GEM/cochrane-simplification huggingface dataset:
Abstract: Two studies involving a total of 467 participants, aged over 18 years, were eligible for inclusion. Both studies assessed losigamone 1200 mg/day or 1500 mg/day as an add-on therapy for focal epilepsy. We assessed one study as being of good methodological quality while the other was of uncertain quality. For the efficacy outcomes, results showed that participants taking losigamone were significantly more likely to achieve a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (RR 1.76, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.72; 2 studies, 467 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but associated with a significant increase of treatment withdrawal when compared with those taking placebo (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.28 to 3.67; 2 studies, 467 participants; moderate-quality evidence). For the tolerability outcomes, results indicated that the proportion of participants who experienced adverse events in the losigamone group was higher than in the placebo group (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.80; 2 studies, 467 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Dizziness was the only adverse event significantly reported in relation to losigamone (RR 3.82, 99% CI 1.69 to 8.64; 2 studies; 467 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Neither study reported the proportion of participants achieving seizure freedom. A subgroup analysis according to different doses of losigamone showed that a higher dose of losigamone (1500 mg/day) was associated with a greater reduction in seizure frequency than lower doses, but was also associated with more dropouts due to adverse events. The results of this review showed that losigamone did reduce seizure frequency but was associated with more treatment withdrawals when used as an add-on therapy for people with focal epilepsy. However, the included studies were of short-term duration and uncertain quality. Future well-designed randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies with a longer-term duration are needed. We did not find any new studies since the last version of this review. We judged the overall quality of the evidence for the outcomes assessed as moderate.

Plain-language summary: The evidence is current to August 2019. We found two studies assessing add-on losigamone for focal epilepsy, which recruited a total of 467 participants aged over 18 years. Both studies assessed losigamone 1200 mg/day or 1500 mg/day as an add-on therapy for focal epilepsy. The results of this review showed that participants taking losigamone as an add-on treatment were more likely to reduce their seizure frequency by 50% or more in the short term; however losigamone was associated with more treatment withdrawal side effects than placebo. The most frequent adverse event caused by losigamone was dizziness. We assessed one study as being of good methodological quality while the other was of uncertain quality. We judged the overall quality of the evidence for the outcomes assessed as moderate.
Abstract: We included twelve trials (577 participants). Ten trials (531 participants) enrolled people with a diabetic foot ulcer: pooled data of five trials with 205 participants showed an increase in the rate of ulcer healing (risk ratio (RR) 2.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 4.62; P = 0.01) with HBOT at six weeks but this benefit was not evident at longer-term follow-up at one year. There was no statistically significant difference in major amputation rate (pooled data of five trials with 312 participants, RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.18). One trial (16 participants) considered venous ulcers and reported data at six weeks (wound size reduction) and 18 weeks (wound size reduction and number of ulcers healed) and suggested a significant benefit of HBOT in terms of reduction in ulcer area only at six weeks (mean difference (MD) 33.00%, 95% CI 18.97 to 47.03, P < 0.00001). We identified one trial (30 participants) which enrolled patients with non-healing diabetic ulcers as well as venous ulcers ("mixed ulcers types") and patients were treated for 30 days. For this "mixed ulcers" there was a significant benefit of HBOT in terms of reduction in ulcer area at the end of treatment (30 days) (MD 61.88%, 95% CI 41.91 to 81.85, P < 0.00001). We did not identify any trials that considered arterial and pressure ulcers. In people with foot ulcers due to diabetes, HBOT significantly improved the ulcers healed in the short term but not the long term and the trials had various flaws in design and/or reporting that means we are not confident in the results. More trials are needed to properly evaluate HBOT in people with chronic wounds; these trials must be adequately powered and designed to minimise all kinds of bias.

Plain-language summary: We included twelve randomised trials (577 participants) in this updated review. Most of the included trials studied foot ulcers in people with diabetes (10 trials). For diabetes-related foot ulcers, we found that HBOT seemed to improve the chance of healing in the short term (up to six weeks), but not with longer term follow-up. HBOT may reduce the number of major amputations in people with diabetes who have chronic foot ulcers. For chronic wounds caused by disease to the veins of the leg, we found that HBOT may reduce the size of wounds. For chronic wounds caused by lack of blood supply through the arteries or chronic pressure ulcers, we found no evidence to confirm or refute any effects of HBOT. We could not assess safety as none of the trials included in our review reported whether there were any major adverse events. This plain language summary is up-to-date as of 23/1/15
Abstract: Seventeen studies were included in the review, involving 3097 participants. Based on all 17 studies, SSRIs as a group were more effective than placebo in reducing the symptoms of OCD between 6 and 13 weeks post-treatment, measured using the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS) (WMD -3.21, 95% CI -3.84 to -2.57). The WMD for individual SSRI drugs were similar and not statistically different. Based on 13 studies (2697 participants), SSRIs were more effective than placebo in achieving clinical response at post-treatment (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.17). The pooled RR was shown to be similar between individual SSRI drugs. Although reported adverse effects data were more limited, with few exceptions, the overall and individual adverse effects for the different SSRIs were always worse than for placebo and, in the majority of cases, the difference was statistically significant. Nausea, headache and insomnia were always reported amongst the most common adverse effects in trials of each of the drugs. SSRIs are more effective than placebo for OCD, at least in the short-term, although there are differences between the adverse effects of individual SSRI drugs. The longer term efficacy and tolerability of different SSRI drugs for OCD has yet to be established.

Plain-language summary: Individual randomised controlled trials have demonstrated that antidepressants are effective for OCD. This review summarises all the available evidence for one class of antidepressant drugs, the selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) (including citalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine and sertraline) compared to placebo in the treatment of OCD in adults. The review included 17 studies (3097 participants), and showed that SSRIs were effective in reducing the symptoms of OCD. Based on 13 studies (2697 participants), the review showed that people receiving SSRIs were nearly twice as likely as those receiving placebo to achieve clinical response (defined as a 25% or more reduction in symptoms). Indirect comparisons of effectiveness suggested that although individual SSRI drugs were similar in their effectiveness, they differed in terms of their adverse effects. The most common adverse effect reported by participants was nausea. Further studies involving head to head comparisons between different SSRI drugs are required to obtain more reliable information on differences between SSRIs, both in terms of effectiveness and adverse effects.
Abstract: We included one RCT, involving 48 women who had a miscarriage between eight to 24 weeks of gestation. Of the 19 women in the treatment group, 14 had therapeutic dilatation & curettage (D&C) and five had spontaneous miscarriage; of the 29 women in the control group, 25 had therapeutic D&C and four had spontaneous miscarriage. The treatment group received 300 µg anti-D Ig intramuscular injection and were compared with a control group who received 1 cc homogenous gamma globulin placebo. This review's primary outcomes (development of a positive Kleihauer Betke test (a test that detects fetal cells in the maternal blood; and development of RhD alloimmunisation in a subsequent pregnancy) were not reported in the included study. Similarly, none of the review's secondary outcomes were reported in the included study: the need for increased surveillance for suspected fetal blood sampling and fetal transfusions in subsequent pregnancies, neonatal morbidity such as neonatal anaemia, jaundice, bilirubin encephalopathy, erythroblastosis, prematurity, hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar) in subsequent pregnancies, maternal adverse events of anti-D administration including anaphylactic reaction and blood-borne infections. The included study did report subsequent Rh-positive pregnancies in three women in the treatment group and six women in the control group. However, due to the small sample size, the study failed to show any difference in maternal sensitisation or development of Rh alloimmunisation in the subsequent pregnancies. There are insufficient data available to evaluate the practice of anti-D administration in an unsensitised Rh-negative mother after spontaneous miscarriage. Thus, until high-quality evidence becomes available, the practice of anti-D Immunoglobulin prophylaxis after spontaneous miscarriage for preventing Rh alloimmunisation cannot be generalised and should be based on the standard practice guidelines of each country.

Plain-language summary: Other Cochrane reviews provide clear evidence that giving anti-D immunoglobulin (anti-D) within 72 hours of the birth to a Rh-negative mother of a Rh-positive baby and during the third trimester reduces Rh antibody formation in future pregnancies. The chances of developing Rh antibodies may also be reduced if anti-D is given to Rh-negative women following a spontaneous miscarriage or a dilatation & curettage (D&C) for incomplete miscarriage after 12 weeks. However, our review only identified one poor quality randomised controlled trial (involving 48 women) that considered anti-D administration after therapeutic D&C or spontaneous miscarriage for preventing Rh alloimmunisation (development of antibodies in response to antigens from a non-self protein). The included study did not report any data on the review's primary or secondary outcomes. More high-quality research is needed in this field.
Abstract: No eligible published trials were identified. We identified a completed randomised controlled trial that was designed to evaluate the effects of a diet and exercise intervention compared with standard care in women with a history of GDM, however to date, it has only published results on women who were pregnant at randomisation (and not women in the interconception period). We also identified an ongoing trial, in obese women with a history of GDM planning a subsequent pregnancy, which is assessing the effects of an intensive lifestyle intervention, supported with liraglutide treatment, compared with usual care. We also identified a trial that was designed to evaluate the effects of a weight loss and exercise intervention compared with lifestyle education also in obese women with a history of GDM planning a subsequent pregnancy, however it has not yet been published. These trials will be re-considered for inclusion in the next review update. The role of interconception care for women with a history of GDM remains unclear. Randomised controlled trials are required evaluating different forms and protocols of interconception care for these women on perinatal and long-term maternal and infant health outcomes, acceptability of such interventions and cost-effectiveness.

Plain-language summary: We searched for trials which looked at the health outcomes for women and babies after specific interconception care, and compared the outcomes for standard care (with no interconception care of this type). Our search identified one trial which has yet to issue a full set of results, plus two further trials; one of these is still underway and the other has yet to be published. Because there are no studies currently available, there is not enough evidence at present to say if interconception care for women with a history of GDM can help to improve the health of mothers and their infants. More high-quality studies are needed, which assess both short- and long-term health outcomes for women and their babies, as well as evaluating the impact on the health services.
Abstract: In the 2014 update of the review, 15 trials have been included, with a total of 453 participants across seven comparison groups. The included trials had either a low or unclear risk of bias for most of the parameters used for risk assessment. Only short-term outcomes could be assessed due to the short duration of follow up in the included trials. None of the primary outcomes, (incidence of ischaemic heart disease, number of deaths and age at death) were evaluated in any of the included trials. No significant differences were noted for the majority of secondary outcomes for any of the planned comparisons. However, a significant difference was found for the following comparisons and outcomes: for the comparison between plant sterols and cholesterol-lowering diet (in favour of plant sterols), total cholesterol levels, mean difference 0.30 mmol/l (95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.48); decreased serum LDL cholesterol, mean difference -0.60 mmol/l (95% CI -0.89 to -0.31). Fasting serum HDL cholesterol levels were elevated, mean difference -0.04 mmol/l (95% CI -0.11 to 0.03) and serum triglyceride concentration was reduced, mean difference -0.03 mmol/l (95% CI -0.15 to -0.09), although these changes were not statistically significant. Similarly, guar gum when given as an add on therapy to bezafibrate reduced total cholesterol and LDL levels as compared to bezafibrate alone. No conclusions can be made about the effectiveness of a cholesterol-lowering diet, or any of the other dietary interventions suggested for familial hypercholesterolaemia, for the primary outcomes: evidence and incidence of ischaemic heart disease, number of deaths and age at death,due to the lack of data on these. Large, parallel, randomised controlled trials are needed to investigate the effectiveness of a cholesterol-lowering diet and the addition of omega-3 fatty acids, plant sterols or stanols, soya protein, dietary fibers to a cholesterol-lowering diet.

Plain-language summary: This review aimed to compare cholesterol-lowering dietary interventions either in combination with each other or alone. These interventions included adding omega-3 fatty acids or plant sterols or plant stanols or soya proteins to diet. Fifteen trials were included in this updated review. The included trials had either a low or unclear risk of bias for most of the domains used for risk assessment. All the trials were short term and the majority were cross-over in design. For most of the comparisons there was no significant difference in the various intervention strategies when compared to cholesterol-lowering diet. However, for total cholesterol levels, serum low density lipoprotein (LDL) concentrations, a significant benefit was obtained with plant sterols. However, before drawing any conclusions, methodological problems with pooling results from cross-over trials should be considered. There is a need for long-term trials with parallel group design to assess the potential benefits and harms of a cholesterol-lowering diet.
Abstract: Seventeen studies (1586 children) were included. All studies enrolled children at increased risk of AOM. In seven studies the children were prone to otitis media. The majority were high-quality studies and most (16 studies) reported data for our primary outcomes. One reported AOM with perforation or CSOM. Long-term antibiotics reduced any episode of AOM (14 studies, 1461 children, risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.79; random-effects model) and number of episodes of AOM (13 studies, 1327 children, incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.51, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.66; random-effects model). Approximately five children would need to be treated long-term to prevent one child experiencing AOM whilst on treatment. Antibiotics prevented 1.5 episodes of AOM for every 12 months of treatment per child. We explored statistical heterogeneity. Long-term antibiotics were not associated with a significant increase in adverse events (12 studies, 817 children, RR 1.99, 95% CI 0.25 to 15.89; random-effects model). For children at risk, antibiotics given once or twice daily will reduce the probability of AOM while the child is on treatment. In similar populations, antibiotics will reduce the number of episodes of AOM per year from around three to around 1.5. We believe that larger absolute benefits are likely in high-risk children. These conclusions were not affected by sensitivity analyses.

Plain-language summary: This review included 17 studies (1586 children). Long-term antibiotics (equal to or more than six weeks) almost halved the risk of further infections. There was not enough information to know if antibiotics reduced acute otitis media with perforation or chronic suppurative otitis media (chronic perforation), or improved long-term outcomes. Antibiotics did not appear to be a frequent cause of significant side effects (for example, allergic reactions or diarrhea). Parents must balance these potential side effects plus the cost and inconvenience associated with antibiotics against the likely benefits of treatment. Antibiotic resistance from the long-term use of these drugs is also an issue which should be considered, particularly for children with recurring infections.
Abstract: Twelve studies (4755 participants) compared intranasal sumatriptan with placebo or an active comparator. Most of the data were for the 10 mg and 20 mg doses. Sumatriptan surpassed placebo for all efficacy outcomes. For sumatriptan 10 mg versus placebo the NNTs were 7.3, 7.4, and 5.5 for pain-free at two hours, and headache relief at one and two hours, respectively. For sumatriptan 20 mg versus placebo the NNTs were 4.7, 4.9, and 3.5, respectively, for the same outcomes. The 20 mg dose was significantly better than the 10 mg dose for each of these three primary efficacy outcomes. Relief of headache-associated symptoms, including nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia, was greater with sumatriptan than with placebo, and use of rescue medication was lower with sumatriptan than placebo. For the most part, adverse events were transient and mild and were more common with sumatriptan than placebo. Direct comparison of sumatriptan with active treatments was limited to two studies, one comparing sumatriptan 20 mg and dihydroergotamine (DHE) 1 mg, and one comparing sumatriptan 20 mg with rizatriptan 10 mg. Intranasal sumatriptan is effective as an abortive treatment for acute migraine attacks, relieving pain, nausea, photophobia, phonophobia, and functional disability, but is associated with increased adverse events compared with placebo.

Plain-language summary: This review found that a single intranasal dose was effective in relieving migraine headache pain and associated symptoms of nausea, sensitivity to light, and sensitivity to sound. Pain was reduced from moderate or severe to no pain by two hours in approximately 2 in 10 people (24%) taking sumatriptan 10 mg, compared with about 1 in 10 (10%) taking placebo. Pain was reduced from moderate or severe to no worse than mild pain by two hours in 5 in 10 people (50%) taking sumatriptan 10 mg, compared with approximately 3 in 10 (32%) taking placebo. In addition to relieving headache pain, sumatriptan also relieved symptoms of nausea and sensitivity to light and sound by two hours in about half of those who took it, compared with about one-third of those who took placebo. The 20 mg dose had greater efficacy, but may be associated with more adverse events, most of which were of short duration and mild or moderate in severity.
Abstract: Twelve studies with 13 comparisons were included. Four studies compared dietitian with doctor, seven with self-help resources, and only one study was found for dietitian versus nurse and dietitian versus counsellor comparisons. Participants receiving advice from dietitians experienced a greater reduction in blood cholesterol than those receiving advice only from doctors (-0.25 mmol/L (95% CI -0.37, -0.12 mmol/L)). There was no statistically significant difference in change in blood cholesterol between dietitians and self-help resources (-0.10 mmol/L (95% CI -0.22, 0.03 mmol/L)). No statistically significant differences were detected for secondary outcome measures between any of the comparisons with the exception of dietitian versus nurse for HDLc, where the dietitian group showed a greater reduction (-0.06 mmol/L (95% CI -0.11, -0.01)) and dietitian versus counsellor for body weight, where the dietitian group showed a greater reduction (-5.80 kg (95% CI -8.91, -2.69 kg)). Dietitians were better than doctors at lowering blood cholesterol in the short to medium term, but there was no evidence that they were better than self-help resources. There was no evidence that dietitians provided better outcomes than nurses.  The results should be interpreted with caution as the studies were not of good quality and the analysis was based on a limited number of trials.

Plain-language summary: This review looked at the effectiveness of dietary advice given by dietitians to lower blood cholesterol, compared with the effectiveness of dietary advice given by other types of health professional or using self-help resources. The review found that advice by dietitians to lower blood cholesterol was more effective than that of doctors (in the short to medium term), but possibly not more effective than using self-help resources. There was no evidence to suggest that dietary advice given by dietitians was more effective than that given by nurses.