GEM/cochrane-simplification huggingface dataset:
Abstract: We included one trial with a total of 23 participants. This study was at high risk of bias. None of our primary outcomes and only one of our secondary outcomes (reduction in volume of disease, assessed endoscopically) was measured in the study. There was no significant difference between the groups (very low-quality evidence). Adverse effects reported included airway swelling requiring intubation in a child with severe RRP a few hours after photodynamic therapy. There is insufficient evidence from high-quality randomised controlled trials to determine whether photodynamic therapy alters the course of disease or provides an added benefit to surgery in patients with recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. Multicentre randomised controlled trials with appropriate sample sizes and long-term follow-up are required to evaluate whether photodynamic therapy is of benefit. Outcomes such as improvement in symptoms (respiratory function and voice quality) and quality of life should be measured in future trials.

Plain-language summary: We found one randomised controlled trial with a total of 23 participants for inclusion in this review. The study took place at two centres in the USA. Six of the 23 patients did not complete the study (dropped out). Participants who completed the study were outpatients, their age range was four to 60 years and 76% were men and 24% women. The study did not measure any of the outcomes important to patients (symptom improvement - respiratory distress/dyspnoea and voice quality, quality of life improvement and recurrence-free interval). It did measure the reduction in the volume of disease (assessed with an endoscope). We found insufficient evidence from the included study that photodynamic therapy has a benefit on its own or in combination with surgery in recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. There was no clear evidence that effects observed in the treatment group were different to those in the control group. Adverse effects reported included airway swelling in a child with severe disease a few hours after photodynamic therapy, which required insertion of a breathing tube and a prolonged stay in hospital. The overall quality of the evidence is very low: there was no blinding of treatment and a high rate of drop-out. This evidence is up to date to January 2014.
Abstract: We included seven studies, with 766 participants: four used intracutaneous injections, two subcutaneous, and one both. All reported on low back pain in labour only. Methodological quality was good, but four studies were at high risk of bias due to small size of treatment groups, incomplete outcome data, and performance bias. All studies reported treatment group mean or median scores, finding greater reduction in pain for sterile water. However, failure to demonstrate a normal distribution for pain intensity or relief, and use of different scales, meant meta-analysis was inappropriate. No study reported primary dichotomous efficacy outcomes. One reported the number self-scoring 4/10 cm or more reduction in pain; significantly more had this outcome with sterile water (50% to 60%) than with placebo (20% to 25%). There was no significant difference between sterile water and saline for rates of caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 1.02), instrumental delivery (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.18), rescue analgesia (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.69), timing of delivery, or Apgar scores. Two studies reported that more women treated with sterile water would request the same analgesia in future. No study reported on women's satisfaction with pain relief, women's sense of control in labour, women's satisfaction with the childbirth experience, mother/baby interaction, rates of breastfeeding, maternal morbidity, infant long-term outcomes, or cost. No adverse events were reported other than transient pain with injection, which was worse with sterile water. The outcomes reported severely limit conclusions for clinical practice. We found little robust evidence that sterile water is effective for low back or any other labour pain. Neither did we find any difference in delivery or other maternal or fetal outcomes. Further large, methodologically rigorous studies are required to determine the efficacy of sterile water to relieve pain in labour.

Plain-language summary: In this review we looked at the effectiveness of injections of small amounts of sterile water given into four spots on the woman’s lower back in labour. The review included seven studies with 766 participants; four used intracutaneous injections, two subcutaneous, and one both. All studies compared the injections of sterile water with injections of saline, whilst none compared the injection of sterile water with women using their own skills to manage pain in labour. Nor did the studies compare with other forms of pain management in labour, as this information is in other Cochrane reviews. We found no good quality evidence that these simple water injections could provide a significant level of pain relief compared with simple saline injection for any type of pain experienced during labour. Women did report transient pain at the injection site. More research is needed on this possible form of pain management in labour.
Abstract: We located 32 studies addressing technical editing and 66 surveys of reference accuracy. Only three of the studies were randomised controlled trials.   A 'package' of largely unspecified editorial processes applied between acceptance and publication was associated with improved readability in two studies and improved reporting quality in another two studies, while another study showed mixed results after stricter editorial policies were introduced. More intensive editorial processes were associated with fewer errors in abstracts and references. Providing instructions to authors was associated with improved reporting of ethics requirements in one study and fewer errors in references in two studies, but no difference was seen in the quality of abstracts in one randomised controlled trial. Structuring generally improved the quality of abstracts, but increased their length. The reference accuracy studies showed a median citation error rate of 38% and a median quotation error rate of 20%. Surprisingly few studies have evaluated the effects of technical editing rigorously. However there is some evidence that the 'package' of technical editing used by biomedical journals does improve papers. A substantial number of references in biomedical articles are cited or quoted inaccurately.

Plain-language summary: Most journals try to improve articles before publication by editing them to make them fit a 'house-style', and by other processes such as proof-reading. We refer to all these processes as technical editing. We identified 32 studies of the effects of technical editing from a systematic review. There is some evidence that the overall 'package' of technical editing raises the quality of articles (suggested by 'before-and-after' studies) and that structuring abstracts makes them more useful, although longer. However, there has been little rigorous research to show which processes can improve accuracy or readability the most, or if any have harmful effects or disadvantages. Over one third of references cited in articles in medical journals have some inaccuracies and one-fifth of quotations to references in these articles are not accurate
Abstract: Six studies (including 142 participants) were eligible for inclusion. Two compared three-times-a-week prophylactic administration with on-demand treatment in children with hemophilia. Pooled results from these two studies showed a rate ratio of 0.30 (95% confidence interval; 0.12 to 0.76) for all bleedings and 0.22 (95% confidence interval 0.08 to 0.63) for joint bleedings favouring prophylaxis. Results on the number of patients with preserved joints after three to seven years of follow-up were not pooled due to significant heterogeneity. Three of the remaining four studies evaluated hemophilia A; one showed a statistically significant decrease in frequency of joint bleeds with prophylaxis compared to placebo, with a rate difference of -10.73 (95% confidence interval -16.55 to -4.91) bleeds per year. Two studies compared two prophylaxis regimens, failing to demonstrate an advantage of one regimen over the other in terms of bleeding frequency. The fourth study evaluated hemophilia B and showed fewer joint bleeds with weekly (15 IU/kg) versus bi-weekly (7.5 IU/kg) prophylaxis, rate difference -3.30 (95% confidence interval -5.50 to -1.10) bleeds per year. Non-significant increases in both inhibitor and infectious complications were observed in patients on prophylaxis, which occurred more often when using long-term venous access. There is strong evidence from randomised controlled trials and observational trials that prophylaxis preserves joint function in children with hemophilia as compared to on-demand treatment. There is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to confirm the observational evidence that prophylaxis decreases bleeding and related complications in patients with existing joint damage. Well-designed randomised controlled trials and prospective observational controlled studies are needed to establish the best prophylactic regimen and to assess the effectiveness of prophylactic clotting factor concentrates in adult patients.

Plain-language summary: This review includes six randomised controlled trials. Two compare the regular use of clotting factor concentrates to prevent joint bleeds with their use 'on demand'. Four compare different regimens of regular use in children and adults with hemophilia. It was clearly evident that preventative therapy, as intravenous infusion of factor concentrate repeated more times a week and started early in childhood was able to reduce joint deterioration as compared to treatment administered after bleeding occurred. This favourable effect is due to a consistent reduction in total bleeds and hemarthrosis (bleeding into joints) and leads to a significant improvement in quality of life. Preventative therapy is linked to an increased factor usage and cost of treatment. We found weaker evidence (due to lack of data) to show preventative therapy reduced joint deterioration when treatment is started after joint damage has been established. Further studies are needed to establish the best preventative regimen, i.e. for example starting time, dosage frequency, minimally effective dose.
Abstract: We included one new study in this update. In total, 13 trials involving 1824 participants met the inclusion criteria for this review however, data in usable format were only available in 10 trials (732 participants). Inadequate reporting of study methodology was a common feature of the trials preventing thorough assessment of study quality. We were unable to pool data for any of the outcomes due to the differences between the interventions assessed in the studies. Eight studies aimed to induce remission; overall survival did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Five studies aimed to maintain remission. In two out of three studies reporting survival, this was substantial but the difference was not statistically significant between treatment groups. Less aggressive treatment schedules appear to produce similar effects with less adverse event profiles. This review notes a preference in more recent studies for less aggressive care options for treatment of BL. However, the evidence for the relative effectiveness of interventions to treat BL is not strong as studies were small, underpowered and prone to both systematic and random error. We included one additional trial without change of conclusions.

Plain-language summary: This review aims to evaluate these treatments to assess their effectiveness especially for later stages. The review identified 13 trials involving 1824 participants. However, data presentable for the review were only available in 10 trials with 732 participants. The data were difficult to collate because of the quality of the study methods and the reporting of the results; outcome measures differed between trials and they were mainly small-sized trials. No significant differences in overall survival were seen between studies aimed at inducing remission. Adverse events reported were mostly due to infections and reductions in blood cell counts. The more recent studies were focused on using less intensive treatment regimens as they could provide similar responses with lower risk of adverse effects.
Abstract: Two studies involving 447 (with sample sizes 14 and 432) RhD negative women were included. The studies compared IM and IV administration of anti-D prophylaxis. In both studies the women received a 1500 IU (300 microgram) dose of Rhophylac during week 28 of gestation. There was no incidence of RhD alloimmunization in either of the studies, as the sample size was insufficient for meaningful comparison of this uncommon outcome. One of the studies found that the mean anti-D IgG concentrations after IV and IM administration differed up to seven days (36.1 (2.6) ng/mL IV; 19.8 (8.7) ng/mL IM on day seven). However, from two to three weeks post-administration, the concentrations were similar for both routes of administration. None of the women involved in the studies developed antibodies against the RhD antigen. It appears that IM and IV administration of anti-D are equally effective. The number of included studies and the number of participants are not enough to assess whether there are any differences. Anti-D can be administered by IM or IV injection. The choice of IM or IV route of administration will depend on the available preparations, the dose to be administered and also on the patients' preferences. This review found insufficient information upon which to guide practice due to the limited number of included studies, small sample sizes and methodological limitations.

Plain-language summary: We identified two completed randomized controlled studies, involving 447 RhD-negative women. The findings suggest that intramuscular and intravenous anti-D in the 28th week of pregnancy are equally effective in preventing RhD antibody formation (alloimmunization) during the pregnancy. None of the women developed antibodies against the RhD antigen. The small number of studies, low number of participants and methodological limitations mean that we do not have sufficient information to guide practice. The choice of intramuscular or intravenous route of administration will depend on available preparations, the dose to be administered and the woman's preference.
Abstract: This update of the systematic review on nocturnal-NIPPV in COPD (Wijkstra 2002), has led to the inclusion of three new studies, leading to seven included studies on 245 people. We obtained IPD for all participants in all included studies. The 95% confidence interval (CI) of all outcomes included zero. These included partial pressure of CO2 and O2 in arterial blood, six-minute walking distance (6MWD), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), maximal inspiratory pressure (PImax) and sleep efficiency. The mean effect on 6MWD was small at 27.7 m and not statistically significant. Given the width of the 95% CI (-28.1 to 66.3 m), the real effect of NIPPV on 6MWD is uncertain and we cannot exclude an effect that is clinically significant (considering that the minimal clinically difference on 6MWD is around 26 m). Nocturnal-NIPPV at home for at least three months in hypercapnic patients with stable COPD had no consistent clinically or statistically significant effect on gas exchange, exercise tolerance, HRQoL, lung function, respiratory muscle strength or sleep efficiency. Meta-analysis of the two new long-term studies did not show significant improvements in blood gases, HRQoL or lung function after 12 months of NIPPV. However, the small sample sizes of these studies preclude a definite conclusion regarding the effects of NIPPV in COPD.

Plain-language summary: The evidence is current to August 2012. We found seven studies that reported the effects of NIPPV at home. Five of these studies looked at the effects after using NIPPV compared to regular treatment (without NIPPV) for at least three months. Two studies looked for a longer period of time, for at least 12 months. The mean age of all participants included in our meta-analysis was 67 years. All studies included men and women, but 77% of participants were men. We used data from 245 people for our meta-analysis. NIPPV during the night for 3 and 12 months in people with COPD who had raised levels of carbon dioxide had no clinically or statistically significant effect on gas exchange, six-minute walking distance, health-related quality of life, lung function, respiratory muscle strength and sleep efficiency. This means we found little or no difference in the outcomes. Because some trials had very small numbers of participants, our confidence in the quality of evidence is moderate when looking at the effects on gas exchange. All seven trials measured this outcome. Other outcomes were not always measured or available leading to a lower quality of evidence for the other outcomes such as six-minute walking distance, health-related quality of life, lung function, respiratory muscle function and sleep efficiency.
Abstract: A sufficient number of studies were available for a quantitative synthesis for fluoxetine, orlistat, and sibutramine. Twenty two randomized controlled trials were included in the review, with a total of 296 participants for fluoxitine, 2036 for orlistat, and 1047 for sibutramine. Pharmacotherapy produced modest reductions in weight for fluoxetine (5.1 kg (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.3 - 6.9) at 24 to 26 weeks follow up; orlistat 2.0 kg (CI, 1.3 - 2.8) at 12 to 57 weeks follow-up, and sibutramine 5.1 kg (CI, 3.2 - 7.0) at 12 to 52 weeks follow-up. Glycated hemoglobin also modestly and significantly reduced for fluoxetine and orlistat. Gastrointestinal side effects were common with orlistat; tremor, somnolence and sweating with fluoxetine; and palpitations with sibutramine. Some studies, using a variety of study designs, were available on other drugs and a significant decrease in weight was noted in three studies of mazindol, one of phenmetrazine, two of phentermine. No studies were identified that fit inclusion criteria for pseudoephedrine, ephedra, sertraline, yohimbine, amphetamine or its derivatives, bupropion, topiramate, benzocaine, threachlorocitric acid, sertraline, and bromocriptine. Fluoxetine, orlistat, and sibutramine can achieve statistically significant weight loss over 12 to 57 weeks. The magnitude of weight loss is modest, however, and the long-term health benefits remain unclear. The safety of sibutramine is uncertain. There is a paucity of data on other drugs for weight loss or control in persons with type 2 diabetes.

Plain-language summary: This review of drugs for weight loss among adults with type 2 diabetes revealed weight loss of between 2.0 and 5.1 kg for fluoxetine, orlistat and sibutramine at follow-up of up to 57 weeks. The long-term effects remain uncertain. Adverse events were common in all three drugs: gastrointestinal side effects with orlistat; tremor, somnolence, and sweating with fluoxetine; and palpitations with sibutramine. There were few studies examining other drugs used for weight loss in populations with diabetes.
Abstract: Five studies involving a total of 734 participants were eligible for inclusion. We assessed only one study as good quality and the other four as poor quality. However, it was difficult to perform a meta-analysis by extracting aggregate data to synthesise the results as originally planned, mainly because not all studies reported the same outcomes as those chosen for this review. No significant differences favoured VGB or CBZ in terms of time to treatment withdrawal and time to achieve six-month remission after dose stabilisation from randomisation, but results did show a disadvantage for VGB on time to first seizure after randomisation. Compared with CBZ, VGB was associated with more occurrences of weight gain and fewer occurrences of skin rash and drowsiness. No differences in visual field defects and visual disturbances were noted. Data are currently insufficient to address the risk-benefit balance of VGB versus CBZ monotherapy for epilepsy. Given the high prevalence of visual field defects reported in an existing systematic review of observational studies (Maguire 2010), VGB monotherapy should be prescribed with caution for epilepsy and should not be considered a first-line choice. If necessary, the visual field should be frequently assessed. Future research should focus on investigating the reasons for visual field defects and exploring potential prevention strategies. Moreover, future monotherapy studies of epilepsy should report results according to the recommendations of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Commission, and methodological quality should be improved.

Plain-language summary: The evidence is current to July 2015. We found five trials assessing vigabatrin or carbamazepine monotherapy for newly diagnosed epilepsy, which recruited a total of 734 participants between six months and 65 years of age. Results of this review show no significant differences between vigabatrin and carbamazepine in terms of time to treatment withdrawal and time to achieve six-month remission after dose stabilisation from randomisation, but they reveal some clinical disadvantage with vigabatrin on time to first seizure. Taking vigabatrin was more likely to result in weight gain. A safety concern was the high prevalence of visual field defects, as reported in a systematic review of observational studies (Maguire 2010). One study was assessed as good quality and the other four as poor quality.