GEM/cochrane-simplification huggingface dataset:
Abstract: Thirteen studies (254 individuals) met our inclusion criteria. These included 75 individuals with type 1 diabetes and 158 individuals with type 2 diabetes. The median reduction in urinary sodium was 203 mmol/24 h (11.9 g/day) in type 1 diabetes and 125 mmol/24 h (7.3 g/day) in type 2 diabetes. The median duration of salt restriction was one week in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. BP was reduced in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. In type 1 diabetes (56 individuals), salt restriction reduced BP by -7.11/-3.13 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic); 95% CI: systolic BP (SBP) -9.13 to -5.10; diastolic BP (DBP) -4.28 to -1.98). In type 2 diabetes (56 individuals), salt restriction reduced BP by -6.90/-2.87 mm Hg (95% CI: SBP -9.84 to -3.95; DBP -4.39 to -1.35). There was a greater reduction in BP in normotensive patients, possibly due to a larger decrease in salt intake in this group. Although the studies are not extensive, this meta-analysis shows a large fall in BP with salt restriction, similar to that of single drug therapy. All diabetics should consider reducing salt intake at least to less than 5-6 g/day in keeping with current recommendations for the general population and may consider lowering salt intake to lower levels, although further studies are needed.

Plain-language summary: This review found 13 studies including 254 patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Reducing salt intake by 8.5 g/day lowered BP by 7/3 mm Hg. Public health guidelines recommend reducing dietary salt intake to less than 5-6 g/day and people with diabetes would benefit from reducing salt in their diet to at least this level.
Abstract: A total of 14 trials were included in this review; 4970 patient results were analysed. Four trials evaluating vitamin K antagonists (VKA) versus no VKA suggested that oral anticoagulation may favour autologous venous, but not artificial, graft patency as well as limb salvage and survival. Two other studies comparing VKA with aspirin (ASA) or aspirin and dipyridamole provided evidence to support a positive effect of VKA on the patency of venous but not artificial grafts. Three trials comparing low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) to unfractionated heparin (UFH) failed to demonstrate a significant difference on patency. One trial comparing LMWH with placebo found no significant improvement in graft patency over the first postoperative year in a population receiving aspirin. One trial showed an advantage for LMWH versus aspirin and dipyridamol at one year for patients undergoing limb salvage procedures. Perioperative administration of ancrod showed no greater benefit when compared to unfractionated heparin. Dextran 70 showed similar graft patency rates to LMWH but a significantly higher proportion of patients developed heart failure with dextran. Patients undergoing infrainguinal venous graft are more likely to benefit from treatment with VKA than platelet inhibitors. Patients receiving an artificial graft benefit from platelet inhibitors (aspirin). However, the evidence is not conclusive. Randomised controlled trials with larger patient numbers are needed in the future to compare antithrombotic therapies with either placebo or antiplatelet therapies.

Plain-language summary: Surgery to bypass the blockage uses either a piece of vein from another part of the person’s body or a synthetic graft. The bypass may help improve blood supply to the leg but the graft can also become blocked, even in the first year. To help prevent this, people are given aspirin (an antiplatelet drug) or a vitamin K antagonist (anti-blood clotting or antithrombotic drug), or both, to try to stop loss of blood flow through the graft (patency). The review of trials found that patients undergoing venous grafts were more likely to benefit from treatment with vitamin K antagonists than platelet inhibitors. Patients receiving an artificial graft may benefit from platelet inhibitors (aspirin). However, the evidence is not conclusive. Although a total of 14 randomised, controlled trials involving 4970 patients were included in the review, trials with larger patient numbers are needed. This is because there was considerable variation between the included trials in whether patients received both types of drugs, anticoagulation levels and how they were measured, and the indications for surgery, intermittent claudication or critical limb ischaemia.
Abstract: Fifteen trials involving 3781 participants were included. No studies reported the effect of meglitinides on mortality or morbidity. In the eleven studies comparing meglitinides to placebo, both repaglinide and nateglinide resulted in a reductions in glycosylated haemoglobin (0.1% to 2.1% reduction in HbA1c for repaglinide; 0.2% to 0.6% for nateglinide). Only two trials compared repaglinide to nateglinide (342 participants), with greater reduction in glycosylated haemoglobin in those receiving repaglinide. Repaglinide (248 participants in three trials) had a similar degree of effect in reducing glycosylated haemoglobin as metformin. Nateglinide had a similar or slightly less marked effect on glycosylated haemoglobin than metformin (one study, 355 participants). Weight gain was generally greater in those treated with meglitinides compared with metformin (up to three kg in three months). Diarrhoea occurred less frequently and hypoglycaemia occurred more frequently but rarely severely enough as to require assistance. Meglitinides may offer an alternative oral hypoglycaemic agent of similar potency to metformin, and may be indicated where side effects of metformin are intolerable or where metformin is contraindicated. However, there is no evidence available to indicate what effect meglitinides will have on important long-term outcomes, particularly mortality.

Plain-language summary: No studies reported the effect of meglitinides on mortality or diabetes related complications. In the eleven studies comparing meglitinides to placebo, both repaglinide and nateglinide resulted in an improved blood sugar control. Weight gain was generally greater in those treated with meglitinides compared with metformin (up to three kg in three months), another oral antidiabetic drug. Here, diarrhoea occurred less frequently and hypoglycaemia occurred more frequently but rarely severely enough as to require assistance.  Meglitinides may offer an alternative oral hypoglycaemic agent of similar potency to metformin, and may be indicated where side effects of metformin are intolerable (in particular persistent diarrhoea) or where metformin is contraindicated. However, there is no evidence available yet to indicate what effect meglitinides will have on important long-term outcomes, in particular, on mortality. As yet, the experience with meglitinides in terms of side effects is limited. Results from other Cochrane review groups may provide additional information about the potential role of meglitinides in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Abstract: Fifteen trials including a total of 1219 participants met the inclusion criteria. No trial to date has measured the effect of chitosan on mortality or morbidity. Analyses indicated that chitosan preparations result in a significantly greater weight loss (weighted mean difference -1.7 kg; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.1 to -1.3 kg, P < 0.00001), decrease in total cholesterol (-0.2 mmol/L [95% CI -0.3 to -0.1], P < 0.00001), and a decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure compared with placebo. There were no clear differences between intervention and control groups in terms of frequency of adverse events or in faecal fat excretion. However, the quality of many studies was sub-optimal and analyses restricted to studies that met allocation concealment criteria, were larger, or of longer duration showed that such trials produced substantially smaller decreases in weight and total cholesterol. There is some evidence that chitosan is more effective than placebo in the short-term treatment of overweight and obesity. However, many trials to date have been of poor quality and results have been variable. Results obtained from high quality trials indicate that the effect of chitosan on body weight is minimal and unlikely to be of clinical significance.

Plain-language summary: Fifteen studies which lasted between 4 to 24 weeks including a total of 1219 participants were analysed. Trials of chitosan to date have varied considerably in terms of quality. The review suggests that chitosan may have a small effect on body weight but results from high quality trials indicate that this effect is likely to be minimal.
Abstract: Six studies were included, with a total of 440 participants. The interventions examined were cognitive therapy (CT), behavioural therapy (BT), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), behavioural stress management (BSM) and psychoeducation. All forms of psychotherapy except psychoeducation showed a significant improvement in hypochondriacal symptoms compared to waiting list control (SMD (random) [95% CI] = -0.86 [-1.25 to -0.46]). For some therapies, significant improvements were found in the secondary outcomes of general functioning (CBT), resource use (psychoeducation), anxiety (CT, BSM), depression (CT, BSM) and physical symptoms (CBT). These secondary outcome findings were based on smaller numbers of participants and there was significant heterogeneity between studies. Cognitive therapy, behavioural therapy, cognitive behavioural therapy and behavioural stress management are effective in reducing symptoms of hypochondriasis. However, studies included in the review used small numbers of participants and do not allow estimation of effect size, comparison between different types of psychotherapy or whether people are "cured". Most long-term outcome data were uncontrolled. Further studies should make use of validated rating scales, assess treatment acceptability and effect on resource use, and determine the active ingredients and nonspecific factors that are important in psychotherapy for hypochondriasis.

Plain-language summary: The objective of this review was to assess whether any form of psychotherapy is effective in the management of people suffering from hypochondriasis. Six studies were included in the review. Analysis of data suggested that, compared to being on a waiting list, forms of cognitive and behaviour therapy, or a non-specific therapy called behavioural stress management all improve the symptoms of hypochondriasis. However, the numbers of people in the studies were small and it was not possible to tell how much of an improvement each therapy made. It is possible that the improvements seen were due to non-specific factors involved in regular contact with a therapist rather than specific properties of these forms of psychotherapy. It was also not possible to make comparisons between the different types of psychotherapy. A study of psychoeducation was not considered to be sufficient evidence that this form of psychotherapy is effective.
Abstract: Fifteen trials involving 2022 people were included. Compared to placebo, haloperidol was more effective at reducing manic symptoms, both as monotherapy (Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) -5.85, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) -7.69 to -4.00) and as adjunctive treatment to lithium or valproate (WMD -5.20, 95% CI -9.26 to -1.14). There was a statistically significant difference, with haloperidol being less effective than aripiprazole (Relative Risk (RR) 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73). No significant differences between haloperidol and risperidone, olanzapine, carbamazepine or valproate were found. Compared with placebo, a statistically significant difference in favour of haloperidol in failure to complete treatment (RR 0.74, 95% Cl 0.57 to 0.96) was reported. Haloperidol was associated with less weight gain than olanzapine (RR: 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.67), but with a higher incidence of tremor (RR: 3.01, 95% CI 1.55 to 5.84) and other movement disorders. There is some evidence that haloperidol is an effective treatment for acute mania. From the limited data available, there was no difference in overall efficacy of treatment between haloperidol and olanzapine or risperidone. Some evidence suggests that haloperidol could be less effective than aripiprazole. Referring to tolerability, when considering the poor evidence comparing drugs, clinicians and patients should consider different side effect profiles as an important issue to inform their choice.

Plain-language summary: Fifteen trials met the inclusion criteria and are included in the review. Interpretation of the results was hindered by the small total sample size and by the low quality of reporting of the included trials. There was some evidence that haloperidol was more efficacious than placebo in terms of reduction of manic and psychotic symptom scores, when used both as monotherapy and as add-on treatment to lithium or valproate. There is no evidence of difference in efficacy between haloperidol and risperidone, olanzapine, valproate, carbamazepine, sultopride and zuclopentixol. There was a statistically significant difference with haloperidol being probably less effective than aripiprazole. No comparative efficacy data with quetiapine, lithium or chlorpromazine were reported. Haloperidol caused more extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) than placebo and more movement disorders and EPS but less weight gain than olanzapine. Haloperidol caused more EPS than valproate but no difference was found between haloperidol and lithium, carbamazepine, sultopride and risperidone in terms of side effects profile.
Abstract: The five included trials led to the following results:  1. There was no significant improvement in agitation among haloperidol treated patients, compared with controls.  2. Aggression decreased among patients with agitated dementia treated with haloperidol; other aspects of agitation were not affected significantly in treated patients compared with controls.  3. Although two studies showed increased drop-outs due to adverse effects among haloperidol patients, there was no significant difference in drop-out rates, comparing all haloperidol treated patients with controls.  4. The data were insufficient to examine response to treatment in relation to length of treatment, degree of dementia, age or sex of patients, and cause of dementia. 1. Evidence suggests that haloperidol was useful in reducing aggression, but was associated with adverse effects; there was no evidence to support the routine use of this drug for other manifestations of agitation in dementia.  2. Similar drop-out rates among haloperidol and placebo treated patients suggested that poorly controlled symptoms, or other factors, may be important in causing treatment discontinuation.  3. Variations in degree of dementia, dosage and length of haloperidol treatment, and in ways of assessing response to treatment suggested caution in the interpretation of reported effects of haloperidol in the management of agitation in dementia.  4. The present study confirmed that haloperidol should not be used routinely to treat patients with agitated dementia. Treatment of agitated dementia with haloperidol should be individualized and patients should be monitored for adverse effects of therapy.

Plain-language summary: In the present study haloperidol treatment was associated with a lower degree of aggression than was placebo. Adverse effects occurred more frequently in haloperidol treated patients than controls, but similar drop-out rates among treated and control patients suggested that for some patients adverse effects may have been tolerated because of better control of behaviour. Our findings indicated that there is little evidence to support a benefit of haloperidol on manifestations of agitation other than aggression, and that haloperidol should not be used routinely to treat patients with agitated dementia. Treatment of agitated dementia should be individualized, with careful monitoring of benefits and adverse effects.
Abstract: We included four trials in this review and did not identify new studies from the search in April 2015. Home-based end-of-life care increased the likelihood of dying at home compared with usual care (risk ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 1.55, P = 0.0002; Chi2 = 1.72, df = 2, P = 0.42, I2 = 0%; 3 trials; N = 652; high quality evidence). Admission to hospital while receiving home-based end-of-life care varied between trials, and this was reflected by a high level of statistical heterogeneity in this analysis (range RR 0.62 to RR 2.61; 4 trials; N = 823; moderate quality evidence). Home-based end-of-life care may slightly improve patient satisfaction at one-month follow-up and reduce it at six-month follow-up (2 trials; low quality evidence). The effect on caregivers is uncertain (2 trials; low quality evidence). The intervention may slightly reduce healthcare costs (2 trials, low quality evidence). No trial reported costs to patients and caregivers. The evidence included in this review supports the use of home-based end-of-life care programmes for increasing the number of people who will die at home, although the numbers of people admitted to hospital while receiving end-of-life care should be monitored. Future research should systematically assess the impact of home-based end-of-life care on caregivers.

Plain-language summary: We searched the literature until April 2015 and found no new trials for this update. We found four trials for the previous updates. We included four trials in our review and report that people receiving end-of-life care at home are more likely to die at home. It is unclear whether home-based end-of-life care increases or decreases the probability of being admitted to hospital. Admission to hospital while receiving home-based end-of-life care varied between trials. People who receive end-of-life care at home may be slightly more satisfied after one month and less satisfied after six months. It is unclear whether home-based end-of-life care reduces or increases caregiver burden. Healthcare costs are uncertain, and no data on costs to participants and their families were reported. People who receive end-of-life care at home are more likely to die at home. There were few data on the impact of home-based end-of-life services on family members and lay caregivers.
Abstract: Twenty-six trials met inclusion criteria. The number, site and dosage of injections varied widely between studies. The number of participants per trial ranged from 20 to 114 (median 52 participants). Methodological quality was variable. For rotator cuff disease, subacromial steroid injection was demonstrated to have a small benefit over placebo in some trials however no benefit of subacromial steroid injection over NSAID was demonstrated based upon the pooled results of three trials.   For adhesive capsulitis, two trials suggested a possible early benefit of intra-articular steroid injection over placebo but there was insufficient data for pooling of any of the trials. One trial suggested short-term benefit of intra-articular corticosteroid injection over physiotherapy in the short-term (success at seven weeks RR=1.66 (1.21, 2.28). Despite many RCTs of corticosteroid injections for shoulder pain, their small sample sizes, variable methodological quality and heterogeneity means that there is little overall evidence to guide treatment. Subacromial corticosteroid injection for rotator cuff disease and intra-articular injection for adhesive capsulitis may be beneficial although their effect may be small and not well-maintained. There is a need for further trials investigating the efficacy of corticosteroid injections for shoulder pain. Other important issues that remain to be clarified include whether the accuracy of needle placement, anatomical site, frequency, dose and type of corticosteroid influences efficacy.

Plain-language summary: The available evidence from randomized controlled trials supports the use of subacromial corticosteroid injection for rotator cuff disease, although its effect may be small and short-lived, and it may be no better than non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Similarly, intra-articular steroid injection may be of limited, short-term benefit for adhesive capsulitis. Further trials investigating the efficacy of corticosteroid injections for shoulder pain are needed. Important issues that need clarification include whether the accuracy of needle placement, anatomical site, frequency, dose and type of corticosteroid influences efficacy.
Abstract: Eight trials are included in this review, seven used methylprednisolone. Methylprednisolone sodium succinate has been shown to improve neurologic outcome up to one year post-injury if administered within eight hours of injury and in a dose regimen of: bolus 30mg/kg over 15 minutes, with maintenance infusion of 5.4 mg/kg per hour infused for 23 hours. The initial North American trial results were replicated in a Japanese trial but not in the one from France. Data was obtained from the latter studies to permit appropriate meta-analysis of all three trials. This indicated significant recovery in motor function after methylprednisolone therapy, when administration commenced within eight hours of injury. A more recent trial indicates that, if methylprednisolone therapy is given for an additional 24 hours (a total of 48 hours), additional improvement in motor neurologic function and functional status are observed. This is particularly observed if treatment cannot be started until between three to eight hours after injury. The same methylprednisolone therapy has been found effective in whiplash injuries. A modified regimen was found to improve recovery after surgery for lumbar disc disease. The risk of bias was low in the largest methyprednisolone trials. Overall, there was no evidence of significantly increased complications or mortality from the 23 or 48 hour therapy. High-dose methylprednisolone steroid therapy is the only pharmacologic therapy shown to have efficacy in a phase three randomized trial when administered within eight hours of injury. One trial indicates additional benefit by extending the maintenance dose from 24 to 48 hours, if start of treatment must be delayed to between three and eight hours after injury. There is an urgent need for more randomized trials of pharmacologic therapy for acute spinal cord injury.

Plain-language summary: The review looked for studies that examined the effectiveness of this treatment in improving movement and reducing the death rate. Nearly all the research, seven trials, has involved just one steroid, methylprednisolone. The results show that treatment with this steroid does improve movement but it must start soon after the injury has happened, within no more than eight hours. It should be continued for 24 to 48 hours. Different dose rates of the drug have been given and the so-called high-dose rate is the most effective. The treatment does not, however, give back the patient a normal amount of movement and more research is necessary with steroids, possibly combining them with other drugs.