SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Synthesized ECG”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

207 records · Page 12Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Efficacy and safety of Janus kinase inhibitors in Behçet's disease: A systematic literature review.

INTRODUCTION: Behçet's disease e (BD) is a chronic, relapsing, multisystem inflammatory disorder that if not successfully treated can lead to severe, organ or life-threatening complications. Despite treatment with glucocorticoids, immunosuppressants, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, some patients still have refractory disease that mandates additional therapeutic options. The pathogenesis of BD involves dysregulated innate and adaptive immune responses with multiple cytokines signaling through the Janus kinase (JAK)-signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) pathway. By targeting multiple inflammatory pathways, JAK inhibitors have emerged as a promising therapeutic option. However, current evidence remains limited and heterogeneous. Therefore, we conducted this systematic review to evaluate their efficacy and safety in BD. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines (PROSPERO registration: CRD420261381955). PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception to March 2026. Original clinical studies evaluating Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors in BD were included. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment using Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Due to heterogeneity, results were synthesized narratively, focusing on efficacy and safety outcomes. RESULTS: Seventeen studies (99 patients) were included, predominantly case reports and small observational cohorts with overall high methodological quality. All evaluated tofacitinib, baricitinib, or upadacitinib, with no data on other JAK inhibitors. Patients were highly treatment-refractory, with prior failure of conventional and biologic therapies. Upadacitinib was the most frequently studied agent and demonstrated an overall response rate of 85.2% and complete remission in 59.3% in a multi-center study. Efficacy was observed across multiple domains, with the most consistent responses in intestinal disease, including clinical and endoscopic remission, alongside frequent glucocorticoid-sparing effects. Safety findings were consistent with known JAK inhibitor safety profiles, with mainly mild to moderate infections and manageable laboratory abnormalities, and no clear signal for increased thrombotic events, although follow-up was limited. CONCLUSION: JAK inhibitors demonstrate promising efficacy in BD, particularly in refractory and multisystem disease. The most consistent evidence of efficacy was observed in gastrointestinal involvement, whereas data for other disease domains remain limited. Their safety profile appears consistent with existing data, although further follow up and validation is required. High-quality randomized controlled studies are an imminent need to study the potential role of JAK inhibitors in BD.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Navigating Social Media: Balancing Connectivity With Media Literacy to Combat Misinformation and Protect Mental Well-Being.

BACKGROUND: The pervasive use of social media has created a complex digital ecosystem where high connectivity coexists with significant challenges, including the rapid spread of misinformation, particularly regarding mental health, and documented negative impacts on psychological well-being. Platform architectures designed for engagement maximization have been identified as central factors in both issues. OBJECTIVE: This paper critically analyzes the interconnected relationships between social media use, misinformation dissemination, and mental health impacts, with particular attention to psychiatric misinformation across diagnostic categories (e.g., depression, anxiety, ADHD). A primary objective is to evaluate the potential of advanced critical digital literacy frameworks to serve as protective mechanisms against these dual threats. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines across APA PsycInfo, PubMed, JSTOR, and Google Scholar for literature published between January 2018 and March 2026 (updated from the original 2023 search). The search yielded 2672 records. After removing 624 duplicates, 2048 records underwent title and abstract screening, with 1802 excluded. The remaining 246 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, resulting in 86 studies included in the final qualitative synthesis. Inter-rater reliability was established (Cohen's κ = 0.82). Quality assessment was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist, AXIS, and CASP tools, with findings weighted by methodological quality. A thematic analysis was undertaken to synthesize findings. RESULTS: The analysis reveals that core architectural features of social media platforms, algorithmic curation and engagement-based metrics, simultaneously foster environments ripe for misinformation spread and contribute to psychological distress, including anxiety, depression, and harmful social comparison. Psychiatric misinformation specifically (e.g., inaccurate claims about treatment effectiveness, diagnostic criteria, and medication side effects) represents a growing concern, particularly on image- and video-based platforms. The findings indicate that conventional media literacy approaches focused solely on fact-checking are insufficient. Instead, a critical digital literacy framework encompassing algorithmic awareness, data literacy, and emotional awareness is essential for building user resilience, with evidence from high-quality systematic reviews supporting this approach. CONCLUSIONS: Navigating the complexities of modern social media requires an integrated approach combining "pedagogies of play" for experiential skill development with advocacy for structural change (e.g., algorithmic transparency, well being by design principles). This dual strategy empowers individual users to critically engage with digital content while advocating for ethical platform design, thereby safeguarding both mental well-being and democratic discourse. Implications for educators, mental health professionals (including competencies for addressing patient encounters with psychiatric misinformation), policymakers, and platform designers are discussed.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Evaluating the utility of melatonin in spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Spine surgery is increasingly performed worldwide, and acute postoperative stressors such as pain and anxiety remain highly prevalent despite historical management with opioids and other pharmacological agents. Recently, interest has emerged in melatonin administration given its endogenous physiological roles, low cost, favorable adverse event profile, and documented benefits throughout surgical literature. PURPOSE: This study aims to consolidate the existing evidence on melatonin's utility specifically in spine surgery, an area not yet comprehensively evaluated, to inform clinical practice and enhance spine surgeon comprehension. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Preregistered on PROSPERO, this systematic review queried PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science on November 21st, 2025, for studies reporting outcomes following melatonin administration in patients undergoing spine surgery. METHODS: Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 tool. Extracted variables included demographics, comparator medications, dosages, and other relevant details. Statistical analyses included frequency-weighted means (FWMs), associated standard deviations, narrative syntheses, and limited meta-analyses, where appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 6 moderate-quality randomized trials were included from 749 screened. Melatonin (3-10 mg) was administered to 227 patients (FWM age=43.3±8.6 years; 46.2% male; BMI=26.6±3.2 kg/m2), placebo to 125 patients (age=43.2±10.1 years; 60% male; BMI=28.5±4.3 kg/m2), and active pharmacologic comparators (fentanyl, gabapentin, dexmedetomidine, zolpidem) to 151 patients (age=46.6±8.9 years; 40.5% male; BMI=26.3±3.5 kg/m2). Procedures primarily involved uncomplicated lumbar laminectomies (1-4 levels), with outcomes assessed up to 24 hours postoperatively. Melatonin was associated with significant improvements in early postoperative VAS-pain scores, blood-pressure-related, analgesic-related, and anxiety-related outcomes versus placebo across most reporting studies. Compared with active pharmacologic agents, significant benefits were observed only in select nausea- and anxiety-related instances. Limited meta-analysis (n=2) demonstrated higher 24-hour VAS-pain for melatonin versus gabapentin, though mean difference was near-negligible and harbored extensive statistical constraints. CONCLUSION: Melatonin demonstrates variable utility following spine surgery, with generally consistent anxiolysis and frequent benefit versus placebo but less consistent and comparatively weaker efficacy relative to active pharmacologic comparators. Future outcome-homogenous studies incorporating more granular, expansive comparator arms and more robust quantitative analyses are needed to further elucidate melatonin's role in advancing spine care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Health-Related quality of life (HRQoL) and health state utility values (HSUV) in patients with head and neck Cancer: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Head and neck cancer (HNC) and its treatment can substantially impair speech, swallowing, eating, appearance, and social functioning, resulting in persistent reductions in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Although the EuroQol 5-Dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D) is widely used to assess generic HRQoL and derive health state utility values (HSUVs), EQ-5D-based evidence in HNC has not been comprehensively synthesized. This study aimed to summarize EQ-5D-based HRQoL and HSUVs in HNC, estimate pooled utility and EQ-VAS scores, explore subgroup differences, and identify predictors of poorer HRQoL. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261307907). PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched from inception to February 10, 2026. Studies reporting baseline EQ-5D utility values and/or EQ-VAS scores in patients with HNC were included. Random-effects meta-analyses using the DerSimonian-Laird (DL) estimator with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) adjustment were performed to pool mean scores. Between-study variance (τ2) and 95 % prediction intervals (PI) were calculated to capture parameter dispersion. Subgroup analyses were conducted across clinical and methodological vectors. RESULTS: Twenty studies involving 7,403 patients were included. The pooled mean EQ-5D utility score was 0.79 (95 % CI: 0.75-0.83; τ2 = 0.0011; 95 % PI: 0.72-0.86). The pooled mean EQ-VAS score was 69.36 (95 % CI: 65.71-73.01; τ2 = 38.4586; 95 % PI: 55.11-83.61). Extreme heterogeneity was observed (I2 = 96.4 % and 97.1 %, respectively). Utility values were significantly higher in studies utilizing the EQ-5D-5 L than the EQ-5D-3 L version (0.82 vs. 0.76). By tumor subsite, nasopharyngeal cancer showed the highest utility value (0.85, exploratory), whereas oral cancer demonstrated the lowest (0.73). Adjusted multivariable models revealed that advanced stage, high treatment intensity, severe pharyngolaryngeal pain, dysphagia, malnutrition, and older age were robust predictors of poorer HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HNC experience substantial and persistent HRQoL impairment, with meaningful variations driven by tumor subsites and instrument versions. In light of the extreme heterogeneity, these pooled findings establish a macro-level, broad reference estimate rather than a fixed target. These parameters directly inform localized survivorship care planning, health technology evaluations, and cost-utility decision-making modeling in head and neck oncology.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Early mobilization within 24 to 48 h improves postoperative clinical outcomes in older adults with hip fracture: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hip fracture is a major public health concern among older adults, often resulting in prolonged disability, institutionalization, and increased healthcare burden. Early mobilization has been widely recommended to enhance postoperative recovery; however, there is a lack of consolidated evidence quantifying its impact on clinical and functional outcomes. This study aimed to synthesize and evaluate the impact of early mobilization following hip fracture surgery in older adults and to explore potential sources of heterogeneity to better inform clinical and nursing practice. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across seven databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, and Emcare) from inception to June 15, 2025. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and observational cohort studies comparing early mobilization (defined as ambulation within 24 to 48 h postoperatively) to delayed or usual mobilization in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery. Primary outcomes included mortality, discharge destination, and length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications, functional recovery, and readmission. Risk of bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's test. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies involving 297,435 patients were included. Compared with delayed mobilization, early mobilization significantly reduced 30-day mortality (relative risk = 0.40, 95% confidence interval: 0.25-0.64) and 1-year mortality (relative risk = 0.57, 95% confidence interval: 0.40-0.80) (both p < 0.05). In regional analyses of pooled mortality, similar reductions were observed across Asia-Pacific, North America, and Europe. Patients receiving early mobilization were more likely to be discharged home and had shorter hospital stays. Early mobilization also resulted in a reduced risk of postoperative complications (relative risk = 0.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.74-0.84, p < 0.05), with specific improvements in pneumonia and thromboembolism rates. Functional independence was significantly improved, as shown by higher Barthel Index scores and increased odds of achieving Functional Independence Measure ≥5 at discharge. No significant difference was observed in readmission rates. CONCLUSIONS: lization within 24 to 48 h following hip fracture surgery was associated with favorable outcomes, including reduced mortality, improved functional independence, higher rates of discharge to home, shorter hospital length of stay, and fewer postoperative complications. Although heterogeneity across studies and the predominance of observational evidence warrant cautious interpretation, these findings support current recommendations for early mobilization and highight the potential value of structured and standardized mobilization protocols in routine postoperative hip fracture care.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Trade-offs in avian parental care: a review of theory and meta-analysis of brood size manipulations.

The selective forces shaping parental care have been studied for over 50 years. While theoretical and experimental work has yielded qualitative progress, the large body of empirical work testing predictions about parental investment based on life-history trade-offs has yet to be synthesized. We first provide an overview of the core life-history theory exploring how selection might shape parental care. We then conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on studies that experimentally manipulated brood size in birds, a widely used experimental approach to manipulate parental investment. We extracted 313 estimates from 62 studies representing 31 species of birds from 19 different families and tested key predictions on trade-offs in parental care derived from theory. Our analysis provides strong support for some predictions about life-history trade-offs in parental care, but weak or equivocal support for others. Specifically, we found that overall, avian parents respond to brood size manipulations as predicted by life-history theory: they increased care in response to brood enlargement, and decreased care in response to brood reductions. Furthermore, for the same relative manipulation size, responses to brood reductions were greater than responses to brood enlargements. This finding is consistent with predictions derived from life-history theory based on some types of non-linear utility curves. However, many predictions derived from theory are not well supported by our comparative analysis. Species' life-history traits such as clutch size (a measure of current reproduction), adult survival, and broods per year (two measures of future reproduction), explained little, if any, among-species variation in response to brood size manipulations. Several factors may explain this. We highlight that brood size manipulations may affect more than just perception of the value of current reproduction, such as altering parents' perception of predation risk. Importantly, these unintended consequences could lead to asymmetric responses like those we observed. Other common experimental approaches - such as hormone manipulations, altering a partner's effort, and food supplementation - often affect multiple traits or fitness components simultaneously, or may involve cues that poorly match the evolved mechanisms guiding parental behaviour. Our review of both theory and experimental approaches suggests that there are multiple opportunities for more precise experiments. We offer several recommendations for effective designs. One is improved understanding of the biology underlying the functions relating to costs and benefits, with careful consideration of not only how the manipulation will affect only one of those, but also the mechanisms that might alter how parents perceive the manipulation. We also emphasize general principles, such as assessing alternative hypotheses and devising multiple independent tests. Armed with these recommendations, we believe there are new opportunities to increase the strength of inference achieved from studies aimed at understanding the trade-offs affecting the evolution of parental care.

Animals↗

PubMed2026

Artificial intelligence (AI) uses in stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS): diagnosis with brain metastasis (BM) - A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases (BM) are the most common intracranial tumors in adults, and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has become a mainstay of management. However, several diagnostic challenges persist in the SRS pathway, particularly the differentiation of radiation necrosis (RN) from true tumor progression, which conventional MRI and even advanced imaging techniques often cannot reliably resolve. Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) offer the potential to address these diagnostic limitations. This systematic review synthesizes current literature on AI applications for MRI-based diagnostic decision support in BM patients undergoing SRS, with a focus on radiomics and deep learning tools for distinguishing RN from progression, classifying molecular and histologic subtypes, and predicting treatment response. METHODS: A systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched using a targeted query combining terms related to AI, brain metastasis, diagnosis or imaging, and SRS. After screening 483 records and applying strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, 18 studies published between 2015 and 2025 were included. Data were extracted on study design, cohort characteristics, imaging modality, AI methodology, validation strategy, and reported diagnostic performance. RESULTS: Among the 18 included studies, AI models demonstrated strong performance across diagnostic tasks in the BM-SRS pathway. The differentiation of RN from true tumor progression was the most extensively studied application, addressed by 14 of 18 studies, with reported AUCs ranging from 0.71 to 0.94. Support vector machines, random-forest ensembles, convolutional neural networks, and transformer-based multimodal architectures were widely used. The literature evolved from single-sequence radiomic classifiers in 2018 to multimodal deep learning frameworks fusing imaging with clinical and genomic data in 2025. Contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI was the dominant imaging input, and texture-based radiomic features (GLCM, GLSZM, GLDM, and wavelet-derived features) were the most consistently predictive. The highest-performing models reached AUCs of 0.85-0.91 through multimodal integration of imaging with clinical and genomic features, and consistently outperformed expert neuroradiologist read on matched cases. Remaining studies addressed longitudinal segmentation-based detection of local failure and adverse radiation effects, BRAF mutation status in melanoma BM, early Gamma Knife treatment response, and primary tumor histology classification, with more variable performance. CONCLUSION: AI models, particularly those integrating MRI-derived radiomic features with clinical and genomic data, show high accuracy in supporting diagnostic decisions for BM patients treated with SRS. The post-SRS differentiation of radiation necrosis from true tumor progression has reached the greatest level of maturity and is closest to clinical translation, with potential to reduce unnecessary biopsies, personalize surveillance intervals, and rationalize treatment-pathway decisions. Other diagnostic applications, including molecular subtyping and primary tumor histology classification, remain exploratory and require further multicenter validation. Integration of AI tools into multidisciplinary tumor-board workflows, combined with prospective validation and standardized reporting, will be essential to realize the full clinical benefits of AI in SRS for brain metastases.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Methods for defining equity-stratifying variables: a systematic review of validation studies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Disease burden is often disproportionally higher among those who are socially disadvantaged by factors defined in the PROGRESS-Plus framework (ie, Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, and Social capital, with "Plus" covering features like age and disability). The accuracy and applicability of case definitions to identify these variables from administrative and clinical health data are unknown. We conducted a systematic review to explore how equity-stratifying variables, as categorized by the PROGRESS-Plus framework, have been defined and validated in epidemiologic studies using administrative health, population-level, or electronic health record (EHR) data. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched from the inception of the databases to 2024 for validation studies of equity-stratifying variables in adults using administrative health datasets, health registries, or EHR data. Titles and abstracts, followed by relevant full-text articles, were screened in duplicate by two reviewers for eligibility. The data sources utilized, algorithms employed, and their associated performance measures were extracted and synthesized from included studies. Given substantial heterogeneity in study design, equity-stratifying variable definition, and performance metrics, meta-analysis was not possible. RESULTS: Of the 9099 unique citations screened, 188 full texts were reviewed and 116 were included in this review. Most studies were published between 2019 and 2024 (n = 64, 55%) and were validation studies of race/ethnicity definitions that used race/ethnicity codes or surname list algorithms (n = 66, 57%). No studies examined religion. Regarding the reported performance measure estimates, the race/ethnicity/culture/language equity-stratifying variables category had the largest variability across sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and Cohen's Kappa. Occupation validation studies had the lowest variation in sensitivity and PPV. CONCLUSION: Despite an increasing number of publications reporting on the validation of equity-stratifying variables relevant to the PROGRESS-Plus framework, performance measures varied widely across studies. The significant heterogeneity in equity-stratifying variable definitions and methods used to validate them support the need for further rigorous validation of equity-stratifying variables in administrative and clinical health data. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Disease burden is often higher in people who experience financial hardships, lower level of education, discrimination due to race/ethnicity, and unstable housing. These social factors can be considered health equity factors and are important for understanding health inequalities. Health researchers often use large datasets, such as hospital or electronic health records (EHRs), to study these health equity factors. However, it is not clear how accurately these data sources capture information about people's social circumstances and how these factors are defined. In this study, we reviewed existing research to understand how health equity factors have been defined across health data sources and how accurate they are at measuring aspects of health equity and social disadvantage. Of the more than 9000 studies we identified, we included 116 that met our criteria for this systematic review. Most included studies focused on identifying race and ethnicity, often using codes or surname-based methods. We found that the accuracy of these methods varied widely across studies, meaning results may not always be reliable or comparable. Overall, our findings show that there are inconsistencies in how social factors are defined and measured in health data. This makes it difficult to fully understand and address health inequalities using routinely collected health data. More work is needed to develop and validate better quality and more consistent methods for capturing these important social factors.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Ibuprofen versus acetaminophen for acute mild-to-moderate pain management in pediatric populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of their efficacy.

UNLABELLED: Ibuprofen and acetaminophen are the most widely used analgesics in pediatric practice for the management of acute mild-to-moderate pain. Despite their widespread use, the comparative analgesic efficacy of these two agents in children remains a subject of ongoing debate, with existing evidence largely derived from heterogeneous clinical settings and small individual trials. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze randomized controlled trials comparing the analgesic efficacy of ibuprofen versus acetaminophen in pediatric populations with acute mild-to-moderate pain. A systematic literature search was conducted up to May 2026 in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA-Children and Adolescents (PRISMA-C) 2026 reporting guideline. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials comparing ibuprofen with acetaminophen in children and adolescents (defined as individuals aged 0 to < 18 years) with acute pain, reporting at least one extractable efficacy outcome. Continuous outcomes were synthesized as standardized mean differences (Hedges' g) using random-effects models; dichotomous outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. Eight randomized controlled trials enrolling 1325 participants were included. Three pediatric trials contributed to the primary continuous pain outcome meta-analysis (n = 196 analyzable participants), yielding a pooled SMD of - 0.28 (95% CI - 0.57 to 0.00; p = 0.052; I2 = 0%), indicating a small effect favoring ibuprofen that did not reach conventional statistical significance. Given the small number of contributing studies (k = 3), the I2 statistic should be interpreted with caution as it has limited power to detect heterogeneity in this context. For the dichotomous pain freedom outcome (2 trials, n = 114), no significant difference was observed (pooled RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.53-1.99; p = 0.93; I2 = 0%). A prespecified sensitivity analysis including an adult soft-tissue injury trial attenuated the pooled effect toward the null (SMD - 0.15, 95% CI - 0.38 to 0.09; p = 0.23; I2 = 36.6%). Narrative synthesis of additional studies generally demonstrated comparable analgesic efficacy between the two agents across postoperative and outpatient pediatric settings. The overall certainty of evidence was rated as low for both primary outcomes, primarily due to imprecision and indirectness. CONCLUSION: Current evidence from randomized controlled trials does not demonstrate a superiority of ibuprofen over acetaminophen for acute mild-to-moderate pain management in children. Both agents appear to provide clinically meaningful analgesia across heterogeneous pediatric pain settings. The clinical choice between agents should be guided by individual patient factors, including contraindications to NSAIDs, the inflammatory nature of the pain etiology, and patient-specific characteristics. The low certainty of evidence underscores the need for adequately powered, methodologically rigorous trials to definitively establish the comparative efficacy of these two analgesics in the pediatric population. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Ibuprofen and acetaminophen are the two most widely used non-opioid analgesics for acute mild-to-moderate pain in children, and both are recommended as first-line agents by major international guidelines. • Prior meta-analyses in mixed pediatric-adult populations have suggested a modest analgesic advantage of ibuprofen over acetaminophen, but pediatric-specific evidence has remained limited and methodologically heterogeneous. WHAT IS NEW: • This systematic review and meta-analysis, restricted to randomized controlled trials in pediatric populations, found that ibuprofen showed a small effect favoring pain reduction compared with acetaminophen (SMD - 0.28, p = 0.052), although this did not reach conventional statistical significance. • The analgesic advantage of ibuprofen may be more pronounced in pain etiologies with a significant inflammatory component (e.g., fractures). At the same time, both agents appear broadly equivalent in most other acute pediatric pain settings, supporting individualized analgesic selection based on clinical context and patient-specific factors.

Humans↗