Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRashid, Muhammed
dc.contributor.authorChandran, Viji Pulikkel
dc.contributor.authorNair, Sreedharan
dc.contributor.authorMuthu, Deepa Sudalai
dc.contributor.authorPappuraj, Jemima
dc.contributor.authorJacob, Krupa Ann
dc.contributor.authorSridhar, Balaji
dc.contributor.authorMark, Karen
dc.contributor.authorHyder, Shabnam
dc.contributor.authorKhan, Sohil
dc.contributor.authorThunga, Girish
dc.date.accessioned2021-10-19T00:00:19Z
dc.date.available2021-10-19T00:00:19Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.issn2772-4328en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.2174/2772432816666210825102726en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/409214
dc.description.abstractBackground: Treatment with N-Acetyl Cysteine (NAC) in rodenticide poisoning has not been well established due to mixed study results and insufficient evidence. This review aimed to summarize the clinical benefits of NAC in the management of rodenticide poisoning. Methods: This review follows the PICOS framework and the PRISMA guidelines. Pub- Med/MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane library were searched to identify the published literature from inception to September 2020, and a reference search was performed for additional relevant studies. The English language studies addressing the use of NAC in rodenticide poisoning were considered for the review. We considered all experimental and observational studies due to the insufficient number of interventional studies. Results: Ten studies (two RCTs, four observational, and four descriptive) out of 2,178 studies with 492 participants were considered for the review. Only six studies (two RCTs, one prospective, and three retrospective studies) reported recovery and mortality. Pooled results of RCTs (n=2) showed a significant recovery rate (Odds Ratio [OR]: 3.97; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]:1.69-9.30), whereas summary estimates of prospective and retrospective studies recorded a non-significant effect. Metaanalysis of RCTs (OR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.11-0.59; n=2) and retrospective studies (OR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.15-0.78; n=3) showed a significant reduction in mortality, whereas pooled analysis of prospective studies recorded a non-significant effect. A significant reduction in intubation or ventilation (OR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.11-0.60; 2 RCTs) and a non-significant (P=0.41) difference in duration of hospitalization was observed with NAC when compared to the non-NAC treated group. The quality of the included studies appeared to be moderate to high. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that NAC showed better survival and lower mortality rate when compared to non-NAC treated group; hence NAC can be considered for the management of rodenticide poisoning. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020154376.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.languageenen_US
dc.publisherBentham Science Publishers Ltd.en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalCurrent Reviews in Clinical and Experimental Pharmacologyen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchPharmacology and pharmaceutical sciencesen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode3214en_US
dc.titleN-Acetyl cysteine in rodenticide poisoning: A systematic review and meta-analysisen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articlesen_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationRashid, M; Chandran, VP; Nair, S; Muthu, DS; Pappuraj, J; Jacob, KA; Sridhar, B; Mark, K; Hyder, S; Khan, S; Thunga, G, N-Acetyl cysteine in rodenticide poisoning: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Current Reviews in Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology, 2021en_US
dc.date.updated2021-10-18T23:53:01Z
gro.description.notepublicThis publication has been entered in Griffith Research Online as an advanced online version.en_US
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text
gro.griffith.authorKhan, Sohil A.


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record