| 1. |
- Choi, Hangnyoung, et al.
(författare)
-
Pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for irritability in autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis with the GRADE assessment
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Molecular Autism. - : BMC. - 2040-2392. ; 15:1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundNumerous interventions for irritability in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have been investigated. We aimed to appraise the magnitude of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for irritability in ASD without any restrictions in terms of eligible interventions.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science until April 15, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a parallel design that examined the efficacy of interventions for the treatment of irritability in patients of any age with ASD without any restrictions in terms of eligible interventions. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis by pooling effect sizes as Hedges' g. We classified assessed interventions as follows: pharmacological monotherapy, risperidone plus adjuvant therapy versus risperidone monotherapy, non-pharmacological intervention, and dietary intervention. We utilized the Cochrane tool to evaluate the risk of bias in each study and the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each meta-analyzed intervention.ResultsOut of 5640 references, we identified 60 eligible articles with 45 different kinds of interventions, including 3531 participants, of which 80.9% were males (mean age [SD] = 8.79 [3.85]). For pharmacological monotherapy, risperidone (Hedges' g - 0.857, 95% CI - 1.263 to - 0.451, certainty of evidence: high) and aripiprazole (Hedges' g - 0.559, 95% CI - 0.767 to - 0.351, certainty of evidence: high) outperformed placebo. Among the non-pharmacological interventions, parent training (Hedges' g - 0.893, 95% CI - 1.184 to - 0.602, certainty of evidence: moderate) showed a significant result. None of the meta-analyzed interventions yielded significant effects among risperidone + adjuvant therapy and dietary supplementation. However, several novel molecules in augmentation to risperidone outperformed risperidone monotherapy, yet from one RCT each.LimitationsFirst, various tools have been utilized to measure the irritability in ASD, which may contribute to the heterogeneity of the outcomes. Second, meta-analyses for each intervention included only a small number of studies and participants.ConclusionsOnly risperidone, aripiprazole among pharmacological interventions, and parent training among non-pharmacological interventions can be recommended for irritability in ASD. As an augmentation to risperidone, several novel treatments show promising effects, but further RCTs are needed to replicate findings.Trial registration PROSPERO, CRD42021243965.ConclusionsOnly risperidone, aripiprazole among pharmacological interventions, and parent training among non-pharmacological interventions can be recommended for irritability in ASD. As an augmentation to risperidone, several novel treatments show promising effects, but further RCTs are needed to replicate findings.Trial registration PROSPERO, CRD42021243965.
|
|
| 2. |
- Kim, Jae Han, et al.
(författare)
-
Environmental Risk Factors, Protective Factors, and Biomarkers for Postpartum Depressive Symptoms : An Umbrella Review
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. - : Elsevier. - 0149-7634 .- 1873-7528. ; 140
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- We performed an umbrella review on environmental risk/protective factors and biomarkers for postpartum depressive symptoms to establish a hierarchy of evidence. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception until 12 January 2021. We included systematic reviews providing meta-analyses related to our research objectives. Methodological quality was assessed by AMSTAR 2, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated by GRADE. This review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021230784). We identified 30 articles, which included 45 environmental risk/protective factors (154594 cases, 7302273 population) and 9 biomarkers (2018 cases, 16757 population). The credibility of evidence was convincing (class I) for antenatal anxiety (OR 2.49, 1.91-3.25) and psychological violence (OR 1.93, 1.54-2.42); and highly suggestive (class II) for intimate partner violence experience (OR 2.86, 2.12-3.87), intimate partner violence during pregnancy (RR 2.81, 2.11-3.74), smoking during pregnancy (OR 2.39, 1.78-3.2), history of premenstrual syndrome (OR 2.2, 1.81-2.68), any type of violence experience (OR 2.04, 1.72-2.41), primiparity compared to multiparity (RR 1.76, 1.59-1.96), and unintended pregnancy (OR 1.53, 1.35-1.75).
|
|
| 3. |
- Kim, Tai Lim, et al.
(författare)
-
Tea Consumption and Risk of Cancer: An Umbrella Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies
- 2020
-
Ingår i: ADVANCES IN NUTRITION. - : OXFORD UNIV PRESS. - 2161-8313. ; 11:6, s. 1437-1452
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Tea is one of the most widely consumed beverages, but its association with cancer risk remains controversial and unclear. We performed an umbrella review to clarify and determine the associations between tea consumption and various types of cancer by summarizing and recalculating the existing meta-analyses. Meta-analyses of observational studies reporting associations between tea consumption and cancer risk were searched on PubMed and Embase. Associations found to be statistically significant were further classified into levels of evidence (convincing, suggestive, or weak), based on P value, between-study heterogeneity, prediction intervals, and small study effects. Sixty-four observational studies (case-control or cohort) corresponding to 154 effect sizes on the incidence of 25 types of cancer were included. Forty-three (27.9%) results in 15 different types of cancer were statistically significant. When combining all studies on the same type of cancer, 19 results in 11 different types of cancer showed significant associations with lower risk of gastrointestinal tract organ cancer (oral, gastric, colorectal, biliary tract, and liver cancer), breast cancer, and gynecological cancer (endometrial and ovarian cancer) as well as leukemia, lung cancer, and thyroid cancer. Only the reduced risk of oral cancer in tea-consuming populations (OR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.55, 0.72; P value < 10(-6)) was supported by convincing evidence. Suggestive evidence was found for 6 results on biliary tract, breast, endometrial, liver, and oral cancer.To summarize, tea consumption was shown to have protective effects on some types of cancer, particularly oral cancer. More well-designed prospective studies are needed with consideration of other factors that can cause biases.
|
|
| 4. |
- Lee, Keum Hwa, et al.
(författare)
-
Consumption of Fish and omega-3 Fatty Acids and Cancer Risk: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies
- 2020
-
Ingår i: ADVANCES IN NUTRITION. - : OXFORD UNIV PRESS. - 2161-8313 .- 2156-5376. ; 11:5, s. 1134-1149
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Multiple studies have suggested that omega-3 fatty acid intake may have a protective effect on cancer risk; however, its true association with cancer risk remains controversial. We performed an umbrella review of meta-analyses to summarize and evaluate the evidence for the association between omega-3 fatty acid intake and cancer outcomes. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to December 1, 2018. We included meta-analyses of observational studies that examined associations between intake of fish or omega-3 fatty acid and cancer risk (gastrointestinal, liver, breast, gynecologic, prostate, brain, lung, and skin) and determined the level of evidence of associations. In addition, we appraised the quality of the evidence of significant meta-analyses by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. We initially screened 598 articles, and 15 articles, including 57 meta-analyses, were eligible. Among 57 meta-analyses, 15 reported statistically significant results. We found that 12 meta-analyses showed weak evidence of an association between omega-3 fatty acid intake and risk of the following types of cancer: liver cancer (n = 4 of 6), breast cancer (n = 3 of 14), prostate cancer (n = 3 of 11), and brain tumor (n = 2 of 2). In the other 3 meta-analyses, studies of endometrial cancer and skin cancer, there were no assessable data for determining the evidence levels. No meta-analysis showed convincing, highly suggestive, or suggestive evidence of an association. In the sensitivity analysis of meta analyses by study design, we found weak associations between omega-3 fatty acid intake and breast cancer risk in cohort studies, but no statistically significant association in case-control studies. However, the opposite results were found in case of brain tumor risk. Although omega-3 fatty acids have been studied in several meta-analyses with regard to a wide range of cancer outcomes, only weak associations were identified in some cancer types, with several limitations. Considering the nonsignificant or weak evidence level, clinicians and researchers should cautiously interpret reported associations between omega-3 fatty acid consumption and cancer risks.
|
|
| 5. |
- Lee, Keum Hwa, et al.
(författare)
-
Efficacy of Corticosteroids in Patients with SARS, MERS and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Medicine. - : MDPI. - 2077-0383. ; 9:8
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- (1) Background: The use of corticosteroids in critical coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), or Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has been controversial. However, a meta-analysis on the efficacy of steroids in treating these coronavirus infections is lacking. (2) Purpose: We assessed a methodological criticism on the quality of previous published meta-analyses and the risk of misleading conclusions with important therapeutic consequences. We also examined the evidence of the efficacy of corticosteroids in reducing mortality in SARS, MERS and COVID-19. (3) Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were used to identify studies published until 25 April 2020, that reported associations between steroid use and mortality in treating SARS/MERS/COVID-19. Two investigators screened and extracted data independently. Searches were restricted to studies on humans, and articles that did not report the exact number of patients in each group or data on mortality were excluded. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs) under the fixed- and random-effect model. (4) Results: Eight articles (4051 patients) were eligible for inclusion. Among these selected studies, 3416 patients were diagnosed with SARS, 360 patients with MERS, and 275 with COVID-19; 60.3% patients were administered steroids. The meta-analyses including all studies showed no differences overall in terms of mortality (OR 1.152, 95% CI 0.631-2.101 in the random effects model,p= 0.645). However, this conclusion might be biased, because, in some studies, the patients in the steroid group had more severe symptoms than those in the control group. In contrast, when the meta-analysis was performed restricting only to studies that used appropriate adjustment (e.g., time, disease severity), there was a significant difference between the two groups (HR 0.378, 95% CI 0.221-0.646 in the random effects model,p< 0.0001). Although there was no difference in mortality when steroids were used in severe cases, there was a difference among the group with more underlying diseases (OR 3.133, 95% CI 1.670-5.877,p< 0.001). (5) Conclusions: To our knowledge, this study is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis providing the most accurate evidence on the effect of steroids in coronavirus infections. If not contraindicated, and in the absence of side effects, the use of steroids should be considered in coronavirus infection including COVID-19.
|
|
| 6. |
- Kim, Jong Yeob, et al.
(författare)
-
Association between autism spectrum disorder and inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Autism Research. - : WILEY. - 1939-3792 .- 1939-3806. ; 15:2, s. 340-352
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are frequently diagnosed with co-occurring medical conditions including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). To investigate the association, we conducted a systematic review registered in PROSPERO (ID:CRD42021236263) with a random-effects meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Embase, and PsycInfo (last search on January 25, 2021), and manually searched relevant publications. We included observational studies measuring the association between ASD and IBD. The primary outcome was the association (odds ratio, OR) between ASD and later development of IBD. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by quality, confounding adjustment, and study design. We performed meta-regression analyses and assessed heterogeneity, publication bias, and quality of studies with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Overall, we included six studies consisting of eight datasets, including over 11 million participants. We found that ASD was significantly associated with subsequent incident IBD (any IBD, OR = 1.66, 95% confidence interval[CI] = 1.25-2.21, p < 0.001; ulcerative colitis, OR = 1.91, 95%CI = 1.41-2.6, p < 0.001; Crohns disease, OR = 1.47, 95%CI = 1.15-1.88, p = 0.002). ASD and IBD were also associated regardless of temporal sequence of diagnosis (any IBD, OR = 1.57, 95%CI = 1.28-1.93, p < 0.001; ulcerative colitis, OR = 1.7, 95%CI = 1.36-2.12, p < 0.001; Crohns disease, OR = 1.37, 95%CI = 1.12-1.69, p = 0.003). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the findings of the main analysis. Meta-regression did not identify any significant moderators. Publication bias was not detected. Quality was high in four datasets and medium in four. In conclusion, our findings highlight the need to screen for IBD in individuals with ASD, and future research should identify who, among those with ASD, has the highest risk of IBD, and elucidate the shared biological mechanisms between ASD and IBD.
|
|
| 7. |
- Kim, Jong Yeob, et al.
(författare)
-
Environmental risk factors and biomarkers for autism spectrum disorder: an umbrella review of the evidence
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Lancet psychiatry. - : ELSEVIER SCI LTD. - 2215-0374 .- 2215-0366. ; 6:7, s. 590-600
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Numerous studies have identified potential risk factors and biomarkers for autism spectrum disorder. We aimed to study the strength and validity of the suggested environmental risk factors or biomarkers of autism spectrum disorder. Methods We did an umbrella review and systematically appraised the relevant meta-analyses of observational studies. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for papers published between database inception and Oct 17, 2018, and screened the reference list of relevant articles. We obtained the summary effect, 95% CI, heterogeneity, and 95% prediction intervals. We examined small study effects and excess significance. We did analyses under credibility ceilings. This review is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018091704. Findings 46 eligible articles yielded data on 67 environmental risk factors (544 212 cases, 81 708 787 individuals) and 52 biomarkers (15 614 cases, 15 433 controls). Evidence of association was convincing for maternal age of 35 years or over (relative risk [RR] 1.31, 95% CI 1.18-1.45), maternal chronic hypertension (odds ratio [OR] 1.48, 1.29-1.70), maternal gestational hypertension (OR 1.37, 1.21-1.54), maternal overweight before or during pregnancy (RR 1.28, 1.19-1.36), pre-eclampsia (RR 1.32, 1.20-1.45), prepregnancy maternal antidepressant use (RR 1.48, 1.29-1.71), and maternal selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) use during pregnancy (OR 1.84, 1.60-2.11). Only two associations, maternal overweight before or during pregnancy and SSRI use during pregnancy, retained their high level of evidence under subset sensitivity analyses. Evidence from biomarkers was scarce, being supported by p values close to the significance threshold and too few cases. Interpretation Convincing evidence suggests that maternal factors, such as age and features of metabolic syndrome, are associated with risk of autism spectrum disorder. Although SSRI use during pregnancy was also associated with such risk when exposed and non-exposed groups were compared, this association could be affected by other confounding factors, considering that prepregnancy maternal antidepressant use was also convincingly associated with higher risk of autism spectrum disorder. Findings from previous studies suggest that one possible confounding factor is underlying maternal psychiatric disorders. Copyright (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 8. |
- Lee, Jinhee, et al.
(författare)
-
Genetic Variation and Autism : A Field Synopsis and Systematic Meta-Analysis
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Brain Sciences. - : MDPI. - 2076-3425 .- 2076-3425. ; 10:10
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This study aimed to verify noteworthy findings between genetic risk factors and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) by employing the false positive report probability (FPRP) and the Bayesian false-discovery probability (BFDP). PubMed and the Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) catalog were searched from inception to 1 August, 2019. We included meta-analyses on genetic factors of ASD of any study design. Overall, twenty-seven meta-analyses articles from literature searches, and four manually added articles from the GWAS catalog were re-analyzed. This showed that five of 31 comparisons for meta-analyses of observational studies, 40 out of 203 comparisons for the GWAS meta-analyses, and 18 out of 20 comparisons for the GWAS catalog, respectively, had noteworthy estimations under both Bayesian approaches. In this study, we found noteworthy genetic comparisons highly related to an increased risk of ASD. Multiple genetic comparisons were shown to be associated with ASD risk; however, genuine associations should be carefully verified and understood.
|
|
| 9. |
- Solmi, Marco, et al.
(författare)
-
Balancing risks and benefits of cannabis use: umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and observational studies
- 2023
-
Ingår i: BMJ. British Medical Journal. - : BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP. - 0959-8146 .- 0959-535X. ; 382
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE To systematically assess credibility and certainty of associations between cannabis, cannabinoids, and cannabis based medicines and human health, from observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DESIGN Umbrella review. DATA SOURCES PubMed, PsychInfo, Embase, up to 9 February 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES Systematic reviews with meta-analyses of observational studies and RCTs that have reported on the efficacy and safety of cannabis, cannabinoids, or cannabis based medicines were included. Credibility was graded according to convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or not significant (observational evidence), and by GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) (RCTs). Quality was assessed with AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2). Sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS 101 meta-analyses were included (observational=50, RCTs=51) (AMSTAR 2 high 33, moderate 31, low 32, or critically low 5). From RCTs supported by high to moderate certainty, cannabis based medicines increased adverse events related to the central nervous system (equivalent odds ratio 2.84 (95% confidence interval 2.16 to 3.73)), psychological effects (3.07 (1.79 to 5.26)), and vision (3.00 (1.79 5.03)) in people with mixed conditions (GRADE=high), improved nausea/vomit, pain, spasticity, but increased psychiatric, gastrointestinal adverse event, and somnolence among others (GRADE=moderate). Cannabidiol improved 50% reduction of seizures (0.59 (0.38 to 0.92)) and seizure events (0.59 (0.36 to 0.96)) (GRADE=high), but increased pneumonia, gastrointestinal adverse events, and somnolence (GRADE=moderate). For chronic pain, cannabis based medicines or cannabinoids reduced pain by 30% (0.59 (0.37 to 0.93), GRADE=high), across different conditions (n=7), but increased psychological distress. For epilepsy, cannabidiol increased risk of diarrhoea (2.25 (1.33 to 3.81)), had no effect on sleep disruption (GRADE=high), reduced seizures across different populations and measures (n=7), improved global impression (n=2), quality of life, and increased risk of somnolence (GRADE=moderate). In the general population, cannabis worsened positive psychotic symptoms (5.21 (3.36 to 8.01)) and total psychiatric symptoms (7.49 (5.31 to 10.42)) (GRADE=high), negative psychotic symptoms, and cognition (n=11) (GRADE=moderate). In healthy people, cannabinoids improved pain threshold (0.74 (0.59 to 0.91)), unpleasantness (0.60 (0.41 to 0.88)) (GRADE=high). For inflammatory bowel disease, cannabinoids improved quality of life (0.34 (0.22 to 0.53) (GRADE=high). For multiple sclerosis, cannabinoids improved spasticity, pain, but increased risk of dizziness, dry mouth, nausea, somnolence (GRADE=moderate). For cancer, cannabinoids improved sleep disruption, but had gastrointestinal adverse events (n=2) (GRADE=moderate). Cannabis based medicines, cannabis, and cannabinoids resulted in poor tolerability across various conditions (GRADE=moderate). Evidence was convincing from observational studies (main and sensitivity analyses); in pregnant women, small for gestational age (1.61 (1.41 to 1.83)), low birth weight (1.43 (1.27 to 1.62)); in drivers, car crash (1.27 (1.21 to 1.34)); and in the general population, psychosis (1.71 (1.47 to 2.00)). Harmful effects were noted for additional neonatal outcomes, outcomes related to car crash, outcomes in the general population including psychotic symptoms, suicide attempt, depression, and mania, and impaired cognition in healthy cannabis users (all suggestive to highly suggestive). CONCLUSIONS Convincing or converging evidence supports avoidance of cannabis during adolescence and early adulthood, in people prone to or with mental health disorders, in pregnancy and before and while driving. Cannabidiol is effective in people with epilepsy. Cannabis based medicines are effective in people with multiple sclerosis, chronic pain, inflammatory bowel disease, and in palliative medicine, but not without adverse events.
|
|
