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.

8 recordsLinked to original sources
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

The efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation interventions in obsessive-compulsive disorder management: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) has been widely used as an alternative treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). However, the most effective NIBS parameters are unclear. To compare the efficacy of NIBS in OCD. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analyses (NMA) to combine direct and indirect comparisons of NIBS.Systematic searches were conducted in Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science from inception to June 20, 2025. Forty-two randomized sham-controlled trials (n = 1456) were included. All statistical analyses were conducted with R statistical software. Bayesian NMAs mainly using the BUGSnet package and gemtc package. Five NIBS protocols produced statistically significant reductions in Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) scores compared with sham stimulation: high-frequency rTMS over the FzFCz (Hf-rTMS-FzFCz; MD -11.77, 95% CrI -20.62 to -3.09), low-frequency rTMS over F3F4 (Lf-rTMS-F3F4; MD -9.93, 95% CrI -18.07 to -1.65), low-frequency rTMS over FCz (Lf-rTMS-FCz; MD -3.25, 95% CrI -6.06 to -0.40), high-frequency deep TMS over FzFC (Hf-dTMS-FzFC; MD -6.48, 95% CrI -12.32 to -0.50), and 2 mA anodal tDCS over F3 with cathodal over Fp2 (MD -9.34, 95% CrI -16.01 to -3.03).For secondary outcomes, high-frequency deep rTMS over FzFCz produced the largest reduction both in depressive symptoms (SMD -1.24, 95% CrI -1.92 to -0.55) and anxiety scores (SMD -1.88, 95% CrI -2.62 to -1.11), but had no effect on Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) scores.Specific NIBS protocols are safe and effective adjunctive treatments for OCD, with promising yet inconclusive improvements in comorbid depressive symptoms. Further high-quality, head-to-head trials are needed.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Comparison of Ketamine and Pregabalin on Postoperative Opioid Usage and Pain Management in Spinal Fusion: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Spinal fusion is associated with substantial early postoperative pain and opioid exposure. Both ketamine and pregabalin are widely incorporated into Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols as opioid-sparing adjuncts. However, their comparative efficacy and safety in this specific setting remain uncertain. Our objective was to compare ketamine and pregabalin indirectly for early postoperative opioid consumption, pain, and adverse events in adults undergoing spinal fusion. METHODS: Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Trials were searched from inception through October 2025. Eligible studies were randomized trials enrolling adults undergoing instrumented spinal fusion, randomized to perioperative ketamine, pregabalin, or control, and reported extractable 24-hour opioid consumption or pain outcomes. Continuous outcomes were pooled as mean differences in MME or VAS units, and adverse events were reported descriptively. A connected treatment network was analyzed using random-effects models. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. RESULTS: Thirteen trials (n=879) were included: ketamine (n=210), pregabalin (n=271), and control (n=398). Six trials contributed opioid data (3 ketamine, 3 pregabalin). Using pregabalin 150 mg as reference, ketamine was associated with lower 0-24-hour opioid use (MD -56.99 mg MME; 95% CI -99.56 to -14.43). Control (MD +21.31; 95% CI -1.05 to +43.66) and pregabalin 300 mg (MD -13.22; 95% CI -40.41 to +13.96) did not significantly differ from pregabalin 150 mg. Seven trials contributed 24-hour VAS data, with control being associated with higher pain versus pregabalin 150 mg (MD +0.84; 95% CI +0.01 to +1.66), while ketamine and pregabalin 300 mg were not k significantly different. Adverse events were generally infrequent and similar to control. CONCLUSIONS: Both ketamine and pregabalin provide early opioid sparing with comparable 24-hour analgesia. Ketamine showed a larger opioid-sparing point estimate, but indirect comparisons are imprecise. Adequately powered head-to-head trials with standardized protocols and adverse event reporting are needed.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Efficacy, acceptability, and related outcomes of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar mania: a systematic review and dose-related network meta-analysis across different age groups.

BACKGROUND: Acute bipolar mania carries negative social and economic consequences. We investigated the comparative efficacy/response/acceptability of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar mania, considering dose effects across different age groups. METHODS: We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological interventions with one another or placebo in acute bipolar mania patients, indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus (from inception through 2025.12.24). Co-primary outcomes were change in manic symptoms/response/and acceptability. Tolerability/remission and rate of adverse events were secondary outcomes. Confidence-In-Network-Meta-Analysis was likewise appraised. RESULTS: 113 RCTs, encompassing 49 distinct treatment combinations, included 20,666 participants. Sensitivity analysis retaining only low-risk-of-bias studies and excluding outliers for possible effect modifiers indicated that risperidone 3 mg/day(SMD = -7.57;95%C.I. = -8.25;-5.85); tamoxifen 160 mg/day(SMD = -1.73;95%C.I. = -2.32;-1.13); rivastigmine 3 mg/day(SMD = -1.13;95%C.I. = -1.06;-0.58); haloperidol 30 mg/day(SMD = -0.96;95%C.I. = -1.25;-0.75); valproate 750 mg/day(SMD = -0.76;95%C.I. = -1.48;-0.58); tamoxifen 40 mg/day(SMD = -0.75;95%C.I. = -1.41;-0.59); celecoxib 400 mg/day(SMD = -0.74;95%C.I. = -1.20;-0.38); paliperidone extended-release 12 mg/day(SMD = -0.62; 95%C.I. = -0.91;-0.32); olanzapine 15 mg/day(SMD = -0.59;95%C.I. = -0.60;-0.38); olanzapine 20 mg/day(SMD = -0.52;95%C.I. = -0.66;-0.38); risperidone 4 mg/day(SMD = -0.53;95%C.I. = -0.76;-0.29); allopurinol 600 mg/day(SMD = -0.54;95%C.I. = -0.67;-0.22); cariprazine 12 mg/day(SMD = -0.49;95%C.I. = -0.66;-0.33); risperidone 4.2 mg/day(SMD = -0.46;95%C.I. = -0.75;-0.17); lithium 1500 mg/day(SMD = -0.42;95%C.I. = -0.57;-0.28); ziprasidone 160 mg/day(SMD = -0.49;95%C.I. = -0.68;-0.31); asenapine 20 mg/day(SMD = -0.38;95%C.I. = -0.53;-0.22); haloperidol 8 mg/day(SMD = -0.34;95%C.I. = -0.63;-0.05); aripiprazole 15 mg/day(SMD = -0.33;95%C.I. = -0.61;-0.06) outperformed placebo. Ziprasidone 160 mg/day, celecoxib 200 mg/day, asenapine 20 mg/day, and asenapine 10 mg/day proved more efficacious than placebo in children. No statistically significant differences were reported between treatments and placebo for response/remission/acceptability/tolerability, and manic/hypomanic switch. A meta-regression of efficacy effect sizes against the adapted AMSTAR-Plus content scores showed that larger SMDs were associated with lower AMSTAR scores, indicating lower study quality, warranting further caution for such large efficacy estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are consistent with previous NMAs and current guidelines, expanding the current knowledge base while concurrently appraising different drugs, doses, and age groups.

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

Molecular targeted therapy in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian cancer (PROC): a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although single-agent chemotherapy is the most common approach for treating platinum-resistant or refractory ovarian cancer (PROC), there is growing evidence that combining molecular targeted agents with chemotherapy is beneficial, especially for certain patient groups. However, the most effective combination regimen remains elusive. OBJECTIVES: This Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to identify the best combination therapy for PROC. METHODS: Relevant studies were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from their inception until October 2024. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events (AEs). Statistical analyses were performed using the GEMTC package (1.0-2) and R 4.2.0. This review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023428414). RESULTS: Our analysis of 22 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 3408) demonstrated that chemotherapy combinations with bevacizumab (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.52-0.65), sorafenib (HR = 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-0.93) or adavosertib (HR = 0.56, 95%CI: 0.35-0.90) significantly improved OS and PFS versus chemotherapy alone. Notably, adavosertib + gemcitabine was associated with an increased risk of grade 3-4 AEs (relative risk (RR) = 1.8, 95%CI: 1.3-2.7), but these were generally manageable. CONCLUSIONS: Bevacizumab-based combinations demonstrate consistent benefits across multiple regimens for PROC. Paclitaxel + bevacizumab emerges as the optimal balance of efficacy and safety. Topotecan + sorafenib could be an alternative for patients who are ineligible for anti-angiogenic therapy.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Comparative effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention strategies for coronary small-vessel disease: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Coronary small-vessel disease (SVD) remains challenging for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) because small lumens magnify restenosis and ischemic risk. Multiple devices are available, yet their comparative performance is uncertain. This study evaluated and ranked PCI strategies for SVD. METHODS: A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to 15 August 2025. Eligible studies were English-language randomized controlled trials enrolling adults with angiographic SVD defined as reference vessel diameter ≤3.0 mm, comparing PCI strategies, and reporting target lesion revascularization (TLR), binary restenosis (BR), or myocardial infarction (MI). A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis generated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and treatment rankings using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). RESULTS: Thirty-nine trials including 14,503 patients met the criteria. For TLR (37 studies; 11,980 patients), the highest SUCRA values were observed with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES 90.1%), zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES 83.9%), and everolimus-eluting stents (EES 82.2%). For BR (32; 6,468), SES, ZES, and paclitaxel-coated balloons (DCB-PTX) ranked highest (95.0%, 80.0%, and 78.3%). For MI (37; 11,602), SES, DCB-PTX, and ZES ranked highest (79.0%, 78.7%, and 68.5%). Representative effects showed SES reduced TLR versus bare-metal stents (BMS) (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.15-0.43) and MI versus BMS (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21-0.79). Conventional approaches such as BMS, plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA), and gold-plated balloon angioplasty (GPBA) ranked lowest across outcomes. CONCLUSION: SES provides the most consistent clinical benefit for coronary SVD. ZES, EES, and DCB-PTX are effective alternatives in selected settings, whereas BMS, POBA, and GPBA are less effective. These findings offer comparative evidence to guide device selection in SVD.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Comparative effects of pharmacological interventions in the prophylactic treatment of tension-type headache: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tension-type headache (TTH) is the most common neurological disorder. The comparative effect of pharmacological interventions for TTH prophylaxis remains unclear. We aimed to assess the comparative effects of pharmacological interventions in the prophylactic treatment of TTH. METHODS: Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane were searched from inception to 12 December, 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of medications compared to placebo or another medication for preventing TTH were included. The primary outcome was headache days per month. A Bayesian random-effect model was employed as the primary analysis of chronic TTH. RESULTS: Thirty-five RCTs were included, 33 (88.6%) RCTs involved chronic TTH patients, and 24 RCTs provided available data for meta-analysis. Amitriptyline 100 mg presented more reduction of monthly headache days than placebo at 4 and 8 weeks (4 weeks: MD -6.59, 95% CrI -11.22 to -0.64; 8 weeks: MD -6.14, 95% CrI -10.27 to -0.87). BTX-A 100 U can reduce monthly headache days (MD -3.79, 95% CrI -7.16 to -0.33). Amitriptyline 100 mg was the highest-ranked treatment for monthly headache days at 4 (SUCRA 0.85), 8 (SUCRA 0.85), and 24 (SUCRA 0.87) weeks; 12 weeks was lidocaine 25 ml (SUCRA 0.75). Amitriptyline 100 mg and BTX-A 500 U showed a higher adverse event rate than placebo. CONCLUSION: Amitriptyline 100 mg and BTX-A 100 U may be options to reduce monthly headache days in patients with chronic TTH. Given the low to very low certainty of evidence, high risk of bias, and high heterogeneity, more studies are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42025639586).

Humans↗