Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023
Comparative efficacy of aromatase inhibitors and gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue in increasing final height of idiopathic short stature boys: a network meta-analysis.
Систематический обзорПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСтатьяNetwork Meta-AnalysisНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Wang Siqi, Wu Zhixin, Chen Yang, Luo Kuanhong, Cui Zhenhai, Zhang Jiaoyue, Zheng Juan, Xiao Kangli, Li Huiqing
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of monotherapy with AIs or GnRHa in improving the height of boys with idiopathic short stature (ISS).
METHOD: We performed a systematic search in Pubmed, The Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure databases, and Wanfang Database for eligible studies. The network meta-analysis was conducted using STATA software.
RESULTS: We identified a total of four studies that included 136 individuals. We used FAH/PAH as the main outcome of final height. The results revealed a statistically higher final height after treatment with AI or GnRHa in idiopathic short stature children(MD= 4.63, 95% CI[3.29,5.96]). In network meta-analysis, the direct and indirect comparison between AI and GnRHa was presented in the forest plot. Compared with control group, both AI and GnRHa were effective in increasing the final height, with the mean effect of 4.91(95%CI:1.10,8.17) and 5.55(95%CI:1.12,9.98) respectively. However, there was no statistical difference between the GnRHa and AI treatment, of which the mean effect was 0.65(95%CI: -4.30,5.60).
CONCLUSION: Both AIs and GnRHa monotherapy were effective in augmenting the final height of boys with idiopathic short stature when compared to placebo groups. However, there was no statistical difference between the GnRHa and AI treatments.
METHOD: We performed a systematic search in Pubmed, The Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure databases, and Wanfang Database for eligible studies. The network meta-analysis was conducted using STATA software.
RESULTS: We identified a total of four studies that included 136 individuals. We used FAH/PAH as the main outcome of final height. The results revealed a statistically higher final height after treatment with AI or GnRHa in idiopathic short stature children(MD= 4.63, 95% CI[3.29,5.96]). In network meta-analysis, the direct and indirect comparison between AI and GnRHa was presented in the forest plot. Compared with control group, both AI and GnRHa were effective in increasing the final height, with the mean effect of 4.91(95%CI:1.10,8.17) and 5.55(95%CI:1.12,9.98) respectively. However, there was no statistical difference between the GnRHa and AI treatment, of which the mean effect was 0.65(95%CI: -4.30,5.60).
CONCLUSION: Both AIs and GnRHa monotherapy were effective in augmenting the final height of boys with idiopathic short stature when compared to placebo groups. However, there was no statistical difference between the GnRHa and AI treatments.