SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Webcasts as Topic”

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.

1,841 records · Page 12Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Whole cell inactivated poly-bacterial preparation MV130 effect on nasal mucosal immunity and experimental human pneumococcal carriage: double-blind randomised controlled trial with controlled human infection model.

BACKGROUND: Bacterial mucosal immunotherapy has shown protection of children and adults from both viral and bacterial respiratory infections, offering the potential to reduce antimicrobial use, and hence also control antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Pneumococcal carriage of vaccine type Streptococcus pneumoniae remains high in Malawi despite infant conjugate vaccination and AMR is increasing. We compared nasal inflammation following sublingual bacterial immunotherapy including S. pneumoniae (MV130, Inmunotek, Spain) or placebo and determined the effect in an experimental human pneumococcal carriage model. METHODS: A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in healthy adult volunteers was conducted at Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital in Blantyre, Malawi. Participants were randomly allocated to receive MV130 or placebo sublingually once daily for 42 days. Mucosal inflammation (neutrophil to T cell ratio, NTR) was measured in nasal micro-biopsies. Post-treatment, participants were challenged with 160,000 CFU/naris S. pneumoniae 6B (Spn6b). Experimental pneumococcal carriage rates post inoculation were compared between the two arms. All participants completing the study were included in the analysis. Prospective trial registration: PACTR202403820001276. FINDINGS: 107 participants were enrolled and randomised to MV130/placebo between May and December 2024. There were no serious adverse events, complete compliance was good (72%) and all adverse events were mild. 96 participants (53 male, 43 female) completed the study with 52 participants randomised to MV130 and 44 to placebo. There was no difference in mucosal inflammation (neutrophil to T cell ratio) at day 14 of the intervention MV130 NTR median = 0.737 (IQR 0.294, 2.059) and placebo NTR = 0.831 (IQR 0.450, 2.073), p = 0.64. Secondary analyses showed a rise in mucosal neutrophils after MV130 treatment and after experimental pneumococcal inoculation. There was no difference in nasal or serum anti-pneumococcal immunoglobulin or in experimental pneumococcal carriage proportion between MV130 (12/52, 23%) and placebo (10/44, 23%) groups (unadjusted risk ratio 1.02 (CI 0.49-2.12) p = 1.0). INTERPRETATION: MV130 induced non-specific mild neutrophil inflammation of the nasal mucosa but had no protective effect against experimental human pneumococcal carriage. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

A validated sensitive LC-MS/MS method and its application in elucidating the unique ocular pharmacokinetic profile of 0.01% atropine underpinning its clinical utility for myopia.

A sensitive liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method was developed and validated to quantify atropine in ten rabbit ocular tissues enabling systematic characterization of the ocular pharmacokinetic profile of 0.01% atropine sulfate eye drops after a single topical administration. The method demonstrated excellent linearity (coefficient of determination, R2 ≥ 0.9908) across all matrices, with lower limits of quantification (LLOQ) of 0.05 ng/mL for most tissues and 0.10 ng/mL for retina and lens; intra- and inter-day accuracy, precision, matrix effects, extraction recoveries, and stability all met the acceptance criteria. Following a single bilateral topical dose (50 μL/eye) in New Zealand White rabbits, atropine distributed rapidly into all 12 ocular compartments (the sclera further divided into three anatomical regions) with marked heterogeneity-the highest exposures were found in conjunctiva and cornea, a distinct anterior-to-posterior concentration gradient was observed in the sclera, sustained retention was noted in the retina (mean residence time from zero to the last measurable time point, MRT0-t 3.30 h), while aqueous and vitreous humor eliminated rapidly (elimination half-life, t₁/₂ < 0.7 h), and all tissues except aqueous humor followed a two-compartment model. This validated method and the comprehensive pharmacokinetic data reveal that topically applied 0.01% atropine achieves sustained exposure in key myopia-regulating tissues (retina, choroid, posterior sclera) with low exposure in side-effect target tissues (iris, ciliary body, lens).

Animals↗

PubMed2026

Exploring Professional Experiences in Caring for Vulnerable Migrants in an Italian Rural Reception Centre: A Qualitative Study Using Multidimensional Textual Analysis-Professional Experiences in Rural Migrant Care.

AIM: This study aims to explore the experiences, strengths, challenges, and potential improvements for professionals in managing the complex needs of vulnerable migrants (VM) in an Italian rural reception centre. METHODS: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was conducted in April 2024. Data were analysed using the Automatic Analysis of Textual Data, based on Fraire's seven-step model for Exploratory Multidimensional Data Analysis. DATA SOURCES: Data were collected from 16 professionals working in a rural reception centre in southern Italy. Interviews were conducted and analysed using AATD in April 2024. FINDINGS: The analysis identified two main dimensions of professionals' roles: balancing systemic responsibilities with personal engagement and managing immediate needs versus long-term integration goals. Professionals face significant challenges, such as resource scarcity, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and emotional fatigue, which impact their well-being and the quality of care provided to migrants. Resilience, adaptability, and multidisciplinary collaboration were identified as key strengths. CONCLUSION: The study highlights the dual nature of professionals' work in reception centres, requiring them to balance operational tasks with emotional involvement in migrant care. Targeted interventions and systemic reforms are necessary to support professionals and enhance the quality of care for vulnerable migrants, particularly in resource-constrained rural settings. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND/OR PATIENT CARE: This study underscores the importance of providing targeted support to professionals working in reception centres, including training in intercultural competence, stress management, and coping strategies. Policies should address systemic challenges and provide resources to enhance healthcare delivery and social integration programs. REPORTING METHOD: This study adhered to the EQUATOR guidelines for reporting qualitative research (COREQ). The findings were reported in compliance with these guidelines, ensuring methodological rigour and transparency. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: This study highlights the critical need for targeted support and training for professionals working in reception centres, particularly in rural settings. To improve care for vulnerable migrants, professionals should receive training in intercultural competence, stress management, and coping strategies to better navigate the complex challenges they face. Furthermore, systemic changes are necessary to alleviate the pressures on reception centres, such as streamlining bureaucratic processes and enhancing healthcare infrastructure, particularly in rural areas where resources are limited. By addressing these needs, we can improve the well-being of both the professionals and the migrants they serve, fostering more effective support systems and better care outcomes. Additionally, fostering multidisciplinary collaboration and community engagement can contribute to more comprehensive and sustainable care models. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The Ethics Committee of the University of Rome Tor Vergata approved this study on 07/07/2021 (protocol registration number 160.21).

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Digital Structured Education With Behavioral Nudge Tools for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Digital interventions offer scalable alternatives to traditional face-to-face diabetes education, but often face challenges related to inconsistent clinical effectiveness, and declining user engagement. However, whether a digital structured education program integrated with behavioral nudge tools can improve metabolic, behavioral, and psychological outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a digital structured education program integrated with behavioral nudge tools in improving metabolic, behavioral, and psychological outcomes among adults with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted in the endocrinology departments of 4 hospitals in China. Adults with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to an intervention group receiving a digital structured education program integrated with behavioral nudge tools (n=146) or a control group receiving standard digital diabetes education (n=147). Assessments were conducted at baseline and 12-week follow-up. The primary outcome was hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at 12 weeks, adjusted for baseline HbA1c, and study center. Secondary outcomes included fasting blood glucose (FBG), weight, BMI, waist circumference, blood pressure, lipid profiles, self-management behaviors, self-efficacy, and habit strength. RESULTS: Among 293 participants (mean age 49.19, SD 10.02 y), 287 (97.9%) completed follow-up. At 12 weeks, the intervention group demonstrated significantly greater improvements than the control group in HbA1c (adjusted mean difference -0.38%, 95% CI -0.68% to -0.09%; P=.01), FBG (adjusted mean difference -0.75, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.44 mmol/L; P<.001), weight (adjusted mean difference -0.84, 95% CI -1.61 to -0.07 kg; P=.03), BMI (adjusted mean difference -0.38, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.11 kg/m²; P=.01), systolic blood pressure (adjusted mean difference -2.71, 95% CI -4.62 to -0.79 mm Hg; P=.01), diastolic blood pressure (adjusted mean difference -2.92, 95% CI -4.47 to -1.37 mm Hg; P<.001), and total cholesterol (adjusted mean difference -0.27, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.05 mmol/L; P=.02). The intervention was also associated with significantly greater improvements in self-management behaviors, self-efficacy, and habit strength (all P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Digital structured education integrated with behavioral nudge tools improved metabolic outcomes and strengthened psychological and behavioral determinants of self-management among adults with type 2 diabetes over a 12-week period. These findings suggest that a digital structured education program integrated with behavioral nudge tools may enhance diabetes self-management beyond standard digital diabetes education. Further studies with longer follow-up and real-world implementation are warranted to evaluate the sustainability, generalizability, and long-term clinical impact of this integrated intervention.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Safety of insulin eye drops in the treatment of open angle glaucoma: a randomized phase I clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The progression of glaucoma despite adequate intraocular pressure (IOP) control highlights the need for neuroprotective and neuroregenerative therapies. Preclinical studies suggest insulin promotes retinal ganglion cell survival and regeneration, but its safety in higher concentrations (100 and 500 units/mL), administered topically, has been poorly characterized in humans. We aim to assess the safety and tolerability of these two concentrations of insulin eye drops in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG). DESIGN: A phase I, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-centre clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with mild to moderate OAG were randomized 2:2:1 to receive once-daily topical insulin U-100, U-500, or placebo in 1 eye for 5 days, with follow-up visits at 1, 3, and 6 months. The primary safety outcomes include glycemia, serum potassium, ocular adverse events (AEs), and ocular tolerability scores. Secondary outcomes included IOP, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), retinal nerve fibre layer thickness, ganglion cell complex, visual field, and OCT angiography. RESULTS: Eighteen open-angle glaucoma patients were enrolled (mean age: 66.2 ± 10.1 years). No serious AEs related to insulin were observed. One asymptomatic, transient near-hypoglycemia event occurred in a fasting participant (3.9 mmol/L), with no recurrence after dietary adjustment. No significant changes were found in serum potassium, IOP, BCVA, visual fields, or OCT. Ocular symptoms in the insulin groups were limited to transient, mild burning sensation upon application. One participant experienced cystoid macular edema at 3 months, which was attributed to pre-existing ocular pathology. CONCLUSION: Topical insulin at 100 and 500 units/mL concentrations was well tolerated in patients for short-term use and did not result in significant systemic or ocular toxicity.

Aged↗

PubMed2026

Effectiveness of Wearable Digital Therapeutics in Improving Sleep Outcomes Among Individuals With Insomnia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Wearable devices are increasingly used for sleep monitoring and as adjunctive treatment. Existing meta-analyses mostly pool composite digital therapies and rarely isolate stand-alone wearables or distinguish between objective and subjective end points. Whether stand-alone wearable interventions improve sleep outcomes in adults with insomnia, and which factors moderate treatment heterogeneity, remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of wearable digital interventions on sleep outcomes in adults with insomnia versus control strategies and explore moderators of effectiveness, including device-wearing position, intervention duration, and control type, using meta-regression. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑Analyses) 2020 statement and the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑Analyses Literature Search Extension) guideline. Five electronic databases and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to May 18, 2026. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating wearable digital interventions in adults with insomnia compared with sham, waitlist, usual care, or active control conditions and had an intervention duration of at least 1 week. Study screening, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment were carried out independently by 2 reviewers. Pooled estimates were calculated using a restricted maximum likelihood random-effects model with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman correction. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic, and 95% prediction intervals (PIs) were calculated for the primary analyses. The certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs (N=910) were included. Wearable digital interventions were associated with a significant reduction in objective sleep-onset latency (SOL; mean difference [MD] -4.52, 95% CI -8.38 to -0.67, PI -9.52 to 0.47 min) and a significant improvement in subjective sleep efficiency (SE; MD 2.00%, 95% CI 1.90%-2.11%, PI 1.85%-2.15%). Subjective total sleep time (TST) also showed a significant increase (MD 19.11, 95% CI 2.98-35.24, PI -16.20 to 54.43 minutes). Meta-regression showed that control type, intervention duration, and device location did not explain the heterogeneity of the insomnia severity index (ISI) (R²=0). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of pooled ISI estimates, and an Egger test indicated no small-study effects (P=.07). Certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to high. CONCLUSIONS: Wearable digital interventions provide selective benefits for objective SOL, subjective SE, and subjective TST in adults with insomnia, with no improvement in overall ISI. Despite statistically significant effects on several sleep parameters, wide PIs, substantial heterogeneity, and limited study numbers indicate preliminary, nonconclusive findings. Wearables should be viewed as affordable adjunctive tools requiring further validation, not substitutes for first-line cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia. Large-scale, long-term RCTs with standardized protocols and patient-level external validation are required to consolidate the evidence base.

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

Effects of time-restricted eating on markers of glucose metabolism and regulation in individuals with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of time-restricted eating (TRE) on glucose metabolism and regulation in individuals with prediabetes (fasting blood glucose of 5.6-6.9 mmol/l or HbA1c of 39-47 mmol/mol [5.7-6.4%]) or type 2 diabetes (fasting blood glucose ≥7 mmol/l or HbA1c ≥48 mmol/mol [6.5%]). METHODS: A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL from inception to 5 August 2025. Moreover, forward and backward citation searches were performed. Eligible studies were RCTs in adults with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes, lasting ≥2 weeks, reporting markers of glucose metabolism and regulation, comparing TRE (≤12 h eating window) with a non-time-restricted control diet. Studies involving pregnancy, other fasting regimens, or non-peer-reviewed publications were excluded. Data were pooled as weighted mean differences with 95% CIs using random-effects generic inverse variance models in Cochrane Review Manager Web, and results are presented as forest plots. The certainty of evidence was defined using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology, and risk of bias was estimated by using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2). RESULTS: Out of 2043 records identified through the database search, as well as 1249 from forward and backward citation searches, ten RCTs including 599 participants were included. The mean length of the studies was 4 months, and the eating windows ranged from 4 to 10 h per day. The pooled meta-analysis showed no overall effect of TRE on HbA1c (-3.33 mmol/mol; 95% CI -6.87, 0.20 (-0.30% points; -0.63, 0.02); p=0.06, moderate certainty). Nevertheless, following stratification by subgroups, TRE resulted in a reduction in HbA1c of 0.93 mmol/mol (-1.70, -0.17 [-0.09% points; -0.16, -0.02]; p=0.02) in individuals with prediabetes but not in individuals with type 2 diabetes (-4.68 mmol/mol; -10.08, 0.72 (-0.43% points; -0.92, 0.07); p=0.09). TRE reduced fasting blood glucose in the pooled analysis (-0.30 mmol/l; -0.53, -0.07; p<0.01, moderate certainty) as well as in the subgroup analyses in individuals with prediabetes (-0.14 mmol/l; -0.27, -0.01; p=0.03) and with type 2 diabetes (-0.48 mmol/l; -0.78, -0.17; p<0.01). Moreover, TRE lowered body weight by 1.6 kg (-2.2, -1.0; p<0.001) in the pooled analysis. The evidence was limited by imprecision arising from wide confidence intervals in some of the included studies, which may be due to small sample sizes. Lastly, the effects of TRE on markers of insulin sensitivity, beta cell function and continuous glucose monitoring measurements were inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that TRE reduces fasting blood glucose but not HbA1c. The subgroup analyses revealed that TRE improved HbA1c and fasting glucose in individuals with prediabetes and improved fasting glucose in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Future large-scale studies should investigate long-term effects of TRE in prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024523591 FUNDING: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. Three authors (JS, A-DT, THA) are employed at Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, a public hospital and research institution under the Capital Region of Denmark, partly funded by a grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

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

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↗

PubMed2026

Tranexamic acid protects human dermal fibroblasts from D-galactose-induced senescence via the GPR30/MAPK pathway.

BACKGROUND: Tranexamic acid (TXA) is widely used for pigmentary disorders, but its anti-ageing potential remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate whether topical 3% TXA improves early periorbital wrinkles in women with facial melasma and to investigate whether TXA protects human dermal fibroblasts from D-galactose-induced senescence via the GPR30/MAPK pathway. METHODS: Fifty women with melasma were randomized to 3% TXA serum plus moisturizer or moisturizer alone for 8 weeks, with follow-up to week 12. Periorbital wrinkles were graded using a modified Fitzpatrick Wrinkle Scale (MFWS). Separately, D-gal-induced senescence in HDFs was assessed via viability, SA-β-gal activity, senescence markers, ROS, antioxidant enzymes, SASP/ECM gene expression, and MAPK activation. GPR30 involvement was examined using antagonist G15, shRNA knockdown, and molecular docking. RESULTS: Topical TXA produced significantly greater MFWS reductions versus moisturizer alone at weeks 4, 8, and 12, with benefit persisting post-treatment. In HDFs, TXA preserved viability, reduced SA-β-gal positivity, attenuated p21/p16, restored Lamin B1, decreased ROS, and rescued antioxidant activities. TXA downregulated IL-6, IL-8, MMP1, and MMP3, and suppressed D-gal-induced ERK, JNK, and p38 phosphorylation. These effects were weakened by G15 or GPR30 knockdown; docking supported a stable TXA-GPR30 interaction. CONCLUSIONS: TXA showed clinical anti-wrinkle activity in melasma patients and protected HDFs from D-gal-induced senescence, partly via GPR30-dependent modulation of oxidative stress, SASP/ECM expression, and MAPK signalling. TXA is a promising candidate for skin ageing intervention.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

RATIONALE: A range of surgical options is available for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), including holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). The evidence is unclear regarding differences in functional, perioperative, and morbidity outcomes between these modalities. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate compared with other surgical treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched multiple databases (including MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, LILACS, and the International HTA database), trial registries, and conference abstracts through April 08, 2026. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We only included randomized trials of men over 40 years of age with a prostate volume of at least 20 mL (assessed by digital rectal examination, ultrasound, or conventional imaging) who exhibited lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) defined by an International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) of eight or greater undergoing surgical interventions for BPH. OUTCOMES: The critical outcomes measured were the urologic symptoms score, the quality-of-life score, and major adverse events. The important outcomes measured were: re-treatment, erectile function, ejaculatory function, transfusions, acute urinary retention, indwelling urinary catheter duration, and hospital stay duration. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 1) to assess for potential sources of bias on a study and outcome level basis. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We pooled outcome data using the random-effects model and performed meta-analyses using the Mantel-Haenszel method. We assessed statistical heterogeneity in the pooled data by visually inspecting forest plots and using the I2 statistic to quantify it. We used the GRADE framework to assess the certainty of evidence. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 52 trials that included 6242 participants that compared HoLEP to other surgical interventions for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The median age of participants across the studies ranged from 65 to 74 years. The baseline prostate volume ranged from 30 cc to 142 cc. Baseline IPSS scores ranged from 19.6 to 28.6 (range 0-35). SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: We prioritized comparing HoLEP with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) at short-term follow-up (up to 12 months), because TURP is the long-standing reference standard and the predominant comparator in randomized surgical trials. Findings for the four remaining comparisons (laser ablation, alternative energy source enucleation, other minimally invasive therapies, and simple prostatectomy), for long-term follow-up, and for all remaining outcomes are reported in full in the review. Compared to TURP, at short-term follow-up: Critical outcomes - HoLEP may result in little to no difference in short-term urologic symptom scores measured using the IPSS (range 0 to 35; lower values reflect fewer symptoms) (MD -0.67, 95% CI -1.20 to -0.14; I² = 93%; 14 studies, 1666 participants, low-certainty evidence). - HoLEP may result in little to no difference in short-term quality of life (range 0 to 6; lower values reflect better quality of life) (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.15; I² = 73%; 6 studies, 876 participants, low-certainty evidence). - HoLEP may result in little to no difference in short-term major adverse events (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.58; I² = 0%; 10 studies, 1147 participants, low-certainty evidence). Important outcomes - HoLEP likely results in little to no difference in re-treatment (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.50; I² = 0%; 8 studies, 813 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). - HoLEP likely results in little to no difference in erectile function (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.42; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 518 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). - Ejaculatory function: we did not find any data for this outcome. - HoLEP likely reduces the need for blood transfusion (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.42; I² = 0%; 15 studies, 1755 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with TURP, HoLEP may achieve similar relief of urologic symptoms, similar quality of life, and similar rates of major adverse events in the first 12 months after surgery, and probably similar re-treatment rates and erectile function. HoLEP likely reduces the need for blood transfusion; this is the only advantage of HoLEP that the randomized evidence, as summarized here, supports as clinically important. There was insufficient evidence to assess outcomes in the subset of individuals with larger prostates or on anticoagulation. Future research should prioritize long-term trials reporting sexual function and urinary incontinence outcomes, recruit men with very large prostates (≥ 150 cc) or on anticoagulation therapy, and evaluate cost-effectiveness and training requirements. FUNDING: No external funding was received for this review. REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review was published in the Cochrane Database 2019 (https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013291).

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Long-term hormone therapy for perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Hormone therapy is widely provided to control menopausal symptoms and has been used for the management and prevention of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis and dementia in older women. This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in 2005. OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term effects of prolonged use (at least one year) of hormone therapy on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, cancer, gallbladder disease, fractures and cognition in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. SEARCH METHODS: We used the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, three other databases and two trial registers, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify the studies included in the review. The latest search date was 26 September 2024. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind trials in which peri- or postmenopausal women took hormone therapy or placebo for at least one year. We included various oestrogen formulations, with or without progestogens. We focused on studies assessing hormone therapy's effects on long-term clinical outcomes, including death, coronary events and cancer. Hormone therapy's efficacy in managing menopausal symptoms was beyond the scope of this review, and is assessed in other Cochrane reviews. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 studies - with two newly added in this update - involving 45,660 participants. We derived nearly 70% of the data from two well-conducted studies: the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS 1998) and the large, multi-component Women's Health Initiative research programme, which included two hormone therapy arms (WHI 1998). Across all the studies, most participants were postmenopausal American women with one or more comorbidities. The mean participant age in most studies was over 60 years. Only one included study focused on perimenopausal women. We present full results for all included studies with available data in the main review. The results presented below are drawn from WHI 1998, in which the combined hormone therapy arm and the oestrogen-only arm were run concurrently, with women assigned to the appropriate trial based on their uterus status. One study with 16,608 postmenopausal women with an intact uterus compared combined continuous hormone therapy (conjugated equine oestrogen and medroxyprogesterone acetate) to placebo, and measured outcomes at an average of 5.6 years of follow-up. Based on this study, combined continuous hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to the risk of a coronary event (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase the risk of stroke (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.09; low-certainty evidence) and venous thromboembolism (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.55 to 6.64; low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, combined continuous hormone therapy probably increases the risk of breast cancer (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.56; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably makes little to no difference to the risk of lung cancer (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.46; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase gallbladder disease requiring surgery (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.06; 14,203 participants; low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the risk of all clinical fractures (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.86; moderate-certainty evidence). One study including 10,739 postmenopausal women who had undergone a hysterectomy compared oestrogen-only (conjugated equine oestrogen) hormone therapy to placebo, and measured outcomes at an average of seven years' follow-up. Based on this study, oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to the risk of coronary events (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13), venous thromboembolism (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.74) and breast cancer (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.01), all with moderate-certainty evidence. It may make little to no difference to the risk of lung cancer (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.48; low-certainty evidence). Oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably increases the risk of stroke (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.67) and gallbladder disease requiring surgery (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.24), and probably reduces the risk of all clinical fractures (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.80), all with moderate-certainty evidence. We judged most included studies to have a low risk of bias for most domains. The overall certainty of evidence for the main comparisons was moderate. The main limitation was that only about 30% of women were 50 to 59 years old at baseline, the age group most likely to consider hormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Long-term follow-up of women using hormone therapy suggests that the risk profiles vary between combined hormone therapy and oestrogen-only therapy. Oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to coronary events, and probably increases the risk of stroke and gallbladder disease. It probably makes little to no difference in the risk of breast cancer, and probably reduces the risk of all fractures. Combined hormone therapy may increase the risk of thromboembolism and probably increases the risk of breast cancer. These results should be interpreted with caution as they are based on one study using oral hormone therapy, which may not represent the risks of the hormone therapy currently used in clinical practice.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Magnesium sulphate for women at risk of preterm birth for neuroprotection of the fetus.

BACKGROUND: Magnesium sulphate is a common therapy in perinatal care. Its benefits when given to women at risk of preterm birth for fetal neuroprotection (prevention of cerebral palsy for children) were shown in a 2009 Cochrane review. Internationally, use of magnesium sulphate for preterm cerebral palsy prevention is now recommended practice. As new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longer-term follow-up of prior RCTs have since been conducted, this review updates the previously published version. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of magnesium sulphate as a fetal neuroprotective agent when given to women considered to be at risk of preterm birth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 17 March 2023, as well as reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and cluster-RCTs of women at risk of preterm birth that assessed prenatal magnesium sulphate for fetal neuroprotection compared with placebo or no treatment. All methods of administration (intravenous, intramuscular, and oral) were eligible. We did not include studies where magnesium sulphate was used with the primary aim of preterm labour tocolysis, or the prevention and/or treatment of eclampsia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed RCTs for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and trustworthiness. Dichotomous data were presented as summary risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and continuous data were presented as mean differences with 95% CI. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs (5917 women and their 6759 fetuses alive at randomisation). All RCTs were conducted in high-income countries. The RCTs compared magnesium sulphate with placebo in women at risk of preterm birth at less than 34 weeks' gestation; however, treatment regimens and inclusion/exclusion criteria varied. Though the RCTs were at an overall low risk of bias, the certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low, due to concerns regarding study limitations, imprecision, and inconsistency. Primary outcomes for infants/children: Up to two years' corrected age, magnesium sulphate compared with placebo reduced cerebral palsy (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.89; 6 RCTs, 6107 children; number needed to treat for additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 60, 95% CI 41 to 158) and death or cerebral palsy (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; 6 RCTs, 6481 children; NNTB 56, 95% CI 32 to 363) (both high-certainty evidence). Magnesium sulphate probably resulted in little to no difference in death (fetal, neonatal, or later) (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.13; 6 RCTs, 6759 children); major neurodevelopmental disability (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.44; 1 RCT, 987 children); or death or major neurodevelopmental disability (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07; 3 RCTs, 4279 children) (all moderate-certainty evidence). At early school age, magnesium sulphate may have resulted in little to no difference in death (fetal, neonatal, or later) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.02; 2 RCTs, 1758 children); cerebral palsy (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.41; 2 RCTs, 1038 children); death or cerebral palsy (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.20; 1 RCT, 503 children); and death or major neurodevelopmental disability (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 503 children) (all low-certainty evidence). Magnesium sulphate may also have resulted in little to no difference in major neurodevelopmental disability, but the evidence is very uncertain (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.62; 2 RCTs, 940 children; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes for infants/children: Magnesium sulphate probably resulted in little to no difference in severe intraventricular haemorrhage (grade 3 or 4) (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.04; 6 RCTs, 6542 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may have resulted in little to no difference in chronic lung disease/bronchopulmonary dysplasia (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10; 5 RCTs, 6689 infants; low-certainty evidence). Primary outcomes for women: Magnesium sulphate may have resulted in little or no difference in severe maternal outcomes potentially related to treatment (death, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest) (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.92; 4 RCTs, 5300 women; low-certainty evidence). However, magnesium sulphate probably increased maternal adverse effects severe enough to stop treatment (average RR 3.21, 95% CI 1.88 to 5.48; 3 RCTs, 4736 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes for women: Magnesium sulphate probably resulted in little to no difference in caesarean section (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.02; 5 RCTs, 5861 women) and postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.09; 2 RCTs, 2495 women) (both moderate-certainty evidence). Breastfeeding at hospital discharge and women's views of treatment were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The currently available evidence indicates that magnesium sulphate for women at risk of preterm birth for neuroprotection of the fetus, compared with placebo, reduces cerebral palsy, and death or cerebral palsy, in children up to two years' corrected age. Magnesium sulphate may result in little to no difference in outcomes in children at school age. While magnesium sulphate may result in little to no difference in severe maternal outcomes (death, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest), it probably increases maternal adverse effects severe enough to stop treatment. Further research is needed on the longer-term benefits and harms for children, into adolescence and adulthood. Additional studies to determine variation in effects by characteristics of women treated and magnesium sulphate regimens used, along with the generalisability of findings to low- and middle-income countries, should be considered.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Thymosin-ɑ1 for people with chronic hepatitis B.

RATIONALE: Chronic hepatitis B is a global public health concern. It is caused by infection with the hepatitis B virus (HBV). The goal of treating chronic HBV infection is to prevent progression to chronic hepatitis, cirrhosis, hepatic decompensation, liver failure, hepatocellular carcinoma, and death. Individual studies have evaluated various immunomodulatory therapies with inconsistent results. Thymosin-ɑ1 is known to have antiviral effects; however, results of randomised clinical trials on the effects of thymosin-α1 as a potential treatment for people with chronic HBV have been inconsistent. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of thymosin-ɑ1 therapy in people with chronic hepatitis B. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, four other databases and six trials registers, in addition to reference checking, citation searching, and contacting study authors to identify trials for inclusion. The latest search date was 10 June 2026. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated thymosin-α1 at any dose, route of administration, or formulation type, in people with chronic hepatitis B regardless of age, sex, or ethnicity. Thymosin-α1 could have been administered as monotherapy, in combination with an additional drug, or in addition to standard medical treatment and compared with placebo, no intervention, the same additional drug, or the same standard medical treatment. OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Among our important outcomes were HBV-related morbidity, HBV-related mortality, non-serious adverse events, and the proportion of people without histological improvements. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane Risk of bias 2 tool (RoB 2) to assess risk of bias. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We followed Cochrane methods. We conducted meta-analyses for predefined outcomes using data from the longest follow-up period, irrespective of the risk of bias judgements. We presented dichotomous outcome results as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous outcome results as mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at their longest follow-ups. We used the random-effects model for our primary analyses. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 10 RCTs conducted in Bangladesh, China, Italy, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan, with 1349 randomised participants (range: 12 to 690; 1045 (77.5%) were male). Among the trials reporting age, none included participants younger than 17 years (age range: 17 to 75 years). The trials were published between 1991 and 2018, and assessed thymosin-ɑ1 in adults with chronic hepatitis B infection, with or without comorbidities. Only two trials mentioned comorbidities (cirrhosis and acute-on-chronic liver failure). The trials compared thymosin-ɑ1, with or without a cointervention, with placebo or no intervention, or with the same cointervention. The control interventions were placebos in two trials and no intervention in two. The remaining six trials administered co-interventions, such as interferon, pegylated interferon, lamivudine, and standard medical therapy (entecavir or tenofovir), and entecavir. Follow-ups ranged from six months to five years after the end of treatment (median: 12 months). Four trials were funded by industry, five by research grants, and one provided no information. All 10 trials (11 records) provided data on at least one outcome in our review. We identified no ongoing trials. Sixteen studies are awaiting assessment due to incomplete reporting. We received no responses to our enquiries. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Thymosin-ɑ1, compared with the control interventions, may reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 907 participants; very low-certainty evidence), serious adverse events (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.99; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 1056 participants; low-certainty evidence), HBV-related mortality (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 907 participants; very low-certainty evidence), non-serious adverse events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.83; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 300 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and may have little to no effect on health-related quality of life (MD 0.70, 95% CI -2.55 to 3.95; I² not applicable; 1 study, 161 participants; very low-certainty evidence; score range: 0 to 100; the higher the score, the better) and on histological improvement (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.06; I² = 74%; 2 studies, 702 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of thymosin-ɑ1 on hepatitis B-related morbidity (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; I² = 3%; 3 studies, 854 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We judged the certainty of evidence to be low for serious adverse events and very low for the remaining outcomes. Reasons for downgrading were mainly due to study limitations, including overall high or some concerns for risk of bias; imprecision of the pooled effect estimates (including wide or very wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect, and small participant numbers); and inconsistency due to substantial heterogeneity (I² = 74%). The test for subgroup differences provided no evidence of differences in effect according to thymosin‑α1 administration for any outcome (P ≥ 0.05). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We assessed the certainty of evidence as very low for all outcomes except for serious adverse events (low). Therefore, we are not sure whether thymosin-α1 monotherapy versus placebo or no intervention, or with the same co-interventions, reduces all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, HBV-related mortality, and non-serious adverse events, nor whether it has any effect on quality of life (based on one trial) and histological improvement. The effect of thymosin-ɑ1 on HBV-related morbidity is very uncertain. We observed no statistically significant differences between trials with and without cointerventions. We found no ongoing trials. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014610.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Multisensory stimulation for promoting development and preventing morbidity in preterm infants.

RATIONALE: Multisensory stimulation is a structured, developmentally appropriate intervention that provides simultaneous or sequential stimulation of two or more senses (e.g. tactile, auditory, visual, or vestibular) in a controlled and non-stressful manner, with the aim of supporting early neurodevelopment in preterm infants. It has the potential to enhance physiological regulation in preterm infants by stabilizing key functions, such as respiratory patterns, heart rate, and oxygen saturation; reducing the need for respiratory support; and improving feeding performance and sleep regulation. Targeted multisensory interventions have also been associated with improved neurodevelopmental outcomes, including enhanced psychomotor development and visual function. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of multisensory stimulation compared to any single sensory intervention or standard care on major neurodevelopmental disability, mortality, and growth in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, two trial registries, and conference abstracts up to 28 November 2025. We checked reference lists of included trials, and systematic reviews on sensory interventions. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multisensory stimulation in preterm infants with no intervention (placebo or standard care), and one RCT comparing multisensory stimulation with single-sense stimulation (tactile stimulation). OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were major neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months: cerebral palsy (CP), developmental delay, intellectual impairment, blindness, sensorineural deafness; death during initial hospitalization; and total weight gain (grams), assessed at discharge. When comparing multisensory stimulation with single-sense intervention, we also included weight gain during the intervention, an outcome added during the post-hoc analysis. Important outcomes were duration of hospital stay, of NICU stay, and of respiratory support; and time until full oral feeding. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane tool, RoB 2. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We conducted meta-analyses using fixed-effect models to calculate risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, each with its 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity by calculating the I2 statistic when we included more than two trials in a meta-analysis. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 19 trials (1554 newborn infants): 18 studies compared multisensory stimulation with standard care; one compared multisensory stimulation with single-sensory stimulation (tactile). In 10 studies, the primary aim was to assess the neurobehavioral outcomes of multisensory stimulation on preterm neo-nates. The other nine studies aimed to assess the impact of multisensory stimulation on weight gain during the intervention, weight gain until hospital discharge, length of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) stay, length of hospital stay, time until full oral feeding, length of respiratory support, or a combination. In the abstract we report results for the critical outcomes only. We identified 13 ongoing studies. Four studies are awaiting assessment. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Multisensory stimulation compared to standard care No studies reported on these major neurodevelopmental disabilities, assessed at 18 to 24 months' corrected age (CA): developmental delay, intellectual impairment, blindness, or sensorineural deafness. One study reported on rates of CP at 12 months of age. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation on CP (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.58; I² not applicable; 1 study, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that multisensory stimulation may result in little to no difference in death during initial hospitalization (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.73; I² not applicable; 1 study, 395 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multisensory stimulation may increase total weight gain prior to discharge (MD 72.67, 95% CI 68.23 to 77.12; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 474 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multisensory stimulation compared to single-sense (tactile) stimulation No studies reported on major neurodevelopmental disability, assessed at 18 to 24 months' CA, or death during initial hospitalization. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation compared to tactile stimulation on weight gain during the intervention (MD -175.00, 95% CI -376.60 to 26.60; I² not applicable; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was low to very low across outcomes, primarily due to risk of bias, imprecision from small sample sizes and wide CIs, and in some cases, inconsistency. The evidence base was also limited by the lack of reporting of relevant outcomes and reliance on surrogate outcomes or shorter follow-up periods. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence on multisensory stimulation in preterm infants is limited and of low to very low certainty. No included studies reported on major neurodevelopmental disabilities at 18 to 24 months' CA, which represented a critical outcome for this review. Evidence regarding the effect of multisensory stimulation on CP is very uncertain, as it is based on a single small study reporting a surrogate outcome at 12 months. Multisensory stimulation may result in little to no difference in mortality during the initial hospitalization. It may increase total weight gain prior to discharge. However, the clinical significance of this finding is uncertain, particularly given the low certainty of the evidence and the multifactorial nature of growth in preterm infants. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation compared to single-sense (tactile) stimulation on weight gain during the intervention. The only included study did not report major neurodevelopmental disabilities at 18 to 24 months' CA, mortality during the initial hospitalization, or total weight gain prior to discharge, which represented the critical outcomes for this review. Overall, the current evidence does not allow firm conclusions about the effectiveness of multisensory stimulation in promoting development or preventing morbidity in preterm infants. Future studies on multisensory stimulation should use more rigorous designs, larger samples, and report interventions using the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist to ensure transparency. They should also report essential outcomes, such as neonatal death, major neurodevelopmental disabilities, length of hospital and NICU stay, time to full oral feeding, duration of respiratory support, and weight gain, to better assess the long‑term effects of multisensory stimulation in preterm infants. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD016073.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting participants to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is challenging. Identifying effective recruitment strategies would benefit health research: poor recruitment leads to underpowered trials, reducing the reliability of findings and increasing the risk of wasted resources, ethical concerns, and trial failure. Evidence to inform recruitment strategies is increasingly generated through Studies Within A Trial (SWATs), which are methodological studies embedded within host RCTs. This is an update of a review last published in 2018. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to quantify the effects of strategies to improve recruitment of participants to RCTs. Secondary: to evaluate recruitment strategies' cost-effectiveness and impact on retention, and the equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) characteristics of recruited participants. SEARCH METHODS: We used MEDLINE, Embase, and six other databases to identify the studies included in the review. We also sought unpublished recruitment SWATs through social media and targeted email dissemination to trial methodology networks. The latest search date was 16 February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised SWATs evaluating trial recruitment strategies embedded in healthcare and non-healthcare trials. We excluded quasi-randomised, hypothetical, questionnaire-only, retention-only, or clinician incentive studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcome: proportion of eligible participants or centres recruited. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: cost-effectiveness, retention rates, and EDI characteristics of included participants. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis for strategies evaluated in at least two studies; otherwise, we synthesised results narratively. We reported effects as risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and assessed between-trial heterogeneity. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for the primary outcome. We expressed cost-effectiveness as the incremental cost per additional participant recruited in pounds sterling (GBP). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 91 eligible studies (53 new to this update), providing 94 comparisons and involving at least 176,747 participants. Eighty-one studies involved strategies aimed at trial participants, while 10 evaluated strategies aimed at recruiters. All were healthcare studies. We found 65 recruitment strategies; 49 were evaluated in a single study. Only five strategies were supported by high-certainty evidence according to GRADE criteria, and we focus on these strategies in the summary below. Open-label trials versus blinded, placebo trials. Open-label trials recruited more participants than blinded trials (RD 10%, 95% CI 8% to 12%; 3 studies, 9004 participants), corresponding to approximately 10 additional participants per 100 approached. The studies involved mostly women in the UK and Estonia. No cost or retention data were reported. Telephone reminder versus no telephone reminder. Telephone reminders to people who did not respond to an initial postal invitation boosted recruitment by 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%; 2 studies, 1450 participants), in trials with low underlying recruitment (we are less certain for trials with over 10% recruitment). The studies involved people with a mean age of 58 years in Canada and Norway. No cost or retention data were reported. Recruitment primer letter versus no letter. Pre-recruitment letters and leaflets designed to encourage participation made little or no difference to recruitment (absolute improvement 1%, 95% CI -1% to 2%; 2 studies, 5376 participants), and were associated with increased costs compared to not sending a primer (incremental cost: GBP 2.08). The studies involved mostly older white people in the UK and Ireland. Multimedia information via a digital link/QR code plus paper participant information leaflet (PIL) versus paper PIL alone. This made little or no difference to recruitment (absolute improvement 0%, 95% CI -1% to 1%; 7 studies, 11,612 participants) and retention (absolute improvement 0%, 95% CI -2% to 3%; 5 studies, 7403 participants), and increased costs compared to not including multimedia information (incremental cost: GBP 0.78). The studies involved people in the UK. Optimised, user-tested PIL versus standard PIL. Optimising participant information leaflets (e.g. through user-testing the leaflet with the target population to shape its content, format, and appearance) made little or no difference to recruitment: absolute improvement was 0% (95% CI 0% to 1%; 6 studies, 27,805 participants). The studies involved people in the UK. Only one study reported EDI data; participants were mostly older women. No cost or retention data were reported. We had moderate-certainty evidence for 13 other strategies; confidence was often reduced because the results came from single studies. Seven strategies involved changes to how potential participants received information; four involved changes to trial conduct; one targeted the recruiter or recruitment site; and one tested non-monetary incentives. We had much less confidence in the other 47 comparisons because the studies had design flaws, were single studies, or had very uncertain results. Costs were reported in only 17 of 91 studies. Strategy impact on retention was reported in 15 studies. All but one study (99%) were from high-income countries. The most reported demographics were age (49 studies), sex (32 studies), gender (27 studies), and education level (16 studies). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on strategies to improve trial recruitment remains broad but lacks depth. Of 65 strategies evaluated, only five were supported by high-certainty evidence. Open-label trial designs and telephone reminders to non-responders increased recruitment, while optimised participant information leaflets, recruitment primer letters, and multimedia information provided alongside a paper participant information leaflet had little or no effect. Reporting of participant characteristics was poor, limiting assessment of equity, diversity, and inclusion across most studies. Evidence is heavily skewed toward high-income countries. Future research must prioritise evaluations in low-to-middle-income settings and consistently report cost, retention, and EDI outcomes. We strongly urge the methodology research community to strengthen the evidence base by prioritising replications of existing strategies over the development and testing of new ones. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (Advanced Fellowship, Adwoa Parker, reference:NIHR302256). Health Research Board, Republic of Ireland, Evidence Synthesis Ireland (grant ESI-2021-001) REGISTRATION: This review updates an earlier Cochrane review, which was first published in 2002 and subsequently updated in 2007, 2010, and 2018. Previous versions of the review and their protocols are available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub2 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub3 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub4 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub5 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub6.

Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic↗

PubMed2026

Pharmacological therapies for the prevention of fractures in men.

RATIONALE: Pharmacological therapies for fracture prevention usually target osteoporosis, a skeletal disorder characterised by compromised bone mass or quality (or both). As most participants in osteoporosis trials are women, a review of pharmacological therapies for fracture prevention in men was warranted. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of bisphosphonates, parathyroid (PTH) or parathyroid-related protein (PTHrP) analogues, denosumab, and romosozumab therapy for the prevention of fractures in men. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) until 14 October 2025, with no restrictions on date or language of publication. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared bisphosphonates, PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab (alone or with calcium or vitamin D, or both) with placebo, other drugs, or non-pharmacological therapies in men aged 50 years or older. Our primary comparison was bisphosphonates versus placebo. OUTCOMES: Critical outcomes were incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, other (not hip or vertebral) fractures, disability, participants with adverse events, study withdrawals due to adverse events, and participants with serious adverse events. Our primary time point was the final time point reported in the trials. RISK OF BIAS: We used Cochrane's RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We used a random-effects model for meta-analysis employing the Mantel-Haenszel approach, and the DerSimonian and Laird method to estimate between-trial variance. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. INCLUDED STUDIES: Seventeen trials (4132 participants) met our inclusion criteria. The average age of participants ranged from 52 to 73 years. Twelve trials used a placebo comparator versus bisphosphonate (7 trials, 2548 participants), PTH or PTHrP analogues (4 trials, 569 participants), denosumab (1 trial, 240 participants), and romosozumab (1 trial, 244 participants). For the other planned comparisons, a bisphosphonate was compared to vitamin D/vitamin D analogues (2 trials, 434 participants), to calcitonin (1 trial, 32 participants), to PTH or PTHrP analogues (1 trial, 19 participants), or to another bisphosphonate (1 trial, 301 participants), and one trial compared a bisphosphonate plus calcium to calcium tablets alone (46 participants). SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Placebo-controlled trials were largely susceptible to bias in selection of the reported result (83%), while most trials without a placebo control were also susceptible to bias arising from the randomisation process (100%) and in measurement of the outcome (80%). We are very uncertain about the effect of bisphosphonates on the incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, or other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures compared to placebo at the final follow-up (up to two years). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once for risk of bias, twice for imprecision (very low event rates), and once for suspected publication bias. The certainty of evidence for incidence of other fractures was further downgraded for indirectness, as it was unclear if hip fractures were also included in the outcome. At up to two years, 2/875 participants (2 per 1000) in the bisphosphonate group reported hip fractures compared with 2/760 (3 per 1000) in the placebo group (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 8.51; I² = 36%; 4 trials, 1635 participants); 5/1021 (4/1000) participants in the bisphosphonate group had a symptomatic vertebral fracture compared to 7/855 (8/1000) participants in the placebo group (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.74; I² = 0%; 5 trials, 1876 participants); 25/1130 participants (16/1000) in the bisphosphonate group reported other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures compared to 19/913 participants (21/1000) in the placebo group (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.45; I² = 0%; 6 trials, 2043 participants). Bisphosphonates probably do not increase the risk of adverse events: 1024/1374 participants (746/1000) receiving bisphosphonates reported adverse events compared to 826/1174 participants (704/1000) receiving placebo (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.19; I² = 75%; 7 trials, 2548 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or serious adverse events: 329/1329 participants (272/1000) receiving bisphosphonate reported serious adverse events compared to 323/1128 participants (286/1000) receiving placebo (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.08; I² = 0%; 6 trials, 2457 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once due to potential bias for adverse events and serious adverse events. We are very uncertain if bisphosphonates result in more withdrawals due to adverse events: 41/1374 participants (25/1000) in the bisphosphonate group withdrew due to adverse events compared with 43/1174 participants (37/1000) in the placebo group (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.18; I² = 37%; 7 trials, 2548 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision. No trial reported disability. We are very uncertain about the effects of PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab compared to placebo on fracture outcomes. We are very uncertain about the effects of PTH/PTHrP analogues on total adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. Denosumab may not increase the risk of adverse events or serious adverse events compared to placebo, while the evidence for withdrawals due to adverse events is very uncertain. Romosozumab probably does not increase the risk of adverse events and may not increase the risk of serious adverse events or result in more withdrawals due to adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are very uncertain about the effects of bisphosphonates compared to placebo on the incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, or other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures in men at up to two years of use. Bisphosphonates probably do not increase the risk of adverse events or serious adverse events, and we are very uncertain if they result in more withdrawals due to adverse events. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for indirectness, imprecision (low event rate), and serious risk of bias in selection of the reported result, as it was unclear if all studies fully reported every fracture. We found similar results for PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab versus placebo. Larger, longer placebo-controlled studies are needed to determine whether pharmacological therapies are beneficial for reducing fractures in men. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol (2021): https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014707.

Humans↗