GEM/cochrane-simplification huggingface dataset:
Abstract: There are no identifiable studies that have evaluated the association between parenteral calcium supplementation in critically ill ICU patients and the following outcomes: mortality, multiple organ dysfunction, ICU and hospital length of stay, costs, and complications of calcium administration. Serum ionized calcium concentration was reported in 5 studies (12 trial arms, 159 participants). These trials showed a small but significant increase in serum ionized calcium concentration after calcium administration. These trials showed considerable statistical heterogeneity and differed extensively in the population studied (adult versus neonate), the indication (hypocalcemia versus prophylaxis) and threshold of hypocalcemia for which parenteral calcium was administered, and the timing of subsequent measurement of serum ionized calcium concentration to the extent that we consider a pooled estimate almost inappropriate. There is no clear evidence that parenteral calcium supplementation impacts the outcome of critically ill patients.

Plain-language summary: Several epidemiological studies of critically ill patients highlight a direct association between low levels of calcium (hypocalcemia) and mortality, though whether this association is causal is unknown. On the other hand, despite prior studies detailing associations between hypocalcemia and poor outcome, there is evidence to suggest that calcium supplementation in critical illness may be deleterious. Five randomized controlled trials with 159 participants were detected. All of the five included studies were conducted in the USA. No trial evaluated the association between parenteral calcium supplementation in critically ill intensive care unit patients and the following outcomes: mortality, multiple organ dysfunction, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, costs, and complications of calcium administration. Some data on laboratory measurements (serum calcium) could be extracted. Nonetheless, these data provide little to guide the care of intensive care unit patients. The question of greater importance, "Does correcting hypocalcemia in critically ill patients provide any benefit in reducing mortality, the development of organ dysfunction, or the allocation of resources ?" remains to be answered. At present, the evidence base for guidelines regarding calcium administration in intensive care unit patients is poor.
Abstract: At present, eligible first line trials for this meta-analysis were available for bevacizumab (5 trials including 3101 patients) and vatalanib (1 trial which included 1168 patients). The overall HR´s for PFS (0.61, 95% CI 0.45 - 0.83) and OS (0.81, 95% 0.73 - 0.90) for the comparison of first-line chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab, confirms significant benefits in favour of the patients treated with bevacizumab. However, the effect on PFS shows significant heterogeneity. For second-line chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab, a benefit in both PFS (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.51 - 0.73) and OS (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63-0.89) was demonstrated in a single, randomized trial. While differences in treatment-related deaths and 60-day mortality were not significant, higher incidences in grade III/IV hypertension, arterial thrombembolic events and gastrointestinal perforations were observed in the patients treated with bevacizumab. For valatanib, currently available data showed a non-significant benefit in PFS and OS. The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy of metastatic colorectal cancer prolongs both PFS and OS in first-and second-line therapy.

Plain-language summary: Data from 5 randomized trials, which included a total of 3101 patients and evaluated the effect of bevacizumab, are currently available. Furthermore, data from one study, which included a total of 1168 patients and evaluated the effect of valatinib is published. The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy prolongs both progression-free survival from about 7.1 to 9.7 months when used as primary treatment and overall survival from about 17.7 to 20.5 months after prior use of chemotherapy (so called "second-line therapy") for metastatic colorectal cancer. However, the magnitude of the effect on progression-free survival is variable and probably depends on the type of chemotherapy to which it is associated. Vatalanib has no significant effect on progression-free and overall survival. Adverse effects of bevacizumab include increased frequencies of high blood pressure, arterial thromboembolic events and bowel perforations.
Abstract: Ten studies were included in the review. Selected studies addressed different psychosocial interventions for five distinct disorders or health complaints. There is good evidence that problem-solving treatment by general practitioners is effective for major depression. The evidence concerning the remaining interventions for other health complaints (reattribution or cognitive behavioural group therapy for somatisation, cognitive behavioural therapy for unexplained fatigue, counselling for smoking cessation, behavioural interventions to reduce alcohol reduction) is either limited or conflicting. In general, there is little available evidence on the use of psychosocial interventions by general practitioners. Of the psychosocial interventions reviewed, problem-solving treatment for depression may offer promise, although a stronger evidence-base is required and the effectiveness in routine practice remains to be demonstrated. More research is required to improve the evidence-base on this subject.

Plain-language summary: The reviewers found no strong evidence for the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of psychosocial interventions by general practitioners. Of the psychosocial interventions reviewed, problem-solving treatment for depression seems the most promising tool for GPs, although its effectiveness in daily practice remains to be demonstrated.
Abstract: We found one RCT and one quasi-RCT that met the inclusion criteria after independent and duplicate review of the search results. The studies used different anti-VEGF agents and different study groups which were not directly comparable. One multi-centre RCT (BRAVO) conducted in the USA randomised 397 individuals and compared monthly intravitreal ranibizumab (0.3 mg and 0.5 mg) injections with sham injection. The study only included individuals with non-ischaemic BRVO. Although repeated injections of ranibizumab appeared to have a favourable effect on the primary outcome, approximately 50% of the ranibizumab 0.3 mg group and 45% of the ranibizumab 0.5 mg group received rescue laser treatment which may have an important effect on the primary outcome. In addition, during the six-month observation period 93.5% of individuals in the sham group received intravitreal ranibizumab (0.5 mg). This cross-over design limits the ability to compare the long-term impact of ranibizumab versus a pure control group. The second trial was a small study (n = 30) from Italy with limitations in study design that reported a benefit of as-required intravitreal bevacizumab (1.25 mg) over laser photocoagulation in MO secondary to BRVO. We present the evidence from these trials and other interventional case series. The available RCT evidence suggests that repeated treatment of non-ischaemic MO secondary to BRVO with the anti-VEGF agent ranibizumab may improve clinical and visual outcomes at six and 12 months. However, the frequency of re-treatment has not yet been determined and the impact of prior or combined treatment with laser photocoagulation on the primary outcome is unclear. Results from ongoing studies should assess not only treatment efficacy but also, the number of injections needed for maintenance and long-term safety and the effect of any prior treatment.

Plain-language summary: Recent studies have suggested that an injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) in the eye may be of benefit to patients with BRVO. In this review, we appraise and present the level of current evidence for the use of anti-VEGF injections in the treatment of macular oedema after BRVO. In total, we found one randomised controlled trial and one quasi-randomised controlled trial. One study from the USA. had 397 participants and compared anti-VEGF injections with sham injections. It demonstrated a potential benefit of repeated anti-VEGF injections to improve vision (at least 15 letters) at one year. A second study with 30 participants, conducted in Italy, compared anti-VEGF injections with laser photocoagulation and did not demonstrate an improvement in vision (of at least 15 letters) of anti-VEGF injections over laser photocoagulation at one year. Antiangiogenic treatment was well tolerated in these studies, but since the studies were only of one year duration, we were unable to discuss long-term effects. There are several ongoing studies which undoubtedly will add to the evidence available.
Abstract: We included 25 studies (712 participants). Three studies were parallel RCTs and the others were cross-over RCTs. Nineteen studies compared fixed reduction of dialysate temperature (below 36°C) and standard dialysate temperature (37°C to 37.5°C). Most studies were of unclear or high risk of bias. Compared with standard dialysate, it is uncertain whether fixed reduction of dialysate temperature improves IDH rate (8 studies, 153 participants: rate ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.80; very low certainty evidence); however, it might increase the discomfort rate compared with standard dialysate (4 studies, 161 participants: rate ratio 8.31, 95% CI 1.86 to 37.12; very low certainty evidence). There were no reported dropouts due to adverse events. No study reported death, acute coronary syndrome or stroke. Three studies compared isothermal dialysate and thermoneutral dialysate. Isothermal dialysate might improve the IDH rate compared with thermoneutral dialysate (2 studies, 133 participants: rate ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.76; I2 = 0%; very low certainty evidence). There were no reports of discomfort rate (1 study) or dropouts due to adverse events (2 studies). No study reported death, acute coronary syndrome or stroke. Reduction of dialysate temperature may prevent IDH, but the conclusion is uncertain. Larger studies that measure important outcomes for HD patients are required to assess the effect of reduction of dialysate temperature. Six ongoing studies may provide much-needed high quality evidence in the future.

Plain-language summary: The quality of included studies was generally very low due to the risk of bias, small sample size, and a lack of information. We found very low quality evidence that fixed reduction of dialysate temperature decreased the incidence of IDH compared with standard dialysate and increased the discomfort rate. When patient discomfort is minimal, reduction of the dialysate temperature may be an option to reduce IDH. However, no study reported the long-term outcomes such as death or heart disorders. There is limited data suggesting that the reduction of dialysate temperature may prevent IDH, but the conclusion is very uncertain. Larger studies that measure important outcomes such as IDH or mortality for HD patients are required to assess the effect of reducing dialysate temperature.
Abstract: We included six Cochrane Reviews, one of which compared any type of chest physiotherapy with no chest physiotherapy or coughing alone and the remaining five reviews included head-to-head comparisons of different airway clearance techniques. All the reviews were considered to have a low risk of bias. However, the individual trials included in the reviews often did not report sufficient information to adequately assess risk of bias. Many trials did not sufficiently report on outcome measures and had a high risk of reporting bias. We are unable to draw definitive conclusions for comparisons of airway clearance techniques in terms of FEV1, except for reporting no difference between PEP therapy and oscillating devices after six months of treatment, mean difference -1.43% predicted (95% confidence interval -5.72 to 2.87); the quality of the body of evidence was graded as moderate. The quality of the body of evidence comparing different airway clearance techniques for other outcomes was either low or very low. There is little evidence to support the use of one airway clearance technique over another. People with cystic fibrosis should choose the airway clearance technique that best meets their needs, after considering comfort, convenience, flexibility, practicality, cost, or some other factor. More long-term, high-quality randomised controlled trials comparing airway clearance techniques among people with cystic fibrosis are needed.

Plain-language summary: All of the reviews were considered to be well-conducted. However, the individual trials included in the reviews often did not report enough detailed information to allow us to properly determine trial quality. Many trials did not report enough information on outcome measures; it is unclear how this missing information would influence the results. We graded the evidence for lung function when PEP was compared to vibrating (oscillating) devices as moderate, but the evidence comparing different airway clearance techniques for other outcomes, such as individual preference and quality of life was of low or very low quality. More long-term, high-quality trials (where participants are put into groups at random) which compare different airway clearance techniques among people with CF are needed.
Abstract: 36 trials were included but most were small and of duration less than three months. Nine trials were of six months duration (2016 patients). These longer trials were the more recent trials and generally were of adequate size, and conducted to a reasonable standard. Most trials tested the same standardised preparation of Ginkgo biloba, EGb 761, at different doses, which are classified as high or low. The results from the more recent trials showed inconsistent results for cognition, activities of daily living, mood, depression and carer burden. Of the four most recent trials to report results three found no difference between Ginkgo biloba and placebo, and one reported very large treatment effects in favour of Ginkgo biloba. There are no significant differences between Ginkgo biloba and placebo in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events. A subgroup analysis including only patients diagnosed with Alzhiemer's disease (925 patients from nine trials) also showed no consistent pattern of any benefit associated with Ginkgo biloba. Ginkgo biloba appears to be safe in use with no excess side effects compared with placebo. Many of the early trials used unsatisfactory methods, were small, and publication bias cannot be excluded. The evidence that Ginkgo biloba has predictable and clinically significant benefit for people with dementia or cognitive impairment is inconsistent and unreliable.

Plain-language summary: Many of the early trials used unsatisfactory methods, were small, and publication bias cannot be excluded. Overall, evidence that Ginkgo has predictable and clinically significant benefit for people with dementia or cognitive impairment is inconsistent and unreliable. Of the four most recent trials to report results, three found no difference between Ginkgo biloba and placebo, and one reported very large treatment effects in favour of Ginkgo biloba.
Abstract: We included three randomised trials with 261 participants (mean age: 60 years) comparing RFCA (159 participants) to antiarrhythmic drugs (102) for non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. We generally assessed the included studies as having low or unclear risk of bias across multiple domains, with reported outcomes generally lacking precision due to low event rates. Evidence showed that RFCA was superior to antiarrhythmic drugs in achieving freedom from atrial arrhythmias (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.88; 3 studies, 261 participants; low-quality evidence), reducing the need for cardioversion (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.82; 3 studies, 261 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and reducing cardiac-related hospitalisation (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.72; 2 studies, 216 participants; low-quality evidence) at 12 months follow-up. There was substantial uncertainty surrounding the effect of RFCA regarding significant bradycardia (or need for a pacemaker) (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.63; 3 studies, 261 participants; low-quality evidence), periprocedural complications, and other safety outcomes (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.16 to 5.68; 3 studies, 261 participants; very low-quality evidence). In people with non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, evidence suggests a superiority of RFCA to antiarrhythmic drugs in achieving freedom from atrial arrhythmias, reducing the need for cardioversion, and reducing cardiac-related hospitalisations. There was uncertainty surrounding the effect of RFCA with significant bradycardia (or need for a pacemaker), periprocedural complications, and other safety outcomes. Evidence should be interpreted with caution, as event rates were low and quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low.

Plain-language summary: We searched scientific databases from their inception to 1 April 2016 and found three studies where people are randomly allocated into one of two or more treatment groups (known as randomised trials). The three trials included 261 adults (mean age: 60 years) comparing catheter ablation (159 participants) to heart rhythm drugs (102) for non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation at 12 months follow-up. When compared to participants receiving heart rhythm drugs, those participants receiving catheter ablation were more likely to be free from atrial fibrillation, had reduced risk of being hospitalised due to cardiac causes, and had a reduced risk of needing cardioversion after 12 months. There was uncertainty surrounding the effect of catheter ablation with significant bradycardia (or need for a pacemaker), periprocedural complications, and other safety outcomes. Evidence should be interpreted with caution as evidence quality ranged from moderate to very low across the different outcomes due to the limitations of the original studies. It is likely that further high-quality and adequately powered trials may affect the confidence in reported results.
Abstract: The search identified 1178 potentially relevant titles; however, there were no published studies that were specifically designed to answer this question. Two studies met criteria for inclusion in the review and 98 children were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between groups in the proportion of children 'not cured' at follow-up (primary outcome measure), with a pooled odds ratio (OR) of 0.61 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 1.55). However, the included studies were limited in their ability to answer the review question by the fact that all participants were infants, post acute bronchiolitis illness, and cough duration at the start of study medication was ill-defined. There is currently no evidence to support the use of ICS for treatment of subacute cough in children. However, this systematic review is limited by the small number of studies available for analysis and the size, quality and design of these studies. Further well-designed RCTs are required to support or refute the efficacy of treatment with ICS in children with subacute cough.

Plain-language summary: Data from two small studies were available for inclusion in this review; however, both studies were in infants following hospitalisation for an acute bronchiolitis illness (98 infants in total). There was no difference between groups in the proportion of children 'not cured' at follow-up. There were no significant side effects in either of these studies. Without further available evidence, recommendations for the use of inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of subacute cough in children cannot be made. Further well-designed studies, including children over 12 months of age, are required to determine whether treatment with inhaled corticosteroids can safely and effectively reduce the severity of subacute cough in children.
Abstract: No trials were included. Primary healthcare interventions and a strong family and social support network are invaluable to parents and families around the time a baby dies. However, due to the lack of high-quality randomised trials conducted in this area, the true benefits of currently existing interventions aimed at providing support for mothers, fathers and families experiencing perinatal death is unclear. Further, the currently available evidence around the potential detrimental effects of some interventions (e.g. seeing and holding a deceased baby) remains inconclusive at this point in time. However, some well-designed descriptive studies have shown that, under the right circumstances and guided by compassionate, sensitive, experienced staff, parents' experiences of seeing and holding their deceased baby is often very positive. The sensitive nature of this topic and small sample sizes, make it difficult to develop rigorous clinical trials. Hence, other research designs may further inform practice in this area. Where justified, methodologically rigorous trials are needed. However, methodologically rigorous trials should be considered comparing different approaches to support.

Plain-language summary: This review aimed to identify clinical trials to assess the effect of different types of bereavement support interventions and/or counselling for parents experiencing perinatal death. There are no included studies on this topic. For the update of this review we identified one new trial, which is currently awaiting classification. More research in this area is needed.
Abstract: Twenty two studies evaluated the effects of ARBs in 17,900 patients with a LVEF ≤40% (mean 2.2 years). ARBs did not reduce total mortality (RR 0.87 [95% CI 0.76, 1.00]) or total morbidity as measured by total hospitalisations (RR 0.94 [95% CI 0.88, 1.01]) compared with placebo. Total mortality (RR 1.05 [95% CI 0.91, 1.22]), total hospitalisations (RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.92, 1.08]), MI (RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.62, 1.63]), and stroke (RR 1.63 [0.77, 3.44]) did not differ between ARBs and ACEIs but withdrawals due to adverse effects were lower with ARBs (RR 0.63 [95% CI 0.52, 0.76]). Combinations of ARBs plus ACEIs increased the risk of withdrawals due to adverse effects (RR 1.34 [95% CI 1.19, 1.51]) but did not reduce total mortality or total hospital admissions versus ACEI alone. Two placebo-controlled studies evaluated ARBs in 7151 patients with a LVEF >40% (mean 3.7 years). ARBs did not reduce total mortality (RR 1.02 [95% CI 0.93, 1.12]) or total morbidity as measured by total hospitalisations (RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.97, 1.05]) compared with placebo. Withdrawals due to adverse effects were higher with ARBs versus placebo when all patients were pooled irrespective of LVEF (RR 1.06 [95% CI 1.01, 1.12]). In patients with symptomatic HF and systolic dysfunction or with preserved ejection fraction, ARBs compared to placebo or ACEIs do not reduce total mortality or morbidity. ARBs are better tolerated than ACEIs but do not appear to be as safe and well tolerated as placebo in terms of withdrawals due to adverse effects. Adding an ARB in combination with an ACEI does not reduce total mortality or total hospital admission but increases withdrawals due to adverse effects compared with ACEI alone.

Plain-language summary: We found 24 trials that randomly assigned participants to take either an ARB or control substance (placebo or ACEI). These trials evaluated ARBs in 25,051 patients with heart failure and followed them for 2 years. ARBs were no better than placebo or ACE inhibitors in reducing the risk of death, disability, or hospital admission for any reason. However, more patients stopped treatment early with ARBs than with placebo due to side effects. Adding an ARB to an ACEI also did not reduce the risk of death, disability, or hospital admission for any reason as compared to ACEI alone, although more patients taking the combination stopped early due to side effects.