GEM/cochrane-simplification huggingface dataset:
Abstract: We identified one RCT and no CCTs; in this update no additional eligible studies were identified. The RCT (total number of children = 91) evaluated the use of a continuous cisplatin infusion (N = 43) versus a one-hour bolus cisplatin infusion (N = 48) in children with neuroblastoma. For the continuous infusion, cisplatin was administered on days one to five of the cycle, but it is unclear if the infusion duration was a total of five days. Risk of bias was present. Only results from shortly after induction therapy were provided. No clear evidence of a difference in hearing loss (defined as asymptomatic and symptomatic disease combined) between the different infusion durations was identified as results were imprecise (risk ratio (RR) 1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 4.13, low-quality evidence). Although the numbers of children were not provided, it was stated that tumour response was equivalent in both treatment arms. With regard to adverse effects other than ototoxicity, we were only able to assess toxic deaths. Again, the confidence interval of the estimated effect was too wide to exclude differences between the treatment groups (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.07 to 17.31, low-quality evidence). No data were available for the other outcomes of interest (i.e. tinnitus, overall survival, event-free survival and quality of life) or for other (combinations of) infusion durations or other platinum analogues. Since only one eligible RCT evaluating the use of a continuous cisplatin infusion versus a one-hour bolus cisplatin infusion was found, and that had methodological limitations, no definitive conclusions can be made. It should be noted that 'no evidence of effect', as identified in this review, is not the same as 'evidence of no effect'. For other (combinations of) infusion durations and other platinum analogues no eligible studies were identified. More high-quality research is needed.

Plain-language summary: The evidence is current to November 2019. We found one study (91 participants) comparing a continuous cisplatin infusion with a one-hour cisplatin bolus infusion in children with neuroblastoma. For the continuous infusion, cisplatin was administered on days one to five of the treatment cycle but it is not clear if the infusion duration was a total of five days. Only results from shortly after induction therapy were available. At the moment there is no evidence showing that the use of a different cisplatin infusion duration prevents hearing loss or adversely affects tumour response and adverse effects. No data were available for the other outcomes of interest (i.e. tinnitus, overall survival, event-free survival and quality of life) or for other (combinations of) infusion durations or other platinum analogues. We need more high-quality research before definite conclusions can be made about the usefulness of different platinum infusion durations to prevent hearing loss in children with cancer. The quality of the evidence was low.
Abstract: We identified 24 RCTs involving 3739 participants which were included in the review. IHCAs had a significant positive effect on knowledge (SMD 0.46; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.69), social support (SMD 0.35; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.52) and clinical outcomes (SMD 0.18; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.35). Results suggest it is more likely than not that IHCAs have a positive effect on self-efficacy (a person's belief in their capacity to carry out a specific action) (SMD 0.24; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.48). IHCAs had a significant positive effect on continuous behavioural outcomes (SMD 0.20; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.40). Binary behavioural outcomes also showed a positive effect for IHCAs, although this result was not statistically significant (OR 1.66; 95% CI 0.71 to 3.87). It was not possible to determine the effects of IHCAs on emotional or economic outcomes. IHCAs appear to have largely positive effects on users, in that users tend to become more knowledgeable, feel better socially supported, and may have improved behavioural and clinical outcomes compared to non-users. There is a need for more high quality studies with large sample sizes to confirm these preliminary findings, to determine the best type and best way to deliver IHCAs, and to establish how IHCAs have their effects for different groups of people with chronic illness.

Plain-language summary: This review sought to find out how such computer programmes, known as Interactive Health Communication Applications (IHCAs), might affect people with chronic disease. The review authors found that IHCAs improved users' knowledge, social support, health behaviours and clinical outcomes. It is also more likely than not that IHCAs improve users' self-efficacy (a person's belief in their capacity to carry out a specific action). It was not possible to determine whether IHCAs had any effect on emotional and economic outcomes. The included studies involved different IHCAs, with different characteristics, for a wide range of chronic diseases. There was variability in several of the outcomes, and the results should therefore be treated with some caution. There is a need for more large, high quality studies to confirm these preliminary findings, to determine the best type and best way to deliver IHCAs, and to establish how IHCAs have their effects for different groups of people with chronic illness.
Abstract: For this fourth update six new trials were included, bringing the total of included trials to 59. Foam alternatives to standard hospital foam mattresses reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers in people at risk (RR 0.40 95% CI 0.21 to 0.74). The relative merits of alternating- and constant low-pressure devices are unclear. One high-quality trial suggested that alternating-pressure mattresses may be more cost effective than alternating-pressure overlays in a UK context. Pressure-relieving overlays on the operating table reduce postoperative pressure ulcer incidence, although two trials indicated that foam overlays caused adverse skin changes. Meta-analysis of three trials suggest that Australian standard medical sheepskins prevent pressure ulcers (RR 0.56 95% CI 0.32 to 0.97). People at high risk of developing pressure ulcers should use higher-specification foam mattresses rather than standard hospital foam mattresses. The relative merits of higher-specification constant low-pressure and alternating-pressure support surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers are unclear, but alternating-pressure mattresses may be more cost effective than alternating-pressure overlays in a UK context. Medical grade sheepskins are associated with a decrease in pressure ulcer development. Organisations might consider the use of some forms of pressure relief for high risk patients in the operating theatre.

Plain-language summary: The review found that people lying on ordinary foam mattresses are more likely to get pressure ulcers than those lying on a higher-specification foam mattress. In addition the review also found that people who used sheepskin overlays on their mattress developed fewer pressure ulcers. While alternating-pressure mattresses may be more cost effective than alternating-pressure overlays, the evidence base regarding the merits of higher-specification constant low-pressure and alternating-pressure support surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers is unclear. Rigorous research comparing different support surfaces is needed.
Abstract: For this update of the review, we identified one new trial, bringing the total to 17 trials (1034 participants) - all of which were generally at moderate or high risk of bias. In 12 trials participants also received compression bandaging. Eleven trials compared a graft with standard care in which no graft was used. Two of these trials (102 participants) compared a dressing with an autograft; three trials (80 participants) compared frozen allografts with dressings, and two trials (45 participants) compared fresh allografts with dressings. Two trials (345 participants) compared tissue-engineered skin (bilayer artificial skin) with a dressing. In two trials (97 participants) a single-layer dermal replacement was compared with standard care. Six trials compared alternative skin grafting techniques. The first trial (92 participants) compared autografts with frozen allograft, a second (51 participants) compared a pinch graft (autograft) with porcine dermis (xenograft), the third (110 participants) compared growth-arrested human keratinocytes and fibroblasts with placebo, the fourth (10 participants) compared an autograft delivered on porcine pads with an autograft delivered on porcine gelatin microbeads, the fifth trial (92 participants) compared a meshed graft with a cultured keratinocyte autograft, and the sixth trial (50 participants) compared a frozen keratinocyte allograft with a lyophilised (freeze-dried) keratinocyte allografts. Significantly more ulcers healed when treated with bilayer artificial skin than with dressings. There was insufficient evidence from the other trials to determine whether other types of skin grafting increased the healing of venous ulcers. Bilayer artificial skin, used in conjunction with compression bandaging, increases venous ulcer healing compared with a simple dressing plus compression. Further research is needed to assess whether other forms of skin grafts increase ulcer healing.

Plain-language summary: Approximately 1% of people in industrialised countries have a leg ulcer at some time, mainly caused by poor blood flow back from the legs towards the heart. Skin grafts, either using the patient's own skin, artificial skin or donor skin/cells, have been evaluated to see whether they improve the healing of ulcers. The review of trials found evidence that tissue-engineered skin composed of two layers increases the chance of healing. There was not enough evidence to recommend any other type of graft, and further research is required.
Abstract: We found six trials recruiting a total of 549 infants. One trial showed that use of a percutaneous central venous catheter was associated with a smaller deficit between prescribed and actual nutrient intake during the trial period (mean difference (MD) -7.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -11.02 to -3.2). Infants in the percutaneous central venous catheter group needed significantly fewer catheters/cannulae (MD -4.3, 95% CI -5.24, -3.43). Meta-analysis of data from all trials revealed no evidence of an effect on the incidence of invasive infection (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.25; typical risk difference (RD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.06). Data from one small trial suggest that use of percutaneous central venous catheters to deliver parenteral nutrition increases nutrient input. The significance of this in relation to long-term growth and developmental outcomes is unclear. Three trials suggest that use of percutaneous central venous catheters decreases the number of catheters/cannulae needed to deliver nutrition. No evidence suggests that percutaneous central venous catheter use increases risks of adverse events, particularly invasive infection, although none of the included trials was large enough to rule out an effect on uncommon severe adverse events such as pericardial effusion.

Plain-language summary: We found six small randomised controlled trials (enrolling 549 infants in total) that addressed this question. The trials generally were of good methodological quality, although study findings may be biased by the inability to blind caregivers and investigators to the type of intervention provided. These trials provided only limited evidence on the effects of the interventions on nutrition. Analysis of data from three trials revealed that infants in the percutaneous central venous catheter group needed about four fewer catheters or cannulae during hospitalisation. Combined data from all trials showed no evidence of an effect on risk of bloodstream infection. Use of central venous catheters has been thought to increase the risk of bloodstream infection in newborn infants, but this review of randomised trials found no evidence that this was the case. More trials are needed to determine which method is better for improving nutrition and growth and development in newborn infants.
Abstract: There were 24 included studies with 11959 participants in total. Many studies were of cross-over design and first-phase data were unavailable, or could not be extracted. Global impression of change (GIC) was the only outcome for which pooling of data was possible, involving only four studies. There was evidence of heterogeneity in the results, Chi2 test = 19.17 (df = 3, P < 0.001). The odds ratio (OR) for improvement in the piracetam group compared with placebo was 3.43 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.32 to 5.07). Using a fixed-effect model, the OR for improvement with piracetam compared with placebo was 3.55 (95% CI 2.45 to 5.16). This estimate was derived from completers rather than from an intention-to-treat analysis as relevant data could not be extracted from the reports. In the limited data available, no significant differences were found between treatment and placebo groups for cognition (immediate memory, visuospatial, Mini Mental Status Examination (MMSE), delayed memory or speech) for dependency, or for depression. The large volume of unpublished and untraceable data not available to the review authors raises the possibility of publication bias. Published evidence does not support the use of piracetam in the treatment of people with dementia or cognitive impairment. Although effects were found on global impression of change, no benefit was shown by any of the more specific measures of cognitive function. The evidence indicates a need for further evaluation of piracetam.

Plain-language summary: Most of the trials of piracetam were undertaken many years ago and did not use methods which would be currently considered standard. Some of the studies suggested there may be some benefit from piracetam but overall the evidence is not consistent or positive enough to support its use for dementia or cognitive impairment.
Abstract: We were unable to find any randomized controlled trials on antibiotic treatment approaches for community-acquired pneumonia in people with sickle cell disease. The updated review was unable to identify randomized controlled trials on efficacy and safety of the antibiotic treatment approaches for people with sickle cell disease suffering from community-acquired pneumonia. Randomized controlled trials are needed to establish the optimum antibiotic treatment for this condition. The trials regarding this issue should be structured and reported according to the CONSORT statement for improving the quality of reporting of efficacy and improved reports of harms in clinical research. Triallists should consider including the following outcomes in new trials: number of days to become afebrile; mortality; onset of pain crisis or complications of sickle cell disease following community-acquired pneumonia; diagnosis; hospitalization (admission rate and length of hospital stay); respiratory failure rate; and number of participants receiving a blood transfusion. There are no trials included in the review and we have not identified any relevant trials up to September 2016. We therefore do not plan to update this review until new trials are published.

Plain-language summary: We were not able to find any trials to include in this review. Trials addressing this issue should be structured and reported according to the CONSORT statement for improving the quality of reporting of efficacy and improved reports of harms in clinical research. Trial investigators should consider including the following outcomes in new trials: number of days to be free of fever, death, onset of pain crisis or complications of sickle cell disease following community-acquired pneumonia, diagnosis, hospitalization (admission rate and length of hospital stay), respiratory failure rate, and number of participants receiving a blood transfusion. Since no trials have been included in the review up until September 2016, we will still search for trials every two years, but will not publish an updated version of this review until any eligible trials are identified.
Abstract: We included 33 studies of STPP involving 2173 randomised participants with common mental disorders. Studies were of diverse conditions in which problems with emotional regulation were purported to play a causative role albeit through a range of symptom presentations. These studies evaluated STPP for this review's primary outcomes (general, somatic, anxiety and depressive symptom reduction), as well as interpersonal problems and social adjustment. Except for somatic measures in the short-term, all outcome categories suggested significantly greater improvement in the treatment versus the control groups in the short-term and medium-term. Effect sizes increased in long-term follow-up, but some of these effects did not reach statistical significance. A relatively small number of studies (N < 20) contributed data for the outcome categories. There was also significant heterogeneity between studies in most categories, possibly due to observed differences between manualised versus non-manualised treatments, short versus longer treatments, studies with observer-rated versus self report outcomes, and studies employing different treatment models. There has been further study of STPP and it continues to show promise, with modest to large gains for a wide variety of people. However, given the limited data, loss of significance in some measures at long-term follow-up and heterogeneity between studies, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Furthermore, variability in treatment delivery and treatment quality may limit the reliability of estimates of effect for STPP. Larger studies of higher quality and with specific diagnoses are warranted.

Plain-language summary: We searched scientific databases to find all published and unpublished studies of STPP compared with wait-list control, treatment as usual or minimal treatment up to July 2012. We searched for studies in adults over 17 years of age with common mental disorders being treated in an outpatient setting. We excluded people with psychotic disorders. We included 33 studies involving 2173 people. When the results of the studies were combined and analysed, we found that there was a significantly greater improvement in the groups of people who received STPP versus the control groups, both in the short-term (less than three months after treatment) and medium-term (three to six months after treatment). These benefits generally appeared to increase in the long-term. However, some results did not remain statistically significant in the long-term and, in addition, the studies varied in terms of their design, meaning that these conclusions are tentative and need confirmation with further research. The finding that a short-term psychological therapy treatment may be broadly applicable and effective is of importance in the atmosphere of current global healthcare and economic restrictions. The studies were of variable quality.
Abstract: This updated review includes two new randomized trials. In total, 10 randomized trials with 432 participants and four comparisons are included in this review. One trial had a low risk of bias. No differences were demonstrated in mortality, with risk ratio (RR) of 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 4.59; P value 0.97; 268 participants, six trials, very low quality of evidence (grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE)), and in pneumonia, with RR of 0.40 (95% CI 0.11 to 1.39; P value 0.15; 120 participants, three trials, very low quality of evidence (GRADE)). Statistically significant results included the following: The PEEP group had higher arterial oxygen pressure (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) on day one postoperatively, with a mean difference of 22.98 (95% CI 4.40 to 41.55; P value 0.02; 80 participants, two trials, very low quality of evidence (GRADE)), and postoperative atelectasis (defined as an area of collapsed lung, quantified by computerized tomography scan) was less in the PEEP group (standard mean difference -1.2, 95% CI -1.78 to -0.79; P value 0.00001; 88 participants, two trials, very low quality of evidence (GRADE)). No adverse events were reported in the three trials that adequately measured these outcomes (barotrauma and cardiac complications). Using information size calculations, we estimated that a further 21,200 participants would have to be randomly assigned to allow a reliable conclusion about PEEP and mortality. Evidence is currently insufficient to permit conclusions about whether intraoperative PEEP alters risks of postoperative mortality and respiratory complications among undifferentiated surgical patients.

Plain-language summary: The evidence is current to October 2013. We found 10 randomized clinical trials involving 432 participants. The main limitation of our review was our inability to identify studies analysing intraoperative data. Six trials reported mortality. We pooled these data and found no differences between the group of patients who received PEEP and those who did not, but because of the small number of patients, and the fact that this outcome may be rare, these results did not allow us to make a conclusion about the effect of PEEP on mortality. Two results suggested some benefit of PEEP. First, oxygenation was better on the day after surgery in the PEEP group. Second, radiological imaging showed less atelectasis after surgery in the PEEP group. The studies that we found did not suggest that intraoperative PEEP causes harm. Because of the small number of studies, this finding is inconclusive. We performed calculations to predict how many more participants would be needed before reliable conclusions can be made about the effect on mortality of the application of PEEP. This number was 21,200. Evidence is currently insufficient to allow conclusions about how intraoperative PEEP affects postoperative mortality and respiratory complications. The quality of the evidence is very low because of poorly conducted studies, small numbers of participants and low event rates.
Abstract: Three studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. Two small studies (randomising a total of 104 infants) evaluated the effect of prophylactic caffeine on short term outcomes. There were no meaningful differences between the caffeine and placebo groups in the number of infants with apnoea, bradycardia, hypoxaemic episodes, use of IPPV or side effects in either of the studies. Only two outcomes (use of IPPV and tachycardia) were common to the two studies and meta-analysis showed no substantive differences between the groups. One large trial of caffeine therapy (CAP 2006) in a heterogeneous group of infants at risk for and having apnoea of prematurity demonstrated an improved rate of survival without developmental disability at 18 to 21 months corrected age. The reports of the subgroup of infants treated with prophylactic caffeine did not demonstrate any significant differences in clinical outcomes except for a decrease in the risk of PDA ligation. The results of this review do not support the use of prophylactic caffeine for preterm infants at risk of apnoea. Any future studies need to examine the effects of prophylactic methylxanthines in preterm infants at higher risk of apnoea. This should include examination of important clinical outcomes such as need for IPPV, neonatal morbidity, length of hospital stay and long term development.

Plain-language summary: Two small studies and one large study were identified. The two small studies enrolled infants given caffeine as a preventative measure. Neither study demonstrated any decrease in apnoea or other short term complications. The one large study included a heterogeneous group of infants who received therapy for a variety of indications (prevention, treatment and avoidance of post-extubation apnoea of prematurity). In this overall population there was an improvement in clinical outcome at hospital discharge and developmental outcome at 18 to 21 months; however, these benefits could not be proven in the subpopulation who received prophylactic caffeine. A decrease in PDA was noted in this subpopulation.