GEM/cochrane-simplification huggingface dataset:
Abstract: We identified two studies with a total of 79 participants. One study, with 41 participants, compared cyclobenzaprine with clonazepam and with placebo. Participants taking cyclobenzaprine had some improvement of pain intensity compared to those on clonazepam, mean difference (MD) -0.25 (95% CI, -0.41 to -0.09; P value 0.002) and placebo, MD -0.25 (95% CI, 0.41 to -0.09; P value 0.002). The other study, with 38 participants, compared cyclobenzaprine with lidocaine infiltration. Thirty days after treatment there were statistically non-significant differences between comparison groups, favoring lidocaine infiltration, for the mean for global pain, MD 0.90 (95% CI -0.35 to 2.15, P value 0.16), and for the mean for pain at digital compression, MD 0.60 (95% CI -0.55 to 1.75, P value 0.30). There were no life-threatening adverse events associated with the medications. There was insufficient evidence to support the use of cyclobenzaprine in the treatment of MP. We identified only two small studies in which a total of 35 participants were given cyclobenzaprine, and it was not possible to estimate risks for benefits or harms. Further high quality RCTs of cyclobenzaprine for treating MP need to be conducted before firm conclusions on its effectiveness and safety can be made. Experts in this area should elect cut-off points for participants to identify whether a patient has achieved a clinically relevant reduction of pain (primary outcome), so that their results can be combined easily into future versions of this review.

Plain-language summary: The purpose of this review was to assess how effective cyclobenzaprine is at reducing pain and improving sleep in patients with MP. We searched extensively through scientific publications and found two trials, with a total of 79 participants. These tested cyclobenzaprine against another drug called clonazepam, and fake medication (placebo), or against injections of a local anesthetic called lidocaine. A total of 35 of the 79 participants in the two trials were given cyclobenzaprine. Cyclobenzaprine was slightly better than clonazepam and placebo at reducing jaw pain, but was no better at improving sleep quality. The results from the other trial were not scientifically reliable because of the small number of participants involved, but lidocaine injections seemed to reduce pain slightly better than cyclobenzaprine pills. Despite this result, it is likely that, because it is uncomfortable to receive any form of injection, people who suffer from MP will prefer to be treated with cyclobenzaprine pills. There were no life-threatening adverse events associated with any of the medications studied. Further studies are needed to show whether cyclobenzaprine really works for treating MP, but at the moment doctors cannot say whether it is really useful.
Abstract: Two randomised controlled trials have examined the effect of the aminosteroid tirilazad mesylate on death and disability following head injury. To date, only the results of one of these trials are available for analysis. The risk of death in patients treated with tirilazad was almost identical to those given placebo RR = 1.05 (95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.29). The risk of death and severe disability in patients treated with tirilazad was again almost identical to those given placebo RR = 1.07 (95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.23). There is no evidence to support the routine use of aminosteroids in the management of traumatic head injury. On the basis of the existing evidence from randomised trials of aminosteroids in head injury, it is not possible to refute the possibility of moderate but potentially clinically important benefits or harms. A further randomised controlled trial of tirilazad mesylate with 1156 participants has been completed, the results of which should become available in the near future.

Plain-language summary: The review author searched the medical literature to find out if aminosteroids help people with traumatic brain injury when given within seven days of the injury. The author looked for randomised controlled trials in which one group of patients received a treatment (aminosteroids) while a similar group received non-active treatment (placebo) in addition to standard care. To reduce possible bias, each patient is randomly assigned to a group. The author found two such studies, which used the aminosteroid tirilazad mesylate, but the results of one of the studies were not available at the time of review. The completed study involved 1131 patients. The results of this study showed no benefit from the aminosteroid. The aminosteroid group did not have more side effects than the placebo group but aminosteroids are fairly new drugs that may have unknown less common side effects. More research is needed on the use of aminosteroids to treat traumatic brain injury but currently there is no evidence to recommend their use.
Abstract: From 2667 references, we identified two randomized studies, in six reports, that included 431 participants. All participants were clinically staged to have at least T3 and/or node positive thoracic esophageal carcinoma, 93% of which was squamous cell histology. The risk of methodological bias of the included studies was low to moderate. High-quality evidence found the addition of esophagectomy had little or no difference on overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.24; P = 0.92; I² = 0%; two trials). Neither study reported PFS, therefore, freedom from loco-regional relapse was used as a proxy. Moderate-quality evidence suggested that the addition of esophagectomy probably improved freedom from locoregional relapse (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.76; P = 0.0004; I² = 0%; two trials), but low-quality evidence suggested it may increase the risk of treatment-related mortality (RR 5.11, 95% CI 1.74 to 15.02; P = 0.003; I² = 2%; two trials). The other pre-specified outcomes (quality of life, treatment-related toxicity, and use of salvage procedures for dysphagia) were reported by only one study, which found very low-quality evidence that use of esophagectomy was associated with reduced short-term QoL (MD 0.93, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.62), and low-quality evidence that it reduced use of salvage procedures for dysphagia (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.75). Neither study compared treatment-related morbidity between treatment groups. Based on the available evidence, the addition of esophagectomy to chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, provides little or no difference on overall survival, and may be associated with higher treatment-related mortality. The addition of esophagectomy probably delays locoregional relapse, however, this end point was not well defined in the included studies. It is undetermined whether these results can be applied to the treatment of adenocarcinomas, tumors involving the distal esophagus and gastro-esophageal junction, and to people with poor response to chemoradiation.

Plain-language summary: We included two randomized studies, in six published reports, with 431 participants with locally advanced esophageal cancer. We searched biomedical databases, clinical trial registries, conference proceedings, and reference lists up to 7 February 2017 for studies. The quality of evidence ranged from very low to high, depending on the outcome being assessed, because the trials were small and at unclear or high risk of bias (a systematic error or deviation from the truth that affects the results, favouring one treatment over another). We found evidence that adding surgery reduced the risk of the cancer recurring at the primary site, but did not improve overall survival. Moreover, there were more treatment-related deaths in the group of participants who underwent surgery.
Abstract: Two trials met the inclusion criteria. Faix 1988 randomised 42 premature infants with radiological diagnosis of NEC. Infants were randomised to receive either intravenous ampicillin and gentamicin or ampicillin, gentamicin and clindamycin. Hansen 1980 randomised 20 infants with NEC to receive intravenous ampicillin and gentamicin with or without enteral gentamicin. In the study by Faix 1988, there were no statistical differences in mortality (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.32 to 3.83) or bowel perforation (RR 2.20; 95% CI 0.45 to 10.74) between the two groups although there was a trend towards higher rate of strictures in the group that received clindamycin (RR 7.20; 95% CI 0.97 to 53.36). The Hansen 1980 study showed no statistically significant difference in death, bowel perforation or development of strictures. There was insufficient evidence to recommend a particular antibiotic regimen for the treatment of NEC. There were concerns about adverse effects following the usage of clindamycin, related to the development of strictures. To address this issue a large randomised controlled trial needs to be performed.

Plain-language summary: The authors of this study reviewed the medical literature to ascertain the best antibiotic combination for the treatment of this condition. Four eligible studies were identified and only two of these studies were found to be suitable for analysis. Both these studies were performed before 1988. The two studies included 62 infants with NEC and compared one antibiotic regimen to another. There was no difference between the two groups. The authors concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend a particular antibiotic regimen for NEC.
Abstract: We included 10 trials involving 1967 patients undergoing 2157 operations. The quality of trials was generally poor. Follow up varied from hospital discharge to five years. Carotid patch angioplasty was associated with a reduction in the risk of ipsilateral stroke during the perioperative period (odds ratio (OR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.63, P = 0.001) and long-term follow up (OR 0.32, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.63, P = 0.001). It was also associated with a reduced risk of perioperative arterial occlusion (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.41, P < 0.0001), and decreased restenosis during long-term follow up in eight trials (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.34, P < 0.00001). These results are more certain than those of the previous review since the number of operations and events have increased. However, the sample sizes are still relatively small, data were not available from all trials, and there was significant loss to follow up. Very few arterial complications, including haemorrhage, infection, cranial nerve palsies and pseudo-aneurysm formation were recorded with either patch or primary closure. No significant correlation was found between use of patch angioplasty and the risk of either perioperative or long-term all-cause death rates. Limited evidence suggests that carotid patch angioplasty may reduce the risk of perioperative arterial occlusion and restenosis. It would appear to reduce the risk of ipsilateral stroke and there is a non significant trend towards a reduction in perioperative any stroke rate and all-cause case fatality.

Plain-language summary: Evidence from this review of 10 trials involving 1967 patients undergoing 2157 operations now suggests a benefit from using routine patch angioplasty during carotid endarterectomy. About 20% of strokes result from narrowing of the carotid artery (the main artery supplying blood to the brain). Carotid endarterectomy is an operation that involves opening the carotid artery to remove this narrowing and, therefore, reduce the risk of stroke. However, there is a 2% to 10% risk of the operation itself causing a stroke. Some surgeons advocate the incorporation of a patch made out of either synthetic material or the patient's own vein, into the arterial closure. This may help to reduce the risk of the artery being narrowed during suture placement and may, therefore, reduce the risk of recurrent blockage and consequent stroke or death or both. However, use of a patch may increase surgical difficulty and operation length. Furthermore, thin-walled vein patches may rupture with potentially fatal consequences and synthetic materials are vulnerable to infection.
Abstract: A total of 12 randomised trials were identified, totaling 843 patients. The size of the randomised clinical trials ranged from 30 to 155 patients. Both preoperative (neoadjuvant) and postoperative (adjuvant), systemic and locoregional (+/- embolisation), chemo- and immunotherapy interventions were tested. Treatment regimens and patients selected were not comparable, so no pooling was done. Only one regimen using preoperative transcatheter arterial chemoembolisation with doxorubicin was similar in two trials. Four of the twelve trials reported survival benefit at five years when given adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy. Disease-free survival was reported in nine trials, and the estimated hazard ratios show that disease-free survival was significant in two trials at five years. These two trials had not shown a survival advantage, but the recurrence was significantly lower in patients given adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy. The highest toxicity rate was in a trial using oral 1-hexylcarbamoyl 5-fluorouracil which resulted in 12 out of 38 patients being withdrawn from the trial because of adverse events. There is no clear evidence for efficacy of any of the adjuvant and neo-adjuvant protocols reviewed, but there is some evidence to suggest that adjuvant therapy may be beneficial offering prolonged disease-free survival. In order to detect a realistic treatment advantage, larger trials with lower risk of systematic error will have to be conducted.

Plain-language summary: This review sets on to determine the efficacy and adverse events of different neoadjuvant therapies (drug given before) versus adjuvant therapies (drug given after) compared to surgery alone, or surgery and placebo or supportive therapy when given to improve relapse and survival rates for operable hepatocellular carcinoma. A total of 12 randomised trials were identified, totaling 843 patients. The size of the randomised clinical trials ranged from 30 to 155 patients. Nine of the twelve trials reported no survival benefit from adjuvant therapy. Two trials reported a significant difference for survival and four studies for disease-free survival for the treatment group, but the results of one of the trials on both its groups were very poor when compared to other trials. Two of the trials that did not report any absolute survival advantage reported statistically significant differences in disease-free survival. The highest toxicity rate was in a trial using oral 1-hexylcarbamoyl 5- fluorouracil which resulted in 12 out of 38 patients being withdrawn from the trial because of adverse events. In conclusion, this review found insufficient evidence to show that adjuvant and neo-adjuvant therapy increase survival from hepatocellular carcinoma, but there is limited evidence to suggest that neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy may be useful for disease-free survival.
Abstract: Eight RCTs involving 358,750 participants were included. These trials investigated two available and three pre-licensure vaccines. Two RCTs assessing efficacy of the commercially available inactivated Nakayama vaccine were identified. A two-dose schedule of the licensed vaccine provided significant protection of 95% (95% CI 10% to 100%) for one year only, while two doses of an unpurified precursor vaccine protected children by 81% (95% CI 45% to 94%) in year one and by 59% (95% CI 2% to 83%) in year two. Serious adverse events were not observed. Mild and moderate episodes of injection site soreness, fever, headache, and nausea were reported in less than 6% of children receiving inactivated vaccine compared to 0.6% of unvaccinated controls. One cluster-RCT compared the live-attenuated SA14-14-2 vaccine (widely used in China) with no intervention measuring adverse events. Fever was reported in 2.7% of vaccinees compared to 3.1% of controls, while 0.1% of both groups suffered diarrhoea or seizures. Four small pre-licensure RCTs assessing a genetically engineered vaccine and two cell culture-derived inactivated vaccines revealed high immunogenicity and relative safety. Only one of the three currently used vaccines has been assessed for efficacy in a RCT. Other RCTs have assessed their safety, however, and they appear to cause only occasional mild or moderate adverse events. Further trials of effectiveness and safety are needed for the currently used vaccines, especially concerning dose levels and schedules. Trials investigating several new vaccines are planned or in progress.

Plain-language summary: In this review of randomized controlled trials, a commercially available inactivated vaccine given in two doses was shown to provide disease protection for at least one year after vaccination, but with some adverse events. Disease protection by two vaccines, widely used in China but presently commercially unavailable, has not been investigated in randomized controlled trials. Further research is needed on all currently used as well as newly developed vaccines.
Abstract: We included two trials (535 women) in the review. The trials found no difference between groups for the primary outcomes of pain intensity, assisted vaginal birth (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 2.28, one trial, 513 women; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.06 to 11.70, one trial, 22 women), and caesarean section (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.94, one trial, 513 women; RR 2.54, 95% CI 0.11 to 56.25, one trial, 22 women); there were more babies admitted to neonatal intensive care in the control group of one trial (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.42, one trial, 513 women) but this difference did not reach statistical significance. The trials found no differences between groups for the secondary outcomes of use of pharmacological pain relief (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.32, one trial, 513 women; RR 2.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 20.45, one trial, 22 women), spontaneous vaginal delivery (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06, one trial, 513 women; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.28, one trial, 22 women) or length of labour and augmentation (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.45, one trial, 513 women). The risk of bias was low in the trials. There is a lack of studies evaluating the role of aromatherapy for pain management in labour. Further research is needed before recommendations can be made for clinical practice.

Plain-language summary: The review identified two randomised controlled trials of aromatherapy. One trial involving 513 women compared one of Roman chamomile, clary sage, frankincense, lavender or mandarin essentials oils with standard care. The aromatherapy was applied using acupressure points, taper, compress, footbath, massage or a birthing pool. The second trial involved 22 women randomised to bathe for at least an hour in water with either essential oil of ginger or lemongrass added. All women received routine care and had access to pain relief. The trials found no difference between groups for pain intensity, assisted vaginal birth, caesarean section or the use of pharmacological pain relief (epidural). Overall, there is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials about the benefits of aromatherapy on pain management in labour. More research is needed.
Abstract: Only six RCTs met the criteria for inclusion. The study characteristics differed substantially in terms of healthcare settings, the nature of the interventions studied and outcome measures reported. In three studies that compared the effect of an education-centred complex intervention with usual care or written instructions, only little evidence of benefit was found. Three studies compared the effect of more intensive and comprehensive complex interventions with usual care. One study found a significant and cost-effective reduction, one of lower extremity amputations (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.71). One other study found a significant reduction of both amputation and foot ulcers. The last study reported improvement of patients' self care behaviour. All six included RCTs were at high risk of bias, with hardly any of the predefined quality assessment criteria met. There is no high-quality research evidence evaluating complex interventions for preventing diabetic foot ulceration and insufficient evidence of benefit.

Plain-language summary: Foot ulcers not only lead to physical disability and loss of quality of life, but also to economic burden (healthcare costs, industrial disability). The aim is therefore to prevent foot ulcers occurring, for example, by showing patients with diabetes how to look after their feet or by prompting doctors to check their patients' feet more often. The results of single prevention strategies alone have so far been disappointing, therefore in clinical practice, preventive interventions directed at patients, healthcare providers and/or the structure of health care are often combined. In this review of trials of complex, preventive interventions, we found insufficient evidence that these combined approaches can be effective in reducing foot problems.
Abstract: A total of 59 studies, mostly of low quality, were included in the review, involving multiple treatment comparisons between sertraline and other antidepressant agents. Evidence favouring sertraline over some other antidepressants for the acute phase treatment of major depression was found, either in terms of efficacy (fluoxetine) or acceptability/tolerability (amitriptyline, imipramine, paroxetine and mirtazapine). However, some differences favouring newer antidepressants in terms of efficacy (mirtazapine) and acceptability (bupropion) were also found. In terms of individual side effects, sertraline was generally associated with a higher rate of participants experiencing diarrhoea. This systematic review and meta-analysis highlighted a trend in favour of sertraline over other antidepressive agents both in terms of efficacy and acceptability, using 95% confidence intervals and a conservative approach, with a random effects analysis. However, the included studies did not report on all the outcomes that were pre-specified in the protocol of this review. Outcomes of clear relevance to patients and clinicians were not reported in any of the included studies.

Plain-language summary: In the present review we assessed the evidence for the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of sertraline in comparison with all other antidepressants in the acute-phase treatment of major depression. Fifty-nine randomised controlled trials (about 10,000 participants) were included in the review. The review showed evidence of differences in efficacy, acceptability and tolerability between sertraline and other antidepressants, with meta-analyses highlighting a trend in favour of sertraline over other antidepressants, both in terms of efficacy and acceptability, in a homogeneous sample of clinical trials, using conservative statistical methods. The included studies did not report on all the outcomes that were pre-specified in the protocol of this review. Outcomes of clear relevance to patients and clinicians, in particular, patients and their carers' attitudes to treatment, their ability to return to work and resume normal social functioning, were not reported in the included studies. Nevertheless, based on currently available evidence, results from this review suggest that sertraline might be a strong candidate as the initial choice of antidepressant in people with acute major depression.