Background: Resveratrol is a potential treatment option for management of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) due to its anti-inflammatory, antioxidant properties, and calorie restriction-like effects. We aimed to synthesise evidence from published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) about the efficacy of resveratrol in the management of NAFLD.Methods: A computer literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central was conducted using relevant keywords. Records were screened for eligible studies and data were extracted and synthesized using Review Manager Version 5.3 for windows. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted.Results: Four RCTs (n=158 patients) were included in the final analysis. The overall effect estimates did not favor resveratrol group in terms of: serum ALT (MD -2.89, 95%CI [-15.66, 9.88], p=0.66), serum AST (MD -3.59, 95%CI [-13.82, 6.63], p=0.49), weight (MD -0.18, 95%CI [-0.92, 0.55], p=0.63), BMI (MD -0.10, 95 %CI [-0.43, 0.24], p=0.57), blood glucose level (MD -0.27, 95%CI [-0.55, 0.01], p=0.05), insulin level (MD -0.12, 95%CI [-0.69, 0.46], p=0.69), triglyceride level (MD 0.04, 95%CI [-0.45, 0.53], p=0.87), and LDL level (MD 0.21, 95%CI [-0.41, 0.83], p=0.51). Pooled studies were heterogeneous.Conclusion: Current evidence is insufficient to support the efficacy of resveratrol in the management of NAFLD. Resveratrol does not attenuate the degree of liver fibrosis or show a significant decrease in any of its parameters.Abbreviations: ALT: Alanine aminotransferase; AMPK: AMP-activated protein kinase; AST: Aspartate aminotransferase; BMI: Body mass index; CK-18: Cytokeratin-18; CRP: C-reactive protein; HC: Head circumference; HDL: High density lipoprotein; IL-6: Interleukin-6; LDL: Low density lipoprotein; MD: Mean difference; NAFLD: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; NASH: Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis; RCT: Randomized Controlled Trial; RR: Relative risk; SIRT1: Silent information regulation 2 homologue 1; TNF-α: Tumor necrosis factor α; WC: Waist circumference; WHR: Waist hip ratio.

Background: Although protocol registration of systematic reviews/meta-analysis (SR/MA) is still not mandatory, it is highly recommended that authors publish their SR/MA protocols prior to submitting their manuscripts for publication as recommended by the Cochrane guidelines for conducting SR/MAs. our aim was to assess the awareness, obstacles, and opinions of SR/MA authors about the protocol registration process. Methods: A cross-sectional survey study included the authors who published SR/MAs during the period from 2010 to 2016, and they were contacted for participation in our survey study. They were identified through the literature search of SR/MAs in Scopus database. An online questionnaire was sent to each participant via e-mail after receiving their approval to join the study. We have sent 6650 emails and received 275 responses. Results: A total of 270 authors responses were complete and included in the final analysis. Our results has shown that PROSPERO was the most common database used for protocol registration (71.3%). The registration-to-acceptance time interval in PROSPERO was less than 1 month (99.1%). Almost half of the authors (44.2%) did not register their protocols prior to publishing their SR/MAs and according to their opinion that the other authors lack knowledge of protocol importance and mandance to be registered, was the most commonly reported reason (44.9%). A significant percenatge of respondents (37.4%) believed that people would steal their ideas from protocol databases, while only 5.3% reported that their SR/MA had been stolen. However, the majority (72.9%) of participants have agreed that protocol registries play a role in preventing unnecessary duplication of reviews. Finally, 37.4% of participants agree that SR/MA protocol registration should be mandatory.

SummaryThere is a need for improved treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). We reviewed the literature to explore the efficacy of HB vaccines alone or in combination therapy (CT) with antiviral drugs in CHB patients and to meta‐analyze data from randomized controlled trials. We conducted a systematic search in ten databases. All studies investigating the efficacy of HBV vaccine in HBV infected patients were included with no restrictions. Among 1359 studies initially identified, 23 studies (n = 1956 patients) were included for the final analysis. CT showed a significant reduction of HBV DNA compared with analogue monotherapy (AM) at the 12‐month follow‐up period (odds ratio (OR) = 2.835, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.275, 6.306], p = .011). Additionally, CT also remarkably induce HbsAg loss in comparison with AM (OR = 11.736, 95% CI [1.841, 74.794], p = .009). Our pooled data revealed no difference between treatment and control regarding alanine aminotransferase normalization, HBeAg seroconversion, and HBeAg disappearance. In addition, CT using vaccine and NAs resulted in a statistically significant higher incidence of adverse effects than AM. The therapeutic effects of combination therapy for patients with CHB were encouraging, but future studies need to investigate all possible treatment combinations and assess their cost‐effectiveness.

Background: Although protocol registration of systematic reviews/meta-analysis (SR/MA) is still not mandatory, it is highly recommended that authors publish their SR/MA protocols prior to submitting their manuscripts for publication as recommended by the Cochrane guidelines for conducting SR/MAs. our aim was to assess the awareness, obstacles, and opinions of SR/MA authors about the protocol registration process. Methods: A cross-sectional survey study included the authors who published SR/MAs during the period from 2010 to 2016, and they were contacted for participation in our survey study. They were identified through the literature search of SR/MAs in Scopus database. An online questionnaire was sent to each participant via e-mail after receiving their approval to join the study. We have sent 6650 emails and received 275 responses.Results: A total of 270 authors responses were complete and included in the final analysis. Our results has shown that PROSPERO was the most common database used for protocol registration (71.3%). The registration-to-acceptance time interval in PROSPERO was less than one month (99.1%). Almost half of the authors (44.2%) did not register their protocols prior to publishing their SR/MAs and according to their opinion that the other authors lack knowledge of protocol importance and mandance to be registered, was the most commonly reported reason (44.9%). A significant percenatge of respondents (37.4%) believed that people would steal their ideas from protocol databases, while only 5.3% reported that their SR/MA had been stolen. However, the majority (72.9%) of participants have agreed that protocol registries play a role in preventing unnecessary duplication of reviews. Finally, 37.4% of participants agree that SR/MA protocol registration should be mandatory. Conclusion: About half of the participants believes that the main reason for not registering protocols, is that the other authors lack knowledge concerning obligation and importance to register the SR/MA protocols in advance. Therefore, tools should be available to mandate protocol registration of any SRs beforehand and increasing awareness about the benefits of protocol registration among researchers.

No abstract