Myocardial ischemia-reperfusion (I/R) injury is one of the leading causes of death and disability worldwide. Mitochondrial fission has been shown to be involved in cardiomyocyte death. However, molecular machinery involved in mitochondrial fission during I/R injury has not yet been completely understood. In this study we aimed to investigate molecular mechanisms of controlling activation of dynamin-related protein 1 (Drp1, a key protein in mitochondrial fission) during anoxia-reoxygenation (A/R) injury of HL1 cardiomyocytes. A/R injury induced cardiomyocyte death accompanied by the increases of mitochondrial fission, reactive oxygen species (ROS) production and activated Drp1 (pSer616 Drp1), and decrease of inactivated Drp1 (pSer637 Drp1) while mitochondrial fusion protein levels were not significantly changed. Blocking Drp1 activity with mitochondrial division inhibitor mdivi1 attenuated cell death, mitochondrial fission, and Drp1 activation after A/R. Trolox, a ROS scavenger, decreased pSer616 Drp1 level and mitochondrial fission after A/R. Immunoprecipitation assay further indicates that cyclin dependent kinase 1 (Cdk1) and protein kinase C isoform delta (PKCδ) bind Drp1, thus increasing mitochondrial fission. Inhibiting Cdk1 and PKCδ attenuated the increases in pSer616 Drp1, mitochondrial fission, and cardiomyocyte death. FK506, a calcineurin inhibitor, blocked the decrease in expression of inactivated pSer637 Drp1 and mitochondrial fission. Our findings reveal the following novel molecular mechanisms controlling mitochondrial fission during A/R injury of cardiomyocytes: 1) ROS are upstream initiators of mitochondrial fission; and 2) the increased mitochondrial fission is resulted from both increased activation and decreased inactivation of Drp1 through Cdk1, PKCδ, and calcineurin-mediated pathways, respectively.

No abstract

Background Assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in included studies is one of the key methodological aspects of systematic reviews. Cochrane systematic reviews appraise RoB of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with the Cochrane RoB tool. Detailed instructions for using the Cochrane RoB tool are provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (The Cochrane Handbook). The purpose of this study was to analyse whether Cochrane authors use adequate judgments about the RoB for random sequence generation of RCTs included in Cochrane reviews. Methods We extracted authors’ judgments (high, low or unclear RoB) and supports for judgments (comments accompanying judgments which explain the rationale for a judgment) for random sequence generation of included RCTs from RoB tables of Cochrane reviews using automated data scraping. We categorised all supporting comments, analysed the number and type of various supporting comments and assessed adequacy of RoB judgment for randomisation in line with recommendations from the Cochrane Handbook. Results We analysed 10,103 RCTs that were included in 704 Cochrane reviews. For 5,706 RCTs, randomisation was not described, but for the remaining RCTs, it was indicated that randomisation was performed using computer/software/internet ( N = 2,850), random number table ( N = 883), mechanical method ( N = 359) or it was incomplete/inappropriate ( N = 305). Overall, 1,220/10,103 trials (12%) did not have a RoB judgment in line with Cochrane Handbook guidance about randomisation. The highest proportion of misjudgements was found for trials with high RoB (28%), followed by those with low (20%) or unclear (3%). Therefore, one in eight judgments for the analysed domain in Cochrane reviews was not in line with Cochrane Handbook, and one in four if the judgment was "high risk". Conclusion Authors of Cochrane reviews often make judgments about the RoB related to random sequence generation that are not in line with instructions given in the Cochrane Handbook, which compromises the reliability of the systematic reviews. Our results can help authors of both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews which use Cochrane RoB tool to avoid making common mistakes when assessing RoB in included trials. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0804-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

The aim of this study was to conduct an overview of systematic reviews that summarizes the results about efficacy and safety from randomized controlled trials involving the various strategies used for postoperative pain management in children. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, Database of Reviews of Effect, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO from the earliest date to January 24, 2016. This overview included 45 systematic reviews that evaluated interventions for postoperative pain in children. Out of 45 systematic reviews that investigated various interventions for postoperative pain in children, 19 systematic reviews (42%) presented conclusive evidence of efficacy. Positive conclusive evidence was reported in 18 systematic reviews (40%) for the efficacy of diclofenac, ketamine, caudal analgesia, dexmedetomidine, music therapy, corticosteroid, epidural analgesia, paracetamol, and/or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and transversus abdominis plane block. Only one systematic review reported conclusive evidence of equal efficacy that involved a comparison of dexmedetomidine vs morphine and fentanyl. Safety of interventions was reported as conclusive in 14 systematic reviews (31%), with positive conclusive evidence for dexmedetomidine, corticosteroid, epidural analgesia, transversus abdominis plane block, and clonidine. Seven systematic reviews reported equal conclusive safety for epidural infusion, diclofenac intravenous vs ketamine added to opioid analgesia, bupivacaine, ketamine, paracetamol, and dexmedetomidine vs intravenous infusions of various opioid analgesics, oral suspension and suppository of diclofenac, only opioid, normal saline, no treatment, placebo, and midazolam. Negative conclusive statement for safety was reported in one systematic review for caudal analgesia vs noncaudal regional analgesia. More than half of systematic reviews included in this overview were rated as having medium methodological quality. Of 45 included systematic reviews, 10 were Cochrane reviews and they had higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. As evidence concerning efficacy and safety is inconclusive for most of the analyzed interventions, our review points out the need for more rigorous trials concerning pain management in children.

Endorsement of PRISMA in instructions for authors was not a guarantee of compliance. Methodological and reporting quality of pain-related SRs should be improved using relevant checklists. This can be remedied by a joint effort of authors, editors, and peer reviewers.

Objective Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) is a nonablative pain treatment that uses radiofrequency current in short high-voltage bursts, resulting in interruption of nociceptive afferent pathways. We conducted a systematic review with the aim to create a synthesis of evidence about the efficacy and safety of PRF applied to the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Methods We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO through January 8, 2019, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and the clinical trial register of the World Health Organization. All study designs were eligible. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool for randomized controlled trials and the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I). We assessed level of evidence using the Oxford tool and quality of evidence with GRADE. Results We included 28 studies with participants suffering from lumbosacral, cervical, or thoracic radicular pain, post-herpetic neuralgia, neuropathicbone pain in cancer patients, or carpal tunnel syndrome. Only five studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), while others were of nonrandomized designs, predominantly before and after comparisons. A total of 991 participants were included, with a median number (range) of 31 (1–101) participants. Only 204 participants were included in the RCTs, with a median number (range) of 38 (23–62) participants. The overall quality of evidence was low, as the majority of the included studies were rated as evidence level 4 or 5. The quality of evidence was very low. Conclusions Evidence about the efficacy and safety of PRF of the DRG for the treatment of neuropathic pain is based mainly on results from very small studies with low evidence quality. Current research results about the benefits of PRF of the DRG for the treatment of neuropathic pain should be considered preliminary and confirmed in high-quality RCTs with sufficient numbers of participants.

Numerous interventions for neuropathic pain (NeuP) are available, but its treatment remains unsatisfactory. We systematically summarized evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials on interventions for NeuP. Five electronic databases were searched up to March 2015. Study quality was analyzed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews. The most common interventions in 97 included SRs were pharmacologic (59%) and surgical (15%). The majority of analyzed SRs were of medium quality. More than 50% of conclusions from abstracts on efficacy and approximately 80% on safety were inconclusive. Effective interventions were described for painful diabetic neuropathy (pregabalin, gabapentin, certain tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs], opioids, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants), postherpetic neuralgia (gabapentin, pregabalin, certain TCAs, antidepressants and anticonvulsants, opioids, sodium valproate, topical capsaicin, and lidocaine), lumbar radicular pain (epidural corticosteroids, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation [rTMS], and discectomy), cervical radicular pain (rTMS), carpal tunnel syndrome (carpal tunnel release), cubital tunnel syndrome (simple decompression and ulnar nerve transposition), trigeminal neuralgia (carbamazepine, lamotrigine, and pimozide for refractory cases, rTMS), HIV-related neuropathy (topical capsaicin), and central NeuP (certain TCAs, pregabalin, cannabinoids, and rTMS). Evidence about interventions for NeuP is frequently inconclusive or completely lacking. New randomized controlled trials about interventions for NeuP are necessary; they should address safety and use clear diagnostic criteria.