Free Paper with Medical Articles Evaluation

Article Evaluation #1

Citations:

Authors Purpose Design/

Method Sampling/

Setting Variables

Studied Variable measurement Data analysis Study findings Appraisal of evidence

Umapathi, T., Hughes, R. A., Nobile-Orazio, E., & Leger, J. M. (2015). Immunosuppressant and immunomodulatory treatments for multifocal motor neuropathy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 4.

The authors of the study assessed the effects of immunosuppressive agents in the treatment of multifocal motor neuropathy. Experimental design. 28 people who suffered from multifocal motor neuropathy involved in the study ; IVIG for treatment of suspected or proven bacterial or fungal infection compared with placebo or no intervention g outcomes was reported, mortality, length of hospital stay or psychomotor development at follow-up. Two review authors searched the titles and abstracts of the articles identified and extracted the data independently Statistical analyses included typical risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), weighted mean difference (WMD), number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or a complementary harmful outcome (NNTH), all with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the I2 statistic to examine for statistical heterogeneity The results indicated that the use of immunomodulatory treatment did not necessarily lower the need forIVIg and neither did it improve its strength and functionality

ARTICLE SUMMARY

The article by Umapathi et al., 2015 immunomodulatory treatment for multifocal motor neuropathy focused on the benefits and harms of therapy that suppress the immune system in MMN.

The study was involved 28 people who suffered from multifocal motor neuropathy andwas conducted as a single trial.

The results indicated that the use of immunomodulatory treatment did not necessarily lower the need forIVIg and neither did it improve its strength and functionality.

The patients suffered insignificant side effects.

Clinical application

From the article, immunomodulatory treatment does not lower the need for IVIg and hence the use of plasmapheresis during the first few days of excavation would be most appropriate.

Article Evaluation #2

Citations:

Authors Purpose Design/

Method Sampling/

Setting Variables

Studied Variable measurement Data analysis Study findings Appraisal of evidence

Craig, J. V., Pain, C. E., & Beresford, M. W. (2010). Disease-modifying immunosuppressant drugs for juvenileonset systemic lupus erythematosus. The Cochrane Library

The authors of the study assessed effectiveness and safety of DMARDs in the treatment of juvenile-onset systemic lupus erythematosus Experimental design Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs were collected by searching titles and article's abstracts. The study was involved 28 people who suffered from multifocal motor neuropathy and was conducted as a single trial Outcome measures are those recommended by the Pediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organization (PRINTO) for the evaluation of response to therapy in clinical trials and daily clinical practice in patients with JSLE and by the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology consensus group for outcome assessment in SL Selection of studies, Data extraction and management, and Individual patient data (IPD) checks the assumed or 'typical' risk in the control group and the corresponding risk and 95% confidence interval in the intervention group for each outcome. The results indicated that the use of immunomodulatory treatment did not necessarily lower the need forIVIg and neither did it improve its strength and functionality

Article summary

The article by Craig JV et al. disease-modifying immunosuppressant drugs for juvenile-onset systemic lupus erythematosus probed the effectiveness and safety of DMARDs in the treatment of juvenile-onset systemic lupus erythematosus.

The study involved randomized controlledtrials, controlledclinical trials of parallel and crossover design and safety reports of children and young adults under the age of 18 that satisfied the American college of rheumatology.

Neonatal lupus syndrome patients were excluded from the study.

Clinical application

The results from this table were not conclusive,and hence the comparison of DMARDStreatment withplasmapheresiswaschallenging to compare.

Article Evaluation #3

Citations:

Authors Purpose Design/

Method Sampling/

Setting Variables

Studied Variable measurement Data analysis Study findings Appraisal of evidence

Ohlsson, A., & Lacy, J. B. (2013). Intravenous immunoglobulin for suspected or proven infection in neonates. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 7.

To assess the effects of IVIG on mortality and morbidity resulting from a proven infection at study entry in the newborn. Experimental design The research involved newborn patients who were less than 28 days old. The sample size was 3973 infants.

Variables studied include, typical risk ratios (RR), risk difference (RD), weighted mean difference,(WMD), and number needed to treat for an additional benefit outcome (NNTB) IVIG (polyvalent or IgM-enriched) to treat suspected or proven bacterial or fungal infection versus control (placebo or no treatment). Species-specific immunoglobulin (such as for Staphylococcus aureus. Results of the INIS trial, which enrolled 3493 infants, and our meta-analysis (n = 3973) showed no reduction in mortality during hospital stay, or death or significant disability at two years of age in infants with suspected or proven infection. Although based on small sample size (n = 266), this update provides additional evidence that IgM-enriched IVIG does not significantly The study identified that even after the use of IVIG treatment as well as 1gM -enriched IVIG, there was no significant difference in infant mortality with suspected or proven infection

Article summary

The article by OhlssonA and Lacy JB explores the use intravenousimmunoglobin for suspected or proven infections in neonates.

The research involved newborn patients who were less than 28 days old. The sample size was 3973 infants.

The study identified that even after the use of IVIG treatment as well as 1gM -enriched IVIG, there was no significant difference in infant mortality with suspected or proven infection.

Clinical application

Itis identified from the study that the use intravenousimmunoglobin showed the insignificant difference in infant mortality as compared to when not used.

This can hence lead to an inference that the use of plasmapheresis would give better results.

Article Evaluation #4

Citations:

Authors Purpose Design/

Method Sampling/

Setting Variables

Studied Variable measurement Data analysis Study findings Appraisal of evidence

Stork, A. C., Lunn, M., NobileOrazio, E., & Notermans, N. C. (2015). Treatment for IgG and IgA paraproteinaemic neuropathy. The Cochrane Library The authors of the study assessed the effects of any therapy for IgG and IgA paraproteinaemicperipheralneuropathy. Experimental design Theresearch involved randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs using any treatment for IgG or IgA paraproteinaemic peripheral neuropathy. Plasma exchange (PE) versus sham exchange for IgG and IgA paraproteinaemic neuropathy The variables were measured through assumes the risk and similar risk. Standard Cochrane methodology to select studies, extract data and analyze results. One trial author provided additional data and clarification was used The trial revealed a modest benefit of plasma exchange in the weakness component of the Neuropathy Disability Score. The mean improvement with plasma exchange was 17 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.2 to 28.8 points) versus 1 point (95% CI -7.7 to 9.7 points) in the sham exchange group at three weeks' follow-up The study outlined no improvement in disability after randomization as well as sensory disturbance

Article summary

The article by Stork ACJ et al. focuses on the use of any treatment for 1Gg and 1Ga paraproteinaemic peripheral neuropathy.

The study involved 18 participants that fulfilled the predetermined criteria. They included People with IgM paraprotein and participants of any age with a diagnosis of monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance with a paraprotein of the IgG or IgA class and a neuropathy. The participants were not required to fulfill specific electrophysiological diagnostic criteria were included excluding people with IgM paraprotein.

The study outlined no improvement in disability after randomization as well as a sensory disturbance.

Clinical Evaluation

Similarly, there was no improvement when the use of 1Gg and 1Ga was used to treat paraproteinaemic peripheral neuropathy. This makes plasmapheresis the other best option as immunosuppressants are not as efficient.

Article Evaluation #5

Citations:

Authors Purpose Design/

Method Sampling/

Setting Variables

Studied Variable measurement Data analysis Study findings Appraisal of evidence

De Zwart, V., Gouw, S. C., & Meyer-Wentrup, F. A. (2014). Antibody therapies for lymphoma in children. Status and date: New, published in, (7).

To assess the efficacy of antibody therapy for childhood lymphoma regarding survival, response and relapse rates, compared with treatment,not including antibody treatment The studywas conducted through experimental design Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs were collected by searching titles and article's abstracts. Conventional therapy was compared to antibody therapy in children with lymphoma antibody therapy to the standard care in identical groups of children Two authors independently performed the study selection no studies meeting the inclusion criteria of the review were found Results indicated that antibody therapy is safe to use in children and is well tolerated. There was a definite effect on these children's survival rates

Article summary

The article by Dezwart V et al. implicates the use of antibody therapies for lymphoma in children.

The authors analyzed 27 publications investigating the safety and tolerability of two antibody therapies, rituximab and brentuximabvedotin, in children with various types of lymphoma

Results indicated that antibody therapy is safe to use in children and is well tolerated. Therewasa positive effect on these children's survival rates.

Clinical application

The use of antibody therapies lymphoma in children proved to be useful in usage and showed insignificant side effects. However, it did not increase the children's survival rate and hence being ruled out, and further studies were done on plasmapheresis to make sure they are useful.