GEM/cochrane-simplification huggingface dataset:
Abstract: Three trials (723 participants) were included. Only one trial used adequate outcome measures of efficacy; therefore, the results pertaining to efficacy are based on a single trial, whereas the results pertaining to adverse events are based on all three included trials. There was no overall difference in time to treatment withdrawal between the two drugs (hazard ratio (HR) of oxcarbazepine (OXC) versus carbamazepine (CBZ): 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.39). Further analyses showed no significant difference in treatment withdrawal for unacceptable side effects (HR of OXC versus CBZ: 0.85, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.24) and in treatment withdrawal for inadequate seizure control (HR of OXC versus CBZ: 1.33, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.15). Oxcarbazepine and carbamazepine appeared to be similarly effective and well tolerated although the confidence intervals around estimates were wide and do not rule out the possibility of important differences existing. Significantly fewer patients on carbamazepine treatment developed nausea or vomiting, or both (odds ratio of OXC versus CBZ: 3.15, 95% CI 1.39 to 7.14). Oxcarbazepine and carbamazepine appear to be similarly effective and well tolerated. However, the possibility of important differences existing between these drugs cannot be ruled out.

Plain-language summary: In this systematic review, we summarise three studies in which oxcarbazepine and carbamazepine treatment were compared directly. We found that both drugs appear to be equally effective and to cause side effects equally often. Significantly fewer patients on carbamazepine developed nausea or vomiting during treatment.
Abstract: We included 12 randomised controlled trials involving 1471 patients. All the trials were of relatively short duration (12 weeks to six months). After treatment, patients treated with endothelin receptor antagonists could walk on average 33.71 metres (95% confidence interval (CI) 24.90 to 42.52 metres) further than those treated with placebo in a six-minute walk test. Endothelin receptor antagonists improved more patients' World Health Organization/New York Heart Association (WHO/NYHA) functional class status than placebo (odds ratio (OR) 1.60; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.14), and reduced the odds of functional class deterioration compared with placebo (OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.42). There was a reduction in mortality that did not reach statistical significance on endothelin receptor antagonists (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.24), and limited data suggest that endothelin receptor antagonists improve the Borg dyspnoea score and cardiopulmonary haemodynamics in symptomatic patients. Hepatic toxicity was not common, and endothelin receptor antagonists were well tolerated in this population. However, several cases of irreversible liver failure caused by sitaxsentan have been reported that led to license holder for sitaxsentan to withdraw the product from all markets worldwide. Endothelin receptor antagonists can increase exercise capacity, improve WHO/NYHA functional class, prevent WHO/NYHA functional class deterioration, reduce dyspnoea and improve cardiopulmonary haemodynamic variables in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension with WHO/NYHA functional class II and III. However, there was only a trend towards endothelin receptor antagonists reducing mortality in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. Efficacy data are strongest in those with idiopathic pulmonary hypertension. The irreversible liver failure caused by sitaxsentan and its withdrawal from global markets emphasise the importance of hepatic monitoring in patients treated with endothelin receptor antagonists.

Plain-language summary: Tradiational therapies for pulmonary arterial hypertension include prostacyclin and its analogues, calcium channel blockers, nitric oxide (NO), and important adjunctive therapies, such as anticoagulants and oxygen. Endothelin receptor antagonists have recently been proposed as an alternative to these traditional therapies. This review includes twelve trials on 1471 participants. Endothelin receptor antagonists can improve exercise capacity, symptoms, and cardiopulmonary haemodynamic variables in people with symptomatic pulmonary arterial hypertension over a period of three to six months treatment. There is uncertainty as to whether endothelin receptor antagonists reduce mortality in this population. The most severe potential side effect was hepatic toxicity which was not common in these short-term trials.
Abstract: Forty one trials (n=4935 women) were included. The evidence suggested that GnRHas were more effective at symptom relief than no treatment/placebo. There was no statistically significant difference between GnRHas and danazol for dysmenorrhoea RR 0.98 (95%CI 0.92 to 1.04; P = 0.53). This equates to 3 fewer women per 1000 (95%CI 12 to 6) with symptomatic pain relief in the GnRHa group. More adverse events were reported in the GnRHa group. There was a benefit in overall resolution for GnRHas RR1.10 (95%CI 1.01 to 1.21, P=0.03) compared with danazol. There was no statistically significant difference in overall pain between GnRHas and levonorgestrel SMD -0.25 (95%CI -0.60 to 0.10, P=0.46). Evidence was limited on optimal dosage or duration of treatment for GnRHas. No route of administration appeared superior to another. GnRHas appear to be more effective at relieving pain associated with endometriosis than no treatment/placebo. There was no evidence of a difference in pain relief between GnRHas and danazol although more adverse events reported in the GnRHa groups. There was no evidence of a difference in pain relief between GnRHas and levonorgestrel and no studies compared GnRHas with analgesics.

Plain-language summary: Endometriosis is a common condition affecting women of child-bearing age, and is usually due to the presence of endometrial tissue in places other than the uterus. Common symptoms include pain and infertility. GnRHas are a group of drugs often used to treat endometriosis by decreasing hormone levels. This review found evidence to suggest treatment with a GnRHa improved symptom relief compared with no treatment or placebo. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference when compared with danazol or intra-uterine progestagen. However, there more side effects in the GnRHa group compared with the danazol group. There is not enough evidence to make clear if higher or lower doses of GnRHa are better, or which length of treatment is best.
Abstract: Five trials with a total of 924 participants met the inclusion criteria; 5% of participants were HIV positive. Only one small trial was methodologically adequate. The two largest trials (818 participants) had unclear allocation concealment and included < 90% of randomized participants in the analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in between the regimens for cure (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; 553 participants, 2 trials) or relapse (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.35; 448 participants, 2 trials). The number of adverse events was not significantly different (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.31; 714 participants, 3 trials), though the RR increased with rifabutin dose: 150 mg (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.12; 264 participants, 2 trials); and 300 mg (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.94 to 3.34; 450 participants, 2 trials). However, lack of dose adjustment by weight in the relevant trials complicates interpretation of this relationship. The replacement of rifampicin by rifabutin for first-line treatment of tuberculosis is not supported by the current evidence. HIV-positive people with tuberculosis, the group most likely to benefit from the rifabutin use, are under-represented in trials to date, and further trials in this group would be useful.

Plain-language summary: This review identified five trials involving 924 people, but none were of high quality. The review found no significant differences between rifabutin- and rifampicin-containing treatment in curing tuberculosis and preventing relapse, but higher doses of rifabutin might be associated with more adverse effects and there was no evidence that it could shorten treatment. However, very few people with HIV and tuberculosis, who are most likely to benefit from use of rifabutin due to its lack of interaction with antiretroviral drugs, were included in the trials. Better quality clinical trials are needed to understand the place of rifabutin in the treatment of people with tuberculosis, particularly those who also have HIV.
Abstract: The updated search retrieved 535 records; we included 13 parallel-designed RCTs comparing IMSI and ICSI (four studies were added since the previous version), comprising 2775 couples (IMSI = 1256; ICSI = 1519). We are uncertain if IMSI improves live birth rates (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.39; 5 studies, 929 couples; I² = 1%), miscarriage rates per couple (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.48; 10 studies, 2297 couples; I² = 0%, very-low quality evidence), and miscarriage rate per pregnancy (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.20; 10 studies, 783 couples; I² = 0%, very-low quality evidence). We are uncertain if IMSI improves clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.37; 13 studies, 2775 couples; I² = 47%, very-low quality evidence). None of the included studies reported congenital abnormalities. We judged the evidence for all outcomes to be of very low-quality. We downgraded the quality of the evidence due to limitations of the included studies (risk of bias), inconsistency of results, and a strong indication of publication bias. The current evidence from randomised controlled trials does not support or refute the clinical use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI). We are very uncertain of the chances of having a live birth and of the risk of having a miscarriage. We found very low-quality evidence that IMSI may increase chances of a clinical pregnancy, which means that we are still very uncertain about any real difference. We did not find any trials reporting on the risk of congenital abnormalities. Well-designed and sufficiently powered trials are still required.

Plain-language summary: We found 13 randomised controlled trials (four more than in the previous version), evaluating 2775 couples, that compared regular ICSI with IMSI for assisted reproduction. These studies were funded by fertility centres and universities. Based on the very low-quality evidence that we found, we are uncertain of the benefit of IMSI over ICSI. The chance of having a live birth with IMSI was between 20% and 32%, compared to 25% with ICSI. For women with a 7% risk of miscarriage with regular ICSI, the risk with IMSI was between 5% and 10%. The clinical pregnancy rate with IMSI was between 35% and 44%, compared with 32% with ICSI. We downgraded the quality of the evidence because of limitations in the included studies (risk of bias), inconsistency of the observed effect across studies, and high risk of publication bias. There was no evidence concerning congenital abnormalities. We conclude that the current evidence is very limited for suggesting using IMSI instead of ICSI in clinical practice.
Abstract: Sixteen orlistat (n = 10,631), 10 sibutramine (n = 2623) and four rimonabant trials (n = 6365) met inclusion criteria. Attrition rates averaged 30% to 40%. Compared to placebo, orlistat reduced weight by 2.9 kg (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.5 to 3.2 kg), sibutramine by 4.2 kg (95% CI 3.6 to 4.7 kg), and rimonabant by 4.7 kg (95% CI 4.1 to 5.3 kg). Patients on active drug therapy were significantly more likely to achieve 5% and 10% weight loss thresholds. Placebo-controlled weight losses were consistently lower in patients with diabetes. Orlistat reduced diabetes incidence, improved total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, blood pressure, and glycaemic control in patients with diabetes but increased rates of gastrointestinal side effects and slightly lowered HDL levels. Sibutramine improved HDL and triglyceride levels but raised blood pressure and pulse rate. Rimonabant improved HDL-cholesterol, triglyceride and blood pressure levels and glycaemic control in patients with diabetes but increased the risk of mood disorders. Orlistat, sibutramine and rimonabant have been studied in trials of one year or longer. Internal validity of studies was limited by high attrition rates. All three antiobesity agents are modestly effective in reducing weight and have differing effects on cardiovascular risk and adverse effects profiles. Longer and more methodologically rigorous studies of anti-obesity drugs that are powered to examine endpoints such as mortality and cardiovascular morbidity are required.

Plain-language summary: This review assessed the long-term benefits and risks of approved anti-obesity drugs in clinical trials of 1 to 4 years duration. Sixteen orlistat (10,631 patients), 10 sibutramine (2623 patients) and four rimonabant (6635 patients) studies were examined. High drop-out rates (30% to 40%) were a limitation of nearly all studies. Compared to placebo, all three drugs reduced weight by around five kg or less and orlistat reduced the number of high-risk patients who developed diabetes. No data to show that any of the three drugs lowers the risk of death or cardiovascular disease were found. The most prominent side effects were gastrointestinal for orlistat, cardiovascular for sibutramine (raised blood pressure and/or pulse rate) and psychiatric for rimonabant (mood disorders). In Europe, rimonabant is contraindicated for patients with severe depression and/or patients who are treated with antidepressive medications. Rimonabant is furthermore not recommended for patients with other untreated psychiatric conditions.  We conclude that: 1. average weight losses with current anti-obesity agents appear modest but may be of clinical benefit, and 2. better studies designed to examine mortality and cardiovascular morbidity are required to fully evaluate any potential benefit of such agents.
Abstract: We included 15 studies from the earlier review and two new studies (17 studies, 1342 participants) in seven neuropathic pain conditions. Eight cross-over studies with 302 participants had a median of 36 participants, and nine parallel group studies with 1040 participants had a median of 84 participants. Study quality was modest, though most studies were at high risk of bias due to small size. There was no first-tier or second-tier evidence for amitriptyline in treating any neuropathic pain condition. Only third-tier evidence was available. For only two of seven studies reporting useful efficacy data was amitriptyline significantly better than placebo (very low quality evidence). More participants experienced at least one adverse event; 55% of participants taking amitriptyline and 36% taking placebo. The risk ratio (RR) was 1.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 1.8) and the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome was 5.2 (3.6 to 9.1) (low quality evidence). Serious adverse events were rare. Adverse event and all-cause withdrawals were not different, but were rarely reported (very low quality evidence). Amitriptyline has been a first-line treatment for neuropathic pain for many years. The fact that there is no supportive unbiased evidence for a beneficial effect is disappointing, but has to be balanced against decades of successful treatment in many people with neuropathic pain. There is no good evidence of a lack of effect; rather our concern should be of overestimation of treatment effect. Amitriptyline should continue to be used as part of the treatment of neuropathic pain, but only a minority of people will achieve satisfactory pain relief. Limited information suggests that failure with one antidepressant does not mean failure with all.

Plain-language summary: In March 2015 we performed searches to look for new studies in adults with neuropathic pain of at least moderate intensity. We found only two additional small studies that did not provide any good quality evidence for either benefit or harm. This is disappointing, but we can still make useful comments about the drug. Amitriptyline probably does not work in neuropathic pain associated with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or treatments for cancer. Amitriptyline probably does work in other types of neuropathic pain, though we cannot be certain of this. Our best guess is that amitriptyline provides pain relief in about 1 in 4 (25%) more people than does placebo, and about 1 in 4 (25%) more people than placebo report having at least one adverse event, which may be troublesome, but probably not serious. We cannot trust either figure based on the information available. The most important message is that amitriptyline probably does give really good pain relief to some people with neuropathic pain, but only a minority of them; amitriptyline will not work for most people.
Abstract: Eight RCTs (with 719 participants) were included in this update. The trials were small in size and methodological quality was poor. Viral detection was performed in 38% of participants, among whom 56% had positive results. Mortality between corticosteroids and control groups was non-significant (RR, 0.93, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.24). At 1 to 3 months follow-up, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was higher in the corticosteroids group compared to the control group (MD 7.36%, 95% CI 4.94 to 9.79), but there was substantial heterogeneity. Benefits were observed in LVEF in two trials with 200 children given corticosteroids (MD 9.00%, 95% CI 7.48 to 10.52). New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and left ventricular end-stage systole diameter (LVESD) were not affected. Creatine phosphokinase (CPK) (MD -104.00 U/L, 95% CI -115.18 to -92.82), Isoenzyme of creatine phosphate MB (CKMB) (MD 10.35 U/L, 95% CI 8.92 to 11.78), were reduced in the corticosteroids group compared to the control group, although the evidence is limited to small participant numbers. There were insufficient data on adverse events. For people diagnosed with viral myocarditis and low LVEF, corticosteroids do not reduce mortality. They may improve cardiac function but the trials were of low quality and small size so this finding must be regarded as uncertain. High-quality, large-scale RCTs should be careful designed to determine the role of corticosteroid treatment for viral myocarditis. Adverse events should also be carefully evaluated.

Plain-language summary: The effect of hormone treatment on viral myocarditis remains controversial. The review authors conducted a thorough search of the medical literature. Eight randomised trials with 719 patients which met the inclusion criteria compared hormone treatment plus conventional therapy with no hormone. Hormone treatment did not reduce mortality from viral myocarditis. Improvements in heart function were found but the trials were of low quality and small size so this finding must be regarded as uncertain. Further trials comparing hormone treatment in people suffering viral myocarditis with placebo are warranted. There are no conflicts of interest in the review.
Abstract: From 69 identified references, nine RCTs (6,584 patients) met inclusion criteria. Tiotropium reduced the odds of a COPD exacerbation (OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.83) and related hospitalisations (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.82) compared to placebo or ipratropium. When applied to an annual baseline risk of 45% for exacerbations and 10% for hospitalisation, the number of patients needed to treat with tiotropium for one year were 14 (95% CI 11 to 22) to prevent one exacerbation and 30 (95% CI 22 to 61) to prevent one hospitalisation compared to placebo and ipratropium. Reductions in these endpoints compared to long-acting ß2-agonists were not statistically significant. Similar patterns were evident for quality-of-life and symptom scales. Increases in FEV1 and FVC from baseline were significantly larger with tiotropium than with placebo, ipratropium and long-acting ß2-agonists over 6 to 12 months. The decline in trough FEV1 from steady state was 30 ml (95% CI 7 to 53 ml) less with tiotropium than with placebo or ipratropium over one year; no data on decline in FEV1 from steady state were available for long-acting ß2-agonists. Dry mouth was increased by tiotropium. Tiotropium reduced COPD exacerbations and related hospitalisations compared to placebo and ipratropium. It also improved health-related quality-of-life and symptom scores among patients with moderate and severe disease, and may have slowed decline in FEV1. Additional long-term studies are required to evaluate its effect on mortality and change in FEV1 to clarify its role in comparison to, or in combination with, long-acting ß2-agonists and to assess its effectiveness in mild and very severe COPD.

Plain-language summary: The evidence from the trials in the review indicates that, compared with a placebo and ipratropium, tiotropium does reduce exacerbations and related hospitalisations and improves quality of life and symptoms in people with moderately severe COPD, although the evidence with regards to decline in lung function is less clear. Tiotropium caused dry mouth. Compared with other commonly used drugs in COPD, such as long-acting beta agonists (including salmeterol), there is not enough evidence for us to draw reliable conclusions. In order to better understand the effects of this drug we need long-term studies (over several years), studies conducted in mild and severe COPD, and additional studies that measure outcomes in relation to other agents used in the treatment of this condition.
Abstract: Studies of prophylactic administration of protein free SS note a variable improvement in the respiratory status and a decrease in respiratory distress syndrome in infants who receive prophylactic protein free SS. The meta-analysis supports a decrease in the risk of pneumothorax (typical relative risk 0.67, 95% CI 0.50, 0.90), pulmonary interstitial emphysema (typical relative risk 0.68, 95% CI 0.50, 0.93), and neonatal mortality (typical relative risk 0.70, 95% CI 0.58, 0.85). No differences were seen in the risk of intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, retinopathy of prematurity and cerebral palsy. The meta-analysis supports an increase in the risk of patent ductus arteriosus associated with prophylactic SS administration (typical relative risk 1.11, 95% CI 1.00, 1.22), and an increase in the risk of pulmonary hemorrhage (typical relative risk 3.28, 95% CI 1.50, 7.16). Prophylactic intratracheal administration of protein free synthetic surfactant to infants at risk of developing respiratory distress syndrome has been demonstrated to improve clinical outcome. Infants who receive prophylactic protein free SS have a decreased risk of pneumothorax, a decreased risk of pulmonary interstitial emphysema, and a decreased risk of neonatal mortality. Infants who receive prophylactic protein free SS have an increased risk of developing patent ductus arteriosus and pulmonary hemorrhage.

Plain-language summary: The review of trials found evidence that synthetic surfactant reduced the risk of RDS in babies considered at risk. Babies who receive prophylactic synthetic surfactant have a decreased risk of RDS, pneumothorax (air in the lung cavity) and death. However, babies who receive prophylactic synthetic surfactant have an increased risk of developing lung hemorrhage and patent ductus arteriosus, an open vessel that channels blood from the lungs to the body. Although this can lead to potentially life threatening complications, the overall benefits of surfactant treatment outweigh the risks.