Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Search Search PubMed

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2026

Surgical outcomes and complications of fixation strategies for distal tibial fractures: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple fixation options exist for distal tibial fractures, but the optimal approach remains controversial. Common techniques includeopen reduction and internal fixation(ORIF), minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO), external fixation combined with limited open reduction and internal fixation (EF + LORIF), intramedullary nailing (IMN), and retrograde tibial nailing (RTN). METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched through March 19, 2026. Network meta-analysis (R v4.5.1) assessed operation time, fracture healing time, malunion, delayed union/nonunion, and infection, reporting MDs or RRs with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Eleven randomized controlled trials and 18 cohort studies (2145 patients) were included. MIPO was associated with a longer operative time and a longer time to union than IMN-IP (MD = 8.23, 95% CI 0.44-16.01; and MD = 1.02, 95% CI 0.10-1.93, respectively). For malunion, ORIF had a lower risk than MIPO (RR = 0.30, 95% CI 0.11-0.82), whereas MIPO had a higher risk than EF + LORIF (RR = 3.26, 95% CI 1.08-9.80) and IMN-SP (RR = 4.03, 95% CI 1.30-12.48). ORIF, EF + LORIF, and IMN-SP also showed lower malunion risk than IMN-IP. No significant differences were observed for delayed union and nonunion. Infection risk was generally higher with ORIF and MIPO than with several comparators, particularly EF + LORIF and intramedullary nailing-based strategies. CONCLUSIONS: No single strategy was consistently superior. Operation time and impaired union ( delayed union and nonunion) did not differ significantly among techniques. MIPO may be associated with longer time to union than IMN-IP and higher malunion risk than EF + LORIF and IMN-SP. Infection risk appeared higher with ORIF and MIPO in network estimates, although several comparisons remained uncertain. Findings should be interpreted in light of imprecision and study-level heterogeneity. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: INPLASY2025120055.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Optimal dose and exercise modality to improve HbA1c in older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review with pairwise, network, and dose-response meta-analyses.

We aimed to compare exercise modalities and evaluate dose-response relationships with glycemic control including continuous aerobic exercise (CAE), resistance training (RT), combined exercise (CE), mind-body exercise (MBE), and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Three databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of exercise interventions in older adults with T2DM reporting glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Pairwise, Bayesian network, and dose-response meta-analyses were conducted. Compared with control, HIIT demonstrated the largest estimated reduction (MD = -0.95%; 95% CrI -1.45, -0.49), followed by CE (MD = -0.59%; 95% CrI -0.93, -0.25), CAE (MD = -0.46%; 95% CrI -0.69, -0.24), MBE (MD = -0.42%; 95% CrI -0.76, -0.10), and RT (MD = -0.29%; 95% CrI -0.51, -0.08). Dose-response network meta-analyses suggested a non-linear association between overall exercise dose and HbA1c reduction, with maximal estimated benefits at approximately 704 METs-min/week with the 95% CrI excluding zero between 241 and 920 METs-min/week. HIIT demonstrated the steepest estimated dose-response relationship, but with wider credible intervals. Other exercise modalities showed more gradual dose-response patterns across their estimated effective ranges. Our findings suggest that exercise prescription for older adults with T2DM should be individualized according to exercise modality, dose, and health status.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Comparative effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions for sleep outcomes in chronic non-cancer pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Sleep disturbances are highly prevalent among individuals with chronic non-cancer pain and are associated with worse pain severity and poorer prognosis. The comparative trade-offs between the effectiveness and safety of available pharmacotherapies for sleep outcomes in this population remain poorly defined. Ninety-eight RCTs involving 28,920 participants (mean age 53.2 years, 71.2% female) were included. Moderate-certainty evidence demonstrated that melatonin significantly improved sleep quality compared with placebo (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.60, 95%CI: -0.98, -0.22). Ten agents (e.g., amitriptyline, oxycodone, gabapentin, pregabalin, duloxetine) also showed statistically significant improvements in subjective sleep quality (SMD = -0.24 to -1.07), but most effects were supported by low-certainty evidence and were accompanied by an increased risk of adverse events (odds ratio [OR] = 1.90 to 37.00). Conversely, melatonin was not associated with an increased risk (OR = 0.88, 95%CI: 0.19, 3.94). Our findings indicate that melatonin shows promise as a safe, adjunctive option for improving sleep quality in this population, but larger, condition-specific trials are warranted to confirm these effects. Other pharmacological agents are limited by lower-certainty and unfavorable safety profiles. These results should be interpreted cautiously given limited direct comparisons, heterogeneous chronic pain populations, the high proportion of trials at high risk of bias, and the predominance of subjective sleep outcomes.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Comparative effectiveness of game-based learning modalities in nursing and medical education: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Game-based learning (GBL) is increasingly used in healthcare education, but educators must choose among diverse modalities (e.g., quiz platforms, apps, serious games and metaverse environments). Comparative evidence on which modalities perform best across learning domains (knowledge, attitudes, and practice) remains limited. AIM: To compare the effects of distinct GBL modalities on knowledge, attitudes, and practice outcomes in nursing and medical education and to explore whether comparative effects differ by learner group (pre-licensure students and in-service professionals). DESIGN: PRISMA-NMA-aligned systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched eight databases and trial registries through September 2, 2024, for randomized controlled trials comparing GBL with traditional teaching (TT). Outcomes were transformed to a 0-100 scale and analysed as change from baseline in Bayesian consistency models; random-effects models were selected using deviance information criterion (DIC). Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2. We report mean differences (MDs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) versus TT, ranking probabilities, and subgroup NMAs by learner group. RESULTS: Thirty-one RCTs (n = 3439) were included; 15 contributed complete data to the network. Risk of bias was low in 15 trials and raised some concerns in 16. The network was modest for knowledge (11 trials) and sparse for attitudes (3) and practice (4). Compared with TT, metaverse-based learning showed improved attitudes (MD 15; 95% CrI 12 to 18), based on a single trial. For knowledge and practice, Kahoot-based quizzes (MD 9.1; 95% CrI -8.9 to 27) and app-based learning (MD 4.6; 95% CrI -4.4 to 14) had the highest estimated mean improvements, but credible intervals were wide and included the null for most comparisons. Subgroup rankings differed by learner group, but several comparisons were imprecise and uncertainty was substantial, particularly in sparse networks. CONCLUSIONS: GBL modalities may improve learning outcomes compared with TT, but relative effects appear domain-specific and the certainty of rankings is limited by sparse evidence and imprecision. Future trials should prioritise head-to-head comparisons, robust outcome measurement, and longer-term retention and transfer outcomes in both student and in-service populations.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Comparative safety of lipid-lowering drugs alone or in combination: insights from a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although the safety profile of lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) is known, there are no comprehensive comparative assessments. We aimed to compare the risk of muscle-related events, diabetes, liver dysfunction, and cognitive disorders among LLTs through a network meta-analysis. METHODS AND RESULTS: Databases were searched from inception to May 2025. Eligible studies included adult patients, using statins, ezetimibe, PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies (PCSK9mAbs), inclisiran, bempedoic acid, or their combinations as intervention, reporting the information about any of the selected adverse events, a total sample size of ≥200 subjects, and had ≥1 month of intervention. Pooled estimates were assessed by fixed effects model within a frequentist setting. Pooled relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence interval were estimated. A total of 303,397 subjects from 153 RCTs were included. Bempedoic acid ranked the lowest risk of myalgia (vs PCSK9mAbs, RR 0.80 [0.69, 0.93]). PCSK9mAbs were associated with lower incidence of creatine kinase (CK) elevation, diabetes, and liver dysfunction comparing to statins (statins vs PCSK9mAbs, RR 1.44 [1.14, 1.81], RR 1.13 [1.05, 1.22], and RR 1.38 [1.17, 1.62], respectively). In terms of muscle-related events and cognitive disorders, no significant risk differences were found among treatments and their combinations. CONCLUSIONS: PCSK9mAbs appear to have a more favourable safety profile regarding the risk of CK elevation, diabetes, and liver dysfunction. Bempedoic acid seem to be a better choice for subjects with high risk of myalgia. This information can be valuable when selecting therapy for specific patient subgroups at higher risk of certain adverse events.

Humans↗