Objective To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ramelteon for chronic insomnia in adults. Methods The following databases as CENTRAL, PubMed, EMbase, ISI, CNKI, CBMdisc, VIP and WanFang Data were searched from the date of their establishment to November 2010. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) meeting the inclusion criteria were included. The data extraction and quality assessment were conducted according to the methods of Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook recommend by The Cochrane Collaboration, and meta-analysis was performed with RevMan5.0 software. Results A total of 5 RCTs involving 1 772 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that: a) Effectiveness: In the effectiveness, ramelteon was superior to placebo in latency to persistent sleep (MD=18.36, 95%CI 11.55 to 25.18, Plt;0.000 01), total sleep time (MD= –15.47, 95%CI –22.50 to –8.43, Plt;0.000 1), sleep efficiency (MD= –3.39, 95%CI –5.32 to –1.46, P=0.000 6), sleep quality (MD=0.14, 95%CI 0.03 to 0.25, P=0.01) after one week treatment and latency to persistent sleep (MD=13.02, 95%CI 6.01 to 20.03, P=0.000 3) except for wake after sleep onset (MD= –8.79, 95%CI –17.24 to –0.35, P=0.04) after one month treatment. b) Safety: significant differences were only found in the female prolactin (MD=5.50, 95%CI 2.02 to 8.98, P=0.002) and male free testosterone (MD=15.30, 95%CI 0.62 to 29.98, P=0.04) between the two groups, rather than in all the other hormones concentration, rebound insomnia, withdrawal syndrome, next-day residual effects and incidence rate of adverse reactions. Conclusion Ramelteon has marked effects on adults’ chronic insomnia after 1-week treatment, but its effect is not obvious after 1-month treatment. The adverse reactions are mostly the somnolence, rising of male free testosterone and female prolactin concentration.
目的 评价卡培他滨+伊立替康与氟尿嘧啶/醛氢叶酸（5-FU/LV）+伊立替康治疗转移性结直肠癌的有效性和安全性。 方法 计算机检索PubMed、CENTRAL、Embase、中国生物医学数据库、中国期刊全文数据库、维普数据库和万方数据库，检索时间均从建库至2011年9月。对符合纳入标准的随机对照试验进行质量评价和Meta分析。 结果 纳入3个随机对照试验，共计419例患者，卡培他滨+伊立替康在中位生存期、完全缓解率[RR=1.58，95%CI（0.27，9.11），P=0.61]、部分缓解率[RR=0.86，95%CI（0.68，1.09），P=0.20]、总有效率[RR=0.88，95%CI（0.71，1.09），P=0.26]上表现出与5-FU/LV+伊立替康相似的效果，安全性方面卡培他滨+伊立替康有较高的Ⅲ/Ⅳ级恶心[RR=1.92，95%CI（1.05，3.54），P=0.04]、腹泻[RR=3.23，95%CI（2.14，4.89），P＜0.000 01]发生风险和较低的Ⅲ/Ⅳ级中性粒细胞减少[RR=0.72，95%CI（0.53，0.98），P=0.04]发生风险。 结论 根据当前现有证据，5-FU/LV+伊立替康可能较卡培他滨+伊立替康更为有利于转移性结直肠癌患者的治疗，但仍需结合临床实际情况进行化疗方案的优选。
【摘要】 目的 系统评价司帕沙星对比氧氟沙星治疗耐多药肺结核的有效性和安全性。 方法 计算机检索Cochrane图书馆临床对照试验资料库（2010年第2期）和PubMed（1978年-2010年10月）、EMBASE（1974年-2010年10月）、中国学术期刊网络出版总库（1978年-2010年10月）、维普（1989年-2010年10月）、中国生物医学文献数据库（1978年-2010年10月）；手工检索其他相关杂志。检索语种为中文和英文。纳入司帕沙星对比氧氟沙星治疗耐多药肺结核的随机对照试验。按Cochrane系统评价的方法评价纳入研究质量，用RevMan 5.0软件对数据进行Meta分析。 结果 共纳入8篇研究，Meta分析结果显示司帕沙星组与氧氟沙星组相比，痰菌转阴率、病灶显著吸收率、空洞闭合率均高于对照组，差异具有统计学意义（Plt;0.05）。 结论 现有的证据表明，司帕沙星与其他抗结核药物联用治疗难治、耐多药肺结核的疗效优于氧氟沙星的联用方案，但由于纳入的文献数量有限，质量参差不齐，存在潜在的发表偏倚。【Abstract】 Objective To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of sparfloxacin versus ofloxacin in treatment of multi-drug resistant pulmonary tuberculosis (MDR-TB). Methods Literatures were retrieved from PubMed (1978-October, 2010), EMBASE (1974-October 2010), Cochrane library (2nd volume, 2010), China Academic Journal Network Publishing Database (1978-October, 2010), VIP (1989-October, 2010) and CBM (1978 to October, 2010) by computer, and searched some other relevant journals manually. Chinese and English were both used in the search. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on sparfloxacin versus ofloxacin in treating pulmonary tuberculosis were included in this study. Meta-analysis was conducted by RevMan 5.0 software. Results The meta-analysis of 8 included RCTs showed that the sputum negative conversion rate, focus absorption rate, cavity closure rate in the sparfloxacin group were significantly higher than the ofloxacin group (P＜0.05). Conclusions The analysis indicates that combined treatment with sparfloxacin has a better effect in treating MDR-TB than with ofloxacin. However, the reliability of this review may be affected by the number and quality of studies included. Large-scale randomized controlled trials of high quality are needed to confirm the conclusions above.