.81; Diastolic pressure: MD=0.46, 95%CI –1.58 to 2.50, P=0.66), and lower in the incidence rate of adverse reaction (RR=0.07, 95%CI 0.02 to 0.24, P=0.000 1). Conclusion The study suggests that irbesartan is effective and safe to control blood pressure and decrease serum uric acid for hypertensive patients with hyperuricaemia. But because all nine included studies are graded C in quality, the conclusion still needs to be further verified by long-term, large scale and high quality studies.
The most important difference between systematic review and traditional narrative review lies in their respective quality, namely the degree of bias control. Generally speaking, the sources of bias include the process of literature searching, study selection, data extraction and original studies. A systematic review may greatly reduce bias, as it takes effective steps such as developing search strategies, undertaking funnel plot analysis, using established criteria for study selection, and assessment of the methodology quality of studies. All these help to control, identify and, describe the possible bias.
Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of levoamlodipine besylate for essential hypertension. Methods We searched MEDLINE (1999 to October 2007), EMBASE (1999 to October 2007), The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2007), CNKI (1999 to 2007), Wanfang (1999 to 2007), VIP (1999 to 2007) and CBM (1999 to October 2007). The quality of included studies was critically evaluated. Data analyses were performed with The Cochrane Collaboration’ s RevMan 4.2 software. Results A total of 345 articles were retrieved, but only 17 were finally included. Meta-analyses showed that the effective rate in patients receiving levoamlodipine besylate was significantly higher than that in patients receiving indapamide (RD 0.14, 95%CI 0.06 to 0.22, P=0.0004), while no significant differences were noted between the levoamlodipine besylate group and other control groups. The incidence of adverse effects was significantly lower in the levoamlodipine besylate group compared to the indapamide group (RD –0.12, 95%CI –0.21 to –0.03, P=0.01), the amlodipine group (RD –0.06, 95%CI –0.11 to –0.01, P=0.02) and the nitrendipine group (RD –0.27, 95%CI –0.46 to – 0.08, P=0.006). No significant differences were observed between the levoamlodipine besylate group and other control groups. Conclusion Levoamlodipine besylate tends to have better efficacy and safety profiles compared with other antihypertensive drugs. However, most trials included in the review were of poor quality and, so, multi-center large-scale randomized controlled trials of higher quality are needed to confirm this.
Objectives To assess the effects of alpha-glucosidase inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Method We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, LILACS, databases of ongoing trials, reference lists of reviews on the topic of alpha-glucosidase inhibitors and we contacted experts and manufacturers for additional trials. Date of most recent search: December 2003 (Current Contents) and April 2003 (other databases). Randomised controlled trials of at least 12 weeks duration comparing alpha-glucosidase inhibitor monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes with any other intervention and that included at least one of the following outcomes: mortality, morbidity, quality of life, glycemic control, lipids, insulin levels, body weight, adverse events. Two reviewers read all abstracts, assessed quality and extracted data independently. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus or by the judgement of a third reviewer. A statistician checked all extracted data entrance in the database. We attempted to contact all authors for data clarification. Results We included 41 trials (8130 participants), 30 investigated acarbose, seven miglitol, one trial voglibose and three trials compared different alpha-glucosidase inhibitors. Study duration was 24 weeks in most cases and only two studies lasted amply longer than one year. We found only few data on mortality, morbidity and quality of life. Acarbose had a clear effect on glycemic control compared to placebo: glycated haemoglobin –0.77% (95% confidence interval –0.90 to –0.64), fasting blood glucose –1.1 mmol/L (95% confidence interval –1.4 to –0.9), post-load blood glucose –2.32 mmol/L (95% confidence interval –2.73 to –1.92). The effect on glycated haemoglobin by acarbose was not dose-dependent. We found a decreasing effect on post-load insulin and no clinically relevant effects on lipids or body weight. Adverse effects were mostly of gastro-intestinal origin and dose dependent. Compared to sulphonylurea, acarbose decreased fasting and post-load insulin levels by –24.8 pmol/L (95% confidence interval –43.3 to –6.3) and –133.2 pmol/L (95% confidence interval –184.5 to –81.8) respectively and acarbose caused more adverse effects. Conclusions It remains unclear whether alpha-glucosidase inhibitors influence mortality or morbidity in patients with type 2 diabetes. Conversely, they have a significant effect on glycemic control and insulin levels, but no statistically significant effect on lipids and body weight. These effects are less sure when alpha-glucosidase inhibitors are used for a longer duration. Acarbose dosages higher than 50 mg TID offer no additional effect on glycated haemoglobin but more adverse effects instead. Compared to sulphonylurea, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors lower fasting and post-load insulin levels and have an inferior profile regarding glycemic control and adverse effects.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of crizotinib in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).MethodWe electronically searched databases including the Cochrane Library (Issue 5, 2017), PubMed, Embase, China Biology Medicine Database, China National Knowledge Internet Database, VIP Database and Wangfang Data from the establishment to May 2017. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, case series and case reports on crizotinib for NSCLC were included. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, assessed the methodological quality of included studies, then make Meta-analysis and descriptive analysis.ResultA total of 15 studies were included, including 4 RCTs, 1 non-RCT, 4 case series and 6 case reports. The results indicated that the progression-free survival time of crizotinib group was 8 months, which was better than chemotherapy group (4.6 months). The results of Meta-analysis showed that the response rate in the crizotinib group was higher than that in the chemotherapy group [RR=2.35, 95%CI (1.59, 3.46), P<0.000 1]. The one year survival rate in the crizotinib group was 74.5%-78.6%. The incidences of adverse reactions including dysopsia, dysgeusia, diarrhea, vomiting, constipation, transaminase lifts, upper respiratory tract infection, edema and dizziness in the crizotinib group were higher than those in the chemotherapy group (P<0.05), while the incidences of adverse reactions including leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, alopecia and fatigue in crizotinib group were lower than those in the chemotherapy group (P<0.05). Subgroup analysis under precision treatment showed the progression-free survival time of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive group was 8 months, and it was longer than ALK-negative group of 4 months.ConclusionsBased on current evidence, crizotinib is better than chemotherapy for NSCLC. Due to limited quality of the included studies, the above conclusion needs to be verifed by more high quality studies.
Objective To assess the effectiveness of exemestane in the treatment of postmenopausal women with breast cancer. Methods We searched The Cochrane Library, PubMed, CBMdisc, and CNKI to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two reviewers extracted the data and evaluated the quality of included trials, respectively. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.0 software. Results A total of 12 RCTs involving 6 166 participants were included, and the results of meta-analyses showed that: (1) When used in neoadjuvant endocrine therapy after operation, exemestane was more effective in progression-free survival than tamoxifen; (2) When used in rescue therapy, exemestane was more effective in objective response than tamoxifen, but not more effective than letrozole or anastrozole; (3) When used in new neoadjuvant endocrine therapy before operation, exemestane was not more effective than letrozole, and there was too little research about it. Conclusions The current evidence shows that exemestane has certain short-term therapeutic effect, but its long-term therapeutic effect is unknown. More high-quality clinical trials are expected for further study.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the short term and long term efficacy of early surgery for infective endocarditis (IE) patients. MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI databases for cohort studies concerning the efficacy of early surgery for IE patients from inception to October 2014. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk bias of included studies. Then meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software. ResultsSixteen cohort studies including 8 141 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that early surgery could reduce the short term mortality (OR=0.57, 95%CI 0.42 to 0.77, P=0.000 4) and long term mortality (OR=0.57, 95%CI 0.43 to 0.77, P=0.000 7) in IE patients. Subgroup analysis showed that early surgery could significantly reduce the short term mortality and long term mortality in patients with native valve endocarditis (NVE). ConclusionEarly surgery can reduce IE patients' short term mortality and long term mortality. Due to the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more large-scale high-quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.
Objectives The aim of the review was to assess the effectiveness of anti-reflux therapy for patients with hoarseness, in the absence of other identifiable causes, whether or not a definitive diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal and gastro-oesophageal reflux has been made. This was assessed by evaluation of prospective randomised controlled studies that were identified by a systematic review of the literature. Both medical and surgical treatments were evaluated. Method The Cochrane ENT Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to 2005), EMBASE (1974 to 2005) and conference proceedings were searched with prespecified terms. The date of the last search was September 2005.Randomised controlled trials recruiting patients with hoarseness in the absence of other identifiable causes, such as malignancy, cord palsy or nodules, whether or not a definitive diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal and gastro-oesophageal reflux has been made. Data collection and analysis Three reviewers examined the search results and identified studies before deciding which would be included in the review. Results 302 potential studies were identified by the search strategy. No trials were identified which met our inclusion criteria. Six randomised controlled trials were identified in which some, but not all patients presented with hoarseness, and were treated with proton pump inhibition. As we could not determine with certainty whether all these patients had hoarseness among the other laryngeal symptoms, these were excluded. However, these studies suggest a significant placebo response, which is comparable to the benefit derived from anti-reflux therapy in some studies. As no trials met our criteria, we are unable to reach any firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of anti-reflux treatment for hoarseness. Conclusions There is a need for high quality randomised controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness of anti-reflux therapy for patients with hoarseness which may be due to laryngopharyngeal and gastro-oesophageal reflux.
ObjectivesTo systematically assess the efficacy and safety of nitrates for patients with chronic heart failure. MethodWe searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2016), CBM, CNKI, VIP, and WanFang Data to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over studies about nitrates in the treatment of heart failure from inception to January 4th 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.3 software. ResultsTen trials were included involving 414 patients (195 patients in the nitrates group and 219 patients in the control group). The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared with the control group, the nitrates group could reduce arterial blood pressure (MD=-1.91, 95%CI -3.66 to -0.16, P=0.03), pulmonary wedge pressure vessels (PCWP) (MD=-2.00, 95%CI -3.84 to -0.15, P=0.03), increase cardiac index (CI) (MD=0.25, 95%CI 0.09 to 0.42, P=0.003), treadmill exercise time (MD=70.14, 95%CI 55.22 to 85.05, P < 0.000 01); but easily emerge side effects (OR=5.21, 95%CI 2.60 to 10.41, P < 0.000 01). ConclusionCurrent evidence indicates that nitrates treatment could improve the hemodynamic effect, enhance cardiac output and increase exercise tolerance in patients with heart failure.