1.
Effect of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection on Mild or Moderate Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Dong C, Sun Y, Qi Y, Zhu Y, Wei H, Wu D, Li C
BioMed research international. 2020;2020:5089378
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection in carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), we conducted this meta-analysis, as well as proposed a protocol for its application in curative processes. METHODS All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PRP for the management of mild or moderate CTS were included in this study. Database search was conducted from study inception to July 2020, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. We used visual analogue scores (VAS) and the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) as evaluation tools for primary outcomes. Second outcomes comprised cross-sectional area (ΔCSA) and electrophysiological indexes including distal motor latency (DML), sensory peak latency (SPL), motor nerve conduction velocity (MNCV), sensory nerve conduction velocity (SNCV), compound muscle action potential (CMAP), and sensory nerve action potential (SNAP). The pooled data were analyzed using RevMan 5.3. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted with the evidence of heterogeneity. Egger' test was used to investigate publication bias. RESULTS 9 RCTs were finally screened out with 434 patients included. Control groups comprised corticosteroid injection in 5 trials, saline injection in 1 trial, and splint in 3 trials. At the 1st month after follow-up, only ΔCSA between the PRP group and the control group showed significant difference (P < 0.05). In the 3rd month, there were statistically significant differences in VAS, BCTQ, SPL, SNCV, and ΔCSA between two groups (P < 0.05), while no statistically significant differences were found in the remaining outcomes. In the 6th month, there were statistically significant differences at BCTQ (P < 0.05) in primary outcomes and ΔCSA (P < 0.05) in secondary outcomes between two groups. As to adverse events in PRP injection, only one study reported increased pain sensation within 48 h after injections. CONCLUSION This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that the PRP could be effective for mild to moderate CTS and superior to traditional conservative treatments in improving pain and function and reducing the swelling of the median nerve for a mid-long-term effect. To some extent, the electrophysiological indexes also improved after PRP injection compared with others conservative treatments.
2.
[Evaluation of pharmaceutical prevention and treatment of intensive care unit-acquired weakness: a Meta-analysis]
Yang L, Zhang Z, Zhang C, Tian J, Ma X, Meng W, Ding N, Yao L, Wei H, Shen X
Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2020;32(3):357-361
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of preventing and treatment of pharmaceuticals on intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICU-AW) by systematic review. METHODS The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning pharmaceutical prevention and treatment about ICU-AW in SinoMed, CNKI, Wanfang data, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMbase, and other sources were searched from their foundation to May 30th, 2019. The patients in the intervention group were treated with drugs to prevent or treat ICU-AW; and those in control group were treated with other rehabilitation methods. Data searching, extracting and quality evaluation were assessed by two reviewers independently. Stata 12.0 software was then used for Meta-analysis. Only descriptive analysis was conducted when only one study was enrolled. RESULTS A total of 11 RCTs were enrolled with 1 865 patients in the intervention group and 1 894 in the control group. The results of quality evaluation showed that 4 studies were A-level and 7 studies were B-level, indicating that the overall quality of the enrolled literature was high. Meta-analysis showed that intensive insulin therapy could prevent ICU-AW [relative risk (RR) = 0.761, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) was 0.662-0.876, P = 0.000], but reduced phenylalanine loss (nmolx100 mL(-1)xmin(-1): -3+/-3 vs. -11+/-3, P < 0.05) and glutamine intake (nmolx100 mL(-1)xmin(-1): -97+/-22 vs. -51+/-13, P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the prevention and treatment of ICU-AW between other drugs (including growth hormone, glutamine, dexmedetomidine, neostigmine, oxandrolone, and intravenous immunoglobulin) and control group. CONCLUSIONS Intensive insulin therapy can prevent ICU-AW, but the risk of hypoglycemia will increase. Other drugs including growth hormone, glutamine, dexmedetomidine, neostigmine, oxandrolone, and intravenous immunoglobulin have no obvious advantages in the prevention and treatment of ICU-AW, so no drug has been recommended to prevent and treat ICU-AW.