GEM/cochrane-simplification huggingface dataset:
Abstract: Ten trials met the inclusion criteria. Telehealthcare was assessed as part of a complex intervention, including nurse case management and other interventions. Telehealthcare was associated with a clinically significant increase in quality of life in two trials with 253 participants (mean difference -6.57 (95% confidence interval (CI) -13.62 to 0.48); minimum clinically significant difference is a change of -4.0), but the confidence interval was wide. Telehealthcare showed a significant reduction in the number of patients with one or more emergency department attendances over 12 months; odds ratio (OR) 0.27 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.66) in three trials with 449 participants, and the OR of having one or more admissions to hospital over 12 months was 0.46 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.65) in six trials with 604 participants. There was no significant difference in the OR for deaths over 12 months for the telehealthcare group as compared to the usual care group in three trials with 503 participants; OR 1.05 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.75). Telehealthcare in COPD appears to have a possible impact on the quality of life of patients and the number of times patients attend the emergency department and the hospital. However, further research is needed to clarify precisely its role since the trials included telehealthcare as part of more complex packages.

Plain-language summary: This study shows that people treated this way do manage to stay out of hospital longer than people treated by conventional systems of care. There are also some data showing that although these systems are expensive to start off with, if they are successful at keeping people out of hospital, then the cost saving from this means that they are cheaper in the long run.
Abstract: Fifty-one studies, with 5762 participants, were included: 3277 participants were treated with a single oral dose of paracetamol and 2425 with placebo. About half of participants treated with paracetamol at standard doses achieved at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours, compared with about 20% treated with placebo. NNTs for at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours following a single dose of paracetamol were as follows: 500 mg NNT 3.5 (2.7 to 4.8); 600 to 650 mg NNT 4.6 (3.9 to 5.5); 975 to 1000 mg NNT 3.6 (3.4 to 4.0). There was no dose response. Sensitivity analysis showed no significant effect of trial size or quality on this outcome. About half of participants needed additional analgesia over four to six hours, compared with about 70% with placebo. Five people would need to be treated with 1000 mg paracetamol, the most commonly used dose, to prevent one needing rescue medication over four to six hours, who would have needed it with placebo. Adverse event reporting was inconsistent and often incomplete. Reported adverse events were mainly mild and transient, and occurred at similar rates with 1000 mg paracetamol and placebo. No serious adverse events were reported. Withdrawals due to adverse events were uncommon and occurred in both paracetamol and placebo treatment arms. A single dose of paracetamol provides effective analgesia for about half of patients with acute postoperative pain, for a period of about four hours, and is associated with few, mainly mild, adverse events.

Plain-language summary: This review assessed data from fifty-one studies and found that paracetamol provided effective pain relief for about half of participants experiencing moderate to severe pain after an operation, including dental surgery for a period of about four hours. There were no clear differences between doses of paracetamol typically used. These single dose studies did not associate paracetamol with any serious side effects.
Abstract: Four studies were eligible for inclusion (281 participants): Two studies compared relaxation with electroacupuncture or superficial needling, one study compared relaxation with paced respiration or placebo control (α-wave electroencephalographic biofeedback) and one study compared relaxation with no treatment. No evidence was found of a difference between relaxation and acupuncture or superficial needle insertion in the number of hot flushes per 24 hours (mean difference (MD) 0.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.33 to 1.43, two studies, 72 participants, I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Nor did any evidence suggest a difference between the two interventions in hot flush severity, measured using the Kupperman Index (MD -1.32, 95% CI -5.06 to 2.43, two studies, 72 participants, I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). The other two studies found no clear evidence of a difference in hot flush frequency between relaxation and paced respiration, placebo or no treatment. The data for these comparisons were unsuitable for analysis. None of these studies reported night sweats, sleep disturbances associated with night sweats or adverse effects as an outcome. The main limitations of identified evidence were lack of data, imprecision and failure to report study methods in adequate detail. Evidence is insufficient to show the effectiveness of relaxation techniques as treatment for menopausal vasomotor symptoms, or to determine whether this treatment is more effective than no treatment, placebo, acupuncture, superficial needle insertion or paced respiration.

Plain-language summary: We found four randomised controlled studies, with 281 participants. Relaxation was compared with electroacupuncture, superficial needling, paced respiration, placebo and no treatment. The age range of participants was 30 to 77 years. These trials were conducted in Sweden, the UK and the USA. No study was funded by an agency with commercial interest in the results of the study. The evidence is current to February 2014. Evidence is insufficient to show the effectiveness of relaxation techniques as treatment for menopausal vasomotor symptoms, or to determine whether this treatment is more effective than no treatment, placebo, acupuncture, superficial needle insertion or paced respiration. No evidence indicates that relaxation reduces the number of hot flushes per 24 hours or their severity. None of the studies reported night sweats, sleep disturbances associated with night sweats or adverse effects as an outcome. The quality of the evidence was very low. The main limitations of identified evidence included lack of data, imprecision and failure to report study methods in adequate detail.
Abstract: We identified six trials for inclusion. Five studies on 206 participants contributed data, while one study was available in abstract form only and was not fully incorporated into this review. For the primary outcome of endotracheal intubation there were two studies that contributed data: two intubations were needed in 45 participants on NPPV and no intubations in 41 control patients (risk ratio 4.48; 95% CI 0.23 to 89.13). There were no deaths in either of these studies. Length of hospital stay was reported in two studies, though meta-analysis was not possible. Hospitalisation was reported in one small study, in which there were three admissions out of 17 on NPPV and 10 admissions out of 16 in control patients (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09, 0.84). This review of studies has highlighted the paucity of data that exist to support the use of NPPV in patients in status asthmaticus. As such this course of treatment remains controversial despite its continued use in current clinical practice. Larger, prospective randomised controlled trials of rigorous methodological design are needed to determine the role of NPPV in patients with asthma.

Plain-language summary: We undertook this review to determine the effectiveness of NPPV in patients with severe acute asthma. Six randomised controlled trials were included in the review. Compared to usual medical care alone, NPPV reduced hospitalisations, increased the number of patients discharged from the emergency department, and improved respiratory rate and lung function measurements. The application of NPPV in patients with asthma, despite some promising preliminary results, still remains controversial. Further studies are needed to determine the role of NPPV in the management of severe acute asthma and especially in status asthmaticus.
Abstract: The updated search resulted in no new trials meeting the inclusion criteria of this review, thus leaving it to the seven already included randomised trials (six evaluating ursodeoxycholic acid versus placebo or no intervention, and one evaluating tauro-ursodeoxycholic acid versus no intervention) enrolling a total of 335 participants. The administration of bile acids began one day or more after liver transplantation. All patients received the standard triple-drug immunosuppressive regimen (steroids, azathioprine, and cyclosporine or tacrolimus) to suppress the allograft rejection response after liver transplantation. Bile acids compared with placebo or no intervention did not significantly change all-cause mortality (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.36), mortality related to allograft rejection (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.12), retransplantation (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.86), acute cellular rejection, or number of patients with steroid-resistant rejection. Bile acids significantly reduced the number of patients who had chronic rejection in a fixed-effect model but not in a random-effects model meta-analysis. Bile acids were safe and well tolerated by liver-transplanted patients. However, this observation is based on data analysis from three trials with only 187 patients. We did not find evidence to support or refute bile acids for liver-transplanted patients. Further randomised trials are necessary before bile acids can be recommended to liver-transplanted patients.

Plain-language summary: Results of the seven randomised clinical trials included in the review in which patients received standard immunosuppressive treatment (steroids, azathioprine, and cyclosporine or tacrolimus) with or without bile acids after liver transplantation, did not show any significant effects of bile acids on all-cause mortality, mortality related to rejection, acute cellular rejection, steroid resistant rejection, or need for retransplantation. One analysis suggested that bile acids might beneficially influence number of patients with chronic rejection, but was contradicted by the analyses. The evidence that the use of ursodeoxycholic acid might have beneficial effects on chronic rejection and length of hospitalisation is weak as it is produced from trials with high risk of bias and insufficient number of included patients. That bile acids seemed well tolerated, with no reports of serious adverse events, is good knowledge, but much more research is needed before their use is acquitted. None of the randomised clinical trials assessed the effects of bile acids on quality of life or cost-effectiveness.
Abstract: Four trials involving 1873 participants, heterogeneous with respect to aetiology of ED, were included. Study design was two cross-over and two parallel group trials. Only the latter provided adequate data for meta-analyses. PGE1 was effective during follow-up in the "at least one successful intercourse" outcome (Peto Odds Ratio, OR 7.22, 95% CI. 5.68-9.18) . One cross-over study reported "at least one successful intercourse" in 63.6% of participants with at least one dose of PGE1 (P < 0.01 for each active dose versus placebo). In the other cross-over study, only one of three treatment groups conducted a self-evaluation (55.5%: "good" or "excellent" response). Adverse effects were most frequent in the treated groups and occurred more often and intensely as doses increased. Penile pain (Peto OR 7.39, 95% CI. 5.40-10.12) and minor urethral trauma (Peto OR 3.79, 95% CI. 1.88-7.65) were predominant. PGE1 was beneficial for many participants with ED of different aetiology. Adverse effects were proportional to dosage, albeit never serious. The use of PGE1 in ED could have been better interpreted if its effectiveness were compared by aetiology and with different forms of administrations, a longer follow-up were considered and more emphasis given to patient/partner relationships and quality of life.

Plain-language summary: The review of trials found that men using PGE1 reported more satisfactory sexual experiences. Higher doses gave greater benefits but also increased the adverse effects. The most common adverse effect is some pain, and men may prefer the urethral medication rather than injections.
Abstract: We identified RCTs for the eight cardioprotective agents N-acetylcysteine, phenethylamines, coenzyme Q10, a combination of vitamins E and C and N-acetylcysteine, L-carnitine, carvedilol, amifostine and dexrazoxane (mostly for adults with advanced breast cancer). All studies had methodological limitations and for the first seven agents there were too few studies to allow pooling of results. None of the individual studies showed a cardioprotective effect. The 10 included studies on dexrazoxane enrolled 1619 patients. The meta-analysis for dexrazoxane showed a statistically significant benefit in favour of dexrazoxane for the occurrence of heart failure (risk ratio (RR) 0.29, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.41). No evidence was found for a difference in response rate or survival between the dexrazoxane and control groups. The results for adverse effects were ambiguous. No significant difference in the occurrence of secondary malignancies was identified. No definitive conclusions can be made about the efficacy of cardioprotective agents for which pooling of results was impossible. Dexrazoxane prevents heart damage and no evidence for a difference in response rate or survival between the dexrazoxane and control groups was identified. The evidence available did not allow us to reach any definite conclusions about adverse effects. We conclude that if the risk of cardiac damage is expected to be high, it might be justified to use dexrazoxane in patients with cancer treated with anthracyclines. However, clinicians should weigh the cardioprotective effect of dexrazoxane against the possible risk of adverse effects for each individual patient.

Plain-language summary: Certain drugs might prevent this damage, but for many of these drugs, the review authors found no high quality evidence about whether they were effective in protecting the heart and they were unable to draw conclusions. For dexrazoxane, the review authors found 10 studies enrolling over 1600 patients. These studies provided evidence that dexrazoxane prevented heart damage without interfering with the anti-tumour effects of anthracycline treatment. Patients who got dexrazoxane with their anthracycline treatment had about one third of the risk of heart failure compared to patients who got anthracyclines without dexrazoxane. Dexrazoxane had no effect on survival. We can't be sure about whether it had any undesirable side effects.
Abstract: Findings were based on the results of a single study with some design limitations. Data were available from one study involving 162 women with a multiple pregnancy. For the only reported primary outcome, perinatal mortality, we are uncertain whether specialised antenatal clinics makes any difference compared to standard care (risk ratio (RR) 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 4.03; 324 infants, very low quality evidence). Women receiving specialised antenatal care were significantly more likely to birth by caesarean section (RR 1.38; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.81; 162 women, moderate quality evidence). Data were not reported in the study on the following primary outcomes: small-for-gestational age, very preterm birth or maternal death. There were no differences identified between specialised antenatal care and standard care for other secondary outcomes examined: postnatal depression (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.20; 133 women, very low quality evidence), breastfeeding (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.68; 123 women, very low quality evidence), stillbirth (RR 0.68; 0.12 to 4.04) or neonatal death (RR 2.05; 95% CI 0.19 to 22.39) (324 infants). There is currently limited information available from randomised controlled trials to assess the role of 'specialised' antenatal clinics for women with a multiple pregnancy compared with 'standard' antenatal care in improving maternal and infant health outcomes. The value of 'specialised' multiple pregnancy clinics in improving health outcomes for women and their infants requires evaluation in appropriately powered and designed randomised controlled trials.

Plain-language summary: We found one small study involving 162 women and their babies (searched date 31 May 2015). The quality of the study was very low to moderate for our outcomes. The study was too small to provide answers to our question as we were most interested in the chance of the babies being born too early, their health and whether they survived. We did find that mothers with multiple pregnancies were more likely to have a caesarean birth if they attended specialised multiple pregnancy clinics. There is insufficient good quality evidence to support the use of specialised clinics for women with multiple pregnancies. There is an urgent need for more good quality studies to answer this important question. A visual summary of some of the results from this review can be found here (on screen version) or here (for a printable version).
Abstract: We found few controlled trials. They were of short duration and enrolled small numbers of patients. Because of their poor internal validity, the characteristics of the populations studied, and the types of interventions and outcomes, none of the trials fitted our criteria for inclusion. However, all these trials found BtA to be superior to placebo as did large case-control and cohort studies, which reported that around 90% of patients benefited. There are no high quality, randomised, controlled efficacy data to support the use of Bt for blepharospasm. Despite this, other studies suggest that BtA is highly effective and safe for treating blepharospasm and support its use.  The effect size (90% of patients benefit) seen in open studies makes it very difficult and probably unethical to perform new placebo-controlled trials of efficacy of BtA for blepharospasm.  Future trials should explore technical factors such as the optimum treatment intervals, different injection techniques, doses, Bt types and formulations. Other issues include service delivery, quality of life, long-term efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity.

Plain-language summary: No randomised controlled trials with sufficient numbers of patients fitted the review criteria. Trials identified found BtA to be superior to placebo as did large case-control and cohort studies, with around 90% of patients benefiting. The most common adverse effects affected the eyes and were short lived.
Abstract: We included 10 trials involving 1904 participants. The risk of bias was low in six studies. Four studies were open label and were rated as high risk of performance bias. One of these studies was also rated as high risk for attrition bias. Four trials reported on poor outcome (death, vegetative state, or severe disability) with a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 1.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.15). All trials reported on death from all causes with a pooled RR of 1.00 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.18). In a trial that combined short-term antifibrinolytic treatment (< 72 hours) with preventative measures for cerebral ischaemia the RR for poor outcome was 0.85 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.14). Antifibrinolytic treatment reduced the risk of re-bleeding reported at the end of follow-up (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.97; 78 per 1000 participants), but there was heterogeneity (I² = 62%) between the trials. The pooled RR for reported cerebral ischaemia was 1.41 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.91, 83 per 1000 participants), again with heterogeneity between the trials (I² = 52%). Antifibrinolytic treatment showed no effect on the reported rate of hydrocephalus in five trials (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.36). The current evidence does not support the use of antifibrinolytic drugs in the treatment of people with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage, even in those who have concomitant treatment strategies to prevent cerebral ischaemia. Results on short-term treatment are promising, but not conclusive. Further randomised trials evaluating short-term antifibrinolytic treatment are needed to evaluate its effectiveness.

Plain-language summary: This review included 10 trials, totaling 1904 participants that investigated the effect of these drugs in people with SAH. Antifibrinolytic treatment does indeed reduce the risk of rebleeding, but does not improve survival or the chance of being independent in everyday activities. This may be due to an increase in one of the other common complications of SAH. We conclude that antifibrinolytic treatment should not routinely be given to people with SAH, but new randomised trials are needed to establish if short-term treatment might be beneficial.
Abstract: We included four trials in which 3267 children aged two to 35 months participated. Analysis showed that zinc supplementation in addition to standard antibiotic therapy in children with severe and non-severe pneumonia failed to show a statistically significant effect on time-to-clinical recovery (hazard ratio 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.11). Similary, zinc supplementation in children with severe pneumonia, as an adjunct to standard antibiotic therapy, did not show a statistically significant effect on time-to-recovery from tachypnoea (respiratory rate > 50 breaths per minute) (hazard ratio 1.13; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.57) and time-to-recovery from chest in-drawing (hazard ratio 1.08; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.31) as compared to the control group. Zinc supplementation in children with severe pneumonia also showed a non-significant effect on time-to-hospital discharge as compared to the control (hazard ratio 1.04; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.22). Evidence provided in this review is insufficient to recommend the use of zinc as an adjunct to standard antibiotic therapy for pneumonia in children aged two to 35 months.

Plain-language summary: The review authors found four randomised control trials of adequate quality evaluating the impact of zinc supplementation as an adjunct to antibiotics for pneumonia in children. These studies were conducted in Bangladesh, Nepal and India, in which 3267 children aged two to 35 months were randomly assigned to receive zinc or placebo. No serious adverse events were observed. Analysis did not show any significant effect on the clinical recovery of patients in terms of time-to-recovery from tachypnoea (respiratory rate > 50 breaths per minute) and time-to-recovery from chest indrawing. It also showed non-significant effects of the intervention on the time-to-hospital discharge. Evidence provided in this review is insufficient to recommend use of zinc as an adjunct to standard antibiotic therapy for pneumonia in children aged two to 35 months.