GEM/cochrane-simplification huggingface dataset:
Abstract: We included 67 trials, involving 6300 participants. Fifty-one trials reported the primary outcome, a measure of activities of daily living. The estimated effects of physical rehabilitation at the end of the intervention were an improvement in Barthel Index (0 to 100) scores of six points (95% confidence interval (CI) 2 to 11, P = 0.008, seven studies), Functional Independence Measure (0 to 126) scores of five points (95% CI -2 to 12, P = 0.1, four studies), Rivermead Mobility Index (0 to 15) scores of 0.7 points (95% CI 0.04 to 1.3, P = 0.04, three studies), Timed Up and Go test of five seconds (95% CI -9 to 0, P = 0.05, seven studies), and walking speed of 0.03 m/s (95% CI -0.01 to 0.07, P = 0.1, nine studies). Synthesis of secondary outcomes suggested there is a beneficial effect on strength, flexibility, and balance, and possibly on mood, although the size of any such effect is unknown. There was insufficient evidence of the effect on other secondary outcomes. Based on 25 studies (3721 participants), rehabilitation does not increase risk of mortality in this population (risk ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.13). However, it is possible bias has resulted in overestimation of the positive effects of physical rehabilitation. Physical rehabilitation for long-term care residents may be effective, reducing disability with few adverse events, but effects appear quite small and may not be applicable to all residents. There is insufficient evidence to reach conclusions about improvement sustainability, cost-effectiveness, or which interventions are most appropriate. Future large-scale trials are justified.

Plain-language summary: Physical rehabilitation (interventions based on exercising the body) may have a role, and this review examines the evidence available. This review included 67 trials, 36 of which were conducted in North America, 20 in Europe, and seven in Asia. In total, 6300 participants with an average age of 83 years were involved. Most interventions in some way addressed difficulties in activities of daily living. This review investigates the effects of physical rehabilitation on activities of daily living, strength, flexibility, balance, mood, cognition (memory and thinking), exercise tolerance, fear of falling, death, illness, and unwanted effects associated with the intervention, such as injuries. While variations between trials meant that we could not make specific recommendations, individual studies were often successful in demonstrating benefits to physical health from participating in different types of physical rehabilitation.
Abstract: Five RCTs involving 309 people are included in this review. Overall, the results were inconclusive. There was no statistically significant superior effect of any locomotor training approach on walking function after SCI compared with any other kind of physical rehabilitation. The use of bodyweight supported treadmill training as locomotor training for people after SCI did not significantly increase walking velocity (0.03 m/sec with a 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.05 to 0.11; P = 0.52; I2 = 22%) nor did it increase walking capacity (-1.3 metres (95% CI -41 to 40); P = 0.95; I2 = 62%). However, in one study involving 74 people the group receiving robotic-assisted locomotor training had reduced walking capacity compared with people receiving any other intervention, a finding which needs further investigation. In all five studies there were no differences in adverse events or drop-outs between study groups. There is insufficient evidence from RCTs to conclude that any one locomotor training strategy improves walking function more than another for people with SCI. The effects especially of robotic-assisted locomotor training are not clear, therefore research in the form of large RCTs, particularly for robotic training, is needed. Specific questions about which type of locomotor training might be most effective in improving walking function for people with SCI need to be explored.

Plain-language summary: Five randomised controlled trials were identified involving 309 people with spinal cord injury. None of the locomotor interventions had a beneficial or harmful effect on the people taking part. In all five studies there were no differences in adverse events or drop-outs between study groups. There is not enough evidence to conclude which locomotor training strategy is most effective in improving walking ability in people with spinal cord injury, or that locomotor training benefits a person's ability to walk over other kinds of rehabilitation.
Abstract: Eight trials with a total of 348 participants were included. Comparing EN to TPN for acute pancreatitis, the relative risk (RR) for death was 0.50 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.91), for multiple organ failure (MOF) was 0.55 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.81), for systemic infection was 0.39 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.65), for operative interventions was 0.44 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.67), for local septic complications was 0.74 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.35), and for other local complications was 0.70 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.13). Mean length of hospital stay was reduced by 2.37 days in EN vs TPN groups (95% CI -7.18 to 2.44). Furthermore, a subgroup analysis for EN vs TPN in patients with severe acute pancreatitis showed a RR for death of 0.18 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.58) and a RR for MOF of 0.46 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.29). In patients with acute pancreatitis, enteral nutrition significantly reduced mortality, multiple organ failure, systemic infections, and the need for operative interventions compared to those who received TPN. In addition, there was a trend towards a reduction in length of hospital stay. These data suggest that EN should be considered the standard of care for patients with acute pancreatitis requiring nutritional support.

Plain-language summary: This review found that patients with acute pancreatitis receiving enteral nutrition have fewer episodes of death, systemic infections, multiple organ failure and operative interventions. This data suggests that EN should be considered the standard of care for patients with acute pancreatitis requiring nutritional support.
Abstract: We included 13 RCTs (701 people). Six of the RCTs included only children aged 1 to 18 years and seven involved only adults (from 18 to 65 years of age). The mean TBSA of the included participants was greater than 49%. Twelve studies compared rhGH with placebo and one study compared rhGH with oxandrolone. Two trials found that compared with placebo, burn wounds in adults treated with rhGH healed more quickly (by 9.07 days; 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.39 to 13.76, I² = 0%). The donor site healing time was significantly shorter in rhGH-treated adults compared with placebo-treated participants (by 3.15 days; 95% CI 1.54 to 4.75, I² = 0%). Two studies in children with the outcome of donor site healing time could be pooled and the donor site healing time was shorter in the rhGH-treated children (by 1.70 days; 95% CI 0.87 to 2.53, I² = 0%). No studies reporting the outcome of wound infection were found. The incidence of hyperglycaemia was higher in adults during rhGH treatment compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2.43; 95% CI 1.54 to 3.85), but not in children. Pooling the studies of adults and children yielded a significantly higher incidence of hyperglycaemia in the rhGH-treated participants (RR 2.65; 95% CI 1.68 to 4.16). There is some evidence that using rhGH in people with large burns (more than 40% of the total body surface area) could result in more rapid healing of the burn wound and donor sites in adults and children, and in reduced length of hospital stay, without increased mortality or scarring, but with an increased risk of hyperglycaemia. This evidence is based on studies with small sample sizes and risk of bias and requires confirmation in higher quality, adequately powered trials.

Plain-language summary: We found 13 eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 701 people for inclusion in this review. There is some evidence that recombinant growth hormone therapy in people with burns covering more than 40% of the total body surface area helps burn wounds and donor sites heal more rapidly and reduce the length of hospital stay, without increased mortality or increased scarring. We found it difficult to assess the quality of these studies due to poor reporting therefore we cannot be completely confident in their results.
Abstract: Six trials met all our eligibility criteria and provided extractable data. Three trials were at low risk of bias, one trial was at unclear risk, and two trials were at high risk of bias. Five trials were conducted in Asian populations. In preventing development of subsequent gastric cancer, H. pylori eradication therapy was superior to placebo or no treatment (6 trials, 6497 participants, risk ratio (RR) of developing subsequent gastric cancer 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.95; moderate-quality evidence). Only one trial reported effect of eradication of H. pylori on development of subsequent oesophageal cancer (2 (0.2%) among 817 participants assigned to eradication therapy, compared with 1 (0.1%) of 813 participants allocated to placebo; RR 1.99; 95% CI 0.18 to 21.91). The effect of H. pylori eradication on preventing death from gastric cancer compared with placebo or no treatment was uncertain due to wide confidence intervals (3 trials, 4475 participants, RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.40 to 1.11; moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of an effect on all-cause mortality (4 trials, 5253 participants, RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.38; moderate-quality evidence). Adverse events data were poorly reported. We found limited, moderate-quality evidence that searching for and eradicating H. pylori reduces the incidence of gastric cancer in healthy asymptomatic infected Asian individuals, but we cannot necessarily extrapolate this data to other populations.

Plain-language summary: A literature search up to December 2013 found 6 trials (containing 6497 participants, 3 trials at low risk of bias). Five of the studies were based in Asia. We found that antibiotics for H. pylori have a small benefit in preventing gastric cancer (51 (1.6%) of 3294 participants given treatment developed gastric cancer subsequently, compared with 76 (2.4%) of 3203 given no treatment or a placebo), but it is unclear whether or not they decrease the number of deaths from the disease, increase or decrease the number of deaths due to any cause, or increase or decrease the number of cases of oesophageal cancer. Data about side effects of treatment were poorly reported. Three trials were at low risk of bias, one trial was at unclear risk, and two trials were at high risk of bias. One study was at high risk of bias because no placebo was used for the active eradication therapy regimen, and so this part of the trial was unblinded, and the other study was at high risk of bias due to inconsistencies in data reporting at the two points of follow-up. We were unable to resolve this discrepancy despite contacting the original authors. As a result, we downgraded the quality of evidence from high to moderate due to serious risk of bias.
Abstract: We included 26 trials, which randomised 4979 participants, in this review. Meta-analysis of 10 trials clearly demonstrated reduction of onset of VF defects in treated OHT (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.81). No single drug showed a significant VF protection compared to placebo or untreated controls. We did identify some border line evidence for a positive influence of treatment on VF prognosis (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.00) for the beta-blockers . The results of this review support the current practice of IOP lowering treatment of OHT. A visual field protective effect has been clearly demonstrated for medical IOP lowering treatment. Positive but weak evidence for a beneficial effect of the class of beta-blockers has been shown. Direct comparisons of prostaglandins or brimonidine to placebo are not available and the comparison of dorzolamide to placebo failed to demonstrate a protective effect. However, absence of data or failure to prove effectiveness should not be interpreted as proof of absence of any effect. The decision to treat a patient or not, as well as the decision regarding the drug with which to start treatment, should remain individualised, taking in to account the amount of damage, the level of IOP, age and other patient characteristics.

Plain-language summary: The results of this review support the current practice of topical medication to lower IOP and clearly demonstrate a visual field protective effect. The review authors identified a total of 26 controlled trials that randomised 4979 people with OHT or open angle glaucoma to receive topical medication or a placebo, another topical medication or no treatment for at least a year. Meta-analysis of 10 trials testing different topical medications against placebo or untreated controls showed reduced incidence of glaucomatous visual field defects with treatment for people with OHT. The odds ratio (OR) was 0.62 (range 0.5 to 0.8). The class of beta-blockers (including timolol) had positive but weak evidence for a beneficial effect in protecting against visual field defects (OR 0.7, range 0.5 to 1.0). No single drug showed significant visual field protection in OHT with the evidence available. Medications included beta-blockers, dorzolamide, brimonidine, pilocarpine and epinephrine. From the reports, the majority of trials were of low methodological quality. Local and systemic side effects leading to treatment being stopped were often poorly reported and did not appear to differ between treatment groups. Drop-outs due to side effects occurred with similar frequency in people treated with beta-blocker or placebo and appeared to be less with timolol compared to brimonidine, in three trials.
Abstract: We identified no new trials for the 2016 update. This review includes two trials, but we included only one trial, with 24 women, in the analyses. The overall risk of bias was unclear owing to lack of methodological detail. Using the GRADE method, we judged the quality of the evidence to be very low. We downgraded evidence for risk of bias and for imprecision (wide confidence intervals and evidence based on a single small trial). Comparison of NSAIDs (naproxen) versus placebo revealed no evidence of a positive effect on pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 3.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 17.69; one trial, 24 women; very low-quality evidence) in women with endometriosis. Evidence indicating whether women taking NSAIDs (naproxen) were less likely to require additional analgesia (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.29; one trial, 24 women; very low-quality evidence) or to experience side effects (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.47; one trial, 24 women; very low-quality evidence) when compared with placebo was inconclusive. Studies provided no data on quality of life, effects on daily activities, absence from work or school, need for more invasive treatment or participant satisfaction with treatment. Owing to lack of high-quality evidence and lack of reporting of outcomes of interest for this review, we can make no judgement as to whether NSAIDs (naproxen) are effective in managing pain caused by endometriosis. There is no evidence that one NSAID is more effective than another. As shown in other Cochrane reviews, women taking NSAIDs must be aware that these drugs may cause unintended effects.

Plain-language summary: We searched for new evidence in October 2016 and identified no new randomised controlled trials. From previous updates, this review found limited evidence on the effectiveness of NSAIDs (specifically naproxen) for management of pain caused by endometriosis. This review is also limited in that it includes only one study with data suitable for analysis, and this study involved only 20 women. Available evidence is of very low quality, mainly owing to poor reporting of methods, lack of precision in findings for overall pain relief, unintended side effects of treatment and the need for extra pain relief. The included trial did not report on quality of life, effects on daily activities, absence from work or school or participant satisfaction with treatment. Available evidence does not allow us to conclude whether NSAIDs are effective for managing pain caused by endometriosis, or whether any individual NSAID is more effective than another. As has been shown in other Cochrane reviews, women who use NSAIDs must be aware that NSAIDs may cause adverse effects such as nausea, vomiting, headache and drowsiness. Unless we identify new evidence in the future, we will not update this review again. Evidence was of very low quality owing to risk of bias and imprecision (findings were based on a single small trial).
Abstract: Twenty-seven studies (29 experimental groups) met the review entry criteria, randomising a total of 1925 participants. The studies identified assessed the effects of 21 different herbal preparations. Study quality varied considerably, and the sample sizes were often small. For primary outcomes (exacerbations, steroids use and lung function measurements): Two out of six studies reporting change in FEV1 were positive, with very few data available on the frequency of exacerbations. One study which did report these data was negative. Health-related quality of life was only measured in one trial. The evidence base for the effects of herbal treatments is hampered by the variety of treatments assessed, poor reporting quality of the studies and lack of available data. The data that are available from the studies provide only a small insight into the long-term efficacy and harm profiles of these treatments. The absence of common endpoint measurements limits the validity of our findings further. Positive findings in this review warrant additional well-designed trials in this area.

Plain-language summary: We reviewed evidence from 27 trials covering 21 different herbal treatments in both adults and children from both in-patient and out-patient settings. In general, the reporting of trials was poor. The outcomes measured by the trials varied considerably which made it difficult to compare the results of studies that did look at the same treatment. On the basis of the available evidence it is not possible to show whether any of these herbal treatments can improve asthma symptoms. Further trials of high quality are needed to assess the use of herbal treatments in asthma.
Abstract: We included six randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Four studies had unclear risk of bias and two had high risk of bias. The results of these RCTs were not consistent; two demonstrated no differences between blinded and unblinded assessments, two found that blinded assessments had significantly lower quality scores, and another observed significantly higher quality scores for blinded assessments. The remaining study did not report the level of significance. We pooled five studies reporting sufficient information in a meta-analysis. We observed no statistically significant difference in risk of bias assessments between blinded or unblinded assessments (standardized mean difference -0.13, 95% confidence interval -0.42 to 0.16). The mean difference might be slightly inaccurate, as we did not adjust for clustering in our meta-analysis. We observed inconsistency of results visually and noted statistical heterogeneity. Our review highlights that discordance exists between studies examining blinded versus unblinded risk of bias assessments at the systematic review level. The best approach to risk of bias assessment remains unclear, however, given the increased time and resources required to conceal reports effectively, it may not be necessary for risk of bias assessments to be conducted under blinded conditions in a systematic review.

Plain-language summary: When researchers want to answer a question they can use an approach called a systematic review, which is intended to examine all of the studies that have been done in a particular area of interest. When examining and summarizing the literature, researchers are expected to determine which of the studies were well-conducted (i.e. high quality) and those that were not. What we do not know enough about is how researchers should conduct the assessments to determine which studies were of high quality. This is important because if the researcher is aware of certain study characteristics (e.g. what journal the study was published in) they may inadvertently assess the study a certain way. For example, if the author of the study is well-known to the assessor, they may be more likely to assume it is of 'high quality'. Our research examines whether blinding researchers to study characteristics makes a difference when the goal is to summarize the literature. We only found a few studies that reported data relevant to our question. The results from these studies were inconsistent, however, the results suggest that it may not make a difference if quality is appraised under blinded or unblinded conditions during a systematic review.
Abstract: We identified six randomised comtrolled trials of auditory integration therapy and one of Tomatis therapy, involving a total of 182 individuals aged three to 39 years. Two were cross-over trials. Five trials had fewer than 20 participants. Allocation concealment was inadequate for all studies. Twenty different outcome measures were used and only two outcomes were used by three or more studies. Meta-analysis was not possible due to very high heterogeneity or the presentation of data in unusable forms. Three studies (Bettison 1996; Zollweg 1997; Mudford 2000) did not demonstrate any benefit of auditory integration therapy over control conditions. Three studies (Veale 1993; Rimland 1995; Edelson 1999) reported improvements at three months for the auditory integration therapy group based on the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist, but they used a total score rather than subgroup scores, which is of questionable validity, and Veale's results did not reach statistical significance. Rimland 1995 also reported improvements at three months in the auditory integration therapy group for the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist subgroup scores. The study addressing Tomatis therapy (Corbett 2008) described an improvement in language with no difference between treatment and control conditions and did not report on the behavioural outcomes that were used in the auditory integration therapy trials. There is no evidence that auditory integration therapy or other sound therapies are effective as treatments for autism spectrum disorders. As synthesis of existing data has been limited by the disparate outcome measures used between studies, there is not sufficient evidence to prove that this treatment is not effective. However, of the seven studies including 182 participants that have been reported to date, only two (with an author in common), involving a total of 35 participants, report statistically significant improvements in the auditory intergration therapy group and for only two outcome measures (Aberrant Behaviour Checklist and Fisher's Auditory Problems Checklist). As such, there is no evidence to support the use of auditory integration therapy at this time.

Plain-language summary: The purpose of this review was to assess the evidence for the effectiveness of auditory integration therapy and therapies like it that have been developed to improve abnormal sound sensitivity and autistic behaviours in such individuals. Seven relatively small studies met the inclusion criteria for the review. These often measured different outcomes and reported mixed results. Benefits for participants receiving auditory integration therapy were only reported in two studies, involving 35 participants, for two outcomes. A study of Tomatis therapy did not measure behavioural outcomes and did not find any difference in language development between intervention and control groups. As such, there is no evidence to support the use of auditory integration therapy or other sound therapies at this time.