SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Co-location”

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.

220 records · Page 13Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Prostate morcellation devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes and efficiency.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the efficiency and safety of different prostate morcellators used during prostate enucleation for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses guidelines. PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies published between October 2012 and May 2025. Studies reporting clinical outcomes of morcellators used during prostate enucleation were included. Primary outcome was morcellation efficiency (g/min). Secondary outcomes included intraoperative complications, device malfunction, and cost when available. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I), RoB 2 tool, and European Association of Urology case-series criteria. Random-effects meta-analyses and multilevel meta-regression adjusted for prostate volume were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies comprising 5980 patients were included, most undergoing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. The most frequently evaluated devices were the Piranha™ (Richard Wolf GmbH, Knittlingen, Germany) and Lumenis VersaCut™ (Lumenis Ltd., Yokneam, Israel; 12 and 13 studies, respectively), followed by DrillCut™ (Karl Storz SE & Co. KG, Tuttlingen, Germany), MultiCut™ (Asclepion Laser Technologies GmbH, Jena, Germany), and Cyber Blade™ (Quanta System SpA, Milan, Italy) systems. Unadjusted weighted mean morcellation efficiency was 7.80 g/min (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.26-9.34 g/min) for Piranha, 4.70 g/min (95% CI 3.61-5.79 g/min) for VersaCut, 5.90 g/min (95% CI 3.16-8.64 g/min) for DrillCut, and 9.59 g/min (95% CI 4.78-14.39 g/min) for MultiCut. In volume-adjusted meta-regression using Piranha as reference, VersaCut remained significantly less efficient (-2.75 g/min; 95% CI -4.58 to -0.92 g/min; P = 0.003), with an even greater difference in prostates >70 mL (-4.34 g/min). Bladder mucosal injury was the most frequently reported complication; however, relatively rare across all devices. Meta-analysis demonstrated a significantly higher risk with VersaCut compared to Piranha (risk ratio 3.22, 95% CI 1.81-5.71), with low heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides a contemporary clinical benchmark of the efficiency and safety of currently available prostate morcellators. Oscillating blade systems, particularly the Piranha morcellator, demonstrated higher morcellation efficiency and a more favourable safety profile than reciprocating blade devices, with the largest performance differences observed in patients with larger prostates.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Improved quality of life and prolonged survival with add-on homeopathic treatment in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, three-arm, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Alongside conventional anticancer treatment, add-on homeopathy might help to alleviate adverse effects of conventional therapy. AIM: The aim of this study was to replicate previous studies on the effect of adjunctive homeopathy on quality of life (QoL) and survival in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. METHOD: In this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, three-arm multicenter phase III study with quadruple-checked data analysis, we investigated the potential effects of an add-on homeopathic treatment compared to placebo in patients with stage IV NSCLC in terms of QoL. Ninety-eight received either individualized homeopathic medicinal products (HMPs; n = 51) or placebo (n = 47) in a double-blinded fashion. Fifty-two control patients without homeopathic treatment were only observed in terms of their survival rate. The ingredients of the various HMPs were mainly prepared of plant, mineral, or animal origin. The data entry and statistical analysis were subject to an exceptional quadruple-checked data analysis process. The analysis presented in this article was inspired by our earlier report of this trial published in The Oncologist in 2020, which was retracted by that journal in November 2025 after two corrections; a majority of the co-authors disagreed with this decision. The present article is based on the same trial dataset but was deliberately designed to highlight the unique research methodology: design and preparation by a lead statistician, data entry, data clearing and independent statistical evaluation were performed in four mutually independent steps, reporting follows the CONSORT statement, and the interpretation of the findings has been reframed conservatively. RESULTS: Global health status (QoL) was higher in the homeopathy group than in the placebo group after 9 weeks and after 18 weeks (p < 0.001). With the exception of cognitive functioning at 9 weeks and of pain, diarrhea and financial difficulties at 9 weeks, all functional and symptom scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 favored the homeopathy group (p < 0.001 for the multivariate comparisons), with between-group differences exceeding the threshold of 10 points that is generally regarded as clinically meaningful. Median survival time over the 730-day observation period was 435 days in the homeopathy group, 257 days in the placebo group (p = 0.010), and 228 days in the non-randomized control group (p < 0.001); the corresponding 2-year survival rates were 45.1%, 23.4%, and 13.5% (homeopathy vs. placebo p = 0.020; homeopathy vs. control p < 0.001). The difference between the placebo group and the non-randomized control group was not statistically significant (p = 0.154). CONCLUSION: In this trial, add-on homeopathy was associated with better quality of life across most functional and symptom domains, with clinically meaningful effect sizes congruently to a previous open study. Survival time was significantly longer in the homeopathy group compared to both the placebo and control groups. Independent replication, ideally within contemporary immuno-oncological treatment regimens is required. TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01509612; January 7, 2012.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Effects of lavender oil preparation silexan on different symptoms of major depression - results from a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is characterized by depressed mood, anhedonia, and loss of energy, which can be accompanied by associated symptoms and co-morbidities. Psychiatric scales such as the Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) must account for the complex nature of depression. METHODS: The MADRS total score change between baseline and week 8 was the primary outcome measure in a randomized, double-blind clinical trial investigating the antidepressant efficacy of 8 weeks' treatment with silexan compared to sertraline and placebo in patients with mild or moderate MDD. We report on a pre-planned, exploratory analysis of the individual MADRS items. Treatment effects were assessed using analyses of covariance with baseline adjustment, based on an estimand strategy. RESULTS: 498 subjects (silexan 170, sertraline 171, placebo 157) were treated and analyzed. After 8 weeks, silexan was superior to placebo for 5 out of the 9 MADRS items analyzed ("apparent sadness", "reported sadness", "reduced appetite", "concentration difficulties", "lassitude"; P < .05) and showed clinically important adjusted mean value differences >0.2 points for 7 out of the 9 items. Item-level results for silexan and sertraline were mainly comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Silexan had a strong over-all antidepressant effect, with the most pronounced improvements affecting the cardinal symptoms of depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT2020-000688-22 first entered on 12/08/2020. Significance statement Patients with depressive disorders can show many different symptoms. To better characterize the clinical action of an antidepressant, it is therefore important to analyze not only the overall value of a depression scale but also the individual items that describe these symptoms. Silexan is a preparation from lavender oil whose antidepressant effect has been proven in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 8-week study in patients with mild or moderate major depressive disorder. Based on the individual items of the Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale that was used as the main outcome for efficacy, we found in an exploratory, hypothesis-generating analysis that silexan had a rather broad antidepressant effect in the participants of our study, with potentially clinically meaningful advantages over placebo for 7 out of the 9 individual items investigated. This applied in particular to the main symptoms of depression, namely sadness and lassitude. Our single-item analysis thus helps to understand the antidepressant effects of silexan in more detail. Significant outcomes In patients with mild to moderate major depressive disorder, lavender oil preparation silexan has a clinical profile similar to that of the selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor sertraline based on an item-level analysis of the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Silexan has a significant antidepressant effect that includes an alleviation of depressed mood, anhedonia, and loss of energy, the cardinal symptoms of depression. The broad improvement of symptoms of depression could not be explained by the proven anxiolytic efficacy silexan alone but indicates an independent, direct antidepressant effect. The present item-level analysis provides valuable and detailed additional insights into the therapeutic profiles of silexan and sertraline and may help clinicians to tailor antidepressant treatment to the specific symptoms of a patient. Limitations For item-level analyses of the MADRS, no validated thresholds for the assessment of the clinical importance of changes over time have been defined, taking into account that different items may have different thresholds. Even though our analyses were pre-defined, they were exploratory and did not include studywise type I error level control. Their generalizability beyond the study population is therefore limited.

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↗