GEM/cochrane-simplification huggingface dataset:
Abstract: We identified only one RCT (N = 200; mean follow up 68 months). This trial compared LDR-BT and RP. The risk of bias was deemed high. Primary outcomes (overall survival, cause-specific mortality, or metastatic-free survival) were not reported. Biochemical recurrence-free survival at 5 years follow up was not significantly different between LDR-BT (78/85 (91.8%)) and RP (81/89 (91.0%)); P = 0.875; relative risk 0.92 (95% CI: 0.35 to 2.42). For severe adverse events reported at 6 months follow up, results favored LDR-BT for urinary incontinence (LDR-BT 0/85 (0.0%) versus RP 16/89 (18.0%); P < 0.001; relative risk 0) and favored RP for urinary irritation (LDR-BT 68/85 (80.0%) versus RP 4/89 (4.5%); P < 0.001; relative risk 17.80, 95% CI 6.79 to 46.66). The occurrence of urinary stricture did not significantly differ between the treatment groups (LDR-BT 2/85 (2.4%) versus RP 6/89 (6.7%); P = 0.221; relative risk 0.35, 95% CI: 0.07 to 1.68). Long-term information was not available. We did not identify significant differences of mean scores between treatment groups for patient-reported outcomes function and bother as well as generic health-related quality of life. Low-dose rate brachytherapy did not reduce biochemical recurrence-free survival versus radical prostatectomy at 5 years. For short-term severe adverse events, low-dose rate brachytherapy was significantly more favorable for urinary incontinence, but radical prostatectomy was significantly more favorable for urinary irritation. Evidence is based on one RCT with high risk of bias.

Plain-language summary: We reviewed the published research on this treatment to investigate how effective and safe it is. Unfortunately, we identified only one randomized controlled trial comparing LDR-BT versus RP. The results were considerably prone to bias. Important survival outcomes were not reported. Due to lack of research studies, it has not been proven whether patients treated with this procedure live longer than patients treated with treatment alternatives. In this single study, after the intervention, a rise in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was similarly likely to occur after LDR-BT and RP, but this finding does not resolve the question of whether cancer was truly present again in both groups. Urinary incontinence was less frequent after LDR-BT and urinary irritation was less frequent after RP at a short-term follow up at 6 months. No results were reported at 12 and 60 months. Significant differences after long-term follow up were not identified for patient-reported outcomes. At present, the question whether LDR-BT is a favorable treatment compared to other treatment alternatives in patients with localized prostate cancer remains unanswered.
Abstract: The review currently includes nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 3361 participants. The overall rate of premature study discontinuation was very high (59.1%). Data for the comparisons of ziprasidone with amisulpride, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone were available. Ziprasidone was a less acceptable treatment than olanzapine (leaving the studies early for any reason: 5 RCTs, n=1937, RR 1.26 CI 1.18 to 1.35, NNH 7 CI 5 to 10) and risperidone (3 RCTs, n=1029, RR 1.11 CI 1.02 to 1.20, NNH 14 CI 8 to 50), but not than the other second generation antipsychotic drugs. Ziprasidone was less efficacious than amisulpride (leaving the study early due to inefficacy: 1 RCT, n=123, RR 4.72 CI 1.06 to 20.98, NNH 8 CI 5 to 50) olanzapine (PANSS total score: 4 RCTs, n=1291, MD 8.32 CI 5.64 to 10.99) and risperidone (PANSS total score: 3 RCTs, n=1016, MD 3.91 CI 0.27 to 7.55). Based on limited data there were no significant differences in tolerability between ziprasidone and amisulpride or clozapine. Ziprasidone produced less weight gain than olanzapine (5 RCTs, n=1659, MD -3.82 CI -4.69 to -2.96), quetiapine (2 RCTs, n=754, RR 0.45 CI 0.28 to 0.74) or risperidone (3 RCTs, n=1063, RR 0.49 CI 0.33 to 0.74). It was associated with less cholesterol increase than olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone. Conversely ziprasidone produced slightly more extrapyramidal side-effects than olanzapine (4 RCTs, n=1732, RR 1.43 CI 1.03 to 1.99, NNH not estimable) and more prolactin increase than quetiapine (2 RCTs, n=754, MD 4.77 CI 1.37 to 8.16), but less movement disorders (2 RCTs, n=822, RR 0.70 CI 0.51 to 0.97, NNT not estimable) and less prolactin increase (2 RCTs, n=767, MD -21.97 CI -27.34 to -16.60) than risperidone. Note: the 254 citations in the awaiting classification section of the review may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed. Ziprasidone may be a slightly less efficacious antipsychotic drug than amisulpride, olanzapine and risperidone. Its main advantage is the low propensity to induce weight gain and associated adverse effects. However, the high overall rate of participants leaving the studies early limits the validity of any findings.

Plain-language summary: This review wanted to find out if there was evidence to support that there is any difference between ziprasidone and the other atypical medications. Because of the large number of people that dropped out of the studies it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions, however, people taking ziprasidone did not do as well regarding their symptoms, as those taking olanzapine and risperidone and perhaps amisulpride, but they were less likely to gain weight.
Abstract: Twenty-two out of 29 included studies (1793 women) contributed data to this review. The included studies did not report some our primary outcomes: maternal death, incidence of maternal postoperative wound infection, maternal postoperative other infection such as endometritis and urinary tract infection, neonatal death. Compared to women who had GA, women who had either epidural anaesthesia or spinal anaesthesia were found to have a significantly lower difference between pre and postoperative haematocrit. For epidural, the mean difference (MD) was 1.70% and 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 2.93 (one trial, 231 women) and for spinal anaesthesia, the MD was 3.10% and 95% CI 1.73 to 4.47 (one trial, 209 women). Compared with GA, women having either an epidural anaesthesia or spinal anaesthesia had a lower estimated maternal blood loss (epidural versus GA: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.32 mL; 95% CI -0.56 to -0.07; two trials, 256 women; spinal versus GA anaesthesia: SMD -0.59 mL; 95% CI -0.83 to 0.35; two trials, 279 women). There was evidence of a significant difference in terms of satisfaction with anaesthetic technique -  compared with the epidural or spinal group, more women in the GA group stated they would use the same technique again if they needed CS for a subsequent pregnancy (epidural versus GA: risk ratio (RR) 0.80; 95% CI 0.65 to 0.98; one trial, 223 women; spinal versus GA anaesthesia: RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.65 to 0.99; one trial, 221 women). No significant difference was seen in terms of neonatal Apgar scores of six or less and of four or less at five minutes and the need for neonatal resuscitation with oxygen. There is no evidence from this review to show that RA is superior to GA in terms of major maternal or neonatal outcomes. Further research to evaluate neonatal morbidity and maternal outcomes, such as satisfaction with technique, will be useful.

Plain-language summary: This review of trials sought to assess these benefits and harms. Twenty-two out of 29 included studies (1793 women) contributed data to this review. There were some differences that favoured regional anaesthesia, for example, less blood loss. The evidence on the differences in pain relief was difficult to evaluate. There were not enough participants to assess the very rare outcome of mortality for the mother, which may be an important aspect. None of the trials addressed important outcomes for women such as recovery times, effects on breastfeeding, effects on the mother-child relationship and length of time before mother feels well enough to care for her baby. As there is insufficient evidence on benefits and adverse effects, women are most likely to choose anaesthesia for caesarean section, depending on whether they wish to be awake or asleep for the birth.
Abstract: We did not identifiy any new trials for inclusion or exclusion in this 2014 update. One study involving 110 participants (55 participants in each group) met our inclusion criteria. The corticosteroid (prednisolone) showed a benefit in shortening the median time to resolution of headaches (five days in the treatment group versus 13 days in the control group, P value < 0.0001). Corticosteroids were also associated with smaller numbers of participants who still had headaches after a two-week course of treatment (9.1% versus 45.5%, P value < 0.0001). The number of patients who needed repeat lumbar puncture was also smaller in the treatment group (12.7% versus 40%, P value = 0.002). There was a reduction in the median time of analgesic use in participants receiving corticosteroids (10.5 versus 25.0, P value = 0.038). There were no reported adverse effects from prednisolone in the treatment group. Corticosteroids significantly help relieve headache in patients with eosinophilic meningitis, who have a pain score of four or more on a visual analogue scale. However, there is only one RCT supporting this benefit and this trial did not clearly mention allocation concealment and stratification. Therefore, we agreed to grade our included study as a moderate quality trial. Future well-designed RCTs are necessary.

Plain-language summary: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of corticosteroids for treating eosinophilic meningitis. The evidence is current to December 2014. We found only one randomised controlled trial that matched our criteria. This trial included 129 patients (63 in the treatment group, prednisolone 60 mg/day, divided into three doses for two weeks and 66 in the control group, placebo). However,19 patients were lost to follow-up. The included study showed that the median time to resolution of headaches was lower in the group treated with prednisolone (10.5 days versus 25 days) and the number of patients who still had headaches after 14 days was lower in the prednisolone group compared to the control (9.1% versus 45.5%). There were statistically significant differences, which favoured the treatment group, in other outcomes including the frequency of acetaminophen (paracetamol) use (median of number of times used) amongst those who still had headaches after 14 days of prednisolone treatment and the mean time until complete disappearance of headache. The number of patients who needed repeat lumbar puncture was also smaller in the treatment group. There were no reported adverse effects from prednisolone in the treatment group. Corticosteroids significantly help relieve headache in patients with eosinophilic meningitis, who have a pain score of four or more on a visual analogue scale. Given the lack of allocation concealment and blinding (especially in a trial with subjective outcomes), and the attrition (loss of participants), we graded our evidence as moderate quality.
Abstract: Five studies were identified which enrolled a total of 1302 infants. In two studies allocation was randomised and the caregivers were blinded to intervention group. In the other three studies, allocation was quasi-randomised and the caregivers were not blinded. Pooled analysis of the four trials reporting effect on death showed a significant reduction in the rate of death in the group resuscitated with room air [typical RR 0.71 (0.54, 0.94), typical RD -0.05 (-0.08, -0.01), NNT 20 (12, 100)]. There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to rates of grade 2 or 3 hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy. One of the four trials reported a statistically significant difference in median 5 minute Apgar scores, favouring the group allocated to room air. However, the absolute difference between the medians was small and there were no significant differences in the median 10 minute Apgar scores in the three trials reporting this outcome. One trial followed up a selected subgroup of survivors to 18-24 months. There were no significant differences in rates of adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes including cerebral palsy and failure to achieve various milestones; however, the proportion of eligible patients seen was less than 70%. Analyses that were planned for this review, but not able to be carried out because of lack of published data, included a sub-analysis stratified by gestational age and assessments of the effect on bronchopulmonary dysplasia and retinopathy of prematurity. There is insufficient evidence at present on which to recommend a policy of using room air over 100% oxygen, or vice versa, for newborn resuscitation. A reduction in mortality has been seen in infants resuscitated with room air, and no evidence of harm has been demonstrated. However, the small number of identified studies and their methodologic limitations dictate caution in interpreting and applying these results. We note the use of back-up 100% oxygen in more than a quarter of infants randomised to room air. Therefore, on the basis of currently available evidence, if one chooses room air as the initial gas for resuscitation, supplementary oxygen should continue to be made available.

Plain-language summary: The authors of this Cochrane review questioned whether resuscitation with room air resulted in fewer deaths or disabilities than 100% oxygen. After searching the literature, they found five studies. There were a total of 1302 infants in these studies; 24% of them were premature. In the studies, fewer babies died when resuscitated with room air than with 100% oxygen. Many of the babies resuscitated with room air also got some oxygen as a supplement, making it difficult to compare the two groups. There were also other problems with the way the studies were carried out. The authors of the Cochrane review concluded that there is not enough evidence to recommend room air over 100% oxygen, or vice versa.
Abstract: Eleven trials were identified of which seven were excluded and four with 312 participants were included. No trial reported live birth outcomes. One trial compared gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist with GnRH antagonist. There was no evidence of a difference for clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), however the number of mature oocytes retrieved (NMOR) was greater with GnRH agonists (MD -1.60, 95% CI -2.44 to -0.76) and the ovarian response was increased (estradiol (E2) levels on day of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) injection) (MD -456.30, 95% CI -896.06 to -16.54). Surgery (aspiration or cystectomy) versus expectant management (EM) showed no evidence of a benefit for clinical pregnancy with either technique. Aspiration was associated with greater NMOR (MD 0.50, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98) and increased ovarian response (E2 levels on day of hCG injection) (MD 685.3, 95% CI 464.50 to 906.10) compared to EM.Cystectomy was associated with a decreased ovarian response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) (MD -510.00, 95% CI -676.62 to -343.38); no evidence of an effect on the NMOR compared to EM. Aspiration versus cystectomy showed no evidence of a difference in CPR or the NMOR. There was no evidence of an effect on reproductive outcomes in any of the four included trials. Further RCTs of management of endometrioma in women undergoing ART are required.

Plain-language summary: This review aimed to determine which treatment approach was better for women with subfertility and endometriomata who were undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART). Four trials were identified. A gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist showed a positive treatment effect on the ovarian response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) and the number of mature oocytes retrieved compared to GnRH antagonist. The evidence for surgery was limited but aspiration was associated with a greater ovarian response than expectant management (a wait and see approach). Further randomised controlled trials of interventions for the management of endometrioma in women undergoing ART are required.
Abstract: Thirty-two trials (9605 patients) were included. For symptomatic failure rates, no difference between three-day and 5-10 day antibiotic regimen was seen short-term (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.28) and long-term follow-up (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.27). Comparison of the bacteriological failure rates showed that three-day therapy was less effective than 5-10 day therapy for the short-term follow-up, however this difference was observed only in the subgroup of trials that used the same antibiotic in the two treatment arms (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.74, P = 0.01). This difference was more significant at long-term follow-up (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.73, P = 0.0002). Adverse effects were significantly more common in the 5-10 day treatment group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.93, P = 0.0010). Results were consistent for subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Three days of antibiotic therapy is similar to 5-10 days in achieving symptomatic cure during uncomplicated UTI treatment, while the longer treatment is more effective in obtaining bacteriological cure. In spite of the higher rate of adverse effects, treatment for 5-10 days could be considered for treatment of women in whom eradication of bacteriuria is important.

Plain-language summary: In this review we included all studies that compared three-day therapy with longer treatment (five days or more). Three days of treatment were adequate to achieve symptomatic relief for most patients, but it appears that longer therapy is better in terms of bacteria elimination from the urine, no matter what antibiotic is used. Longer therapy for UTI is related to higher rate of adverse reactions to the antibiotics used. Pending further research, it could be considered for women in whom eradication of bacteria in the urine is important.
Abstract: We included 16 eligible trials with a total of 1251 infant participants. Trials were of variable methodological quality, with lack of allocation concealment and incomplete follow-up identified as major potential sources of bias. Trials (N = 11) that compared feeding infants with 'postdischarge formula' (energy density about 74 kcal/100 mL) versus standard term formula (about 67 kcal/100 mL) did not find consistent evidence of effects on growth parameters up to 12 to 18 months post term. GRADE assessments indicated that evidence was of moderate quality, and that inconsistency within pooled estimates was the main quality issue. Trials (N = 5) that compared feeding with 'preterm formula' (about 80 kcal/100 mL) versus term formula found evidence of higher rates of growth throughout infancy (weighted mean differences at 12 to 18 months post term: about 500 g in weight, 5 to 10 mm in length, 5 mm in head circumference). GRADE assessments indicated that evidence was of moderate quality, and that imprecision of estimates was the main quality issue. Few trials assessed neurodevelopmental outcomes, and these trials did not detect differences in developmental indices at 18 months post term. Data on growth or development through later childhood have not been provided. Recommendations to prescribe 'postdischarge formula' for preterm infants after hospital discharge are not supported by available evidence. Limited evidence suggests that feeding 'preterm formula' (which is generally available only for in-hospital use) to preterm infants after hospital discharge may increase growth rates up to 18 months post term.

Plain-language summary: We identified 16 eligible trials enrolling a total of 1251 infants through searches updated to 8 September 2016. These trials provide moderate-quality evidence that unrestricted feeding with nutrient-enriched (vs standard) formula does not have important effects on growth and development up to about 18 months of age. Long-term growth and development have not yet been assessed. Current recommendations to prescribe nutrient-enriched formula for preterm infants after hospital discharge are not supported by available evidence.
Abstract: We included two studies in the review, with a total of 344 participants. Studies lasted 8 weeks and 12 weeks and compared TC versus placebo. 0.1%. TC was applied in gel form to the painful area two to three times daily. Studies included in this review were subject to potential bias and were classified as of moderate or low quality. One drug manufacturer supported both studies. We found no top-tier evidence for TC in neuropathic pain. Second-tier evidence indicated slight improvement after the drug was used in study participants with painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). A greater number of participants in the TC group had at least 30% reduction in pain compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.77; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 8.33, 95% CI 4.3 to 50). Third-tier evidence indicated that TC was no better than placebo for achieving at least 50% reduction in pain intensity and on the Patient Global Impression of Change Scale. The two included studies could be subject to significant bias. We found no studies that reported other neuropathic pain conditions. The rate of adverse events did not differ between groups, with the exception of a higher incidence of mild skin reactions in the placebo group, which should have no clinical significance. Limited evidence from a small number of studies of moderate to low quality suggests that TC may provide some benefit in peripheral diabetic neuropathy. The drug may be useful in situations for which no better treatment options are available because of lack of efficacy, contraindications or adverse events. Additional trials are needed to assess TC in other neuropathic pain conditions and to determine how patients who have a chance to respond to the drug should be selected for treatment.

Plain-language summary: From these studies, we know that clonidine applied to the skin probably gives little benefit to patients with PDN, but we cannot be sure of this. Clonidine may provide partial pain relief to one out of eight people treated with it. We do not know how clonidine applied to the skin works in other neuropathic pain conditions. Treatment with the drug for short periods probably will not cause side effects, but we do not know from the studies if clonidine is safe for long-term use. Researchers have reported no differences in the total numbers of side effects among people taking TC or placebo. The most important message from this review is that clonidine applied to the skin may give partial pain relief for only some people with PDN.