Statistical Analysis Of Dichotomous Data Research Articles

Interventions for frostbite injuries.

Frostbite is a thermal injury caused when tissue is exposed to sub-zero temperatures (in degrees Celsius) long enough for ice crystals to form in the affected tissue. Depending on the degree of tissue damage, thrombosis, ischaemia, necrosis (tissue death), gangrene and ultimately amputation may occur. Several interventions for frostbite injuries have been proposed, such as hyperbaric oxygen therapy, sympathectomy (nerve block), thrombolytic (blood-thinning) therapy and vasodilating agents such as iloprost, reserpine, pentoxifylline and buflomedil, but the benefits and harms of these interventions are unclear. To assess the benefits and harms of the different management options for frostbite injuries. On 25 February 2020, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase (OvidSP), ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S), as well as trials registers. Shortly before publication, we searched Clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, OpenGrey and GreyLit (9 November 2020) again. We investigated references from relevant articles, and corresponded with a trial author. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any medical intervention, e.g. pharmacological therapy, topical treatments or rewarming techniques, for frostbite injuries to another treatment, placebo or no treatment. Two authors independently extracted data. We used Review Manager 5 for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess bias in the included trial. We assessed incidence of amputations, rates of serious and non-serious adverse events, acute pain, chronic pain, ability to perform activities of daily living, quality of life, withdrawal rate from medical therapy due to adverse events, occupational effects and mortality. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence. We included one, open-label randomised trial involving 47 participants with severe frostbite injuries. We judged this trial to be at high risk of bias for performance bias, and uncertain risk for attrition bias; all other risk of bias domains we judged as low. All participants underwent rapid rewarming, received 250 mg of aspirin and 400 mg intravascular (IV) buflomedil (since withdrawn from practice), and were then randomised to one of three treatment groups for the following eight days. Group 1 received additional IV buflomedil 400 mg for one hour per day. Group 2 received the prostacyclin, iloprost, 0.5 ng to 2 ng/kg/min IV for six hours per day. Group 3 received IV iloprost 2 ng/kg/min for six hours per day plus fibrinolysis with 100 mg recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) for the first day only. The results suggest that iloprost and iloprost plus rtPA may reduce the rate of amputations in people with severe frostbite compared to buflomedil alone, RR 0.05 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.78; P = 0.03; very low-quality evidence) and RR 0.31 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.94; P = 0.04; very low-quality evidence), respectively. Iloprost may be as effective as iloprost plus rtPA at reducing the amputation rate, RR 0.14 (95% CI 0.01 to 2.56; P = 0.19; very low-quality evidence). There were no reported deaths or withdrawals due to adverse events in any of the groups; we assessed evidence for both outcomes as being of very low quality. Adverse events (including flushing, nausea, palpitations and vomiting) were common, but not reported separately by comparator arm (very low-quality evidence). The included study did not measure the outcomes of acute pain, chronic pain, ability to perform activities of daily living, quality of life or occupational effects. There is a paucity of evidence regarding interventions for frostbite injuries. Very low-quality evidence from a single small trial indicates that iloprost, and iloprost plus rtPA, in combination with buflomedil may reduce the need for amputation in people with severe frostbite compared to buflomedil alone. However, buflomedil has been withdrawn from use. High quality randomised trials are needed to establish firm evidence for the treatment of frostbite injuries.

Aminoadamantanes versus other antiviral drugs for chronic hepatitis C.

Aminoadamantanes versus other antiviral drugs for chronic hepatitis C.

Antibody induction versus placebo, no induction, or another type of antibody induction for liver transplant recipients.

Antibody induction versus placebo, no induction, or another type of antibody induction for liver transplant recipients.

Antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction for liver transplant recipients.

Liver transplantation is an established treatment option for end-stage liver failure. To date, no consensus has been reached on the use of immunosuppressive T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction of immunosuppression after liver transplantation. To assess the benefits and harms of T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction for prevention of acute rejection in liver transplant recipients. We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 30 September 2013 together with reference checking, citation searching, contact with trial authors and pharmaceutical companies to identify additional trials. We included all randomised clinical trials assessing immunosuppression with T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction in liver transplant recipients. Our inclusion criteria stated that participants within each included trial should have received the same maintenance immunosuppressive therapy. We used RevMan for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) and of continuous data with mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of systematic errors (bias) using bias risk domains with definitions. We used trial sequential analysis to control for random errors (play of chance). We included 10 randomised trials with a total of 1589 liver transplant recipients, which studied the use of T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction. All trials were with high risk of bias. We compared any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction in 10 trials with 1589 participants, including interleukin-2 receptor antagonist induction versus corticosteroid induction in nine trials with 1470 participants, and polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction in one trial with 119 participants.Our analyses showed no significant differences regarding mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.43), graft loss (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.53) and acute rejection (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.00), infection (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.09), hepatitis C virus recurrence (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.00), malignancy (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.73), and post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.38) when any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (all low-quality evidence). Cytomegalovirus infection was less frequent in patients receiving any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.75; low-quality evidence). This was also observed when interleukin-2 receptor antagonist induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.83; low-quality evidence), and when polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.70; low-quality evidence). However, when trial sequential analysis regarding cytomegalovirus infection was applied, the required information size was not reached. Furthermore, diabetes mellitus occurred less frequently when T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60; low-quality evidence), when interleukin-2 receptor antagonist induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; low-quality evidence), and when polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.95; low-quality evidence). When trial sequential analysis was applied, the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit was crossed. We found no subgroup differences for type of interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (basiliximab versus daclizumab). Four trials reported on adverse events. However, no differences between trial groups were noted. Limited data were available for meta-analysis on drug-specific adverse events such as haematological adverse events for antithymocyte globulin. No data were available on quality of life. Because of the low quality of the evidence, the effects of T-cell antibody induction remain uncertain. T-cell specific antibody induction seems to reduce diabetes mellitus and may reduce cytomegalovirus infection when compared with corticosteroid induction. No other clear benefits or harms were associated with the use of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction. For some analyses, the number of trials investigating the use of T-cell specific antibody induction after liver transplantation is small, and the numbers of participants and outcomes in these randomised trials are limited. Furthermore, the included trials are heterogeneous in nature and have applied different types of T-cell specific antibody induction therapy. All trials were at high risk of bias. Hence, additional randomised clinical trials are needed to assess the benefits and harms of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction for liver transplant recipients. Such trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic error and of random error.

Immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction for heart transplant recipients

Heart transplantation has become a valuable and well-accepted treatment option for end-stage heart failure. Rejection of the transplanted heart by the recipient's body is a risk to the success of the procedure, and life-long immunosuppression is necessary to avoid this. Clear evidence is required to identify the best, safest and most effective immunosuppressive treatment strategy for heart transplant recipients. To date, there is no consensus on the use of immunosuppressive antibodies against T-cells for induction after heart transplantation. To review the benefits, harms, feasibility and tolerability of immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction versus placebo, or no antibody induction, or another kind of antibody induction for heart transplant recipients. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 11, 2012), MEDLINE (Ovid) (1946 to November Week 1 2012), EMBASE (Ovid) (1946 to 2012 Week 45), ISI Web of Science (14 November 2012); we also searched two clinical trial registers and checked reference lists in November 2012. We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) assessing immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction for heart transplant recipients. Within individual trials, we required all participants to receive the same maintenance immunosuppressive therapy. Two authors extracted data independently. RevMan analysis was used for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR), and of continuous data with mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological components were used to assess risks of systematic errors (bias). Trial sequential analysis was used to assess the risks of random errors (play of chance). We assessed mortality, acute rejection, infection, Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder, cancer, adverse events, chronic allograft vasculopathy, renal function, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and hyperlipidaemia. In this review, we included 22 RCTs that investigated the use of T-cell antibody induction, with a total of 1427 heart-transplant recipients. All trials were judged to be at a high risk of bias. Five trials, with a total of 606 participants, compared any kind of T-cell antibody induction versus no antibody induction; four trials, with a total of 576 participants, compared interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (IL-2 RA) versus no induction; one trial, with 30 participants, compared monoclonal antibody (other than IL-2 RA) versus no antibody induction; two trials, with a total of 159 participants, compared IL-2 RA versus monoclonal antibody (other than IL-2 RA) induction; four trials, with a total of 185 participants, compared IL-2 RA versus polyclonal antibody induction; seven trials, with a total of 315 participants, compared monoclonal antibody (other than IL-2 RA) versus polyclonal antibody induction; and four trials, with a total of 162 participants, compared polyclonal antibody induction versus another kind, or dose of polyclonal antibodies.No significant differences were found for any of the comparisons for the outcomes of mortality, infection, CMV infection, post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder, cancer, adverse events, chronic allograft vasculopathy, renal function, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, or hyperlipidaemia. Acute rejection occurred significantly less frequently when IL-2 RA induction was compared with no induction (93/284 (33%) versus 132/292 (45%); RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.90; I(2) 57%) applying the fixed-effect model. No significant difference was found when the random-effects model was applied (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.17; I(2) 57%). In addition, acute rejection occurred more often statistically when IL-2 RA induction was compared with polyclonal antibody induction (24/90 (27%) versus 10/95 (11%); RR 2.43; 95% CI 1.01 to 5.86; I(2) 28%). For all of these differences in acute rejection, trial sequential alpha-spending boundaries were not crossed and the required information sizes were not reached when trial sequential analysis was performed, indicating that we cannot exclude random errors.We observed some occasional significant differences in adverse events in some of the comparisons, however definitions of adverse events varied between trials, and numbers of participants and events in these outcomes were too small to allow definitive conclusions to be drawn. This review shows that acute rejection might be reduced by IL-2 RA compared with no induction, and by polyclonal antibody induction compared with IL-2 RA, though trial sequential analyses cannot exclude random errors, and the significance of our observations depended on the statistical model used. Furthermore, this review does not show other clear benefits or harms associated with the use of any kind of T-cell antibody induction compared with no induction, or when one type of T-cell antibody is compared with another type of antibody. The number of trials investigating the use of antibodies against T-cells for induction after heart transplantation is small, and the number of participants and outcomes in these RCTs is limited. Furthermore, the included trials are at a high risk of bias. Hence, more RCTs are needed to assess the benefits and harms of T-cell antibody induction for heart-transplant recipients. Such trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic and random error.

Phyllanthus species versus antiviral drugs for chronic hepatitis B virus infection

Phyllanthus species for patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection have been assessed in clinical trials, but no consensus regarding their usefulness exists. When compared with placebo or no intervention, we were unable to identify convincing evidence that phyllanthus species are beneficial in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Some randomised clinical trials have compared phyllanthus species versus antiviral drugs. To evaluate the benefits and harms of phyllanthus species compared with antiviral drugs for patients with chronic HBV infection. Searches were performed in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Gorup Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expended, and the Chinese Biomedical CD Database, China Network Knowledge Information, Chinese Science Journal Database, TCM Online, and Wanfang Database. Conference proceedings in Chinese were handsearched. All searches were conducted until 31st October 2012. Randomised clinical trials comparing phyllanthus species with antiviral drugs for patients with chronic HBV infection. We included trials irrespective of blinding, publication status, or language. Two authors selected the trials and extracted the data independently. The RevMan software was used for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risk of bias to control for systematic errors. We calculated the number of patients needed (required information size) to be randomised in order to make reliable conclusions. We assessed the cumulative findings with trial sequential analysis to control for random errors. We identified five randomised clinical trials with 290 patients. All trials were considered to have high risk of bias. Patients in the experimental group received compound phyllanthus for three months to 12 months. Patients in the antiviral drug group received lamivudine, interferon alpha, thymosin, or thymosin alpha 1. None of the trials reported mortality, hepatitis B-related morbidity, quality of life, or liver histology. Phyllanthus seemed to have a superior effect on clearance of serum HBeAg at the end of treatment in conventional meta-analysis (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91, P = 0.002; I(2) = 0%), but not when trial sequential analysis was applied. Phyllanthus had no significant effect on clearance of serum HBsAg (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08, P = 0.92; I(2) = 0%) or HBV DNA (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.31, P = 0.43; I(2) = 70%) when compared with antiviral drugs. Data on HBeAg seroconversion was reported in one trial and no significant difference was found comparing phyllanthus versus lamivudine (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.11). No data were reported on adverse events in the five trials. There is currently insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of phyllanthus for patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection. Researchers who are interested in conducting further randomised clinical trials on phyllanthus ought to monitor both beneficial and harmful effects and should primarily test the herb against placebo in addition to antiviral drugs that are known to offer more benefit than harm. Only in this way new interventions can be assessed without compromising personal ethical considerations.

Bezafibrate for primary biliary cirrhosis

Treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis is complicated. There are studies suggesting that bezafibrate, alone or in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), is effective in the treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis, but no systematic review has summarised the evidence yet.To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of bezafibrate in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis.The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, Clinicaltrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and full text searches were conducted until November 2011. The searches in Chinese Bio-medical Literature Database, China Network Knowledge Information, Chinese Science Journal Database, Chinese Medical Citation Index, Wanfang Database, and full text searches were conducted until January 2011. Manufacturers and authors were contacted.All randomised clinical trials comparing bezafibrate at any dose or regimen in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis with placebo or no intervention, or with another drug. Any concomitant interventions were allowed if received equally by all treatment groups in a trial.Two authors extracted data. RevMan Analysis was used for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) or risk difference (RD), and of continuous data with mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological domains were used to assess risk of systematic errors (bias). Trial sequential analysis was used to control for random errors (play of chance).Six trials with 151 Japanese patients were included. All trials had high risk of bias. Four trials compared bezafibrate plus UDCA with no intervention plus UDCA (referenced as bezafibrate versus no intervention in the remaining text), and two trials compared bezafibrate with UDCA. No patient died and no patient developed liver-related complications in any of the included trials. Bezafibrate was without significant effects on the occurrence of adverse events compared with no intervention (5/32 (16%) versus 0/28 (0%)) (RR 5.40, 95% CI 0.69 to 42.32; 3 trials with 60 patients; I² = 0%) or with UDCA (2/32 (6%) versus 0/37 (0%)) (RR 6.19, 95% CI 0.31 to 122.05; 2 trials with 69 patients; I² = 0%). Bezafibrate significantly decreased the activity of serum alkaline phosphatases compared with no intervention (MD -186.04 U/L, 95% CI -249.03 to -123.04; 4 trials with 79 patients; I² = 34%) and when compared with UDCA (MD -162.90 U/L, 95% CI -199.68 to -126.12; 2 trials with 48 patients; I² = 0%). These results were supported by trial sequential analyses. Bezafibrate compared with no intervention significantly decreased plasma immunoglobulin M (MD -164.00 mg/dl, 95% CI -259.47 to -68.53; 3 trials with 50 patients; I² = 46%) and serum bilirubin concentration (MD -0.19 mg/dl, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.00; 2 trials with 34 patients; I² = 0%). However, the latter two results were not supported by trial sequential analyses. Bezafibrate compared with no intervention had no significant effect on the activity of serum gamma-glutamyltransferase (MD -1.22 U/L, 95% CI -11.97 to 9.52; 4 trials with 79 patients; I² = 42%) and serum alanine aminotransferase (MD -5.61 U/L, 95% CI -24.50 to 13.27; 2 trials with 35 patients; I² = 34%). Bezafibrate compared with UDCA had no significant effect on the activity of serum gamma-glutamyltransferase (MD 38.44 U/L, 95% CI -180.67 to 257.55; 2 trials with 49 patients; I² = 89%), serum alanine aminotransferase (MD -2.34 U/L, 95% CI -34.73 to 30.06; 2 trials with 49 patients; I² = 95%), and plasma immunoglobulin M concentration (MD -20.23 mg/dl, 95% CI -218.71 to 178.25; 2 trials with 41 patients; I² = 90%) in random-effects model meta-analyses, but bezafibrate significantly decreased the activity of serum gamma-glutamyltransferase (MD -58.18, 95% CI -76.49 to -39.88; 2 trials with 49 patients; I² = 89%), serum alanine aminotransferase (MD -13.94, 95% CI -18.78 to -9.09; 2 trials with 49 patients; I² = 95%), and plasma immunoglobulin M concentration (MD -99.90, 95% CI -130.72 to -69.07; 2 trials with 41 patients; I² = 90%) in fixed-effect model meta-analyses. One patient had bezafibrate withdrawn due to an adverse event compared to no intervention (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.16; 2 trials with 60 patients; I² = 0%).This systematic review did not demonstrate any effect of bezafibrate versus no intervention on mortality, liver-related morbidity, adverse events, and pruritus in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. Furthermore, we found no significant effects of bezafibrate on mortality, liver-related morbidity, or adverse events when compared with ursodeoxycholic acid, None of the trials assessed quality of life or fatigue. The data seem to indicate a possible positive intervention effect of bezafibrate on some liver biochemistry measures compared with the control group, but the observed effects could be due to systematic errors or random errors. We need more randomised clinical trials on the effects of bezafibrate on primary biliary cirrhosis with low risks of systematic errors and random errors.

Hormone replacement for osteoporosis in women with primary biliary cirrhosis

Women with primary biliary cirrhosis often suffer from postmenopausal osteoporosis due to their age, or osteoporosis secondary to their liver disease, or treatments provided for their liver disease. Hormone replacement increases bone mineral density and reduces fractures in postmenopausal women. On the other hand, hormone replacement increases the risk of various adverse events. We could not identify any meta-analyses or systematic reviews on hormone replacement in women with primary biliary cirrhosis. To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of hormone replacement for osteoporosis in women with primary biliary cirrhosis. The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, clinicaltrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and full text searches were conducted until November 2011. Manufacturers and authors were contacted during the review conductance. All randomised clinical trials of hormone replacement in primary biliary cirrhosis administered by any route, or regimen, or dose compared with placebo or no intervention. Two authors extracted data. RevMan Analysis was used for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) or risk difference (RD) and of continuous data with mean difference (MD), all with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological domains were used to assess risk of systematic errors (bias). Trial sequential analysis was used to control for random errors (play of chance). Two trials with 49 participants were included. One trial had low risk of bias. The other trial had high risk of bias. Hormone replacement had no effect on all-cause mortality (RD 0.00; 95% CI -0.11 to 0.11, I² = 0%) and fractures (RD -0.08; 95% CI -0.24 to 0.07, I² = 0%). Hormone replacement significantly increased adverse events and number of patients having hormone replacement withdrawn due to adverse events (RR 5.26; 95% CI 1.26 to 22.04, I² = 0%). Hormone replacement had no significant effect on lumbar spine bone mineral density (MD 1.25 g/cm² yearֿ¹; 95% CI -0.91 to 3.42, I² = 0%). On the other hand, a significant increase in proximal femur bone mineral density was observed in the control group (MD 2.24 g/cm² yearֿ¹; 95% CI 0.74 to 3.74, I² = 0%). Hormone replacement had no significant effect on liver-related mortality, liver transplantation, or liver-related morbidity. Hormone replacement had no significant effect on serum bilirubin concentration (MD 4.60 µmol/L; 95% CI -3.42 to 12.62, I² = 0%). We did not find evidence to support the use of hormone replacement for women with primary biliary cirrhosis. It seems that hormone replacement is connected with a significant increase in the occurrence of adverse events.

Bisphosphonates for osteoporosis in primary biliary cirrhosis

Bisphosphonates are widely used for treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Patients with primary biliary cirrhosis often have osteoporosis - either postmenopausal or secondary to the liver disease. No systematic review or meta-analysis has assessed the effects of bisphosphonates for osteoporosis in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of bisphosphonates for osteoporosis in primary biliary cirrhosis. The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, clinicaltrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and full text searches were conducted until November 2011. Manufacturers and authors were contacted for additional studies during the conductance of the review. All randomised clinical trials of bisphosphonates in primary biliary cirrhosis compared with placebo or no intervention, or another bisphosphonate, or any other drug. Two authors extracted data. RevMan Analysis was used for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) or risk difference (RD) and of continuous data with mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD), all with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological components were used to assess risk of systematic errors (bias). Trial sequential analysis was also used to control for random errors (play of chance). Six trials were included. Three trials with 106 participants, of which two trials with high risk of bias, did not demonstrate significant effects of bisphosphonates (etidronate or alendronate) versus placebo or no intervention regarding mortality (RD 0.00; 95% CI -0.12 to 0.12, I² = 0%), fractures (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.29 to 2.66, I² = 0%), or adverse events (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.49 to 2.04). Two trials with 62 participants with high risk of bias compared one bisphosphonate (etidronate or alendronate) versus another (alendronate or ibandronate) and found no significant difference regarding mortality (RD -0.03; 95% CI -0.14 to 0.07, I² = 0%), fractures (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.18 to 5.06, I² = 0%), or adverse events (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.49 to 2.04, I² = 0%). Bisphosphonates had no significant effect on liver-related mortality, liver transplantation, or liver-related morbidity compared with placebo or no intervention, or another bisphosphonate. Bisphosphonates had no significant effect on bone mineral density compared with placebo or no intervention, or another bisphosphonate. Bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no intervention seem to decrease the urinary amino telopeptides of collagen I (NTx) concentration (MD -16.93 nmol bone collagen equivalents/mmol creatinine; 95% CI -23.77 to -10.10; 2 trials with 88 patients; I² = 0%) and serum osteocalcin (SMD -0.81; 95% CI -1.22 to -0.39; 3 trials with 100 patients; I² = 34 %) concentration. The former result was supported by trial sequential analysis, but not the latter. Alendronate compared with another bisphosphonate (ibandronate) had no significant effect on serum osteocalcin concentration (MD -3.61 ng/ml, 95% CI -9.41 to 2.18; 2 trials with 47 patients; I² = 82%) in a random-effects meta-analysis, but it significantly decreased serum osteocalcin (MD -4.40 ng/ml, 95% CI -6.75 to -2.05; 2 trials with 47 patients; I² = 82%), the procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (MD -8.79 ng/ml, 95% CI -15.96 to -1.63; 2 trials with 47 patients; I² = 38%), and NTx concentration (MD -14.07 nmol bone collagen equivalents/mmol creatinine, 95% CI -24.23 to -3.90; 2 trials with 46 patients; I²=0%) in a fixed-effect model. The latter two results were not supported by trial sequential analyses. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of patients having bisphosphonates withdrawn due to adverse events compared with placebo or no intervention (RD -0.04; 95% CI -0.21 to 0.12; 2 trials with 46 patients; I² = 0%), or another bisphosphonate (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.14 to 2.17; 2 trials with 62 patients; I² = 0%). One trial with 32 participants and with high risk of bias compared etidronate versus sodium fluoride without finding significant difference regarding mortality, fractures, adverse events, or bone mineral density. Etidronate compared with sodium fluoride significantly decreased serum osteocalcin, urinary hydroxyproline, and parathyroid hormone concentration. We did not find evidence to support or refute the use of bisphosphonates for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. The data seem to indicate a possible positive intervention effect of bisphosphonates on decreasing urinary amino telopeptides of collagen I concentration compared with placebo or no intervention with no risk of random error. There is need for more randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of bisphosphonates for osteoporosis on patient-relevant outcomes in primary biliary cirrhosis.

Phyllanthus species for chronic hepatitis B virus infection

Phyllanthus species for patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection have been assessed in clinical trials, but no consensus regarding their usefulness exists. To evaluate the benefits and harms of phyllanthus species for patients with chronic HBV infection. Searches were performed in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Gorup Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Chinese Biomedical CD Database, China Network Knowledge Information, Chinese Science Journal Database, TCM Online, and Wanfang Database. Conference proceedings in Chinese were handsearched. All searches were conducted until October 2010. Randomised clinical trials comparing phyllanthus species with placebo or no intervention for patients with chronic HBV infection. Co-interventions were allowed if all comparison groups had received the same co-interventions. We included trials irrespective of blinding, publication status, or language. Two authors selected the trials and extracted the data independently. The RevMan software was used for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Risk of bias was assessed to control for systematic errors. Trial sequential analysis was used in order to control for random errors. A total of 16 randomised trials with 1326 patients were included. One trial with 42 participants compared phyllanthus with placebo. The trial found no significant difference in HBeAg seroconversion after the end of treatment (RR 0.9; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.25) or follow-up (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.60). No other outcomes could be assessed. Fifteen trials compared phyllanthus plus an antiviral drug like interferon alpha, lamivudine, adefovir dipivoxil, thymosin, vidarabine, or conventional treatment with the same antiviral drug alone. Phyllanthus did significantly affect serum HBV DNA (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.91, P = 0.008; I(2) = 71%), serum HBeAg (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.81, P < 0.00001; I(2) = 68%), and HBeAg seroconversion (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.92, P = 0.005; I(2) = 78%), but the heterogeneity was substantial. The result obtained regarding serum HBV DNA was not supported by trial sequential analysis. None of the trials reported mortality and hepatitis B-related morbidity, quality of life, or liver histology. Only two trials reported adverse events with numbers without significant differences. No serious adverse events were reported. There is no convincing evidence that phyllanthus compared with placebo benefits patients with chronic HBV infection. Phyllanthus plus an antiviral drug may be better than the same antiviral drug alone. However, heterogeneity, systematic errors, and random errors question the validity of the results. Clinical trials with large sample size and low risk of bias are needed to confirm our findings. Species of phyllanthus should be reported in future trials, and a dose-finding design is warranted.

The Associations of Floppy Eyelid Syndrome: A Case Control Study

To describe the demographic features of a large series of patients with floppy eyelid syndrome (FES) and to investigate the associations of the condition with keratoconus, obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS), and a variety of upper and lower eyelid features. Case control study. The test group comprised 102 patients with FES. A control group of 102 patients were recruited from a diabetic retinopathy clinic and matched on a 1:1 basis on age, gender, and body mass index (BMI). A full medical and ophthalmic history was taken. Patients also underwent a full ocular examination, including an assessment of upper and lower lid laxity and upper lid levator function. Keratoconus grading was made using the Oculus Instruments Pentacam imaging system (Oculus Optikgerate GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany). Patients were screened for OSAHS using the Epworth daytime somnolence score. Matched statistical analysis of dichotomous data was made using Mantel-Haenszel methods for odds ratios and McNemar's test. Analysis of continuous data was performed using a matched t test and tests for symmetry of larger tables were made using the McNemar-Bowker test. The significance of association of FES with keratoconus, OSAHS, smoking history, medial and lateral canthal laxity of the upper and lower lids, levator function, lash ptosis, and dermatochalasis. Significant associations were found between FES and OSAHS (P = 0.0008), keratoconus (P<0.0001), lash ptosis (P<0.0001), dermatochalasis (P = 0.02), upper lid medial canthal laxity (P = 0.02), upper lid distraction (P = 0.001), palpebral aperture (P = 0.004), and levator function (P = 0.005). Floppy eyelid syndrome seems to be a condition strongly associated with OSAHS and keratoconus. As well as providing a platform for an etiologic hypothesis for the condition, these findings should also encourage clinicians to be aware of these associations and to direct further treatment. The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Pentoxifylline for alcoholic hepatitis.

Alcoholic hepatitis is a life-threatening disease, with an average mortality of approximately 40%. There is no widely accepted, effective treatment for alcoholic hepatitis. Pentoxifylline is used to treat alcoholic hepatitis, but there has been no systematic review to assess its effects. To assess the benefits and harms of pentoxifylline in alcoholic hepatitis. The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, clinicaltrials.gov, and full text searches were conducted until August 2009. Manufacturers and authors were contacted. All randomised clinical trials of pentoxifylline in participants with alcoholic hepatitis compared to control were selected for inclusion. Two authors extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias. RevMan Analysis was used for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) and of continuous data with mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was also used for statistical analysis of dichotomous and continuous data in order to control for random error. Where data were only available from one trial, we used Fisher's exact test or Student's t-test. Five trials, with a total of 336 randomised participants, were included. A total of 105 participants (31%) died. Of the five included trials, four (80%) had a high risk of bias. Meta-analysis using all five trials showed that pentoxifylline reduced mortality compared with control (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.89). However, this result was not supported by trial sequential analysis, which adjusts for multiple testing on accumulating data. Furthermore, four of the five trials were judged to have a high risk of bias, thus risking an overestimated intervention effect. Meta-analysis showed that pentoxifylline reduced the hepatic-related mortality due to hepatorenal syndrome (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.71), but trial sequential analysis did not support this result. Data from one trial suggests that pentoxifylline may increase the occurrence of serious and non-serious adverse events compared to control. The current available data may indicate a possible positive intervention effect of pentoxifylline on all-cause mortality and mortality due to hepatorenal syndrome, and conversely, an increase in serious and non-serious adverse events. However, the evidence is not firm; no conclusions can be drawn regarding whether pentoxifylline has a positive, negative, or neutral effect on participants with alcoholic hepatitis.

Applicability of the Cochran Q test and the F test for statistical analysis of dichotomous data for dependent samples.

Applicability of the Cochran Q test and the F test for statistical analysis of dichotomous data for dependent samples.