Association between ultra-processed foods consumption and the risk of hypertension: An umbrella review of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Several systematic reviews (SRs) have investigated the association between ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and the risk of hypertension in various populations. However, the quality of the evidence remains unclear. This umbrella review was thus conducted to fill this gap. METHODS: We searched for SRs with and without meta-analyses comparing high UPF versus low UPF consumption on the risk of hypertension in the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science from inception to August 2022. This study was registered in PROSPERO (No. CRD42022352934). The A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) tool and the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis 2009 (PRISMA 2009) statement were used to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of the included SRs. Stata 15/SE was used to reanalyse the data using the random-effects model, and the risk of bias of observational studies from included SRs was reassessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) tool. The certainty of the evidence body was assessed using the GRADE recommendation. RESULTS: Seven SRs were included in the umbrella review. Among them, nine observational studies (5 cross-sectional and 4 cohort studies), whose available data were resynthesised using meta-analysis. The methodological and reporting quality of the included SRs were relatively poor. The meta-analysis results revealed suggestive evidence of an association between high UPF consumption and the incidence of hypertension (odds ratio: 1.23, 95% confidence interval: 1.11 to 1.37, p < 0.001, 95% prediction interval: 0.92 to 1.64, critically low certainty) compared to low UPF consumption. CONCLUSION: High UPF consumption is associated with an increased risk of hypertension. However, well-conducted SRs, including high-quality prospective cohort studies, are needed to further verify these findings.

The effectiveness of continuing education programmes for health workers in rural and remote areas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Health workers in rural and remote areas shoulder heavy responsibilities for rural residents. This systematic review aims to assess the effectiveness of continuing education programs for health workers in rural and remote areas. METHODS: Eight electronic databases were searched on 28 November 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies evaluating the effectiveness of continuing education for health workers in rural and remote areas were included. The quality of the studies was assessed using the risk of bias tool provided by Effective Practice and Organization of Care. A meta-analysis was performed for eligible trials, and the other findings were presented as a narrative review because of inconsistent study types and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies were included, four of which were RCTs. The results of the meta-analysis showed that compared to no intervention, continuing education programs significantly improved the knowledge awareness rate of participants (odds ratio=4.09, 95% confidence interval 2.51-6.67, p<0.05). Qualitative analysis showed that 12 studies reported on the level of knowledge of participants, with all showing positive changes. Eight studies measured the performance of health workers in rural and remote areas, with 87.50% (n=7) finding improved performance. Two studies reported on the impact of continuing education programs for health workers in rural and remote areas on patient health, with only one showing a positive change. One study from India measured the health of communities, which showed a positive change. CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed that continuing education programs are an effective way to address the lack of knowledge and skills among health workers in rural and remote areas. Few studies have examined the effectiveness of education programs for health workers in rural and remote areas in improving patient health outcomes. It is not yet known whether the delivery of continuing education programs to health workers in rural areas has a positive impact on patient and community health. Future attention should continue to be paid to the impact on these outcomes.

Effectiveness and Safety of Varenicline for Smoking Cessation: An Overview and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: An overview, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of varenicline for smoking cessation. METHODS: Systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized controlled trials evaluating varenicline versus placebo for smoking cessation were included. A forest plot was used to summarize the effect size of the included SRs. Traditional meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed using Stata software and TSA 0.9 software, respectively. Finally, the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess the quality of evidence for the abstinence effect. RESULTS: A total of 13 SRs and 46 randomized controlled trials were included. Twelve review studies showed that varenicline was superior to placebo for smoking cessation. The meta-analysis results showed that, compared with the placebo, varenicline significantly increased the odds of smoking cessation (odds ratio = 2.54, 95% confidence interval = 2.20-2.94, P < 0.05, moderate quality). Subgroup analysis showed that there were significant differences in smokers with disease and general smokers ( P < 0.05). Differences were also found in the follow-up time at 12, 24, and 52 weeks ( P < 0.05). The common adverse events were nausea, vomit, abnormal dreams, sleep disturbances, headache, depression, irritability, indigestion, and nasopharyngitis ( P < 0.05). The TSA results confirmed the evidence for the effect of varenicline on smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence supports the superiority of varenicline over a placebo for smoking cessation. Varenicline had mild to moderate adverse events but was well tolerated. Future trials should investigate varenicline in combination with other smoking cessation approaches and compare it with other interventions.

Non-pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation: analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Although non-pharmacological smoking cessation measures have been widely used among smokers, current research evidence on the effects of smoking cessation is inconsistent and of mixed quality. Moreover, there is a lack of comprehensive evidence synthesis. This study seeks to systematically identify, describe, and evaluate the available evidence for non-pharmacological interventions in smoking populations through evidence mapping (EM), and to search for best-practice smoking cessation programs. METHODS: A comprehensive search for relevant studies published from the establishment of the library to January 8, 2023, was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, Wan Fang, and VIP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility and extracted data. The PRISMA statement and AMSTAR 2 tool were used to evaluate the report quality and methodology quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs), respectively. Bubble plots were utilized to display information, such as the study population, intervention type, evidence quality, and original study sample size. RESULTS: A total of 145 SRs/MAs regarding non-pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation were investigated, with 20 types of interventions identified. The most commonly used interventions were cognitive behaviour education (n = 32, 22.07%), professional counselling (n = 20, 13.79%), and non-nicotine electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) (n = 13, 8.97%). Among them, counselling and behavioural support can improve smoking cessation rates, but the effect varies depending on the characteristics of the support provided. These findings are consistent with previous SRs/MAs. The general population (n = 108, 74.48%) was the main cohort included in the SRs/MAs. The total score of PRISMA for the quality of the reports ranged from 8 to 27, and 13 studies (8.97%) were rated as high confidence, and nine studies (6.21%) as moderate confidence, in the AMSTAR 2 confidence rating. CONCLUSIONS: The abstinence effect of cognitive behaviour education and money incentive intervention has advantages, and non-nicotine e-cigarettes appear to help some smokers transition to less harmful replacement tools. However, the methodological shortcomings of SRs/MAs should be considered. Therefore, to better guide future practice in the field of non-pharmacological smoking cessation, it is essential to improve the methodological quality of SRs and carry out high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

The effects of active workstations on reducing work-specific sedentary time in office workers: a network meta-analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Active workstations have been proposed as a feasible approach for reducing occupational sedentary time. This study used a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess and compare the overall efficacy of active workstation interventions according to type and concomitant strategy for reducing work-specific sitting time in office workers. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched from database inception until May 2022 to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of active workstations with or without concomitant strategies for reducing occupational sedentary time in office workers. The risk of bias of the RCTs included in this study was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook. An NMA with STATA 15.1 was used to construct a network diagram, league figures, and the final surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: A total of 23 eligible studies including eight different types of interventions with 1428 office workers were included. NMA results showed that compared to a typical desk, multicomponent intervention (standardized mean difference (SMD) = - 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 2.17, - 0.82; SUCRA = 72.4%), sit-stand workstation + promotion (Reminders of rest breaks, posture variation, or incidental office activity) (SMD = - 1.49; 95%CI - 2.42, - 0.55; SUCRA = 71.0%), treadmill workstation + promotion (SMD = - 1.29; 95%CI - 2.51, - 0.07; SUCRA = 61.6%), and sit-stand workstation (SMD = - 1.10, 95%CI - 1.64, - 0.56; SUCRA = 50.2%) were effective in reducing occupational sedentary time for office workers. CONCLUSIONS: Multicomponent intervention, sit-stand workstation + promotion, treadmill workstation + promotion, and sit-stand workstation appear to be effective in reducing work-specific sedentary time for office workers. Furthermore, multicomponent interventions and active workstations + promotion better reduced work-specific sedentary time than active workstation alone. However, the overall certainty of the evidence was low. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Our study protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO); registration number: CRD42022344432.

Efficacy and safety of antidepressants for smoking cessation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

To evaluate the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of antidepressants in helping smokers quit tobacco dependence, five databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTS ) on different antidepressant interventions involving smoking cessation in populations (September 2022). The STATA 15.1 software was used to perform network meta-analysis. The Cochrane bias risk tool was used to assess the risk of bias, and CINeMA was used to evaluate the evidence credibility for the effect of different interventions on smoking cessation. In all, 107 RCTs involving 42 744 patients were included. Seven studies were rated as having a low risk of bias. All trials reported 18 interventions and 153 pairwise comparisons were generated. The network meta-analysis showed that compared with placebo, varenicline + bupropion (OR = 3.53, 95% CI [2.34, 5.34]), selegiline + nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (OR = 3.78, 95% CI [1.20, 11.92]), nortriptyline + NRT (OR = 2.33, 95% CI [1.21, 4.47), nortriptyline (OR = 1.58, 95% CI [1.11,2.26]), naltrexone + bupropion (OR = 3.84, 95% CI [1.39, 10.61]), bupropion + NRT (OR = 2.29, 95% CI [1.87, 2.81]) and bupropion (OR = 1.70, 95% CI [1.53, 1.89]) showed benefits with respect to smoking cessation. In addition, bupropion + NRT showed better effects than bupropion (OR = 1.35, 95% CI [1.12, 1.64]) and NRT (OR = 1.38, 95% CI [1.13, 1.69]) alone. The final cumulative ranking curve showed that varenicline + bupropion was the most likely to be the best intervention. There was moderate- to very-low-certainty evidence that most interventions showed benefits for smoking cessation compared with placebo, including monotherapy and combination therapies. Varenicline + bupropion had a higher probability of being the best intervention for smoking cessation.

Network Meta-Analysis of Behavioral Programs for Smoking Cessation in Healthy People.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking is a risk factor for most chronic diseases and premature death, with a global prevalence of more than 1 billion people who smoke. This network meta-analysis aimed to investigate the impact of different behavioral interventions on smoking cessation. METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched for RCTs from inception to August 29, 2022. The risk of bias for the included RCTs was evaluated using the revised version of Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias and the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The network meta-analysis was performed using Stata 16SE and R 4.1.3 software. RESULTS: A total of 119 included RCTs enrolled 118,935 participants. For the 7-day-point prevalence abstinence rate, video counseling had a best intervention effect than brief advice, followed by financial incentives, self-help materials plus telephone counseling, motivational interview, health education, telephone counseling, and text messages. For the 30-day-point prevalence abstinence rate, face-to-face cognitive education and financial incentives were superior to brief advice. For the continuous abstinence rate, motivational interview and financial incentives were more effective than brief advice. The certainty of evidence was very low to moderate for these studies. DISCUSSION: From the results of the network meta-analysis, different behavioral interventions resulted in positive impacts on smoking cessation compared with that of brief advice, especially video counseling, face-to-face cognitive education, and motivational interviews. Owing to the poor quality of evidence, high-quality trials should be conducted in the future to provide more robust evidence.

Reporting and methodological quality of acupuncture network meta-analyses could be improved: an evidence mapping.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and map the reporting and methodological quality of network meta-analysis (NMA) on acupuncture. METHODS: Published acupuncture NMAs were searched through eight databases from inception to February 2022. The reporting and methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Network Meta-Analysis (PRISMA-NMA) statement and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) checklist. RESULTS: A total of 113 NMAs were identified. Most (99, 87.61%) studies were performed in China. Most studies focused on multiple acupuncture techniques (82.30%), and the main studied ailments were pain and poststroke sequelae (20.24%). The median (interquartile range (IQR)) score of the reporting quality was 26.5 (25-28.5). However, poor reporting rates in the protocol and registration (33.63%) and geometry of the network (35.40%), especially for China-based studies, were identified. The methodological quality of only 2 (1.77%) English studies was high. The reporting rate of Chinese studies was below 15% on each of items 4, 7, 10, and 12. CONCLUSION: The reporting quality of the NMAs was moderate, but the methodological quality was very low. The reporting and methodological quality of future NMAs, especially for Chinese studies, need further improvement.

Advantages of applying digital chest drainage system for postoperative management of patients following pulmonary resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the value of the chest digital drainage system for the postoperative management of patients who have undergone pulmonary resection. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the application of digital drainage systems versus the analog drainage system for patients with lung disease after pulmonary resection. Dichotomous variables were evaluated using risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and mean and standardized mean differences (MDs and SMDs, respectively) with 95% CIs were used to calculate continuous variables. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata and RevMan software. RESULTS: In total, 12 RCTs involving 2000 patients were analyzed. Significant differences in duration of chest tube placement (SMD = -0.49; 95% CI = -0.78 to -0.20), length of hospital stay (MD =-0.79 days; 95% CI = -1.24 to -0.34), and number of chest tube clamping tests (RR = 0.74; 95% CI = 0.36-1.49) were observed between the two groups, which did not significant differ in the occurrence of prolonged air leak or cardiopulmonary complication rate. CONCLUSIONS: The digital chest drainage system is mainly advantageous in the duration of chest tube placement, length of hospital stay, and number of chest tube clamping tests. Future research should evaluate the requirements and economic impact of using digital system in routine clinical practice.

Pharmacological interventions on smoking cessation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Objective: A network meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials was conducted to investigate the effects of pharmacological interventions on smoking cessation. Methods: English databases were searched to obtain randomized controlled trials reporting the effect of pharmacological interventions on smoking cessation. The risk of bias for the included trials was assessed using Cochrane Handbook tool. Stata 15.1 software was used to perform network meta-analysis, and GRADE approach was used to assess the evidence credibility on the effects of different interventions on smoking cessation. Results: A total of 159 studies involving 60,285 smokers were included in the network meta-analysis. The analysis involved 15 interventions and which yielded 105 pairs of comparisons. Network meta-analysis showed that varenicline was more helpful for smoking cessation than other monotherapies, such as nicotine replacement therapy [Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.16, 1.73)] and bupropion [OR = 1.52, 95% CI (1.22, 1.89)]. Furthermore, combined interventions were superior to monotherapy in achieving smoking cessation, such as varenicline plus bupropion over bupropion [OR = 2.00, 95% CI (1.11, 3.61)], varenicline plus nicotine replacement therapy over nicotine replacement therapy [OR = 1.84, 95% CI (1.07, 3.18)], and nicotine replacement therapy plus mecamylamine over naltrexone [OR = 6.29, 95% CI (1.59, 24.90)]. Finally, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve value indicated that nicotine replacement therapy plus mecamylamine had the greatest probability of becoming the best intervention. Conclusion: Most pharmacological interventions demonstrated a benefit in smoking cessation compared with placebo, whether monotherapy or combination therapy. Moreover, confirmed evidence suggested that some combination treatments, such as varenicline plus bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy plus mecamylamine have a higher probability of being the best smoking cessation in.

Varenicline and related interventions on smoking cessation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Based on randomized controlled trials, a network meta-analysis was conducted to compare treatment effects across varenicline and related smoking interventions. METHODS: English databases were screened for randomized controlled trials reporting the effect of varenicline as treatment for smoking. The risk of bias in included trials was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook tool. Stata 15.1 software was used to perform network meta-analysis, and the GRADE approach was used to assess the evidence credibility on the tobacco treatment effects of different interventions. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies involving 26,130 smokers were included in the network meta-analysis. Varenicline and 11 other interventions were reported, yielding 66 pairs of comparisons. Network meta-analysis showed that varenicline monotherapy or its combination with other interventions were superior in achieving smoking cessation compared to bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy, counselling, and placebo. Furthermore, compared to the varenicline, evident abstinence superiority was found in varenicline + bupropion (odds ratio = 1.49, 95% confidence interval [1.02, 2.18]). Finally, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve value indicated that varenicline + bupropion has the highest probability to become the best intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Varenicline monotherapy increased the odds of smoking cessation further than bupropion monotherapy, nicotine replacement therapy, counselling, and placebo, while varenicline combined with other interventions may even achieve a better abstinence effect. More credible evidence has been reported indicating that the combination of varenicline and bupropion is a superior treatment for smoking.

Probiotics therapy for adults with diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 RCTs.

PURPOSE: Accumulating evidence showed that probiotics therapy might be effective in treating diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D). This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of probiotics therapy for the treatment of IBS-D. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search in eight electronic databases, and gray literature from inception to August 4, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of probiotics therapy for the treatment of IBS-D were included and the quality was assessed using the risk of bias tool recommended by the Cochrane Handbook version 5.1.0. RevMan 5.4 software was used to perform the meta-analysis on the outcomes of IBS-D symptoms, abdominal pain, quality of life, and abdominal distension. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Ten RCTs evaluating 943 patients were identified. Only one study had unclear risk of bias, while nine studies had a high risk of bias. The meta-analysis results showed that, compared to the placebo, probiotics therapy significantly decreased the score of IBS-D symptoms (SMD = - 0.55, 95% CI: [- 0.83, - 0.27], P < 0.05), abdominal pain (SMD = - 0.43, 95% CI: [- 0.57, - 0.29], P < 0.05), and abdominal distension (SMD = - 0.45, 95%CI: [- 0.81, - 0.09], P < 0.05). There was no statistical difference in the quality of life. However, all the certainty of evidence was very low. CONCLUSION: Very low certainty evidence showed that probiotics might be an effective treatment for improving the IBS-D symptoms, abdominal pain, and abdominal distension, in adult IBS-D patients. However, these conclusions should be supported by high-quality evidence.

Effectiveness and Safety of Probiotics for Patients with Constipation-Predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 10 Randomized Controlled Trials.

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of probiotics in the treatment of constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-C), we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing probiotic care versus placebos for patients with IBS-C in five comprehensive databases (March 2022). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. RevMan 5.3 was used to perform a meta-analysis on stool consistency, abdominal pain, bloating, quality of life (QoL), fecal Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus counts, and adverse events. The GRADE approach was used to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. Ten RCTs involving 757 patients were included. Only three studies were rated as having a low risk of bias. The meta-analysis results show that, compared to the placebo, probiotics significantly improved stool consistency (MD = 0.72, 95% CI (0.18, 1.26), p < 0.05, low quality) and increased the number of fecal Bifidobacteria (MD = 1.75, 95% CI (1.51, 2.00), p < 0.05, low quality) and Lactobacillus (MD = 1.69, 95% CI (1.48, 1.89), p < 0.05, low quality), while no significant differences were found in abdominal pain scores, bloating scores, QoL scores, or the incidence of adverse events (p > 0.05). The low-to-very low certainty evidence suggests that probiotics might improve the stool consistency of patients with IBS-C and increase the number of Bifidobacteria and Lactobacilli in feces with good safety. However, more high-quality studies with large samples are needed to verify the findings.

The effect of Varenicline and Bupropion on smoking cessation: A network meta-analysis of 20 randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to investigate the effect of varenicline (VAR), bupropion (BUP), and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) on smoking cessation. METHODS: Eight databases were searched in May 2021, and only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using varenicline, bupropion, or NRT (single or combined) for smoking cessation were included. The risk of bias in the included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook tool. Stata 15.1 software was used to perform NMA, and the quality of the evidence was evaluated using Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA). FINDINGS: Twenty RCTs involving 16,702 smokers were included. The risk of bias results showed that 10 RCTs were rated as high, three were low, and seven were unclear. A total of 21 pairs were compared based on seven interventions. The NMA showed that, compared to the placebo (PLA), the other six interventions had significant efficacy in smoking cessation, where VAR + BUP showed the best effect of all treatments (odds ratio (OR) = 6.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) [3.47, 10.66]). Moreover, VAR + BUP was superior to VAR + NRT (OR = 1.66, 95% CI [1.07, 2.59]) and the three monotherapies (VAR, BUP, and NRT). In the monotherapies, the results of pairwise comparisons of VAR, BUP, and NRT did not show significant differences. Finally, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value indicated that VAR + BUP had the greatest probability of becoming the best intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of VAR, BUP, and NRT alone increased the odds of smoking abstinence better than the placebo, combined interventions were superior to monotherapy, and VAR combined with other interventions had a better smoking cessation effect.