To compare the efficacy between fixation with tightrope and screw in the treatment of syndesmotic injuries: A meta-analysis

Background

To compare the efficacy between fixation with suture-button and screw in the treatment of syndesmotic injuries: a meta-analysis.

Compellingness: assessing the practical relevance of clinical research results

While the critical appraisal of clinical research has generally focused on aspects of study design and statistical analysis, other features of clinical studies appear to be more important to clinicians for assessing the value of a particular study in the care of particular patients. These features relate to the quality of the knowledge derived from the research, the value of the results to the care of individual patients, and the responsibility of clinicians to be stewards of limited resources. Twelve features of clinical research studies that affect how compelling individual clinicians find the results are proposed and examined here. By better understanding what makes clinical research compelling enough to alter or reinforce clinical practice, clinical researchers can design future studies to better serve the needs of clinicians and patients.     

The effect of oral appliances that advanced the mandible forward and limited mouth opening in patients with obstructive sleep apnea: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials

Oral appliances (OAs) have demonstrated efficacy in treating obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), but many different OA devices are available. The Japanese Academy of Dental Sleep Medicine supported the use of OAs that advanced the mandible forward and limited mouth opening and suggested an evaluation of their effects in comparison with untreated or CPAP. A systematic search was undertaken in 16 April 2012. The outcome measures of interest were as follows: Apnea Hypopnea Index (AHI), lowest SpO₂, arousal index, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), the SF‐36 Health Survey. We performed this meta‐analysis using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Five studies remained eligible after applying the exclusion criteria. Comparing OA and control appliance, OA significantly reduced the weighted mean difference (WMD) in both AHI and the arousal index (favouring OA, AHI: ?7·05 events h^?1; 95% CI, ?12·07 to ?2·03; P = 0·006, arousal index: ?6·95 events h^?1; 95% CI, ?11·75 to ?2·15; P = 0·005). OAs were significantly less effective at reducing the WMD in AHI and improving lowest SpO₂ and SF‐36 than CPAP, (favouring OA, AHI: 6·11 events h^?1; 95% CI, 3·24 to 8·98; P = 0·0001, lowest SpO₂: ?2·52%; 95% CI, ?4·81 to ?0·23; P = 0·03, SF‐36: ?1·80; 95% CI, ?3·17 to ?042; P = 0·01). Apnea Hypopnea Index and arousal index were significantly improved by OA relative to the untreated disease. Apnea Hypopnea Index, lowest SpO₂ and SF‐36 were significantly better with CPAP than with OA. The results of this study suggested that OAs improve OSA compared with untreated. CPAP appears to be more effective in improving OSA than OAs.