GEM/cochrane-simplification huggingface dataset:
Abstract: The previous version of this review included one randomised controlled trial involving 327 patients and 159 healthcare providers at baseline. It compared an email to physicians containing patient-specific osteoporosis risk information and guidelines for evaluation and treatment versus usual care (no email). This study was at high risk of bias for the allocation concealment and blinding domains. The email reminder changed health professional actions significantly, with professionals more likely to provide guideline-recommended osteoporosis treatment (bone density measurement or osteoporosis medication, or both) when compared with usual care. The evidence for its impact on patient behaviours or actions was inconclusive. One measure found that the electronic medical reminder message impacted patient behaviour positively (patients had a higher calcium intake), and two found no difference between the two groups. The study did not assess health service outcomes or harms. No new studies were identified for this update. Only one study was identified for inclusion, providing insufficient evidence for guiding clinical practice in regard to the use of email for clinical communication between healthcare professionals. Future research should aim to utilise high-quality study designs that use the most recent developments in information technology, with consideration of the complexity of email as an intervention.

Plain-language summary: In this review, we found only one study that focused on the effects of healthcare professionals using email to communicate with each other. This study included 327 patients and 159 healthcare providers, and compared an email reminder for physicians with usual care. It found that healthcare professionals who received an email reminder were more likely to provide guideline-recommended osteoporosis treatment than those who did not, and this may or may not have improved patient care. We were unable to properly assess its impact on patient behaviours or actions as the results were mixed. The study did not measure how email affects health services, or whether email can cause harms. This evidence is current to August 2013. As there is a lack of evidence for the effects of healthcare professionals using email to communicate with each other, high-quality research is needed to evaluate the use of email for this purpose. Future research should look at the costs of using email and take into account ongoing changes in technology.
Abstract: Two RCTs were included in the review (106 participants). Neither study reported live birth rate. Vitrification was associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate compared to slow freezing (RR 3.86, 95% CI 1.63 to 9.11, P = 0.002, 2 RCTs, 106 women, I2 = 8%, moderate quality evidence). The effect of vitrification compared to slow freezing on ongoing pregnancy rates was only reported in one small study, with inconclusive findings (RR 6.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 43.04, P = 0.07, one RCT, 28 women, low quality evidence). No data were reported on adverse effects, nor were any other outcomes reported in the included trials. The evidence was limited by imprecision. We assessed the included studies as at low to unclear risk of bias as the methods were not well described. Oocyte vitrification compared to slow freezing probably increases clinical pregnancy rates in women undergoing assisted reproduction. However, the total number of women and pregnancies were low and the imprecision is high which limits applicability. The effect on ongoing pregnancy is uncertain as data were sparse. No data were available on live births or adverse effects.

Plain-language summary: Characteristics of the included studies. The search of the medical literature was done in March 2014. We found two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 106 participants comparing oocyte vitrification versus slow freezing. Neither study reported live births or adverse events as outcomes. One reported ongoing pregnancy and both reported clinical pregnancy. Key results. The clinical pregnancy rate was higher in the oocyte vitrification group than in the slow freezing group. The effect of vitrification compared to slow freezing on ongoing pregnancy rates was only reported in the one small study, with inconclusive findings. Quality of the evidence. The quality of the evidence was rated as moderate for clinical pregnancy and low for ongoing pregnancy. The evidence was limited by imprecision.
Abstract: Five studies were included, of which four with a total of 282 participants provided data. No meta-analysis was possible due to heterogeneity of comparisons within included studies as well as inadequate reporting of data. All studies were considered to be at either moderate or high risk of bias. The results of this systematic review indicate that there is no clinical or statistical difference between systematic desensitisation and any of the control interventions (either waiting list control, systematic desensitisation combined with group therapy or in vitro (with women under instruction by the therapist) desensitisation) for the treatment of vaginismus. The drop-out rates were higher in the waiting list groups. A clinically relevant effect of systematic desensitisation when compared with any of the control interventions cannot be ruled out. None of the included trials compared other behaviour therapies (e.g. cognitive behaviour therapy, sex therapy) to pharmacological interventions. The findings are limited by the evidence available and as such conclusions about the efficacy of interventions for the treatment of vaginismus should be drawn cautiously.

Plain-language summary: This review found five poor to moderate quality studies, of which four with a total of 282 women provided data. There was not enough evidence to say if systematic desensitisation worked better than another treatment. Further studies including larger numbers of women are needed to show if systematic desensitisation if effective for the treatment of women with vaginismus.
Abstract: The review included 16 RCTs. Fourteen RCTs (1745 women) were included in the meta-analysis. Only three studies reported live birth per couple. No evidence of a statistically significant difference was noted between IUI and FSP in live birth (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.49, three RCTs, 633 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.12, 14 RCTs, 1745 women, I2 = 52%, low-quality evidence). These findings suggest that for a couple with a 13% chance of live birth using FSP, the chance when using IUI will be between 8% and 19%; and that for a couple with a 19% chance of pregnancy using FSP, the chance of pregnancy when using IUI will be between 10% and 20%. Nor was evidence found of a statistically significant difference between IUI and FSP in per-pregnancy of multiple pregnancy (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.07, eight RCTs, 197 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence), miscarriage (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.53, seven RCTs, 199 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) or ectopic pregnancy (OR 1.71, 95% CI 0.42 to 6.88, four RCTs, 111 women, I2 = 0%, very low quality evidence). Substantial heterogeneity was noted for the outcome of clinical pregnancy (I2 = 54%), for which no clear explanation was provided. Currently no clear evidence suggests any difference between IUI and FSP with respect to their effectiveness and safety for treating couples with non-tubal subfertility. However, a high level of uncertainty is evident in the findings, and additional research may be useful.

Plain-language summary: The review included 16 randomised controlled trials (more than 1800 women) that compared these procedures for treating couples with non-tubal subfertility. Only three trials reported live birth. The evidence is current to September 2013. No trial reported its funding source, but one reported no conflict of interest, and one stated that it had received no commercial funding. No clear evidence suggests any difference between IUI and FSP with respect to their effectiveness and safety in the treatment of couples with non-tubal subfertility. However, a high level of uncertainty due to lack of data is evident in the findings. The overall quality of the evidence was rated as low for most outcomes, largely because of the small quantity of available data.
Abstract: One study was identified that compared protein containing synthetic surfactants (PCSS) to protein free synthetic surfactants. Infants who received protein containing synthetic surfactant compared to protein free synthetic surfactant did not demonstrate significantly different risks of prespecified primary outcomes: mortality at 36 weeks postmenstrual age (PMA) [RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.71, 1.11)], chronic lung disease at 36 weeks PMA [RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.78, 1.03)], or the combined outcome of mortality or chronic lung disease at 36 weeks PMA [RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.77, 1.01)]. Among the secondary outcomes, a decrease in the incidence of respiratory distress syndrome at 24 hours of age was demonstrated in the group that received PCSS [RR 0.83 (95% CI 0.72, 0.95). In the one trial comparing protein containing synthetic surfactants compared to protein free synthetic surfactant for the prevention of RDS, no statistically different clinical differences in death and chronic lung disease were noted. Clinical outcomes between the two groups were generally similar although the group receiving protein containing synthetic surfactants did have decreased incidence of respiratory distress syndrome. Further well designed studies comparing protein containing synthetic surfactant to the more widely used animal derived surfactant extracts are indicated.

Plain-language summary: A recent trial of protein containing synthetic surfactant compared to protein free synthetic surfactant suggests that these protein containing synthetic surfactants help prevent respiratory distress syndrome and may or may not lead to a decrease in lung injury (chronic lung disease). Other clinical outcomes were similar. Further studies will help refine recommendations concerning use of protein containing synthetic surfactants.
Abstract: We included one RCT which was a pilot study with 19 participants that compared HFNC therapy with oxygen delivery via a head box. In this study, we judged the risk of selection, attrition and reporting bias to be low, and we judged the risk of performance and detection bias to be unclear due to lack of blinding. The median oxygen saturation (SpO2) was higher in the HFNC group at eight hours (100% versus 96%, P = 0.04) and at 12 hours (99% versus 96%, P = 0.04) but similar at 24 hours. There was no clear evidence of a difference in total duration of oxygen therapy, time to discharge or total length of stay between groups. No adverse events were reported in either group and no participants in either group required further respiratory support. Five ongoing trials were identified but no data were available in May 2013. We were not able to perform a meta-analysis. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of HFNC therapy for treating infants with bronchiolitis. The current evidence in this review is of low quality, from one small study with uncertainty about the estimates of effect and an unclear risk of performance and detection bias. The included study provides some indication that HFNC therapy is feasible and well tolerated. Further research is required to determine the role of HFNC in the management of bronchiolitis in infants. The results of the ongoing studies identified will contribute to the evidence in future updates of this review.

Plain-language summary: One study (19 participants) met our inclusion criteria. It showed that high-flow nasal cannula therapy is well tolerated as a treatment for bronchiolitis. Oxygen saturations (blood oxygen levels) were better at eight and 12 hours in participants receiving high-flow nasal cannula therapy than in those receiving oxygen therapy via a head box, but were similar between groups at 24 hours, although this may have been due to higher oxygen flow rates in the high-flow nasal cannula group. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the two groups in the duration of oxygen therapy, length of hospitalisation and time to discharge. No adverse events were reported in either group. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula therapy for treating bronchiolitis in infants. The included study provides some indication that HFNC therapy is feasible and well tolerated. However, our evidence is based on one low-quality, small study with uncertainty about the effects and some possibility of bias arising from the study methods. Further research is required to determine the role of high-flow nasal cannula therapy in the management of bronchiolitis in infants. The results of six ongoing studies identified will contribute to the evidence in future updates of this review. The evidence is current to May 2013.
Abstract: We identified 40 RCTs of various pharmacological interventions including intravenous ketamine (14 RCTs), oral gabapentin (10 RCTs), oral pregabalin (5 RCTs), non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (3 RCTs), intravenous steroids (3 RCTs), oral N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) blockers (3 RCTs), oral mexiletine (2 RCTs), intravenous fentanyl (1 RCT), intravenous lidocaine (1 RCT), oral venlafaxine (1 RCT) and inhaled nitrous oxide (1 RCT). Meta-analysis suggested a modest but statistically significant reduction in the incidence of chronic pain after surgery following treatment with ketamine but not gabapentin or pregabalin. Results with ketamine should be viewed with caution since most of the included trials were small (that is < 100 participants per treatment arm), which could lead to the overestimation of treatment effect. Additional evidence from better, well designed, large-scale trials is needed in order to more rigorously evaluate pharmacological interventions for the prevention of chronic pain after surgery. Furthermore, available evidence does not support the efficacy of gabapentin, pregabalin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, intravenous steroids, oral NMDA blockers, oral mexiletine, intravenous fentanyl, intravenous lidocaine, oral venlafaxine or inhaled nitrous oxide for the prevention of chronic postoperative pain.

Plain-language summary: Researchers have studied the ability of various drug treatments to prevent the development of chronic pain after surgery and this systematic review evaluated published studies in this field. Available studies suggest a modest effect of ketamine, compared to placebo, for prevention of chronic pain after surgery, however small study size could lead to an overestimation of this effect. Studies of other drugs such as gabapentin and pregabalin did not suggest the same preventative effect. Additional large studies using improved research methods are necessary to more clearly identify treatments that are beneficial for preventing chronic postsurgical pain.
Abstract: Seventeen trials satisfied the inclusion criteria. Four trials evaluated preventative interventions for HSV lesions, three trials for viral isolates, and eight trials evaluated both outcome measures. A single trial reported on the cost of prophylaxis for HSV. Two trials evaluating treatment reported on time to healing, duration of viral shedding and relief of pain. No trials reported on duration of hospital stay, amount of analgesia or patient quality of life. In placebo controlled trials, aciclovir was found to be effective for the prevention of HSV infections as measured by oral lesions or viral isolates (RR = 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.31 nine trials; RR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.37 nine trials). There is no evidence that valaciclovir is more efficacious than aciclovir, or that higher doses of valaciclovir are more effective than lower doses. Placebo was found to be more effective than prostaglandin E for prevention of viral isolates (RR = 1.87, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.14 one trial). Aciclovir was also found to be effective for the treatment of HSV in terms of duration of viral shedding (median of 2.5 days versus 17.0 days, P = 0.0002; 2 days compared to more than 9, P = 0.0008), time to first decrease in pain (median 3 days compared to 16, P = 0.04), complete resolution of pain (9.9 days compared to 13.6 days, P = 0.01; median of 6 days compared to 16, P = 0.05), 50% healing (median of 6 days compared to 11, P = 0.01) and total healing (median 13.9 days compared to 20.7 days, P = 0.08; median of 8 days compared to 21, P = 0.0). There is evidence that aciclovir is efficacious in the prevention and treatment of herpes simplex virus infections. There is no evidence that valaciclovir is more efficacious than aciclovir, or that a high dose of valaciclovir is better than a low dose of valaciclovir. There is evidence that as a prophylaxis, placebo is more efficacious than prostaglandin E. However, in all included trials, risk of bias is unclear.

Plain-language summary: This review of 17 trials found evidence that aciclovir is efficacious in the prevention and treatment of HSV infections, in terms of preventing clinical/culture positive HSV infections, reduction in healing time, duration of viral shedding and relief of pain. There is no evidence that valaciclovir is more efficacious than aciclovir, or that a high dose of valaciclovir is better than a low dose of valaciclovir. There is evidence that for prevention, placebo is more efficacious than prostaglandin E. However, in all included trials, risk of bias is unclear. No trials reported on duration of hospital stay, amount of analgesia or patient quality of life.
Abstract: We included eleven studies (523 participants) in this review. Ten studies had two arms and one had three arms that were all relevant to this review. Three studies compared a hydrogel dressing with a basic wound contact dressing; three studies compared a hydrogel dressing with a hydrocolloid dressing; three studies compared a hydrogel dressing with another hydrogel dressing; one study compared a hydrogel dressing with a foam dressing; one study compared a hydrogel dressing with a dextranomer paste dressing and one study compared a hydrogel dressing with a topical treatment (collagenase). Limited data were available for analyses in this review: we conducted no meta-analyses. Where data were available there was no evidence of a difference between hydrogel and alternative treatments in terms of complete wound healing or adverse events. One small study reported that using hydrogel dressings was, on average, less costly than hydrocolloid dressings, but this estimate was imprecise and its methodology was not clear. All included studies were small, had short follow-up times and were at unclear risk of bias. It is not clear if hydrogel dressings are more or less effective than other treatments in healing pressure ulcers or if different hydrogels have different effects, Most trials in this field are very small and poorly reported so that risk of bias is unclear.

Plain-language summary: In June 2014 we searched for as many relevant medical studies as we could find that had a robust design (randomised controlled trials) that had compared hydrogel dressings with other treatments for pressure ulcers. We found 11 studies involving a total of 539 participants. From the results of these studies we could not tell whether hydrogel wound dressings heal pressure ulcers more quickly or slowly than other types of dressing or topical treatments. Generally, the studies we found were small and the results inconclusive. Some studies lacked information about how they were conducted and it was difficult to tell whether the results presented were robust. More research of better quality is needed before it can be determined whether hydrogel dressings are better or worse at healing pressure ulcers than other types of dressings or topical treatments.
Abstract: Only two underpowered trials (reporting 36 and 40 patients) were identified. These differed markedly in their inclusion criteria and treatment protocols. Both stated that they used placebo. However, allocation concealment was unclear. Only one trial reported any patient deaths. No significant improvement in mortality was identified (odds ratio (OR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 1.76). Improvements in serum markers of liver inflammation and liver histology were identified. Potentially prognostically linked markers such as bilirubin and albumin were incompletely reported. Bone mineral density (weighted mean difference -2.84%, 95% CI -4.16 to -1.53) and the number of patients with any adverse event (OR 8.99, 95% CI 2.15 to 37.58) were significantly increased in the glucocorticosteroid group. There is insufficient data to support or reject the use of glucocorticosteroids for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. It may be appropriate to consider a large prospective randomised clinical trial on this topic.

Plain-language summary: Only two small randomised clinical trials on this topic were identified. The trials were not large enough in terms of sample size or length of follow up to allow changes in mortality to be adequately evaluated. Glucocorticosteroids were associated with improvement in serum markers of inflammation and liver histology, both of which were of uncertain clinical significance. Glucocorticosteroids were also associated with adverse events, including reduced bone mineral density. Further trials are necessary if the effectiveness of glucocorticosteroids is to be properly evaluated.
Abstract: Unfortunately, we did not find any relevant studies to include. One non-randomised trial, published in 1961, suggested beneficial effects for those admitted to mother and baby units. For the experimental group, more women were able to care for their baby on their own and experienced fewer early relapses on their return home compared with standard care. Care practices for people with schizophrenia have changed dramatically over the past 40 years and a sensitively designed pragmatic trial is possible and justified. Mother and bay units are reportedly common in the UK but less common in other countries and rare or non-existent in the developing world. However, there does not appear to be any trial-based evidence for the effectiveness of these units. This lack of data is of concern as descriptive studies have found poor outcomes such as anxious attachment and poor development for children of mothers with schizophrenia and a greater risk of the children being placed under supervised or foster care. Effective care of both mothers and babies during this critical time may be crucial to prevent poor clinical and parenting outcomes. Good, relevant research is urgently needed.

Plain-language summary: To assess the efficacy of MBUs we systematically searched for any randomised trials of MBUs compared to standard care. We found no trials involving either mothers suffering from post partum psychosis or severe post natal depression. Anecdotal results from a 1961 trial did suggest a beneficial effect, but non-randomised data from over 40 years ago is difficult to apply to today's care. Such lack of data is of concern as MBUs are expensive to set up and run. If they are to be the 'gold standard' of care for mothers and their babies, their effectiveness needs to validated. Good quality, relevant research is urgently needed.