Feng Zhao’s research while affiliated with Binzhou Medical University and other places

The aim of this work was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of botulinum toxin A (BTX-A) treatment in patients with neurogenic detrusor overactivity. PUBMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were identified on 13 May 2017 to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. All data obtained were analyzed using Stata 12.0. Five randomized controlled trials were included in this study. Compared to placebo, the BTX-A groups had significantly fewer urinary incontinence (UI) episodes per day and per week (BTX-A with 300 U for frequency of UI per day at week 2, mean difference (MD): −1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI): −1.89 to −0.37; 200 U; BTX-A with 300 U for frequency of UI per week at week 6, MD: −11.42, 95% CI: −13.91 to −8.93; BTX-A with 200 U for frequency of UI per week at week 6, MD: −10.72, 95% CI: −13.40 to −8.04), increased in maximum cystometric capacity at week 6 (BTX-A with 300 U, MD: 154.88, 95% CI: 133.92–175.84; BTX-A with 200 U, MD: 141.30, 95% CI: 121.28–161.33), decreased maximum detrusor pressure at week 6 (BTX-A with 300 U, MD: −31.72, 95% CI: −37.69 to −25.75; BTX-A with 200 U, MD: −33.47, 95% CI: −39.20 to −27.73). For adverse effects, BTX-A was often associated with more complications and urinary tract infections (BTX-A with 300 U: relative risk (RR):1.42, 95% CI: 1.15–1.76; BTX-A with 200 U: RR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.11–1.82). This meta-analysis suggests that treatment with BTX-A is effective and safe for neurogenic detrusor overactivity, and recommends using BTX-A with 300 U or with 200 U, as suitable dosage.

The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of erythropoietin (EPO) for improving cancer-associated malignant anemia. A search was performed for randomized clinical trials, conducted according to the Cochrane manual, using electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrails.gov up to 15 August 2015. A total of 6 eligible studies from 5 articles enrolling a total of 453 patients were entered into the current meta-analysis. Upon EPO treatment, there were significant differences in the change in hemoglobin (HB) levels compared with the placebo at short-term follow-up [mean difference (MD)=0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.14-1.18; I2=Not applicable; P=0.01) and long-term follow-up (MD=0.10; 95% CI, 0.02-0.18; I2=Not applicable; P=0.01) under the random effects model. For changes in hematocrit (HCT) compared with the placebo, the results revealed there were significant differences at short-term follow-up (MD=2.47; 95% CI, 0.75-4.19; I2=Not applicable; P=0.005) and long-term follow-up (MD=7.60; 95% CI, 6.15-9.05; I2=Not applicable; P<0.00001) under the random effects model. Compared with the placebo in short-term follow-up under the fixed effects model with homogeneity, the result was a significant difference for the transfusion ratio [relative risk (RR)=0.81; 95% CI, 0.67- 0.97; I2=34%; P=0.02) and the transfusion requirements (MD=-0.45; 95% CI, -0.92, 0.03; I2=6%; P=0.07). Funnel plots did not detect any publication bias. These results suggest that EPO was beneficial to alleviate cancer-associated anemia and improve survival outcomes for patients with cancer.

To evaluate the influence of the high-flux hemodialysis (HFHD) and the low-flux hemodialysis (LFHD) on mortality rate for end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Four electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrails were searched to identify relevant randomized clinical trials up to 31 August 2015. Seven studies enrolling a total of 4412 patients were included in this meta-analysis. For all-cause mortality comparing with LFHD, the result showed that there were significant difference (RR = 0.75; 95% CI [0.60–0.94]; I² = 84%; P < 0.00001). For death due to infection comparing with LFHD, the result showed that there was no significant difference (RR = 0.92; 95% CI [0.75–1.13]; I² = 0%; P = 0.86). For cardiovascular mortality, the overall meta-analysis result showed that there was a significant difference between the HFHD versus the LFHD (RR = 0.75; 95% CI [0.60–0.94]; I² = 55%; P = 0.11). Publication bias was not detected by funnel plot. Based on these results, our study suggests that the HFHD has superior effectiveness over LFHD for long-term survival in ESRD.

To evaluate the efficacy of members of the H2RA family for the treatment of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD). We performed a thorough electronic search on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for eligible randomized clinical trials that investigated H2RAs and the treatment of GERD up to July 28, 2015. A comprehensive network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effects of each subset of H2RAs. A total of 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in our network meta-analysis. Our results showed that, compared with placebos, H2RAs were more effective for the treatment of GERD. Within the H2RA family, famotidine 80 mg per day (OR = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.06 - 0.38) was determined to be the most effective, followed by famotidine 40 mg per day (odds ratio (OR) = 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.11 - 0.44); ranitidine 1,200 mg per day (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.13 - 0.63); ranitidine 600 mg per day (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.14 - 0.47); ranitidine 300 mg per day (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15 - 0.55); cimetidine 1,600 mg per day (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.14 - 0.73); nizatidine 600 mg per day (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.24 - 1.24); and finally nizatidine 300 mg per day (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.25 - 1.26). The placebo was determined to be the least effective treatment. Compared with other H2RAs, famotidine had the best short-term therapeutic effect in adults with GERD, especially at a dosage of 80 mg per day.

This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of esomeprazole and omeprazole in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Electronic searches on PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were carried out for reports up to February 28, 2015. Ten eligible studies from 8 articles were found that enrolled a total of 10,286 patients for meta-analysis. These results revealed a significant difference between esomeprazole vs. omeprazole (RR = 1.06, 95% CI [1.01, 1.10], I2 = 72%, p = 0.01) by subgroup according to dosage by random effects model, and a significant difference between esomeprazole 40 mg vs. omeprazole 20 mg (RR = 1.07, 95% CI [1.004, 1.14], I2 = 78%, p = 0.04) based on healing rate as determined by endoscopy, using a random effects model. A significant difference between esomeprazole 20 mg and omeprazole 40 mg (RR = 0.68, 95% CI [0.47, 0.97], I2 = not applicable, p = 0.03) was also found in comparing relief of symptoms by random effects model. There were no significant differences in outcomes between other subgroups, including tolerability. Based on these results, a high dose of esomeprazole is recommended for GERD treatment and control in adults.