FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

Comparison of fracture risk using different supplemental doses of vitamin D, calcium or their combination: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Por: Hu · Z.-C. · Tang · Q. · Sang · C.-M. · Tang · L. · Li · X. · Zheng · G. · Feng · Z.-H. · Xuan · J.-W. · Shen · Z.-H. · Shen · L.-Y. · Ni · W.-F. · Wu · A.-M.
Objective

Inconsistent findings in regard to association between different concentrations of vitamin D, calcium or their combination and the risk of fracture have been reported during the past decade in community-dwelling older people. This study was designed to compare the fracture risk using different concentrations of vitamin D, calcium or their combination.

Design

A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Data sources

Randomised controlled trials in PubMed, Cochrane library and Embase databases were systematically searched from the inception dates to 31 December 2017.

Outcomes

Total fracture was defined as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were hip fracture and vertebral fracture. Due to the consistency of the original studies, a consistency model was adopted.

Results

A total of 25 randomised controlled trials involving 43 510 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was no evidence that the risk of total fracture was reduced using different concentrations of vitamin D, calcium or their combination compared with placebo or no treatment. No significant associations were found between calcium, vitamin D, or combined calcium and vitamin D supplements and the incidence of hip or vertebral fractures.

Conclusions

The use of supplements that included calcium, vitamin D or both was not found to be better than placebo or no treatment in terms of risk of fractures among community-dwelling older adults. It means the routine use of these supplements in community-dwelling older people should be treated more carefully.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42017079624.

Relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and outcomes in joint arthroplasty: protocol for a suite of systematic reviews and dose-response meta-analyses

Por: Wu · X.-D. · Liu · M.-M. · Sun · Y.-Y. · Zhao · Z.-H. · Zhou · Q. · Kwong · J. S. W. · Xu · W. · Tian · M. · He · Y. · Huang · W.
Introduction

Joint arthroplasty is a particularly complex orthopaedic surgical procedure performed on joints, including the hip, knee, shoulder, ankle, elbow, wrist and even digit joints. Increasing evidence from volume–outcomes research supports the finding that patients undergoing joint arthroplasty in high-volume hospitals or by high-volume surgeons achieve better outcomes, and minimum case load requirements have been established in some areas. However, the relationships between hospital/surgeon volume and outcomes in patients undergoing arthroplasty are not fully understood. Furthermore, whether elective arthroplasty should be restricted to high-volume hospitals or surgeons remains in dispute, and little is known regarding where the thresholds should be set for different types of joint arthroplasties.

Methods and analyses

This is a protocol for a suite of systematic reviews and dose–response meta-analyses, which will be amended and updated in conjunction with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols. Electronic databases, including PubMed and Embase, will be searched for observational studies examining the relationship between the hospital or surgeon volume and clinical outcomes in adult patients undergoing primary or revision of joint arthroplasty. We will use records management software for study selection and a predefined standardised file for data extraction and management. Quality will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the meta-analysis, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be performed using Stata statistical software. Once the volume–outcome relationships are established, we will examine the potential non-linear relationships between hospital/surgeon volume and outcomes and detect whether thresholds or turning points exist.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval is not required, because these studies are based on aggregated published data. The results of this suite of systematic reviews and meta-analyses will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42017056639.

❌