ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes associated with the use of lasmiditan, rimegepant, ubrogepant, and zavegepant for the acute management of migraine headaches.MethodsWe searched four electronic databases from database inception to August 31, 2023, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that report efficacy and safety for the acute treatment of migraine. The risk of bias in the included RCTs was evaluated according to the Cochrane tool, and the certainty of evidence using the CINeMA approach. We conducted frequentist network meta-analyses (NMA) to summarise the evidence. Data were analyzed using R-4.3.1.ResultsA total of 18 eligible studies including 10 different types of interventions with 22,429 migraine patients were included. NMA results showed that compared to ubrogepant (25 mg and 50 mg) and zavegepant, lasmiditan (100 mg and 200 mg) exhibits an elevated probability of achieving pain relief within a 2-hour interval. Similarly, relative to zavegepant, rimegepant (75 mg) and ubrogepant (50 mg and 100 mg) demonstrate an enhanced likelihood of sustaining pain relief over a 24-hour period. Furthermore, in contrast to ubrogepant (25 mg) and lasmiditan (50 mg), rimegepant (75 mg) presents a heightened probability of achieving freedom from photophobia within 2 h. Regarding safety, lasmiditan carries the highest risk of adverse events, which are associated with an increased incidence of adverse effects, including dizziness, somnolence, asthenia, paresthesia, and fatigue.ConclusionsIn this NMA, a spectrum of evidence ranging from very low to high levels underscores the favorable efficacy and tolerability of rimegepant 75 mg and ubrogepant 100 mg, positioning them as potential candidates for the acute management of migraine. Concurrently, lasmiditan (100 mg and 200 mg) exhibits notable efficacy, albeit accompanied by an increased susceptibility to adverse events. These findings should still be approached with caution, primarily due to the intrinsic limitations associated with indirect comparisons.

Introduction: Health workers in rural and remote areas shoulder heavy responsibilities for rural residents. This systematic review aims to assess the effectiveness of continuing education programs for health workers in rural and remote areas.Methods: Eight electronic databases were searched on 28 November 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi -experimental studies evaluating the effectiveness of continuing education for health workers in rural and remote areas were included. The quality of the studies was assessed using the risk of bias tool provided by Effective Practice and Organization of Care. A meta-analysis was performed for eligible trials, and the other findings were presented as a narrative review because of inconsistent study types and outcomes. Results: A total of 17 studies were included, four of which were RCTs. The results of the meta-analysis showed that compared to no intervention, continuing education programs significantly improved the knowledge awareness rate of participants (odds ratio=4.09, 95% confidence interval 2.51-6.67, p<0.05). Qualitative analysis showed that 12 studies reported on the level of knowledge of participants, with all showing positive changes. Eight studies measured the performance of health workers in rural and remote areas, with 87.50% (n=7) finding improved performance. Two studies reported on the impact of continuing education programs for health workers in rural and remote areas on patient health, with only one showing a positive change. One study from India measured the health of communities, which showed a positive change.Conclusion: The results of this study showed that continuing education programs are an effective way to address the lack of knowledge and skills among health workers in rural and remote areas. Few studies have examined the effectiveness of education programs for health workers in rural and remote areas in improving patient health outcomes. It is not yet known whether the delivery of continuing education programs to health workers in rural areas has a positive impact on patient and community health. Future attention should continue to be paid to the impact on these outcomes.

ObjectiveTo investigate the most effective and best-tolerated drugs for treating diseased smokers.MethodsEight databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving different pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation in disease patients (January 2023). Network meta-analysis was performed using STATA 15.1 software. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool assessed the risk of bias, and confidence in evidence was assessed using CINeMA.ResultsA total of 60 RCTs involving 13,009 patients of 12 disease categories were included. All trials reported 13 interventions, resulting in 78 comparisons. Network meta-analysis showed that varenicline (OR = 2.30, 95% CI (1.77, 3.00)) and bupropion (OR = 1.65, 95% CI (1.29, 2.11)) showed favorable abstinence effects compared to placebo in the cardiovascular disease population. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) had better withdrawal advantages than placebo (OR = 11.18, 95% CI (2.25, 55.54)) in the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) population. Some combination treatments showed better results than monotherapy, such as bupropion + NRT was superior to bupropion (OR = 8.45, 95% CI (1.84, 38.89)) and NRT (OR = 4.98, 95% CI (1.25, 19.78)) in mental illness population. The final surface under the cumulative ranking curve indicated that bupropion + NRT achieved the best smoking cessation effect. Overall confidence in the evidence was low. In a comparison of drugs, the results showed that bupropion + NRT had the best safety.ConclusionsMost interventions show the benefit of quitting smoking compared with placebo, including monotherapy and combination therapy. Moreover, varenicline or bupropion combined with NRT is superior to some monotherapies.

Objective: An overview, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of varenicline for smoking cessation. Methods: Systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized controlled trials evaluating varenicline versus placebo for smoking cessation were included. A forest plot was used to summarize the effect size of the included SRs. Traditional meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed using Stata software and TSA 0.9 software, respectively. Finally, the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess the quality of evidence for the abstinence effect. Results: A total of 13 SRs and 46 randomized controlled trials were included. Twelve review studies showed that varenicline was superior to placebo for smoking cessation. The meta-analysis results showed that, compared with the placebo, varenicline significantly increased the odds of smoking cessation (odds ratio = 2.54, 95% confidence interval = 2.20-2.94, P < 0.05, moderate quality). Subgroup analysis showed that there were significant differences in smokers with disease and general smokers (P < 0.05). Differences were also found in the follow-up time at 12, 24, and 52 weeks (P < 0.05). The common adverse events were nausea, vomit, abnormal dreams, sleep disturbances, headache, depression, irritability, indigestion, and nasopharyngitis (P < 0.05). The TSA results confirmed the evidence for the effect of varenicline on smoking cessation. Conclusions: Existing evidence supports the superiority of varenicline over a placebo for smoking cessation. Varenicline had mild to moderate adverse events but was well tolerated. Future trials should investigate varenicline in combination with other smoking cessation approaches and compare it with other interventions.

Background: Although non-pharmacological smoking cessation measures have been widely used among smokers, current research evidence on the effects of smoking cessation is inconsistent and of mixed quality. Moreover, there is a lack of comprehensive evidence synthesis. This study seeks to systematically identify, describe, and evaluate the available evidence for non-pharmacological interventions in smoking populations through evidence mapping (EM), and to search for best-practice smoking cessation programs. Methods: A comprehensive search for relevant studies published from the establishment of the library to January 8, 2023, was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, Wan Fang, and VIP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility and extracted data. The PRISMA statement and AMSTAR 2 tool were used to evaluate the report quality and methodology quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs), respectively. Bubble plots were utilized to display information, such as the study population, intervention type, evidence quality, and original study sample size. Results: A total of 145 SRs/MAs regarding non-pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation were investigated, with 20 types of interventions identified. The most commonly used interventions were cognitive behaviour education (n = 32, 22.07%), professional counselling (n = 20, 13.79%), and non-nicotine electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) (n = 13, 8.97%). Among them, counselling and behavioural support can improve smoking cessation rates, but the effect varies depending on the characteristics of the support provided. These findings are consistent with previous SRs/MAs. The general population (n = 108, 74.48%) was the main cohort included in the SRs/MAs. The total score of PRISMA for the quality of the reports ranged from 8 to 27, and 13 studies (8.97%) were rated as high confidence, and nine studies (6.21%) as moderate confidence, in the AMSTAR 2 confidence rating. Conclusions: The abstinence effect of cognitive behaviour education and money incentive intervention has advantages, and non-nicotine e-cigarettes appear to help some smokers transition to less harmful replacement tools. However, the methodological shortcomings of SRs/MAs should be considered. Therefore, to better guide future practice in the field of non-pharmacological smoking cessation, it is essential to improve the methodological quality of SRs and carry out high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Introduction: Smoking is a risk factor for most chronic diseases and premature death, with a global prevalence of more than 1 billion people who smoke. This network meta-analysis aimed to investigate the impact of different behavioral interventions on smoking cessation.Methods: Four electronic databases were searched for RCTs from inception to August 29, 2022. The risk of bias for the included RCTs was evaluated using the revised version of Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias and the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The network meta-analysis was performed using Stata 16SE and R 4.1.3 software.Results: A total of 119 included RCTs enrolled 118,935 participants. For the 7-day-point prevalence abstinence rate, video counseling had a best intervention effect than brief advice, followed by financial incentives, self-help materials plus telephone counseling, motivational interview, health education, telephone counseling, and text messages. For the 30-day-point prevalence abstinence rate, face-to-face cognitive education and financial incentives were superior to brief advice. For the continuous abstinence rate, motivational interview and financial incentives were more effective than brief advice. The certainty of evidence was very low to moderate for these studies.Discussion: From the results of the network meta-analysis, different behavioral interventions resulted in positive impacts on smoking cessation compared with that of brief advice, especially video counseling, face-to-face cognitive education, and motivational interviews. Owing to the poor quality of evidence, high-quality trials should be conducted in the future to provide more robust evidence. Am J Prev Med 2023;65(2):327-336.& COPY; 2023 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

To evaluate the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of antidepressants in helping smokers quit tobacco dependence, five databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTS ) on different antidepressant interventions involving smoking cessation in populations (September 2022). The STATA 15.1 software was used to perform network meta-analysis. The Cochrane bias risk tool was used to assess the risk of bias, and CINeMA was used to evaluate the evidence credibility for the effect of different interventions on smoking cessation. In all, 107 RCTs involving 42 744 patients were included. Seven studies were rated as having a low risk of bias. All trials reported 18 interventions and 153 pairwise comparisons were generated. The network meta-analysis showed that compared with placebo, varenicline + bupropion (OR = 3.53, 95% CI [2.34, 5.34]), selegiline + nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (OR = 3.78, 95% CI [1.20, 11.92]), nortriptyline + NRT (OR = 2.33, 95% CI [1.21, 4.47), nortriptyline (OR = 1.58, 95% CI [1.11,2.26]), naltrexone + bupropion (OR = 3.84, 95% CI [1.39, 10.61]), bupropion + NRT (OR = 2.29, 95% CI [1.87, 2.81]) and bupropion (OR = 1.70, 95% CI [1.53, 1.89]) showed benefits with respect to smoking cessation. In addition, bupropion + NRT showed better effects than bupropion (OR = 1.35, 95% CI [1.12, 1.64]) and NRT (OR = 1.38, 95% CI [1.13, 1.69]) alone. The final cumulative ranking curve showed that varenicline + bupropion was the most likely to be the best intervention. There was moderate- to very-low-certainty evidence that most interventions showed benefits for smoking cessation compared with placebo, including monotherapy and combination therapies. Varenicline + bupropion had a higher probability of being the best intervention for smoking cessation.

Background: Sedentary time in workplaces has been linked to increased risks of chronic occupational diseases, obesity, and overall mortality. Currently, there is a burgeoning research interest in the implementation of multicomponent interventions aimed at decreasing sedentary time among office workers, which encompass a comprehensive amalgamation of individual, organizational, and environmental strategies. Objective: This meta-analysis aims at evaluating the effectiveness of multicomponent interventions to mitigate occupational sedentary behavior at work compared with no intervention. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched from database inception until March 2023 to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of multicomponent interventions on occupational sedentary behavior among office-based workers. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias by using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. The average intervention effect on sedentary time was calculated using Stata 15.1. Mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs were used to calculate the continuous variables. Subgroup analyses were performed to determine whether sit-stand workstation, feedback, and prompt elements played an important role in multicomponent interventions. Further, the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Results: A total of 11 RCTs involving 1894 patients were included in the analysis. Five studies were rated as low risk of bias, 2 as unclear risk of bias, and 4 as high risk. The meta-analysis results showed that compared with no intervention, multicomponent interventions significantly reduced occupational sitting time (MD=-52.25 min/8-h workday, 95% CI -73.06 to -31.44; P<.001) and occupational prolonged sitting time (MD=-32.63 min/8-h workday, 95% CI -51.93 to -13.33; P=.001) and increased occupational standing time (MD=44.30 min/8-h workday, 95% CI 23.11-65.48; P<.001), whereas no significant differences were found in occupational stepping time (P=.06). The results of subgroup analysis showed that compared with multicomponent interventions without installment of sit-stand workstations, multicomponent interventions with sit-stand workstation installment showed better effects for reducing occupational sitting time (MD=-71.95 min/8-h workday, 95% CI -92.94 to -51.15), increasing occupational standing time (MD=66.56 min/8-h workday, 95% CI 43.45-89.67), and reducing occupational prolonged sitting time (MD=-47.05 min/8-h workday, 95% CI -73.66 to -20.43). The GRADE evidence summary showed that all 4 outcomes were rated as moderate certainty. Conclusions: Multicomponent interventions, particularly those incorporating sit-stand workstations for all participants, are effective at reducing workplace sedentary time. However, given their cost, further research is needed to understand the effectiveness of low-cost/no-cost multicomponent interventions.

Background and Objectives: To evaluate and map the reporting and methodological quality of network meta-analysis (NMA) on acupuncture.Methods: Published acupuncture NMAs were searched through eight databases from inception to February 2022. The reporting and methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Network Meta-Analysis (PRISMA-NMA) statement and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) checklist.Results: A total of 113 NMAs were identified. Most (99, 87.61%) studies were performed in China. Most studies focused on multiple acupuncture techniques (82.30%), and the main studied ailments were pain and poststroke sequelae (20.24%). The median (interquartile range (IQR)) score of the reporting quality was 26.5 (25-28.5). However, poor reporting rates in the protocol and registration (33.63%) and geometry of the network (35.40%), especially for China-based studies, were identified. The methodological quality of only 2 (1.77%) English studies was high. The reporting rate of Chinese studies was below 15% on each of items 4, 7, 10, and 12.Conclusion: The reporting quality of the NMAs was moderate, but the methodological quality was very low. The reporting and methodological quality of future NMAs, especially for Chinese studies, need further improvement. (c) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Background and objectives:Smoking is responsible for 9 out of 10 deaths related to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and this number can be reduced by quitting smoking. In this study, the effect of different interventions on smoking cessation of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was assessed through a network meta-analysis. Methods:Eight databases were searched to obtain randomized controlled trials involving different interventions for smoking cessation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. The Cochrane Handbook tool was employed to assess the risk bias of included studies. Network meta-analysis was performed using STATA software. Results:A total of 23 studies involving 13,480 patients were included. Eight studies were rated as having a high risk of bias, seven studies had a low risk, and in eight studies, the risk was unclear. All studies employed 13 different interventions, including eight monotherapies and five combination therapies. Network meta-analysis showed that a combination of behavioral therapy and pharmacotherapy was superior in achieving patients' smoking cessation compared to monotherapy. Moreover, varenicline was more helpful for smoking cessation than other single interventions. The final surface under the cumulative ranking curve value indicated that cognitive behavior therapy combined with bupropion achieved the best smoking cessation effect. Conclusions:The obtained results indicate that a combination of behavioral therapy and pharmacotherapy is most powerful in helping chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients to quit smoking. Researchers should focus more on the safety of pharmacotherapeutic interventions. Moreover, more high-quality trials investigating the stability of evidence levels of different interventions on abstinence must be conducted.