GEM/cochrane-simplification huggingface dataset:
Abstract: Seventeen studies (831 participants) met the inclusion criteria. All the studies had some shortcomings, such as small sample size, under-reporting of methods and data, and lack of blinding. OA versus control appliances (six studies): OA reduced daytime sleepiness in two crossover trials (ESS score -1.81; 95%CI -2.72 to -0.90), and improved apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI) (-10.78 events/hr; 95% CI-15.53 to -6.03 parallel group data - five studies). OA versus CPAP (ten studies): There was no statistically significant difference in symptoms for either parallel or crossover studies, although OAs were less effective than CPAP in reducing apnoea-hypopnoea index in parallel and crossover studies. CPAP was more effective at improving minimum arterial oxygen saturation during sleep compared with OA. In two small crossover studies, participants preferred OA therapy to CPAP. OA versus corrective upper airway surgery (one study): Symptoms of daytime sleepiness were initially lower with surgery, but this difference disappeared at 12 months. AHI did not differ significantly initially, but did so after 12 months in favour of OA. There is increasing evidence suggesting that OA improves subjective sleepiness and sleep disordered breathing compared with a control. CPAP appears to be more effective in improving sleep disordered breathing than OA. The difference in symptomatic response between these two treatments is not significant, although it is not possible to exclude an effect in favour of either therapy. Until there is more definitive evidence on the effectiveness of OA in relation to CPAP, with regard to symptoms and long-term complications, it would appear to be appropriate to recommend OA therapy to patients with mild symptomatic OSAH, and those patients who are unwilling or unable to tolerate CPAP therapy. Future research should recruit patients with more severe symptoms of sleepiness, to establish whether the response to therapy differs between subgroups in terms of quality of life, symptoms and persistence with usage. Long-term data on cardiovascular health are required.

Plain-language summary: This review found that OA should not be considered as first choice therapy for OSAH, where symptoms and sleep disruption are severe. There has not been a sufficient amount of research that examines the effects of OA compared with CPAP in terms of symptoms and quality of life. Although CPAP was clearly more effective at reducing the disruption to sleep, some people with OSAH may prefer using them if they are found to be tolerable and more convenient than CPAP. When an active OA was compared with an inactive OA , there were improvements in daytime sleepiness and apnoea/hypopnoea severity. OA may be more effective than corrective upper airway surgery. Further research should consider whether people with more distinctly severe symptoms respond in a similar way to those patients represented in the studies we have included in the review.
Abstract: Six trials (1422 participants) were included in the review. There was a high rate of failure to complete treatment on all treatments which may have biased the estimates of relative efficacy. Olanzapine was superior to placebo at reducing manic symptoms as monotherapy (Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) - weighted mean difference (WMD): -5.94, 95% CI -9.09 to -2.80) and in combination with lithium/valproate (YMRS) (WMD -4.01, 95% confidence interval -6.06 to -1.96). Olanzapine monotherapy was superior at reducing psychotic symptoms (PANSS positive symptoms subscale WMD: -3.54, 95% CI -5.28 to -1.80). Olanzapine was superior to divalproex at reducing manic symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD): -0.29, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.08). Olanzapine did not lead to a statistically higher rate of clinical response than haloperidol (RR: 1.03, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.38). Fewer patients discontinued treatment on olanzapine than placebo (RR: 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.80). Olanzapine caused greater weight gain than placebo (WMD 1.91Kg, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.53) and somnolence (RR: 2.13 95% CI 1.62 to 2.79) but not more depressive symptoms (RR: 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.40) or movement disorder (WMD: -0.33, 95% CI -0.74 to 0.09). Olanzapine caused more prolactin elevation than placebo (RR: 4.35 95%CI 1.77 to 10.70). Olanzapine caused greater weight gain (WMD: 1.54, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.05); somnolence (RR: 1.80 95% CI 1.32 to 2.46) and movement disorders (SAS - WMD: 0.72 95% CI 0.11 to 1.33) than divalproex but less nausea ( RR: 0.36 95% CI 0.20 to 0.65). Olanzapine caused more weight gain than haloperidol (RR: 3.59, 95% CI 1.49 to 8.64) but less movement disorder (EPS RR: 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.24). Olanzapine is an effective treatment for mania and may be more efficacious than divalproex, though leads to more weight gain. Clinicians should consider both the relative efficacy and the different incidence of specific adverse effects of available drugs.

Plain-language summary: High withdrawal rates from the trials limit the confidence that can be placed on the results. Olanzapine was superior to placebo in reduction of manic symptoms both as monotherapy and combined with mood stabilizers, though caused weight gain. Olanzapine was more efficacious than divalproex and caused less nausea but more weight gain, somnolence and movement disorders. Olanzapine was comparable to haloperidol in efficacy, caused less movement disorders but greater weight gain.
Abstract: We included ten papers reporting results from six intervention studies. Overall, design quality and analysis limited the risks of bias. Several CCT programmes provided strong evidence of a positive impact on the use of health services, nutritional status and health outcomes, respectively assessed by anthropometric measurements  and self-reported episodes of illness. It is hard to attribute these positive effects to the cash incentives specifically because other components may also contribute. Several studies provide evidence of positive impacts on the uptake of preventive services by children and pregnant women. We found no evidence about effects on health care expenditure. Conditional cash transfer programmes have been the subject of some well-designed evaluations, which strongly suggest that they could be an effective approach to improving access to preventive services. Their replicability under different conditions - particularly in more deprived settings - is still unclear because they depend on effective primary health care and mechanisms to disburse payments. Further rigorous evaluative research is needed, particularly where CCTs are being introduced in low income countries, for example in Sub-Saharan Africa or South Asia.

Plain-language summary: We found 29 papers on the impact of conditional cash transfers (CCT) on access to care and health outcomes. Of these, ten papers, reporting results from six studies, satisfied the inclusion criteria; four of these studies were randomised experiments. Despite a number of methodological weaknesses in some studies, overall the research evidence suggests that CCT schemes may result in a number of benefits to health for poor populations. Many conditional cash transfer programmes include a number of components, including incentivising attendance for health education, measurements of height and weight, immunisations and nutritional supplementation. Conditional cash transfer programmes appear to be an effective way to increase the uptake of preventive services and encourage some preventive behaviours. In some cases programmes have noted improvement of health outcomes, though it is unclear to which components this positive effect should be attributed.
Abstract: Five studies reported five comparisons of paraprofessionals versus professionals (n=106) and five comparisons of paraprofessionals versus control condition (n=220). No differences were found between paraprofessionals and professionals (SMD=0.09, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.40, p=0.58), and no significant heterogeneity. Studies comparing paraprofessionals versus control (mixed continuous and dichotomous data) showed a significant effect in favour of paraprofessionals (OR=0.34, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.88, p=0.03), but heterogeneity was indicated (I²=60.9%, Chi²= 10.24, df=4, p=0.04). After correction for heterogeneity and removing one study of low quality, the pooling of data from three studies (n=128; mixed gender; women) indicated no significant difference in effect between paraprofessionals and professionals (SMD=0.13, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.64; p=0.63) and a strongly significant pooled effect for three studies (n=188; women) favouring paraprofessionals over the control condition (OR=0.30, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.48, p<0.00001), and homogeneity indicated between studies (I²=0%, Chi²=0.47, df=2, p=0.79). The few studies included in the review did not allow conclusions about the effect of paraprofessionals compared to professionals, but three studies (women only) indicated a significant effect for paraprofessionals (all volunteers) compared to no treatment. The evidence to date may justify the development and evaluation of programs incorporating paraprofessionals in treatment programs for anxiety and depressive disorders.

Plain-language summary: This review investigated the effectiveness of any kind of psychological treatment conducted by paraprofessionals.The few studies found did not allow conclusions about the effect of paraprofessionals compared to professionals in the treatment of anxiety and depressive disorders. Pooling data from three studies, involving women only, indicated a significant effect for paraprofessionals compared to no treatment. The evidence so far may justify the development and evaluation of programs incorporating paraprofessionals in treatment programs for anxiety and depressive disorders.
Abstract: We included three studies (179 participants) comparing LESS-DN with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. There were no significant differences between LESS-DN and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy for mean operative time (2 studies, 79 participants: MD 6.36 min, 95% CI -11.85 to 24.57), intra-operative blood loss (2 studies, 79 participants: MD -8.31 mL, 95% CI -23.70 to 7.09), or complication rates (3 studies, 179 participants: RD 0.05, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.14). Pain scores at discharge were significantly less in the LESS-DN group (2 studies, 79 participants: MD -1.19, 95% CI -2.17 to -0.21). For all other outcomes (length of hospital stay; length of time to return to normal activities; blood transfusions; conversion to another form of surgery; warm ischaemia time; total analgesic requirement; graft loss) there were no significant differences observed. Although risk of bias was assessed as low overall, one study was assessed at high risk of attrition bias. Given the small number and size of included studies it is uncertain whether LESS-DN is better than laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Well designed and adequately powered RCTs are needed to better define the role of LESS-DN as a minimally invasive option for kidney donor surgery.

Plain-language summary: We searched to literature up to January 2016 and found three studies (reported in 5 publications that involved 179 participants) that compared these two types of kidney donor surgeries. LESS-DN was found to be as safe as standard keyhole surgical techniques; pain at discharge was significantly less with LESS-DN, however there were no other discernible benefits over the standard technique. Overall, we found there was a low risk of bias for all studies; however, funding sources were not reported in two or three studies, and there was high risk of attrition bias in one study. The small number of studies with few participants eligible for inclusion indicates a need for future research in this area.
Abstract: The results of nine randomised controlled trials (N = 482 women) showed that laparoscopic surgery was associated with fewer adverse events of surgery (surgical injury or postoperative complications including fever or infection) (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.5), less postoperative pain (VAS score WMD -2.4, 95% CI -2.7 to -2.0), greater likelihood of being pain free after two days (OR 7.42, 95% CI 4.86 to 11.33), and fewer days in hospital (WMD -2.88, 95% CI -3.1 to -2.7) than with laparotomy. In one study that reported costs, laparoscopy was associated with a significant reduction in costs compared to laparotomy (WMD - USD 1045, 95% CI -1348 to -742) in 1993. Very high levels of heterogeneity made it inappropriate to pool data on duration of surgery. Three RCTs compared laparoscopy versus minilaparotomy and found that laparoscopy was associated with reduced odds of any adverse event (surgical injury or postoperative complications) (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0 to 0.8) and lower VAS scores for pain (WMD -1.0, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.45). Duration of hospital stay ranged between 1 and 2.2 days, with substantial heterogeneity. In women undergoing surgery for benign ovarian tumours, laparoscopy was associated with a reduction in fever, urinary tract infection, postoperative complications, postoperative pain, number of days in hospital, and total cost. These findings should be interpreted with caution since only a small number of studies were identified. These included a total of only 769 women and not all of the important outcomes were reported in each study.

Plain-language summary: In the 12 controlled studies identified, laparoscopic surgery was associated with reduced risk of any adverse events from surgery, less pain, and fewer days in the hospital when compared to laparotomy, the traditional surgical technique.There was no difference between the procedures with regard to outcomes of fever, postoperative infections, and tumour recurrence.
Abstract: Six RCTs that investigated PUFAs emerged from the search strategy, accounting for 794 randomised patients. PUFAs did not have a significant effect on disease progression at 24 months. Omega-6 fatty acids (11 to 23 g/day linoleic acid) didn't show any benefit in 144 MS patients (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.63). Linoleic acid (2.9 to 3.4 g/day) had no benefit in 65 chronic progressive MS patients (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.42). Omega-3 fatty acids had no benefit in 292 relapsing remitting MS patients (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.03, P = 0.08). Slight potential benefits in relapse outcomes were associated with omega-6 fatty acids in some studies, however these findings were limited by the reduced validity of the endpoints. No judgements about safety or patient-reported outcomes were possible. In general, trial quality was poor. No studies on vitamin supplementation and allergen-free diets were analysed as none met the eligibility criteria, mainly due to lack of clinical outcomes. PUFAs seem to have no major effect on the main clinical outcome in MS (disease progression), but they may tend to reduce the frequency of relapses over two years. However, the data that are available are insufficient to assess a real benefit or harm from PUFA supplementation because of their uncertain quality. Evidence on the possible benefits and risks of vitamin supplementation and antioxidant supplements in MS is lacking. More research is required to assess the effectiveness of dietary interventions in MS.

Plain-language summary: The authors of this review tried to assess whether changes in dietary habits could favourably influence the prognosis for people with MS. Although a massive amount of data has been published in this area, only six controlled studies on PUFA, comprising a total of 794 patients, met the inclusion criteria in terms of methodological quality for this review. No studies on vitamins and antioxidant supplements were found that met our criteria. No papers on any other proposed dietary interventions for MS were found after extensive searching of the scientific databases.  The available data are insufficient to assess any potential benefit or harm that might result from PUFA supplementation. The absence of evidence on PUFA and the extensive lack of data on other supplements is an unfortunate event since 50% to 75% of people with MS do use dietary regimens and supplements.
Abstract: Nine randomised trials, including 936 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was considered adequate in only one trial. There was a significant funnel plot asymmetry (regression coefficient=3.37, standard error 1.40, P=0.047). Ten different medicinal herbs were tested in the nine trials. Compared to non-specific treatment or placebo, Fuzheng Jiedu Tang (compound of herbs) showed significantly positive effects on clearance of serum HBsAg, HBeAg, and HBV DNA; Polyporus umbellatus polysaccharide on serum HBeAg and HBV DNA; Phyllanthus amarus on serum HBeAg. Phyllanthus compound and kurorinone showed no significant effect on clearance of serum HBeAg and HBV DNA and on alanine aminotransferase normalisation compared to interferon treatment. There were no significant effects of the other examined herbs. Some Chinese medicinal herbs may work in chronic hepatitis B. However, the evidence is too weak to recommend any single herb. Rigorously designed, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials are required.

Plain-language summary: The review of trials found that some of the Chinese medicinal herbs may have a positive effect on the clearance of hepatitis B virus and on the diseased liver. However, the methodological quality of the trials evaluating these herbs was generally poor. Analysis of the identified trials also indicated that trials with positive findings are more likely to be published than trials without significant findings. Further, medicinal herbs may be associated with side effects. Therefore, Chinese medicinal herbs should not be used outside new trials. Testing the herbs in larger, well-designed trials is needed in order to establish the necessary evidence for their use.
Abstract: We included 10 trials, of which six focused on Parkinson's disease and four on multiple sclerosis. None of the studies reported data on the primary outcome (functional performance). In Parkinson's disease, after pooling two studies, a single session of WBV caused a significant improvement of gait measured using the Timed Up and Go test (TUG) in comparison to standing exercises (mean difference -3.09, 95% confidence interval -5.60 to -0.59; P = 0.02; I2 = 0%). Nevertheless, longer duration of WBV did not show significant results in comparison with physical therapy in body balance or signs and symptoms measured with the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS). In multiple sclerosis there was no evidence of a short-term or long-term effect of WBV on body balance, gait, muscle performance or quality of life. Adverse events were reported in few trials. In those trials that reported them, the intervention appeared to be safe. There is insufficient evidence of the effect of WBV training on functional performance of neurodegenerative disease patients. Also, there is insufficient evidence regarding its beneficial effects on signs and symptoms of the disease, body balance, gait, muscle strength and quality of life compared to other active physical therapy or passive interventions in Parkinson's disease or multiple sclerosis. More studies assessing other functional tests and accurately assessing safety are needed before a definitive recommendation is established.

Plain-language summary: Exercise training using vibratory platform (whole body vibration) has been recently introduced as a complementary treatment to rehabilitation.This review identified ten trials performing whole body vibration (WBV) in neurodegenerative diseases: six in Parkinson's disease and four in multiple sclerosis. Diversity in treatments and outcomes measures makes difficult to quantitatively compare the effect of WBV intervention across studies and to assess its efficacy. There is insufficient evidence to determine the potential benefits of WBV training in functional performance according to activities of daily life, body balance, signs and symptoms of disease, muscle performance, and quality of life in patients with neurodegenerative diseases. Adverse events were poorly reported in the included studies, but this kind of training seems to be a safe intervention. These conclusions are based on a small number of studies with a limited methodological quality.
Abstract: Two trials with 49 participants were included. One trial had low risk of bias. The other trial had high risk of bias. Hormone replacement had no effect on all-cause mortality (RD 0.00; 95% CI -0.11 to 0.11, I² = 0%) and fractures (RD -0.08; 95% CI -0.24 to 0.07, I² = 0%). Hormone replacement significantly increased adverse events and number of patients having hormone replacement withdrawn due to adverse events (RR 5.26; 95% CI 1.26 to 22.04, I² = 0%). Hormone replacement had no significant effect on lumbar spine bone mineral density (MD 1.25 g/cm² yearֿ¹; 95% CI -0.91 to 3.42, I² = 0%). On the other hand, a significant increase in proximal femur bone mineral density was observed in the control group (MD 2.24 g/cm² yearֿ¹; 95% CI 0.74 to 3.74, I² = 0%). Hormone replacement had no significant effect on liver-related mortality, liver transplantation, or liver-related morbidity. Hormone replacement had no significant effect on serum bilirubin concentration (MD 4.60 µmol/L; 95% CI -3.42 to 12.62, I² = 0%). We did not find evidence to support the use of hormone replacement for women with primary biliary cirrhosis. It seems that hormone replacement is connected with a significant increase in the occurrence of adverse events.

Plain-language summary: This review assessed the effect of hormone replacement on treatment of osteoporosis in women with primary biliary cirrhosis. We found no evidence of effect of hormone replacement on mortality and fractures in women with primary biliary cirrhosis. It seems that hormone replacement given to women with primary biliary cirrhosis is connected with a significant increase in the occurrence of adverse events compared with placebo or no intervention. Hormone replacement appears to have no effect on the lumbar bone mineral density compared with placebo or no intervention. Hormone replacement may decrease bone mineral density measured at the proximal femur. We did not find evidence to support the use of hormone replacement for osteoporosis in women with primary biliary cirrhosis.