GEM/cochrane-simplification huggingface dataset:
Abstract: Three trials that examined cotrimoxazole prophylaxis and involving 268 adults were included. Meta-analysis of these studies found a beneficial effect of using a desensitization protocol over a rechallenge protocol at six months of follow-up for preventing discontinuation of cotrimoxazole (number needed to treat (NNT) 7.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.0-33.0), and for lower incidence of overall hypersensitivity (NNT 4.55, 95% CI 3.03-9.09). No severe hypersensitivity reactions occurred for either protocol in the three studies. In the small trials included in this review, when compared to cotrimoxazole rechallenge for prophylaxis of opportunistic infections, cotrimoxazole desensitization resulted in fewer treatment discontinuations and overall adverse reactions in HIV-infected patients with a previous history of mild or moderate hypersensitivity to cotrimoxazole. Paediatric data and trials in resource-poor settings are urgently required. Further randomised controlled trials are also needed for the treatment of opportunistic infections, treating-through, adjunctive medications, and different desensitization-dosing schedules.

Plain-language summary: Three trials examining the use of cotrimoxazole in preventing opportunistic infections were included in the review. When compared to rechallenge, desensitization appeared to result in fewer treatment stoppages and side effects in HIV-infected adult patients who had a previous mild or moderate reaction to cotrimoxazole. However, more data are needed for these results to be conclusive. It is important to note that reintroduction of cotrimoxazole was usually successful using either desensitization or rechallenge, with 44.4% to 79.4% of patients still on cotrimoxazole after six months in the three studies. Furthermore, in the studies reviewed, no strategy resulted in severe hypersensitivity reactions. Severe limitations of this review included the absence of data in paediatric populations and the minimal data from resource-poor populations.
Abstract: We included in the review three trials enrolling 148 neonates. We identified no new trials for this update. Using different sedation scales, each study showed a statistically significantly higher sedation level in the midazolam group compared with the placebo group. However, none of the sedation scales used have been validated in preterm infants; therefore, we could not ascertain the effectiveness of midazolam in this population. Duration of NICU stay was significantly longer in the midazolam group than in the placebo group (WMD 5.4 days, 95% CI 0.40 to 10.5; I2 = 0%; two studies, 89 infants). One study (43 infants) reported significantly lower Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) scores during midazolam infusion than during dextrose (placebo) infusion (MD -3.80, 95% CI -5.93 to -1.67). Another study (46 infants) observed a higher incidence of adverse neurological events at 28 days' postnatal age (death, grade III or IV IVH or PVL) in the midazolam group compared with the morphine group (RR 7.64, 95% CI 1.02 to 57.21; RD 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; NNTH 4, 95% CI 2 to 14) (tests for heterogeneity not applicable). We considered these trials to be of moderate quality according to GRADE assessment based on the following outcomes: mortality during hospital stay, length of NICU stay, adequacy of analgesia according to PIPP scores and poor neurological outcomes by 28 days' postnatal age. Data are insufficient to promote the use of intravenous midazolam infusion as a sedative for neonates undergoing intensive care. This review raises concerns about the safety of midazolam in neonates. Further research on the effectiveness and safety of midazolam in neonates is needed.

Plain-language summary: We have selected for inclusion in this review randomised controlled trials of continuous intravenous drip of midazolam as a sedative in babies aged 28 days or younger. We included three clinical trials in this review. Using different scales to measure level of sedation, each study showed that midazolam was effective in providing sedation to babies. However, the validity of the sedation scales used in these studies has not been proven in babies; therefore, we cannot be certain that midazolam is, in fact, an effective sedative for babies. Moreover, one study showed that babies who received midazolam had a significantly higher risk of death or brain injury, and combined results of two studies showed that midazolam use may prolong length of stay in the NICU. One of the studies included in this review received support from industry, and for the other two studies, industry provided all study drugs. We assessed the quality of the evidence on the outcomes of mortality during hospital stay, length of stay in the NICU, pain, and neurological outcomes at 28 days of life and found the evidence to be of moderate quality, as there was not enough evidence available. Therefore, we conclude there is not enough evidence to support the use of midazolam as a sedative for babies undergoing intensive care. Additional research is needed to address the safety and effectiveness of midazolam in this population.
Abstract: Twelve trials involving 767 participants were included. No differences were detected between the antibiotic and placebo/no treatment arms for people with diarrhoea at two to four days after treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 7.21; one trial, 46 participants; very low quality evidence). No difference was detected for the presence of diarrhoea at five to seven days after treatment (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; two trials, 192 participants; very low quality evidence), clinical failure (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.25; seven trials, 440 participants; very low quality evidence). The mean difference for diarrhoea was 0 days (95% CI -0.54 to 0.54; 202 participants, four studies; low quality evidence);for fever was 0.27 days (95% CI -0.11 to 0.65; 107 participants, two studies; very low quality evidence); and for duration of illness was 0 days (95% CI -0.68 to 0.68; 116 participants, two studies; very low quality evidence). Quinolone antibiotic treatment resulted in a significantly higher number of negative stool cultures for NTS during the first week of treatment (microbiological failure: RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.56; 166 participants, four trials). Antibiotic treatment meant passage of the same Salmonella serovar one month after treatment was almost twice as likely (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.98; 112 participants, three trials), which was statistically significant. Non-severe adverse drug reactions were more common among the patients who received antibiotic treatment. There is no evidence of benefit for antibiotics in NTS diarrhoea in otherwise healthy people. We are uncertain of the effects in very young people, very old people, and in people with severe and extraintestinal disease. A slightly higher number of adverse events were noted in people who received antibiotic treatment for NTS.

Plain-language summary: In this review, we investigated the benefits and safety of antibiotics for treatment of NTS versus placebo or no antibiotic treatment. We found that in otherwise healthy people, treatment with antibiotics did not have any benefit over treatment with no antibiotics. Furthermore, treatment with antibiotics made it more likely that patients would continue to excrete the same organisms for up to one month after treatment. We are unable to comment on the use of antibiotics in very young people, very old people and people who are unable to fight off infection because the trials we identified did not include these patients.
Abstract: Three high-quality and three low-quality studies, involving 519 people with depression, were identified. The studies were very heterogeneous in terms of interventions, participants, and measuring instruments. Despite fairly good methodological quality and positive findings of some studies, evidence for the effectiveness of family therapy for depression did not exceed level 3 (limited or conflicting evidence), except for moderate evidence (level 2), based on the non-combined findings from three studies, indicating that family therapy is more effective than no treatment or waiting list condition on decreasing depression, and on increasing family functioning. The current evidence base is too heterogeneous and sparse to draw conclusions on the overall effectiveness of family therapy in the treatment of depression. At this point, use of psychological interventions for the treatment of depression for which there is already an evidence-base would seem to be preferable to family therapy. Further high quality trials examining the effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of explicitly defined forms of family therapy are required.

Plain-language summary: This review looks at whether family therapy is an effective intervention in treating people of any age with depression. Family therapy for depression is widely used, especially in the United Kingdom and the United States. The small number of randomised controlled trials included in the review were very heterogeneous, and therefore difficult to synthesise. Family therapy seems more effective than no treatment or being placed on a waiting list, but it remains unclear how effective this intervention is in comparison to other interventions. Further randomised controlled trials are needed.
Abstract: Three trials involving a total of 206 participants were included, all patients with vascular dementia. All three included studies were assessed as being at high risk of bias. When analysing these trials together, there was significant beneficial effect of Duxil on the improvement of cognitive function measured by MMSE (WMD 2.04, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.66). No data on behaviour and death at the end of treatment and follow-up were available from the included trials. Two trials failed to show an improvement of functional performance measured by ADL (WMD -1.68; 95% CI -3.70 to 0.35). Of the three included trials, all described the adverse events in detail, there were no statistically significant differences across the trials (OR 4.84, 95%CI 0.55 to 42.67). Behaviour disturbance, quality of life, caregiver burden were not undertaken in the included trials. Due to the low methodological quality of included trials, small number of trials and probable publication bias, this review did not provide sufficient evidence to support the routine use of Duxil for the treatment of patients with dementia. High-quality and large-scale randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm or refute these results.

Plain-language summary: Duxil is described as having several properties which may be beneficial for dementia. This review looked for randomized trials comparing Duxil with control in patients with dementia. Three trials were identified. Though there was significant beneficial effect of Duxil on the improvement of cognitive function, due to the low methodological quality of included trials, small number of trials and probable publication bias, this review did not provide sufficient evidence to support the routine use of Duxil for the treatment of patients with dementia. More large, high-quality randomized trials are needed.
Abstract: Seven RCTs including 960 participants were identified. The quality of trials was generally low, with several studies at risk of selection bias, and no studies used blinding during treatment or outcome assessment. There was a high level of statistical variation between the studies, which therefore reduces the reliability of the evidence. The OR for seroma formation was 0.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.91, P = 0.03) in favour of a reduced incidence of seroma in participants with drains inserted. There was no significant difference in infection rates between drainage and no drainage groups (OR = 0.70; 95% CI 0.44 to 1.12, P = 0.14). The mean difference in length of hospital stay, reported in four trials consisting of 600 participants, was 1.47 days greater in the drained population (95% CI 0.67 to 2.28, P = 0.0003). A mean difference of 0.79 fewer postoperative seroma aspirations was found in the drained population (95% CI 1.23 to 0.35 fewer, P = 0.0004) in two trials including 212 participants. No significant difference in volume of seroma aspirations was reported (MD -19.44, 95% CI -59.45 to 20.57, P = 0.34) in three trials including 519 participants. No significant difference in the incidence of lymphoedema was noted (OR 2.31 favouring no drainage, 95% CI 0.47 to 11.37, P = 0.30), with only six instances reported in three trials of 360 participants, nor was any significant difference in the incidence of haematoma observed (OR 1.68, 95% CI 0.33 to 8.51, P = 0.53), with only five instances reported in two trials of 314 participants. There is limited quality evidence that insertion of a drain following axillary lymphadenectomy reduced the odds of developing a seroma and reduced the number of post-operative seroma aspirations. These benefits should be balanced against an increased length of hospital stay in the drained population.

Plain-language summary: This Cochrane review aims to determine whether drain tube insertion reduces complication rates or is associated with any risks or harms. We analysed seven randomised controlled trials including 960 participants that compared drain insertion with no drainage after axillary lymphadenectomy for the treatment of breast cancer. We found that the chance of getting a seroma if a drain was inserted was less than if no drain was inserted (0.46 times less likely), and that the number of aspirations required (using a needle to drain seroma fluid in the outpatient clinic) was lower (on average, 0.79 fewer per participant). These benefits must be balanced against a longer average hospital stay of 1.47 days in the drained population, although increasingly patients can be discharged with their drain in place, to be removed at a later date. Risk of infection, volume of fluid aspirated and rates of lymphoedema (arm swelling) or haematoma (bruising) did not differ between drained and undrained participants.
Abstract: Eight studies with 390,769 participants were included. Five studies used a prospective cohort design, two were case-control studies and one a randomised controlled trial (RCT). The methodological quality was measured using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). The three prospective cohort studies were of high methodological quality, and two were of medium quality. The two case-control studies were of medium methodological quality. The results form the studies assessing associations between flavonoids, colorectal cancer and adenomas were contradictory. There was no evidence that total flavonoid intake reduced the risk of colorectal neoplasms. The evidence for Isoflavones, Flavonols, Flavones and Flavanones was conflicting. For Flavan-3-ols, the results from two studies suggested that increased intake of Flavan-3-ols reduced the risk of both CRC and colorectal adenomas. A statistically significant reduced risk of CRC was found with high intake of epicatechin. There was medium quality evidence to support that increased intake of procyanidin and phytoestrogen could reduced the incidence of CRC. There was no evidence that suggested that high anthocyanin intake had an inverse association with colorectal adenomas. There is insufficient and conflicting evidence regarding flavonoid intake and the prevention of colorectal neoplasms. It is difficult to determine flavonoid intake. Therefore, more evidence is needed to clarify the association between flavonoids and colorectal neoplasms.

Plain-language summary: Eight studies with 390,769 participants, mainly observational, were included in this systematic review. The aim of the studies reviewed was to determine an association of the intake of total flavonoids, and eight main flavonoid subclasses, with colorectal neoplasms including CRC and adenomas. The majority of the studies were of medium to high methodological quality. The evidence that intake of dietary flavonoids reduces the risk of colorectal neoplasms was conflicting, and could partly be explained due to difficulties in quantifying the intake of flavonoids. Therefore, the association of dietary flavonoids and prevention of colorectal neoplasms remains unproven.
Abstract: Only two studies (34 participants) met the inclusion criteria of this systematic review. Both studies evaluated the diagnostic test accuracy of EUS in assessing the resectability with curative intent in pancreatic cancers. There was low concerns about applicability for most domains in both studies. The overall risk of bias was low in one study and unclear or high in the second study. The mean probability of unresectable disease after CT scan across studies was 60.5% (that is 61 out of 100 patients who had resectable cancer after CT scan had unresectable disease on laparotomy). The summary estimate of sensitivity of EUS for unresectability was 0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.97) and the summary estimate of specificity for unresectability was 0.80 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.96). The positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio were 4.3 (95% CI 1.0 to 18.6) and 0.2 (95% CI 0.0 to 0.8) respectively. At the mean pre-test probability of 60.5%, the post-test probability of unresectable disease for people with a positive EUS (EUS indicating unresectability) was 86.9% (95% CI 60.9% to 96.6%) and the post-test probability of unresectable disease for people with a negative EUS (EUS indicating resectability) was 20.0% (5.1% to 53.7%). This means that 13% of people (95% CI 3% to 39%) with positive EUS have potentially resectable cancer and 20% (5% to 53%) of people with negative EUS have unresectable cancer. Based on two small studies, there is significant uncertainty in the utility of EUS in people with pancreatic cancer found to have resectable disease on CT scan. No studies have assessed the utility of EUS in people with periampullary cancer. There is no evidence to suggest that it should be performed routinely in people with pancreatic cancer or periampullary cancer found to have resectable disease on CT scan.

Plain-language summary: We included two studies with a total of 34 patients in this review. Both studies evaluated the diagnostic performance of EUS. This evidence is current to 5 November 2015. Of the two studies, one study was conducted as well as such a study could be conducted. The methodological quality of the other study was poor. The two included studies showed that in those people with pancreatic cancer in whom CT alone showed their cancer was capable of being fully surgically removed, 61% (61 out of 100) would prove to have cancer that was too fully spread to make this possible when a laparotomy was attempted. Due to the small sample size, there is significant uncertainty in the utility of EUS in people with pancreatic cancer found to have resectable disease on CT scan. There is no evidence to suggest that it should be performed routinely in people with pancreatic cancer found to have resectable disease on CT scan.
Abstract: There were 34 studies (2169 participants with blepharitis) included in this review: 20 studies (14 RCTs and 6 CCTs) included 1661 participants with anterior or mixed blepharitis and 14 studies (12 RCTs and 2 CCTs) included 508 participants with posterior blepharitis (MGD). Due to the heterogeneity of study characteristics among the included studies, with respect to follow-up periods and types of interventions, comparisons, and condition of participants, our ability to perform meta-analyses was limited. Topical antibiotics were shown to provide some symptomatic relief and were effective in eradicating bacteria from the eyelid margin for anterior blepharitis. Lid hygiene may provide symptomatic relief for anterior and posterior blepharitis. The effectiveness of other treatments for blepharitis, such as topical steroids and oral antibiotics, were inconclusive. Despite identifying 34 trials related to treatments for blepharitis, there is no strong evidence for any of the treatments in terms of curing chronic blepharitis. Commercial products are marketed to consumers and prescribed to patients without substantial evidence of effectiveness. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of such treatments. Any RCT designed for this purpose should separate participants by type of condition (e.g. staphylococcal blepharitis or MGD) in order to minimize imbalances between groups (type I errors) and to achieve statistical power for analyses (prevent type II errors). Medical interventions and commercial products should be compared with conventional lid hygiene measures, such as warm compresses and eyelid margin washing, to determine effectiveness, as well as head-to-head to show comparative effectiveness between treatments. Outcomes of interest should be patient-centered and measured using validated questionnaires or scales. It is important that participants be followed long-term, at least one year, to assess chronic outcomes properly.

Plain-language summary: This review focuses on chronic blepharitis and stratifies anterior and posterior blepharitis. There were 34 studies (2169 participants with blepharitis) included in the review, 20 of which included participants with anterior blepharitis and 14 of which included participants with posterior blepharitis. For anterior blepharitis, topical antibiotics provided some symptomatic relief and were effective in clearing bacteria from the eyelid margins. There was no difference between the types of topical antibiotics used. Topical steroids also provided some symptomatic relief; however, they were ineffective in eliminating bacteria. Lid hygiene, including warm compresses and lid scrubs, showed some symptomatic relief in both anterior and posterior blepharitis. Overall, there was no strong evidence for any of the treatments in terms of curing chronic blepharitis. Further research should be done to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments for blepharitis, with particular attention paid to adequate diagnosis and classification of the disease.