Comparison of the Effectiveness of Low Carbohydrate Versus Low Fat Diets, in Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

The clinical benefit of low carbohydrate (LC) diets compared with low fat (LF) diets for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) remains uncertain. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare their efficacy and safety in people with T2D. RCTs comparing both diets in participants with T2D were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and manual search of bibliographies. Mean differences and relative risks with 95% CIs were pooled for measures of glycaemia, cardiometabolic parameters, and adverse events using the following time points: short-term (3 months), intermediate term (6 and 12 months) and long-term (24 months). Twenty-two RCTs comprising 1391 mostly obese participants with T2D were included. At 3 months, a LC vs. LF diet significantly reduced HbA1c levels, mean difference (95% CI) of −0.41% (−0.62, −0.20). LC diet significantly reduced body weight, BMI, fasting insulin and triglycerides and increased total cholesterol and HDL-C levels at the short-to-intermediate term, with a decrease in the requirement for antiglycaemic medications at intermediate-to-long term. There were no significant differences in other parameters and adverse events. Except for reducing HbA1c levels and adiposity parameters at short-to-intermediate terms, a LC diet appears to be equally effective as a LF diet in terms of control of cardiometabolic markers and the risk of adverse events in obese patients with T2D

The effects of interactive training of healthcare providers on the management of life-threatening emergencies in hospital

Background Preparing healthcare providers to manage relatively rare life‐threatening emergency situations effectively is a challenge. Training sessions enable staff to rehearse for these events and are recommended by several reports and guidelines. In this review we have focused on interactive training, this includes any element where the training is not solely didactic but provides opportunity for discussions, rehearsals, or interaction with faculty or technology. It is important to understand the effective methods and essential elements for successful emergency training so that resources can be appropriately targeted to improve outcomes. Objectives To assess the effects of interactive training of healthcare providers on the management of life‐threatening emergencies in hospital on patient outcomes, clinical care practices, or organisational practices, and to identify essential components of effective interactive emergency training programmes. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and ERIC and two trials registers up to 11 March 2019. We searched references of included studies, conference proceedings, and contacted study authors. Selection criteria We included randomised trials and cluster‐randomised trials comparing interactive training for emergency situations with standard/no training. We defined emergency situations as those in which immediate lifesaving action is required, for example cardiac arrests and major haemorrhage. We included all studies where healthcare workers involved in providing direct clinical care were participants. We excluded studies outside of a hospital setting or where the intervention was not targeted at practicing healthcare workers. We included trials irrespective of publication status, date, and language. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included trial. Due to the small number of studies and the heterogeneity in outcome measures, we were unable to perform the planned meta‐analysis. We provide a structured synthesis for the following outcomes: survival to hospital discharge, morbidity rate, protocol or guideline adherence, patient outcomes, clinical practice outcomes, and organisation‐of‐care outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of the evidence and the strength of recommendations for each outcome. Main results We included 11 studies that reported on 2000 healthcare providers and over 300,000 patients; one study did not report the number of participants. Seven were cluster randomised trials and four were single centre studies. Four studies focused on obstetric training, three on obstetric and neonatal care, two on neonatal training, one on trauma and one on general resuscitations. The studies were spread across high‐, middle‐ and low‐income settings. Interactive training may make little or no difference in survival to hospital discharge for patients requiring resuscitation (1 study; 30 participants; 98 events; low‐certainty evidence). We are uncertain if emergency training changes morbidity rate, as the certainty of the evidence is very low (3 studies; 1778 participants; 57,193 patients, when reported). We are uncertain if training alters healthcare providers' adherence to clinical protocols or guidelines, as the certainty of the evidence is very low (3 studies; 156 participants; 558 patients). We are uncertain if there were improvements in patient outcomes following interactive training for emergency situations, as we assessed the evidence as very low‐certainty (5 studies, 951 participants; 314,055 patients). We are uncertain if training for emergency situations improves clinical practice outcomes as the certainty of the evidence is very low (4 studies; 1417 participants; 28,676 patients, when reported). Two studies reported organisation‐of‐care outcomes, we are uncertain if interactive emergency training has any effect on this outcome as the certainty of the evidence is very low (634 participants; 179,400 patient population). We examined prespecified subgroups and found no clear commonalities in effect of multidisciplinary training, location of training, duration of the course, or duration of follow‐up. We also examined areas arising from the studies including focus of training, proportion of staff trained, leadership of intervention, and incentive/trigger to participate, and again identified no clear mediating factors. The sources of funding for the studies were governmental, local organisations, or philanthropic donors. Authors' conclusions We are uncertain if there are any benefits of interactive training of healthcare providers on the management of life‐threatening emergencies in hospital as the certainty of the evidence is very low. We were unable to identify any factors that may have allowed us to identify an essential element of these interactive training courses. We found a lack of consistent reporting, which contributed to the inability to meta‐analyse across specialities. More trials are required to build the evidence base for the optimum way to prepare healthcare providers for rare life‐threatening emergency events. These trials need to be conducted with attention to outcomes important to patients, healthcare providers, and policymakers. It is vitally important to develop high‐quality studies adequately powered and with attention to minimising the risk of bias

Re-Infection Outcomes following One- and Two-Stage Surgical Revision of Infected Hip Prosthesis:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The two-stage revision strategy has been claimed as being the "gold standard" for treating prosthetic joint infection. The one-stage revision strategy remains an attractive alternative option; however, its effectiveness in comparison to the two-stage strategy remains uncertain.To compare the effectiveness of one- and two-stage revision strategies in treating prosthetic hip infection, using re-infection as an outcome.Systematic review and meta-analysis.MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, manual search of bibliographies to March 2015, and email contact with investigators.Cohort studies (prospective or retrospective) conducted in generally unselected patients with prosthetic hip infection treated exclusively by one- or two-stage revision and with re-infection outcomes reported within two years of revision. No clinical trials were identified.Data were extracted by two independent investigators and a consensus was reached with involvement of a third. Rates of re-infection from 38 one-stage studies (2,536 participants) and 60 two-stage studies (3,288 participants) were aggregated using random-effect models after arcsine transformation, and were grouped by study and population level characteristics.In one-stage studies, the rate (95% confidence intervals) of re-infection was 8.2% (6.0-10.8). The corresponding re-infection rate after two-stage revision was 7.9% (6.2-9.7). Re-infection rates remained generally similar when grouped by several study and population level characteristics. There was no strong evidence of publication bias among contributing studies.Evidence from aggregate published data suggest similar re-infection rates after one- or two-stage revision among unselected patients. More detailed analyses under a broader range of circumstances and exploration of other sources of heterogeneity will require collaborative pooling of individual participant data.PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015016559

Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors and risk of fractures: a prospective cohort study and meta-analysis of published observational cohort studies

The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) represents an important target of antihypertensive medications. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB), which are widely-used RAS inhibiting drugs, have been suggested to have beneficial effects on bone tissue. We aimed to assess the associations of use of ACEIs and/or ARBs with the risk of fractures using a population-based prospective cohort and a meta-analysis of published prospective cohort studies. Information on antihypertensive medication use (including both ACEIs and ARBs) were assessed in 1743 men and women of the Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease prospective cohort study. Hazard ratios (HRs) [95% confidence intervals (CI)] of ACEIs or ARBs use with incident fractures were calculated. A total of 203 composite (hip, humeral, and wrist) fractures occurred during a median follow-up of 14.8 years. In multivariate adjusted analysis, the HR for composite fractures comparing users of ACEIs or ARBs with non-users was 1.00 (0.59–1.69). The corresponding adjusted HR for hip fractures comparing users versus non-users of ACEIs or ARBs was 0.89 (0.32–2.47). Including the current study, a total of 11 observational cohort studies involving 3526,319 participants and &gt;323,355 fractures were included in a meta-analysis. Comparing ACEI users with non-users and ARB users with non-users, the HRs for composite fractures were 1.09 (0.89–1.33) and 0.87 (0.76–1.01) respectively. The corresponding HRs for hip fractures were 0.91 (0.86–0.95) and 0.80 (0.75–0.85) respectively. Use of RAS inhibitors was not associated with long-term risk of composite fractures in both primary and pooled analyses. Pooled evidence however suggests a beneficial effect of RAS blockers on hip fracture risk.</p