Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of different doses of metoprolol in the treatment of primary hypertension.Methods We searched for randomized controlled trials of different doses of metoprolol in the treatment of primary hypertension. We screened relevant studies according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, evaluated the quality of the included studies, and performed meta-analyses by using The Cochrane Collaboration’s Revman 4.2.8 software. Results Five randomized controlled trials of different doses of metoprolol in the treatment of primary hypertension were included. Two were of high quality and the other three were of low quality. No study reported mortality or the incidence of cardiovascular events, but four studies reported the means and standard deviations of systolic and diastolic blood pressures and heart rate. Based on the two self-control studies, meta-analyses of the levels of systolic and diastolic blood pressures before and after treatment of different doses of metoprolol showed that the combined OR for systolic blood pressure levels was -4.62 [95%CI (-7.77, -1.47), P=0.004]; and for the diastolic blood pressure levels, the combined OR was -5.71 [95%CI (-6.75, -4.68), Plt;0.000 01]. Four studies reported adverse reactions, and meta-analysis of the incidence of non-specific adverse reactions showed that the combined OR was 2.61 [95%CI (1.33, 5.13), P=0.005]. Conclusion A dose-effect relationship may exist between the dose of metoprolol and antihypertensive effect in the treatment of hypertension. When the antihypertensive effect of low-dose metoprolol was inadequate, an increase in the dose may lower blood pressure further. Although high-dose metoprolol has higher incidence of adverse reactions, it can be tolerated by most patients. Therefore, in the treatment of hypertension with metoprolol, an individualized dosing regimen can be applied according to the patient’s tolerance, and blood pressure may be controlled ideally by a gradual increase of the metoprolol dose to its maximum tolerated dose.
Objective To compare the effects of arthroplasty with that of intenal fixation for displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly. Methods We searched for all randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized controlled trials of hip arthroplasty versus internal fixation for displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly by electronically searching MEDLINE( 1966 to September, 2006),EMbase(1966 to September, 2006), Cochrane Library( Issue 4 2006), CBM( up to September, 2006) and CNKI (September, 2006) and handsearching grey literatures. The quality of the trials was assessed and meta-analyses were conducted using The Cochrane Collaboration’s RevMan 4.2.8 software. The quality of the trials was assessed. And meta-analysis was conducted by using RevMan4.2.8 software. Results A total of 228 papers were retrieved, but only 15 published randomized controlled trials involving a total of 2 254 patients were suitable for inclusion in the review. Based on the meta-analyses, hip arthroplasty showed obvious advantages over internal fixation in terms of the incidences of major complications after 2 years (RR 0.15 ; 95%CI 0.09 to 0.23) and after 5 years (RR 0.18 ; 95%CI 0.11 to 0.30) as well as re-operation rate (RR0.12 ; 95%CI 0.08 to 0.18) after 2 years, and after 5 years (RR0.11 ; 95%CI 0.06 to 0.22), there was an advantage to performing hip asthroplasty. After one year, the mortality was the same in both groups with RR 1.05 and 95%CI 0.89 to 1.23. Conclusion There is an evidence base to support arthroplasty as a treatment for displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly. Arthroplasty can not only decrease the rate of re-operation, but can also reduce the incidence of complications, with similar one-year mortality when compared to internal fixation.