GEM/cochrane-simplification huggingface dataset:
Abstract: Three studies, with a combined total of 496 patients, matched the inclusion criteria for this review. All three included studies evaluated the role of KL and TL in thromboprophylaxis among a group of postoperative patients. These studies showed no significant difference in the ability of the two modalities of leg compression to reduce the incidence of deep vein thrombosis in postoperative patients. In both the fixed-effect model (odds ratio (OR) 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 3.07, P = 0.21) and random-effects model (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.43 to 4.06, P = 0.63) KL graduated compression stockings were as effective as TL stockings in thromboprophylaxis. However, there was significant heterogeneity (Tau2 = 0.50; Chi2 = 4.12, df = 2 (P = 0.13); I2 = 51%) among trials. Results of this review may be considered weak because there was significant heterogeneity among included trials resulting from inadequate randomisation techniques, allocation concealment, power calculations and the absence of intention-to-treat analysis. This review found that there is insufficient high quality evidence to determine whether or not KL and TL GCS differ in their effectiveness in terms of reducing the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in hospitalised patients.  A major multicentre RCT is required to address this issue. In the meantime, the decision on which type of stocking to use in clinical practice is likely to be influenced by factors such as patient compliance, ease of use and cost implications.

Plain-language summary: Due to the limited number of patients and trials, and significant differences between the included trials, the conclusion may be weak. There was insufficient high quality evidence to determine whether or not knee length and thigh length graduated compression stockings differed in their effectiveness in terms of reducing the incidence of DVT in hospitalised patients. The majority of patients analysed in this review also received heparin and physiotherapy, along with the use of either knee length or thigh length stockings. A major multicentre RCT is required. In the meantime, the decision on which type of stocking to use in clinical practice is likely to be influenced by factors such as patient compliance, ease of use and cost implications.
Abstract: We identified two studies with a total of 100 participants for inclusion in the review. We found the overall risk of bias to be unclear in a number of domains. Neither study reported the time taken to the ﬁrst INR in range. Only one study (70 participants) reported the mean time in therapeutic range as a percentage. This study found that in the group of participants deemed to have poor INR control, the addition of 150 micrograms (mcg) oral vitamin K significantly improved anticoagulation control in those with unexplained instability of response to warfarin. The second study (30 participants) reported the effect of 175 mcg oral vitamin K versus placebo on participants with high variability in their INR levels. The study concluded that vitamin K supplementation did not significantly improve the stability of anticoagulation for participants on chronic anticoagulation therapy. However, the study was only available in abstract form, and communication with the lead author confirmed that there were no further publications. Therefore, we interpreted this conclusion with caution. Neither study reported any thromboembolic events, haemorrhage, or death from the addition of vitamin K supplementation. Two included studies in this review compared whether the addition of a low dose (150 to 175 mcg) of vitamin K given to participants with a high-variability response to warfarin improved their INR control. One study demonstrated a significant improvement, while another smaller study (published in abstract only) suggested no overall benefit. Currently, there are insufficient data to suggest an overall benefit. Larger, higher quality trials are needed to examine if low-dose vitamin K improves INR control in those starting or already taking warfarin.

Plain-language summary: In this review, our primary outcomes were to assess if the addition of low-dose vitamin K to warfarin had an effect on the time taken to the ﬁrst INR in range; the mean within the therapeutic range; or any adverse events, such as thromboembolic events, haemorrhage, or mortality. We found two studies that met our inclusion criteria. Neither study reported the time taken to the ﬁrst INR in range. One study was only available in an abbreviated format, so we were unable to interpret the results fully. Nonetheless, it was suggested that the addition of vitamin K had no benefit. A second six-month study gave a small dose of vitamin K (150 mcg daily) or placebo to participants taking warfarin with existing poor INR control. This study reported the mean time in therapeutic range as a percentage and found that in the group of participants deemed to have poor INR control, the addition of 150 mcg oral vitamin K significantly improved their anticoagulation control. However, the study was relatively small. Neither study reported any adverse events, such as thromboembolism, haemorrhage, or death. We conclude that further larger, higher quality studies are needed to conclude whether adding vitamin K to warfarin for patients starting or already on warfarin improves their anticoagulation control.
Abstract: We included eight studies, with a total of 1308 women randomised. The pooled data from these studies show a statistically significant and clinically meaningful reduction in non-cephalic presentation at birth (average risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.61, eight trials, 1305 women); vaginal cephalic birth not achieved (average RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.62, seven trials, 1253 women, evidence graded very low); and caesarean section (average RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.82, eight trials, 1305 women, evidence graded very low) when ECV was attempted in comparison to no ECV attempted. There were no significant differences in the incidence of Apgar score ratings below seven at one minute (average RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.37, three trials, 168 infants) or five minutes (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.36, five trials, 428 infants, evidence graded very low), low umbilical vein pH levels (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.44, one trial, 52 infants, evidence graded very low), neonatal admission (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.34, four trials, 368 infants, evidence graded very low), perinatal death (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.64, eight trials, 1305 infants, evidence graded low), nor time from enrolment to delivery (mean difference -0.25 days, 95% CI -2.81 to 2.31, two trials, 256 women). All of the trials included in this review had design limitations, and the level of evidence was graded low or very low. No studies attempted to blind the intervention, and the process of random allocation was suboptimal in several studies. Three of the eight trials had serious design limitations, however excluding these studies in a sensitivity analysis for outcomes with substantial heterogeneity did not alter the results. Attempting cephalic version at term reduces the chance of non-cephalic presentation at birth, vaginal cephalic birth not achieved and caesarean section. There is not enough evidence from randomised trials to assess complications of ECV at term. Large observational studies suggest that complications are rare. A visual summary of some of the results from this review can be found here.

Plain-language summary: We found 8 studies involving 1308 women. (We included studies up to 28 February 2015.) All the studies were randomised and involved women with low-risk pregnancies. Using ECV around 36 weeks or more increased the chance that babies were born head-first and reduced the risk of having a caesarean section. There were no clear differences in other outcomes such as the risk of babies dying. The quality of the studies and therefore the strength of the evidence was varied. If an unborn baby is lying bottom-down, turning it by ECV just before birth can reduce some of the problems this position can cause. These studies are too small to show if ECV is safe to use in women with low-risk pregnancies, however other types of studies suggest that it is safe. We also do not know if it should be used in high-risk cases, such as mothers who have already had a caesarean section, or who are expecting twins. A visual summary of some of the results from this review can be found here.
Abstract: We included 11 trials with a total of 828 oncology patients (adults and children). We assessed most included studies to be at a low or unclear risk of bias. Five trials compared the use of antibiotics (vancomycin, teicoplanin or ceftazidime) given before the insertion of the long-term CVC with no antibiotics, and six trials compared antibiotics (vancomycin, amikacin or taurolidine) and heparin with a heparin-only solution for flushing or locking the long-term CVC after use. Administering an antibiotic prior to insertion of the CVC did not significantly reduce Gram positive catheter-related sepsis (CRS) (five trials, 360 adults; risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 1.58; I² = 5 2%; P = 0.41). Flushing and locking long-term CVCs with a combined antibiotic and heparin solution significantly reduced the risk of Gram positive catheter-related sepsis compared with a heparin-only solution (468 participants, mostly children; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.80; I² = 0%; P = 0.005). For a baseline infection rate of 15%, this reduction translated into a number needed to treat (NNT) of 12 (95% CI 9 to 33) to prevent one catheter-related infection. We considered this evidence to be of a moderate quality. There was no benefit to administering antibiotics before the insertion of long-term CVCs to prevent Gram positive catheter-related infections. Flushing or locking long-term CVCs with a combined antibiotic and heparin solution appeared to reduce Gram positive catheter-related sepsis experienced in people at risk of neutropenia through chemotherapy or disease. Due to insufficient data it was not clear whether this applied equally to TCVCs and totally implanted devices (TIDs), or equally to adults and children. The use of a combined antibiotic and heparin solution may increase microbial antibiotic resistance, therefore it should be reserved for high risk people or where baseline CVC infection rates are high (> 15%). Further research is needed to identify high risk groups most likely to benefit.

Plain-language summary: We searched the literature from 1966 to 2013 for relevant studies (randomised controlled trials only). We included five studies (involving 360 children and adults) that compared antibiotics given before the insertion of the CVC with no antibiotics before insertion. We found that giving an antibiotic before inserting a tunnelled CVC did not prevent Gram positive catheter-related infections. We included six studies (involving 468 people, mainly children) that tested flushing or locking the newly inserted CVC with a combination of an antibiotic and heparin compared with heparin only. We found that flushing the catheter with a solution containing an antibiotic and heparin reduced the number of catheter-related infections. This practice is most likely to be of value where the risk of such infections is high. We considered this evidence to be of a moderate quality.
Abstract: We included six studies (375 participants) in this review; these compared alginate dressings with basic wound contact dressings, foam dressings and a silver-containing, fibrous-hydrocolloid dressing. Meta analysis of two studies found no statistically significant difference between alginate dressings and basic wound contact dressings: risk ratio (RR) 1.09 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.80). Pooled data from two studies comparing alginate dressings with foam dressings found no statistically significant difference in ulcer healing (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of diabetic foot ulcers healed when an anti-microbial (silver) hydrocolloid dressing was compared with a standard alginate dressing (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.47). All studies had short follow-up times (six to 12 weeks), and small sample sizes. Currently there is no research evidence to suggest that alginate wound dressings are more effective in healing foot ulcers in people with diabetes than other types of dressing however many trials in this field are very small. Decision makers may wish to consider aspects such as dressing cost and the wound management properties offered by each dressing type e.g. exudate management.

Plain-language summary: This review (six studies involving a total of 375 participants) identified no research evidence to suggest that alginate wound dressings are more effective in healing diabetic foot ulcers than other types of dressing. More, better quality research is needed.
Abstract: The review included 19 studies randomising 1190 participants with carpal tunnel syndrome. Two studies compared splinting with no treatment, five compared different splint designs, one compared different splint-wearing regimens, seven compared splint delivered as a single intervention with another non-surgical intervention, and five compared splint delivered alongside other non-surgical interventions with another non-surgical intervention. Only three studies reported concealing the allocation sequence, and only one reported blinding of participants. Three studies measured the primary outcome, short-term overall improvement at three months or less. One low quality study with 80 wrists found that compared to no treatment, splints worn at night more than tripled the likelihood of reporting overall improvement at the end of four weeks of treatment (RR 3.86, 95% CI 2.29 to 6.51). However, the lack of patient blinding and unclear allocation concealment suggests this result should be interpreted with caution. A very low quality quasi-randomised trial with 90 wrists found that wearing a neutral splint more than doubled the likelihood of reporting 'a lot or complete relief' at the end of two weeks of treatment compared with an extension splint (RR 2.43, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.28). The third study which measured short-term overall improvement did not report outcome data separately per group. Nine studies measured adverse effects of splinting and all found either no or few participants reporting discomfort or swelling due to splinting; however, the precision of all RRs was very low. Differences between groups in the secondary outcomes - symptoms, function, and neurophysiologic parameters - were most commonly small with 95% CIs incorporating effects in either direction. Overall, there is limited evidence that a splint worn at night is more effective than no treatment in the short term, but there is insufficient evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of one splint design or wearing regimen over others, and of splint over other non-surgical interventions for CTS. More research is needed on the long-term effects of this intervention for CTS.

Plain-language summary: We searched for study reports and found 19 randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials including 1190 participants overall that assessed the safety and benefit of splinting for people with CTS. The risk of bias of studies was low in some studies and unclear or high in others. One low quality study suggests that splinting at night leads to more overall improvement in the short term when compared to no treatment, but we cannot say from the evidence whether one splint design or wearing regimen is more effective than another, nor can we say that splinting is more effective than other non-surgical interventions for CTS (for example exercises, oral steroids). Nine trials measured adverse effects of splinting and all found either no or few participants reported discomfort or swelling due to splinting. More research is needed to find out how effective and safe splinting is for people with carpal tunnel syndrome, particularly in the long term.
Abstract: One study was included in the review. This multi-centre trial was based in five Australian hospitals and recruited 272 children with chronic cough. Children were randomly assigned to early (two weeks) or delayed (six weeks) referral to respiratory specialists who used a cough management pathway. When an intention-to-treat analysis was performed, clinical failure at six weeks post randomisation (defined as < 75% improvement in cough score, or total resolution for fewer than three consecutive days) was significantly less in the early pathway arm compared with the control arm (odds ratio (OR) 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 0.58). These results indicate that one additional child will be cured for every five children treated via the cough pathway (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 5, 95% CI 3 to 9) at six weeks. Cough-specific parent-reported quality of life scores were significantly better in the early-pathway group; the mean difference (MD) between groups was 0.60 (95% CI 0.19 to 1.01). Duration of cough post randomisation was significantly shorter in the intervention group (early-pathway arm) compared with the control group (delayed-pathway arm) (MD -2.70 weeks, 95% CI -4.26 to -1.14). Current evidence suggests that using a clinical algorithm for the management of children with chronic cough in hospital outpatient settings is more effective than providing wait-list care. Futher high-quality randomised controlled trials are needed to perform ongoing evaluation of cough management pathways in general practitioner and other primary care settings.

Plain-language summary: Only a single multi-centre study could be included in this review. Evidence is current to January 2014. This study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. This study of 272 children in five Australian hospitals reported that those randomly assigned to earlier treatment according to a clinical pathway showed improved clinical outcomes (cough resolved earlier and quality of life was better) compared with those who were randomly assigned to later use of the pathway. No adverse events were reported. The quality of evidence was graded as moderate. Evidence is limited, as only one study could be included in this review. This study was unable to completely blind participants to the clinical pathway.
Abstract: There are no included trials. We found no randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of antenatal fetal surveillance regimens of a suspected LGA fetus on important health outcomes for the mother and baby. There has been a rise in the prevalence of LGA babies over the past few decades in many countries. Research is therefore required on regimens of antenatal surveillance of suspected LGA infants, in order to guide practice and improve the health outcomes for the mother and infant. In particular, randomised control trials to investigate whether serial antenatal clinic and ultrasound assessments of suspected LGA infants (including liquor volume and markers of fetal adiposity) would be useful, to assess whether surveillance methods improve health outcomes. In addition, as there are concerns that identifying suspected LGA fetuses may lead to unnecessary maternal anxiety, investigations and interventions, any such trial would need to assess the risks as well as benefits of regimens of fetal surveillance for suspected LGA fetuses.

Plain-language summary: We searched for studies on 10 August 2015 but did not find any randomised controlled trials looking at the effects of performing extra tests on health outcomes in pregnant women with overgrowth of the baby after 20 weeks gestation. There is a need for randomised controlled trials in this area in order to inform clinical practice when large babies are identified during a pregnancy, to assess if extra tests or surveillance can improve the health of these women and their babies. It is also important to identify any harms associated with extra tests and surveillance, as identifying women with suspected large babies may lead to unnecessary maternal anxiety with additional investigations and interventions, including induction of labour or caesarean section.
Abstract: Only one study enrolling 14 participants was eligible for inclusion in the review. The double-blind study compared a daily dose of 600 mg omalizumab or placebo along with twice daily itraconazole and oral corticosteroids, with a maximum daily dose of 400 mg. Treatment lasted six months but the study was terminated prematurely and complete data were not available. We contacted the study investigator and were told that the study was terminated due to the inability to recruit participants into the study despite all reasonable attempts. One or more serious side effects were encountered in six out of nine (66.67%) and one out of five (20%) participants in omalizumab group and placebo group respectively. There is lack of evidence for the efficacy and safety of anti-IgE (omalizumab) therapy in people with cystic fibrosis and allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis. There is a need for large prospective randomized controlled studies of anti-IgE therapy in people with cystic fibrosis and allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis with both clinical and laboratory outcome measures such as steroid requirement, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis exacerbations and lung function.

Plain-language summary: We could only include one small study in the review (14 participants) and this was stopped early because not enough people agreed to join the study as volunteers. The study lasted six months and compared omalizumab (Xolair®) injections under the skin of the upper arm or the thigh to placebo injections (dummy treatment containing no active medication). Volunteers were given of 600 mg of omalizumab or placebo daily along with itraconazole (an antifungal drug) twice daily and oral corticosteroids, with a maximum daily dose of 400 mg. The full results of the study were not published. Only limited results on side effects were published online. Six out of nine volunteers (66.67%) in the omalizumab group and one out of five volunteers (20%) in the placebo group reported one or more serious side effects. Due to the lack of evidence, we are not able to make recommendations either in favour of, or against the use of, anti-IgE (omalizumab) therapy in people with cystic fibrosis and allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis. More research into this treatment is needed.