SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Systematic reviews 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.

2,251 records · Page 9Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Perioperative care for patients with opioid exposure and opioid use disorder: screening and treatment strategies.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The prevalence of opioid tolerance, dependence, and use disorder is increasing among patients presenting for surgical care, yet perioperative management strategies for these patients remain inconsistent. This review examines the impact of preoperative opioid exposure on surgical outcomes, the scope of untreated opioid use disorder (OUD) among surgical patients, and advances in clinical and systems-level approaches to perioperative care. RECENT FINDINGS: Preoperative opioid exposure independently predicts worse surgical outcomes, including higher opioid consumption, readmissions, complications, and mortality, in a dose-dependent manner. Perioperative opioid exposure predicts persistent opioid use after surgery, with the duration of exposure a stronger predictor of subsequent OUD than daily dose. Data-driven prescribing guidelines and structured opioid tapering reduce overprescribing without compromising pain control. Among surgical patients with diagnosed OUD, approximately two-thirds do not receive medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), though treatment engagement and maintenance substantially improve outcomes. Evidence now clearly supports perioperative buprenorphine continuation over interruption. SUMMARY: Effective perioperative management of opioid-complex surgical patients requires systematic screening, evidence-based prescribing, MOUD continuation, and institutional infrastructure. The primary barrier is shifting from evidence generation to implementation.

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

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

The effect of dexmedetomidine in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis and septic shock: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is a central sympatholytic with sedative properties widely used in critically ill patients. However, its effects in patients with sepsis and septic shock remain controversial. This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of DEX compared to other sedatives in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis and septic shock. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library from inception through May 1, 2025 for randomized controlled trials comparing DEX with other sedatives or placebo in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis and septic shock. Primary outcomes included overall mortality and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores. Secondary outcomes encompassed duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), length of stay in Intensive Care Unit (ICU), incidence of hypotension and bradycardia. RESULTS: Fifteen studies involving 3,882 patients (1,945 in the DEX group, 1,937 in the control group) were included. DEX was demonstrated no significant differences compared to other sedatives or placebo in overall mortality (Risk Ratio [RR] 0.98, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.90 to 1.07, p = 0.71, I2 = 0%), SOFA scores (Mean Difference [MD] - 0.14, 95% CI -0.81 to 0.52, p = 0.67, I2 = 0%), length of stay in ICU (MD -0.32, 95% CI -1.69 to 1.06, p = 0.65, I2 = 77%), or incidence of hypotension (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.62, p = 0.44, I2 = 14%). However, DEX significantly reduced the duration of MV (MD -0.54, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.10, p = 0.02, I2 = 25%) but was associated with an increased incidence of bradycardia (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.28, p = 0.001, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: In mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis and septic shock, DEX shortened duration of MV but was associated increased bradycardia risk. No mortality or organ dysfunction benefits were observed. These findings suggest DEX is a reasonable therapeutic option to facilitate earlier ventilator weaning in selected patients (particularly those without shock), but careful monitoring for cardiovascular adverse effects is warranted.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Ultrashort vs Standard-Duration Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients Undergoing PCI: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of ultrashort (≤1-month) dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) followed by antiplatelet monotherapy remain uncertain in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare ultrashort vs standard-duration DAPT in patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials until February 15, 2026. Primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), major bleeding, and net adverse clinical event (NACE). Prespecified subgroup analyses examined by ethnicity (East Asian vs non-East Asian) and abbreviation strategy (intensive: ≤1-week DAPT or clopidogrel/aspirin monotherapy vs moderate: ≥2-week DAPT, followed by ticagrelor/prasugrel monotherapy). RESULTS: Across 10 trials (n = 29,232), ultrashort DAPT did not increase MACCE risk (HR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.93-1.20; P = 0.38; I2 = 24%), with higher MACCE risk observed in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) but not non-ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS), and significantly reduced major bleeding (HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.35-0.64; P < 0.00001; I2 = 44%), resulting in a net clinical benefit (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.72-0.97; P = 0.02; I2 = 61%). Bleeding reduction was more pronounced in East Asians (HR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.25-0.49; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%) than non-East Asians (HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.43-0.93; P = 0.02; I2 = 44%), with a significant interaction (P = 0.02). The abbreviation strategy significantly modified outcomes (P for interaction = 0.003): intensive abbreviation raised MACCE risk (HR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.11-1.69; P = 0.003; I2 = 0%), while moderate abbreviation had no statistically significant difference (HR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.85-1.08; P = 0.47; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACS undergoing PCI, ultrashort DAPT reduced bleeding without increasing ischemic events overall, although a signal of increased MACCE was observed in STEMI but not in NSTE-ACS. Bleeding reduction was greater in East Asians, while ≤1-week DAPT or clopidogrel/aspirin monotherapy may increase ischemic risk.

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

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

Mechanistic Insights Into the Association Between Gut Microbiota Diversity and Atherosclerosis, Acute Coronary Syndrome, and Peripheral Arterial Disease Progression.

BACKGROUND: The gut microbiome has emerged as a potential contributor to cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), including atherosclerosis, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and peripheral arterial disease (PAD). While observational studies link dysbiosis to CVD, causal relationships remain uncertain. METHODS: This narrative review synthesizes evidence from human observational studies, clinical interventions, and experimental models to distinguish association from mechanistic plausibility and clinical causality. Literature was searched through July 2026 in PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus. RESULTS: Microbial metabolites-including trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), bile acids, and lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-modulate endothelial function, immune cell programming, platelet activity, and plaque stability through receptor-mediated signaling and epigenetic regulation. SCFAs demonstrate potentially protective effects via GPCR and HDAC pathways, while TMAO is associated with atherothrombotic risk. However, much mechanistic evidence derives from preclinical studies. Heterogeneity from diet, geography, host characteristics, renal function, and medications substantially influences microbiota-CVD associations. CONCLUSION: The gut-vascular connection is biologically plausible, but definitive clinical causality remains unproven. Microbiome-directed therapies (dietary modulation, pre/pro/synbiotics, targeted metabolite inhibition) are investigational. Prospective, standardized, adequately powered human studies with clinically meaningful outcomes are essential before routine cardiovascular application.

Gastrointestinal Microbiome↗

PubMed2026

Artificial Intelligence Cannot Replace Peer Reviewers but May Help Editors Triage: A Comparative Analysis of a Large Language Model and Human Reviewer Recommendations at the American Journal of Sports Medicine.

BACKGROUND: The peer review system faces increasing strain from rising manuscript volumes, reviewer fatigue, and well-documented interreviewer disagreement. Large language models (LLMs) have shown potential to support the peer review process, but their ability to replicate editorial decisions at high-impact medical journals and their utility as manuscript screening tools remain unknown. PURPOSE: To compare the agreement between an LLM and the final editorial decision on manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Sports Medicine and to evaluate the potential of LLMs as a manuscript screening tool. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional agreement study. METHODS: Fifty-four manuscripts randomly selected from submissions to the American Journal of Sports Medicine (September 2024-October 2024) were reviewed by a locally deployed LLM (Ministral 3 14B; Mistral AI) using a standardized prompt. The artificial intelligence (AI) produced a categorical recommendation (reject, cascade, revision, or accept) and a numerical score (0-100) for each manuscript. Agreement with the final editorial decision was assessed by Cohen kappa (4-category model) for pooled human reviewers (n = 139 reviews) and the AI (n = 54). Screening performance was evaluated by positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS: Pooled human reviewers demonstrated fair agreement with the final decision (κ = 0.181 [P < .001]; 42.4% agreement), while the AI demonstrated slight, nonsignificant agreement (κ = 0.126 [P = .099]; 37.0% agreement). The AI recommended revision for 61.1% of manuscripts, of which 72.7% were ultimately rejected or cascaded, demonstrating systematic "revision bias." When the AI recommended rejection, 54.5% of those manuscripts were ultimately rejected and 27.3% were cascaded; when the AI recommended cascade, 50% were rejected and 50% were cascaded. However, when the AI recommended rejection or cascade (n = 21), 90.5% received a final decision of rejection or cascade (PPV, 90.5%; specificity, 81.8%). Manuscripts with an AI score <70 were rejected or cascaded 88.0% of the time (PPV, 88.0%). CONCLUSION: AI cannot replicate the nuanced judgment of human peer reviewers at a high-impact sports medicine journal. When AI recommended rejection or cascade, 90.5% of manuscripts received that final decision (descriptive PPV, 90.5%; 95% CI, 71.1%-97.3%), suggesting potential utility as an exploratory first-pass screening tool warranting further validation in larger cohorts. However, AI could not reliably distinguish manuscripts destined for outright rejection from those that would be cascaded to a sister journal-an important limitation for editorial triage applications.

Sports Medicine↗

PubMed2026

Study of prescription-indication of antivirals for herpesviruses in a Colombian population: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: To describe the utilization patterns and therapeutic indications of antivirals used for herpesvirus infections in Colombian patients. RESEARCH DESIGN/METHODS: A cross-sectional study on the use of antivirals for treating outpatients with herpesviruses between November 2023 and January 2024 in a Colombian population database. The Micromedex® database was used to identify Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indications, off-label uses, and potentially inappropriate indications. RESULTS: A total of 14,816 individuals were included (median age:53.0 years [IQR:35.0-65.0]; 60.5% women). Acyclovir was the most frequently prescribed antiviral (oral:77.3%; topical:43.4%). Overall, 56.1% received oral therapy only, 25.2% combined oral and topical therapy, and 18.7% topical therapy only. FDA-approved indications accounted for 29.1% of use (herpes zoster), off-label use for 26.9% (mainly prophylaxis in immunocompromised patients), and potentially inappropriate use for 25.3% (primarily topical treatment of herpes zoster). Acyclovir use (OR:5.93; 95%CI:4.60-7.64) and specialist care (OR:2.17; 95%CI:1.73-2.71) were associated with off-label use. CONCLUSIONS: Antiviral prescribing for herpesvirus infections in a group of patients in Colombia is largely driven by acyclovir, with a substantial proportion of off-label and potentially inappropriate use, particularly involving topical therapies for herpes zoster. These findings highlight significant gaps in adherence to evidence-based recommendations and underscore the need for targeted interventions to optimize prescribing practices.

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

The Case for Master Protocols for Rare Neurological Diseases.

Master protocol trials allow for simultaneous multiple hypothesis testing within a common framework and might be applicable for rare diseases. In May 2025, the Network for Excellence in Neuroscience Clinical Trials convened a multistakeholder conference to discuss master protocol trials in rare neurological disorders. In this paper, we explore how master protocol trial designs may apply to rare neurological disorders, using the neuronal ceroid lipofuscinoses as an example. Through shared protocol elements and trial infrastructure, master protocols may decrease cost and improve efficiency in testing potential therapeutics in rare disease, accelerating the delivery of urgently needed therapies to patients. ANN NEUROL 2026;100:477-486.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Patient-reported outcomes in pediatric regional anesthesia trials: current use and limitations.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review examines the current use and limitations of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in pediatric regional anesthesia research. Despite the increasing emphasis on patient-centered outcomes, existing pediatric outcome assessment frameworks may inadequately capture the pain experience and interference with daily living. RECENT FINDINGS: Across 17 identified randomized controlled trials and 15 ongoing studies, PROM use remains highly variable, with consistent reliance on observational pain scales such as the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability scale and limited incorporation of standardized, longitudinal health-related quality-of-life measures. SUMMARY: Current pediatric PROM frameworks remain fragmented, limiting comprehensive evaluation of recovery. Greater standardization and incorporation of developmentally appropriate, longitudinal outcome measures are needed to better align clinical research with meaningful patient-centered endpoints and to improve assessment of functional and psychosocial recovery.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Determinants of Nonspecific Response to Treatment in Randomized Controlled Trials of Major Depressive Disorder: A Narrative Review.

The design, conduct, and interpretation of double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials in major depressive disorder (MDD) are complicated by determinants of nonspecific response to treatment (NSRT). This narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of the determinants of NSRT in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for MDD, including the placebo effect, factors related to measurement of the primary endpoint, the inclusion of misdiagnosed patients, the relapsing-remitting course of MDD, and factors related to functional unblinding. Potential strategies to reduce the impact of the determinants of NSRT and to improve the interpretation of RCT outcomes in MDD are also summarized. These strategies include use of centralized rating and standardized rater training, independent diagnostic confirmation, optimized site selection, minimizing financial incentives, exclusion of subjects participating in multiple clinical trials, exclusion of patients with unstable major depressive episode trajectories, and use of active placebo and alternative trial designs. Uniformity among experts in the definitions of determinants of NSRT and related concepts, as well as in strategies to address them, may facilitate progress in the development of novel treatments for MDD.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

A Critical Assessment of Evidence-Based Design's Knowledge Base and Inspiration: A Systematic Review.

PurposeThis study examines Evidence-Based Design (EBD) as an epistemological framework for guiding design research and practice, with a particular focus on its reliance on Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) as a source of methodological inspiration.BackgroundOver the past two decades, EBD has been promoted as a way to strengthen design processes through the systematic use of scientific evidence. Its relationship to EBM, however, remains conceptually ambiguous: EBD draws legitimacy from EBM's hierarchical conception of "best evidence" while at the same time acknowledging the specificities of design practice, which do not easily fit such a model.MethodologyA systematic review was conducted on 31 publications in the design research literature that explicitly address the tension surrounding EBD's conception of "best evidence." The criticisms raised were coded and analyzed by main topics and subtopics.ResultsThe review highlights several reasons why EBM's hierarchical view of "best evidence" is an unsuitable epistemological foundation for EBD. It imposes scientifically inappropriate and practically ineffective methodological standards, devalues important sources of design knowledge, and fails to address central epistemic challenges intrinsic to design processes.ConclusionsBy bringing together critical yet fragmented insights from the literature, this study argues for the development of an updated epistemological framework for EBD. Constructing this framework will require sustained interdisciplinary dialogue between design research and philosophy of science.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Histoplasmosis in children: emerging insights and evolving guidelines.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review provides an update on the epidemiology, risk factors, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management recommendations incorporating recommendations from recent publications including the Infectious Disease Society of America guidelines for the management of pulmonary and disseminated histoplasmosis. RECENT FINDINGS: Updates to the epidemiology of histoplasmosis indicate a broader geographic range than historically defined. Updated guidelines do not recommend routine treatment for asymptomatic, mild and moderate pulmonary histoplasmosis although itraconazole can be offered for immunocompromised children or for prolonged or worsening symptoms. Liposomal amphotericin B is recommended as initial treatment for severe histoplasmosis syndromes (severe pulmonary and disseminated histoplasmosis). Fibrosing mediastinitis, a late complication of histoplasmosis is treated with stenting of vessels and bronchi. Recent studies demonstrate that rituximab (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody) may stop progression or lead to regression of progressive fibrosis. SUMMARY: Histoplasmosis has manifold manifestations, many of which are self-limited and do not require treatment. Severe histoplasmosis and its complications should be treated with liposomal amphotericin B followed by itraconazole. Clinical trials are needed to assess the efficacy of rituximab for the treatment of fibrosing mediastinitis.

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

Descemet Stripping Only in Fuchs Endothelial Corneal Dystrophy: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial of Topical Ripasudil and Directions for Future Innovation.

PURPOSE: To review history of Descemet stripping only (DSO) in Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy, describe the results of a clinical trial of topical ripasudil after DSO (K-321-201 study), and discuss future directions. METHODS: A 1-year, phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled multicenter clinical trial of two doses of K-321 (ripasudil) administered for 12 weeks after DSO surgery in Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy was performed. The primary endpoint, central corneal endothelial cell density (ECD) at 12 weeks after surgery, was determined by an independent reading center that was masked to study group assignment. Duration of corneal edema, need for medical or surgical rescue therapy, corneal thickness, and central ECD throughout the entire study period were also examined. Adverse events and exploratory endpoints were collected. RESULTS: Sixty-five subjects were enrolled (21 in the QID group, 22 in the BID, and in the placebo group). Over 95% of subjects completed the trial. The QID group had a higher central ECD 12 weeks after DSO than the placebo group (531 ± 312 cells/mm2 vs 228 ± 298 cells/mm2, P = .0065). Corneal edema cleared in 17/21 (81.0%) of the QID group at 12 weeks, compared with 2/22 (9.1%) of the placebo group (P < .0001). Rescue was required in 2/21 (9.5%) subjects in the QID group and 6/22 (27.3%) subjects in the placebo group (P = .0092). Adverse events were mild and did not lead to discontinuation of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Topical K-321 given QID improves DSO outcomes, as demonstrated by a higher ECD, more rapid resolution of corneal edema, and reduced failure rate. The medication was well-tolerated.

Humans↗