Objective We explored the comparative effectiveness of available therapies for chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). DESIGN Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials (RCTs).DATA SOURcES MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and SCOPUS were searched to May 2021, and again in January 2023.STUDY SELEcTION Interventional RCTs that enrolled patients presenting with chronic pain associated with TMD.DATA EXTRAcTION AND SYNTHESIS Pairs of reviewers independently identified eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We captured all reported patient-important outcomes, including pain relief, physical functioning, emotional functioning, role functioning, social functioning, sleep quality, and adverse events. We conducted frequentist network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence and categorise interventions from most to least beneficial.RESULTS 233 trials proved eligible for review, of which 153-enrolling 8713 participants and exploring 59 interventions or combinations of interventions-were included in network meta-analyses. All subsequent effects refer to comparisons with placebo or sham procedures. Effects on pain for eight interventions were supported by high to moderate certainty evidence. The three therapies probably most effective for pain relief were cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) augmented with biofeedback or relaxation therapy (risk difference (RD) for achieving the minimally important difference (MID) in pain relief of 1 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale: 36% (95% CI 33 to 39)), therapist-assisted jaw mobilisation (RD 36% (95% CI 31 to 40)), and manual trigger point therapy (RD 32% (29 to 34)). Five interventions were less effective, yet more effective than placebo, showing RDs ranging between 23% and 30%: CBT, supervised postural exercise, supervised jaw exercise and stretching, supervised jaw exercise and stretching with manual trigger point therapy, and usual care (such as home exercises, self stretching, reassurance). Moderate certainty evidence showed four interventions probably improved physical functioning: supervised jaw exercise and stretching (RD for achieving the MID of 5 points on the short form-36 physical component summary score: 43% (95% CI 33 to 51)), manipulation (RD 43% (25 to 56)), acupuncture (RD 42% (33 to 50)), and supervised jaw exercise and mobilisation (RD 36% (19 to 51)). The evidence for pain relief or physical functioning among other interventions, and all evidence for adverse events, was low or very low certainty.cONcLUSION When restricted to moderate or high certainty evidence, interventions that promote coping and encourage movement and activity were found to be most effective for reducing chronic TMD pain.REGISTRATION PROSPERO (CRD42021258567)

Objective: To describe the characteristics of Covid-19 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and examine the association between trial characteristics and the likelihood of finding a significant effect. Study design: We conducted a systematic review to identify RCTs (up to October 21, 2020) evaluating drugs or blood products to treat or prevent Covid-19. We extracted trial characteristics (number of centers, funding sources, and sample size) and assessed risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. We performed logistic regressions to evaluate the association between RoB due to randomization, single vs. multicentre, funding source, and sample size, and finding a statistically significant effect. Results: We included 91 RCTs (n = 46,802); 40 (44%) were single-center, 23 (25.3%) enrolled < 50 patients, 28 (30.8%) received industry funding, and 75 (82.4%) had high or probably high RoB. Thirty-eight trials (41.8%) reported a statistically significant effect. RoB due to randomization and being a single-center trial were associated with increased odds of finding a statistically significant effect. Conclusions: There is high variability in RoB among Covid-19 trials. Researchers, funders, and knowledge-users should be cognizant of the impact of RoB due to randomization and single-center trial status in designing, evaluating, and interpreting the results of RCTs. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

OBJECTIVE To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Articles Downloadable Database, which includes 25 electronic databases and six additional Chinese databases to 20 July 2020. STUDY SELECTION Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian random effects network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance. RESULTS 23 randomised controlled trials were included in the analysis performed on 26 June 2020. The certainty of the evidence for most comparisons was very low because of risk of bias (lack of blinding) and serious imprecision. Glucocorticoids were the only intervention with evidence for a reduction in death compared with standard care (risk difference 37 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 63 fewer to 11 fewer, moderate certainty) and mechanical ventilation (31 fewer per 1000 patients, 47 fewer to 9 fewer, moderate certainty). These estimates are based on direct evidence; network estimates for glucocorticoids compared with standard care were less precise because of network heterogeneity. Three drugs might reduce symptom duration compared with standard care: hydroxychloroquine (mean difference -4.5 days, low certainty), remdesivir (-2.6 days, moderate certainty), and lopinavir-ritonavir (-1.2 days, low certainty). Hydroxychloroquine might increase the risk of adverse events compared with the other interventions, and remdesivir probably does not substantially increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation. No other interventions included enough patients to meaningfully interpret adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation. CONCLUSION Glucocorticoids probably reduce mortality and mechanical ventilation in patients with covid-19 compared with standard care. The effectiveness of most interventions is uncertain because most of the randomised controlled trials so far have been small and have important study limitations.