Physical exercise for people with Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Low birth weight (LBW) has been established as a major determinant of neonatal mortality and morbidity. However, there is no evidence of the effectiveness of different types of physical exercise (PE) at different intensities during pregnancy to prevent LBW. To compare the effectiveness of different types of PE at different levels of intensity in pregnant women to prevent LBW. A systematic review and network meta-analysis was performed according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols for Network Meta-Analysis extension statement. We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from inception to November 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A random effects method was used to calculate the pooled mean difference (MD). The effect of each intervention was calculated using a network meta-analysis with a frequentist perspective. Forty-three RCTs were included in the systematic review, and 38 RCTs were included in the network meta-analysis. In the general population, although no significant results, the MDs for light-moderate strength, moderate-vigorous strength, and moderate-vigorous Pilates exercises were favorable for preventing LBW. Furthermore, moderate-vigorous strength exercise was effective to prevent LBW, reporting significant MD compared to control groups in the healthy population (310.00, 95% confidence interval: 78.40, 541.60; I2 = 81.3%). Strength exercises at a moderate-vigorous intensity could be a potential strategy for the prevention of LBW in the healthy population. However, our findings should be interpreted with caution because the overall risk of bias was between "some concerns" and "high," and the overall certainty of the evidence was low. PROSPERO CRD42023401770.

The purpose of this trial is to (1) determine the best exercise modality to improve sleep quality and sleep architecture in people with Parkinson disease (PD); (2) investigate whether exercise-induced improvements in sleep mediate enhancements in motor and cognitive function as well as other non-motor symptoms of PD; and (3) explore if changes in systemic inflammation after exercise mediate improvements in sleep. This is a multi-site, superiority, single-blinded randomized controlled trial. One hundred fifty persons with PD and sleep problems will be recruited and randomly allocated into 4 intervention arms. Participants will be allocated into 12weeks of either cardiovascular training, resistance training, multimodal training, or a waiting list control intervention. Assessments will be conducted at baseline, immediately after each intervention, and 8weeks after each intervention by blinded assessors. Objective sleep quality and sleep architecture will be measured with polysomnography and electroencephalography. Motor and cognitive function will be assessed with the Unified PD Rating Scale and the Scale for Outcomes in PD-Cognition, respectively. Subjective sleep quality, fatigue, psychosocial functioning, and quality of life will be assessed with questionnaires. The concentration of inflammatory biomarkers in blood serum will be assessed with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. This study will investigate the effect of different types of exercise on sleep quality and architecture in PD, exploring interactions between changes in sleep quality and architecture with motor and cognitive function and other non-motor symptoms of the disease as well as mechanistic interactions between systemic inflammation and sleep. The results will provide important practical information to guide physical therapists and other rehabilitation professionals in the selection of exercise and the design of more personalized exercise-based treatments aimed at optimizing sleep, motor, and cognitive function in people with PD.

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that HBMS programmes in breast cancer survivors appear to have a short-term beneficial effect of improving breast cancer-specific quality of life and global quality of life as measured by FACT-B and EORTC-C30, respectively. In addition, HBMS programmes are associated with a reduction in anxiety, fatigue and insomnia immediately after the intervention. We assessed the quality of evidence across studies as moderate for some outcomes, meaning that we are fairly confident about the results, while we assessed other outcomes as being low-quality, meaning that we are uncertain about the result.

Creatine is an antioxidant agent that showed neuroprotective effects in animal models of Parkinson's disease (PD). Creatine was selected by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke as a possible disease modifying agent for Parkinson's disease. Therefore, many clinical trials evaluated the efficacy of creatine for patients with PD. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to synthesize evidence from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the efficacy of Creatine for patients with PD. We followed PRISMA statement guidelines during the preparation of this systematic review and meta-analysis. A computer literature search for PubMed, EBSCO, web of science and Ovid Midline was carried out. We included RCTs comparing creatine with placebo in terms of motor functions and quality of life. Outcomes of total Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), UPDRS I, UPDRS II, and UPDRS III were pooled as mean difference (MD) between two groups from baseline to the endpoint. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed by visual inspection of the forest plot and measured by chi-square and I square tests. Three RCTs (n=1935) were included in this study. The overall effect did not favor either of the two groups in terms of: UPDRS total score (MD 1.07, 95% CI [3.38 to 1.25], UPDRS III (MD 0.62, 95% CI [2.27 to 1.02]), UPDRS II (MD 0.03, 95% CI [0.81 to 0.86], or UPDRS I (MD 0.03, 95% CI [0.33 to 0.28]). Current evidence does not support the use of creatine for neuroprotection against PD. Future well-designed, randomized controlled trials are needed.

IntroductionCancer (and survival) is known to affect the quality of life. Strategies as physical activity and exercise during and after cancer may improve health-related qualify of life (HRQOL) outcomes and...

Sleep disturbance is common in menopausal women and negatively affects their quality of life and could cause increased risks of other menopause-related diseases. This systematic review aims to synthesize evidence regarding the effects of exercise interventions on improving sleep in menopausal women. A comprehensive search in seven electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed on June 3, 2022. The systematic review included seventeen trials, ten of which provided data for the meta-analysis. The effects on outcomes were presented as mean differences (MDs) or standard mean differences (SMDs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used in quality assessment. The results suggest that exercise intervention significantly reduces insomnia severity (SMD = -0.91, 95% CI = -1.45 to -0.36, Z = 3.27, P = 0.001) and alleviates sleep problems (MD = -0.09, 95% CI = -0.17 to -0.01, Z = 2.20, P = 0.03). For sleep quality, the results showed that insignificant differences were found between the exercise intervention and the control groups (MD = -0.93, 95% CI = -2.73 to 0.87, Z = 1.01, P = 0.31). The results of the subgroup analysis indicated that more apparent effects of exercise intervention were found among women with sleep disorders than among women without sleep disorders. Which exercise intervention duration was more beneficial to sleep outcomes could not be judged. Overall, there was a moderate risk of bias in the primary studies. According to this meta-analysis, exercise interventions can be recommended for menopausal women to improve their sleep. High-quality RCTs applying different types of exercise (e.g., walking, yoga, meditative exercise and so on) with different intervention durations as well as subjective and objective sleep assessment are warranted. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022342277, identifier: CRD42022342277.

Introduction: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects and safety of monoamine oxidase-B inhibitors (MAO-B inhibitors) for early Parkinson’s disease (PD). Methods: All studies that assessed the efficacy of MAO-B inhibitors in patients with early PD were searched. Publications were screened, and data were extracted according to predefined criteria. Rev Man 5.4 and Stata 14.0 software were used for statistical analysis. Outcomes assessed included change of Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) total score, UPDRS part II score, UPDRS part III score, and the incidence of adverse events. Results: Thirty trials were identified and included in this meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, rasagiline, selegiline, safinamide, and zonisamide were significantly more effective, with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of −0.41 (95% confidence interval (CI) = −0.64 to −0.18), SMD = −0.38 (95% CI = −0.51 to −0.24), SMD = −0.37 (95% CI = −0.54 to −0.21), and SMD = −0.31 (95% CI = −0.57 to −0.05) on the UPDRS III score change, respectively. The surface under the cumulative ranking results showed that rasagiline ranked first in improving UPDRS II and UPDRS III, respectively. For safety outcomes, safinamide combination with dopaminergic treatment had lower risk of incurring any adverse events (risk ratio = 0.1, 95% CI = 0.01–0.2), and no statistical difference in incidence of adverse events was observed among other MAO-B inhibitor regimes and placebo. Conclusion: Rasagiline, selegiline, safinamide, and zonisamide were effective compared to placebo in the treatment of early PD, but rasagiline was the most effective drug. As for safety, safinamide combination with dopaminergic treatment had lower risk of incurring any adverse events.

Anti-VEGF drugs are effective at improving vision in people with DMO with three to four in every 10 people likely to experience an improvement of 3 or more lines VA at one year. Aflibercept may confer some advantage over ranibizumab and bevacizumab in people with DMO at one year in visual and anatomic terms but it is unclear whether this applies to the long-term. There is a need for more evidence on the long-term (greater than two years) comparative effects of these anti-VEGF agents. Evidence from RCTs may not apply to real-world practice, where people in need of antiangiogenic treatment are often under-treated and under-monitored.We found no signals of differences in overall safety between the three antiangiogenic drugs that are currently available to treat DMO, but our estimates are imprecise for cardiovascular events and death.

Based on this review there is currently very uncertain evidence on the effectiveness of video call interventions to reduce loneliness in older adults. The review did not include any studies that reported evidence of the effectiveness of video call interventions to address social isolation in older adults. The evidence regarding the effectiveness of video calls for outcomes of symptoms of depression was very uncertain. Future research in this area needs to use more rigorous methods and more diverse and representative participants. Specifically, future studies should target older adults, who are demonstrably lonely or socially isolated, or both, across a range of settings to determine whether video call interventions are effective in a population in which these outcomes are in need of improvement.

A variety of alpha-blockers are used for treating lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Silodosin is a novel, more selective alpha-blocker, which is specific to the lower urinary tract and may have fewer side effects than other alpha-blockers. To assess the effects of silodosin for the treatment of LUTS in men with BPH. We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status up until 13 June 2017. We included all parallel, randomized controlled trials. We also included cross-over designs. Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We rated the quality of evidence according to the GRADE approach. We included 19 unique studies with 4295 randomized participants across four comparisons for short-term follow-up. The mean age, prostate volume, and International Prostate Symptom Score were 66.5 years, 38.2 mL, and 19.1, respectively. Silodosin versus placeboBased on four studies with a total of 1968 randomized participants, silodosin may reduce urologic symptom scores in an appreciable number of men (mean difference (MD) -2.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.23 to -2.08; low-quality evidence). Silodosin likely does not result in a clinically important reduction in quality of life (MD -0.42, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.13; moderate-quality evidence). It may not increase rates of treatment withdrawal for any reason (relative risk (RR) 1.08, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.66; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of silodosin on cardiovascular adverse events (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.45; very low-quality evidence). Silodosin likely increases sexual adverse events (RR 26.07, 95% CI 12.36 to 54.97; moderate-quality evidence); this would result in 180 more sexual adverse events per 1000 men (95% CI 82 more to 388 more). Silodosin versus tamsulosinBased on 13 studies with a total of 2129 randomized participants, silodosin may result in little to no difference in urologic symptom scores (MD -0.04, 95% CI -1.31 to 1.24; low-quality evidence) and quality of life (MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.22; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain about treatment withdrawals for any reason (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.69; very low-quality evidence). Silodosin may result in little to no difference in cardiovascular adverse events (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.12; low-quality evidence). Silodosin likely increases sexual adverse events (RR 6.05, 95% CI 3.55 to 10.31; moderate-quality evidence); this would result in 141 more sexual adverse events per 1000 men (95% CI 71 more to 261 more). Silodosin versus naftopidilBased on five studies with a total of 763 randomized participants, silodosin may result in little to no differences in urologic symptom scores (MD -0.85, 95% CI -2.57 to 0.87; low-quality evidence), quality of life (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.27; low-quality evidence), treatment withdrawal for any reason (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.93; low-quality evidence), and cardiovascular adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.56; low-quality evidence). Silodosin likely increases sexual adverse events (RR 5.93, 95% CI 2.16 to 16.29; moderate-quality evidence); this would result in 74 more sexual adverse events per 1000 men (95% CI 17 more to 231 more). Silodosin versus alfuzosinBased on two studies with a total of 155 randomized participants, silodosin may or may not result in a clinically important increase in urologic symptom scores (MD 3.83, 95% CI 0.12 to 7.54; low-quality evidence). Silodosin likely results in little to no difference in quality of life (MD 0.14, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.74; moderate-quality evidence). We found no event of treatment withdrawal for any reason. Silodosin may not reduce cardiovascular adverse events (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.24; low-quality evidence) but likely increases sexual adverse events (RR 37.21, 95% CI 5.32 to 260.07; moderate-quality evidence); this would result in 217 more sexual adverse events per 1000 men (95% CI 26 more to 1000 more). Silodosin may reduce urologic symptom scores in an appreciable number of men compared to placebo. Quality of life and treatment withdrawals for any reason appears similar. Its efficacy appears similar to that of other alpha blockers (tamsulosin, naftopidil and alfuzosin) but the rate of sexual side effects is likely higher. Our certainty in the estimates of effect was lowered due to study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision.

BackgroundParkinson disease (PD) impairs gait, balance, and quality of life, and wearable devices have been proposed to support rehabilitation, but evidence for their clinical efficacy remains uncertain.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate, within the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework, the effects of wearable-device interventions on gait performance, balance, and health-related quality of life in people with PD by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to November 18, 2025, for RCTs in people with PD comparing wearable-device interventions with control conditions. We used Hartung-Knapp random-effects models to pool mean differences (MDs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) and reported 95% prediction intervals when ≥3 studies were pooled. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool, and certainty of evidence was rated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE).ResultsNine RCTs involving 260 participants were included. Wearable devices produced a small improvement in stride length (MD 0.10 meter, 95% CI 0.03-0.17), but there was no clear benefit for the 10-Meter Walk Test time (MD 0.04 second, 95% CI –0.06 to 0.15). Double support time showed no reduction (MD –1.59% gait cycle, 95% CI –3.79 to 0.61). Freezing of gait (Freezing of Gait Questionnaire [FOG-Q] and New Freezing of Gait Questionnaire [NFOG-Q]) did not significantly improve (SMD –0.24, 95% CI –0.72 to 0.24). Motor severity (Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale Part III [UPDRS III]) showed a small, nonsignificant trend favoring wearable devices (MD –2.16 points, 95% CI –4.39 to 0.07). For balance, pooled results from the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Mini Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest), and Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment Balance Subscale (POMA balance) suggested a borderline effect (SMD 0.48, 95% CI –0.02 to 0.98). Wearable devices did not meaningfully improve Parkinson Disease Questionnaire (PDQ) scores (SMD –0.28, 95% CI –0.74 to 0.17), EQ-5D utility (MD 0.10, 95% CI –0.24 to 0.44), or Falls Efficacy Scale–International (FES-I) scores (MD –0.04, 95% CI –1.10 to 1.02). Prediction intervals frequently crossed the null, suggesting effects may vary by setting and population.ConclusionsWearable device interventions for Parkinson disease produced a small improvement on average in stride length, with no consistent benefits for other gait outcomes, balance, or patient-centered outcomes. By integrating ICF mapping with Hartung-Knapp meta-analysis, prediction intervals, and GRADE, and avoiding pooling of conceptually distinct gait measures used in prior reviews, this review clarifies where evidence is most consistent, supports using wearables as adjuncts to rehabilitation, and underscores the need for larger, longer RCTs with standardized outcomes to determine who benefits and how to implement them.Trial RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42024585686; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024585686

ObjectiveTo evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and World Health...

Low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests that, compared to usual care, medication reconciliation, CPOE/CDSS, barcoding, feedback and dispensing systems in surgical wards may reduce medication errors and ADEs. However, the results are imprecise for some outcomes related to medication reconciliation and CPOE/CDSS. The evidence for other interventions is very uncertain. Powered and methodologically sound studies are needed to address the identified evidence gaps. Innovative, synergistic strategies -including those that involve patients- should also be evaluated.

BackgroundMechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (MATKA) is a well-established procedure. Kinematically aligned TKA (KATKA) has been proposed to restore and preserve pre-arthritic knee anatomy. However, normal knee anatomy varies widely, and there have been concerns regarding restoring unusual anatomy. Accordingly, restricted KATKA (rKATKA) was introduced to reproduce constitutional knee anatomy within a safe range. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of the surgeries.MethodsWe performed a database search on August 20, 2022, which included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any two of the three surgical TKA techniques for knee osteoarthritis. We conducted a random-effects NMA within the frequentist framework and evaluated confidence in each outcome using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis tool.ResultsTen RCTs with 1,008 knees and a median follow-up period of 1.5 years were included. The three methods might result in little to no difference in range of motion (ROM) between methods. In patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), the KATKA might result in a slight improvement compared with the MATKA (standardized mean difference, 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16–0.78; very low confidence). There was little to no difference in revision risk between MATKA and KATKA. KATKA and rKATKA showed a slight valgus femoral component (mean difference [MD], -1.35; 95% CI, -1.95–[-0.75]; very low confidence; and MD, -1.72; 95% CI, -2.63–[-0.81]; very low confidence, respectively) and a slight varus tibial component (MD, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.22–3.24; very low confidence; and MD, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.01–2.49; very low confidence, respectively) compared with MATKA. Tibial component inclination and hip–knee–ankle angle might result in little to no difference between the three procedures.ConclusionsKATKA and rKATKA showed similar ROM and PROMs and a slight variation in the coronal component alignment compared with MATKA. KATKA and rKATKA are acceptable methods in short- to mid-term follow-up periods. However, long-term clinical results in patients with severe varus deformity are still lacking. Surgeons should choose surgical procedures carefully. Further trials are warranted to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and subsequent revision risk.

Treatments may need to incorporate pharmacological therapies, cosmetic procedures, and psychological support. For mild hirsutism there is evidence of limited quality that OCPs are effective. Flutamide 250 mg twice daily and spironolactone 100 mg daily appeared to be effective and safe, albeit the evidence was low to very low quality. Finasteride 5 mg daily showed inconsistent results in different comparisons, therefore no firm conclusions can be made. As the side effects of antiandrogens and finasteride are well known, these should be accounted for in any clinical decision-making. There was low quality evidence that metformin was ineffective for hirsutism and although GnRH analogues showed inconsistent results in reducing hirsutism they do have significant side effects.Further research should consist of well-designed, rigorously reported, head-to-head trials examining OCPs combined with antiandrogens or 5α-reductase inhibitor against OCP monotherapy, as well as the different antiandrogens and 5α-reductase inhibitors against each other. Outcomes should be based on standardised scales of participants' assessment of treatment efficacy, with a greater emphasis on change in quality of life as a result of treatment.