Objective Examine the effectiveness of specific modes of exercise training in non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP). Design Network meta-analysis (NMA). Data sources MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, EMBASE, CENTRAL. Eligibility criteria Exercise training randomised controlled/clinical trials in adults with NSCLBP. Results Among 9543 records, 89 studies (patients=5578) were eligible for qualitative synthesis and 70 (pain), 63 (physical function), 16 (mental health) and 4 (trunk muscle strength) for NMA. The NMA consistency model revealed that the following exercise training modalities had the highest probability (surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA)) of being best when compared with true control: Pilates for pain (SUCRA=100%; pooled standardised mean difference (95% CI): −1.86 (–2.54 to –1.19)), resistance (SUCRA=80%; −1.14 (–1.71 to –0.56)) and stabilisation/motor control (SUCRA=80%; −1.13 (–1.53 to –0.74)) for physical function and resistance (SUCRA=80%; −1.26 (–2.10 to –0.41)) and aerobic (SUCRA=80%; −1.18 (–2.20 to –0.15)) for mental health. True control was most likely (SUCRA≤10%) to be the worst treatment for all outcomes, followed by therapist hands-off control for pain (SUCRA=10%; 0.09 (–0.71 to 0.89)) and physical function (SUCRA=20%; −0.31 (–0.94 to 0.32)) and therapist hands-on control for mental health (SUCRA=20%; −0.31 (–1.31 to 0.70)). Stretching and McKenzie exercise effect sizes did not differ to true control for pain or function (p>0.095; SUCRA Summary/conclusion There is low quality evidence that Pilates, stabilisation/motor control, resistance training and aerobic exercise training are the most effective treatments, pending outcome of interest, for adults with NSCLBP. Exercise training may also be more effective than therapist hands-on treatment. Heterogeneity among studies and the fact that there are few studies with low risk of bias are both limitations.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/54/21/1279.full.pdf

Which specific modes of exercise training are most effective for treating low back pain? Network meta-analysis

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/wps.20526

Lack of evidence to favor specific preventive interventions in psychosis: a network meta-analysis.

Development of the summary of findings table for network meta-analysis.

Guidelines recommend exercise as a core treatment for osteoarthritis (OA). However, it is unclear which type of exercise is most effective, leading to inconsistency between different recommendations. The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to investigate the relative efficacy of different exercises (aerobic, mind–body, strengthening, flexibility/skill, or mixed) for improving pain, function, performance and quality of life (QoL) for knee and hip OA at, or nearest to, 8 weeks. We searched nine electronic databases up until December 2017 for randomised controlled trials that compared exercise with usual care or with another exercise type. Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to estimate the relative effect size (ES) and corresponding 95% credibility interval (CrI) (PROSPERO registration: CRD42016033865). We identified and analysed 103 trials (9134 participants). Aerobic exercise was most beneficial for pain (ES 1.11; 95% CrI 0.69, 1.54) and performance (1.05; 0.63, 1.48). Mind–body exercise, which had pain benefit equivalent to that of aerobic exercise (1.11; 0.63, 1.59), was the best for function (0.81; 0.27, 1.36). Strengthening and flexibility/skill exercises improved multiple outcomes at a moderate level. Mixed exercise was the least effective for all outcomes and had significantly less pain relief than aerobic and mind–body exercises. The trend was significant for pain (p = 0.01), but not for function (p = 0.07), performance (p = 0.06) or QoL (p = 0.65). The effect of exercise varies according to the type of exercise and target outcome. Aerobic or mind–body exercise may be the best for pain and function improvements. Strengthening and flexibility/skill exercises may be used for multiple outcomes. Mixed exercise is the least effective and the reason for this merits further investigation.

/pdf/relative-efficacy-of-different-exercises-for-pain-function-31wvdl7dgs.pdf

Relative Efficacy of Different Exercises for Pain, Function, Performance and Quality of Life in Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background Despite great advances in assisted reproductive technology, poor ovarian response (POR) is still considered as one of the most challenging tasks in reproductive medicine. Objective and rationale The aim of this systemic review is to evaluate the role of different adjuvant treatment strategies on the probability of pregnancy achievement in poor responders undergoing IVF. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 10 adjuvant treatments [testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), letrozole, recombinant LH, recombinant hCG, oestradiol, clomiphene citrate, progesterone, growth hormone (GH) and coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10)] were included. Search methods Relevant studies published in the English language were comprehensively selected using PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) until 11 July 2018. We included studies that investigated various adjuvant agents, including androgen and androgen-modulating agents, oestrogen, progesterone, clomiphene citrate, GH and CoQ10, during IVF treatment and reported subsequent pregnancy outcomes. The administration of GnRH analogs and gonadotrophins without adjuvant treatment was set as the control. We measured study quality based on the methodology and categories listed in the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. This review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018086217). Outcomes Of the 1124 studies initially identified, 46 trials reporting on 6312 women were included in this systematic review, while 19 trials defining POR using the Bologna criteria reporting 2677 women were included in the network meta-analysis. Compared with controls, DHEA and CoQ10 treatments resulted in a significantly higher chance of clinical pregnancy [odds ratio (OR) 2.46, 95% CI 1.16 to 5.23; 2.22, 1.08-4.58, respectively]. With regard to the number of retrieved oocytes, HCG, oestradiol and GH treatments had the highest number of oocytes retrieved [weighted mean difference (WMD) 2.08, 0.72 to 3.44; 2.02, 0.23 to 3.81; 1.72, 0.98 to 2.46, compared with controls, respectively]. With regard to the number of embryos transferred, testosterone and GH treatment led to the highest number of embryos transferred (WMD 0.72, 0.11 to 1.33; 0.67, 0.43 to 0.92; compared with controls, respectively). Moreover, GH resulted in the highest oestradiol level on the HCG day (WMD 797.63, 466.45 to 1128.81, compared with controls). Clomiphene citrate, letrozole and GH groups used the lowest dosages of gonadotrophins for ovarian stimulation (WMD 1760.00, -2890.55 to -629.45; -1110.17, -1753.37 to -466.96; -875.91, -1433.29 to -282.52; compared with controls, respectively). CoQ10 led to the lowest global cancelation rate (OR 0.33, 0.15 to 0.74, compared with controls). Wider implications For patients with POR, controlled ovarian stimulation protocols using adjuvant treatment with DHEA, CoQ10 and GH showed better clinical outcomes in terms of achieving pregnancy, and a lower dosage of gonadotrophin required for ovulation induction. Furthermore, high-level RCT studies using uniform standards for POR need to be incorporated into future meta-analyses.

/pdf/adjuvant-treatment-strategies-in-ovarian-stimulation-for-28fxrlu26r.pdf

Adjuvant treatment strategies in ovarian stimulation for poor responders undergoing IVF: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

When randomized trials have addressed multiple interventions for the same health problem, network meta-analyses (NMAs) permit researchers to statistically pool data from individual studies including evidence from both direct and indirect comparisons. Grasping the significance of the results of NMAs may be very challenging. Authors may present the findings from such analyses in several numerical and graphical ways. In this paper, we discuss ranking strategies and visual depictions of rank, including the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve method. We present ranking approaches’ merits and limitations and provide an example of how to apply the results of a NMA to clinical practice.

/pdf/approaches-to-interpreting-and-choosing-the-best-treatments-1y8y9oazy6.pdf

D. Heels-Andsell

Papers

Approaches to interpreting and choosing the best treatments in network meta-analyses