Search

Enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) is believed to be a non-invasive treatment for coronary artery disease and angina. The aim of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of EECP in refractory angina patients through a systematic reviews and meta-analysis. We conducted a comprehensive search of the literature published on PubMed, Cochrane library, Scopus, Science Direct, Trip Database and Google Scholar databases using appropriate keywords and specific strategy with no time limit. Having selected and screened the studies based on the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria and evaluating their quality based on the Cochrane checklist. For the meta-analysis, the Mantel-Haenszel method or the generic Inverse Variance was used. Analyses were done with Review Manager 5.2 software. A number of 299 studies were initially reviewed and finally, seventeen studies were included in the meta-analysis based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Also, thirteen outcomes were analyzed and the results of meta-analysis in twelve outcomes including (Systolic Blood Pressure (7 studies), Diastolic Blood Pressure (7 studies), Pulse Pressure (4 studies), Mean Arterial Pressures (4 studies), Heart Rate (6 studies), Angina episodes (7 studies), Walking distance (2 studies), Canadian Cardiovascular Society classification (6 studies), Flow-Mediated Dilation (3 studies), Daily Nitrate Usage (4 studies), Exercise Treadmill Test-Time (2 studies), ST-segment depression (2 studies) demonstrated a significant clinical advantage in the EECP treatment effectiveness in patients with angina. No significant difference was observed regarding EECP usefulness (P = 0.18) in the outcome of brachial artery diameter (2 studies).Based on the meta-analysis, the results indicate the safety and effectiveness of EECP in patients with angina pectoris and indicate the usefulness of this treatment in these patients. In general, the authors believe that the general conclusion in this regard requires some studies with a large sample size and a control group assignment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common type of peripheral entrapment neuropathy that occurs in the wrist area in a space called the carpal tunnel. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and ultrasound are among the most common methods of physical modalities for treating CTS; the effectiveness of these 2 methods and the superiority of one over the other are not agreed among experts. Methods: In the present systematic review and meta-analysis study, the most important databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Science Direct, Trip medical database and Google Scholar were searched using appropriate keywords and specific strategies without time limitation to collect data. The collected data was analyzed using the meta-analytic method and the random-effects model. The heterogeneity among studies was examined using I2. The data were analyzed using Review Manager Software. Results: From among 108 related studies, 49 cases were entered for the first stage. After the final examination, 6 studies were selected for meta-analysis. The total number of patients in these 6 studies was 403; 204 subjects were in the LLLT group and 199 subjects were in the ultrasound group. The results of the meta-analyses showed that there was no significant difference between these 2 therapeutic methods in terms of pain relief, symptom severity scale (SSS), functional status scale (FSS), motor latency, sensory latency, hand grip strength, and motor amplitude. Conclusion: Based on the meta-analyses, there was no significant difference between the 2 LLLT and ultrasound methods; in other words, they had similar effectiveness in improving the condition of patients with CTS. However, the authors believe that arriving at conclusions in this area requires high-quality and large size studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Breast cancer is the second most common type of cancer worldwide and the most frequent one among women. Some studies suggest a favorable role of antioxidants on breast cancer, but this is still controversial. Objectives: The main objective of this article was to determine the safety and efficacy of antioxidant supplements on breast cancer. Data Sources: In order to gather evidence, main databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, Trip, Google Scholar, Institute of Scientific Information (ISI), SCOPUS, and EMBASE) as well as relevant websites were searched without time limit up to November 2016. We searched with appropriate keywords and strategies. After the quality assessment of studies, study data were extracted by 2 reviewers. Because all the outcomes were dichotomous, relative risk by using the fixed-effects model proposed by Mantel-Hanzel was used in the meta-analysis. I² values were used for the evaluation of heterogeneity. Analyses were conducted, using review manager and CMA Software. Results: Out of 825 studies, 652 studies were entered firstly and 14 RCTs were selected after the final review. There was not significant difference between Antioxidant and Placebo group in breast cancer incidence (P = 0.88), quality of life (P = 0.79), daily hot-flash score (P = 0.87) and toxicity such as nausea-vomiting (P = 0.87), diarrhea (P = 0.17), constipation (P = 0.35), fatigue (P = 0.14), alopecia (P = 0.22), anemia (P = 0.67), headaches (P = 0.73), leukopenia (P = 0.2), and Neutropenia (P = 0.08). Conclusions: The results of our meta-analysis do not support the effectiveness of antioxidants in reducing the risk of breast cancer. Also, this study showed that there is no sufficient clinical evidence to support the effectiveness of these supplements during the treatment of patients with breast cancer. It is recommended that clinician do not emphasize on these supplements in breast cancer treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]