Objective To systematically review the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for the treatment of tumor-related cognitive dysfunction. Methods The PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and CBM databases were electronically searched to collect studies on acupuncture for the treatment of tumor-related cognitive dysfunction from the establishment of the database to February 13th, 2022. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Meta-analysis was then performed using RevMan 5.4.1 software. Results A total of 16 studies involving 1 361 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that the mini-mental state examination (MD=1.82, 95%CI 1.49 to 2.15, P<0.000 01) and Montreal cognitive assessment (MD=1.56, 95%CI 0.83 to 2.29, P<0.0001) scores of the acupuncture treatment group were superior to those in the control group. Furthermore, the acupuncture treatment group showed a reduced incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (RR=0.50, 95%CI 0.39 to 0.63, P<0.000 01) and decreased levels of interleukin-6 (MD=−10.43, 95%CI −14.91 to −5.95, P<0.000 01), interleukin-1β (MD=−47.14, 95%CI −63.92 to −30.36, P<0.000 01), and tumor necrosis factor-α (MD=−9.13, 95%CI −12.38 to −5.89, P<0.000 01). In contrast, the visual analog scale score of the acupuncture treatment group (MD=−1.26, 95%CI −2.06 to −0.47, P=0.002) was better than that of the control group. No significant difference was found in the level of central nervous system-specific protein (S100β) (MD=−0.06, 95%CI −0.13 to 0.01, P=0.12) between the two groups. Conclusion Acupuncture therapy can improve tumor-related cognitive function in patients. Its curative effect is better than that of non-acupuncture therapy; however, its ability to reduce S100β levels is not significantly different from that of non-acupuncture therapy. Due to the limited quantity and quality of the included studies, more high-quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.
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 systematically review risk prediction models of in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with cardiovascular disease, and to provide references for related clinical practice and scientific research for medical professionals in China. Methods Databases including CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Wiley Online Journals and Scopus were searched to collect studies on risk prediction models for in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with cardiovascular disease from January 2010 to July 2022. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias of the included studies. Results A total of 5 studies (4 of which were retrospective studies) were included. Study populations encompassed mainly patients with acute coronary syndrome. Two models were modeled using decision trees. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve or C statistic of the five models ranged from 0.720 to 0.896, and only one model was verified externally and for time. The most common risk factors and immediate onset factors of in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with cardiovascular disease included in the prediction model were age, diabetes, Killip class, and cardiac troponin. There were many problems in analysis fields, such as insufficient sample size (n=4), improper handling of variables (n=4), no methodology for dealing with missing data (n=3), and incomplete evaluation of model performance (n=5). Conclusion The prediction efficiency of risk prediction models for in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with cardiovascular disease was good; however, the model quality could be improved. Additionally, the methodology needs to be improved in terms of data sources, selection and measurement of predictors, handling of missing data, and model evaluations. External validation of existing models is required to better guide clinical practice.
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.
An increasing number of health system researchers use systematic review to synthesize research evidence to inform the development of health policies at global and national levels. However, there are methodological challenges facing the health system research in undertaking systematic reviews of health policy literatures. This paper explored the constraints and promise of systematic review as a tool for evidence-based health system research in developing countries. It introduced the systematic review method and its evolution in health research over the past decades. The paper then discussed the definition of health system research, as system science, and contrasted its features/characteristics to those of medical research. It discussed and analyzed if the systematic review could be an effective tool for evidence-based health system research, particularly in developing countries. The paper concludes that the systematic review may be a very useful tool that can be used for evidence-based health system research to address specific policy issues; however, research on some health system/policy issues may not be appropriate to use the systematic review at all.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the correlation between mTOR protein expression and different clinical pathological features as well as the response to radiotherapy and chemotherapy of cervical cancer. MethodsWe electronically searched databases including The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2015), PubMed, EMbase, CNKI, CBM, VIP and WanFang Data from inception to April 2015 to collect case-control studies investigating the correlation between mTOR protein expression and different clinical pathological features as well as the response to radiotherapy and chemotherapy of cervical cancer. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk bias of the included studies. Then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software. ResultsA total of 8 case-control studies involving 591 patients were included. Among these cases, 365 cases were in the cervical cancer group, 135 cases were in the cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) group, and 91 cases were in the normal cervix tissue group. The results of meta-analysis showed that:(1) Compared with the normal cervix tissue group, mTOR protein was overexpressed in the cervical cancer group (OR=24.14, 95%CI 4.47 to 130.35, P=0.000 2) and the CIN group (OR=4.71, 95%CI 2.15 to 10.33, P=0.000 1); Compared with the CIN group, mTOR protein was overexpressed in the cervical cancer group (OR=5.12, 95%CI 2.96 to 8.86, P<0.000 01). (2) Compared with the non-lymphnode-metastasis group, mTOR protein was overexpressed in the lymph node metastasis group (OR=3.29, 95%CI 1.61 to 6.69, P=0.001); Compared with the FIGO I group, mTOR protein was overexpressed in the FIGO Ⅱ group (OR=3.00, 95%CI 1.49 to 6.04, P=0.002); Compared with the radiotherapy and chemotherapy responsive group, mTOR protein was overexpressed in the non-response group (OR=15.64, 95%CI 3.17 to 77.15, P=0.000 7). In addition, there was no significant difference between the medium/high differentiation group and low differentiation group (OR=1.70, 95%CI 0.75 to 3.81, P=0.20). ConclusionmTOR protein expression is associated with cervical cancer, and mTOR protein overexpression was associated with lymph node metastasis, higher FIGO and non-response to radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Due to the limited quantity and quality of the included studies, the above conclusion needs to be further verified by more high quality studies.
Objective To evaluate the role of topotecan in the treatment of small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Methods Up to 2006, we searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMbase, Cancerlit, CBM, CNKI and VIP. Handsearch and additional search were also conducted. The quality of included studies was evaluated and meta-analyses were performed for the results of homogeneous studies by RevMan 4.2.8 software. Results Fourteen studies involving 2 099 participants with SCLC were included. All included studies were adequate in reporting randomization, while inadequate in allocation concealment and blinding. Meta-analyses showed that the response rate of TP (topotecan + cisplatin) regimen had no significant difference compared with EP regimen (etoposide + cisplatin) with OR 0.83 and 95%CI 0.63 to 1.09, but myelo-suppression such as leucopenia and thrombopenia was more severe with TP regimen; the response rate of monotherapy with topotecan was similar with that of CE (carboplatin + etoposide) regimen with OR 0.59 and 95%CI 0.22 to 1.60; the response rate of TEP (topotecan + etoposide + cisplatin) regimen was comparable with that of EP regimen with OR 1.37 and 95%CI 0.82 to –2.28, but myelosuppression and anemia were more severe with TEP regimen; the response rate with OR 0.97 and 95％CI 0.60 to –1.57, median time to progression with WMD –2.32 and 95％CI –5.72 to 1.09 and median survival time with WMD –1.65 and 95％CI –7.13 to 3.83 of IV topotecan were similar to those of oral topotecan, while neutropenia was more severe with IV topotecan. Forty-five treatment-related deaths were reported in all included studies. Conclusions Topotecan is an effective agent for SCLC when used as monotherapy or in combined treatment, but myelosuppression such as leucopenia and thrombopenia was relatively severe. Although it has been recommended as a second-line agent for recurrence of sensitive SCLC, more clinical trials are needed to define its role in first-line treatment. Due to a high risk of selection bias and detection bias in included studies, the evidence is insufficient to determine the effect of topotecan. Further large-scale trials are required to define the role of topotecan in the treatment of SCLC.
Background Acute pancreatitis is one of the most severe acute abdominal conditions. Recently with the understanding of pathophysiology and pathogenesis of acute pancreatitis, cytokines, especially platelet-activating factor (PAF), have been shown to play an important role. Lexipafant is a potent inhibitor of PAF. It has shown exiting results in the animal experiments, so randomized controlled studies are needed to assess the impact of lexipafant for acute pancreatitis. Objectives To determine whether lexipafant can alter the course, prevent or treat organ failure and reduce mortality in acute pancreatitis. Search strategy Electronic databases were searched and reference lists from included studies were also handsearched. Published abstracts from conference proceedings and ten kinds of Chinese medical journals were handsearched for additional citations. Personal contaction with colleagues and experts in the field of pancreatitis was performed to identify potentially relevant trials. Selection criteria Randomized, controlled trials, In which participants went in hospital within 72 hours of belliache episode, comparing lexipafant to placebo or other interventions on organ failure rate or mortality of acute pancreatitis. Data collection and analysis Data related to the clinical outcomes were extracted by two reviewers independently, if there was any divarication, they would have a discussion. Main Results Three studies meet the inclusion criteria up to 2001. Compared with control group, lexipafant had the tendency of reducing the early deaths (odds ratio [OR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23 to1.38, P=0.2), accelerating the recovery of organ failure (OR 0.40, 95%CI 0.12 to 1.32, P=0.13) and reducing the occurrence of new organ failure OR 0.34, but these results had no statistical significance. A large-scale multicentre randomized controlled trial including 1 500 patients has been completed in America, but the result has not been published. Reviewers’ Conclusions Current evidence couldn’t draw the final conclusion. So the large-scale of randomized controlled trials is required.
The data collection form is a bridge in-between the original studies and the final systematic reviews. It’s the basis for data analyses, directly related to the results and conclusions of systematic reviews, and plays an important role in systematic reviews. There are strict requirements of data collection forms in making Cochrane systematic reviews. In this article, the authors introduce their experiences regarding to the design of data collection form.