2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparative effectiveness and safety of interventions for acute diarrhea and gastroenteritis in children: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Many interventions have shown effectiveness in reducing the duration of acute diarrhea and gastroenteritis (ADG) in children. Yet, there is lack of comparative efficacy of interventions that seem to be better than placebo among which, the clinicians must choose. Our aim was to determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of the pharmacological and nutritional interventions for reducing the duration of ADG in children.

          Methods

          Data sources included Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, and Global-Health up to May 2017. Eligible trials compared zinc (ZN), vitamin A, micronutrients (MN), probiotics, prebiotics, symbiotics, racecadotril, smectite(SM), loperamide, diluted milk, lactose-free formula(LCF), or their combinations, to placebo or standard treatment (STND), or among them. Two reviewers independently performed screening, review, study selection and extraction. The primary outcome was diarrhea duration. Secondary outcomes were stool frequency at day 2, diarrhea at day 3, vomiting and side effects. We performed a random effects Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine the direct and indirect evidence for each outcome. Mean differences and odds ratio with their credible intervals(CrI) were calculated. Coherence and transitivity assumptions were assessed. Meta-regression, subgroups and sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of effect modifiers. Summary under the cumulative curve (SUCRA) values with their CrI were calculated. We assessed the evidence quality and classified the best interventions using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development & Evaluation (GRADE) approach for each paired comparison.

          Results

          A total of 174 studies (32,430 children) proved eligible. Studies were conducted in 42 countries of which most were low-and middle-income countries (LMIC). Interventions were grouped in 27 categories. Most interventions were better than STND. Reduction of diarrhea varied from 12.5 to 51.1 hours. The combinations Saccharomyces boulardii (SB)+ZN, and SM+ZN were considered the best interventions (i.e., GRADE quality of evidence: moderate to high, substantial superiority to STND, reduction in duration of 35 to 40 hours, and large SUCRA values), while symbiotics (combination of probiotics+prebiotics), ZN, loperamide and combinations ZN+MN and ZN+LCF were considered inferior to the best and better than STND [Quality: moderate to high, superior to STND, and reduction of 17 to 25 hours]. In subgroups analyses, effect of ZN was higher in LMIC and was not present in high-income countries (HIC). Vitamin A, MN, prebiotics, kaolin-pectin, and diluted milk were similar to STND [Quality: moderate to high]. The remainder of the interventions had low to very-low evidence quality. Loperamide was the only intervention with more side effects than STND [Quality: moderate].

          Discussion/Conclusion

          Most interventions analyzed (except vitamin A, micronutrients, prebiotics, and kaolin-pectin) showed evidence of superiority to placebo in reducing the diarrhea. With moderate-to high-quality of evidence, SB+ZN and SM+ZN, demonstrated the best combination of evidence quality and magnitude of effect while symbiotics, loperamide and zinc proved being the best single interventions, and loperamide was the most unsafe. Nonetheless, the effect of zinc, SB+ZN and SM+ZN might only be applied to children in LMIC. Results suggest no further role for studies comparing interventions against no treatment or placebo, or studies testing loperamide, MN, kaolin-pectin, vitamin A, prebiotics and diluted milk.

          PROSPERO registration

          CRD42015023778.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Approaches to interpreting and choosing the best treatments in network meta-analyses

          When randomized trials have addressed multiple interventions for the same health problem, network meta-analyses (NMAs) permit researchers to statistically pool data from individual studies including evidence from both direct and indirect comparisons. Grasping the significance of the results of NMAs may be very challenging. Authors may present the findings from such analyses in several numerical and graphical ways. In this paper, we discuss ranking strategies and visual depictions of rank, including the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve method. We present ranking approaches’ merits and limitations and provide an example of how to apply the results of a NMA to clinical practice.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition/European Society for Pediatric Infectious Diseases evidence-based guidelines for the management of acute gastroenteritis in children in Europe: update 2014.

            These guidelines update and extend evidence-based indications for the management of children with acute gastroenteritis in Europe. The guideline development group formulated questions, identified data, and formulated recommendations. The latter were graded with the Muir Gray system and, in parallel, with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations system. Gastroenteritis severity is linked to etiology, and rotavirus is the most severe infectious agent and is frequently associated with dehydration. Dehydration reflects severity and should be monitored by established score systems. Investigations are generally not needed. Oral rehydration with hypoosmolar solution is the major treatment and should start as soon as possible. Breast-feeding should not be interrupted. Regular feeding should continue with no dietary changes including milk. Data suggest that in the hospital setting, in non-breast-fed infants and young children, lactose-free feeds can be considered in the management of gastroenteritis. Active therapy may reduce the duration and severity of diarrhea. Effective interventions include administration of specific probiotics such as Lactobacillus GG or Saccharomyces boulardii, diosmectite or racecadotril. Anti-infectious drugs should be given in exceptional cases. Ondansetron is effective against vomiting, but its routine use requires safety clearance given the warning about severe cardiac effects. Hospitalization should generally be reserved for children requiring enteral/parenteral rehydration; most cases may be managed in an outpatients setting. Enteral rehydration is superior to intravenous rehydration. Ultrarapid schemes of intravenous rehydration are not superior to standard schemes and may be associated with higher readmission rates. Acute gastroenteritis is best managed using a few simple, well-defined medical interventions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Indirect treatment comparison/network meta-analysis study questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report.

              Despite the great realized or potential value of network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial evidence to inform health care decision making, many decision makers might not be familiar with these techniques. The Task Force developed a consensus-based 26-item questionnaire to help decision makers assess the relevance and credibility of indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis to help inform health care decision making. The relevance domain of the questionnaire (4 questions) calls for assessments about the applicability of network meta-analysis results to the setting of interest to the decision maker. The remaining 22 questions belong to an overall credibility domain and pertain to assessments about whether the network meta-analysis results provide a valid answer to the question they are designed to answer by examining 1) the used evidence base, 2) analysis methods, 3) reporting quality and transparency, 4) interpretation of findings, and 5) conflicts of interest. The questionnaire aims to help readers of network meta-analysis opine about their confidence in the credibility and applicability of the results of a network meta-analysis, and help make decision makers aware of the subtleties involved in the analysis of networks of randomized trial evidence. It is anticipated that user feedback will permit periodic evaluation and modification of the questionnaire. Copyright © 2014 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                5 December 2018
                2018
                : 13
                : 12
                : e0207701
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence & Impact; McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
                [2 ] Department of Pediatrics, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia
                [3 ] Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michaels Hospital, Toronto, Canada
                [4 ] Department of Primary Education, School of Education, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece
                [5 ] Department of Pediatrics, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
                [6 ] Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain
                [7 ] Department of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, Netherlands
                [8 ] Department of Public Health, Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla, Colombia
                [9 ] Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia
                [10 ] Hospital Pediátrico de Sinaloa, Culiacán, Mexico
                [11 ] Department of Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
                [12 ] School of Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia
                [13 ] Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH), St. Joseph Health Care Hamilton, Hamilton, Canada
                [14 ] Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
                [15 ] Department of Anaesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
                TNO, NETHERLANDS
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0751-8932
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5304-3528
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4303-3243
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3770-5974
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1742-0242
                Article
                PONE-D-18-13198
                10.1371/journal.pone.0207701
                6281220
                30517196
                43d9b644-78c3-4b4a-8d42-2be927e4cac3
                © 2018 Florez et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 2 May 2018
                : 4 November 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 6, Tables: 2, Pages: 22
                Funding
                The authors received no specific funding for this work.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Gastroenterology and Hepatology
                Diarrhea
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Diagnostic Medicine
                Signs and Symptoms
                Diarrhea
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
                Signs and Symptoms
                Diarrhea
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Bacteria
                Gut Bacteria
                Lactobacillus
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Microbiology
                Probiotics
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Species Interactions
                Symbiosis
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Physiology
                Physiological Processes
                Vomiting
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Physiology
                Physiological Processes
                Vomiting
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Diagnostic Medicine
                Signs and Symptoms
                Vomiting
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
                Signs and Symptoms
                Vomiting
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Mathematical and Statistical Techniques
                Statistical Methods
                Metaanalysis
                Physical Sciences
                Mathematics
                Statistics
                Statistical Methods
                Metaanalysis
                Physical sciences
                Chemistry
                Chemical compounds
                Organic compounds
                Vitamins
                Vitamin A
                Physical sciences
                Chemistry
                Organic chemistry
                Organic compounds
                Vitamins
                Vitamin A
                Computer and Information Sciences
                Network Analysis
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information file.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article