GEM/cochrane-simplification huggingface dataset:
Abstract: We included 83 randomised trials with 12,707 patients. Most trials had unclear or high risk of bias. We did not find any significant influence of bias on our results but cannot exclude outcome measure reporting bias as many trials did not report on the primary outcomes of this review. Compared with interferon, ribavirin plus interferon had a significant beneficial effect on sustained virological response in subgroups of naive patients (RR 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 0.75), relapsers (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.70), non-responders (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.93), and in all patients (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.79). Combination therapy significantly reduced morbidity plus mortality in all patients (Peto OR, 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.79), but not in naive, relapsers, or non-responders individually. Combination therapy significantly increased the risk of haematological, dermatological, gastrointestinal, infectious, and miscellaneous (cough, dyspnoea, fatigue) adverse reactions. Accordingly, combination therapy significantly increased the risk of treatment discontinuation and dose reductions. Trial sequential analyses confirmed our findings regarding virological effects, but not regarding liver-related morbidity and all-cause mortality. Compared with interferon alone, ribavirin plus interferon is more effective in clearing hepatitis C virus from the blood. Combination therapy may reduce liver-related morbidity and all-cause mortality, but we need more evidence. The number needed to treat to obtain a beneficial effect is considerable considering the increased risk of several severe adverse reactions and costs.

Plain-language summary: It is known that treatment with the drug interferon clears hepatitis C virus from the blood in about 15% of patients. This review identified studies comparing ribavirin plus interferon with interferon alone in patients with chronic hepatitis C. This review shows, by combining the results from all trials, that adding ribavirin to interferon increases the number of patients who clear the hepatitis C virus to about 40% as well as the number of patients who demonstrate improved liver histology. Ribavirin and interferon may also reduce the risk of liver-related morbidity or all-cause mortality. However, the number needed to treat to prevent one patient developing morbidity or dying seems very large. Furthermore, combination therapy was associated with increased risk of anaemia and several other adverse reactions. The results gives rise to a dilemma - should we, by adding ribavirin to interferon, increase the risk of haematological, dermatological, gastrointestinal, infectious, and miscellaneous adverse reactions in a situation where it has not yet been clearly demonstrated that the antiviral effect of the intervention is directly linked to the reduction of all-cause mortality? We, therefore, suggest that the combination intervention is applied only with stringent emphasis on the individual patients' well-being. Furthermore, we suggest that all future trials within the area should focus more on adverse reactions and long-term clinical outcomes.
Abstract: This review included 19 randomised trials with a total of 823 participants. Almost all included trials had several methodological weaknesses. Meta-analysis showed that oral stimulation reduced the time to transition to oral feeding compared with standard care (mean difference (MD) -4.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.56 to -4.06 days) and compared with another non-oral intervention (MD -9.01, 95% CI -10.30 to -7.71 days), as well as the duration of initial hospitalisation compared with standard care (MD -5.26, 95% CI -7.34 to -3.19 days) and compared with another non-oral intervention (MD -9.01, 95% CI -10.30 to -7.71 days). Investigators reported shorter duration of parenteral nutrition for infants compared with standard care (MD -5.30, 95% CI -9.73 to -0.87 days) and compared with another non-oral intervention (MD -8.70, 95% CI -15.46 to -1.94 days). They could identify no effect on breast-feeding outcomes nor on weight gain. Although the included studies suggest that oral stimulation shortens hospital stay, days to exclusive oral feeding and duration of parenteral nutrition, one must interpret results of these studies with caution, as risk of bias and poor methodological quality are high overall. Well-designed trials of oral stimulation interventions for preterm infants are warranted. Such trials should use reliable methods of randomisation while concealing treatment allocation, blinding caregivers to treatment when possible and paying particular attention to blinding of outcome assessors.

Plain-language summary: This review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that explored oral stimulation by finger stimulation only in preterm infants. Review authors identified studies to be included by searching electronic databases, clinical trials registers, peer-reviewed journals and published conference proceedings. We included 19 studies of poor quality with small numbers of participants. Study findings suggest that oral stimulation interventions can shorten the transition to oral feeding, reduce length of hospital stay and decrease time spent on parenteral nutrition. No studies looked at longer-term outcomes of the interventions (i.e. beyond six months). Studies have reported no effect on breast feeding outcomes nor on weight gain. These studies were small and most were of low or very low methodological quality. Review authors identified no high-quality studies that could support the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of oral stimulation interventions. Larger, well-designed RCTs are needed to help inform parents and caregivers about the possible benefits and harms of this intervention.
Abstract: This review includes 13 trials (10 RCTs and three quasi-randomised trials), as well as two economic evaluations based on two of the trials. Overall, there were 1078 participants (646 in the intervention group; 432 in the control group). The results indicate that parent training produced a statistically significant reduction in child conduct problems, whether assessed by parents (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.72 to -0.34) or independently assessed (SMD -0.44; 95% CI -0.77 to -0.11). The intervention led to statistically significant improvements in parental mental health (SMD -0.36; 95% CI -0.52 to -0.20) and positive parenting skills, based on both parent reports (SMD -0.53; 95% CI -0.90 to -0.16) and independent reports (SMD -0.47; 95% CI -0.65 to -0.29). Parent training also produced a statistically significant reduction in negative or harsh parenting practices according to both parent reports (SMD -0.77; 95% CI -0.96 to -0.59) and independent assessments (SMD -0.42; 95% CI -0.67 to -0.16). Moreover, the intervention demonstrated evidence of cost-effectiveness. When compared to a waiting list control group, there was a cost of approximately $2500 (GBP 1712; EUR 2217) per family to bring the average child with clinical levels of conduct problems into the non-clinical range. These costs of programme delivery are modest when compared with the long-term health, social, educational and legal costs associated with childhood conduct problems. Behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting interventions are effective and cost-effective for improving child conduct problems, parental mental health and parenting skills in the short term. The cost of programme delivery was modest when compared with the long-term health, social, educational and legal costs associated with childhood conduct problems. Further research is needed on the long-term assessment of outcomes.

Plain-language summary: This review provides evidence that group-based parenting programmes improve childhood behaviour problems and the development of positive parenting skills in the short-term, whilst also reducing parental anxiety, stress and depression. Evidence for the longer-term effects of these programmes is unavailable. These group-based parenting programmes achieve good results at a cost of approximately $2500 (£1712 or €2217) per family. These costs are modest when compared with the long-term social, educational and legal costs associated with childhood conduct problems.
Abstract: Two RCTs and one controlled before-and-after study were included (735 participants). All were conducted in the USA and had several potential sources of bias. Few outcomes for residents were assessed. One study reported higher satisfaction with care and the other found lower observed discomfort in residents with end-stage dementia. Two studies reported group differences on some process measures. Both reported higher referral to hospice services in their intervention group, one found fewer hospital admissions and days in hospital in the intervention group, the other found an increase in do-not-resuscitate orders and documented advance care plan discussions. We found few studies, and all were in the USA. Although the results are potentially promising, high quality trials of palliative care service delivery interventions which assess outcomes for residents are needed, particularly outside the USA. These should focus on measuring standard outcomes, assessing cost-effectiveness, and reducing bias.

Plain-language summary: The aim of this review was to see how effective palliative care interventions in care homes are, and to describe the outcome measures used in the studies. We found only three suitable studies (735 participants), all from the USA. There was little evidence that interventions to improve palliative care for older people in care homes improved outcomes for residents. One study found that palliative care increased bereaved family members' perceptions of the quality of care and another found lower discomfort for residents with dementia who were dying. There were problems with both of these findings. Two studies found that palliative care improved some of the ways in which care was given in the care home, however, we do not know if this resulted in better outcomes for residents. There is a need for more high quality research, particularly outside the USA.
Abstract: We included ten trials in which 652 patients were randomised. The risk of bias was considered high in most trials. There was no significant effect of prostaglandins on all-cause mortality (37/298[12.4%] in prostaglandin group versus 47/312[15.1%] in control group; OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.37; I2 = 0%), on primary non-function of the allograft (8/238 [3.4%] versus. 16/250[6.4%] ;OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.33; I2 = 0%), and on liver re-transplantation (12/161[7.5%] versus 14/171[8.2%]; OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.25; I2 = 0%). Prostaglandins seemed to significantly decrease the risk of acute kidney failure requiring dialysis (13/158[8.2%] versus 34/171[9.9%]; OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.75; I2 = 0%). There was no significant increase in the risk of adverse events with prostaglandins. We found no evidence that the administration of prostaglandins to liver transplanted patients reduces the risk of death, primary non-function of the allograft, or liver re-transplantation. Prostaglandins might reduce the risk of acute kidney failure requiring dialysis, but the quality of the evidence is considered only moderate due to high risk of bias in most of the included trials. Moreover, there are risks of outcome measure reporting bias and random errors. Therefore, further randomised, placebo-controlled trials are deemed necessary.

Plain-language summary: This review summarised and meta-analysed the evidence from randomised clinical trials on the effect of prostaglandins for adult liver transplanted patients. We found ten trials randomising 652 patients. Evidence from these trials is inconclusive on the role of prostaglandins regarding outcomes such as death or liver re-transplantation. The risk of acute kidney failure requiring dialysis may be reduced by two thirds if a liver transplant patient receives prostaglandins, although the level of evidence is only moderate due to risks of systematic errors (bias) and random errors (play of chance). No severe adverse events are reported. Therefore, further randomised trials with low risk of bias and sufficient sample sizes are still needed to establish whether prostaglandins should be administered for liver transplanted patients.
Abstract: Only one study (DiSessa 1981) was eligible. This study compared low dose dopamine at 2.5 mcg/kg/min with placebo (dextrose in water). This study enrolled 14 term infants with a 5 minute Apgar <6 and a systolic BP >=50 mmHg at a mean of 10 hours age. Seven infants only were randomised to treatment with dopamine and seven to receive placebo. No significant differences between these two groups were found for mortality or long term neurodevelopmental outcome. Length of hospitalisation was not significantly different between the two groups. No study was found that examined the effect of dopamine in infants with evidence of cardiovascular compromise, nor were any studies identified in which dopamine was compared to other inotropic agents for term infants with suspected asphyxia. There is currently insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials that the use of dopamine in term infants with suspected perinatal asphyxia improves mortality or long-term neurodevelopmental outcome. The question of whether dopamine improves outcome for term infants with suspected perinatal asphyxia has not been answered. Further research is required to determine whether or not the use of dopamine improves mortality and long-term morbidity for these infants and if so, issues such as which infants, at what dose and with what co-interventions should be addressed.

Plain-language summary: The review authors searched the medical literature and were able to find only one small randomised controlled trial. The 14 infants included in the trial had a birthweight over 2000 g and were enrolled at a mean age of 10 hours. They had received ventilatory support and fluid expansion after birth. Infants treated with low dose dopamine (2.5 microg/kg/min) did not differ from the infants receiving placebo (dextrose water) in the number who died before discharge from hospital. Neurodevelopmental disability was similar in both groups, in all infants randomised and in survivors. The timing of assessments was variable. These findings are limited with only one small study in which three of 12 survivors were lost to follow up.
Abstract: No new trials were identified. This review includes two RCTs with low risk of bias that compared urinary human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) versus no treatment in anovulatory women receiving clomiphene citrate. Urinary hCG did not result in an increase in live birth rate over no hCG (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.83; two trials, 305 participants, I2 = 16%; low-quality evidence), but very serious imprecision around the effect estimate reduces our confidence in the apparent lack of effect of hCG as an ovulation trigger in clomiphene-induced cycles in anovulatory women. Among this review's secondary outcomes, urinary hCG may not increase ovulation rate (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.77; two trials, 305 participants, I2 = 55%; low-quality evidence), clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.89; two trials, 305 participants, I2 = 35%; low-quality evidence) or miscarriage rate in pregnant women (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.17 to 8.23; two trials, 54 participants, I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Multiple pregnancies and preterm deliveries were uncommon, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, adverse events and deaths were not reported as outcomes in either trial.  We found no trials evaluating other ovulation triggers. Evidence is inadequate to recommend or refute the use of urinary hCG as an ovulation trigger in anovulatory women treated with clomiphene citrate. We found no trials evaluating the use of ovulation triggers in anovulatory women treated with other ovulation-inducing agents.

Plain-language summary: The two studies included in this review randomly assigned 305 women being treated with clomiphene citrate to help eggs to develop to additionally receive a medicine (urinary hCG) to trigger their release or to receive no additional treatment. We found no trials comparing other ovulation triggers given with other medicines used for ovulation induction. The evidence is current to November 2013. Giving women on clomiphene citrate additional urinary hCG may not increase their chances of delivering live babies, ovulating or becoming pregnant. Multiple pregnancies, miscarriages and preterm deliveries were not more common with or without an ovulation trigger. No serious adverse events were reported in either study. We cannot be certain whether ovulation triggers are better or worse than no ovulation triggers in women undergoing ovulation induction because not enough women were included in the two trials for definite results to be obtained. Larger trials in women undergoing ovulation induction that compare different ovulation triggers versus no additional treatment are needed.
Abstract: Twelve studies conducted in China, including 762 children with nephrotic syndrome were identified. No studies were identified in adults. All studies compared one kind of prophylactic pharmacotherapy (intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), thymosin, oral transfer factor, mannan peptide tablet, Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccine injection, polyvalent bacterial vaccine (Lantigen B) and two kinds of Chinese medicinal herbs: a compound of Chinese medicinal herbs (TIAOJINING) and Huangqi (astragalus) granules) plus baseline treatment with baseline treatment alone. No RCTs were identified comparing antibiotics, non-pharmacological prophylaxis, or pneumococcal vaccination. Four studies showed a significantly beneficial effect of IVIG on preventing nosocomial or unspecified infection in children with nephrotic syndrome (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.73). Thymosin (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.97), oral transfer factor (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.73), BCG vaccine injection (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.95), Huangqi granules (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.83) and TIAOJINING (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.81) were also effective in reducing the risk of infection in children with nephrotic syndrome. However mannan peptide tablet (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.01) and polyvalent bacterial vaccine (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to1.00) were not superior to baseline treatment in reducing the risk of infection for nephrotic children. No serious adverse events were reported. IVIG, thymosin, oral transfer factor, BCG vaccine, Huangqi granules and TIAOJINING may have positive effects on the prevention of nosocomial or unspecified infection with no obvious serious adverse events in children with nephrotic syndrome. However the methodological quality of all studies was poor, the sample sizes small, and all studies were from China, and thus there is no strong evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions.

Plain-language summary: No studies on antibiotics, pneumococcal vaccination and any other non-drug prophylaxis were identified. This review found that intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), thymosin, oral transfer factor, Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccine injection and two kinds of Chinese medicinal herbs (Huangqi granules and TIAOJINING) may help prevent infections in nephrotic children. These studies were methodologically poor. Currently there is no strong evidence for recommending any interventions for preventing infections in nephrotic syndrome. More research is needed.
Abstract: We identified 28 RCTs (3497 participants) with 1773 mortality outcomes. Six different vasopressors, given alone or in combination, were studied in 12 different comparisons. All 28 studies reported mortality outcomes; 12 studies reported length of stay. Investigators reported other morbidity outcomes in a variable and heterogeneous way. No data were available on quality of life nor on anxiety and depression outcomes. We classified 11 studies as having low risk of bias for the primary outcome of mortality; only four studies fulfilled all trial quality criteria. In summary, researchers reported no differences in total mortality in any comparisons of different vasopressors or combinations in any of the pre-defined analyses (evidence quality ranging from high to very low). More arrhythmias were observed in participants treated with dopamine than in those treated with norepinephrine (high-quality evidence). These findings were consistent among the few large studies and among studies with different levels of within-study bias risk. We found no evidence of substantial differences in total mortality between several vasopressors. Dopamine increases the risk of arrhythmia compared with norepinephrine and might increase mortality. Otherwise, evidence of any other differences between any of the six vasopressors examined is insufficient. We identified low risk of bias and high-quality evidence for the comparison of norepinephrine versus dopamine and moderate to very low-quality evidence for all other comparisons, mainly because single comparisons occasionally were based on only a few participants. Increasing evidence indicates that the treatment goals most often employed are of limited clinical value. Our findings suggest that major changes in clinical practice are not needed, but that selection of vasopressors could be better individualised and could be based on clinical variables reflecting hypoperfusion.

Plain-language summary: Review authors identified 28 randomized controlled trials involving 3497 critically ill patients with circulatory failure, among whom 1773 died. Patients were followed up to one year. The following drugs, given alone or in combination, were studied in 12 different comparisons: dopamine, norepinephrine, epinephrine, phenylephrine, vasopressin, and terlipressin. In summary, researchers found no significant differences in risk of dying in any comparisons of different drugs given alone or in combination when latest reported death was considered. Disturbances in the rhythm of the heart were observed more frequently in people treated with dopamine than in those treated with norepinephrine. The quality of the evidence was high for the comparison of norepinephrine and dopamine, and was very low to moderate for the other comparisons. Findings were consistent among the few large studies and studies of different quality.
Abstract: Nine trials were included in the review but only 3 trials could be included in the meta-analysis. Sufficient data to include the other trials in the meta-analysis could not be obtained. From this limited analysis it appears that TENS produced a statistically significant improvement directly after treatment in: delayed recall of 8 words in one trial, face recognition in two trials and motivation in one trial. However, no effect of TENS was found on any of the many other neuropsychological and behavioural measures evaluated either directly after TENS treatment or 6 weeks after treatment was completed. Although a number of studies suggest that TENS may produce short lived improvements in some neuropsychological or behavioural aspects of dementia, the limited presentation and availability of data from these studies does not allow definite conclusions on the possible benefits of this intervention. Since most of the currently published studies are well designed, although the numbers of subjects in each study is small, analysis of the complete original data from these and/or future studies may allow more definitive conclusions to be drawn.

Plain-language summary: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is rarely used for the treatment of dementia but has been studied in a number of randomized controlled trials. Although the available data suggests TENS may be beneficial for some neuropsychological and/or behavioural aspects of dementia insufficient data was available to these reviewers for definitive conclusions to be drawn.