Acta oto-laryngologica · 2024
Scopolamine for patients with motion sickness: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhang Yu-Xin, Niu Xin-Ying, Xiao Zhi-Yong, Wang Meng-Ting, Zheng Hui
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Scopolamine has been demonstrated to relieve motion sickness. However, repeated significance testing may increase false-positive results.
OBJECTIVES: Review the efficacy and safety of scopolamine in the prevention of motion sickness by performing a meta-analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared scopolamine with other medications or placebo were included. Primary outcomes were nausea reported and head movement time.
RESULTS: Twenty studies with 753 participants were included. Scopolamine had a greater reported reduction in nausea than placebo (relative risk [RR] 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24 to 0.52; p<0.00001; I2 = 45%), while TSA showed the included sample size exceeded the required information size (RIS). There is no difference in head movement time between scopolamine and placebo (mean difference [MD] 2.02; 95% CI -1.2 to 5.25; p = 0.6; I2 = 0%), while the included sample size did not reach RIS.
CONCLUSION: Scopolamine is effective for motion sickness nausea compared to placebo. The TSA recommends conducting more head movement trials to validate the objective efficacy of scopolamine.
SIGNIFICANCE: Clarifying the efficacy of scopolamine for motion sickness, the TSA highlights the need for more prospective studies using head movement as an outcome.
OBJECTIVES: Review the efficacy and safety of scopolamine in the prevention of motion sickness by performing a meta-analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared scopolamine with other medications or placebo were included. Primary outcomes were nausea reported and head movement time.
RESULTS: Twenty studies with 753 participants were included. Scopolamine had a greater reported reduction in nausea than placebo (relative risk [RR] 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24 to 0.52; p<0.00001; I2 = 45%), while TSA showed the included sample size exceeded the required information size (RIS). There is no difference in head movement time between scopolamine and placebo (mean difference [MD] 2.02; 95% CI -1.2 to 5.25; p = 0.6; I2 = 0%), while the included sample size did not reach RIS.
CONCLUSION: Scopolamine is effective for motion sickness nausea compared to placebo. The TSA recommends conducting more head movement trials to validate the objective efficacy of scopolamine.
SIGNIFICANCE: Clarifying the efficacy of scopolamine for motion sickness, the TSA highlights the need for more prospective studies using head movement as an outcome.