ObjectiveTo systematically review the clinical significance of Raman spectroscopy (RS) in the auxiliary diagnosis of colon cancer (CC). MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect diagnostic tests related to RS in the auxiliary diagnosis of CC from inception to October 1st, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Meta-analysis was then performed using Stata 12.0 and Meta-Disc 1.4 software. ResultsA total of 21 studies involving 1 419 patients were included. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and positive posttest probability (PPP) for CC screening applying RS were 0.94 (95%CI 0.93 to 0.95), 0.91 (95%CI 0.90 to 0.92), 157.50 (95%CI 74.44 to 333.21), 10.40 (95%CI 6.62 to 16.33), 0.08 (95%CI 0.05 to 0.12) and 77%, respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) of summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was 0.98 (95%CI 0.96 to 0.99). ConclusionCurrent evidence shows that RS is a potentially useful tool for CC screening. Due to the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.
Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pimecrolimus for oral lichen planus (OLP). Methods We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1990 to 2007), EMBASE (1990 to 2007), and the Chinese Biomedicine Database (1990 to 2007) to collect parallel group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials comparing pimecrolimus with triamcinolone acctonide or placebo. The Cochrane Collaboration’s RevMan 4.2 software was used for data analyses. Results Three RCTs were included. Meta-analyses showed that pimecrolimus did not improve oral cavity ache measured by VAS (visual analogue scale) (WMD –0.5, 95%CI –9.77 to 8.77), OHIP (oral health impact profile) (WMD 0.9, 95%CI –0.6 to 2.4) and CSS (clinical status score) (WMD 0.00mm2, 95%CI –0.40 to 0.40); compared with triamcinolone acctonide. In comparison to placebo, pimecrolimus did not improve oral cavity ache measured by VAS (WMD –3.30, 95%CI –20.20 to 13.92) or CSS (WMD –56.57, 95%CI -134.02 to 20.88) and did not reduce burning sensations (OR 4.98, 95%CI 0.49 to 50.22) as well. Conclusion Pimecrolimus should not be regarded as a better choice than triamcinolone acctonide or placebo for improving the VAS, OHIP or CSS of patients with oral lichen planus. Since the RCTs available for this systematic review are too small, further high-quality large-scale RCTs with standard clinical evaluation are required to provide more reliable evidence.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the survival rate of different vascularized bone flaps in mandibular defect repair and reconstruction by Bayesian network meta-analysis. MethodsThe PubMed, EBSCO, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, WanFang Data and CNKI databases were electronically searched to collect clinical studies related to the objectives from inception to February 2024. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. The Bayesian network meta-analysis was carried out applying R software. ResultsA total of 24 studies involving 1 615 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that the respective survival rates of fibula free flap (FFF), deep circumferential iliac artery flap (DCIA), scapula flap, and osteocutaneous radial forearm flap (ORFF) were 95.62%, 94.09%, 98.16%, and 93.75%. Moreover, the network meta-analysis failed to show a statistically significant difference between all comparators. Conclusion Current evidence shows that different vascularized bone flaps have similar survival rates in mandibular defect repair and reconstruction. Due to the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.