ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy of different nucleosides (acids) in preventing hepatitis B virus reactivation after chemotherapy in cancer patients. MethodsThe Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data, and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of different nucleosides (acids) to prevent HBV reactivation after chemotherapy in cancer patients from inception to June 7th, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Network meta-analysis was then performed by using Stata 16.0 software. ResultsA total of 43 RCTs involving 3 269 patients were included. There were 7 interventions, namely entecavir (ETV), lamivudine (LAM), adefovir dipivoxil (ADV), telbivudine (LdT), tenofovir dipivoxil (TDF), lamivudine combined with entecavir (LAM+ETV), and lamivudine combined with adefovir dipivoxil (LAM+ADV). The results of network meta-analysis showed that the efficacy of reducing the reactivation rate of ETV, LAM, ADV, LdT, TDF, LAM+ETV, LAM+ADV were superior than the control group. The ETV, LAM and ADV were not as effective as LAM+ETV. The leading drug combinations were LAM+ETV (94.8%), LdT (81.5%) and LA+ADV (58.0%). ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that LAM+ETV, LdT, and LA+ADV are more effective in preventing hepatitis B virus reactivation after chemotherapy in cancer patients. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are required to verify the above conclusions.
Objective To systematically review the efficacy and safety of non-ergoline dopamine agonists (pramipexole, ropinirole, and rotigotine) and α2δ ligands (pregabalin and gabapentin-enacarbil) in the treatment of restless legs syndrome (RLS). Methods The PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, WanFang Data, and CNKI databases were electronically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing different medications for RLS from 2000 to 2021. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. The network meta-analysis was then performed using Stata 16.0 software and R 4.1.0 software. Results A total of 36 RCTs involving 7 666 patients were included. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that gabapentin-enacarbil decreased IRLS scores to the greatest extent among all drugs (MD=−6.42, 95%CI −8.8 to −4.16), was superior to pramipexole (MD=−3.27, 95%CI −6.54 to −0.15), and was associated with the highest CGI-I response rates (RR=1.73, 95%CI 1.52 to 2.00). In terms of tolerance and safety, patients receiving rotigotine presented an increased incidence of withdrawal due to adverse events. Ropinirole had the highest incidence of nausea. Headache was most common side effect in rotigotine, while the incidences of somnolence and dizziness were higher in gabapentin-enacarbil than other treatments. Conclusion Current evidence suggests that gabapentin-enacarbil may be the best treatment for RLS. Rotigotine is associated with the worst tolerance. For safety, nausea is most common in ropinirole, headache is most common for rotigotine, and patients receiving gabapentin-enacarbil show increased incidences of somnolence and dizziness.
ObjectivesTo systematically review the efficacy of different rennin-angiotensin system blockers in prevention of stroke recurrence and reduction of major vascular events in patients with prior stroke.MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, CNKI, CBM and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy of ACEIs and ARBs for stroke secondary prevention from inception to November 1st, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Network meta-analysis was then performed by using Stata 15.1 software.ResultsA total of 6 RCTs involving 25 620 patients were included. The results of network meta-analysis showed that: in prevention of stroke recurrence, candesartan (RR=0.40, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.99) and valsartan (RR=0.22, 95%CI 0.07 to 0.76) were significantly lower than placebo; valsartan was lower than telmisartan (RR=0.24, 95%CI 0.07 to 0.81), ramipril (RR=0.26, 95%CI 0.07 to 0.93) and perindopril (RR=0.23, 95%CI 0.07 to 0.81). For reducing the major vascular events after stroke, candesartan (RR=0.39, 95%CI 0.21 to 0.74), valsartan (RR=0.27, 95%CI 0.11 to 0.64) and ramipril (RR=0.76, 95%CI 0.60 to 0.95) were significantly lower than placebo; valsartan was lower than telmisartan (RR=0.29, 95%CI 0.12 to 0.69), ramipril (RR=0.36, 95%CI 0.15 to 0.88) and perindopril (RR=0.28, 95%CI 0.12 to 0.68); candesartan was lower than telmisartan (RR=0.42, 95%CI 0.22 to 0.79) and perindopril (RR=0.41, 95%CI 0.21 to 0.79).ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that valsartan and candesartan can reduce the stroke recurrence and major vascular events after stroke. Ramipril can reduce the major vascular event in patients with prior stroke. Valsartan might be the best option in both outcomes. Due to limited quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are required to verify above conclusions.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of four antiplatelet regimens after coronary drug-eluting stents by network meta-analysis.MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase and Web of Science databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the comparison of different antiplatelet regimens after coronary drug-eluting stenting from inception to December 31st, 2019. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk bias of included studies. Network meta-analysis was then performed by using Gemtc14.3 software, Stata16.0 software and RevMan5.3 software.ResultsA total of 23 RCTs involving 45 837 patients were included. The results of network meta-analysis showed that: in terms of prevention of myocardial infarction (MI) recurrence, the aspirin monotherapy after short-term dual antiplatelet therapy was inferior to the triple antiplatelet therapy (OR=2.13, 95%CI 1.08 to 4.03). In terms of reducing the incidence of ischemic compound events, the triple antiplatelet therapy was superior to the standard dual antiplatelet therapy (OR=0.53, 95%CI 0.39 to 0.72), the aspirin monotherapy after short-term dual antiplatelet therapy (OR=0.49, 95%CI 0.35 to 0.69) and the P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after short-term dual antiplatelet therapy (OR=0.51, 95%CI 0.35 to 0.73). There was no statistically significant difference among the four interventions in reducing the rate of in-stent thrombosis and all-cause mortality (P>0.05). In terms of safety, the bleeding rate of aspirin monotherapy after short-term dual antiplatelet therapy was lower than that of standard dual antiplatelet therapy (OR=0.70, 95%CI 0.55 to 0.86) and triple antiplatelet therapy (OR=0.58, 95%CI 0.36 to 0.90), and the bleeding rate of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after short-term dual antiplatelet therapy was also lower than that of standard dual antiplatelet therapy (OR=0.51, 95%CI 0.39 to 0.65) and triple antiplatelet therapy (OR=0.43, 95%CI 0.26 to 0.67). The probability ranking diagram showed that: in terms of the recurrence rate of MI, the rate of in-stent thrombosis and the incidence of ischemic compound events, triple antiplatelet therapy was the lowest and aspirin monotherapy after short-term dual antiplatelet therapy was the highest. However, in terms of all-cause mortality and bleeding rate, aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after short-term dual antiplatelet therapy was the lowest and triple antiplatelet therapy was the highest.ConclusionsThe available evidence suggests that when the risk of ischemia is low, we should choose aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after short-term dual antiplatelet therapy, and P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy may have a lower risk of ischemia and bleeding. When the risk of ischemia is high and bleeding is low, the triple or standard dual antiplatelet therapy should be selected, and the efficacy of triple antiplatelet therapy is superior, while the safety may be inferior.
ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid and antiviral agents for idiopathic facial nerve paralysis (IFNP) by network meta-analysis.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, WangFang Data and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of corticosteroid and antiviral agents for IFNP from inception to January 31th, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. The meta-analysis was performed by R 3.3.3 and Stata 13.0 software.ResultsA total of 16 RCTs involving 3 061 patients were included. The results of network meta-analysis showed that: for the facial function recovery rates, corticosteroid plus antiviral agents was superior to placebo and antiviral agents alone at 3-month follow-up. Corticosteroid plus antiviral agents was superior to placebo, antiviral agents or corticosteroid alone at 6-month follow-up (if the satisfactory recovery was defined as a House-Brackmann grade class Ⅱ or below). When the follow-up exceeded 6 months, corticosteroid alone was superior to placebo and antiviral agents alone, corticosteroid plus antiviral agents was superior to placebo and antiviral agents alone. All of the differences above were statistically significant. For the sequelae, corticosteroid plus antiviral agents and corticosteroid alone were superior to placebo and antiviral agents alone. Corticosteroid plus antiviral agents was superior to corticosteroid alone. The differences were statistically significant. For the adverse events, there were no significant differences between any other pairwise comparisons of these different interventions.ConclusionConsidering the efficacy and safety, patients with IFNP treated corticosteroid plus antiviral agents are more likely to have a better recovery of facial function and less likely to develop sequelae, followed by corticosteroid alone. More high-quality, large scaled and multicenter RCTs are required to verify the conclusions above, and focus on the treatment of children and patients with severe facial paralysis.
ObjectiveTo select the key questions of the reporting quality of acupuncture therapy network meta-analysis. MethodsA question pool about reporting quality of acupuncture therapy network meta-analysis was conducted by preliminary literature research and qualitative systematic review. A correspondence questionnaire was designed and the selection of key questions was carried out through two rounds of expert consultation using the Delphi method. ResultsA total of 21 key questions were selected for the network meta-analysis report standard of acupuncture, including whether to report details of acupuncture interventions (e.g., needle type, acupoints used, number of needles inserted, depth of needle insertion, retention time, needling techniques, and treatment duration), diagnostic criteria for diseases or traditional Chinese medicine syndromes, and qualifications of acupuncture practitioners. Of these, the only three key questions answered by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and network meta-analysis (PRISMA-NMA) were summary, protocol and registration, and source of funding, while the remaining 19 were specific to acupuncture-related report standards. ConclusionThe conducted key question on reporting guideline of acupuncture network meta-analysis can improve the standardization and rigor of relevant research and better utilize its academic and clinical value.
Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a statistical technique that integrates data from multiple clinical studies and compares the efficacy and safety of multiple interventions, which can provide pro and con ranking results for all intervention options in the evidence network and provide direct evidence support for clinical decision-making. At present, NMA is usually based on the aggregation of the same type of data set, and there are still methodological and software difficulties in achieving cross-study design and cross-data format data set merging. The crossnma package of R programming language is based on Bayesian framework and Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm, extending the three-level hierarchical model to the standard NMA data model to achieve differential merging of varied data types. The crossnma package fully considers the impact of risk bias caused by the combination of different types of data on the results by introducing model variables. In addition, the package provides functions such as result output and easy graphing, which makes it possible to combine NMA across study designs and evidence across data formats. In this study, the model based on crossnma package method and software operation will be demonstrated and explained through the examples of four individual participant datasets and two aggregate datasets.
The WinBUGS software can be called from either R (provided R2WinBUGS as an R package) or Stata software for network meta-analysis. Unlike R, Stata software needs to create relevant ADO scripts at first which simplify operation process greatly. Similar with R, Stata software also needs to load another package when drawing network plots. This article briefly introduces how to implement network meta-analysis using Stata software by calling WinBUGS software.
The nlme package is developed based on the generalized least squares (gls) and linear mixed-effects model (lme). It can perform meta-analysis based on linear and nonlinear mixed effects models in R language. When conducting meta-analysis using nlme package in R language, the first step is to translate the data into its logarithm estimation. In this article, we introduce how to perform network meta-analysis using R language nlme package and show the core step of data translation in detail.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy of different stimulation modalities of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) combined with SSRI in improving depressed mood after stroke using network meta-analysis. MethodsThe PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, CBM and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to the objectives from inception to October 1, 2022. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Network meta-analysis was then performed by using R 4.2.1software. ResultsA total of 25 RCTs involving 2 152 patients were included. Four types of rTMS stimulation combined with SSRIs were included: high-frequency stimulation of the left dorsolateral prefrontal (l-DLPFC), low-frequency stimulation of l-DLPFC, low-frequency stimulation of the right dorsolateral prefrontal (r-DLPFC), and low-frequency stimulation of the bilateral DLPFC. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that the effect of combining four stimulation methods with SSRI in treating depression was better than that of SSRI alone (P<0.05). Probability sorting results showed that low-frequency stimulated bilateral DLPFC (88.9%) > low-frequency stimulated l-DLPFC (63.1%) > high-frequency stimulation l-DLPFC (57.1%) > low-frequency stimulation r-DLPFC (40.4%). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between the four stimulation methods combined with SSRI and the use of SSRI alone (P>0.05). Conclusion rTMS combined with SSRIs is better than SSRIs alone in improving depressed mood after stroke. Low-frequency rTMS stimulation of bilateral DLPFC may be the best. Meanwhile, the safety of different stimulation methods is good.