Datasets:

KenLuo

/

qls

like 0

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCryptococcal disease remains one of the main causes of death in HIV-positive people who have low cluster of differentiation 4 (CD4) cell counts. Currently, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends screening HIV-positive people with low CD4 counts for cryptococcal antigenaemia (CrAg), and treating those who are CrAg-positive. This Cochrane Review examined the effects of an approach where those with low CD4 counts received regular prophylactic antifungals, such as fluconazole.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of antifungal drugs for the primary prevention of cryptococcal disease in adults and children who are HIV-positive.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE PubMed, Embase OVID, CINAHL EBSCOHost, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, conference proceedings for the International AIDS Society (IAS) and Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), and reference lists of relevant articles up to 31 August 2017.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials of adults and children, who are HIV-positive with low CD4 counts, without a current or prior diagnosis of cryptococcal disease that compared any antifungal drug taken as primary prophylaxis to placebo or standard care.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted and analysed data. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. We summarized all outcomes using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nNine trials, enrolling 5426 participants, met the inclusion criteria of this review. Six trials administered fluconazole, while three trials administered itraconazole.\nAntifungal prophylaxis may make little or no difference to all-cause mortality (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.43; 6 trials, 3220 participants; low-certainty evidence). For cryptococcal specific outcomes, prophylaxis probably reduces the risk of developing cryptococcal disease (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.49; 7 trials, 5000 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably reduces deaths due to cryptococcal disease (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.72; 5 trials, 3813 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Fluconazole prophylaxis may make no clear difference to the risk of developing clinically resistant Candida disease (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.56; 3 trials, 1198 participants; low-certainty evidence); however, there may be an increased detection of fluconazole-resistant Candida isolates from surveillance cultures (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.55; 3 trials, 539 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antifungal prophylaxis was generally well-tolerated with probably no clear difference in the risk of discontinuation of antifungal prophylaxis compared with placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.13; 4 trials, 2317 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Antifungal prophylaxis may also make no difference to the risk of having any adverse event (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.30; 4 trials, 2317 participants; low-certainty evidence), or a serious adverse event (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.41; 4 trials, 888 participants; low-certainty evidence) when compared to placebo or standard care.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAntifungal prophylaxis reduced the risk of developing and dying from cryptococcal disease. Therefore, where CrAG screening is not available, antifungal prophylaxis may be used in patients with low CD4 counts at diagnosis and who are at risk of developing cryptococcal disease.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Cryptococcal disease is one of the leading causes of death for HIV-positive people who have low CD4 counts. The current recommended strategy in most countries to prevent people from developing cryptococcal disease, is to screen eligible patients with a blood test that picks up early signs of disease. We looked at trials that studied whether taking antifungal prophylaxis stopped people from dying or developing cryptococcal disease. We also looked at the side effects of the antifungal drug and whether it caused resistance to antifungal drugs in other fungal infections, such as thrush." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTardive dyskinesia (TD) is a disfiguring movement disorder, often of the orofacial region, frequently caused by using antipsychotic drugs. A wide range of strategies have been used to help manage TD, and for those who are unable to have their antipsychotic medication stopped or substantially changed, the benzodiazepine group of drugs have been suggested as a useful adjunctive treatment. However, benzodiazepines are very addictive.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effects of benzodiazepines for antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia in people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or other chronic mental illnesses.\nSearch methods\nOn 17 July 2015 and 26 April 2017, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (including trial registers), inspected references of all identified studies for further trials and contacted authors of each included trial for additional information.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on people with schizophrenia (or other chronic mental illnesses) and antipsychotic-induced TD that compared benzodiazepines with placebo, no intervention, or any other intervention for the treatment of TD.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently extracted data from the included studies and ensured that they were reliably selected, and quality assessed. For homogenous dichotomous data, we calculated random effects, risk ratio (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We synthesised continuous data from valid scales using mean differences (MD). For continuous outcomes, we preferred endpoint data to change data. We assumed that people who left early had no improvement.\nMain results\nThe review now includes four trials (total 75 people, one additional trial since 2006, 21 people) randomising inpatients and outpatients in China and the USA. Risk of bias was mostly unclear as reporting was poor. We are uncertain about all the effects as all evidence was graded at very low quality. We found no significant difference between benzodiazepines and placebo for the outcome of 'no clinically important improvement in TD' (2 RCTs, 32 people, RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.09, very low quality evidence). Significantly fewer participants allocated to clonazepam compared with phenobarbital (as active placebo) experienced no clinically important improvement (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.96, 1 RCT, 21 people, very low quality evidence). For the outcome 'deterioration of TD symptoms,' we found no clear difference between benzodiazepines and placebo (2 RCTs, 30 people, RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.22 to 9.82, very low quality evidence). All 10 participants allocated to benzodiazepines experienced any adverse event compared with 7/11 allocated to phenobarbital (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.41, 1 RCT, 21 people, very low quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the incidence of participants leaving the study early for benzodiazepines compared with placebo (3 RCTs, 56 people, RR 2.73, 95% CI 0.15 to 48.04, very low quality evidence) or compared with phenobarbital (as active placebo) (no events, 1 RCT, 21 people, very low quality evidence). No trials reported on social confidence, social inclusion, social networks, or personalised quality of life, which are outcomes designated important by patients. No trials comparing benzodiazepines with placebo or treatment as usual reported on adverse effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is only evidence of very low quality from a few small and poorly reported trials on the effect of benzodiazepines as an adjunctive treatment for antipsychotic-induced TD. These inconclusive results mean routine clinical use is not indicated and these treatments remain experimental. New and better trials are indicated in this under-researched area; however, as benzodiazepines are addictive, we feel that other techniques or medications should be adequately evaluated before benzodiazepines are chosen.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "People with schizophrenia often hear voices and see things (hallucinations), and have strange beliefs (delusions). The main treatment for schizophrenia is antipsychotic drugs. However, these drugs can have debilitating side effects. Tardive dyskinesia is an involuntary (uncontrollable and unintended) movement that causes the face, mouth, tongue, and jaw to convulse, spasm, and grimace. It is caused by prolonged or high-dose use of antipsychotic drugs, is difficult to treat, and can be incurable. The benzodiazepine group of medicines have been suggested as a useful add-on treatment for tardive dyskinesia. However, benzodiazepines are very addictive." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute respiratory failure is a common life-threatening complication of acute onset neuromuscular diseases, and may exacerbate chronic hypoventilation in patients with neuromuscular disease or chest wall disorders. Standard management includes oxygen supplementation, physiotherapy, cough assistance, and, whenever needed, antibiotics and intermittent positive pressure ventilation. Non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) via nasal, buccal or full-face devices has become routine practice in many centres.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective of this review was to compare the efficacy of non-invasive ventilation with invasive ventilation in improving short-term survival in acute respiratory failure in people with neuromuscular disease and chest wall disorders. The secondary objectives were to compare the effects of NIV with those of invasive mechanical ventilation on improvement in arterial blood gas after 24 hours and lung function measurements after one month, incidence of barotrauma and ventilator-associated pneumonia, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit and length of hospital stay.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases on 11 September 2017: the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase. We also searched conference proceedings and clinical trials registries.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include randomised or quasi-randomised trials with or without blinding. We planned to include trials performed in children or adults with acute onset neuromuscular diseases or chronic neuromuscular disease or chest wall disorders presenting with acute respiratory failure that compared the benefits and risks of invasive ventilation versus NIV.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors reviewed searches and independently selected studies for assessment. We planned to follow standard Cochrane methodology for data collection and analysis.\nMain results\nWe did not identify any trials eligible for inclusion in the review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAcute respiratory failure is a life-threatening complication of acute onset neuromuscular disease and of chronic neuromuscular disease and chest wall disorders. We found no randomised trials on which to elaborate evidence-based practice for the use of non-invasive versus invasive mechanical ventilation. For researchers, there is a need to design and conduct new randomised trials to compare NIV with invasive ventilation in acute neuromuscular respiratory failure. These trials should anticipate variations in treatment responses according to disease condition (acute onset versus acute exacerbation on chronic neuromuscular diseases) and according to the presence or absence of bulbar dysfunction.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key Messages\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The review authors collected and assessed all the relevant studies to answer this question but did not identify any trials that met the standards needed to be included in the review.\nSo far, there is no evidence from randomised studies either for or against the routine use of NIV instead of invasive ventilation in people with acute respiratory failure caused by either neuromuscular disease or a chest wall disorder.\nHowever, some evidence from observational studies suggests that NIV should be trialled in all patients except for those with bulbar dysfunction." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEndophthalmitis is a sight-threatening emergency that requires prompt diagnosis and treatment. The condition is characterised by purulent inflammation of the intraocular fluids caused by an infective agent. In exogenous endophthalmitis, the infective agent is foreign and typically introduced into the eye through intraocular surgery or open globe trauma.\nObjectives\nTo assess the potential role of combined pars plana vitrectomy and intravitreal antibiotics in the acute management of exogenous endophthalmitis, versus the standard of care, defined as vitreous tap and intravitreal antibiotics.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2022, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry; ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. There were no restrictions to language or year of publication. The date of the search was 5 May 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared pars plana vitrectomy and intravitreal injection of antibiotics versus intravitreal injection of antibiotics alone, for the immediate management of exogenous endophthalmitis.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methods expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened search results and extracted data. We considered the following outcomes: visual acuity improvement and change in visual acuity at three and six months; additional surgical procedures, including vitrectomy and cataract surgery, at any time during follow-up; quality of life and adverse effects. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe identified a single RCT that met our inclusion criteria. The included RCT enrolled a total of 420 participants with clinical evidence of endophthalmitis, within six weeks of cataract surgery or secondary intraocular lens implantation. Participants were randomly assigned according to a 2 x 2 factorial design to either treatment with vitrectomy (VIT) or vitreous tap biopsy (TAP) and to treatment with or without systemic antibiotics. Twenty-four participants did not have a final follow-up: 12 died, five withdrew consent to be followed up, and seven were not willing to return for the visit.\nThe study did not report visual acuity according to the review's predefined outcomes. At three months, 41% of all participants achieved 20/40 or better visual acuity and 69% had 20/100 or better acuity. The study authors reported that there was no statistically significant difference in visual acuity between treatment groups (very low-certainty evidence). There was low-certainty evidence of a similar requirement for additional surgical procedures (risk ratio RR 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.21). Adverse effects included: VIT group: dislocated intraocular lens (n = 2), macular infarction (n = 1). TAP group: expulsive haemorrhage (n = 1). Quality of life and mean change in visual acuity were not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe identified a single RCT (published 27 years ago) for the role of early vitrectomy in exogenous endophthalmitis, which suggests that there may be no difference between groups (VIT vs TAP) for visual acuity at three or nine months' follow-up.\nWe are of the opinion that there is a clear need for more randomised studies comparing the role of primary vitrectomy in exogenous endophthalmitis. Moreover, since the original RCT study, there have been incremental changes in the surgical techniques with which vitrectomy is performed. Such advances are likely to influence the outcome of early vitrectomy in exogenous endophthalmitis.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is exogenous endophthalmitis?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The eye is a relatively self-contained organ that is lined by light-sensitive cells that make up the retina. The retina lines the back of the eyeball and the centre is filled with a clear gel, known as the vitreous. Like all organs, the eye can become infected. Infection inside the eye (endophthalmitis) is rare but sight-threatening. Exogenous endophthalmitis is defined as an infection which enters the eye from the surrounding environment, usually following routine surgery such as cataract surgery, or due to an open wound following trauma. Prompt management is required in order to protect sight." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAsparaginase has played a crucial role in the improvement of survival in children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL), which is the commonest cancer among children. Survival rates have steadily increased over decades since the introduction of asparaginase to ALL therapy, and overall survival rates reach 90% with the best contemporary protocols. Currently, polyethylene glycolated native Escherichia coli-derived L-asparaginase (PEG-asparaginase) is the preferred first-line asparaginase preparation. Besides its clinical benefits, PEG-asparaginase is well known for severe toxicities. Agreement on the optimal dose, treatment duration, and frequency of administration has never been reached among clinicians.\nObjectives\nPrimary objective\nTo assess the effect of the number of PEG-asparaginase doses on survival and relapse in children and adolescents with ALL.\nSecondary objectives\nTo assess the association between the number of doses of PEG-asparaginase and asparaginase-associated toxicities (e.g. hypersensitivity, thromboembolism, pancreatitis and osteonecrosis).\nTo undertake a network meta-analysis at dose-level in order to generate rankings of the number of doses of PEG-asparaginase used in the treatment for ALL, according to their benefits (survival and relapse) and harms (toxicity).\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science databases and three trials registers in November 2021, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different PEG-asparaginase treatment regimens in children and adolescents (< 18 years of age) with first-line ALL treated with multiagent chemotherapy including PEG-asparaginase.\nData collection and analysis\nUsing a standardised data collection form, two review authors independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias for each outcome using a standardised tool (RoB 2.0) and assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. Primary outcomes included overall survival, event-free survival and leukaemic relapse. Secondary outcomes included asparaginase-associated toxicities (hypersensitivity, thromboembolism, pancreatitis, sinusoidal obstruction syndrome and osteonecrosis as well as overall asparaginase-associated toxicity).\nWe conducted the review and performed the analyses in accordance with the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.\nMain results\nWe included three RCTs in the review, and identified an additional four ongoing studies. We judged outcomes of two RCTs to be at low risk of bias in all the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB 2) domains. We rated the remaining study as having some concerns regarding bias. Due to concerns about imprecision, we rated all outcomes as having low- to moderate-certainty evidence.\nOne study compared intermittent PEG-asparaginase treatment (eight doses of PEG-asparaginase, 1000 IU/m2, intramuscular (IM) administration) versus continuous PEG-asparaginase treatment (15 doses of PEG-asparaginase, 1000 IU/m2, IM) in 625 participants with non-high risk ALL aged 1.0 to 17.9 years. We found that treatment with eight doses probably results in little to no difference in event-free survival compared to treatment with 15 doses (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.06; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to treatment with 15 doses, treatment with eight doses may result in either no difference or a slight reduction in hypersensitivity (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.93; low-certainty evidence), thromboembolism (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.36; low-certainty evidence) or osteonecrosis (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.32; low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, we found that treatment with eight doses probably reduces pancreatitis (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.75; moderate-certainty evidence) and asparaginase-associated toxicity (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.78; moderate-certainty evidence) compared to treatment with 15 doses.\nOne study compared low-risk standard treatment with additional PEG-asparaginase (six doses, 2500 IU/m2, IM) versus low-risk standard treatment (two doses, 2500 IU/m2, IM) in 1857 participants aged one to nine years old with standard low-risk ALL. We found that, compared to treatment with two doses, treatment with six doses probably results in little to no difference in overall survival (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.00; moderate-certainty evidence) and event-free survival (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.04; moderate-certainty evidence), and may result in either no difference or a slight increase in osteonecrosis (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.00; low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, we found that treatment with six doses probably increases hypersensitivity (RR 12.05, 95% CI 5.27 to 27.58; moderate-certainty evidence), pancreatitis (RR 4.84, 95% CI 2.15 to 10.85; moderate-certainty evidence) and asparaginase-associated toxicity (RR 4.49, 95% CI 3.05 to 6.59; moderate-certainty evidence) compared to treatment with two doses.\nOne trial compared calaspargase (11 doses, 2500 IU/m2, intravenous (IV)) versus PEG-asparaginase (16 doses, 2500 IU/m2, IV) in 239 participants aged one to 21 years with standard- and high-risk ALL and lymphoblastic lymphoma. We found that treatment with 11 doses of calaspargase probably results in little to no difference in event-free survival compared to treatment with 16 doses of PEG-asparaginase (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.16; moderate-certainty evidence). However, treatment with 11 doses of calaspargase probably reduces leukaemic relapse compared to treatment with 16 doses of PEG-asparaginase (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.83; moderate-certainty evidence). Furthermore, we found that treatment with 11 doses of calaspargase results in either no difference or a slight reduction in hypersensitivity (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.13; low-certainty evidence), pancreatitis (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.52; low-certainty evidence), thromboembolism (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.42; low-certainty evidence), osteonecrosis (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.56; low-certainty evidence) and asparaginase-associated toxicity (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.40; low-certainty evidence) compared to treatment with 16 doses of PEG-asparaginase.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe were not able to conduct a network meta-analysis, and could not draw clear conclusions because it was not possible to rank the interventions. Overall, we found that different numbers of doses of PEG-asparaginase probably result in little to no difference in event-free survival across all studies. In two studies, we found that a higher number of PEG-asparaginase doses probably increases pancreatitis and asparaginase-associated toxicities.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Limitations of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We only have limited or moderate confidence in the evidence because deaths and toxic side effects were rare, so there was uncertainty in the findings. None of the included trials had important design limitations, meaning that the trials were conducted in a way that likely did not skew the results." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTuberculous pericarditis can impair the heart's function and cause death; long term, it can cause the membrane to fibrose and constrict causing heart failure. In addition to antituberculous chemotherapy, treatments include corticosteroids, drainage, and surgery.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of treatments for tuberculous pericarditis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (27 March 2017); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library (2017, Issue 2); MEDLINE (1966 to 27 March 2017); Embase (1974 to 27 March 2017); and LILACS (1982 to 27 March 2017). In addition we searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal using 'tuberculosis' and 'pericard*' as search terms on 27 March 2017. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and contacted researchers in the field of tuberculous pericarditis. This is a new version of the original 2002 review.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened search outputs, evaluated study eligibility, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data; and we resolved any discrepancies by discussion and consensus. One trial assessed the effects of both corticosteroid and Mycobacterium indicus pranii treatment in a two-by-two factorial design; we excluded data from the group that received both interventions. We conducted fixed-effect meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nSeven trials met the inclusion criteria; all were from sub-Saharan Africa and included 1959 participants, with 1051/1959 (54%) HIV-positive. All trials evaluated corticosteroids and one each evaluated colchicine, M. indicus pranii immunotherapy, and open surgical drainage. Four trials (1841 participants) were at low risk of bias, and three trials (118 participants) were at high risk of bias.\nIn people who are not infected with HIV, corticosteroids may reduce deaths from all causes (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.09; 660 participants, 4 trials, low certainty evidence) and the need for repeat pericardiocentesis (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.04; 492 participants, 2 trials, low certainty evidence). Corticosteroids probably reduce deaths from pericarditis (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.80; 660 participants, 4 trials, moderate certainty evidence). However, we do not know whether or not corticosteroids have an effect on constriction or cancer among HIV-negative people (very low certainty evidence).\nIn people living with HIV, only 19.9% (203/1959) were on antiretroviral drugs. Corticosteroids may reduce constriction (RR 0.55, 0.26 to 1.16; 575 participants, 3 trials, low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether corticosteroids have an effect on all-cause death or cancer (very low certainty evidence); and may have little or no effect on repeat pericardiocentesis (RR 1.02, 0.89 to 1.18; 517 participants, 2 trials, low certainty evidence).\nFor colchicine among people living with HIV, we found one small trial (33 participants) which had insufficient data to make any conclusions about any effects on death or constrictive pericarditis.\nIrrespective of HIV status, due to very low certainty evidence from one trial, it is uncertain whether adding M. indicus pranii immunotherapy to antituberculous drugs has an effect on any outcome.\nOpen surgical drainage for effusion may reduce repeat pericardiocentesis In HIV-negative people (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.76; 122 participants, 1 trial, low certainty evidence) but may make little or no difference to other outcomes. We did not find an eligible trial that assessed the effects of open surgical drainage in people living with HIV.\nThe review authors found no eligible trials that examined the length of antituberculous treatment needed nor the effects of other adjunctive treatments for tuberculous pericarditis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor HIV-negative patients, corticosteroids may reduce death. For HIV-positive patients not on antiretroviral drugs, corticosteroids may reduce constriction. For HIV-positive patients with good antiretroviral drug viral suppression, clinicians may consider the results from HIV-negative patients more relevant.\nFurther research may help evaluate percutaneous drainage of the pericardium under local anaesthesia, the timing of pericardiectomy in tuberculous constrictive pericarditis, and new antibiotic regimens.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The review authors searched for trials published up to 27 March 2017." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSchizophrenia is one of the most common and disabling mental disorders. About 20% of people with schizophrenia do not respond to antipsychotics, which are the mainstay of the treatment for schizophrenia today, and need to seek other treatment options. Magnetic seizure therapy (MST) is one of the novel non-invasive brain stimulation techniques that are being investigated in recent years.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of MST for people with schizophrenia.\nSearch methods\nOn 6 March 2022, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials which is based on CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and WHO ICTRP.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MST alone or plus standard care with ECT or any other interventions for people with schizophrenia.\nData collection and analysis\nWe performed reference screening, study selection, data extraction and risk of bias and quality assessment in duplicate. We calculated the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes and the mean difference (MD) and their 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We used the original risk of bias tool for risk of bias assessment and created a Summary of findings table using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included one four-week study with 79 adults in acute schizophrenia, comparing MST plus standard care to ECT plus standard care in this review. We rated the overall risk of bias as high due to high risk of bias in the domains of selective reporting and other biases (early termination and baseline imbalance) and unclear risk of bias in the domain of blinding of participants and personnel.\nWe found that MST and ECT may not differ in improving the global state (n = 79, risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.70), overall (n = 79, mean difference (MD) -0.20, 95% CI -8.08 to 7.68), the positive symptoms (n = 79, MD 1.40, 95% CI -1.97 to 4.77) and the negative symptoms (n = 79, MD -1.00, 95% CI -3.85 to 1.85) in people with schizophrenia.\nWe found  that MST compared to ECT may cause less delayed memory deficit and less cognitive deterioration (n = 79, number of people with a delayed memory deficit, RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.96; n = 79, mean change in global cognitive function, MD 5.80, 95% CI 0.80 to 10.80), but also may improve more cognitive function (n = 47, number of people with any cognitive improvement, RR 3.30, 95% CI 1.29 to 8.47).\nWe found that there may be no difference between the two groups in terms of leaving the study early due to any reason (n = 79, RR 2.51, 95% CI 0.73 to 8.59), due to adverse effects (n = 79, RR 3.35, 95% CI 0.39 to 28.64) or due to inefficacy (n = 79, RR 2.52, 95% CI 0.11 to 60.10).\nSince all findings were based on one study with high risk of bias and the confidence in the evidence was very low, we were not sure these comparable or favourable effects of MST over ECT were its true effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to the paucity of data, we cannot draw any conclusion on the efficacy and tolerability of MST for people with schizophrenia. Well-designed RCTs are warranted to answer the question.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is schizophrenia?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Schizophrenia is one of the most common and disabling mental disorders. People with schizophrenia may have difficulties living a normal life due to the illness, which may include distorted beliefs despite reality, hearing voices created by their minds, and having no interest in caring for others or themselves." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nVenous thromboembolism (VTE), which comprises deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is the leading cause of preventable death in hospitalised people and the third most common cause of mortality in surgical patients. People undergoing bariatric surgery have the additional risk factor of being overweight. Although VTE prophylaxis in surgical patients is well established, the best way to prevent VTE in those undergoing bariatric surgery is less clear.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions (alone or in combination) on venous thromboembolism and other health outcomes in people undergoing bariatric surgery compared to the same pharmacological intervention administered at a different dose or frequency, the same pharmacological intervention or started at a different time point, another pharmacological intervention, no intervention or placebo.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 1 November 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in males and females of any age undergoing bariatric surgery comparing pharmacological interventions for VTE (alone or in combination) with the same pharmacological intervention administered at a different dose or frequency, the same pharmacological intervention started at a different time point, a different pharmacological intervention, no treatment or placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. VTE and 2. major bleeding. Our secondary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. VTE-related mortality, 3. PE, 4. DVT, 5. adverse effects and 6. quality of life. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included seven RCTs with 1045 participants. Data for meta-analysis were available from all participants.\nFour RCTs (597 participants) compared higher-dose heparin to standard-dose heparin: one of these studies (139 participants) used unfractionated heparin (UFH) and the other three (458 participants) used low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). One study compared heparin versus pentasaccharide (198 participants), and one study compared starting heparin before versus after bariatric surgery (100 participants). One study (150 participants) compared combined mechanical and pharmacological (enoxaparin) prophylaxis versus mechanical prophylaxis alone. The duration of the interventions ranged from seven to 15 days, and follow-up ranged from 10 to 180 days.\nHigher-dose heparin versus standard-dose heparin\nCompared to standard-dose heparin, higher-dose heparin may result in little or no difference in the risk of VTE (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.99; 4 studies, 597 participants) or major bleeding (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.96; I2 = 8%; 4 studies, 597 participants; low-certainty) in people undergoing bariatric surgery. The evidence on all-cause mortality, VTE-related mortality, PE, DVT and adverse events (thrombocytopenia) is uncertain (effect not estimable or very low-certainty evidence).\nHeparin versus pentasaccharide\nHeparin compared to a pentasaccharide after bariatric surgery may result in little or no difference in the risk of VTE (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.61; 1 study, 175 participants) or DVT (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.61; 1 study, 175 participants). The evidence on major bleeding, PE and mortality is uncertain (effect not estimable or very low-certainty evidence).\nHeparin started before versus after the surgical procedure\nStarting prophylaxis with heparin 12 hours before surgery versus after surgery may result in little or no difference in the risk of VTE (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.01; 1 study, 100 participants) or DVT (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.01; 1 study, 100 participants). The evidence on major bleeding, all-cause mortality and VTE-related mortality is uncertain (effect not estimable or very low-certainty evidence). We were unable to assess the effect of this intervention on PE or adverse effects, as the study did not measure these outcomes.\nCombined mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis versus mechanical prophylaxis alone\nCombining mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis (started 12 hours before surgery) may reduce VTE events in people undergoing bariatric surgery compared to mechanical prophylaxis alone (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.89; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 9; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty). We were unable to assess the effect of this intervention on major bleeding or morality (effect not estimable), or on PE or adverse events (not measured).\nNo studies measured quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nHigher-dose heparin may make little or no difference to venous thromboembolism or major bleeding in people undergoing bariatric surgery when compared to standard-dose heparin.\nHeparin may make little or no difference to venous thromboembolism in people undergoing bariatric surgery when compared to pentasaccharide. There are inadequate data to draw conclusions about the effects of heparin compared to pentasaccharide on major bleeding.\nStarting prophylaxis with heparin 12 hours before bariatric surgery may make little or no difference to venous thromboembolism in people undergoing bariatric surgery when compared to starting heparin after bariatric surgery. There are inadequate data to draw conclusions about the effects of heparin started before versus after surgery on major bleeding.\nCombining mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis (started 12 hours before surgery) may reduce VTE events in people undergoing bariatric surgery when compared to mechanical prophylaxis alone. No data are available relating to major bleeding.\nThe certainty of the evidence is limited by small sample sizes, few or no events, and risk of bias concerns. Future trials must be sufficiently large to enable analysis of relevant clinical outcomes, and should standardise the time of treatment and follow-up. They should also address the effect of direct oral anticoagulants and antiplatelets, preferably grouping them according to the type of intervention.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched for studies that examined the effect of any medicine for preventing VTE in people undergoing bariatric surgery, compared with the same medicine at a different dose, or given more or less often, or started at a different time point; or compared with a different medicine; or compared with no treatment or placebo (dummy treatment). We also included combinations of interventions.\nWe compared and summarised the results of the studies and rated our confidence in the evidence, based on factors such as study methods and size." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAttention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a chronic neurodevelopmental disorder of childhood onset, which may persist into adulthood. ADHD has a significant impact on a child's daily life, affecting relationships and academic performance. Its core symptoms include developmentally inappropriate levels of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsive behaviour. Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) are sometimes used as second line of treatment in the reduction of ADHD symptoms in children and adolescents with ADHD. However, their efficacy is not yet known.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy of TCAs in the reduction of ADHD symptoms within the broad categories of hyperactivity, impulsivity, and inattentiveness in young people aged 6 to 18 years with established diagnoses of ADHD.\nSearch methods\nOn 26 September 2013, we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, seven other databases, and two trials registers. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted manufacturers and known experts in the field to determine if there were any ongoing trials or unpublished studies available.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), including both parallel group and cross-over study designs, of any dose of TCA compared with placebo or active medication in children or adolescents with ADHD, including those with comorbid conditions.\nData collection and analysis\nWorking in pairs, three review authors independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed trial quality. We calculated the standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous data, the odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous data, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for both. We conducted the meta-analyses using a random-effects model throughout. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess the risk of bias of each included trial and the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the body evidence.\nMain results\nWe included six RCTs with a total of 216 participants. Five of the six trials compared desipramine with placebo; the remaining trial compared nortriptyline with placebo. One trial compared desipramine with clonidine and placebo, and another compared two TCAs (desipramine and clomipramine) with methylphenidate and placebo. Of the six trials, one RCT primarily assessed the efficacy of TCA in children with ADHD and comorbid tic or Tourette disorder, and another one trial was in children with comorbid tic disorder. RCTs that met our inclusion criteria varied both in design and quality, and none were free of bias. The quality of the evidence was low to very low according to our GRADE assessments.\nTCA outperformed placebo regarding the proportions of patients achieving a predefined improvement of core ADHD symptom severity (OR 18.50, 95% CI 6.29 to 54.39, 3 trials, 125 participants, low quality evidence). In particular, there was evidence that desipramine improved the core symptoms of ADHD in children and adolescents as assessed by parents (SMD -1.42, 95% CI -1.99 to -0.85, 2 trials, 99 participants, low quality evidence), teachers (SMD -0.97, 95% CI -1.66 to -0.28, 2 trials, 89 participants, low quality evidence), and clinicians (OR 26.41, 95% CI 7.41 to 94.18, 2 trials, 103 participants, low quality evidence). Nortriptryline was also efficacious in improving the core symptoms of ADHD in children and adolescents as assessed by clinicians (OR 7.88, 95% CI 1.10 to 56.12). Desipramine and placebo were similar on \"all-cause treatment discontinuation\" (RD -0.10, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.04, 3 trials, 134 participants, very low quality evidence). Desipramine appeared more efficacious than clonidine in reducing ADHD symptoms as rated by parents (SMD -0.90, 95% CI -1.40 to -0.40, 1 trial, 68 participants, very low quality evidence) in participants with ADHD and comorbid tics or Tourette syndrome.\nAlthough this Cochrane Review did not identify serious adverse effects in patients taking TCAs, it did identify mild increases in diastolic blood pressure and pulse rates. Also, patients treated with desipramine had significantly higher rates of appetite suppression compared to placebo whilst nortriptyline resulted in weight gain. Other reported adverse effects included headache, confusion, sedation, tiredness, blurred vision, diaphoresis, dry mouth, abdominal discomfort, constipation, and urinary retention.\nAuthors' conclusions\nMost evidence on TCAs relates to desipramine. Findings suggest that, in the short term, desipramine improves the core symptoms of ADHD, but its effect on the cardiovascular system remains an important clinical concern. Thus, evidence supporting the clinical use of desipramine for the treatment of children with ADHD is low.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Trial characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The evidence is current to 26 September 2013. Only six trials including 216 participants met our inclusion criteria. All trials were conducted in the USA and lasted between two and six weeks. Two trials were funded, in part, by the drug manufacturers." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPersistent feelings of fatigue (or subjective fatigue), which may be experienced in the absence of physiological factors, affect many people with peripheral neuropathy. A variety of interventions for subjective fatigue are available, but little is known about their efficacy or the likelihood of any adverse effects for people with peripheral neuropathy.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of drugs and physical, psychological or behavioural interventions for fatigue in adults or children with peripheral neuropathy.\nSearch methods\nOn 5 November 2013, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, LILACS and AMED. We also searched reference lists of all studies identified for inclusion and relevant reviews, and contacted the authors of included studies and known experts in the field to identify additional published or unpublished data. We also searched trials registries for ongoing studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered for inclusion randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing any form of intervention for fatigue management in adults with peripheral neuropathy with placebo, no intervention or an alternative form of intervention for fatigue. Interventions considered included drugs, pacing and grading of physical activity, general or specific exercise, compensatory strategies such as orthotics, relaxation, counselling, cognitive and educational strategies.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted study data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected information on adverse events from the included trials.\nMain results\nThe review includes three trials, which were all at low risk of bias, involving 530 people with peripheral neuropathy. The effects of amantadine from one randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial comparing amantadine with placebo for the treatment of fatigue in 80 people with Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) were uncertain for the proportion of people achieving a favourable outcome six weeks post-intervention (odds ratio (OR) 0.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.35, N = 74, P = 0.16). We assessed the quality of this evidence as low. Two parallel-group randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled trials comparing the effects of two doses of ascorbic acid with placebo for reducing fatigue in adults with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1A (CMT1A) showed that the effects of ascorbic acid at either dose are probably small (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.12 (95% CI -0.32 to 0.08, n = 404, P = 0.25)) for change in fatigue after 12 to 24 months (moderate quality evidence). Neither ascorbic acid study measured fatigue at four to 12 weeks, which was our primary outcome measure. No serious adverse events were reported with amantadine. Serious adverse events were reported in the trials of ascorbic acid. However,risk of serious adverse events was similar with ascorbic acid and placebo.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOne small imprecise study in people with GBS showed uncertain effects of amantadine on fatigue. In two studies in people with CMT1A there is moderate-quality evidence that ascorbic acid has little meaningful benefit on fatigue. Information about adverse effects was limited, although both treatments appear to be well tolerated and safe in these conditions.\nThere was no evidence available from RCTs to evaluate the effect of other drugs or other interventions for fatigue in either GBS, CMT1A or other causes of peripheral neuropathy. The cost effectiveness of different interventions should also be considered in future randomised clinical trials.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "To assess the effects of treatments for fatigue in people with peripheral neuropathy." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSpecific diagnostic tests to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and resulting COVID-19 disease are not always available and take time to obtain results. Routine laboratory markers such as white blood cell count, measures of anticoagulation, C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin, are used to assess the clinical status of a patient. These laboratory tests may be useful for the triage of people with potential COVID-19 to prioritize them for different levels of treatment, especially in situations where time and resources are limited.\nObjectives\nTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of routine laboratory testing as a triage test to determine if a person has COVID-19.\nSearch methods\nOn 4 May 2020 we undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included both case-control designs and consecutive series of patients that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of routine laboratory testing as a triage test to determine if a person has COVID-19. The reference standard could be reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) alone; RT-PCR plus clinical expertise or and imaging; repeated RT-PCR several days apart or from different samples; WHO and other case definitions; and any other reference standard used by the study authors.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data from each included study. They also assessed the methodological quality of the studies, using QUADAS-2. We used the 'NLMIXED' procedure in SAS 9.4 for the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) meta-analyses of tests for which we included four or more studies. To facilitate interpretation of results, for each meta-analysis we estimated summary sensitivity at the points on the SROC curve that corresponded to the median and interquartile range boundaries of specificities in the included studies.\nMain results\nWe included 21 studies in this review, including 14,126 COVID-19 patients and 56,585 non-COVID-19 patients in total. Studies evaluated a total of 67 different laboratory tests. Although we were interested in the diagnotic accuracy of routine tests for COVID-19, the included studies used detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection through RT-PCR as reference standard. There was considerable heterogeneity between tests, threshold values and the settings in which they were applied. For some tests a positive result was defined as a decrease compared to normal vaues, for other tests a positive result was defined as an increase, and for some tests both increase and decrease may have indicated test positivity. None of the studies had either low risk of bias on all domains or low concerns for applicability for all domains. Only three of the tests evaluated had a summary sensitivity and specificity over 50%. These were: increase in interleukin-6, increase in C-reactive protein and lymphocyte count decrease.\nBlood count\nEleven studies evaluated a decrease in white blood cell count, with a median specificity of 93% and a summary sensitivity of 25% (95% CI 8.0% to 27%; very low-certainty evidence). The 15 studies that evaluated an increase in white blood cell count had a lower median specificity and a lower corresponding sensitivity. Four studies evaluated a decrease in neutrophil count. Their median specificity was 93%, corresponding to a summary sensitivity of 10% (95% CI 1.0% to 56%; low-certainty evidence). The 11 studies that evaluated an increase in neutrophil count had a lower median specificity and a lower corresponding sensitivity. The summary sensitivity of an increase in neutrophil percentage (4 studies) was 59% (95% CI 1.0% to 100%) at median specificity (38%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in monocyte count (4 studies) was 13% (95% CI 6.0% to 26%) at median specificity (73%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of a decrease in lymphocyte count (13 studies) was 64% (95% CI 28% to 89%) at median specificity (53%; low-certainty evidence). Four studies that evaluated a decrease in lymphocyte percentage showed a lower median specificity and lower corresponding sensitivity. The summary sensitivity of a decrease in platelets (4 studies) was 19% (95% CI 10% to 32%) at median specificity (88%; low-certainty evidence).\nLiver function tests\nThe summary sensitivity of an increase in alanine aminotransferase (9 studies) was 12% (95% CI 3% to 34%) at median specificity (92%; low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in aspartate aminotransferase (7 studies) was 29% (95% CI 17% to 45%) at median specificity (81%) (low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of a decrease in albumin (4 studies) was 21% (95% CI 3% to 67%) at median specificity (66%; low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in total bilirubin (4 studies) was 12% (95% CI 3.0% to 34%) at median specificity (92%; very low-certainty evidence).\nMarkers of inflammation\nThe summary sensitivity of an increase in CRP (14 studies) was 66% (95% CI 55% to 75%) at median specificity (44%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in procalcitonin (6 studies) was 3% (95% CI 1% to 19%) at median specificity (86%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in IL-6 (four studies) was 73% (95% CI 36% to 93%) at median specificity (58%) (very low-certainty evidence).\nOther biomarkers\nThe summary sensitivity of an increase in creatine kinase (5 studies) was 11% (95% CI 6% to 19%) at median specificity (94%) (low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in serum creatinine (four studies) was 7% (95% CI 1% to 37%) at median specificity (91%; low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in lactate dehydrogenase (4 studies) was 25% (95% CI 15% to 38%) at median specificity (72%; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough these tests give an indication about the general health status of patients and some tests may be specific indicators for inflammatory processes, none of the tests we investigated are useful for accurately ruling in or ruling out COVID-19 on their own. Studies were done in specific hospitalized populations, and future studies should consider non-hospital settings to evaluate how these tests would perform in people with milder symptoms.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "People with suspected COVID-19 need to know quickly whether they are infected so that they can self-isolate, receive treatment, and inform close contacts.\nCurrently, the standard test for COVID-19 is usually the RT-PCR test. In the RT-PCR, samples from the nose and throat are sent away for testing, usually to a large, central laboratory with specialist equipment. Other tests include imaging tests, like X-rays, which also require specialist equipment.\nWe wanted to know whether routine laboratory tests were sufficiently accurate to diagnose COVID-19 in people with suspected COVID-19. We also wanted to know whether they were accurate enough to prioritize patients for different levels of treatment." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nExercise training is commonly recommended for adults with fibromyalgia. We defined flexibility exercise training programs as those involving movements of a joint or a series of joints, through complete range of motion, thus targeting major muscle-tendon units. This review is one of a series of reviews updating the first review published in 2002.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of flexibility exercise training in adults with fibromyalgia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), Thesis and Dissertation Abstracts, AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov up to December 2017, unrestricted by language, and we reviewed the reference lists of retrieved trials to identify potentially relevant trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized trials (RCTs) including adults diagnosed with fibromyalgia based on published criteria. Major outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL), pain intensity, stiffness, fatigue, physical function, trial withdrawals, and adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected articles for inclusion, extracted data, performed 'Risk of bias' assessments, and assessed the certainty of the body of evidence for major outcomes using the GRADE approach. All discrepancies were rechecked, and consensus was achieved by discussion.\nMain results\nWe included 12 RCTs (743 people). Among these RCTs, flexibility exercise training was compared to an untreated control group, land-based aerobic training, resistance training, or other interventions (i.e. Tai Chi, Pilates, aquatic biodanza, friction massage, medications). Studies were at risk of selection, performance, and detection bias (due to lack of adequate randomization and allocation concealment, lack of participant or personnel blinding, and lack of blinding for self-reported outcomes). With the exception of withdrawals and adverse events, major outcomes were self-reported and were expressed on a 0-to-100 scale (lower values are best, negative mean differences (MDs) indicate improvement). We prioritized the findings of flexibility exercise training compared to land-based aerobic training and present them fully here.\nVery low-certainty evidence showed that compared with land-based aerobic training, flexibility exercise training (five trials with 266 participants) provides no clinically important benefits with regard to HRQoL, pain intensity, fatigue, stiffness, and physical function. Low-certainty evidence showed no difference between these groups for withdrawals at completion of the intervention (8 to 20 weeks).\nMean HRQoL assessed on the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) Total scale (0 to 100, higher scores indicating worse HRQoL) was 46 mm and 42 mm in the flexibility and aerobic groups, respectively (2 studies, 193 participants); absolute change was 4% worse (6% better to 14% worse), and relative change was 7.5% worse (10.5% better to 25.5% worse) in the flexibility group. Mean pain was 57 mm and 52 mm in the flexibility and aerobic groups, respectively (5 studies, 266 participants); absolute change was 5% worse (1% better to 11% worse), and relative change was 6.7% worse (2% better to 15.4% worse). Mean fatigue was 67 mm and 71 mm in the aerobic and flexibility groups, respectively (2 studies, 75 participants); absolute change was 4% better (13% better to 5% worse), and relative change was 6% better (19.4% better to 7.4% worse). Mean physical function was 23 points and 17 points in the flexibility and aerobic groups, respectively (1 study, 60 participants); absolute change was 6% worse (4% better to 16% worse), and relative change was 14% worse (9.1% better to 37.1% worse). We found very low-certainty evidence of an effect for stiffness. Mean stiffness was 49 mm to 79 mm in the flexibility and aerobic groups, respectively (1 study, 15 participants); absolute change was 30% better (8% better to 51% better), and relative change was 39% better (10% better to 68% better). We found no evidence of an effect in all-cause withdrawal between the flexibility and aerobic groups (5 studies, 301 participants). Absolute change was 1% fewer withdrawals in the flexibility group (8% fewer to 21% more), and relative change in the flexibility group compared to the aerobic training intervention group was 3% fewer (39% fewer to 55% more). It is uncertain whether flexibility leads to long-term effects (36 weeks after a 12-week intervention), as the evidence was of low certainty and was derived from a single trial.\nVery low-certainty evidence indicates uncertainty in the risk of adverse events for flexibility exercise training. One adverse effect was described among the 132 participants allocated to flexibility training. One participant had tendinitis of the Achilles tendon (McCain 1988), but it is unclear if the tendinitis was a pre-existing condition.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhen compared with aerobic training, it is uncertain whether flexibility improves outcomes such as HRQoL, pain intensity, fatigue, stiffness, and physical function, as the certainty of the evidence is very low. Flexibility exercise training may lead to little or no difference for all-cause withdrawals. It is also uncertain whether flexibility exercise training has long-term effects due to the very low certainty of the evidence. We downgraded the evidence owing to the small number of trials and participants across trials, as well as due to issues related to unclear and high risk of bias (selection, performance, and detection biases). While flexibility exercise training appears to be well tolerated (similar withdrawal rates across groups), evidence on adverse events was scarce, therefore its safety is uncertain.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is flexibility exercise training?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Flexibility exercise training is a type of exercise that focuses on improving or maintaining the amount of motion available in muscles and joint structures by holding or stretching the body in specific positions." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSickle cell disease (SCD) is one of the commonest severe monogenic disorders in the world, due to the inheritance of two abnormal haemoglobin (beta globin) genes. SCD can cause severe pain, significant end-organ damage, pulmonary complications, and premature death. Silent cerebral infarcts are the commonest neurological complication in children and probably adults with SCD. Silent cerebral infarcts also affect academic performance, increase cognitive deficits and may lower intelligence quotient.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of interventions to reduce or prevent silent cerebral infarcts in people with SCD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for relevant trials in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1980), and ongoing trial databases; all searches current to 14 November 2019. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register: 07 October 2019.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing interventions to prevent silent cerebral infarcts in people with SCD. There were no restrictions by outcomes examined, language or publication status.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.\nMain results\nWe included five trials (660 children or adolescents) published between 1998 and 2016. Four of the five trials were terminated early. The vast majority of participants had the haemoglobin (Hb)SS form of SCD. One trial focused on preventing silent cerebral infarcts or stroke; three trials were for primary stroke prevention and one trial dealt with secondary stroke prevention.\nThree trials compared the use of regular long-term red blood cell transfusions to standard care. Two of these trials included children with no previous long-term transfusions: one in children with normal transcranial doppler (TCD) velocities; and one in children with abnormal TCD velocities. The third trial included children and adolescents on long-term transfusion.\nTwo trials compared the drug hydroxyurea and phlebotomy to long-term transfusions and iron chelation therapy: one in primary prevention (children), and one in secondary prevention (children and adolescents).\nThe quality of the evidence was moderate to very low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology. This was due to trials being at high risk of bias because they were unblinded; indirectness (available evidence was only for children with HbSS); and imprecise outcome estimates.\nLong-term red blood cell transfusions versus standard care\nChildren with no previous long-term transfusions and higher risk of stroke (abnormal TCD velocities or previous history of silent cerebral infarcts)\nLong-term red blood cell transfusions may reduce the incidence of silent cerebral infarcts in children with abnormal TCD velocities, risk ratio (RR) 0.11 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.86) (one trial, 124 participants, low-quality evidence); but make little or no difference to the incidence of silent cerebral infarcts in children with previous silent cerebral infarcts on magnetic resonance imaging and normal or conditional TCDs, RR 0.70 (95% CI 0.23 to 2.13) (one trial, 196 participants, low-quality evidence).\nNo deaths were reported in either trial.\nLong-term red blood cell transfusions may reduce the incidence of: acute chest syndrome, RR 0.24 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.49) (two trials, 326 participants, low-quality evidence); and painful crisis, RR 0.63 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.95) (two trials, 326 participants, low-quality evidence); and probably reduces the incidence of clinical stroke, RR 0.12 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.49) (two trials, 326 participants, moderate-quality evidence).\nLong-term red blood cell transfusions may improve quality of life in children with previous silent cerebral infarcts (difference estimate -0.54; 95% confidence interval -0.92 to -0.17; one trial; 166 participants), but may have no effect on cognitive function (least squares means: 1.7, 95% CI -1.1 to 4.4) (one trial, 166 participants, low-quality evidence).\nTransfusions continued versus transfusions halted: children and adolescents with normalised TCD velocities (79 participants; one trial)\nContinuing red blood cell transfusions may reduce the incidence of silent cerebral infarcts, RR 0.29 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.97 (low-quality evidence).\nWe are very uncertain whether continuing red blood cell transfusions has any effect on all-cause mortality, Peto odds ratio (OR) 8.00 (95% CI 0.16 to 404.12); or clinical stroke, RR 0.22 (95% CI 0.01 to 4.35) (very low-quality evidence).\nThe trial did not report: comparative numbers for SCD-related adverse events; quality of life; or cognitive function.\nHydroxyurea and phlebotomy versus transfusions and chelation\nPrimary prevention, children (121 participants; one trial)\nWe are very uncertain whether switching to hydroxyurea and phlebotomy has any effect on: silent cerebral infarcts (no infarcts); all-cause mortality (no deaths); risk of stroke (no strokes); or SCD-related complications, RR 1.52 (95% CI 0.58 to 4.02) (very low-quality evidence).\nSecondary prevention, children and adolescents with a history of stroke (133 participants; one trial)\nWe are very uncertain whether switching to hydroxyurea and phlebotomy has any effect on: silent cerebral infarcts, Peto OR 7.28 (95% CI 0.14 to 366.91); all-cause mortality, Peto OR 1.02 (95%CI 0.06 to 16.41); or clinical stroke, RR 14.78 (95% CI 0.86 to 253.66) (very low-quality evidence).\nSwitching to hydroxyurea and phlebotomy may increase the risk of SCD-related complications, RR 3.10 (95% CI 1.42 to 6.75) (low-quality evidence).\nNeither trial reported on quality of life or cognitive function.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe identified no trials for preventing silent cerebral infarcts in adults, or in children who do not have HbSS SCD.\nLong-term red blood cell transfusions may reduce the incidence of silent cerebral infarcts in children with abnormal TCD velocities, but may have little or no effect on children with normal TCD velocities. In children who are at higher risk of stroke and have not had previous long-term transfusions, long-term red blood cell transfusions probably reduce the risk of stroke, and other SCD-related complications (acute chest syndrome and painful crises).\nIn children and adolescents at high risk of stroke whose TCD velocities have normalised, continuing red blood cell transfusions may reduce the risk of silent cerebral infarcts. No treatment duration threshold has been established for stopping transfusions.\nSwitching to hydroxyurea with phlebotomy may increase the risk of silent cerebral infarcts and SCD-related serious adverse events in secondary stroke prevention.\nAll other evidence in this review is of very low-quality.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Search date\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The evidence is current to: 14 November 2019." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMany factors influence fertility, one being the timing of intercourse. The 'fertile window' describes a stage in the cycle when conception can occur and is approximately five days before to several hours after ovulation. 'Timed intercourse' is the practice of prospectively identifying ovulation and, thus, the fertile window to increase the likelihood of conception. Methods of predicting ovulation include urinary hormone measurement (luteinising hormone (LH) and oestrogen), fertility awareness-based methods (FABM) (including tracking basal body temperatures, cervical mucus monitoring, calendar charting/tracking apps), and ultrasonography. However, there are potentially negative aspects associated with ovulation prediction, including stress, time consumption, and cost implications of purchasing ovulation kits and app subscriptions. This review considered the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the use of timed intercourse (using ovulation prediction) on pregnancy outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and risks of ovulation prediction methods for timing intercourse on conception in couples trying to conceive.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in January 2023. We also checked the reference lists of relevant studies and searched trial registries for any additional trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs that compared methods of timed intercourse using ovulation prediction to other forms of ovulation prediction or intercourse without ovulation prediction in couples trying to conceive.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane to select and analyse studies in this review. The primary review outcomes were live birth and adverse events (such as depression and stress). Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, pregnancy (clinical or positive urinary pregnancy test not yet confirmed by ultrasound), time to pregnancy, and quality of life. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods.\nMain results\nThis review update included seven RCTs involving 2464 women or couples. Four of the five studies from the previous review were included in this update, and three new studies were added. We assessed the quality of the evidence as moderate to very low, the main limitations being imprecision, indirectness, and risk of bias.\nUrinary ovulation tests versus intercourse without ovulation prediction\nCompared to intercourse without ovulation prediction, urinary ovulation detection probably increases the chance of live birth in couples trying to conceive (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.81, 1 RCT, n = 844, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of a live birth without urine ovulation prediction is 16%, the chance of a live birth with urine ovulation prediction is 16% to 28%. However, we are uncertain whether timed intercourse using urinary ovulation detection resulted in a difference in stress (mean difference (MD) 1.98, 95% CI −0.87 to 4.83, I² = 0%, P = 0.17, 1 RCT, n = 77, very low-quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.31, I² = 0%, 1 RCT, n = 148, low-quality evidence). Similar to the live birth result, timed intercourse using urinary ovulation detection probably increases the chances of clinical pregnancy or positive urine pregnancy test (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.50, I² = 0, 4 RCTs, n = 2202, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of a clinical pregnancy or positive urine pregnancy test without ovulation prediction is assumed to be 18%, the chance following timed intercourse with urinary ovulation detection would be 20% to 28%. Evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of urine ovulation tests on time to pregnancy or quality of life.\nFertility awareness-based methods (FABM) versus intercourse without ovulation prediction\nDue to insufficient evidence, we are uncertain whether timed intercourse using FABM resulted in a difference in live birth rate compared to intercourse without ovulation prediction (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.20, I² = 0%, 2 RCTs, n = 157, low-quality evidence). We are also uncertain whether FABM affects stress (MD −1.10, 95% CI −3.88 to 1.68, 1 RCT, n = 183, very low-quality evidence). Similarly, we are uncertain of the effect of timed intercourse using FABM on anxiety (MD 0.5, 95% CI −0.52 to 1.52, P = 0.33, 1 RCT, n = 183, very low-quality evidence); depression (MD 0.4, 95% CI −0.28 to 1.08, P = 0.25, 1 RCT, n = 183, very low-quality evidence); or erectile dysfunction (MD 1.2, 95% CI −0.38 to 2.78, P = 0.14, 1 RCT, n = 183, very low-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to detect a benefit of timed intercourse using FABM on clinical pregnancy (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.31 to 4.07, 1 RCT, n = 17, very low-quality evidence) or clinical or positive pregnancy test rates (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.30, 3 RCTs, n = 262, very low-quality evidence). Finally, we are uncertain whether timed intercourse using FABM affects the time to pregnancy (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.38, 1 RCT, n = 140, low-quality evidence) or quality of life.\nNo studies assessed the use of timed intercourse with pelvic ultrasonography.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe new evidence presented in this review update shows that timed intercourse using urine ovulation tests probably improves live birth and pregnancy rates (clinical or positive urine pregnancy tests but not yet confirmed by ultrasound) in women under 40, trying to conceive for less than 12 months, compared to intercourse without ovulation prediction. However, there are insufficient data to determine the effects of urine ovulation tests on adverse events, clinical pregnancy, time to pregnancy, and quality of life. Similarly, due to limited data, we are uncertain of the effect of FABM on pregnancy outcomes, adverse effects, and quality of life.\nFurther research is therefore required to fully understand the safety and effectiveness of timed intercourse for couples trying to conceive. This research should include studies reporting clinically relevant outcomes such as live birth and adverse effects in fertile and infertile couples and utilise various methods to determine ovulation. Only with a comprehensive understanding of the risks and benefits of timed intercourse can recommendations be made for all couples trying to conceive.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The overall quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low. Additional studies in this field are needed. The main limitations of the evidence were the small number of included studies, small study sizes, and potential for bias, given that many of the studies were funded by the manufacturer of the ovulation prediction device. As a result, the findings should be interpreted cautiously, and future studies may modify our conclusions." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGenital Chlamydia trachomatis (C.trachomatis) infection may lead to pregnancy complications such as miscarriage, preterm labour, low birthweight, preterm rupture of membranes, increased perinatal mortality, postpartum endometritis, chlamydial conjunctivitis and C.trachomatis pneumonia.This review supersedes a previous review on this topic.\nObjectives\nTo establish the most efficacious and best-tolerated therapy for treatment of genital chlamydial infection in preventing maternal infection and adverse neonatal outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (26 June 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) as well as studies published in abstract form assessing interventions for treating genital C.trachomatis infection in pregnancy. Cluster-RCTs were also eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Quasi-randomised trials and trials using cross-over design are not eligible for inclusion in this review.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted the data using the agreed form. Data were checked for accuracy. Evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 15 trials (involving 1754 women) although our meta-analyses were based on fewer numbers of studies/women. All of the included studies were undertaken in North America from 1982 to 2001. Two studies were low risk of bias in all domains, all other studies had varying risk of bias. Four other studies were excluded and one study is ongoing.\nEight comparisons were included in this review; three compared antibiotic (erythromycin, clindamycin, amoxicillin) versus placebo; five compared an antibiotic versus another antibiotic (erythromycin, clindamycin, amoxicillin, azithromycin). No study reported different antibiotic regimens.\nMicrobiological cure (primary outcome)\nAntibiotics versus placebo: Erythromycin (average risk ratio (RR) 2.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.60 to 4.38; two trials, 495 women; I2 = 68%; moderate-certainty evidence), and clindamycin (RR 4.08, 95% CI 2.35 to 7.08; one trial, 85 women;low-certainty evidence) were associated with improved microbiological cure compared to a placebo control. In one very small trial comparing amoxicillin and placebo, the results were unclear, but the evidence was graded very low (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.59 to 6.79; 15 women).\nOne antibiotic versus another antibiotic: Amoxicillin made little or no difference in microbiological cure in comparison to erythromycin (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.01; four trials, 466 women; high-certainty evidence), probably no difference compared to clindamycin (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.04; one trial, 101 women; moderate-quality evidence), and evidence is very low certainty when compared to azithromycin so the effect is not certain (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.12; two trials, 144 women; very low-certainty evidence). Azithromycin versus erythromycin (average RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.23; six trials, 374 women; I2 = 53%; moderate-certainty evidence) probably have similar efficacy though results appear to favour azithromycin. Clindamycin versus erythromycin (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.15; two trials, 173 women; low-certainty evidence) may have similar numbers of women with a microbiological cure between groups.\nEvidence was downgraded for design limitations, inconsistency, and imprecision in effect estimates.\nSide effects of the treatment (maternal) (secondary outcome)\nAntibiotics versus placebo: side effects including nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, were reported in two studies (495 women) but there was no clear evidence whether erythromycin was associated with more side effects than placebo and a high level of heterogeneity (I2 = 78%) was observed (average RR 2.93, 95% CI 0.36 to 23.76). There was no clear difference in the number of women experiencing side effects when clindamycin was compared to placebo in one small study (5/41 versus 1/44) (RR 6.35, 95% CI 0.38 to 107.45, 62 women). The side effects reported were mostly gastrointestinal and also included resolving skin rashes.\nOne antibiotic versus another antibiotic: There was no clear difference in incidence of side effects (including nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and abdominal pain) when amoxicillin was compared to azithromycin based on data from one small study (36 women) (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.31).\nHowever, amoxicillin was associated with fewer side effects compared to erythromycin with data from four trials (513 women) (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.46; I2 = 27%). Side effects included nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, abdominal cramping, rash, and allergic reaction.\nBoth azithromycin (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.34; six trials, 374 women) and clindamycin (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.87; two trials, 183 women) were associated with a lower incidence of side effects compared to erythromycin. These side effects included nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and abdominal cramping.\nOne small study (101 women) reported there was no clear difference in the number of women with side effects when amoxicillin was compared with clindamycin (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.26; 107 women). The side effects reported included rash and gastrointestinal complaints.\nOther secondary outcomes\nSingle trials reported data on repeated infections, preterm birth, preterm rupture of membranes, perinatal mortality and low birthweight and found no clear differences between treatments.\nMany of this review's secondary outcomes were not reported in the included studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nTreatment with antibacterial agents achieves microbiological cure from C.trachomatis infection during pregnancy. There was no apparent difference between assessed agents (amoxicillin, erythromycin, clindamycin, azithromycin) in terms of efficacy (microbiological cure and repeat infection) and pregnancy complications (preterm birth, preterm rupture of membranes, low birthweight). Azithromycin and clindamycin appear to result in fewer side effects than erythromycin.\nAll of the studies in this review were conducted in North America, which may limit the generalisability of the results. In addition, study populations may differ in low-resource settings and these results are therefore only applicable to well-resourced settings. Furthermore, the trials in this review mainly took place in the nineties and early 2000's and antibiotic resistance may have changed since then.\nFurther well-designed studies, with appropriate sample sizes and set in a variety of settings, are required to further evaluate interventions for treating C.trachomatis infection in pregnancy and determine which agents achieve the best microbiological cure with the least side effects. Such studies could report on the outcomes listed in this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the issue?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "This review aimed to assess whether the treatment of chlamydial infection during pregnancy cured the infection and prevented complications to the women and babies without causing side effects. This new review supersedes an earlier review on this topic." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nStroke results from an acute lack of blood supply to the brain and becomes a chronic health condition for millions of survivors around the world. Self management can offer stroke survivors a pathway to promote their recovery. Self management programmes for people with stroke can include specific education about the stroke and likely effects but essentially, also focusses on skills training to encourage people to take an active part in their management. Such skills training can include problem-solving, goal-setting, decision-making, and coping skills.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of self management interventions on the quality of life of adults with stroke who are living in the community, compared with inactive or active (usual care) control interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases from inception to April 2016: the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, OTSeeker, OT Search, PEDro, REHABDATA, and DARE. We also searched the following trial registries: ClinicalTrials.gov, Stroke Trials Registry, Current Controlled Trials, World Health Organization, and Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials of adults with stroke living in the community who received self management interventions. These interventions included more than one component of self management or targeted more than a single domain of change, or both. Interventions were compared with either an inactive control (waiting list or usual care) or active control (alternate intervention such as education only). Measured outcomes included changes in quality of life, self efficacy, activity or participation levels, impairments, health service usage, health behaviours (such as medication adherence or lifestyle behaviours), cost, participant satisfaction, or adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted prespecified data from all included studies and assessed trial quality and risk of bias. We performed meta-analyses where possible to pool results.\nMain results\nWe included 14 trials with 1863 participants. Evidence from six studies showed that self management programmes improved quality of life in people with stroke (standardised mean difference (SMD) random effects 0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.41, P = 0.05; low quality evidence) and improved self efficacy (SMD, random effects 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.61, P = 0.03; low quality evidence) compared with usual care. Individual studies reported benefits for health-related behaviours such as reduced use of health services, smoking, and alcohol intake, as well as improved diet and attitude. However, there was no superior effect for such programmes in the domains of locus of control, activities of daily living, medication adherence, participation, or mood. Statistical heterogeneity was mostly low; however, there was much variation in the types and delivery of programmes. Risk of bias was relatively low for complex intervention clinical trials where participants and personnel could not be blinded.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe current evidence indicates that self management programmes may benefit people with stroke who are living in the community. The benefits of such programmes lie in improved quality of life and self efficacy. These are all well-recognised goals for people after stroke. There is evidence for many modes of delivery and examples of tailoring content to the target group. Leaders were usually professionals but peers (stroke survivors and carers) were also reported - the commonality is being trained and expert in stroke and its consequences. It would be beneficial for further research to be focused on identifying key features of effective self management programmes and assessing their cost-effectiveness.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "What are the effects of self management programmes for people who have had a stroke?" } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nFractures of the proximal humerus, often termed shoulder fractures, are common injuries, especially in older people. The management of these fractures varies widely, including in the use of surgery. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001 and last updated in 2015.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects (benefits and harms) of treatment and rehabilitation interventions for proximal humeral fractures in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, trial registries, and bibliographies of trial reports and systematic reviews to September 2020. We updated this search in November 2021, but have not yet incorporated these results.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared non-pharmacological interventions for treating acute proximal humeral fractures in adults.\nData collection and analysis\nPairs of review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We pooled data where appropriate and used GRADE for assessing the certainty of evidence for each outcome. We prepared a brief economic commentary for one comparison.\nMain results\nWe included 47 trials (3179 participants, mostly women and mainly aged 60 years or over) that tested one of 26 comparisons. Six comparisons were tested by 2 to 10 trials, the others by small single-centre trials only. Twelve studies evaluated non-surgical treatments, 10 compared surgical with non-surgical treatments, 23 compared two methods of surgery, and two tested timing of mobilisation after surgery. Most trials were at high risk of bias, due mainly to lack of blinding. We summarise the findings for four key comparisons below.\nEarly (usually one week post injury) versus delayed (after three or more weeks) mobilisation for non-surgically-treated fractures\nFive trials (350 participants) made this comparison; however, the available data are very limited. Due to very low-certainty evidence from single trials, we are uncertain of the findings of better shoulder function at one year in the early mobilisation group, or the findings of little or no between-group difference in function at 3 or 24 months. Likewise, there is very low-certainty evidence of no important between-group difference in quality of life at one year. There was one reported death and five serious shoulder complications (1.9% of 259 participants), spread between the two groups, that would have required substantive treatment.\nSurgical versus non-surgical treatment\nTen trials (717 participants) evaluated surgical intervention for displaced fractures (66% were three- or four-part fractures). There is high-certainty evidence of no clinically important difference between surgical and non-surgical treatment in patient-reported shoulder function at one year (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.07 to 0.27; 7 studies, 552 participants) and two years (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.25; 5 studies, 423 participants). There is moderate-certainty evidence of no clinically important between-group difference in patient-reported shoulder function at six months (SMD 0.17, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.38; 3 studies, 347 participants). There is high-certainty evidence of no clinically important between-group difference in quality of life at one year (EQ-5D (0: dead to 1: best quality): mean difference (MD) 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.04; 6 studies, 502 participants). There is low-certainty evidence of little between-group difference in mortality: one of the 31 deaths was explicitly linked with surgery (risk ratio (RR) 1.35, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.62; 8 studies, 646 participants). There is low-certainty evidence of a higher risk of additional surgery in the surgery group (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.51; 9 studies, 667 participants). Based on an illustrative risk of 35 subsequent operations per 1000 non-surgically-treated patients, this indicates an extra 38 subsequent operations per 1000 surgically-treated patients (95% CI 8 to 94 more). Although there was low-certainty evidence of a higher overall risk of adverse events after surgery, the 95% CI also includes a slightly increased risk of adverse events after non-surgical treatment (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.31; 3 studies, 391 participants).\nOpen reduction and internal fixation with a locking plate versus a locking intramedullary nail\nFour trials (270 participants) evaluated surgical intervention for displaced fractures (63% were two-part fractures). There is low-certainty evidence of no clinically important between-group difference in shoulder function at one year (SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.41; 4 studies, 227 participants), six months (Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (0 to 100: worst disability): MD -0.39, 95% CI -4.14 to 3.36; 3 studies, 174 participants), or two years (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES) (0 to 100: best outcome): MD 3.06, 95% CI -0.05 to 6.17; 2 studies, 101 participants). There is very low-certainty evidence of no between-group difference in quality of life (1 study), and of little difference in adverse events (4 studies, 250 participants) and additional surgery (3 studies, 193 participants).\nReverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) versus hemiarthroplasty\nThere is very low-certainty evidence from two trials (161 participants with either three- or four-part fractures) of no or minimal between-group differences in self-reported shoulder function at one year (1 study) or at two to three years' follow-up (2 studies); or in quality of life at one year or at two or more years' follow-up (1 study). Function at six months was not reported. Of 10 deaths reported by one trial (99 participants), one appeared to be surgery-related. There is very low-certainty evidence of a lower risk of complications after RTSA (2 studies). Ten people (6.2% of 161 participants) had a reoperation; all eight cases in the hemiarthroplasty group received a RTSA (very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is high- or moderate-certainty evidence that, compared with non-surgical treatment, surgery does not result in a better outcome at one and two years after injury for people with displaced proximal humeral fractures. It may increase the need for subsequent surgery. The evidence is absent or insufficient for people aged under 60 years, high-energy trauma, two-part tuberosity fractures or less common fractures, such as fracture dislocations and articular surface fractures.\nThere is insufficient evidence from randomised trials to inform the choices between different non-surgical, surgical or rehabilitation interventions for these fractures.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"3. What is the best method of surgery?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We selected two key comparisons.\n- Four studies compared a plate with a nail for surgical fixation after the bone has been put back together. The choice of surgery may make no difference to shoulder function. The very limited evidence means we are unsure if the choice of surgery affects quality of life, harmful effects or need for additional surgery.\n- Two studies comparing an RTSA with hemiarthroplasty found shoulder function was improved to a similar extent, but that additional surgery was less frequent after RTSA. However, there is not enough evidence overall to tell whether one type of replacement is better than the other." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEmergency departments (EDs) are facing serious and significant issues in the delivery of effective and efficient care to patients. Acute assessment services have been implemented at many hospitals internationally to assist in maintaining patient flow for identified groups of patients attending the ED. Identifying the risks and benefits, and optimal configurations of these services may be beneficial to those wishing to utilise an acute assessment service to improve patient flow.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of acute assessment services on patient flow following attendance at a hospital ED.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase and two trials registers on 24 September 2022 to identify studies. No restrictions were imposed on publication year, publication type, or publication language.\nSelection criteria\nStudies eligible for inclusion were randomised trials and cluster-randomised trials with at least two intervention and two control sites. Participants were adults (as defined by study authors) receiving care either in the ED or the acute assessment service, where both were based in the hospital setting. The comparison was hospital-based acute assessment services with usual, ED-only care. The outcomes of this review were mortality at time point closest to 30 days, length of stay in the service (in minutes), and waiting time to see a doctor (in minutes).\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed the standard procedures of Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care for this review (https://epoc.cochrane.org/resources).\nMain results\nWe identified a total of 5754 records in the search. Following assessment of 3609 de-duplicated records, none were found to be eligible for inclusion in this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAt present there are no randomised controlled trials exploring the effects of acute assessment services on patient flow in hospital-based emergency departments compared to usual, ED-only care.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We wanted to find out if the acute assessment service was able to see, treat, and discharge people faster than the emergency department. We also wanted to find out if the acute assessment service was associated with any unwanted effects for patients who were seen and treated by them." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nProblem alcohol use is common among people who use illicit drugs (PWID) and is associated with adverse health outcomes. It is also an important factor contributing to a poor prognosis among drug users with hepatitis C virus (HCV) as it impacts on progression to hepatic cirrhosis or opioid overdose in PWID.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in PWID (users of opioids and stimulants).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group trials register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, from inception up to August 2017, and the reference lists of eligible articles. We also searched: 1) conference proceedings (online archives only) of the Society for the Study of Addiction, International Harm Reduction Association, International Conference on Alcohol Harm Reduction and American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence; and 2) online registers of clinical trials: Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, Center Watch and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing psychosocial interventions with other psychosocial treatment, or treatment as usual, in adult PWIDs (aged at least 18 years) with concurrent problem alcohol use.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included seven trials (825 participants). We judged the majority of the trials to have a high or unclear risk of bias.\nThe psychosocial interventions considered in the studies were: cognitive-behavioural coping skills training (one study), twelve-step programme (one study), brief intervention (three studies), motivational interviewing (two studies), and brief motivational interviewing (one study). Two studies were considered in two comparisons. There were no data for the secondary outcome, alcohol-related harm. The results were as follows.\nComparison 1: cognitive-behavioural coping skills training versus twelve-step programme (one study, 41 participants)\nThere was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol abstinence assessed with Substance Abuse Calendar and breathalyser at one year: risk ratio (RR) 2.38 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10 to 55.06); and retention in treatment, measured at end of treatment: RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.29), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was very low.\nComparison 2: brief intervention versus treatment as usual (three studies, 197 participants)\nThere was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol use, measured as scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) or Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) at three months: standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.07 (95% CI -0.24 to 0.37); and retention in treatment, measured at three months: RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.13), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was low.\nComparison 3: motivational interviewing versus treatment as usual or educational intervention only (three studies, 462 participants)\nThere was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol use, measured as scores on the AUDIT or ASSIST at three months: SMD 0.04 (95% CI -0.29 to 0.37); and retention in treatment, measured at three months: RR 0.93 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.43), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was low.\nComparison 4: brief motivational intervention (BMI) versus assessment only (one study, 187 participants)\nMore people reduced alcohol use (by seven or more days in the past month, measured at six months) in the BMI group than in the control group (RR 1.67; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.60). There was no difference between groups for the other primary outcome, retention in treatment, measured at end of treatment: RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.02), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was moderate.\nComparison 5: motivational interviewing (intensive) versus motivational interviewing (one study, 163 participants)\nThere was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol use, measured using the Addiction Severity Index-alcohol score (ASI) at two months: MD 0.03 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.08); and retention in treatment, measured at end of treatment: RR 17.63 (95% CI 1.03 to 300.48), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found low to very low-quality evidence to suggest that there is no difference in effectiveness between different types of psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption among people who use illicit drugs, and that brief interventions are not superior to assessment-only or to treatment as usual. No firm conclusions can be made because of the paucity of the data and the low quality of the retrieved studies.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Search date\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "the evidence is current to August 2017." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDuchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is the most common X-linked neuromuscular disorder. When boys with DMD reach the second decade of life, they lose their ability to walk and become wheelchair dependent. Standing devices and orthoses are considered to be an essential component in the therapy management of DMD. Clinical opinion and research from other neurological conditions highlight the proposed benefits of standing device use, however, its effect within this population is currently unknown. A review of the evidence for the use of standing devices and orthoses is necessary to inform all stakeholders, including people with DMD, clinicians, decision makers and funders, and to guide future research.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of standing devices and orthoses on musculoskeletal impairments (such as pain, contracture, scoliosis development and bone density) in boys and men with DMD, and secondarily to determine their effect on quality of life, participation in activities, and patient experience (satisfaction). We also considered any adverse events associated with their use.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, PEDro, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global up to 5 September 2019. We checked references in identified trials, handsearched journal abstracts, and searched trials registries.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of any model of standing device for use in DMD. The control interventions would have been any other comparison group, including no standing device, a different model of standing device, usual care, or an alternative form of assistive weight bearing.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.\nMain results\nAlthough we identified 13 potentially relevant studies, none met the inclusion criteria for this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSince there were no RCTs or quasi-RCTs available to evaluate the effectiveness of standing devices in people with DMD, studies are needed to investigate the effectiveness of standing devices in this population.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "DMD is a condition that affects only boys. The progressive muscle wasting that occurs with the condition results in decreased walking ability and eventually, use of a wheelchair for mobility. Specialist equipment is used routinely to assist boys with DMD to stand or bear weight. Such equipment includes standing devices (e.g. frames or standing wheelchairs) and orthoses (e.g. braces or splints). We have evidence from other groups of people that standing reduces physical problems, including pain, development of contractures (fixed shortening of muscles) and curvature of the spine. Standing also strengthens bones. However, we have no evidence about the effects of the use of standing frames or orthoses by boys and men with DMD.\nWe searched the medical literature for studies that met our inclusion criteria. We required studies to have assessed standing devices for use in DMD compared to no standing device, a different model of standing device, usual care, or an alternative aid to enable weight bearing. Studies had to randomly allocate participants to treatment groups (these studies usually provide the highest quality evidence)." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nProbiotics may be effective in reducing the duration of acute infectious diarrhoea.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of probiotics in proven or presumed acute infectious diarrhoea.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the trials register of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group, MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to 17 December 2019, as well as the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 12, 2019), in the Cochrane Library, and reference lists from studies and reviews. We included additional studies identified during external review.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials comparing a specified probiotic agent with a placebo or no probiotic in people with acute diarrhoea that is proven or presumed to be caused by an infectious agent.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently applied inclusion criteria, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. Primary outcomes were measures of diarrhoea duration (diarrhoea lasting ≥ 48 hours; duration of diarrhoea). Secondary outcomes were number of people hospitalized in community studies, duration of hospitalization in inpatient studies, diarrhoea lasting ≥ 14 days, and adverse events.\nMain results\nWe included 82 studies with a total of 12,127 participants. These studies included 11,526 children (age < 18 years) and 412 adults (three studies recruited 189 adults and children but did not specify numbers in each age group). No cluster-randomized trials were included. Studies varied in the definitions used for \"acute diarrhoea\" and \"end of the diarrhoeal illness\" and in the probiotic(s) tested. A total of 53 trials were undertaken in countries where both child and adult mortality was low or very low, and 26 where either child or adult mortality was high.\nRisk of bias was high or unclear in many studies, and there was marked statistical heterogeneity when findings for the primary outcomes were pooled in meta-analysis. Effect size was similar in the sensitivity analysis and marked heterogeneity persisted. Publication bias was demonstrated from funnel plots for the main outcomes.\nIn our main analysis of the primary outcomes in studies at low risk for all indices of risk of bias, no difference was detected between probiotic and control groups for the risk of diarrhoea lasting ≥ 48 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.09; 2 trials, 1770 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or for duration of diarrhoea (mean difference (MD) 8.64 hours shorter, 95% CI 29.4 hours shorter to 12.1 hours longer; 6 trials, 3058 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nEffect size was similar and marked heterogeneity persisted in pre-specified subgroup analyses of the primary outcomes that included all studies. These included analyses limited to the probiotics Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Saccharomyces boulardii. In six trials (433 participants) of Lactobacillus reuteri, there was consistency amongst findings (I² = 0%), but risk of bias was present in all included studies. Heterogeneity also was not explained by types of participants (age, nutritional/socioeconomic status captured by mortality stratum, region of the world where studies were undertaken), diarrhoea in children caused by rotavirus, exposure to antibiotics, and the few studies of children who were also treated with zinc. In addition, there were no clear differences in effect size for the primary outcomes in post hoc analyses according to decade of publication of studies and whether or not trials had been registered.\nFor other outcomes, the duration of hospitalization in inpatient studies on average was shorter in probiotic groups than in control groups but there was marked heterogeneity between studies (I² = 96%; MD -18.03 hours, 95% CI -27.28 to -8.78, random-effects model: 24 trials, 4056 participants). No differences were detected between probiotic and control groups in the number of people with diarrhoea lasting ≥ 14 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.53; 9 studies, 2928 participants) or in risk of hospitalization in community studies (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.89; 6 studies, 2283 participants).\nNo serious adverse events were attributed to probiotics.\nAuthors' conclusions\nProbiotics probably make little or no difference to the number of people who have diarrhoea lasting 48 hours or longer, and we are uncertain whether probiotics reduce the duration of diarrhoea. This analysis is based on large trials with low risk of bias.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "”Diarrhoea” is the name for frequent bowel movements or the passing of unusually soft or watery faeces. Infections of the gut by bacteria, viruses, or parasites cause acute diarrhoea and are most often spread through water contaminated with faeces. Acute diarrhoea usually improves within a few days. However, in severe acute diarrhoea, water, salts, and nutrients that may be lost from the body are substantial, causing dehydration and even death. Treatments for acute diarrhoea aim to prevent or reverse dehydration, speed up recovery time, and shorten the time that a person may pass the infection to others.\nProbiotics are live bacteria and yeasts that are thought to restore the natural balance of bacteria in the gut (intestines) when this has been disrupted by illness or treatment. Probiotics are often described as \"good\" or \"friendly\" bacteria; they may be present in yoghurts or taken as food supplements. In acute infectious diarrhoea, probiotics may act against the harmful microbes that are causing diarrhoea, help the gut to fight them, or reduce inflammation and damage to the gut." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nVery preterm infants often require respiratory support and are therefore exposed to an increased risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (chronic lung disease) and later neurodevelopmental disability. Caffeine is widely used to prevent and treat apnea (temporal cessation of breathing) associated with prematurity and facilitate extubation. Though widely recognized dosage regimes have been used for decades, higher doses have been suggested to further improve neonatal outcomes. However, observational studies suggest that higher doses may be associated with harm.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effects of higher versus standard doses of caffeine on mortality and major neurodevelopmental disability in preterm infants with (or at risk of) apnea, or peri-extubation.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and clinicaltrials.gov in May 2022. The reference lists of relevant articles were also checked to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and cluster-RCTs, comparing high-dose to standard-dose strategies in preterm infants. High-dose strategies were defined as a high-loading dose (more than 20 mg of caffeine citrate/kg) or a high-maintenance dose (more than 10 mg of caffeine citrate/kg/day). Standard-dose strategies were defined as a standard-loading dose (20 mg or less of caffeine citrate/kg) or a standard-maintenance dose (10 mg or less of caffeine citrate/kg/day). We specified three additional comparisons according to the indication for commencing caffeine: 1) prevention trials, i.e. preterm infants born at less than 34 weeks' gestation, who are at risk for apnea; 2) treatment trials, i.e. preterm infants born at less than 37 weeks' gestation, with signs of apnea; 3) extubation trials: preterm infants born at less than 34 weeks' gestation, prior to planned extubation.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We evaluated treatment effects using a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for categorical data and mean, standard deviation (SD), and mean difference (MD) for continuous data.\nMain results\nWe included seven trials enrolling 894 very preterm infants (reported in Comparison 1, i.e. any indication).\nTwo studies included infants for apnea prevention (Comparison 2), four studies for apnea treatment (Comparison 3) and two for extubation management (Comparison 4); in one study, indication for caffeine administration was both apnea treatment and extubation management (reported in Comparison 1, Comparison 3 and Comparison 4).\nIn the high-dose groups, loading and maintenance caffeine doses ranged from 30 mg/kg to 80 mg/kg, and 12 mg/kg to 30 mg/kg, respectively; in the standard-dose groups, loading and maintenance caffeine doses ranged from 6 mg/kg to 25 mg/kg, and 3 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg, respectively.\nTwo studies had three study groups: infants were randomized in three different doses (two of them matched our definition of high dose and one matched our definition of standard dose); high-dose caffeine and standard-dose caffeine were compared to theophylline administration (the latter is included in a separate review).\nSix of the seven included studies compared high-loading and high-maintenance dose to standard-loading and standard-maintenance dose, whereas in one study standard-loading dose and high-maintenance dose was compared to standard-loading dose and standard-maintenance dose.\nHigh-dose caffeine strategies (administration for any indication) may have little or no effect on mortality prior to hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence of interval (CI) 0.53 to 1.38; risk difference (RD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.03; I² for RR and RD = 0%; 5 studies, 723 participants; low-certainty evidence). Only one study enrolling 74 infants reported major neurodevelopmental disability in children aged three to five years (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.24; RD -0.15, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.13; 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported the outcome mortality or major neurodevelopmental disability in children aged 18 to 24 months and 3 to 5 years. Five studies reported bronchopulmonary dysplasia at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.94; RD -0.08, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.02; number needed to benefit (NNTB) = 13; I² for RR and RD = 0%; 723 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). High-dose caffeine strategies may have little or no effect on side effects (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.23; RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.07; I² for RR and RD = 0%; 5 studies, 593 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain for duration of hospital stay (data reported in three studies could not be pooled in meta-analysis because outcomes were expressed as medians and interquartile ranges) and seizures (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.53; RD 0.14, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.36; 1 study, 74 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nWe identified three ongoing trials conducted in China, Egypt, and New Zealand.\nAuthors' conclusions\nHigh-dose caffeine strategies in preterm infants may have little or no effect on reducing mortality prior to hospital discharge or side effects. We are very uncertain whether high-dose caffeine strategies improves major neurodevelopmental disability, duration of hospital stay or seizures. No studies reported the outcome mortality or major neurodevelopmental disability in children aged 18 to 24 months and 3 to 5 years. High-dose caffeine strategies probably reduce the rate of bronchopulmonary dysplasia.\nRecently completed and future trials should report long-term neurodevelopmental outcome of children exposed to different caffeine dosing strategies in the neonatal period. Data from extremely preterm infants are needed, as this population is exposed to the highest risk for mortality and morbidity. However, caution is required when administering high doses in the first hours of life, when the risk for intracranial bleeding is highest. Observational studies might provide useful information regarding potential harms of the highest doses.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why give caffeine to babies born too early?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Newborns born too early (preterm), especially before 28 weeks of pregnancy, have a higher risk of death, lung disease, and brain impairment than those born at or near term. For instance, some of these babies develop intellectual disabilities, blindness, or deafness. Caffeine is widely used in preterm infants, mainly to improve breathing and reduce apneic spells (that is temporal cessation of breathing) and the need for breathing machines." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOcular herpes is a viral infection of the eye caused by the herpes simplex virus (HSV), a double-stranded DNA virus. Corneal scarring caused by herpes simplex keratitis (HSK) is the leading infectious cause of penetrating corneal graft in high-income countries. Acyclovir is an antiviral drug known to have a protective effect against recurrences in herpetic eye disease. While there are some studies which have evaluated the effects of intervention with oral antiviral in preventing such recurrences in people with corneal grafts, a systematic review of all comparative clinical trials has not been previously undertaken.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy of oral antivirals such as acyclovir in any dosage when taken for six months or more, in preventing recurrence of herpetic keratitis in people having corneal graft surgery for herpetic keratitis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to June 2016), Embase (January 1980 to June 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 1 June 2016. We handsearched conference proceedings and contacted authors of the included studies and researchers active in the field.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs). People enrolled in these trials had corneal grafts for HSK. The intervention was oral antivirals for six months or more following the corneal graft surgery, and this was compared to no treatment or placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted trial investigators for any clarification or missing information. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included three trials, involving 126 participants, comparing the use of oral acyclovir to no treatment or placebo. Two studies were conducted in single centres in Turkey and the USA, and one was multi-centred in the Netherlands. In general, the studies were poorly reported and it was difficult to judge the extent to which bias had been avoided.\nOral acyclovir may reduce the risk of recurrence of herpetic keratitis (risk ratio (RR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.64, 126 people, low-certainty evidence). Based on data from the included trials, this corresponds to approximately 23 fewer cases of HSK recurrence (95% CI 29 fewer cases to 12 fewer cases) per 100 corneal graft operations if oral acyclovir is used.\nOral acyclovir may reduce the risk of graft failure (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.97, 126 people, low-certainty evidence). Based on data from the included trials, this corresponds to approximately 13 fewer cases of graft failure (95% CI 18 fewer cases to 1 fewer cases) per 100 corneal graft operations if oral acyclovir is used.\nNone of the studies reported any serious side effects of the antivirals necessitating stoppage or change. None of the trials reported outcomes over the long term (more than two years) or any data on quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCompared to placebo or to no treatment, oral antiviral (acyclovir) may reduce the risk of recurrence of herpetic keratitis in the first 12 months in eyes that have undergone corneal graft surgery.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key messages\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Low-certainty evidence suggests that treatment with antiviral medication may lower the chances of HSV keratitis in people having a graft due to HSV infection. It may also lower the chance of the graft failing." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPulmonary embolism (PE) is a common life-threatening cardiovascular condition, with an incidence of 23 to 69 new cases per 100,000 people each year. For selected low-risk patients with acute PE, outpatient treatment might provide several advantages over traditional inpatient treatment, such as reduction of hospitalisations, substantial cost savings, and improvements in health-related quality of life. This is an update of an earlier Cochrane Review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of outpatient versus inpatient treatment in low-risk patients with acute PE.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 31 May 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of outpatient versus inpatient treatment of adults (aged 18 years and over) diagnosed with low-risk acute PE.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were short- and long-term all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were bleeding, adverse effects, recurrence of PE, and patient satisfaction. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe did not identify any new studies for this update. We included a total of two RCTs involving 453 participants. Both trials discharged participants randomised to the outpatient group within 36 hours of initial triage, and both followed participants for 90 days. One study compared the same treatment regimens in both outpatient and inpatient groups, and the other study used different treatment regimens. There was no clear difference in treatment effect for the outcomes of mortality at 30 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 7.98; 2 studies, 453 participants; low-certainty evidence), mortality at 90 days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.58; 2 studies, 451 participants; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding at 14 days (RR 4.91, 95% CI 0.24 to 101.57; 2 studies, 445 participants; low-certainty evidence) and at 90 days (RR 6.88, 95% CI 0.36 to 132.14; 2 studies, 445 participants; low-certainty evidence), minor bleeding (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.79; 1 study, 106 participants; low-certainty evidence), recurrent PE within 90 days (RR 2.95, 95% CI 0.12 to 71.85; 2 studies, 445 participants; low-certainty evidence), and patient satisfaction (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04; 2 studies, 444 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because the CIs were wide and included treatment effects in both directions, the sample sizes and numbers of events were small, and it was not possible to determine the effect of missing data or the presence of publication bias. The included studies did not assess PE-related mortality or adverse effects, such as haemodynamic instability, or adherence to treatment.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently, only low-certainty evidence is available from two published randomised controlled trials on outpatient versus inpatient treatment in low-risk patients with acute PE. The studies did not provide evidence of any clear difference between the interventions in overall mortality, bleeding, or recurrence of PE.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is this question important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "A blood clot in the lungs (pulmonary embolism) is a major cause of death and illness. These can occur after a blood clot breaks off from somewhere else in the body and travels in the blood to the lungs. The clot can often travel from the leg, where it is called a deep vein thrombosis. How people are treated depends on whether they are low-risk or high-risk, but most people are given blood-thinning drugs (anticoagulants) in hospital. For some low-risk cases with sudden onset (acute) pulmonary embolism, treatment at home might be better than keeping them in hospital. Possible benefits include fewer people in hospital, less risk of picking up an infection in hospital, cost savings, and better health-related quality of life. We wanted to know if there were any differences in risks and benefits between people with blood clots in the lungs who are treated at home compared to those treated in the hospital." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOcular herpes is a viral infection of the eye caused by the herpes simplex virus (HSV), a double-stranded DNA virus. Corneal scarring caused by herpes simplex keratitis (HSK) is the leading infectious cause of penetrating corneal graft in high-income countries. Acyclovir is an antiviral drug known to have a protective effect against recurrences in herpetic eye disease. While there are some studies which have evaluated the effects of intervention with oral antiviral in preventing such recurrences in people with corneal grafts, a systematic review of all comparative clinical trials has not been previously undertaken.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy of oral antivirals such as acyclovir in any dosage when taken for six months or more, in preventing recurrence of herpetic keratitis in people having corneal graft surgery for herpetic keratitis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to June 2016), Embase (January 1980 to June 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 1 June 2016. We handsearched conference proceedings and contacted authors of the included studies and researchers active in the field.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs). People enrolled in these trials had corneal grafts for HSK. The intervention was oral antivirals for six months or more following the corneal graft surgery, and this was compared to no treatment or placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted trial investigators for any clarification or missing information. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included three trials, involving 126 participants, comparing the use of oral acyclovir to no treatment or placebo. Two studies were conducted in single centres in Turkey and the USA, and one was multi-centred in the Netherlands. In general, the studies were poorly reported and it was difficult to judge the extent to which bias had been avoided.\nOral acyclovir may reduce the risk of recurrence of herpetic keratitis (risk ratio (RR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.64, 126 people, low-certainty evidence). Based on data from the included trials, this corresponds to approximately 23 fewer cases of HSK recurrence (95% CI 29 fewer cases to 12 fewer cases) per 100 corneal graft operations if oral acyclovir is used.\nOral acyclovir may reduce the risk of graft failure (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.97, 126 people, low-certainty evidence). Based on data from the included trials, this corresponds to approximately 13 fewer cases of graft failure (95% CI 18 fewer cases to 1 fewer cases) per 100 corneal graft operations if oral acyclovir is used.\nNone of the studies reported any serious side effects of the antivirals necessitating stoppage or change. None of the trials reported outcomes over the long term (more than two years) or any data on quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCompared to placebo or to no treatment, oral antiviral (acyclovir) may reduce the risk of recurrence of herpetic keratitis in the first 12 months in eyes that have undergone corneal graft surgery.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "If herpes simplex virus (HSV) infects the cornea (clear front part of the eye) then it can cause inflammation (keratitis) and scarring which can cause loss of vision. Doctors can replace the cornea with a clear cornea from a donor. This is known as a corneal graft. Sometimes the corneal graft does not work well because the HSV comes back and reinfects the cornea. One option is to give antiviral medication (for example, acyclovir) at the time of corneal graft surgery to prevent the virus returning and further keratitis. This may also improve the chances of the graft surgery being successful." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPreterm birth (PTB) is a major factor contributing to global rates of neonatal death and to longer-term health problems for surviving infants. Both the World Health Organization and the United Nations consider prevention of PTB as central to improving health care for pregnant women and newborn babies. Current preventative clinical strategies show varied efficacy in different populations of pregnant women, frustrating women and health providers alike, while researchers call for better understanding of the underlying mechanisms that lead to PTB.\nObjectives\nWe aimed to summarise all evidence for interventions relevant to the prevention of PTB as reported in Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs). We intended to highlight promising interventions and to identify SRs in need of an update.\nMethods\nWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2 November 2017) with key words to capture any Cochrane SR that prespecified or reported a PTB outcome. Inclusion criteria focused on pregnant women without signs of preterm labour or ruptured amniotic membranes. We included reviews of interventions for pregnant women irrespective of their risk status. We followed standard Cochrane methods.\nWe applied GRADE criteria to evaluate the quality of SR evidence. We assigned graphic icons to classify the effectiveness of interventions as: clear evidence of benefit; clear evidence of harm; clear evidence of no effect or equivalence; possible benefit; possible harm; or unknown benefit or harm. We defined clear evidence of benefit and clear evidence of harm to be GRADE moderate- or high-quality evidence with a confidence interval (CI) that does not cross the line of no effect. Clear evidence of no effect or equivalence is GRADE moderate- or high-quality evidence with a narrow CI crossing the line of no effect. Possible benefit and possible harm refer to GRADE low-quality evidence with a clear effect (CI does not cross the line of no effect) or GRADE moderate- or high-quality evidence with a wide CI. Unknown harm or benefit refers to GRADE low- or very low-quality evidence with a wide CI.\nMain results\nWe included 83 SRs; 70 had outcome data. Below we highlight key results from a subset of 36 SRs of interventions intended to prevent PTB.\nOutcome: preterm birth\nClear evidence of benefit\nFour SRs reported clear evidence of benefit to prevent specific populations of pregnant women from giving birth early, including midwife-led continuity models of care versus other models of care for all women; screening for lower genital tract infections for pregnant women less than 37 weeks' gestation and without signs of labour, bleeding or infection; and zinc supplementation for pregnant women without systemic illness. Cervical cerclage showed clear benefit for women with singleton pregnancy and high risk of PTB only.\nClear evidence of harm\nNo included SR reported clear evidence of harm.\nNo effect or equivalence\nFor pregnant women at high risk of PTB, bedrest for women with singleton pregnancy and antibiotic prophylaxis during the second and third trimester were of no effect or equivalent to a comparator.\nPossible benefit\nFour SRs found possible benefit in: group antenatal care for all pregnant women; antibiotics for pregnant women with asymptomatic bacteriuria; pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation for pregnant women who smoke; and vitamin D supplements alone for women without pre-existing conditions such as diabetes.\nPossible harm\nOne SR reported possible harm (increased risk of PTB) with intramuscular progesterone, but this finding is only relevant to women with multiple pregnancy and high risk of PTB. Another review found possible harm with vitamin D, calcium and other minerals for pregnant women without pre-existing conditions.\nOutcome: perinatal death\nClear evidence of benefit\nTwo SRs reported clear evidence of benefit to reduce pregnant women's risk of perinatal death: midwife-led continuity models of care for all pregnant women; and fetal and umbilical Doppler for high-risk pregnant women.\nClear evidence of harm\nNo included SR reported clear evidence of harm.\nNo effect or equivalence\nFor pregnant women at high risk of PTB, antibiotic prophylaxis during the second and third trimester was of no effect or equivalent to a comparator.\nPossible benefit\nOne SR reported possible benefit with cervical cerclage for women with singleton pregnancy and high risk of PTB.\nPossible harm\nOne SR reported possible harm associated with a reduced schedule of antenatal visits for pregnant women at low risk of pregnancy complications; importantly, these women already received antenatal care in settings with limited resources.\nOutcomes: preterm birth and perinatal death\nUnknown benefit or harm\nFor pregnant women at high risk of PTB for any reason including multiple pregnancy, home uterine monitoring was of unknown benefit or harm. For pregnant women at high risk due to multiple pregnancy: bedrest, prophylactic oral betamimetics, vaginal progesterone and cervical cerclage were all of unknown benefit or harm.\nAuthors' conclusions\nImplications for practice\nThe overview serves as a map and guide to all current evidence relevant to PTB prevention published in the Cochrane Library. Of 70 SRs with outcome data, we identified 36 reviews of interventions with the aim of preventing PTB. Just four of these SRs had evidence of clear benefit to women, with an additional four SRs reporting possible benefit. No SR reported clear harm, which is an important finding for women and health providers alike.\nThe overview summarises no evidence for the clinically important interventions of cervical pessary, cervical length assessment and vaginal progesterone because these Cochrane Reviews were not current. These are active areas for PTB research.\nThe graphic icons we assigned to SR effect estimates do not constitute clinical guidance or an endorsement of specific interventions for pregnant women. It remains critical for pregnant women and their healthcare providers to carefully consider whether specific strategies to prevent PTB will be of benefit for individual women, or for specific populations of women.\nImplications for research\nFormal consensus work is needed to establish standard language for overviews of reviews and to define the limits of their interpretation.\nClinicians, researchers and funders must address the lack of evidence for interventions relevant to women at high risk of PTB due to multiple pregnancy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is this important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Preterm birth is devastating and costly for women, families and health systems. We aimed to summarise relevant information for pregnant women, healthcare workers and researchers." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe development of supraglottic airway devices has revolutionized airway management during general anaesthesia. Two devices are widely used in clinical practice to facilitate positive pressure ventilation: the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (pLMA) and the Classic laryngeal mask airway (cLMA). It is not clear whether these devices have important clinical differences in terms of efficacy or complications.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effectiveness of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway (pLMA) and the Classic LMA (cLMA) for positive pressure ventilation in adults undergoing elective surgery.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 3) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (Ovid SP, 1997 to April 2017); Embase (Ovid SP, 1997 to April 2017); the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (1946 to April 2017); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCO host, 1982 to April 2017).\nWe searched trial registries for ongoing studies to April 2017.\nWe did not impose language restrictions. We restricted our search to the time from 1997 to April 2017 because pLMA was introduced into clinical practice in the year 2000.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effectiveness of pLMA and cLMA for positive pressure ventilation in adults undergoing elective surgery. We planned to include only data related to the first phase of cross-over RCTs.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nWe included eight RCTs that involved a total of 829 participants (416 and 413 participants in the pLMA and cLMA groups, respectively). We identified six cross-over studies that are awaiting classification; one is completed but has not been published, and data related to the first treatment period for the other five studies were not yet available. Seven included studies provided data related to the primary outcome, and eight studies provided data related to more than one secondary outcome.\nOur analysis was hampered by the fact that a large proportion of the included studies reported no events in either study arm. No studies reported significant differences between devices in relation to the primary review outcome: failure to adequately mechanically ventilate. We evaluated this outcome by assessing two variables: inadequate oxygenation (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 3.31; four studies, N = 617) and inadequate ventilation (not estimable; one study, N = 80).\nMore time was required to establish an effective airway using pLMA (mean difference (MD) 10.12 seconds, 95% CI 5.04 to 15.21; P < 0.0001; I² = 73%; two studies, N = 434). Peak airway pressure during positive pressure ventilation was lower in cLMA participants (MD 0.84, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.67; P = 0.04; I² = 0%; four studies, N = 259). Mean oropharyngeal leak (OPL) pressure was higher in pLMA participants (MD 6.93, 95% CI 4.23 to 9.62; P < 0.00001; I² = 87%; six studies, N = 709).\nThe quality of evidence for all outcomes, as assessed by GRADE score, is low mainly owing to issues related to blinding and imprecision.\nData show no important differences between devices with regard to failure to insert the device, use of an alternate device, mucosal injury, sore throat, bronchospasm, gastric insufflation, regurgitation, coughing, and excessive leak. Data were insufficient to allow estimation of differences for obstruction related to the device. None of the studies reported postoperative nausea and vomiting as an outcome.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain about the effects of either of the airway devices in terms of failure of oxygenation or ventilation because there were very few events. Results were uncertain in terms of differences for several complications. Low-quality evidence suggests that the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway makes a better seal and therefore may be more suitable than the Classic laryngeal mask airway for positive pressure ventilation. The Classic laryngeal mask airway may be quicker to insert, but this is unlikely to be clinically meaningful.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We assessed all of the included studies as providing low-quality evidence because anaesthetists knew which device was being used on which participants (although this was probably unavoidable), and because it was unclear whether the investigator who collected the data was unaware of the intervention. This fact created the potential for bias." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nBranch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) is one of the most commonly occurring retinal vascular abnormalities. The most common cause of visual loss in people with BRVO is macular oedema (MO). Grid or focal laser photocoagulation has been shown to reduce the risk of visual loss. Limitations to this treatment exist, however, and newer modalities may have equal or improved efficacy. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) has recently been used successfully to treat MO resulting from a variety of causes.\nObjectives\nTo investigate the efficacy and gather evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the potential harms of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents for the treatment of macular oedema (MO) secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2019, Issue 6); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the last search was 12 June 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating BRVO. Eligible trials had to have at least six months' follow-up where anti-VEGF treatment was compared with another treatment, no treatment, or placebo. We excluded trials where combination treatments (anti-VEGF plus other treatments) were used; and trials that investigated the dose and duration of treatment without a comparison group (other treatment/no treatment/sham).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted the data using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with an improvement from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity of greater than or equal to 15 letters (3 lines) on the Early Treatment in Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) Chart at six months and 12 months of follow-up. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of participants who lost greater than or equal to 15 ETDRS letters (3 lines) and the mean visual acuity (VA) change at six and 12 months, as well as the change in central retinal thickness (CRT) on optical coherence tomography from baseline at six and 12 months. We also collected data on adverse events and quality of life (QoL).\nMain results\nWe found eight RCTs of 1631 participants that met the inclusion criteria after independent and duplicate review of the search results. These studies took place in Europe, North America, Eastern Mediterranean region and East Asia. Included participants were adults aged 18 or over with VA of 20/40 or worse. Studies varied by duration of disease but permitted previously treated eyes as long as there was sufficient treatment-free interval. All anti-VEGF agents (bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept) and steroids (triamcinolone and dexamethasone) were included. Overall, we judged the studies to be at moderate or unclear risk of bias. Four of the eight studies did not mask participants or outcome assessors, or both.\nOne trial compared anti-VEGF to sham. At six months, eyes receiving anti-VEGF were significantly more likely to have a gain of 15 or more ETDRS letters (risk ratio (RR) 1.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 2.49; 283 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mean VA was better in the anti-VEGF group at six months compared with control (mean difference (MD) 7.50 letters, 95% CI 5.29 to 9.71; 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGF also proved more effective at reducing CRT at six months (MD −57.50 microns, 95% CI −108.63 to −6.37; 281 participants; lower CRT is better; moderate-certainty evidence). There was only very low-certainty evidence on adverse effects. There were no reports of endophthalmitis. Mean change in QoL (measured using the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire VFQ-25) was better in people treated with anti-VEGF compared with people treated with sham (MD 7.6 higher score, 95% CI 4.3 to 10.9; 281 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nThree RCTs compared anti-VEGF with macular laser (total participants = 473). The proportion of eyes gaining 15 or more letters was greater in the anti-VEGF group at six months (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.05; 2 studies, 201 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mean VA in the anti-VEGF groups was better than the laser groups at six months (MD 9.63 letters, 95% CI 7.23 to 12.03; 3 studies, 473 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was a greater reduction in CRT in the anti-VEGF group compared with the laser group at six months (MD −147.47 microns, 95% CI −200.19 to −94.75; 2 studies, 201 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was only very low-certainty evidence on adverse events. There were no reports of endophthalmitis. QoL outcomes were not reported.\nFour studies compared anti-VEGF with intravitreal steroid (875 participants). The proportion of eyes gaining 15 or more ETDRS letters was greater in the anti-VEGF group at six months (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.10; 2 studies, 330 participants; high-certainty evidence) and 12 months (RR 1.76, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.28; 1 study, 307 participants; high-certainty evidence). Mean VA was better in the anti-VEGF group at six months (MD 8.22 letters, 95% CI 5.69 to 10.76; 2 studies, 330 participants; high-certainty evidence) and 12 months (MD 9.15 letters, 95% CI 6.32 to 11.97; 2 studies, 343 participants; high-certainty evidence). Mean CRT also showed a greater reduction in the anti-VEGF arm at 12 months compared with intravitreal steroid (MD −26.92 microns, 95% CI −65.88 to 12.04; 2 studies, 343 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). People receiving anti-VEGF showed a greater improvement in QoL at 12 months compared to those receiving steroid (MD 3.10, 95% CI 0.22 to 5.98; 1 study, 307 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence suggested increased risk of cataract and raised IOP with steroids. There was only very low-certainty evidence on APTC events. No cases of endophthalmitis were observed.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe available RCT evidence suggests that treatment of MO secondary to BRVO with anti-VEGF improves visual and anatomical outcomes at six and 12 months.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "There are small blood vessels at the back of the eye (retina) known as arteries (when blood comes into the eye) and veins (when blood leaves the eye). BRVO occurs when a vein that drains part of the retina becomes blocked. This can lead to swelling (oedema) at the back of eye which may result in loss of vision, particularly if it occurs at the centre of the retina (macula).\nOne treatment option for MO due to BRVO is anti-VEGF injections. VEGF is a molecule found in the back of the eye associated with the inflammation. Anti-VEGF blocks the action of VEGF, which can help to reduce the amount of damage. Treating MO due to BRVO is important as it can prevent sight loss occurring.\nThe most commonly used anti-VEGF drugs are:\n∙ ranibizumab (Lucentis)\n∙ aflibercept (Eylea)\n∙ bevacizumab (Avastin)" } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIn most pregnancies that miscarry, arrest of embryonic or fetal development occurs some time (often weeks) before the miscarriage occurs. Ultrasound examination can reveal abnormal findings during this phase by demonstrating anembryonic pregnancies or embryonic or fetal death. Treatment has traditionally been surgical but medical treatments may be effective, safe, and acceptable, as may be waiting for spontaneous miscarriage. This is an update of a review first published in 2006.\nObjectives\nTo assess, from clinical trials, the effectiveness and safety of different medical treatments for the termination of non-viable pregnancies.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (24 October 2018) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials comparing medical treatment with another treatment (e.g. surgical evacuation), or placebo, or no treatment for early pregnancy failure. Quasi-randomised studies were excluded. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion, as were studies reported in abstract form, if sufficient information was available to assess eligibility.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nForty-three studies (4966 women) were included. The main interventions examined were vaginal, sublingual, oral and buccal misoprostol, mifepristone and vaginal gemeprost. These were compared with surgical management, expectant management, placebo, or different types of medical interventions were compared with each other. The review includes a wide variety of different interventions which have been analysed across 23 different comparisons. Many of the comparisons consist of single studies. We limited the grading of the quality of evidence to two main comparisons: vaginal misoprostol versus placebo and vaginal misoprostol versus surgical evacuation of the uterus. Risk of bias varied widely among the included trials. The quality of the evidence varied between the different comparisons, but was mainly found to be very-low or low quality.\nVaginal misoprostol versus placebo\nVaginal misoprostol may hasten miscarriage when compared with placebo: e.g. complete miscarriage (5 trials, 305 women, risk ratio (RR) 4.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.01 to 5.94; low-quality evidence). No trial reported on pelvic infection rate for this comparison. Vaginal misoprostol made little difference to rates of nausea (2 trials, 88 women, RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.43 to 4.40; low-quality evidence), diarrhoea (2 trials, 88 women, RR 2.21, 95% CI 0.35 to 14.06; low-quality evidence) or to whether women were satisfied with the acceptability of the method (1 trial, 32 women, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.64; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether vaginal misoprostol reduces blood loss (haemoglobin difference > 10 g/L) (1 trial, 50 women, RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.12; very-low quality) or pain (opiate use) (1 trial, 84 women, RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 101.11; very-low quality), because the quality of the evidence for these outcomes was found to be very low.\nVaginal misoprostol versus surgical evacuation\nVaginal misoprostol may be less effective in accomplishing a complete miscarriage compared to surgical management (6 trials, 943 women, average RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.50; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.03, I² = 46%; low-quality evidence) and may be associated with more nausea (1 trial, 154 women, RR 21.85, 95% CI 1.31 to 364.37; low-quality evidence) and diarrhoea (1 trial, 154 women, RR 40.85, 95% CI 2.52 to 662.57; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference between vaginal misoprostol and surgical evacuation for pelvic infection (1 trial, 618 women, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; low-quality evidence), blood loss (post-treatment haematocrit (%) (1 trial, 50 women, mean difference (MD) 1.40%, 95% CI -3.51 to 0.71; low-quality evidence), pain relief (1 trial, 154 women, RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.46; low-quality evidence) or women's satisfaction/acceptability of method (1 trial, 45 women, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.11; low-quality evidence).\nOther comparisons\nBased on findings from a single trial, vaginal misoprostol was more effective at accomplishing complete miscarriage than expectant management (614 women, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.45). There was little difference between vaginal misoprostol and sublingual misoprostol (5 trials, 513 women, average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.16; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.10, I² = 871%; or between oral and vaginal misoprostol in terms of complete miscarriage at less than 13 weeks (4 trials, 418 women), average RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.03; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.13, I² = 90%). However, there was less abdominal pain with vaginal misoprostol in comparison to sublingual (3 trials, 392 women, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.74). A single study (46 women) found mifepristone to be more effective than placebo: miscarriage complete by day five after treatment (46 women, RR 9.50, 95% CI 2.49 to 36.19). However the quality of this evidence is very low: there is a very serious risk of bias with signs of incomplete data and no proper intention-to-treat analysis in the included study; and serious imprecision with wide confidence intervals. Mifepristone did not appear to further hasten miscarriage when added to a misoprostol regimen (3 trials, 447 women, RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.47).\nAuthors' conclusions\nAvailable evidence from randomised trials suggests that medical treatment with vaginal misoprostol may be an acceptable alternative to surgical evacuation or expectant management. In general, side effects of medical treatment were minor, consisting mainly of nausea and diarrhoea. There were no major differences in effectiveness between different routes of administration. Treatment satisfaction was addressed in only a few studies, in which the majority of women were satisfied with the received intervention. Since the quality of evidence is low or very low for several comparisons, mainly because they included only one or two (small) trials; further research is necessary to assess the effectiveness, safety and side effects, optimal route of administration and dose of different medical treatments for early fetal death.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is this important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Surgical treatment has the disadvantage of requiring anaesthesia. It carries risks of damage to the uterus or cervix and possible development of fibrous tissue in the inner lining of the uterus. These can be avoided if the non-viable pregnancy is treated with medication, or if the woman is able to wait for a spontaneous expulsion.\nWe set out to determine if medical treatment is as good as, or better than, surgical treatment or expectant management (waiting for the expulsion to happen). Furthermore, we compared different doses and administration routes in order to detect which regimen most often induces a complete miscarriage with the fewest side effects." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nUse of a central venous catheter (CVC) in neonates is associated with an increase in nosocomial infection. Numerous strategies exist to prevent catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI); however, CRBSI continues to be a major problem. Antibiotic locking catheters is a new and promising treatment that potentially prevents this severe condition.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of antibiotic lock versus no antibiotic lock or alternative antibiotic lock in the prevention of catheter-related infections in newborn infants of any gestational age during their initial stay in the neonatal unit and to study any relevant adverse effects from antibiotic lock therapy.\nSearch methods\nMethods followed those of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 5); MEDLINE (via PubMed); EMBASE (hosted by EBCHOST); CINAHL; abstracts from Pediatric Academic Societies, European Society for Paediatric Research and trials registries; and references cited in our short listed articles using keywords and MeSH headings, up to April 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered all trials utilising random or quasi-random participant allocation. Participants included all newborn infants of any postmenstrual age who required any type of CVC. We compared an antibiotic lock technique with no antibiotic lock or placebo, such as heparinised saline, for any duration of time.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data using the standard methods of the CNRG. Two review authors independently assessed the relevance and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We expressed our dichotomous results using risk ratio (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed for heterogeneity using the I2 statistic.\nMain results\nWe included three trials (271 infants) in this review. Two of the three included studies had an overall low risk of bias and the remaining study had high risk of selection and performance biases. The use of an antibiotic lock decreased the incidence of confirmed catheter-related infection (typical RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.40; 3 studies, 271 infants) (high-quality evidence). The typical absolute risk reduction (ARR) was 18.5% and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 5. The effect of use of an antibiotic lock on suspected catheter infection was imprecise (typical RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.92) (moderate quality evidence). Confirmed and suspect infection rates combined were lower in the antibiotic lock group (absolute rates, RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.49; rate per 1000 catheter days, RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.40). The ARR was 20.5% and the NNTB was 5. None of the studies report resistance to the antibiotic used during the lock treatment. There was no significant difference in the detectable serum levels of antibiotic. When the data from two studies were pooled, there were significantly fewer episodes of hypoglycaemia in the treatment arm (typical RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.92). There was no statistically significant difference for mortality due to sepsis between the control and intervention group.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on a small number of trials and neonates, antibiotic lock solution appeared to be effective in preventing CRBSI in the neonatal population. However, as each included study used a different antibiotics and antibiotic resistance could not be reliably assessed, the evidence to-date is insufficient to determine the effects of antibiotic lock on infections in neonates.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Based on a small number of trials and infants, antibiotic lock solution appears to be effective in preventing catheter-related blood infections in infants. However, as each included study used a different antibiotic and antibiotic resistance could not be reliably assessed, the evidence to-date is insufficient to determine the effects of antibiotic lock on infections in infants." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nExercise therapy is considered an important component of the treatment of arthritis. The efficacy of exercise therapy has been reviewed in adults with rheumatoid arthritis but not in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of exercise therapy on functional ability, quality of life and aerobic capacity in children with JIA.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (January 1966 to April 2007), CINAHL (January 1982 to April 2007), EMBASE (January 1966 to October 2007), PEDro (January 1966 to October 2007), SportDiscus (January 1966 to October 2007), Google Scholar (to October 2007), AMED (Allied and Alternative Medicine) (January 1985 to October 2007), Health Technologies Assessment database (January 1988 to October 2007), ISI Web Science Index to Scientific and Technical Proceedings (January 1966 to October 2007) and the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy website (http://www.cps.uk.org) were searched and references tracked.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of exercise treatment in JIA.\nData collection and analysis\nPotentially relevant references were evaluated and all data were extracted by two review authors working independently.\nMain results\nThree out of 16 identified studies met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 212 participants. All the included studies fulfilled at least seven of 10 methodological criteria. The outcome data of the following measures were homogenous and were pooled in a meta-analysis: functional ability (n = 198; WMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.08), quality of life (CHQ-PhS: n = 115; WMD -3.96, 95% CI -8.91 to 1.00) and aerobic capacity (n = 124; WMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.19). The results suggest that the outcome measures all favoured the exercise therapy but none were statistically significant. None of the studies reported negative effects of the exercise therapy.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, based on 'silver-level' evidence (www.cochranemsk.org) there was no clinically important or statistically significant evidence that exercise therapy can improve functional ability, quality of life, aerobic capacity or pain. The low number of available RCTs limits the generalisability. The included and excluded studies were all consistent about the adverse effects of exercise therapy; no short-term detrimental effects of exercise therapy were found in any study. Both included and excluded studies showed that exercise does not exacerbate arthritis. The large heterogeneity in outcome measures, as seen in this review, emphasises the need for a standardised assessment or a core set of functional and physical outcome measurements suited for health research to generate evidence about the possible benefits of exercise therapy for patients with JIA. Although the short-term effects look promising, the long-term effect of exercise therapy remains unclear.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is exercise therapy and what is JIA?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is the most common chronic rheumatic disease in children and is an important cause of short-term and long-term disability. In JIA the cause of the arthritis is unknown. It generally begins in children younger than age 16 years. It always lasts for at least six weeks. A physician will rule out other conditions that may be causing the symptoms before diagnosing JIA.\nSeveral types of exercise therapy are described in this review, for example, physical training programs such as strength training for improving muscle strength and endurance exercise for improving overall fitness (either land based or in a pool)." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is the second update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015 and last updated in 2018.\nAppendectomy, the surgical removal of the appendix, is performed primarily for acute appendicitis. Patients who undergo appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, defined as gangrenous or perforated appendicitis, are more likely to suffer postoperative complications. The routine use of abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after appendectomy for complicated appendicitis is controversial.\nObjectives\nTo assess the safety and efficacy of abdominal drainage to prevent intraperitoneal abscess after appendectomy (irrespective of open or laparoscopic) for complicated appendicitis; to compare the effects of different types of surgical drains; and to evaluate the optimal time for drain removal.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, the World Health Organization International Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and three trials registers on 24 February 2020, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing emergency open or laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. We also included RCTs that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess evidence certainty. We included intraperitoneal abscess as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were wound infection, morbidity, mortality, hospital stay, hospital costs, pain, and quality of life.\nMain results\nUse of drain versus no drain\nWe included six RCTs (521 participants) comparing abdominal drainage and no drainage in participants undergoing emergency open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. The studies were conducted in North America, Asia, and Africa. The majority of participants had perforated appendicitis with local or general peritonitis. All participants received antibiotic regimens after open appendectomy. None of the trials was assessed as at low risk of bias.\nThe evidence is very uncertain regarding the effects of abdominal drainage versus no drainage on intraperitoneal abscess at 30 days (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 3.21; 5 RCTs; 453 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or wound infection at 30 days (RR 2.01, 95% CI 0.88 to 4.56; 5 RCTs; 478 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were seven deaths in the drainage group (N = 183) compared to one in the no-drainage group (N = 180), equating to an increase in the risk of 30-day mortality from 0.6% to 2.7% (Peto odds ratio 4.88, 95% CI 1.18 to 20.09; 4 RCTs; 363 participants; low-certainty evidence). Abdominal drainage may increase 30-day overall complication rate (morbidity; RR 6.67, 95% CI 2.13 to 20.87; 1 RCT; 90 participants; low-certainty evidence) and hospital stay by 2.17 days (95% CI 1.76 to 2.58; 3 RCTs; 298 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to no drainage.\nThe outcomes hospital costs, pain, and quality of life were not reported in any of the included studies.\nThere were no RCTs comparing the use of drain versus no drain in participants undergoing emergency laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.\nOpen drain versus closed drain\nThere were no RCTs comparing open drain versus closed drain for complicated appendicitis.\nEarly versus late drain removal\nThere were no RCTs comparing early versus late drain removal for complicated appendicitis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe certainty of the currently available evidence is low to very low. The effect of abdominal drainage on the prevention of intraperitoneal abscess or wound infection after open appendectomy is uncertain for patients with complicated appendicitis. The increased rates for overall complication rate and hospital stay for the drainage group compared to the no-drainage group are based on low-certainty evidence. Consequently, there is no evidence for any clinical improvement with the use of abdominal drainage in patients undergoing open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. The increased risk of mortality with drainage comes from eight deaths observed in just under 400 recruited participants. Larger studies are needed to more reliably determine the effects of drainage on morbidity and mortality outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was found?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched for all relevant studies up to 24 February 2020.\nWe identified six clinical studies involving a total of 521 participants. All six studies compared drain use versus no drain use in individuals having an emergency open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. The included studies were conducted in North America, Asia, and Africa. The age of the individuals in the trials ranged from 0 years to 82 years. The analyses were unable to show a difference in the number of individuals with intraperitoneal abscess or wound infection between drain use and no drain use. The overall complication rate and death rate were higher in the drainage group than in the no-drainage group. Hospital stay was longer (about two days) in the drain group than in the no-drain group. None of the included studies reported on costs, pain, or quality of life. All of the included studies had shortcomings in terms of methodological quality or reporting of outcomes. Overall, the certainty of the current evidence is judged to be low to very low." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCorneal endothelial transplantation has become the gold standard for the treatment of corneal endothelial dysfunctions, replacing full thickness transplantation, known as penetrating keratoplasty. Corneal endothelial transplantation has been described using two different techniques: Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK). Both are still performed worldwide.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effectiveness and safety of Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) versus Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) for the treatment of corneal endothelial failure in people with Fuch’s endothelial dystropy (FED) and pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (PBK).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 7); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; LILACS BIREME; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The date of the search was 11 August 2017.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised paired, contralateral-eye studies in any setting where DMEK was compared with DSAEK to treat people with corneal endothelial failure.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the search results, assessed trial quality and extracted data using the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) measured in logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution (logMAR). Secondary outcomes were endothelial cell count, graft rejection, primary graft failure and graft dislocation. We graded the risk of bias of non-randomised studies (NRSs) using ROBINS-I.\nMain results\nWe did not identify any RCTs but found four non-randomised studies (NRSs) including 72 participants (144 eyes), who had received DSAEK in the first eye followed by DMEK in the fellow eye. All the studies included adult participants where there was evidence of FED and endothelial failure requiring a corneal transplant for the treatment of visual impairment. We did not find any studies that included PBK. The trials were published between 2011 and 2015, and we assessed them as high risk of bias due to potential unknown confounding factors since DSAEK preceded DMEK in all participants. Two studies reported results at 12 months, one at 6 months, and one between 6 and 24 months. At one year, using DMEK in cases of endothelial failure may result in better BCVA compared with DSAEK (mean difference (MD) -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.18 to -0.10 logMAR, 4 studies, 140 eyes, low-certainty evidence). None of the participants had severe visual loss (BCVA of 1.0 logMAR or more; very low-certainty evidence). Regarding endothelial cell count data (4 studies, 134 eyes) it is hard to draw any conclusions since two studies suggested no difference and the other two reported that DMEK provides a higher cell density at one year (very low-certainty evidence). No primary graft failure and only one graft rejection were recorded over four studies (144 eyes) (very low-certainty evidence). The most common complications reported were graft dislocations, which were recorded in one or two out of 100 participants with DSAEK but were more common using DMEK, although this difference could not be precisely estimated (risk ratio (RR) 5.40, 95% CI 1.51 to 19.3; 4 studies, 144 eyes, very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review included studies conducted on people with corneal endothelium failure due to FED for whom both DMEK and DSAEK can be considered, and found low-certainty evidence that DMEK provides some advantage in terms of final BCVA, at the cost of more graft dislocations needing 're-bubbling' (very low-certainty of evidence).\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The cornea is the clear (transparent) front part of the eye. In some conditions, for example, Fuch's endothelial dystrophy, the cells that line the inside of the cornea (endothelium) stop working so well. This can lead to cloudy vision. Doctors can restore vision by doing a corneal transplant which means replacing the corneal tissue with donor tissue. When the endothelium only is replaced this is known as 'Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty' or DMEK. An alternative corneal transplant is to replace the endothelium and the next layer of tissue in the cornea as well. This is known as 'Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty' or DSAEK.\nCochrane Review authors aimed to find out whether vision is better after DMEK or DSAEK, and how the techniques compare with respect to surgical complications." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGenotype® MTBDRsl (MTBDRsl) is a rapid DNA-based test for detecting specific mutations associated with resistance to fluoroquinolones and second-line injectable drugs (SLIDs) in Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex. MTBDRsl version 2.0 (released in 2015) identifies the mutations detected by version 1.0, as well as additional mutations. The test may be performed on a culture isolate or a patient specimen, which eliminates delays associated with culture. Version 1.0 requires a smear-positive specimen, while version 2.0 may use a smear-positive or -negative specimen. We performed this updated review as part of a World Health Organization process to develop updated guidelines for using MTBDRsl.\nObjectives\nTo assess and compare the diagnostic accuracy of MTBDRsl for: 1. fluoroquinolone resistance, 2. SLID resistance, and 3. extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis, indirectly on a M. tuberculosis isolate grown from culture or directly on a patient specimen. Participants were people with rifampicin-resistant or multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. The role of MTBDRsl would be as the initial test, replacing culture-based drug susceptibility testing (DST), for detecting second-line drug resistance.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases without language restrictions up to 21 September 2015: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; MEDLINE; Embase OVID; Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, and BIOSIS Previews (all three from Web of Science); LILACS; and SCOPUS; registers for ongoing trials; and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. We reviewed references from included studies and contacted specialists in the field.\nSelection criteria\nWe included cross-sectional and case-control studies that determined MTBDRsl accuracy against a defined reference standard (culture-based DST, genetic sequencing, or both).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We synthesized data for versions 1.0 and 2.0 separately. We estimated MTBDRsl sensitivity and specificity for fluoroquinolone resistance, SLID resistance, and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis when the test was performed indirectly or directly (smear-positive specimen for version 1.0, smear-positive or -negative specimen for version 2.0). We explored the influence on accuracy estimates of individual drugs within a drug class and of different reference standards. We performed most analyses using a bivariate random-effects model with culture-based DST as reference standard.\nMain results\nWe included 27 studies. Twenty-six studies evaluated version 1.0, and one study version 2.0. Of 26 studies stating specimen country origin, 15 studies (58%) evaluated patients from low- or middle-income countries. Overall, we considered the studies to be of high methodological quality. However, only three studies (11%) had low risk of bias for the reference standard; these studies used World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended critical concentrations for all drugs in the culture-based DST reference standard.\nMTBDRsl version 1.0\nFluoroquinolone resistance: indirect testing, MTBDRsl pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval (CI)) were 85.6% (79.2% to 90.4%) and 98.5% (95.7% to 99.5%), (19 studies, 2223 participants); direct testing (smear-positive specimen), pooled sensitivity and specificity were 86.2% (74.6% to 93.0%) and 98.6% (96.9% to 99.4%), (nine studies, 1771 participants, moderate quality evidence).\nSLID resistance: indirect testing, MTBDRsl pooled sensitivity and specificity were 76.5% (63.3% to 86.0%) and 99.1% (97.3% to 99.7%), (16 studies, 1921 participants); direct testing (smear-positive specimen), pooled sensitivity and specificity were 87.0% (38.1% to 98.6%) and 99.5% (93.6% to 100.0%), (eight studies, 1639 participants, low quality evidence).\nExtensively drug-resistant tuberculosis: indirect testing, MTBDRsl pooled sensitivity and specificity were 70.9% (42.9% to 88.8%) and 98.8% (96.1% to 99.6%), (eight studies, 880 participants); direct testing (smear-positive specimen), pooled sensitivity and specificity were 69.4% (38.8% to 89.0%) and 99.4% (95.0% to 99.3%), (six studies, 1420 participants, low quality evidence).\nSimilar to the original Cochrane review, we found no evidence of a significant difference in MTBDRsl version 1.0 accuracy between indirect and direct testing for fluoroquinolone resistance, SLID resistance, and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis.\nMTBDRsl version 2.0\nFluoroquinolone resistance: direct testing, MTBDRsl sensitivity and specificity were 97% (83% to 100%) and 98% (93% to 100%), smear-positive specimen; 80% (28% to 99%) and 100% (40% to 100%), smear-negative specimen.\nSLID resistance: direct testing, MTBDRsl sensitivity and specificity were 89% (72% to 98%) and 90% (84% to 95%), smear-positive specimen; 80% (28% to 99%) and 100% (40% to 100%), smear-negative specimen.\nExtensively drug-resistant tuberculosis: direct testing, MTBDRsl sensitivity and specificity were 79% (49% to 95%) and 97% (93% to 99%), smear-positive specimen; 50% (1% to 99%) and 100% (59% to 100%), smear-negative specimen.\nWe had insufficient data to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity of version 2.0 (smear-positive and -negative specimens) or to compare accuracy of the two versions.\nA limitation was that most included studies did not consistently use the World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended concentrations for drugs in the culture-based DST reference standard.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn people with rifampicin-resistant or multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, MTBDRsl performed on a culture isolate or smear-positive specimen may be useful in detecting second-line drug resistance. MTBDRsl (smear-positive specimen) correctly classified around six in seven people as having fluoroquinolone or SLID resistance, although the sensitivity estimates for SLID resistance varied. The test rarely gave a positive result for people without drug resistance. However, when second-line drug resistance is not detected (MTBDRsl result is negative), conventional DST can still be used to evaluate patients for resistance to the fluoroquinolones or SLIDs.\nWe recommend that future work evaluate MTBDRsl version 2.0, in particular on smear-negative specimens and in different settings to account for different resistance-causing mutations that may vary by strain. Researchers should also consider incorporating WHO-recommended critical concentrations into their culture-based reference standards.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the authors' conclusions?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "MTBDRsl (smear-positive specimen) identified most of the patients with second-line drug resistance. When the test reports a negative result, conventional testing for drug resistance can still be used." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nImmunisation is a powerful public health strategy for improving child survival, not only by directly combating key diseases that kill children but also by providing a platform for other health services. However, each year millions of children worldwide, mostly from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), do not receive the full series of vaccines on their national routine immunisation schedule. This is an update of the Cochrane review published in 2011 and focuses on interventions for improving childhood immunisation coverage in LMICs.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of intervention strategies to boost and sustain high childhood immunisation coverage in LMICs.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2016, Issue 4, part of The Cochrane Library. www.cochranelibrary.com, including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register (searched 12 May 2016); MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Daily and MEDLINE 1946 to Present, OvidSP (searched 12 May 2016); CINAHL 1981 to present, EbscoHost (searched 12 May 2016); Embase 1980 to 2014 Week 34, OvidSP (searched 2 September 2014); LILACS, VHL (searched 2 September 2014); Sociological Abstracts 1952 - current, ProQuest (searched 2 September 2014). We did a citation search for all included studies in Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, 1975 to present; Emerging Sources Citation Index 2015 to present, ISI Web of Science (searched 2 July 2016). We also searched the two Trials Registries: ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 5 July 2016)\nSelection criteria\nEligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCT), non-RCTs, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series conducted in LMICs involving children aged from birth to four years, caregivers, and healthcare providers.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently screened the search output, reviewed full texts of potentially eligible articles, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data in duplicate; resolving discrepancies by consensus. We then conducted random-effects meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nFourteen studies (10 cluster RCTs and four individual RCTs) met our inclusion criteria. These were conducted in Georgia (one study), Ghana (one study), Honduras (one study), India (two studies), Mali (one study), Mexico (one study), Nicaragua (one study), Nepal (one study), Pakistan (four studies), and Zimbabwe (one study). One study had an unclear risk of bias, and 13 had high risk of bias. The interventions evaluated in the studies included community-based health education (three studies), facility-based health education (three studies), household incentives (three studies), regular immunisation outreach sessions (one study), home visits (one study), supportive supervision (one study), information campaigns (one study), and integration of immunisation services with intermittent preventive treatment of malaria (one study).\nWe found moderate-certainty evidence that health education at village meetings or at home probably improves coverage with three doses of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccines (DTP3: risk ratio (RR) 1.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 2.59). We also found low-certainty evidence that facility-based health education plus redesigned vaccination reminder cards may improve DTP3 coverage (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.87). Household monetary incentives may have little or no effect on full immunisation coverage (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.23, low-certainty evidence). Regular immunisation outreach may improve full immunisation coverage (RR 3.09, 95% CI 1.69 to 5.67, low-certainty evidence) which may substantially improve if combined with household incentives (RR 6.66, 95% CI 3.93 to 11.28, low-certainty evidence). Home visits to identify non-vaccinated children and refer them to health clinics may improve uptake of three doses of oral polio vaccine (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.39, low-certainty evidence). There was low-certainty evidence that integration of immunisation with other services may improve DTP3 coverage (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.59).\nAuthors' conclusions\nProviding parents and other community members with information on immunisation, health education at facilities in combination with redesigned immunisation reminder cards, regular immunisation outreach with and without household incentives, home visits, and integration of immunisation with other services may improve childhood immunisation coverage in LMIC. Most of the evidence was of low certainty, which implies a high likelihood that the true effect of the interventions will be substantially different. There is thus a need for further well-conducted RCTs to assess the effects of interventions for improving childhood immunisation coverage in LMICs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The review authors searched for studies that were published up to May 2016." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGender dysphoria is described as a mismatch between an individual's experienced or expressed gender and their assigned gender, based on primary or secondary sexual characteristics. Gender dysphoria can be associated with clinically significant psychological distress and may result in a desire to change sexual characteristics. The process of adapting a person's sexual characteristics to their desired sex is called ‘transition.'\nCurrent guidelines suggest hormonal and, if needed, surgical intervention to aid transition in transgender women, i.e. persons who aim to transition from male to female. In adults, hormone therapy aims to reverse the body's male attributes and to support the development of female attributes. It usually includes estradiol, antiandrogens, or a combination of both. Many individuals first receive hormone therapy alone, without surgical interventions. However, this is not always sufficient to change such attributes as facial bone structure, breasts, and genitalia, as desired. For these transgender women, surgery may then be used to support transition.\nObjectives\nWe aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of hormone therapy with antiandrogens, estradiol, or both, compared to each other or placebo, in transgender women in transition.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, Biosis Preview, PsycINFO, and PSYNDEX. We carried out our final searches on 19 December 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe aimed to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cohort studies that enrolled transgender women, age 16 years and over, in transition from male to female. Eligible studies investigated antiandrogen and estradiol hormone therapies alone or in combination, in comparison to another form of the active intervention, or placebo control.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane to establish study eligibility.\nMain results\nOur database searches identified 1057 references, and after removing duplicates we screened 787 of these. We checked 13 studies for eligibility at the full text screening stage. We excluded 12 studies and identified one as an ongoing study. We did not identify any completed studies that met our inclusion criteria. The single ongoing study is an RCT conducted in Thailand, comparing estradiol valerate plus cyproterone treatment with estradiol valerate plus spironolactone treatment. The primary outcome will be testosterone level at three month follow-up.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy or safety of hormonal treatment approaches for transgender women in transition. This lack of studies shows a gap between current clinical practice and clinical research. Robust RCTs and controlled cohort studies are needed to assess the benefits and harms of hormone therapy (used alone or in combination) for transgender women in transition. Studies should specifically focus on short-, medium-, and long-term adverse effects, quality of life, and participant satisfaction with the change in male to female body characteristics of antiandrogen and estradiol therapy alone, and in combination. They should also focus on the relative effects of these hormones when administered orally, transdermally, and intramuscularly. We will include non-controlled cohort studies in the next iteration of this review, as our review has shown that such studies provide the highest quality evidence currently available in the field. We will take into account methodological limitations when doing so.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Our review found no RCTs that looked at whether hormone therapies are effective and safe when used to help transgender women to transition. Therefore, high-quality RCTs are needed to research these questions." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute limb ischaemia (ALI), the sudden and significant reduction of blood flow to the limb, is considered a vascular emergency. In the general population, the incidence is estimated as 14 per 100,000. Prognosis depends on the time it takes to diagnose the condition and begin appropriate treatment. Standard initial interventional treatments include conventional open surgery and endovascular interventions such as catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT). Percutaneous interventions, such as percutaneous thrombectomy (PT, including mechanical thrombectomy or pharmomechanical thrombectomy) and ultrasound-accelerated thrombolysis (USAT), are also performed as alternative endovascular techniques. The proposed advantages of PT and USAT include reduced time to revascularisation and when combined with catheter-directed thrombolysis, a reduction in dose of thrombolytic agents and infusion time. The benefits of PT or USAT versus open surgery or thrombolysis alone are still uncertain. In this review, we compared PT or USAT against standard treatment for ALI, in an attempt to determine if any technique is comparatively safer and more effective.\nObjectives\nTo assess the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous thrombectomy or ultrasound-accelerated thrombolysis for the initial management of acute limb ischaemia in adults.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov to 3 March 2021. We searched reference lists of relevant studies and papers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared PT (any modality, including mechanical thrombectomy (aspiration, rheolysis, rotation) or pharmomechanical thrombectomy) or USAT with open surgery, thrombolysis alone, no treatment, or another PT modality for the treatment of ALI.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected the studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data, performed data analysis, and assessed the certainty of evidence according to GRADE. Outcomes of interest were primary patency, amputation rate, major bleeding, clinical success, secondary patency, and adverse effects.\nMain results\nWe included one RCT in this review. This study had a total of 60 participants and compared USAT with standard treatment (CDT). The study included 32 participants in the CDT group and 28 participants in the USAT group.\nWe found no evidence of a difference between USAT and CDT alone for the following evaluated outcomes: amputation rate (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 7.59); major bleeding (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.31 to 9.53); clinical success (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07); and adverse effects (RR 5.69, 95% CI 0.28 to 113.72). We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low for these outcomes. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for amputation rate, major bleeding, clinical success, and adverse effects by two levels due to serious limitations in the design (there was a high risk of bias in critical domains) and by two further levels due to imprecision (a small number of participants and only one study included). The study authors reported 30-day patency, but did not report primary and secondary patency separately. The patency rate in the successfully lysed participants was 71% (15/21) in the USAT group and 82% (22/27) in the CDT group. The study authors did not directly report secondary patency, which is patency after secondary procedures, but they did report on secondary procedures. Secondary procedures were subdivided into embolectomy and bypass grafting. Embolectomy was performed on 14% (4/28) of participants in the USAT group versus 3% (1/32) of participants in the CDT group. Bypass grafting was performed on 4% (1/28) of participants in the USAT group versus 0% in the CDT group. As we did not have access to the specific participant data, it was not possible to assess these outcomes further.\nWe did not identify studies comparing the other planned interventions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to assess the safety and effectiveness of USAT versus CDT alone for ALI for our evaluated outcomes: amputation rate, major bleeding, clinical success, and adverse effects. Primary and secondary patency were not reported separately. There was no RCT evidence for PT. Limitations of this systematic review derive from the single included study, small sample size, short clinical follow-up period, and high risk of bias in critical domains. For this reason, the applicability of the results is limited. There is a need for high-quality studies to compare PT or USAT against open surgery, thrombolysis alone, no treatment, or other PT modalities for ALI. Future trials should assess outcomes, such as primary patency, amputation rate, major bleeding, clinical success, secondary patency, and adverse effects.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched for randomised controlled studies that examined percutaneous thrombectomy or ultrasound-accelerated thrombolysis and compared these with either catheter-directed thrombolysis or open surgery in adults with acute limb ischaemia. In randomised controlled studies, the treatments or tests people receive are decided at random, and these usually give the most reliable evidence about treatment effects. We compared and summarised the results of the identified study and rated our confidence in the evidence, based on factors such as methods and size of the study." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nInfectious keratitis is an infection of the cornea that can be caused by bacteria, viruses, fungi, protozoa, or parasites. It may be associated with ocular surgery, trauma, contact lens wear, or conditions that cause deficiency or loss of corneal sensation, or suppression of the immune system, such as diabetes, chronic use of topical steroids, or immunomodulatory therapies. Photoactivated chromophore for collagen cross-linking (PACK-CXL) of the cornea is a therapy that has been successful in treating eye conditions such as keratoconus and corneal ectasia. More recently, PACK-CXL has been explored as a treatment option for infectious keratitis.\nObjectives\nTo determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of PACK-CXL with standard therapy versus standard therapy alone for the treatment of bacterial keratitis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2019, Issue 7); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 8 July 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of PACK-CXL for bacterial keratitis. We included quasi-RCTs and CCTs as we anticipated that there would not be many RCTs eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors working independently selected studies for inclusion in the review, assessed trials for risk of bias, and extracted data. The primary outcome was proportion of participants with complete healing at four to eight weeks. Secondary outcomes included visual acuity, morphology, adverse events, and treatment failure at four to eight weeks.\nMain results\nWe included three trials (two RCTs and one quasi-RCT) in this review for a total of 59 participants (59 eyes) with bacterial keratitis. Trials were all single-center and were conducted in Egypt, Iran, and Thailand between 2010 and 2014. It is very uncertain whether PACK-CXL with standard antibiotic therapy is more effective than standard antibiotic therapy alone for re-epithelialization and complete healing (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 2.66; participants = 15). We judged the certainty of the evidence to be very low due to the small sample size and high risk of selection and performance bias. The high risk of selection bias reflects the overall review. Masking of participants was not possible for the surgical arm. No participant had a best-corrected visual acuity of 20/100 or better at eight weeks (very low certainty evidence). There is also no evidence that use of PACK-CXL with standard therapy results in fewer instances of treatment failure than standard therapy alone (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 4.98; participants = 32). We judged the certainty of evidence to be low due to the small sample size and high risk of selection bias. There were no adverse events reported at 14 days (low certainty evidence). Data on other outcomes, such as visual acuity and morphological characteristics, could not be compared because of variable time points and specific metrics.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe current evidence on the effectiveness of PACK-CXL for bacterial keratitis is of low certainty and clinically heterogenous in regard to outcomes. There are five ongoing RCTs enrolling 1136 participants that may provide better answers in the next update of this review. Any future research should include subgroup analyses based on etiology. A core outcomes set would benefit healthcare decision-makers in comparing and understanding study data.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the aim of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The aim of this Cochrane Review was to find out the effect of photoactivated chromophore for collagen cross-linking (PACK-CXL), a potential treatment for people with bacterial infectious keratitis. Infectious keratitis is an infection of the cornea, which is the clear, dome-shaped tissue on the front of the eye. We collected and analyzed all relevant studies to answer this question and found three relevant studies." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMethotrexate is a folic acid antagonist widely used for the treatment of neoplastic disorders. Methotrexate inhibits the synthesis of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), ribonucleic acid (RNA) and proteins by binding to dihydrofolate reductase. Currently, methotrexate is among the most commonly used drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This is an update of the previous Cochrane systematic review published in 1997.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate short term benefits and harms of methotrexate for treating RA compared to placebo.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 1966 to 1997 and then updated to November 2013. The search was complemented with a bibliography search of the reference lists of trials retrieved from the electronic search.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials comparing methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy against placebo alone in people with RA. Any trial duration and MTX doses were included.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently determined which studies were eligible for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes were pooled using mean differences (MDs) for continuous variables or standardized mean differences (SMDs) when different scales were used to measure the same outcome. Pooled risk ratio (RR) was used for dichotomous variables. Fixed-effect models were used throughout, although random-effects models were used for outcomes showing heterogeneity.\nMain results\nFive trials with 300 patients were included in the original version of the review. An additional two trials with 432 patients were added to the 2013 update of the review for a total of 732 participants. The trials were generally of unclear to low risk of bias with a follow-up duration ranging from 12 to 52 weeks. All trials included patients who have failed prior treatment (for example, gold therapy, D-penicillamine, azathioprine or anti-malarials); mean disease duration that ranged between 1 and 14 years with six trials reporting more than 4 years; and weekly doses that ranged between 5 mg and 25 mg.\nBenefits\nStatistically significant and clinically important differences were observed for most efficacy outcomes. MTX monotherapy showed a clinically important and statistically significant improvement in the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response rate when compared with placebo at 52 weeks (RR 3.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5 to 6.0; number needed to treat (NNT) 7, 95% CI 4 to 22). Fifteen more patients out of 100 had a major improvement in the ACR 50 outcome compared to placebo (absolute treatment benefit (ATB) 15%, 95% CI 8% to 23%).\nStatistically significant improvement in physical function (scale of 0 to 3) was also observed in patients receiving MTX alone compared with placebo at 12 to 52 weeks (MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.16; odds ratio (OR) 2.8, 95% CI 0.23 to 32.2; NNT 4, 95% CI 3 to 7). Nine more patients out of 100 improved in physical function compared to placebo (ATB -9%, 95% CI -13% to -5.3%). Similarly, the proportion of patients who improved at least 20% on the Short Form-36 (SF-36) physical component was higher in the MTX-treated group compared with placebo at 52 weeks (RR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.1; NNT 9, 95% CI 4 to 539). Twelve more patients out of 100 showed an improvement of at least 20% in the physical component of the quality of life measure compared to placebo (ATB 12%, 95% CI 1% to 24%). No clinically important or statistically significant differences were observed in the SF-36 mental component.\nAlthough no statistically significant differences were observed in radiographic scores (that is, Total Sharp score, erosion score, joint space narrowing), radiographic progression rates (measured by an increase in erosion scores of more than 3 units on a scale ranging from 0 to 448) were statistically significantly lower for patients in the MTX group compared with placebo-treated patients (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.86; NNT 13, 95% CI 10 to 60). Eight more patients out of 100 showed less damage to joints measured by an increase in erosion scores compared to placebo (ATB -8%, 95% CI -16% to -1%). In the one study measuring remission, no participants in either group met the remission criteria. These are defined by at least five of (≥ 2 months): morning stiffness of < 15 minutes, no fatigue, no joint pain by history, no joint tenderness, no joint swelling, and Westergren erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) of < 20 mm/hr in men and < 30 mm/hr in women.\nHarms\nPatients in the MTX monotherapy group were twice as likely to discontinue from the study due to adverse events compared to patients in the placebo group, at 12 to 52 weeks (16% versus 8%; RR 2.1, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.3; NNT 13, 95% CI 6 to 44). Compared to placebo, nine more people out of 100 who took MTX withdrew from the studies because of side effects (ATB 9%, 95% CI 3% to 14%). Total adverse event rates at 12 weeks were higher in the MTX monotherapy group compared to the placebo group (45% versus 15%; RR 3.0, 95% CI 1.4 to 6.4; NNT 4, 95% CI 2 to 17). Thirty more people out of 100 who took MTX compared to those who took placebo experienced any type of side effect (common or rare) (ATB 30, 95% CI 13% to 47%). No statistically significant differences were observed in the total number of serious adverse events between the MTX group and the placebo group at 27 to 52 weeks. Three people out of 100 who took MTX alone experienced rare but serious side effects compared to 2 people out of 100 who took a placebo (3% versus 2%, respectively).\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on mainly moderate to high quality evidence, methotrexate (weekly doses ranging between 5 mg and 25 mg) showed a substantial clinical and statistically significant benefit compared to placebo in the short term treatment (12 to 52 weeks) of people with RA, although its use was associated with a 16% discontinuation rate due to adverse events.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key findings\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "In the short term treatment of people with rheumatoid arthritis, methotrexate:\n- improves pain, function and other symptoms;\n- probably reduces joint damage as seen on the x-ray.\nPrecise information about side effects and complications was not always available. Common side effects may include nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, loss of appetite, stomach pain, and sores on lips, mouth or throat. Rare complications may include birth defects, kidney, lung and liver problems." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCervical cerclage is a surgical intervention involving placing a stitch around the uterine cervix. The suture material aims to prevent cervical shortening and opening, thereby reducing the risk of preterm birth. The effectiveness and safety of this procedure in multiple gestations remains controversial.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether the use of a cervical cerclage in multiple gestations, either at high risk of pregnancy loss based on just the multiple gestation (history-indicated cerclage), the ultrasound findings of 'short cervix' (ultrasound-indicated cerclage), or the physical exam changes in the cervix (physical exam-indicated cerclage), improves obstetrical and perinatal outcomes. The primary outcomes assessed were perinatal deaths, serious neonatal morbidity, and perinatal deaths and serious neonatal morbidity.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2014) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of cervical cerclage in multiple pregnancies. Quasi-RCTs and RCTs using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion (but none were identified). Studies using a cross-over design and those presented only as abstracts were not eligible for inclusion.\nWe included studies comparing cervical cerclage with no cervical cerclage in multiple pregnancies.\nStudies comparing cervical stitch versus any other preventative therapy (e.g. progesterone) in multiple pregnancies, and studies involving comparisons between different cerclage protocols (history-indicated versus ultrasound-indicated versus physical exam-indicated cerclage) were also eligible for inclusion but none were identified.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias. Two review authors extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy.\nMain results\nWe included five trials, which in total randomised 1577 women, encompassing both singleton and multiple gestations. After excluding singletons, the final analysis included 128 women, of which 122 women had twin gestations, and six women had triplet gestations. Two trials (n = 73 women) assessed history-indicated cerclage, while three trials (n = 55 women) assessed ultrasound-indicated cerclage. The five trials were judged to be of average to above average quality, with three of the trials at unclear risk regarding selection and detection biases.\nConcerning the primary outcomes, when outcomes for cerclage were pooled together for all indications and compared with no cerclage, there was no statistically significant differences in perinatal deaths (19.2% versus 9.5%; risk ratio (RR) 1.74, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.92 to 3.28, five trials, n = 262), serious neonatal morbidity (15.8% versus 13.6%; average RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.10, three trials, n = 116), or composite perinatal death and neonatal morbidity (40.4% versus 20.3%; average RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.58 to 4.11, three trials, n = 116).\nAmong the secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between the cerclage and the no cerclage groups. To name a few, there were no significant differences among the following: preterm birth less than 34 weeks (average RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.06, four trials, n = 83), preterm birth less than 35 weeks (average RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.14, four trials, n = 83), low birthweight less than 2500 g (average RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.48, four trials, n = 172), very low birthweight less than 1500 g (average RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.85, four trials, n = 172), and respiratory distress syndrome (average RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.15 to 18.77, three trials, n = 116). There were also no significant differences between the cerclage and no cerclage groups when examining caesarean section (elective and emergency) (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.35, three trials, n = 77) and maternal side-effects (RR 3.92, 95% CI 0.17 to 88.67, one trial, n = 28).\nExamining the differences between prespecified subgroups, ultrasound-indicated cerclage was associated with an increased risk of low birthweight (average RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.83, Tau² = 0.01, I² = 15%, three trials, n = 98), very low birthweight (average RR 3.31, 95% CI 1.58 to 6.91, Tau² = 0, I² = 0%, three trials, n = 98), and respiratory distress syndrome (average RR 5.07, 95% CI 1.75 to 14.70, Tau² = 0, I² = 0%, three trials, n = 98). However, given the low number of trials, as well as substantial heterogeneity and subgroup differences, these data must be interpreted cautiously.\nNo trials reported on long-term infant neurodevelopmental outcomes. There were no physical exam-indicated cerclages available for comparison among the studies included.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review is based on limited data from five small studies of average to above average quality. For multiple gestations, there is no evidence that cerclage is an effective intervention for preventing preterm births and reducing perinatal deaths or neonatal morbidity.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Main findings\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "When cerclage was compared with no cerclage in women with multiple gestations, there was no difference in perinatal deaths or neonatal ill health, or preterm birth rates. However, the number of women included in the five studies was insufficient to provide meaningful conclusions.\nThe long-term effect of cerclage on neurodevelopmental outcomes in the surviving infants and maternal infection and side- effects could not be estimated. It was therefore unclear if cerclage for women with multiple pregnancies puts the health of either the mothers or the infants at risk in any way." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic obstructive lung condition, diagnosed in patients with dyspnoea, chronic cough or sputum production and/or a history of risk factor exposure, if their postbronchodilator forced expiratory lung volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital lung capacity (FVC) ratio is less than 0.70, according to the international GOLD (Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease) criteria.\nInhaled corticosteroid (ICS) medications are now recommended for COPD only in combination treatment with long-acting beta2-agonists (LABAs), and only for patients of GOLD stage 3 and stage 4 severity, for both GOLD groups C and D.\nICS are expensive and how effective they are is a topic of controversy, particularly in relation to their adverse effects (pneumonia), which may be linked to more potent ICS. It is unclear whether beclometasone dipropionate (BDP), an unlicensed but widely used inhaled steroid, is a safe and effective alternative to other ICS.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness and safety in COPD of inhaled beclometasone alone compared with placebo, and of inhaled beclometasone in combination with LABAs compared with LABAs alone.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR) (includes Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO, and handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts) (February 2013), conference abstracts, ongoing studies and reference lists of articles. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and drug marketing authorisation bodies/ethics committees in 49 countries and obtained licensing information.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of BDP compared with placebo, or BDP/LABA compared with LABA, in stable COPD. Minimum trial duration is 12 weeks.\nData collection and analysis\nInclusion, bias assessment and data extraction were conducted by two review authors independently. The analysis was performed by one review author. Study authors were contacted to obtain missing information.\nMain results\nFor BDP versus placebo, two studies were included, of which one trial (participants n = 194) was included in the quantitative analysis. This study was a very high-dose trial with stable stage 2 and 3 COPD participants. No statistically significant results in change in lung function, mortality, exacerbations, dyspnoea scores or withdrawal were obtained. The quality of the evidence of all these outcomes was graded low to very low. Data on risk of pneumonia were lacking.\nThe main focus of the review was the more clinically relevant BDP/LABA versus LABA arm. Therefore the findings are reported more fully.\nFor BDP/LABA versus LABA, one study (n = 474) was included, with a further ongoing study identified for future inclusion. The included trial was a high-dose study of stable stage 3 COPD participants. Compared with LABA, people receiving BDP/LABA showed a statistically significant improvement in FEV1 lung function measurements of 0.051 L (95% confidence Interval (CI) 0.001 to 0.102, P = 0.046) (high quality of evidence) and in (self-reported) days without rescue bronchodilators (mean difference 7.05, 95% CI 0.84 to 13.26, P = 0.03) (low quality), both of which are unlikely to be clinically significant. Participants receiving BDP/LABA also had a statistically significant increased rate of exacerbations leading to hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 1.84, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.90, P = 0.008) (moderate quality), although this finding is debatable as this study's post hoc analysis showed no statistically significant difference when accounting for country-specific differences in hospitalisation policies. We did not find statistically significant differences for mortality (very low quality), pneumonia (low quality), exacerbations, exercise capacity, quality of life and dyspnoea scores, adverse events and withdrawal (all moderate quality).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found little evidence to suggest that beclometasone is a safer or more effective treatment option for people with COPD when compared with placebo or when used in combination with LABA; when statistically significant differences were found, they mostly were not clinically meaningful or were based on data from only one study. The review was limited by an inability to obtain data from one study and likely publication bias for BDP versus placebo, and by the inclusion of one study only for BDP/LABA versus LABA. An ongoing study of BDP/LABA versus LABA may have a further impact on these conclusions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Which questions does this review try to answer?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Our study consisted of two parts: (A) Are beclometasone inhalers better than placebo? and (B) Is beclometasone in combination with LABA drugs in one inhaler (a beclometasone/formoterol combination inhaler) better than a LABA (formoterol) inhaler?" } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAutistic spectrum disorder (ASD) is an increasingly recognised neurodevelopmental condition; that is, a neurologically-based condition which interferes with the acquisition, retention or application of specific skills. ASD is characterised by challenges with socialisation and communication, and by stereotyped and repetitive behaviours. A stereotyped behaviour is one which is repeated over and over again and which seems not to have any useful function. ASD often co-occurs with mental health disorders, including obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). People with ASD may show certain cognitive differences (i.e. differences in ways of thinking) which influence their response to therapies. Thus, there is a need for evidence-based guidelines to treat mental health issues in this group.\nOCD, a common condition characterised by repeated obsessional thoughts and compulsive acts, occurs with greater frequency in persons with ASD than in the general population. Genetic, anatomic, neurobiological and psychological factors have been proposed to explain this co-occurrence. However, care should be taken to distinguish stereotyped and repetitive behaviours characteristic of ASD from obsessive compulsive acts in OCD.\nCognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is the recommended treatment for OCD, but studies have suggested that this treatment may be less effective in those with OCD co-occurring with ASD. Hence, modifications to CBT treatment may be helpful when treating OCD co-occurring with ASD to optimise outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of behavioural and cognitive behavioural therapy for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) in children and adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).\nSearch methods\nWe searched for studies in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, five other bibliographic databases, international trial registries and other sources of grey literature (to 24 August 2020). We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews to identify additional studies missed from the original electronic searches. We contacted subject experts for further information when needed.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over, cluster- and quasi-randomised controlled trials involving both adults and children with diagnoses of OCD and ASD. We included studies of participants with co-occurring conditions (i.e. those experiencing other mental illnesses or neurodevelopmental conditions at the same time), but we did not include individuals who had a co-occurring global learning difficulty. Treatment could be in any setting or format and include behavioural therapy (BT) and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), which may have been adapted for those with ASD. Comparator interventions included no treatment, waiting list, attention placebo (where the control group receives non-specific aspects of therapy, but not the active ingredient) and treatment as usual (TAU, where the control group receives the usual treatment, according to accepted standards).\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently screened studies for inclusion. The authors extracted relevant data from the one eligible study, assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence (GRADE). Outcomes of interest were changes in OCD symptoms and treatment completion (primary outcome), and severity of depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms and behavioural difficulties, as well as degree of family accommodation (secondary outcomes). We did not conduct meta-analyses as only one study met the selection criteria.\nMain results\nWe included only one RCT of 46 participants in our analysis. This study compared CBT for OCD in persons with high-functioning ASD with a control group who received anxiety management only. There were no differences in rates of treatment completion between the CBT (87%) and anxiety management (87%) groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.25; low-certainty evidence). Behavioural difficulties were not included as an outcome measure in the study. This study showed that there may be a benefit at the end of treatment favouring CBT compared with anxiety management in OCD symptoms (mean difference (MD) -3.00, 95% CI -8.02 to 2.02), depression symptoms (MD -1.80, 95% CI -11.50 to 7.90), anxiety symptoms (MD -3.20, 95% CI -11.38 to 4.98), and quality of life (MD 5.20, 95% CI -1.41 to 11.81), but the evidence was of low certainty.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence is limited regarding the efficacy of CBT for treatment of OCD in ASD. There is much scope for future study, not only examining the efficacy of CBT for OCD in ASD, but also the particular ways that OCD manifests in and affects people with ASD and the role of the family in treatment response.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Search\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched for randomised controlled trials of delivery of CBT to people with OCD who also had ASD. A randomised controlled trial is a trial where the participants are randomly allocated to CBT or another treatment group so that the people running the trial have no say about and do not know to which group the participants belong. The other treatment group is called the control group. In these studies, the people in the control group do not receive CBT, but they may have sessions with their therapists that do not include CBT, or they may be on a waiting list. If meeting with your therapist or waiting for time to pass were just as helpful as CBT, for example, then the results would be less likely to show a difference between the outcomes of the treatment group and the control group. Conversely, if CBT was more effective, then we might expect to see the CBT group doing better than the control group. Therefore, at the end of each trial, when the results in the treatment group are compared to the results in the control group, it gives information about how effective CBT might be for people with OCD and ASD. The evidence in this review is current to August 2020." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nBiologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs: referred to as biologics) are effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head comparison studies. Our systematic review, standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) updates the 2009 Cochrane overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)' and adds new data. This review is focused on biologic or tofacitinib therapy in people with RA who had previously been treated unsuccessfully with biologics.\nObjectives\nTo compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (placebo or methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA, previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.\nMethods\nOn 22 June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase; and trials registries (WHO trials register, Clinicaltrials.gov). We carried out article selection, data extraction, and risk of bias and GRADE assessments in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We have also presented results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). Outcomes measured included four benefits (ACR50, function measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score, remission defined as DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6, slowing of radiographic progression) and three harms (withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and cancer).\nMain results\nThis update includes nine new RCTs for a total of 12 RCTs that included 3364 participants. The comparator was placebo only in three RCTs (548 participants), MTX or other traditional DMARD in six RCTs (2468 participants), and another biologic in three RCTs (348 participants). Data were available for four tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-biologics: (certolizumab pegol (1 study; 37 participants), etanercept (3 studies; 348 participants), golimumab (1 study; 461 participants), infliximab (1 study; 27 participants)), three non-TNF biologics (abatacept (3 studies; 632 participants), rituximab (2 studies; 1019 participants), and tocilizumab (2 studies; 589 participants)); there was only one study for tofacitinib (399 participants). The majority of the trials (10/12) lasted less than 12 months.\nWe judged 33% of the studies at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 25% had low risk of bias for attrition, 92% were at unclear risk for selective reporting; and 92% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for most outcomes to moderate or low due to study limitations, heterogeneity, or rarity of direct comparator trials.\nBiologic monotherapy versus placebo\nCompared to placebo, biologics were associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in RA as demonstrated by higher ACR50 and RA remission rates. RR was 4.10 for ACR50 (95% CI 1.97 to 8.55; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 14% (95% CI 6% to 21%); and NNTB = 8 (95% CI 4 to 23). RR for RA remission was 13.51 (95% CI 1.85 to 98.45, one study available; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 5% to 13%); and NNTB = 11 (95% CI 3 to 136). Results for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events did not show any statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences. There were no studies available for analysis for function measured by HAQ, radiographic progression, or cancer outcomes. There were not enough data for any of the outcomes to look at subgroups.\nBiologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs)\nCompared to MTX/other traditional DMARDs, biologic + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50, function measured by HAQ, and RA remission rates in direct comparisons. RR for ACR50 was 4.07 (95% CI 2.76 to 5.99; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 16% (10% to 21%); NNTB = 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). HAQ scores showed an improvement with a mean difference (MD) of 0.29 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.36; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9.7% improvement (95% CI 7% to 12%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Remission rates showed an improved RR of 20.73 (95% CI 4.13 to 104.16; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 10% (95% CI 8% to 13%); and NNTB = 17 (95% CI 4 to 96), among the biologic + MTX group compared to MTX/other DMARDs. There were no studies for radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significantly different for withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer.\nTofacitinib monotherapy versus placebo\nThere were no published data.\nTofacitinib + MTX versus active comparator (MTX)\nIn one study, compared to MTX, tofacitinib + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 (RR 3.24; 95% CI 1.78 to 5.89; absolute benefit RD 19% (95% CI 12% to 26%); NNTB = 6 (95% CI 3 to 14); moderate-quality evidence), and function measured by HAQ, MD 0.27 improvement (95% CI 0.14 to 0.39); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 4.7% to 13%), NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 10); high-quality evidence). RA remission rates were not statistically significantly different but the observed difference may be clinically meaningful (RR 15.44 (95% CI 0.93 to 256.1; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%); NNTB could not be calculated. There were no studies for radiographic progression. There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and results were inconclusive for cancer.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBiologic (with or without MTX) or tofacitinib (with MTX) use was associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefits (ACR50, HAQ, remission) compared to placebo or an active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs) among people with RA previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.\nNo studies examined radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significant for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Biologic + MTX versus MTX/other traditional DMARDs\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "21 people out of 100 on biologic + MTX experienced improvement in RA symptoms compared to 5 people out of 100 who were on MTX/DMARD (16% absolute improvement)." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAntibodies against hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) wane over time following hepatitis B immunisation; hence, it is unclear whether people vaccinated in three-dose or four-dose schedules of the hepatitis B vaccine are still immune when the hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) level in their body is undetectable, or lower than the level usually considered protective. This question may potentially be answered indirectly by measuring the anamnestic immune response to a booster dose of vaccine. The term 'booster' (or revaccination) refers to an additional dose of hepatitis B vaccine (HBV) given some time post-primary vaccination to induce immune memory and improve protection against hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of booster dose hepatitis B vaccination, more than five years after the primary vaccination, for preventing HBV infection in healthy individuals previously vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine, and with hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) levels below 10 mIU/mL.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, conference databases, and reference lists of articles to January 2016. We also contacted authors of articles. In addition, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials (May 2016).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised clinical trials addressing anamnestic immune response to a booster dose of hepatitis B vaccine, more than five years after the primary vaccination, in apparently healthy participants, vaccinated in a three-dose or four-dose schedule of the hepatitis B vaccine during the primary vaccination, without receiving an additional dose or immunoglobulin.\nData collection and analysis\nBoth review authors decided if the identified studies met the inclusion criteria or not. Primary outcomes included the proportion of participants with anamnestic immune response in non-protected participants and signs of HBV infection. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of participants that developed local and systemic adverse events following a booster dose injection. We planned to report the weighted proportion with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).\nMain results\nThere were no eligible randomised clinical trials fulfilling the inclusion criteria of this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe were unable to include any randomised clinical trials on the topic; only randomised clinical trials will be able to provide an answer as to whether a booster dose vaccination is able to protect against hepatitis B infection.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Main results and conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We were unable to find any eligible randomised clinical trials to include in this review. There is no scientific evidence, based on randomised clinical trials, to support or reject the need for booster doses of hepatitis B vaccine in healthy individuals with normal immune status. We need evidence, based on randomised clinical trials, to formulate future booster vaccination policies." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAge-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a common eye disease and leading cause of sight loss worldwide. Despite its high prevalence and increasing incidence as populations age, AMD remains incurable and there are no treatments for most patients. Mounting genetic and molecular evidence implicates complement system overactivity as a key driver of AMD development and progression. The last decade has seen the development of several novel therapeutics targeting complement in the eye for the treatment of AMD. This review update encompasses the results of the first randomised controlled trials in this field.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects and safety of complement inhibitors in the prevention or treatment of AMD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL on the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Web of Science, ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP to 29 June 2022 with no language restrictions. We also contacted companies running clinical trials for unpublished data.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with parallel groups and comparator arms that studied complement inhibition for advanced AMD prevention/treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed search results and resolved discrepancies through discussion. Outcome measures evaluated at one year included change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), untransformed and square root-transformed geographic atrophy (GA) lesion size progression, development of macular neovascularisation (MNV) or exudative AMD, development of endophthalmitis, loss of ≥ 15 letters of BCVA, change in low luminance visual acuity, and change in quality of life. We assessed risk of bias and evidence certainty using Cochrane risk of bias and GRADE tools.\nMain results\nTen RCTs with 4052 participants and eyes with GA were included. Nine evaluated intravitreal (IVT) administrations against sham, and one investigated an intravenous agent against placebo. Seven studies excluded patients with prior MNV in the non-study eye, whereas the three pegcetacoplan studies did not. The risk of bias in the included studies was low overall. We also synthesised results of two intravitreal agents (lampalizumab, pegcetacoplan) at monthly and every-other-month (EOM) dosing intervals.\nEfficacy and safety of IVT lampalizumab versus sham for GA\nFor 1932 participants in three studies, lampalizumab did not meaningfully change BCVA given monthly (+1.03 letters, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.19 to 2.25) or EOM (+0.22 letters, 95% CI −1.00 to 1.44) (high-certainty evidence). For 1920 participants, lampalizumab did not meaningfully change GA lesion growth given monthly (+0.07 mm², 95% CI −0.09 to 0.23; moderate-certainty due to imprecision) or EOM (+0.07 mm², 95% CI −0.05 to 0.19; high-certainty). For 2000 participants, lampalizumab may have also increased MNV risk given monthly (RR 1.77, 95% CI 0.73 to 4.30) and EOM (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.67 to 4.28), based on low-certainty evidence. The incidence of endophthalmitis in patients treated with monthly and EOM lampalizumab was 4 per 1000 (0 to 87) and 3 per 1000 (0 to 62), respectively, based on moderate-certainty evidence.\nEfficacy and safety of IVT pegcetacoplan versus sham for GA\nFor 242 participants in one study, pegcetacoplan probably did not meaningfully change BCVA given monthly (+1.05 letters, 95% CI −2.71 to 4.81) or EOM (−1.42 letters, 95% CI −5.25 to 2.41), as supported by moderate-certainty evidence. In contrast, for 1208 participants across three studies, pegcetacoplan meaningfully reduced GA lesion growth when given monthly (−0.38 mm², 95% CI −0.57 to −0.19) and EOM (−0.29 mm², 95% CI −0.44 to −0.13), with high certainty. These reductions correspond to 19.2% and 14.8% versus sham, respectively. A post hoc analysis showed possibly greater benefits in 446 participants with extrafoveal GA given monthly (−0.67 mm², 95% CI −0.98 to −0.36) and EOM (−0.60 mm², 95% CI −0.91 to −0.30), representing 26.1% and 23.3% reductions, respectively. However, we did not have data on subfoveal GA growth to undertake a formal subgroup analysis. In 1502 participants, there is low-certainty evidence that pegcetacoplan may have increased MNV risk when given monthly (RR 4.47, 95% CI 0.41 to 48.98) or EOM (RR 2.29, 95% CI 0.46 to 11.35). The incidence of endophthalmitis in patients treated with monthly and EOM pegcetacoplan was 6 per 1000 (1 to 53) and 8 per 1000 (1 to 70) respectively, based on moderate-certainty evidence.\nEfficacy and safety of IVT avacincaptad pegol versus sham for GA\nIn a study of 260 participants with extrafoveal or juxtafoveal GA, monthly avacincaptad pegol probably did not result in a clinically meaningful change in BCVA at 2 mg (+1.39 letters, 95% CI −5.89 to 8.67) or 4 mg (−0.28 letters, 95% CI −8.74 to 8.18), based on moderate-certainty evidence. Despite this, the drug was still found to have probably reduced GA lesion growth, with estimates of 30.5% reduction at 2 mg (−0.70 mm², 95% CI −1.99 to 0.59) and 25.6% reduction at 4 mg (−0.71 mm², 95% CI −1.92 to 0.51), based on moderate-certainty evidence. Avacincaptad pegol may have also increased the risk of developing MNV (RR 3.13, 95% CI 0.93 to 10.55), although this evidence is of low certainty. There were no cases of endophthalmitis reported in this study.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDespite confirmation of the negative findings of intravitreal lampalizumab across all endpoints, local complement inhibition with intravitreal pegcetacoplan meaningfully reduces GA lesion growth relative to sham at one year. Inhibition of complement C5 with intravitreal avacincaptad pegol is also an emerging therapy with probable benefits on anatomical endpoints in the extrafoveal or juxtafoveal GA population. However, there is currently no evidence that complement inhibition with any agent improves functional endpoints in advanced AMD; further results from the phase 3 studies of pegcetacoplan and avacincaptad pegol are eagerly awaited. Progression to MNV or exudative AMD is a possible emergent adverse event of complement inhibition, requiring careful consideration should these agents be used clinically. Intravitreal administration of complement inhibitors is probably associated with a small risk of endophthalmitis, which may be higher than that of other intravitreal therapies. Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimates of adverse effects and may change these. The optimal dosing regimens, treatment duration, and cost-effectiveness of such therapies are yet to be established.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched for studies that looked at complement blockers compared with sham or placebo in people with AMD across the world. We compared and summarised the results of the studies and rated our confidence in the evidence, based on factors such as study methods and sizes." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are the most common cancers arising in the head and neck. Treatment of oral cavity cancer is generally surgery followed by radiotherapy, whereas oropharyngeal cancers, which are more likely to be advanced at the time of diagnosis, are managed with radiotherapy or chemoradiation. Surgery for oral cancers can be disfiguring and both surgery and radiotherapy have significant functional side effects. The development of new chemotherapy agents, new combinations of agents and changes in the relative timing of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy treatments may potentially bring about increases in both survival and quality of life for this group of patients. This review updates one last published in 2011.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and/or surgery for oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma results in improved overall survival, improved disease-free survival and/or improved locoregional control, when incorporated as either induction therapy given prior to locoregional treatment (i.e. radiotherapy or surgery), concurrent with radiotherapy or in the adjuvant (i.e. after locoregional treatment with radiotherapy or surgery) setting.\nSearch methods\nAn information specialist searched 4 bibliographic databases up to 15 September 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours in the oral cavity or oropharynx, and that evaluated the addition of chemotherapy to other treatments such as radiotherapy and/or surgery, or compared two or more chemotherapy regimens or modes of administration.\nData collection and analysis\nFor this update, we assessed the new included trials for their risk of bias and at least two authors extracted data from them. Our primary outcome was overall survival (time to death from any cause). Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival (time to disease recurrence or death from any cause) and locoregional control (response to primary treatment).\nWe contacted trial authors for additional information or clarification when necessary.\nMain results\nWe included 100 studies with 18,813 participants. None of the included trials were at low risk of bias.\nFor induction chemotherapy, we reported the results for contemporary regimens that will be of interest to clinicians and people being treated for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. Overall, there is insufficient evidence to clearly demonstrate a survival benefit from induction chemotherapy with platinum plus 5-fluorouracil prior to radiotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) for death 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.04, P = 0.11; 7427 participants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), prior to surgery (HR for death 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.60, P = 0.77; 198 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence) or prior to concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) with cisplatin (HR for death 0.71, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.35, P = 0.30; 389 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There is insufficient evidence to support the use of an induction chemotherapy regimen with cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil plus docetaxel prior to CRT with cisplatin (HR for death 1.08, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.44, P = 0.63; 760 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence).\nThere is insufficient evidence to support the use of adjuvant chemotherapy over observation only following surgery (HR for death 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.22, P = 0.67; 353 participants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Among studies that compared post-surgical adjuvant CRT, as compared to post-surgical RT, adjuvant CRT showed a survival benefit (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98, P = 0.03; 1097 participants, 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence).\nPrimary treatment with CRT, as compared to radiotherapy alone,  was associated with a reduction in the risk of death (HR for death 0.74, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83, P < 0.00001; 2852 participants, 24 studies; moderate-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results of this review demonstrate that chemotherapy in the curative-intent treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers only seems to be of benefit when used in specific circumstances together with locoregional treatment. The  evidence does not show a clear survival benefit from the use of induction chemotherapy prior to radiotherapy, surgery or CRT. Adjuvant CRT reduces the risk of death by 16%, as compared to radiotherapy alone. Concurrent chemoradiation as compared to radiation alone is associated with a greater than 20% improvement in overall survival; however, additional research is required to inform how the specific chemotherapy regimen may influence this benefit.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched several electronic databases for studies that evaluated the addition of chemotherapy before, during or after either radiotherapy or surgery in adult (age > 18 years) patients with cancers of the oral cavity or oropharynx.\nWe categorised studies into four groups and combined results within each category. We assessed the reliability of the evidence we found." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nChildren with severe global developmental delay (SGDD) have significant intellectual disability and severe motor impairment; they are extremely limited in their functional movement and are dependent upon others for all activities of daily living. SGDD does not directly cause lung dysfunction, but the combination of immobility, weakness, skeletal deformity and parenchymal damage from aspiration can lead to significant prevalence of respiratory illness. Respiratory pathology is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality for children with SGDD; it can result in frequent hospital admissions and impacts upon quality of life. Although many treatment approaches are available, there currently exists no comprehensive review of the literature to inform best practice. A broad range of treatment options exist; to focus the scope of this review and allow in-depth analysis, we have excluded pharmaceutical interventions.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of non-pharmaceutical treatment modalities for the management of respiratory morbidity in children with severe global developmental delay.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted comprehensive searches of the following databases from inception to November 2013: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We searched the Web of Science and clinical trials registries for grey literature and for planned, ongoing and unpublished trials. We checked the reference lists of all primary included studies for additional relevant references.\nWe updated searches in November 2019 and July 2020 and added six studies to awaiting classification, but these results have not been fully incorporated into the review.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials, controlled trials and cohort studies of children up to 18 years of age with a diagnosis of severe neurological impairment and respiratory morbidity were included. Studies of airways clearance techniques, suction, assisted coughing, non-invasive ventilation, tracheostomy and postural management were eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. As the result of heterogeneity, we could not perform meta-analysis. We have therefore presented our results using a narrative approach.\nMain results\nFifteen studies were included in the review. Studies included children with a range of severe neurological impairments in differing settings, for example, home and critical care. Several different treatment modalities were assessed, and a wide range of outcome measures were used. Most studies used a non-randomised design and included small sample groups. Only four randomised controlled trials were identified. Non-randomised design, lack of information about how participants were selected and who completed outcome measures and incomplete reporting led to high or unclear risk of bias in many studies. Results from low-quality studies suggest that use of non-invasive ventilation, mechanically assisted coughing, high-frequency chest wall oscillation (HFCWO), positive expiratory pressure and supportive seating may confer potential benefits. No serious adverse effects were reported for ventilatory support or airway clearance interventions other than one incident in a clinically unstable child following mechanically assisted coughing. Night-time positioning equipment and spinal bracing were shown to have a potentially negative effect for some participants. However, these findings must be considered as tentative and require testing in future randomised trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review found no high-quality evidence for any single intervention for the management of respiratory morbidity in children with severe global developmental delay. Our search yielded data on a wide range of interventions of interest. Significant differences in study design and in outcome measures precluded the possibility of meta-analysis. No conclusions on efficacy or safety of interventions for respiratory morbidity in children with severe global developmental delay can be made based upon the findings of this review.\nA co-ordinated approach to future research is vital to ensure that high-quality evidence becomes available to guide treatment for this vulnerable patient group.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Of the 15 studies included here, only four used the 'gold standard' study design for health interventions. The remainder of the studies used less robust study designs, which limits the strength of the results. Further well-designed randomised studies including larger numbers of participants are required to guide healthcare professionals to select the most effective treatments.\nThis plain-language summary is current to November 2013.  We updated searches in November 2019 and July 2020 and added six studies to awaiting classification, but these results have not been fully incorporated into the review." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPeripheral intravenous cannulation is one of the most fundamental and common procedures in medicine. Securing a peripheral line is occasionally difficult with the landmark method. Ultrasound guidance has become a standard procedure for central venous cannulation, but its efficacy in achieving peripheral venous cannulation is unclear.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ultrasound guidance compared to the landmark method for peripheral intravenous cannulation in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 29 November 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (RCTs in which participants are systematically allocated based on data such as date of birth or recruitment) comparing the effects of ultrasound guidance to the landmark method for peripheral intravenous cannulation in adults.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were first-pass success of cannulation, overall success of cannulation, and pain. Our secondary outcomes were procedure time for first-pass cannulation, procedure time for overall cannulation, number of attempts, patient satisfaction, and overall complications. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nPlacing a peripheral intravenous line in individuals can be classed as ‘difficult’, ‘moderate’, or ‘easy’. We use the terms ‘difficult participants’, ‘moderate/moderately difficult participants’ and ‘easy participants’ as shorthand to characterise the difficulty level in placing a peripheral line using the landmark method. We used the original studies’ definitions of difficulty levels of peripheral intravenous cannulation with the landmark method. We analysed the results in these subgroups: ‘difficult participants’, ‘moderate participants’, and ‘easy participants’. We did this because we expected the effect of ultrasound-guided peripheral venous cannulation to be largest in participants classed as ‘difficult’ and smaller in participants classed as ‘moderate’ and ‘easy’.\nMain results\nWe included 14 RCTs and two quasi-RCTs involving 2267 participants undergoing peripheral intravenous cannulation. Participants were classed as 'difficult' in 12 studies (880 participants), 'moderate' in one study (401 participants), and 'easy' in one study (596 participants). Two studies (390 participants) did not restrict by landmark method difficulty level. The overall risk of bias assessments ranged from low to high. We judged studies to be at high risk of bias mainly because of concerns about blinding for subjective outcomes.\nIn difficult participants, ultrasound guidance increased the first-pass success of cannulation (risk ratio (RR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.15 to 1.95; 10 studies, 815 participants; low-certainty evidence), and the overall success of cannulation (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.77; 10 studies, 670 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in pain (mean difference (MD) -0.20, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.72; 4 studies, 323 participants; very low-certainty evidence; numerical rating scale (NRS) 0 to 10 where 10 is maximum pain). Ultrasound guidance increased the procedure time for first-pass cannulation (MD 119.9 seconds, 95% CI 88.6 to 151.1; 2 studies, 219 participants; low-certainty evidence), and patient satisfaction (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.49, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.92; 5 studies, 333 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NRS 0 to 10 where 10 is maximum satisfaction). Ultrasound guidance decreased the number of cannulation attempts (MD -0.33, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.02; 9 studies, 568 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ultrasound guidance showed no clear difference in the procedure time for overall cannulation (MD -24.9 seconds, 95% CI -323.1 to 273.3; 8 studies, 413 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and overall complications (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.10; 5 studies, 431 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nIn moderate participants, ultrasound guidance increased the first-pass success of cannulation (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.27; 1 study, 401 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies assessed the overall success of cannulation. There was no clear difference in pain (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.67; 1 study, 401 participants; low-certainty evidence; NRS 0 to 10 where 10 is maximum pain). Ultrasound guidance increased the procedure time for first-pass cannulation (MD 95.2 seconds, 95% CI 72.8 to 117.6; 1 study, 401 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ultrasound guidance showed no clear difference in overall complications (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.82; 1 study, 401 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies assessed the procedure time for overall cannulation, number of cannulation attempts, or patient satisfaction.\nIn easy participants, ultrasound guidance decreased the first-pass success of cannulation (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94; 1 study, 596 participants; high-certainty evidence). No studies assessed the overall success of cannulation. Ultrasound guidance increased pain (MD 0.60, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.03; 1 study, 596 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; NRS 0 to 10 where 10 is maximum pain). Ultrasound guidance increased the procedure time for first-pass cannulation (MD 94.8 seconds, 95% CI 81.2 to 108.5; 1 study, 596 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ultrasound guidance showed no clear difference in overall complications (RR 2.48, 95% CI 0.90 to 6.87; 1 study, 596 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies assessed the procedure time for overall cannulation, number of cannulation attempts, or patient satisfaction.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is very low- and low-certainty evidence that, compared to the landmark method, ultrasound guidance may benefit difficult participants for increased first-pass and overall success of cannulation, with no difference detected in pain. There is moderate- and low-certainty evidence that, compared to the landmark method, ultrasound guidance may benefit moderately difficult participants due to a small increased first-pass success of cannulation with no difference detected in pain. There is moderate- and high-certainty evidence that, compared to the landmark method, ultrasound guidance does not benefit easy participants: ultrasound guidance decreased the first-pass success of cannulation with no difference detected in overall success of cannulation and increased pain.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We wanted to find out if ultrasound guidance was useful and safe compared to the landmark method for peripheral intravenous cannulation in adults. We also wanted to find out if using ultrasound guidance was different in people when cannulation was classed as difficult, moderately difficult, or easy." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEarly childhood vaccination is an essential global public health practice that saves two to three million lives each year, but many children do not receive all the recommended vaccines. To achieve and maintain appropriate coverage rates, vaccination programmes rely on people having sufficient awareness and acceptance of vaccines.\nFace-to-face information or educational interventions are widely used to help parents understand why vaccines are important; explain where, how and when to access services; and address hesitancy and concerns about vaccine safety or efficacy. Such interventions are interactive, and can be adapted to target particular populations or identified barriers.\nThis is an update of a review originally published in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of face-to-face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination on vaccination status and parental knowledge, attitudes and intention to vaccinate.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, and two trial registries (July and August 2017). We screened reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted authors of included studies and experts in the field. We had no language or date restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs evaluating the effects of face-to-face interventions delivered to parents or expectant parents to inform or educate them about early childhood vaccination, compared with control or with another face-to-face intervention. The World Health Organization recommends that children receive all early childhood vaccines, with the exception of human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV), which is delivered to adolescents.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently reviewed all search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies.\nMain results\nIn this update, we found four new studies, for a total of ten studies. We included seven RCTs and three cluster-RCTs involving a total of 4527 participants, although we were unable to pool the data from one cluster-RCT. Three of the ten studies were conducted in low- or middle- income countries.\nAll included studies compared face-to-face interventions with control. Most studies evaluated the effectiveness of a single intervention session delivered to individual parents. The interventions were an even mix of short (ten minutes or less) and longer sessions (15 minutes to several hours).\nOverall, elements of the study designs put them at moderate to high risk of bias. All studies but one were at low risk of bias for sequence generation (i.e. used a random number sequence). For allocation concealment (i.e. the person randomising participants was unaware of the study group to which participant would be allocated), three were at high risk and one was judged at unclear risk of bias. Due to the educational nature of the intervention, blinding of participants and personnel was not possible in any studies. The risk of bias due to blinding of outcome assessors was judged as low for four studies. Most studies were at unclear risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and selective reporting. Other potential sources of bias included failure to account for clustering in a cluster-RCT and significant unexplained baseline differences between groups. One cluster-RCT was at high risk for selective recruitment of participants.\nWe judged the certainty of the evidence to be low for the outcomes of children's vaccination status, parents' attitudes or beliefs, intention to vaccinate, adverse effects (e.g. anxiety), and immunisation cost, and moderate for parents' knowledge or understanding. All studies had limitations in design. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence where we judged that studies had problems with randomisation or allocation concealment, or when outcomes were self-reported by participants who knew whether they'd received the intervention or not. We also downgraded the certainty for inconsistency (vaccination status), imprecision (intention to vaccinate and adverse effects), and indirectness (attitudes or beliefs, and cost).\nLow-certainty evidence from seven studies (3004 participants) suggested that face-to-face interventions to inform or educate parents may improve vaccination status (risk ratio (RR) 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.37). Moderate-certainty evidence from four studies (657 participants) found that face-to-face interventions probably slightly improved parent knowledge (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.19, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.38), and low-certainty evidence from two studies (179 participants) suggested they may slightly improve intention to vaccinate (SMD 0.55, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.85). Low-certainty evidence found the interventions may lead to little or no change in parent attitudes or beliefs about vaccination (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.27; three studies, 292 participants), or in parents’ anxiety (mean difference (MD) -1.93, 95% CI -7.27 to 3.41; one study, 90 participants). Only one study (365 participants) measured the intervention cost of a case management strategy, reporting that the estimated additional cost per fully immunised child for the intervention was approximately eight times higher than usual care (low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported outcomes associated with parents’ experience of the intervention (e.g. satisfaction).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that face-to-face information or education may improve or slightly improve children's vaccination status, parents' knowledge, and parents' intention to vaccinate.\nFace-to-face interventions may be more effective in populations where lack of awareness or understanding of vaccination is identified as a barrier (e.g. where people are unaware of new or optional vaccines). The effect of the intervention in a population where concerns about vaccines or vaccine hesitancy is the primary barrier is less clear. Reliable and validated scales for measuring more complex outcomes, such as attitudes or beliefs, are necessary in order to improve comparisons of the effects across studies.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We included trials published up to July 2017. We found ten studies with a total of 4527 participants that looked at the effects of face-to-face information or education for parents. Seven studies were from high-income countries, and three were from low- or middle-income countries. The interventions were a mix of short (under ten minutes) and longer sessions (15 minutes to several hours) that were delivered to new or expectant parents." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nLung cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related death in the world, however lung cancer screening has not been implemented in most countries at a population level. A previous Cochrane Review found limited evidence for the effectiveness of lung cancer screening with chest radiography (CXR) or sputum cytology in reducing lung cancer-related mortality, however there has been increasing evidence supporting screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT).\nObjectives\nTo determine whether screening for lung cancer using LDCT of the chest reduces lung cancer-related mortality and to evaluate the possible harms of LDCT screening.\nSearch methods\nWe performed the search in collaboration with the Information Specialist of the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group and included the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group Trial Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library, current issue), MEDLINE (accessed via PubMed) and Embase in our search. We also searched the clinical trial registries to identify unpublished and ongoing trials. We did not impose any restriction on language of publication. The search was performed up to 31 July 2021.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of lung cancer screening using LDCT and reporting mortality or harm outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors were involved in independently assessing trials for eligibility, extraction of trial data and characteristics, and assessing risk of bias of the included trials using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Primary outcomes were lung cancer-related mortality and harms of screening. We performed a meta-analysis, where appropriate, for all outcomes using a random-effects model. We only included trials in the analysis of mortality outcomes if they had at least 5 years of follow-up. We reported risk ratios (RRs) and hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and used the I2 statistic to investigate heterogeneity.\nMain results\nWe included 11 trials in this review with a total of 94,445 participants. Trials were conducted in Europe and the USA in people aged 40 years or older, with most trials having an entry requirement of ≥ 20 pack-year smoking history (e.g. 1 pack of cigarettes/day for 20 years or 2 packs/day for 10 years etc.). One trial included male participants only. Eight trials were phase three RCTs, with two feasibility RCTs and one pilot RCT. Seven of the included trials had no screening as a comparison, and four trials had CXR screening as a comparator. Screening frequency included annual, biennial and incrementing intervals. The duration of screening ranged from 1 year to 10 years. Mortality follow-up was from 5 years to approximately 12 years.\nNone of the included trials were at low risk of bias across all domains. The certainty of evidence was moderate to low across different outcomes, as assessed by GRADE.\nIn the meta-analysis of trials assessing lung cancer-related mortality, we included eight trials (91,122 participants), and there was a reduction in mortality of 21% with LDCT screening compared to control groups of no screening or CXR screening (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.87; 8 trials, 91,122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were probably no differences in subgroups for analyses by control type, sex, geographical region, and nodule management algorithm. Females appeared to have a larger lung cancer-related mortality benefit compared to males with LDCT screening. There was also a reduction in all-cause mortality (including lung cancer-related) of 5% (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.99; 8 trials, 91,107 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nInvasive tests occurred more frequently in the LDCT group (RR 2.60, 95% CI 2.41 to 2.80; 3 trials, 60,003 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, analysis of 60-day postoperative mortality was not significant between groups (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.94; 2 trials, 409 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nFalse-positive results and recall rates were higher with LDCT screening compared to screening with CXR, however there was low-certainty evidence in the meta-analyses due to heterogeneity and risk of bias concerns. Estimated overdiagnosis with LDCT screening was 18%, however the 95% CI was 0 to 36% (risk difference (RD) 0.18, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.36; 5 trials, 28,656 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nFour trials compared different aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using various measures. Anxiety was pooled from three trials, with participants in LDCT screening reporting lower anxiety scores than in the control group (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.43, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.27; 3 trials, 8153 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nThere were insufficient data to comment on the impact of LDCT screening on smoking behaviour.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe current evidence supports a reduction in lung cancer-related mortality with the use of LDCT for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations (those over the age of 40 with a significant smoking exposure). However, there are limited data on harms and further trials are required to determine participant selection and optimal frequency and duration of screening, with potential for significant overdiagnosis of lung cancer. Trials are ongoing for lung cancer screening in non-smokers.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Lung cancer survival is significantly dependent on when a person is diagnosed with the disease. It is essential to detect the disease as early as possible by radiography (chest x-ray) or by computed tomography (CT) scan, which is a more detailed type of radiography where multiple images of the lung are taken. The aim of this review was to gather information on the use of CT scan to detect lung cancer earlier and to find out if early detection of lung cancer reduces death from lung cancer. We also evaluated potential harms that can occur from using CT to screen for lung cancer, such as additional investigations and their related complications." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nLeg ulcers are open skin wounds on the lower leg that can last weeks, months or even years. Most leg ulcers are the result of venous diseases. First-line treatment options often include the use of compression bandages or stockings.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of using compression bandages or stockings, compared with no compression, on the healing of venous leg ulcers in any setting and population.\nSearch methods\nIn June 2020 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions by language, date of publication or study setting.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials that compared any types of compression bandages or stockings with no compression in participants with venous leg ulcers in any setting.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We assessed the certainty of the evidence according to GRADE methodology.\nMain results\nWe included 14 studies (1391 participants) in the review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 51 participants). Participants were recruited from acute-care settings, outpatient settings and community settings, and a large proportion (65.9%; 917/1391) of participants had a confirmed history or clinical evidence of chronic venous disease, a confirmed cause of chronic venous insufficiency, or an ankle pressure/brachial pressure ratio of greater than 0.8 or 0.9. The average age of participants ranged from 58.0 to 76.5 years (median: 70.1 years). The average duration of their leg ulcers ranged from 9.0 weeks to 31.6 months (median: 22.0 months), and a large proportion of participants (64.8%; 901/1391) had ulcers with an area between 5 and 20 cm2. Studies had a median follow-up of 12 weeks. Compression bandages or stockings applied included short-stretch bandage, four-layer compression bandage, and Unna's boot (a type of inelastic gauze bandage impregnated with zinc oxide), and comparator groups used included 'usual care', pharmacological treatment, a variety of dressings, and a variety of treatments where some participants received compression (but it was not the norm). Of the 14 included studies, 10 (71.4%) presented findings which we consider to be at high overall risk of bias.\nPrimary outcomes\nThere is moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded once for risk of bias) (1) that there is probably a shorter time to complete healing of venous leg ulcers in people wearing compression bandages or stockings compared with those not wearing compression (pooled hazard ratio for time-to-complete healing 2.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.52 to 3.10; I2 = 59%; 5 studies, 733 participants); and (2) that people treated using compression bandages or stockings are more likely to experience complete ulcer healing within 12 months compared with people with no compression (10 studies, 1215 participants): risk ratio for complete healing 1.77, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.21; I2 = 65% (8 studies with analysable data, 1120 participants); synthesis without meta-analysis suggests more completely-healed ulcers in compression bandages or stockings than in no compression (2 studies without analysable data, 95 participants).\nIt is uncertain whether there is any difference in rates of adverse events between using compression bandages or stockings and no compression (very low-certainty evidence; 3 studies, 585 participants).\nSecondary outcomes\nModerate-certainty evidence suggests that people using compression bandages or stockings probably have a lower mean pain score than those not using compression (four studies with 859 participants and another study with 69 ulcers): pooled mean difference −1.39, 95% CI −1.79 to −0.98; I2 = 65% (two studies with 426 participants and another study with 69 ulcers having analysable data); synthesis without meta-analysis suggests a reduction in leg ulcer pain in compression bandages or stockings, compared with no compression (two studies without analysable data, 433 participants). Compression bandages or stockings versus no compression may improve disease-specific quality of life, but not all aspects of general health status during the follow-up of 12 weeks to 12 months (four studies with 859 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nIt is uncertain if the use of compression bandages or stockings is more cost-effective than not using them (three studies with 486 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nIf using compression bandages or stockings, people with venous leg ulcers probably experience complete wound healing more quickly, and more people have wounds completely healed. The use of compression bandages or stockings probably reduces pain and may improve disease-specific quality of life. There is uncertainty about adverse effects, and cost effectiveness.\nFuture research should focus on comparing alternative bandages and stockings with the primary endpoint of time to complete wound healing alongside adverse events including pain score, and health-related quality of life, and should incorporate cost-effectiveness analysis where possible. Future studies should adhere to international standards of trial conduct and reporting.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The evidence in this Cochrane Review is current to June 2020." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCurrently, there are five major approaches to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease: abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH), robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) and vaginal natural orifice hysterectomy (V-NOTES). Within the LH category we further differentiate the laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) from the total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) and single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SP-LH).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of different surgical approaches to hysterectomy for women with benign gynaecological conditions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases (from their inception to December 2022): the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We also searched the trial registries and relevant reference lists, and communicated with experts in the field for any additional trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which clinical outcomes were compared between one surgical approach to hysterectomy and another.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and performed data extraction. Our primary outcomes were return to normal activities, satisfaction and quality of life, intraoperative visceral injury and major long-term complications (i.e. fistula, pelvic-abdominal pain, urinary dysfunction, bowel dysfunction, pelvic floor condition and sexual dysfunction).\nMain results\nWe included 63 studies with 6811 women. The evidence for most comparisons was of low or moderate certainty. The main limitations were poor reporting and imprecision.\nVaginal hysterectomy (VH) versus abdominal hysterectomy (AH) (12 RCTs, 1046 women)\nReturn to normal activities was probably faster in the VH group (mean difference (MD) -10.91 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -17.95 to -3.87; 4 RCTs, 274 women; I2 = 67%; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the return to normal activities after AH is assumed to be 42 days, then after VH it would be between 24 and 38 days. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes.\nLaparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) versus AH (28 RCTs, 3431 women)\nReturn to normal activities may be sooner in the LH group (MD -13.01 days, 95% CI -16.47 to -9.56; 7 RCTs, 618 women; I2 = 68%, low-certainty evidence), but there may be more urinary tract injuries in the LH group (odds ratio (OR) 2.16, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.93; 18 RCTs, 2594 women; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the return to normal activities after abdominal hysterectomy is assumed to be 37 days, then after laparoscopic hysterectomy it would be between 22 and 25 days. It also suggests that if the rate of ureter injury during abdominal hysterectomy is assumed to be 0.2%, then during laparoscopic hysterectomy it would be between 0.2% and 2%. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes.\nLH versus VH (22 RCTs, 2135 women)\nWe are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for any of our primary outcomes. Both short- and long-term complications were rare in both groups.\nRobotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) versus LH (three RCTs, 296 women)\nNone of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for our other primary outcomes.\nSingle-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SP-LH) versus LH (seven RCTs, 621 women)\nNone of the studies reported satisfaction rates, quality of life or major long-term complications. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of intraoperative visceral injury.\nTotal laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) versus laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) (three RCTs, 233 women)\nNone of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of intraoperative visceral injury or major long-term complications.\nTransvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (V-NOTES) versus LH (two RCTs, 96 women)\nWe are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of bladder injury. Our other primary outcomes were not reported.\nOverall, adverse events were rare in the included studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAmong women undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease, VH appears to be superior to AH. When technically feasible, VH should be performed in preference to AH because it is associated with faster return to normal activities, fewer wound/abdominal wall infections and shorter hospital stay. Where VH is not possible, LH has advantages over AH including faster return to normal activities, shorter hospital stay, and decreased risk of wound/abdominal wall infection, febrile episodes or unspecified infection, and transfusion. These advantages must be balanced against the increased risk of ureteric injury and longer operative time. When compared to LH, VH was associated with no difference in time to return to normal activities but shorter operative time and shorter hospital stay. RH and V-NOTES require further evaluation since there is a lack of evidence of any patient benefit over conventional LH. Overall, the evidence in this review has to be interpreted with caution as adverse event rates were low, resulting in low power for these comparisons. The surgical approach to hysterectomy should be discussed with the patient and decided in the light of the relative benefits and hazards. Surgical expertise is difficult to quantify and poorly reported in the available studies and this may influence outcomes in ways that cannot be accounted for in this review. In conclusion, when VH is not feasible, LH has multiple advantages over AH, but at the cost of more ureteric injuries. Evidence is limited for RH and V-NOTES.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We evaluated which is the most effective and safe surgery for hysterectomy in women with benign gynaecological disease." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPharmaceuticals are important interventions that could improve people's health. Pharmaceutical pricing and purchasing policies are used as cost-containment measures to determine or affect the prices that are paid for drugs. Internal reference pricing establishes a benchmark or reference price within a country which is the maximum level of reimbursement for a group of drugs. Other policies include price controls, maximum prices, index pricing, price negotiations and volume-based pricing.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effects of pharmaceutical pricing and purchasing policies on health outcomes, healthcare utilisation, drug expenditures and drug use.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), part of The Cochrane Library (including the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Register) (searched 22/10/2012); MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and MEDLINE, Ovid (searched 22/10/2012); EconLit, ProQuest (searched 22/10/2012); PAIS International, ProQuest (searched 22/10/2012); World Wide Political Science Abstracts, ProQuest (searched 22/10/2012); INRUD Bibliography (searched 22/10/2012); Embase, Ovid (searched 14/12/2010); NHSEED, part of The Cochrane Library (searched 08/12/2010); LILACS, VHL (searched 14/12/2010); International Political Science Abstracts (IPSA), Ebsco (searched (17/12/2010); OpenSIGLE (searched 21/12/10); WHOLIS, WHO (searched 17/12/2010); World Bank (Documents and Reports) (searched 21/12/2010); Jolis (searched 09/10/2011); Global Jolis (searched 09/10/2011) ; OECD (searched 30/08/2005); OECD iLibrary (searched 30/08/2005); World Bank eLibrary (searched 21/12/2010); WHO - The Essential Drugs and Medicines web site (browsed 21/12/2010).\nSelection criteria\nPolicies in this review were defined as laws; rules; financial and administrative orders made by governments, non-government organisations or private insurers. To be included a study had to include an objective measure of at least one of the following outcomes: drug use, healthcare utilisation and health outcomes or costs (expenditures); the study had to be a randomised trial, non-randomised trial, interrupted time series (ITS), repeated measures (RM) study or a controlled before-after study of a pharmaceutical pricing or purchasing policy for a large jurisdiction or system of care.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Results were summarised in tables. There were too few comparisons with similar outcomes across studies to allow for meta-analysis or meaningful exploration of heterogeneity.\nMain results\nWe included 18 studies (seven identified in the update): 17 of reference pricing, one of which also assessed maximum prices, and one of index pricing. None of the studies were trials. All included studies used ITS or RM analyses. The quality of the evidence was low or very low for all outcomes. Three reference pricing studies reported cumulative drug expenditures at one year after the transition period. Two studies reported the median relative insurer's cumulative expenditures, on both reference drugs and cost share drugs, of -18%, ranging from -36% to 3%. The third study reported relative insurer's cumulative expenditures on total market of -1.5%. Four reference pricing studies reported median relative insurer's expenditures on both reference drugs and cost share drugs of -10%, ranging from -53% to 4% at one year after the transition period. Four reference pricing studies reported a median relative change of 15% in reference drugs prescriptions at one year (range -14% to 166%). Three reference pricing studies reported a median relative change of -39% in cost share drugs prescriptions at one year (range -87% to -17%). One study of index pricing reported a relative change of 55% (95% CI 11% to 98%) in the use of generic drugs and -43% relative change (95% CI -67% to -18%) in brand drugs at six months after the transition period. The same study reported a price change of -5.3% and -1.1% for generic and brand drugs respectively six months after the start of the policy. One study of maximum prices reported a relative change in monthly sales volume of all statins of 21% (95% CI 19% to 24%) after one year of the introduction of this policy. Four studies reported effects on mortality and healthcare utilisation, however they were excluded because of study design limitations.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe majority of the studies of pricing and purchasing policies that met our inclusion criteria evaluated reference pricing. We found that internal reference pricing may reduce expenditures in the short term by shifting drug use from cost share drugs to reference drugs. Reference pricing may reduce related expenditures with effects on reference drugs but the effect on expenditures of cost share drugs is uncertain. Reference pricing may increase the use of reference drugs and may reduce the use of cost share drugs. The analysis and reporting of the effects on patients' drug expenditures were limited in the included studies and administration costs were not reported. Reference pricing effects on health are uncertain due to lack of evidence. The effects of other purchasing and pricing policies are until now uncertain due to sparse evidence. However, index pricing may reduce the use of brand drugs, increase the use of generic drugs, and may also slightly reduce the price of the generic drug when compared with no intervention.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What happens when new payment policies are introduced?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Most of the studies focused on the effect of reference pricing. These studies looked at the impact of reference pricing one year after it was introduced. They showed that this policy may lead to:\n- an increase in 'reference medicine' prescriptions and a decrease in prescriptions for more expensive medicines (low certainty of evidence);\n- a decrease in the amount of money insurers spend on medicines overall (low certainty of evidence).\nNone of these studies looked at the effect of reference pricing on people’s health, their use of healthcare services, or adverse effects." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHeavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in premenopausal women. Although surgery is often used as a treatment, a range of medical therapies are also available. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduce prostaglandin levels, which are elevated in women with excessive menstrual bleeding and also may have a beneficial effect on dysmenorrhoea.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of NSAIDs in achieving a reduction in menstrual blood loss (MBL) in women of reproductive years with HMB.\nSearch methods\nWe searched, in April 2019, the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility specialised register, Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online (CENTRAL CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the clinical trial registries and reference lists of articles.\nSelection criteria\nThe inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of individual NSAIDs or combined with other medical therapy with each other, placebo or other medical treatments in women with regular heavy periods measured either objectively or subjectively and with no pathological or iatrogenic (treatment-induced) causes for their HMB.\nData collection and analysis\nWe identified 19 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (759 women) that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review and two review authors independently extracted data. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes from the data of nine trials. We described in data tables the results of the remaining seven cross-over trials with data unsuitable for pooling, one trial with skewed data, and one trial with missing variances. One trial had no data available for analysis.\nMain results\nAs a group, NSAIDs were more effective than placebo at reducing HMB but less effective than tranexamic acid, danazol or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG IUS). Treatment with danazol caused a shorter duration of menstruation and more adverse events than NSAIDs, but this did not appear to affect the acceptability of treatment, based on trials from 1980 to 1990. However, currently danazol is not a usual or recommended treatment for HMB. There was no clear evidence of difference between NSAIDs and the other treatments (oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, an older progesterone-releasing intrauterine system and the oral contraceptive pill (OCP), but most studies were underpowered. There was no evidence of a difference between the individual NSAIDs (naproxen and mefenamic acid) in reducing HMB. The evidence quality ranged from low to moderate, the main limitations being risk of bias and imprecision.\nAuthors' conclusions\nNSAIDs reduce HMB when compared with placebo, but are less effective than tranexamic acid, danazol or LNG IUS. However, adverse events are more severe with danazol therapy. In the limited number of small studies suitable for evaluation, there was no clear evidence of a difference in efficacy between NSAIDs and other medical treatments such as oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, OCP or the older progesterone-releasing intrauterine system.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The evidence quality ranged from low to moderate, the main limitations being poor reporting of study methods and imprecision resulting from small study numbers." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCalcium channel blockers (CCBs) are used to manage hypertension which is highly prevalent among people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The treatment for hypertension is particularly challenging in people undergoing dialysis.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of calcium channel blockers in patients with chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies to 27 April 2020 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Specialised Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared any type of CCB with other CCB, different doses of the same CCB, other antihypertensives, control or placebo were included. The minimum study duration was 12 weeks.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using a random-effects model and results expressed as risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).\nMain results\nThis review included 13 studies (24 reports) randomising 1459 participants treated with long-term haemodialysis. Nine studies were included in the meta-analysis (622 participants). No studies were performed in children or in those undergoing peritoneal dialysis. Overall, risk of bias was assessed as unclear to high across most domains.\nRandom sequence generation and allocation concealment were at low risk of bias in eight and one studies, respectively. Two studies reported low risk methods for blinding of participants and investigators, and outcome assessment was blinded in 10 studies. Three studies were at low risk of attrition bias, eight studies were at low risk of selective reporting bias, and five studies were at low risk of other potential sources of bias. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was low to very low for all outcomes. No events were reported for cardiovascular death in any of the comparisons. Other side effects were rarely reported and studies were not designed to measure costs.\nFive studies (451 randomised adults) compared dihydropyridine CCBs to placebo or no treatment. Dihydropyridine CCBs may decrease predialysis systolic (1 study, 39 participants: MD -27.00 mmHg, 95% CI -43.33 to -10.67; low certainty evidence) and diastolic blood pressure level (2 studies, 76 participants; MD -13.56 mmHg, 95% CI -19.65 to -7.48; I2 = 0%, low certainty evidence) compared to placebo or no treatment. Dihydropyridine CCBs may make little or no difference to occurrence of intradialytic hypotension (2 studies, 287 participants; RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.15; I2 = 0%, low certainty evidence) compared to placebo or no treatment. Other side effects were not reported.\nEight studies (1037 randomised adults) compared dihydropyridine CCBs to other antihypertensives. Dihydropyridine CCBs may make little or no difference to predialysis systolic (4 studies, 180 participants: MD 2.44 mmHg, 95% CI -3.74 to 8.62; I2 = 0%, low certainty evidence) and diastolic blood pressure (4 studies, 180 participants: MD 1.49 mmHg, 95% CI -2.23 to 5.21; I2 = 0%, low certainty evidence) compared to other antihypertensives. There was no evidence of a difference in the occurrence of intradialytic hypotension (1 study, 92 participants: RR 2.88, 95% CI 0.12 to 68.79; very low certainty evidence) between dihydropyridine CCBs to other antihypertensives. Other side effects were not reported.\nDihydropyridine CCB may make little or no difference to predialysis systolic (1 study, 40 participants: MD -4 mmHg, 95% CI -11.99 to 3.99; low certainty evidence) and diastolic blood pressure (1 study, 40 participants: MD -3.00 mmHg, 95% CI -7.06 to 1.06; low certainty evidence) compared to non-dihydropyridine CCB. There was no evidence of a difference in other side effects (1 study, 40 participants: RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.36; very low certainty evidence) between dihydropyridine CCB and non-dihydropyridine CCB. Intradialytic hypotension was not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe benefits of CCBs over other antihypertensives on predialysis blood pressure levels and intradialytic hypotension among people with CKD who required haemodialysis were uncertain. Effects of CCBs on other side effects and cardiovascular death also remain uncertain. Dihydropyridine CCBs may decrease predialysis systolic and diastolic blood pressure level compared to placebo or no treatment. No studies were identified in children or peritoneal dialysis. Available studies have not been designed to measure the effects on costs. The shortcomings of the studies were that they recruited very few participants, had few events, had very short follow-up periods, some outcomes were not reported, and the reporting of outcomes such as changes in blood pressure was not done uniformly across studies.\nWell-designed RCTs, conducted in both adults and children with CKD requiring both haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, evaluating both dihydropyridine and non-dihydropyridine CCBs against other antihypertensives are required. Future research should be focused on outcomes relevant to patients (including death and cardiovascular disease), blood pressure changes, risk of side effects and healthcare costs to assist decision-making in clinical practice.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched the literature up to April 2020 to identify all studies that assessed the use of CCBs in adults and children with hypertension and CKD undergoing haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. Each study was assessed for possible bias on several pre-determined domains. We pooled the results of studies that reported on the same outcomes for similar comparisons and reported the overall effects. We applied a system called \"GRADE\" to assess the quality of the evidence that we found." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in the Cochrane Library in 2013 (Issue 8) on the risk of ovarian cancer in women using infertility drugs when compared to the general population or to infertile women not treated. The link between fertility drugs and ovarian cancer remains controversial.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the risk of invasive ovarian cancer and borderline ovarian tumours in women treated with ovarian stimulating drugs for subfertility.\nSearch methods\nThe original review included published and unpublished observational studies from 1990 to February 2013. For this update, we extended the searches from February 2013 to November 2018; we evaluated the quality of the included studies and judged the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach. We have reported the results in a Summary of findings table to present effect sizes across all outcome types.\nSelection criteria\nIn the original review and in this update, we searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies and case series including more than 30 participants.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently conducted eligibility and 'Risk of bias' assessments and extracted data. We grouped studies based on the fertility drug used for two outcomes: borderline ovarian tumours and invasive ovarian cancer. We conducted no meta-analyses due to expected methodological and clinical heterogeneity.\nMain results\nWe included 13 case-control and 24 cohort studies (an additional nine new cohort and two case-control studies), which included a total of 4,684,724 women.\nTwo cohort studies reported an increased incidence of invasive ovarian cancer in exposed subfertile women compared with unexposed women. One reported a standardised incidence ratio (SIR) of 1.19 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 2.25) based on 17 cancer cases. The other cohort study reported a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.93 (95% CI 1.18 to 3.18), and this risk was increased in women remaining nulligravid after using clomiphene citrate (HR 2.49, 95% CI 1.30 to 4.78) versus multiparous women (HR 1.52, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.42) (very low-certainty evidence). The slight increase in ovarian cancer risk among women having between one and three cycles of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) was reported, but this was not clinically significant (P = 0.18). There was no increase in risk of invasive ovarian cancer after use of infertility drugs in women with the BRCA mutation according to one cohort and one case-control study. The certainty of evidence as assessed using GRADE was very low.\nFor borderline ovarian tumours, one cohort study reported increased risk in exposed women with an SIR of 3.61 (95% CI 1.45 to 7.44), and this risk was greater after treatment with clomiphene citrate (SIR 7.47, 95% CI 1.54 to 21.83) based on 12 cases. In another cohort study, the risk of a borderline ovarian tumour was increased, with an HR of 4.23 (95% CI 1.25 to 14.33), for subfertile women treated with IVF compared with a non-IVF-treated group with more than one year of follow-up. A large cohort reported increased risk of borderline ovarian tumours, with HR of 2.46 (95% CI 1.20 to 5.04), and this was based on 17 cases. A significant increase in serous borderline ovarian tumours was reported in one cohort study after the use of progesterone for more than four cycles (risk ratio (RR) 2.63, 95% CI 1.04 to 6.64). A case-control study reported increased risk after clomiphene citrate was taken, with an SIR of 2.5 (95% CI 1.3 to 4.5) based on 11 cases, and another reported an increase especially after human menopausal gonadotrophin was taken (odds ratio (OR) 9.38, 95% CI 1.66 to 52.08). Another study estimated an increased risk of borderline ovarian tumour, but this estimation was based on four cases with no control reporting use of fertility drugs. The certainty of evidence as assessed using GRADE was very low.\nHowever, although some studies suggested a slight increase in risks of ovarian cancer and borderline ovarian tumour, none provided moderate- or high-certainty evidence, as summarised in the GRADE tables.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSince the last version of this review, only a few new relevant studies have provided additional findings with supporting evidence to suggest that infertility drugs may increase the risk of ovarian cancer slightly in subfertile women treated with infertility drugs when compared to the general population or to subfertile women not treated. The risk is slightly higher in nulliparous than in multiparous women treated with infertility drugs, and for borderline ovarian tumours. However, few studies have been conducted, the number of cancers is very small, and information on the dose or type of fertility drugs used is insufficient.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"The aim of the review\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We aimed with this updated systematic review to summarise current published research on the risk of ovarian cancer in subfertile women treated with fertility drugs compared to the general population and to subfertile women not treated with fertility drugs." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCryptococcal disease remains one of the main causes of death in HIV-positive people who have low cluster of differentiation 4 (CD4) cell counts. Currently, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends screening HIV-positive people with low CD4 counts for cryptococcal antigenaemia (CrAg), and treating those who are CrAg-positive. This Cochrane Review examined the effects of an approach where those with low CD4 counts received regular prophylactic antifungals, such as fluconazole.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of antifungal drugs for the primary prevention of cryptococcal disease in adults and children who are HIV-positive.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE PubMed, Embase OVID, CINAHL EBSCOHost, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, conference proceedings for the International AIDS Society (IAS) and Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), and reference lists of relevant articles up to 31 August 2017.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials of adults and children, who are HIV-positive with low CD4 counts, without a current or prior diagnosis of cryptococcal disease that compared any antifungal drug taken as primary prophylaxis to placebo or standard care.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted and analysed data. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. We summarized all outcomes using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nNine trials, enrolling 5426 participants, met the inclusion criteria of this review. Six trials administered fluconazole, while three trials administered itraconazole.\nAntifungal prophylaxis may make little or no difference to all-cause mortality (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.43; 6 trials, 3220 participants; low-certainty evidence). For cryptococcal specific outcomes, prophylaxis probably reduces the risk of developing cryptococcal disease (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.49; 7 trials, 5000 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably reduces deaths due to cryptococcal disease (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.72; 5 trials, 3813 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Fluconazole prophylaxis may make no clear difference to the risk of developing clinically resistant Candida disease (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.56; 3 trials, 1198 participants; low-certainty evidence); however, there may be an increased detection of fluconazole-resistant Candida isolates from surveillance cultures (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.55; 3 trials, 539 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antifungal prophylaxis was generally well-tolerated with probably no clear difference in the risk of discontinuation of antifungal prophylaxis compared with placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.13; 4 trials, 2317 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Antifungal prophylaxis may also make no difference to the risk of having any adverse event (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.30; 4 trials, 2317 participants; low-certainty evidence), or a serious adverse event (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.41; 4 trials, 888 participants; low-certainty evidence) when compared to placebo or standard care.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAntifungal prophylaxis reduced the risk of developing and dying from cryptococcal disease. Therefore, where CrAG screening is not available, antifungal prophylaxis may be used in patients with low CD4 counts at diagnosis and who are at risk of developing cryptococcal disease.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up to date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The review authors searched for studies that had been published up to 31 August 2017." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe global burden of poor maternal, neonatal, and child health (MNCH) accounts for more than a quarter of healthy years of life lost worldwide. Targeted client communication (TCC) via mobile devices (MD) (TCCMD) may be a useful strategy to improve MNCH.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of TCC via MD on health behaviour, service use, health, and well-being for MNCH.\nSearch methods\nIn July/August 2017, we searched five databases including The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and Embase. We also searched two trial registries. A search update was carried out in July 2019 and potentially relevant studies are awaiting classification.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials that assessed TCC via MD to improve MNCH behaviour, service use, health, and well-being. Eligible comparators were usual care/no intervention, non-digital TCC, and digital non-targeted client communication.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane, although data extraction and risk of bias assessments were carried out by one person only and cross-checked by a second.\nMain results\nWe included 27 trials (17,463 participants). Trial populations were: pregnant and postpartum women (11 trials conducted in low-, middle- or high-income countries (LMHIC); pregnant and postpartum women living with HIV (three trials carried out in one lower middle-income country); and parents of children under the age of five years (13 trials conducted in LMHIC). Most interventions (18) were delivered via text messages alone, one was delivered through voice calls only, and the rest were delivered through combinations of different communication channels, such as multimedia messages and voice calls.\nPregnant and postpartum women\nTCCMD versus standard care\nFor behaviours, TCCMD may increase exclusive breastfeeding in settings where rates of exclusive breastfeeding are less common (risk ratio (RR) 1.30, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.06 to 1.59; low-certainty evidence), but have little or no effect in settings where almost all women breastfeed (low-certainty evidence). For use of health services, TCCMD may increase antenatal appointment attendance (odds ratio (OR) 1.54, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.96; low-certainty evidence); however, the CI encompasses both benefit and harm. The intervention may increase skilled attendants at birth in settings where a lack of skilled attendants at birth is common (though this differed by urban/rural residence), but may make no difference in settings where almost all women already have a skilled attendant at birth (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.94; low-certainty evidence). There were uncertain effects on maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity because the certainty of the evidence was assessed as very low.\nTCCMD versus non-digital TCC (e.g. pamphlets)\nTCCMD may have little or no effect on exclusive breastfeeding (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.07; low-certainty evidence). TCCMD may reduce 'any maternal health problem' (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.79) and 'any newborn health problem' (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.06) reported up to 10 days postpartum (low-certainty evidence), though the CI for the latter includes benefit and harm. The effect on health service use is unknown due to a lack of studies.\nTCCMD versus digital non-targeted communication\nNo studies reported behavioural, health, or well-being outcomes for this comparison. For use of health services, there are uncertain effects for the presence of a skilled attendant at birth due to very low-certainty evidence, and the intervention may make little or no difference to attendance for antenatal influenza vaccination (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.58), though the CI encompasses both benefit and harm (low-certainty evidence).\nPregnant and postpartum women living with HIV\nTCCMD versus standard care\nFor behaviours, TCCMD may make little or no difference to maternal and infant adherence to antiretroviral (ARV) therapy (low-certainty evidence). For health service use, TCC mobile telephone reminders may increase use of antenatal care slightly (mean difference (MD) 1.5, 95% CI –0.36 to 3.36; low-certainty evidence). The effect on the proportion of births occurring in a health facility is uncertain due to very low-certainty evidence. For health and well-being outcomes, there was an uncertain intervention effect on neonatal death or stillbirth, and infant HIV due to very low-certainty evidence. No studies reported on maternal mortality or morbidity.\nTCCMD versus non-digital TCC\nThe effect is unknown due to lack of studies reporting this comparison.\nTCCMD versus digital non-targeted communication\nTCCMD may increase infant ARV/prevention of mother-to-child transmission treatment adherence (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.48; low-certainty evidence). The effect on other outcomes is unknown due to lack of studies.\nParents of children aged less than five years\nNo studies reported on correct treatment, nutritional, or health outcomes.\nTCCMD versus standard care\nBased on 10 trials, TCCMD may modestly increase health service use (vaccinations and HIV care) (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.34; low-certainty evidence); however, the effect estimates varied widely between studies.\nTCCMD versus non-digital TCC\nTCCMD may increase attendance for vaccinations (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.28; low-certainty evidence), and may make little or no difference to oral hygiene practices (low-certainty evidence).\nTCCMD versus digital non-targeted communication\nTCCMD may reduce attendance for vaccinations, but the CI encompasses both benefit and harm (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.20; low-certainty evidence).\nNo trials in any population reported data on unintended consequences.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe effect of TCCMD for most outcomes is uncertain. There may be improvements for some outcomes using targeted communication but these findings were of low certainty. High-quality, adequately powered trials and cost-effectiveness analyses are required to reliably ascertain the effects and relative benefits of TCCMD. Future studies should measure potential unintended consequences, such as partner violence or breaches of confidentiality.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What happens when pregnant women living with HIV receive targeted messages by mobile device?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Compared to women who get no messages\nWomen may go to slightly more antenatal care appointments. We do not know whether the messages lead more women to give birth in a health facility or improve babies' health because the evidence is of very low certainty. The messages may make little or no difference to whether pregnant women and babies follow antiretroviral (ARV) treatment (used to treat HIV) according to plan. We do not know if the messages affect women's health because the evidence is missing.\nCompared to women who get messages sent in other ways\nWe do not know what the effect of these messages is because we lack evidence.\nCompared to women who get untargeted messages\nMore parents may follow their babies' ARV treatment according to plan. We do not know if the messages improve women's or babies' health or their use of services because the evidence is missing." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for safe abortion recommend medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol or surgical abortion with vacuum aspiration or dilation and evacuation as safe and effective options for women. However, no specific clinical considerations are stipulated within these guidelines for women living with HIV. Concerns have been raised that women living with HIV may be at greater risk of adverse abortion outcomes compared to HIV-uninfected women due to immunosuppression, high rates of co-infection with other sexually transmitted infections, and possible contraindications between medications used for medical abortion and antiretroviral therapy regimens.\nObjectives\nOur primary objective was to assess the effectiveness and safety of medical versus surgical abortion among women living with HIV. Our secondary objectives were to: (1) compare outcomes of medical and surgical abortion between women living with HIV and women without HIV and (2) describe outcomes of medical and surgical abortion among women living with HIV.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted our search on 17 April 2018. We searched for all published and unpublished trials and observational studies of medical and surgical abortion among women living with HIV. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform using a combination of terms for abortion and HIV. We searched conference websites for relevant abstracts. We also sought unpublished data stratified by HIV status that could be newly analyzed.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, and observational studies. We considered: (1) studies on the effectiveness and safety of medical versus surgical abortion among women living with HIV; (2) studies comparing outcomes of abortion for both methods between women living with HIV and women without HIV; and (3) studies that described outcomes of abortion among women living with HIV.\nData collection and analysis\nOne review author screened the titles, abstracts, citation information, and descriptor terms for citations initially identified by the search. We obtained the full-text articles of all potentially eligible studies when these were available. Two review authors independently examined the full-text articles for compliance with the inclusion criteria and determination of final study selection. We planned to conduct meta-analysis if a sufficient number of studies (at least three) addressed the same research question and presented data on sufficiently comparable outcomes.\nMain results\nOf 3840 records screened, we identified just one conference abstract that met our inclusion criteria. This prospective cohort study assessed the efficacy and acceptability of home administration of misoprostol for early medical abortion among women living with HIV who were of less than 63 days amenorrhea in Ukraine. Medical abortion was effective in 65 of 68 cases (96%) examined. The small number of failures included incomplete abortion (n = 1), heavy bleeding (n = 1), and ongoing pregnancy (n = 1). There were no serious infections.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to the paucity of studies, we were unable to determine if outcome differences exist between women living with HIV and women without HIV who undergo medical or surgical abortion. We found no evidence suggesting that medical or surgical abortions are unsafe for women living with HIV. While additional research would strengthen the evidence base, healthcare providers should not be deterred from providing access to safe abortion to their patients living with HIV.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The results from this review do not provide enough evidence to determine if differences exist in abortion outcomes for women living with HIV, but also no evidence was found showing that abortion is unsafe in this population. As it is important for all women to have access to safe abortion to combat the public health threat of high rates of maternal deaths, healthcare providers should not be deterred from providing access to safe abortion to their patients living with HIV." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe gold standard treatment for symptomatic lumbar stenosis refractory to conservative management is a facet-preserving laminectomy. New techniques of posterior decompression have been developed to preserve spinal integrity and to minimise tissue damage by limiting bony decompression and avoiding removal of the midline structures (i.e. spinous process, vertebral arch and interspinous and supraspinous ligaments).\nObjectives\nTo compare the effectiveness of techniques of posterior decompression that limit the extent of bony decompression or avoid removal of posterior midline structures of the lumbar spine versus conventional facet-preserving laminectomy for the treatment of patients with degenerative lumbar stenosis.\nSearch methods\nAn experienced librarian conducted a comprehensive electronic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the clinical trials registries ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) for relevant literature up to June 2014.\nSelection criteria\nWe included prospective controlled studies comparing conventional facet-preserving laminectomy versus a posterior decompressive technique that avoids removal of posterior midline structures or a technique involving only partial resection of the vertebral arch. We excluded studies describing techniques of decompression by means of interspinous process devices or concomitant (instrumented) fusion procedures. Participants included individuals with symptomatic degenerative lumbar stenosis only.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Back Review Group criteria for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomised studies. We extracted data regarding demographics, intervention details and outcome measures.\nMain results\nA total of four high-quality RCTs and six low-quality RCTs met the search criteria of this review. These studies included a total of 733 participants. Investigators compared three different posterior decompression techniques versus conventional laminectomy. Three studies (173 participants) compared unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression versus conventional laminectomy. Four studies (382 participants) compared bilateral laminotomy versus conventional laminectomy (one study included three treatment groups and compared unilateral and bilateral laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy). Finally, four studies (218 participants) compared a split-spinous process laminotomy versus conventional laminectomy.\nEvidence of low or very low quality suggests that different techniques of posterior decompression and conventional laminectomy have similar effects on functional disability and leg pain. Only perceived recovery at final follow-up was better in people who underwent bilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy (two RCTs, 223 participants, odds ratio 5.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.55 to 12.71).\nAmong the secondary outcome measures, unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression and bilateral laminotomy resulted in numerically fewer cases of iatrogenic instability, although in both cases, the incidence of instability was low (three RCTs, 166 participants, odds ratio 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.15; three RCTs, 294 participants, odds ratio 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.55, respectively). The difference in severity of postoperative low back pain following bilateral laminotomy (two RCTs, 223 participants, mean difference -0.51, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.23) and split-spinous process laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy (two RCTs, 97 participants, mean difference -1.07, 95% CI -2.15 to -0.00) was significantly less, but was too small to be clinically important. A quantitative comparison between unilateral laminotomy and conventional laminectomy was not possible because of different reporting of outcome measures. We found no evidence to show that the incidence of complications, length of the procedure, length of hospital stay and postoperative walking distance differed between techniques of posterior decompression.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence provided by this systematic review for the effects of unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression, bilateral laminotomy and split-spinous process laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy on functional disability, perceived recovery and leg pain is of low or very low quality. Therefore, further research is necessary to establish whether these techniques provide a safe and effective alternative for conventional laminectomy. Proposed advantages of these techniques regarding the incidence of iatrogenic instability and postoperative back pain are plausible, but definitive conclusions are limited by poor methodology and poor reporting of outcome measures among included studies. Future research is necessary to establish the incidence of iatrogenic instability using standardised definitions of radiological and clinical instability at comparable follow-up intervals. Long-term results with these techniques are currently lacking.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The quality of evidence was low or very low according to Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) recommendations. This was due to the limited number of studies available for review and to poor study designs. Included studies were not designed in such a way as to yield reliable information about surgical outcomes. Before high-quality, evidence-based recommendations can be made about techniques of decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis, more rigorous studies should be done." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nKnee osteoarthritis is a leading cause of chronic pain, disability, and decreased quality of life. Despite the long-standing use of intra-articular corticosteroids, there is an ongoing debate about their benefits and safety. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005.\nObjectives\nTo determine the benefits and harms of intra-articular corticosteroids compared with sham or no intervention in people with knee osteoarthritis in terms of pain, physical function, quality of life, and safety.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE (from inception to 3 February 2015), checked trial registers, conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared intra-articular corticosteroids with sham injection or no treatment in people with knee osteoarthritis. We applied no language restrictions.\nData collection and analysis\nWe calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pain, function, quality of life, joint space narrowing, and risk ratios (RRs) for safety outcomes. We combined trials using an inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis.\nMain results\nWe identified 27 trials (13 new studies) with 1767 participants in this update. We graded the quality of the evidence as 'low' for all outcomes because treatment effect estimates were inconsistent with great variation across trials, pooled estimates were imprecise and did not rule out relevant or irrelevant clinical effects, and because most trials had a high or unclear risk of bias. Intra-articular corticosteroids appeared to be more beneficial in pain reduction than control interventions (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.22), which corresponds to a difference in pain scores of 1.0 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale between corticosteroids and sham injection and translates into a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 8 (95% CI 6 to 13). An I2 statistic of 68% indicated considerable between-trial heterogeneity. A visual inspection of the funnel plot suggested some asymmetry (asymmetry coefficient -1.21, 95%CI -3.58 to 1.17). When stratifying results according to length of follow-up, benefits were moderate at 1 to 2 weeks after end of treatment (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.27), small to moderate at 4 to 6 weeks (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.21), small at 13 weeks (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.00), and no evidence of an effect at 26 weeks (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.11). An I2 statistic of ≥ 63% indicated a moderate to large degree of between-trial heterogeneity up to 13 weeks after end of treatment (P for heterogeneity≤0.001), and an I2 of 0% indicated low heterogeneity at 26 weeks (P=0.43). There was evidence of lower treatment effects in trials that randomised on average at least 50 participants per group (P=0.05) or at least 100 participants per group (P=0.013), in trials that used concomittant viscosupplementation (P=0.08), and in trials that used concomitant joint lavage (P≤0.001).\nCorticosteroids appeared to be more effective in function improvement than control interventions (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.09), which corresponds to a difference in functions scores of -0.7 units on standardised Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) disability scale ranging from 0 to 10 and translates into a NNTB of 10 (95% CI 7 to 33). An I2 statistic of 69% indicated a moderate to large degree of between-trial heterogeneity. A visual inspection of the funnel plot suggested asymmetry (asymmetry coefficient -4.07, 95% CI -8.08 to -0.05). When stratifying results according to length of follow-up, benefits were small to moderate at 1 to 2 weeks after end of treatment (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.14), small to moderate at 4 to 6 weeks (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.09), and no evidence of an effect at 13 weeks (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.10) or at 26 weeks (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.28). An I2 statistic of ≥ 62% indicated a moderate to large degree of between-trial heterogeneity up to 13 weeks after end of treatment (P for heterogeneity≤0.004), and an I2 of 0% indicated low heterogeneity at 26 weeks (P=0.52). We found evidence of lower treatment effects in trials that randomised on average at least 50 participants per group (P=0.023), in unpublished trials (P=0.023), in trials that used non-intervention controls (P=0.031), and in trials that used concomitant viscosupplementation (P=0.06).\nParticipants on corticosteroids were 11% less likely to experience adverse events, but confidence intervals included the null effect (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.23, I2=0%). Participants on corticosteroids were 67% less likely to withdraw because of adverse events, but confidence intervals were wide and included the null effect (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.07, I2=0%). Participants on corticosteroids were 27% less likely to experience any serious adverse event, but confidence intervals were wide and included the null effect (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.67, I2=0%).\nWe found no evidence of an effect of corticosteroids on quality of life compared to control (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.28, I2=0%). There was also no evidence of an effect of corticosteroids on joint space narrowing compared to control interventions (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.46).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhether there are clinically important benefits of intra-articular corticosteroids after one to six weeks remains unclear in view of the overall quality of the evidence, considerable heterogeneity between trials, and evidence of small-study effects. A single trial included in this review described adequate measures to minimise biases and did not find any benefit of intra-articular corticosteroids.\nIn this update of the systematic review and meta-analysis, we found most of the identified trials that compared intra-articular corticosteroids with sham or non-intervention control small and hampered by low methodological quality. An analysis of multiple time points suggested that effects decrease over time, and our analysis provided no evidence that an effect remains six months after a corticosteroid injection.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We graded the quality of the evidence as low for all of our findings, which means that we have little confidence in these results. This was because results were generally highly discordant across studies and mainly based on small studies of low quality." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPrevious systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials have investigated the effect of post-stroke trunk training. Findings suggest that trunk training improves trunk function and activity or the execution of a task or action by an individual. But it is unclear what effect trunk training has on daily life activities, quality of life, and other outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of trunk training after stroke on activities of daily living (ADL), trunk function, arm-hand function or activity, standing balance, leg function, walking ability, and quality of life when comparing with both dose-matched as non-dose-matched control groups.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and five other databases to 25 October 2021. We searched trial registries to identify additional relevant published, unpublished, and ongoing trials. We hand searched the bibliographies of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected randomised controlled trials comparing trunk training versus non-dose-matched or dose-matched control therapy including adults (18 years or older) with either ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke. Outcome measures of trials included ADL, trunk function, arm-hand function or activity, standing balance, leg function, walking ability, and quality of life.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nTwo main analyses were carried out. The first analysis included trials where the therapy duration of control intervention was non-dose-matched with the therapy duration of the experimental group and the second analysis where there was comparison with a dose-matched control intervention (equal therapy duration in both the control as in the experimental group).\nMain results\nWe included 68 trials with a total of 2585 participants.\nIn the analysis of the non-dose-matched groups (pooling of all trials with different training duration in the experimental as in the control intervention), we could see that trunk training had a positive effect on ADL (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.24; P < 0.001; 5 trials; 283 participants; very low-certainty evidence), trunk function (SMD 1.49, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.71; P < 0.001; 14 trials, 466 participants; very low-certainty evidence), arm-hand function (SMD 0.67, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.15; P = 0.006; 2 trials, 74 participants; low-certainty evidence), arm-hand activity (SMD 0.84, 95% CI 0.009 to 1.59; P = 0.03; 1 trial, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence), standing balance (SMD 0.57, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.79; P < 0.001; 11 trials, 410 participants; very low-certainty evidence), leg function (SMD 1.10, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.63; P < 0.001; 1 trial, 64 participants; very low-certainty evidence), walking ability (SMD 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.94; P < 0.001; 11 trials, 383 participants; low-certainty evidence) and quality of life (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.89; P = 0.01; 2 trials, 108 participants; low-certainty evidence). Non-dose-matched trunk training led to no difference for the outcome serious adverse events (odds ratio: 7.94, 95% CI 0.16 to 400.89; 6 trials, 201 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nIn the analysis of the dose-matched groups (pooling of all trials with equal training duration in the experimental as in the control intervention), we saw that trunk training had a positive effect on trunk function (SMD 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.16; P < 0.001; 36 trials, 1217 participants; very low-certainty evidence), standing balance (SMD 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.15; P < 0.001; 22 trials, 917 participants; very low-certainty evidence), leg function (SMD 1.57, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.87; P < 0.001; 4 trials, 254 participants; very low-certainty evidence), walking ability (SMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.87; P < 0.001; 19 trials, 535 participants; low-certainty evidence) and quality of life (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.11; P < 0.001; 2 trials, 111 participants; low-certainty evidence), but not for ADL (SMD 0.10; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to 0.37; P = 0.48; 9 trials; 229 participants; very low-certainty evidence), arm-hand function (SMD 0.76, 95% CI -0.18 to 1.70; P = 0.11; 1 trial, 19 participants; low-certainty evidence), arm-hand activity (SMD 0.17, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.56; P = 0.38; 3 trials, 112 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Trunk training also led to no difference for the outcome serious adverse events (odds ratio (OR): 7.39, 95% CI 0.15 to 372.38; 10 trials, 381 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nTime post stroke led to a significant subgroup difference for standing balance (P < 0.001) in non-dose-matched therapy. In non-dose-matched therapy, different trunk therapy approaches had a significant effect on ADL (< 0.001), trunk function (P < 0.001) and standing balance (< 0.001).\nWhen participants received dose-matched therapy, analysis of subgroup differences showed that the trunk therapy approach had a significant effect on ADL (P = 0.001), trunk function (P < 0.001), arm-hand activity (P < 0.001), standing balance (P = 0.002), and leg function (P = 0.002). Also for dose-matched therapy, subgroup analysis for time post stroke resulted in a significant difference for the outcomes standing balance (P < 0.001), walking ability (P = 0.003) and leg function (P < 0.001), time post stroke significantly modified the effect of intervention.\nCore-stability trunk (15 trials), selective-trunk (14 trials) and unstable-trunk (16 trials) training approaches were mostly applied in the included trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is evidence to suggest that trunk training as part of rehabilitation improves ADL, trunk function, standing balance, walking ability, upper and lower limb function, and quality of life in people after stroke. Core-stability, selective-, and unstable-trunk training were the trunk training approaches mostly applied in the included trials. When considering only trials with a low risk of bias, results were mostly confirmed, with very low to moderate certainty, depending on the outcome.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We included 68 studies in which participants were randomly divided into two or more groups, with a total of 2585 participants. The studies compared training of the torso with other therapy or no therapy after a stroke." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCataract surgery is one of the most common surgical procedures performed worldwide. Achieving appropriate intraoperative mydriasis is one of the critical factors associated with the safety and performance of the surgery. Inadequate pupillary dilation or constriction of the pupil during cataract surgery can impair the surgeon’s field of view and make it difficult to maneuver instruments.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the relative effectiveness of achieving pupillary dilation during phacoemulsification for cataract extraction using three methods of pupillary dilation: topical mydriatics, intracameral mydriatics, or depot delivery systems. We also planned to document and compare the risk of intraoperative and postoperative complications following phacoemulsification for cataract extraction, as well as the cost-effectiveness of these methods for pupillary dilation.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2021, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 22 January 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only randomized controlled trial (RCTs) in which participants underwent phacoemulsification for cataract extraction.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methodology.\nMain results\nWe included a total of 14 RCTs (1670 eyes of 1652 participants) in this review. Of the 14 trials, 7 compared topical versus intracameral mydriatics, 6 compared topical mydriatics versus depot delivery systems, and 1 compared all three methods.\nWe were unable to calculate overall estimates of comparative effectiveness for most outcomes due to statistical heterogeneity among the estimates from individual studies or because outcome data were available from only a single study. Furthermore, the certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low, due primarily to imprecision and risk of bias.\nComparison 1: topical mydriatics versus intracameral mydriatics\nFour RCTs (739 participants, 757 eyes) of the 8 RCTs that had compared these two methods reported mean pupillary diameters at the time surgeons had performed capsulorhexis; all favored topical mydriatics, but heterogeneity was high (I2 = 95%). After omitting 1 RCT that used a paired-eyes design, evidence from three RCTs (721 participants and eyes) suggests that mean pupil diameter at the time of capsulorhexis may be greater with topical mydriatics than with intracameral mydriatics, but the evidence is of low certainty (mean difference 1.06 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 mm to 1.31 mm; I2 = 49%).\nFour RCTs (224 participants, 242 eyes) reported mean pupillary diameter at the beginning of cataract surgery; the effect estimates from all trials favored topical mydriatics, with very low-certainty evidence.\nFive RCTs (799 participants, 817 eyes) reported mean pupillary diameter at the end of cataract surgery. Data for this outcome from the largest RCT (549 participants and eyes) provided evidence of a small difference in favor of intracameral mydriasis. On the other hand, 2 small RCTs (78 participants, 96 eyes) favored topical mydriatics, and the remaining 2 RCTs (172 participants) found no meaningful difference between the two methods, with very low-certainty evidence.\nFive RCTs (799 participants, 817 eyes) reported total intraoperative surgical time. The largest RCT (549 participants and eyes) reported decreased total intraoperative time with intracameral mydriatics, whereas 1 RCT (18 participants, 36 eyes) favored topical mydriatics, and the remaining 3 RCTs (232 participants) found no difference between the two methods, with very low-certainty evidence.\nComparison 2: topical mydriatics versus depot delivery systems\nOf the 7 RCTs that compared these two methods, none reported mean pupillary diameter at the time surgeons performed capsulorhexis.\nSix RCTs (434 participants) reported mean pupillary diameter at the beginning of cataract surgery. After omitting 1 RCT suspected to be responsible for high heterogeneity (I2 = 80%), meta-analysis of the other 5 RCTs (324 participants and eyes) found no evidence of a meaningful difference between the two methods, with very low-certainty evidence.\nThree RCTs (210 participants) reported mean pupillary diameter at the end of cataract surgery, with high heterogeneity among effect estimates for this outcome. Estimates of mean differences and confidence intervals from these three RCTs were consistent with no difference between the two methods. A fourth RCT reported only means for this outcome, with low-certainty evidence.\nTwo small RCTs (118 participants) reported total intraoperative time. Surgical times were lower when depot delivery was used, but the confidence interval estimated from one trial was consistent with no difference, and only mean times were reported from the other trial, with very low-certainty evidence.\nComparison 3: Intracameral mydriatics versus depot delivery systems\nOnly one RCT (60 participants) compared intracameral mydriatics versus depot delivery system. Mean pupillary diameter at the time the surgeon performed capsulorhexis, phacoemulsification time, and cost outcomes were not reported. Mean pupil diameter at the beginning and end of cataract surgery favored the depot delivery system, with very low-certainty evidence.\nAdverse events\nEvidence from one RCT (555 participants and eyes) comparing topical mydriatics versus intracameral mydriatics suggests that ocular discomfort may be greater with topical mydriatics than with intracameral mydriatics at one week (risk ratio (RR) 10.57, 95% CI 1.37 to 81.34) and one month (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.65) after cataract surgery, with moderate-certainty evidence at both time points. Another RCT (30 participants) reported iris-related complications in 11 participants in the intracameral mydriatics group versus no complications in the depot delivery system group, with very low-certainty evidence. Cardiovascular related adverse events were rarely mentioned.\nAuthors' conclusions\nData from 14 completed RCTs were inadequate to establish the superiority of any of three methods to achieve mydriasis for cataract surgery, based on pupillary dilation at different times during the surgery or on time required for surgery. Only one trial had a \nsample size adequate to yield a robust effect estimate. Larger, well-designed trials are needed to provide robust estimates for the comparison of mydriasis approaches for beneficial and adverse effects.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Search date\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We included evidence published up to 22 January 2021." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nVirtual reality (VR) computer technology creates a simulated environment, perceived as comparable to the real world, with which users can actively interact. The effectiveness of VR distraction on acute pain intensity in children is uncertain.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of virtual reality (VR) distraction interventions for children (0 to 18 years) with acute pain in any healthcare setting.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and four trial registries to October 2019. We also searched reference lists of eligible studies, handsearched relevant journals and contacted study authors.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cross-over and cluster-RCTs, comparing VR distraction to no distraction, non-VR distraction or other VR distraction.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological processes. Two reviewers assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently. The primary outcome was acute pain intensity (during procedure, and up to one hour post-procedure). Secondary outcomes were adverse effects, child satisfaction with VR, pain-related distress, parent anxiety, rescue analgesia and cost. We used GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.\nMain results\nWe included 17 RCTs (1008 participants aged four to 18 years) undergoing various procedures in healthcare settings. We did not pool data because the heterogeneity in population (i.e. diverse ages and developmental stages of children and their different perceptions and reactions to pain) and variations in procedural conditions (e.g. phlebotomy, burn wound dressings, physical therapy sessions), and consequent level of pain experienced, made statistical pooling of data impossible. We narratively describe results.\nWe judged most studies to be at unclear risk of selection bias, high risk of performance and detection bias, and high risk of bias for small sample sizes. Across all comparisons and outcomes, we downgraded the certainty of evidence to low or very low due to serious study limitations and serious or very serious indirectness. We also downgraded some of the evidence for very serious imprecision.\n1: VR distraction versus no distraction\nAcute pain intensity: during procedure\nSelf-report: one study (42 participants) found no beneficial effect of non-immersive VR (very low-certainty evidence).\nObserver-report: no data.\nBehavioural measurements (observer-report): two studies, 62 participants; low-certainty evidence. One study (n = 42) found no beneficial effect of non-immersive VR. One study (n = 20) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR.\nAcute pain intensity: post-procedure\nSelf-report: 10 studies, 461 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Four studies (n = 95) found no beneficial effect of immersive and semi-immersive or non-immersive VR. Five studies (n = 357) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR. Another study (n = 9) reported less pain in the VR group.\nObserver-report: two studies (216 participants; low-certainty evidence) found a beneficial effect of immersive VR, as reported by primary caregiver/parents or nurses. One study (n = 80) found a beneficial effect of immersive VR, as reported by researchers.\nBehavioural measurements (observer-report): one study (42 participants) found no beneficial effect of non-immersive VR (very low-certainty evidence).\nAdverse effects: five studies, 154 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Three studies (n = 53) reported no adverse effects. Two studies (n = 101) reported mild adverse effects (e.g. nausea) in the VR group.\n2: VR distraction versus other non-VR distraction\nAcute pain intensity:during procedure\nSelf-report, observer-report and behavioural measurements (observer-report): two studies, 106 participants:\nSelf-report: one study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR and one (n = 41) found no evidence of a difference in mean pain change scores (very low-certainty evidence).\nObserver-report: one study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR and one (n = 41) found no evidence of a difference in mean pain change scores (low-certainty evidence).\nBehavioural measurements (observer-report): one study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR and one (n = 41) reported a difference in mean pain change scores with fewer pain behaviours in VR group (low-certainty evidence).\nAcute pain intensity: post-procedure\nSelf-report: eight studies, 575 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Two studies (n = 146) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR. Two studies (n = 252) reported a between-group difference favouring immersive VR. One study (n = 59) found no beneficial effect of immersive VR versus television and Child Life non-VR distraction. One study (n = 18) found no beneficial effect of semi-immersive VR. Two studies (n = 100) reported no between-group difference.\nObserver-report: three studies, 187 participants; low-certainty evidence. One study (n = 81) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR for parent, nurse and researcher reports. One study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR for caregiver reports. Another study (n = 41) reported no evidence of a difference in mean pain change scores.\nBehavioural measurements (observer-report): two studies, 106 participants; low-certainty evidence. One study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR. Another study (n = 41) reported no evidence of a difference in mean pain change scores.\nAdverse effects: six studies, 429 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Three studies (n = 229) found no evidence of a difference between groups. Two studies (n = 141) reported no adverse effects in VR group. One study (n = 59) reported no beneficial effect in reducing estimated cyber-sickness before and after VR immersion.\n3: VR distraction versus other VR distraction\nWe did not identify any studies for this comparison.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found low-certainty and very low-certainty evidence of the effectiveness of VR distraction compared to no distraction or other non-VR distraction in reducing acute pain intensity in children in any healthcare setting. This level of uncertainty makes it difficult to interpret the benefits or lack of benefits of VR distraction for acute pain in children. Most of the review primary outcomes were assessed by only two or three small studies. We found limited data for adverse effects and other secondary outcomes. Future well-designed, large, high-quality trials may have an important impact on our confidence in the results.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The evidence in this Cochrane Review is current to October 2019." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSeveral liver diseases have been associated with oxidative stress. Accordingly, antioxidants have been suggested as potential therapeutics for various liver diseases. The evidence supporting these suggestions is equivocal.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of antioxidant supplements for patients with liver diseases.\nSearch methods\nWe searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science to January 2011. We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and asked experts and pharmaceutical companies for additional trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered for inclusion randomised trials that compared antioxidant supplements (beta-carotene, vitamin A, C, E, and selenium) versus placebo or no intervention for autoimmune liver diseases, viral hepatitis, alcoholic liver disease, and cirrhosis (any aetiology).\nData collection and analysis\nFour authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. Outcome measures were all-cause mortality, liver-related mortality, liver-related morbidity, biochemical indices at maximum follow-up in the individual trials as well as adverse events, quality-of-life measures, and cost-effectiveness. For patients with hepatitis B or C we also considered end of treatment and sustained virological response. We conducted random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses. Results were presented as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI).\nMain results\nTwenty randomised trials with 1225 participants were included. The trials assessed beta-carotene (3 trials), vitamin A (2 trials), vitamin C (9 trials), vitamin E (15 trials), and selenium (8 trials). The majority of the trials had high risk of bias and showed heterogeneity. Overall, the assessed antioxidant supplements had no significant effect on all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60 to 1.19, I2 = 0%), or liver-related mortality (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.05, I2 = 37%). Stratification according to the type of liver disease did not affect noticeably the results. Antioxidant supplements significantly increased activity of gamma glutamyl transpeptidase (MD 24.21 IU/l, 95% CI 6.67 to 41.75, I2 = 0%).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no evidence to support or refute antioxidant supplements in patients with liver disease. Antioxidant supplements may increase liver enzyme activity.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, and vitamin E cannot be recommended for treatment of liver diseases.\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "An imbalance between too much oxidative stress and too little antioxidative defence has been suggested to cause a variety of liver diseases. Therefore, antioxidant supplements (beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, and selenium) could have a potential role in patients with liver disease. The evidence on whether antioxidant supplements are effective in treatment of liver diseases is contradictory.\nIn this review treatment with antioxidant supplements of alcoholic, autoimmune, hepatitis B or hepatitis C virus liver diseases, or liver cirrhosis is assessed. The review includes 20 randomised clinical trials. In total, 1225 participants were randomised to antioxidant supplements (beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, and selenium) versus placebo or no intervention. The low number of randomised participants increases the risk of random errors ('play of chance'). Trial quality was low and accordingly the risk of systematic errors ('bias') was high.\nBased on the conducted randomised clinical trials, convincing evidence that beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, and vitamin E or their combinations are beneficial for treatment of alcoholic, autoimmune, hepatitis B or hepatitis C virus liver diseases, or liver cirrhosis could not be found." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nRecent progress in understanding the genetic basis of breast cancer and widely publicized reports of celebrities undergoing risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) have increased interest in RRM as a method of preventing breast cancer. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2004 and previously updated in 2006 and 2010.\nObjectives\n(i) To determine whether risk-reducing mastectomy reduces death rates from any cause in women who have never had breast cancer and in women who have a history of breast cancer in one breast, and (ii) to examine the effect of risk-reducing mastectomy on other endpoints, including breast cancer incidence, breast cancer mortality, disease-free survival, physical morbidity, and psychosocial outcomes.\nSearch methods\nFor this Review update, we searched Cochrane Breast Cancer's Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 9 July 2016. We included studies in English.\nSelection criteria\nParticipants included women at risk for breast cancer in at least one breast. Interventions included all types of mastectomy performed for the purpose of preventing breast cancer.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently abstracted data from each report. We summarized data descriptively; quantitative meta-analysis was not feasible due to heterogeneity of study designs and insufficient reporting. We analyzed data separately for bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) and contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (CRRM). Four review authors assessed the methodological quality to determine whether or not the methods used sufficiently minimized selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, and attrition bias.\nMain results\nAll 61 included studies were observational studies with some methodological limitations; randomized trials were absent. The studies presented data on 15,077 women with a wide range of risk factors for breast cancer, who underwent RRM.\nTwenty-one BRRM studies looking at the incidence of breast cancer or disease-specific mortality, or both, reported reductions after BRRM, particularly for those women with BRCA1/2 mutations. Twenty-six CRRM studies consistently reported reductions in incidence of contralateral breast cancer but were inconsistent about improvements in disease-specific survival. Seven studies attempted to control for multiple differences between intervention groups and showed no overall survival advantage for CRRM. Another study showed significantly improved survival following CRRM, but after adjusting for bilateral risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (BRRSO), the CRRM effect on all-cause mortality was no longer significant.\nTwenty studies assessed psychosocial measures; most reported high levels of satisfaction with the decision to have RRM but greater variation in satisfaction with cosmetic results. Worry over breast cancer was significantly reduced after BRRM when compared both to baseline worry levels and to the groups who opted for surveillance rather than BRRM, but there was diminished satisfaction with body image and sexual feelings.\nSeventeen case series reporting on adverse events from RRM with or without reconstruction reported rates of unanticipated reoperations from 4% in those without reconstruction to 64% in participants with reconstruction.\nIn women who have had cancer in one breast, removing the other breast may reduce the incidence of cancer in that other breast, but there is insufficient evidence that this improves survival because of the continuing risk of recurrence or metastases from the original cancer. Additionally, thought should be given to other options to reduce breast cancer risk, such as BRRSO and chemoprevention, when considering RRM.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhile published observational studies demonstrated that BRRM was effective in reducing both the incidence of, and death from, breast cancer, more rigorous prospective studies are suggested. BRRM should be considered only among those at high risk of disease, for example, BRCA1/2 carriers. CRRM was shown to reduce the incidence of contralateral breast cancer, but there is insufficient evidence that CRRM improves survival, and studies that control for multiple confounding variables are recommended. It is possible that selection bias in terms of healthier, younger women being recommended for or choosing CRRM produces better overall survival numbers for CRRM. Given the number of women who may be over-treated with BRRM/CRRM, it is critical that women and clinicians understand the true risk for each individual woman before considering surgery. Additionally, thought should be given to other options to reduce breast cancer risk, such as BRRSO and chemoprevention when considering RRM.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Given the number of women who may be over-treated with BRRM/CRRM, it is critical that women and clinicians understand the true risk for each individual woman before considering surgery. Additionally, thought should be given to other options to reduce breast cancer risk, such as BRRSO and chemoprevention, when considering RRM." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAsthma is a respiratory disease characterised by variable airflow limitation and the presence of respiratory symptoms including wheeze, chest tightness, cough and/or dyspnoea. Exercise training is beneficial for people with asthma; however, the response to conventional models of pulmonary rehabilitation is less clear.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate, in adults with asthma, the effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation compared to usual care on exercise performance, asthma control, and quality of life (co-primary outcomes), incidence of severe asthma exacerbations/hospitalisations, mental health, muscle strength, physical activity levels, inflammatory biomarkers, and adverse events.\nSearch methods\nWe identified studies from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, from their inception to May 2021, as well as the reference lists of all primary studies and review articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials in which pulmonary rehabilitation was compared to usual care in adults with asthma. Pulmonary rehabilitation must have included a minimum of four weeks (or eight sessions) aerobic training and education or self-management. Co-interventions were permitted; however, exercise training alone was not.\nData collection and analysis\nFollowing the use of Cochrane's Screen4Me workflow, two review authors independently screened and selected trials for inclusion, extracted study characteristics and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We contacted study authors to retrieve missing data. We calculated between-group effects via mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) using a random-effects model. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using GRADE methodology.\nMain results\nWe included 10 studies involving 894 participants (range 24 to 412 participants (n = 2 studies involving n > 100, one contributing to meta-analysis), mean age range 27 to 54 years). We identified one ongoing study and three studies awaiting classification. One study was synthesised narratively, and another involved participants specifically with asthma-COPD overlap. Most programmes were outpatient-based, lasting from three to four weeks (inpatient) or eight to 12 weeks (outpatient). Education or self-management components included breathing retraining and relaxation, nutritional advice and psychological counselling. One programme was specifically tailored for people with severe asthma.\nPulmonary rehabilitation compared to usual care may increase maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max) after programme completion, but the evidence is very uncertain for data derived using mL/kg/min (MD between groups of 3.63 mL/kg/min, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.48 to 5.77; 3 studies; n = 129) and uncertain for data derived from % predicted VO2 max (MD 14.88%, 95% CI 9.66 to 20.1%; 2 studies; n = 60). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of pulmonary rehabilitation compared to usual care on incremental shuttle walk test distance (MD between groups 74.0 metres, 95% CI 26.4 to 121.4; 1 study; n = 30). Pulmonary rehabilitation may have little to no effect on VO2 max at longer-term follow up (9 to 12 months), but the evidence is very uncertain (MD −0.69 mL/kg/min, 95% CI −4.79 to 3.42; I2 = 49%; 3 studies; n = 66).\nPulmonary rehabilitation likely improves functional exercise capacity as measured by 6-minute walk distance, with MD between groups after programme completion of 79.8 metres (95% CI 66.5 to 93.1; 5 studies; n = 529; moderate certainty evidence). This magnitude of mean change exceeds the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) threshold for people with chronic respiratory disease. The evidence is very uncertain about the longer-term effects one year after pulmonary rehabilitation for this outcome (MD 52.29 metres, 95% CI 0.7 to 103.88; 2 studies; n = 42).\nPulmonary rehabilitation may result in a small improvement in asthma control compared to usual care as measured by Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), with an MD between groups of −0.46 (95% CI −0.76 to −0.17; 2 studies; n = 93; low certainty evidence); however, data derived from the Asthma Control Test were very uncertain (MD between groups 3.34, 95% CI −2.32 to 9.01; 2 studies; n = 442). The ACQ finding approximates the MCID of 0.5 points. Pulmonary rehabilitation results in little to no difference in asthma control as measured by ACQ at nine to 12 months follow-up (MD 0.09, 95% CI −0.35 to 0.53; 2 studies; n = 48; low certainty evidence).\nPulmonary rehabilitation likely results in a large improvement in quality of life as assessed by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (MD −18.51, 95% CI −20.77 to −16.25; 2 studies; n = 440; moderate certainty evidence), with this magnitude of change exceeding the MCID. However, pulmonary rehabilitation may have little to no effect on Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) total scores, with the evidence being very uncertain (MD 0.87, 95% CI −0.13 to 1.86; 2 studies; n = 442). Longer-term follow-up data suggested improvements in quality of life may occur as measured by SGRQ (MD −13.4, 95% CI −15.93 to −10.88; 2 studies; n = 430) but not AQLQ (MD 0.58, 95% CI −0.23 to 1.38; 2 studies; n = 435); however, the evidence is very uncertain.\nOne study reported no difference between groups in the proportion of participants who experienced an asthma exacerbation during the intervention period. Data from one study suggest adverse events attributable to the intervention are rare.\nOverall risk of bias was most commonly impacted by performance bias attributed to a lack of participant blinding to knowledge of the intervention. This is inherently challenging to overcome in rehabilitation studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate certainty evidence shows that pulmonary rehabilitation is probably associated with clinically meaningful improvements in functional exercise capacity and quality of life upon programme completion in adults with asthma. The certainty of evidence relating to maximal exercise capacity was very low to low. Pulmonary rehabilitation appears to confer minimal effect on asthma control, although the certainty of evidence is very low to low. Unclear reporting of study methods and small sample sizes limits our certainty in the overall body of evidence, whilst heterogenous study designs and interventions likely contribute to inconsistent findings across clinical outcomes and studies. There remains considerable scope for future research.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is pulmonary rehabilitation?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Supervised programmes of exercise and education (called pulmonary rehabilitation) are commonly used for people with chronic lung conditions and help improve breathing, fitness, and wellbeing. These programmes may be based at hospitals, outpatient clinics, or even at home.\nPulmonary rehabilitation is a recommended standard of care for many chronic lung conditions; however, its effects in adults with asthma are less clear." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nWomen with a diagnosis of breast cancer may experience short- and long-term disease and treatment-related adverse physiological and psychosocial outcomes. These outcomes can negatively impact prognosis, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and psychosocial and physical function. Physical activity may help to improve prognosis and may alleviate the adverse effects of adjuvant therapy.\nObjectives\nTo assess effects of physical activity interventions after adjuvant therapy for women with breast cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group (CBCG) Specialised Registry, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, on 18 September 2015. We also searched OpenGrey and Healthcare Management Information Consortium databases.\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing physical activity interventions versus control (e.g. usual or standard care, no physical activity, no exercise, attention control, placebo) after adjuvant therapy (i.e. after completion of chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, but not hormone therapy) in women with breast cancer.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted trial authors to ask for additional information when needed. We calculated an overall effect size with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome and used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for the most important outcomes.\nMain results\nWe included 63 trials that randomised 5761 women to a physical activity intervention (n = 3239) or to a control (n = 2524). The duration of interventions ranged from 4 to 24 months, with most lasting 8 or 12 weeks (37 studies). Twenty-eight studies included aerobic exercise only, 21 involved aerobic exercise and resistance training, and seven used resistance training only. Thirty studies described the comparison group as usual or standard care, no intervention, or control. One-fifth of studies reported at least 20% intervention attrition and the average physical activity adherence was approximately 77%.\nNo data were available on effects of physical activity on breast cancer-related and all-cause mortality, or on breast cancer recurrence. Analysis of immediately postintervention follow-up values and change from baseline to end of intervention scores revealed that physical activity interventions resulted in significant small-to-moderate improvements in HRQoL (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.39, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.57, 22 studies, 1996 women; SMD 0.78, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.17, 14 studies, 1459 women, respectively; low-quality evidence), emotional function (SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.32, 26 studies, 2102 women, moderate-quality evidence; SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.53, 15 studies, 1579 women, respectively; low-quality evidence), perceived physical function (SMD 0.33, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.49, 25 studies, 2129 women; SMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.97, 13 studies, 1433 women, respectively; moderate-quality evidence), anxiety (SMD -0.57, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.19, 7 studies, 326 women; SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.12, 4 studies, 235 women, respectively; low-quality evidence), and cardiorespiratory fitness (SMD 0.44, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.58, 23 studies, 1265 women, moderate-quality evidence; SMD 0.83, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.27, 9 studies, 863 women, respectively; very low-quality evidence).\nInvestigators reported few minor adverse events.\nSmall improvements in physical activity interventions were sustained for three months or longer postintervention in fatigue (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.26; SMD -0.47, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.11, respectively), cardiorespiratory fitness (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.69; SMD 0.42, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.79, respectively), and self-reported physical activity (SMD 0.44, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.72; SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.93, respectively) for both follow-up values and change from baseline scores.\nHowever, evidence of heterogeneity across trials was due to variation in intervention components (i.e. mode, frequency, intensity, duration of intervention and sessions) and measures used to assess outcomes. All trials reviewed were at high risk of performance bias, and most were also at high risk of detection, attrition, and selection bias. In light of the aforementioned issues, we determined that the evidence was of very low, low, or moderate quality.\nAuthors' conclusions\nNo conclusions regarding breast cancer-related and all-cause mortality or breast cancer recurrence were possible. However, physical activity interventions may have small-to-moderate beneficial effects on HRQoL, and on emotional or perceived physical and social function, anxiety, cardiorespiratory fitness, and self-reported and objectively measured physical activity. The positive results reported in the current review must be interpreted cautiously owing to very low-to-moderate quality of evidence, heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures, imprecision of some estimates, and risk of bias in many trials. Future studies with low risk of bias are required to determine the optimal combination of physical activity modes, frequencies, intensities, and durations needed to improve specific outcomes among women who have undergone adjuvant therapy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We rated the quality of evidence related to various aspects of health as very low, low, or moderate. We noted wide variation among the interventions that we looked at in terms of types of PA, frequency of sessions per week, levels of effort among participants, and session and intervention duration. Also, researchers measured aspects of health in many different ways. Other problems with eligible studies included lack of information on how study authors placed participants in groups at random, whether researchers who were carrying out the tests knew which group the person being tested belonged to, and how researchers dealt with data missing from their studies. In many aspects, we could not rule out the chance that positive effects observed were small enough that they were not important. It is also possible that smaller studies that have not found favourable effects of PA in women with breast cancer after treatment have not been published, because study authors often find it difficult to publish studies that have not found beneficial effects." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nErythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are commonly used to treat chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). However, about half of patients do not benefit.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms related to the use of iron as a supplement to ESA and iron alone compared with ESA alone in the management of CIA.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for relevant trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (issue 1 January 2016), MEDLINE (1950 to February 2016), and www.clinicaltrials.gov without using any language limits.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 'iron plus ESA' or 'iron alone' versus 'ESA alone' in people with CIA were eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included eight RCTs (12 comparisons) comparing ESA plus iron versus ESA alone enrolling 2087 participants. We did not find any trial comparing iron alone versus ESAs alone in people with CIA. None of the included RCTs reported overall survival. There was a beneficial effect of iron supplementation to ESAs compared with ESAs alone on hematopoietic response (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 1.26; P < 0.0001; 1712 participants; 11 comparisons; high-quality evidence). Assuming a baseline risk of 35% to 80% for hematopoietic response without iron supplementation, between seven and 16 patients should be treated to achieve hematopoietic response in one patient. In subgroup analyses, RCTs that used intravenous (IV) iron favored ESAs and iron (RR 1.20 (95% CI 1.10 to 1.31); P < 0.00001; 1321 participants; eight comparisons), whereas we found no evidence for a difference in hematopoietic response in RCTs using oral iron (RR 1.04 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.24); P = 0.68; 391 participants; three comparisons). There was no evidence for a difference between the subgroups of IV and oral iron (P = 0.16). There was no evidence for a difference between the subgroups of types of iron (P = 0.31) and types of ESAs (P = 0.16) for hematopoietic response.\nThe iron supplementation to ESAs might be beneficial as fewer participants treated with iron supplementation required red blood cell (RBC) transfusions compared to the number of participants treated with ESAs alone (RR 0.74 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.92); P = 0.007; 1719 participants; 11 comparisons; moderate-quality evidence). Assuming a baseline risk of 7% to 40% for RBC transfusion without iron supplementation, between 10 and 57 patients should be treated to avoid RBC transfusion in one patient.\nWe found no evidence for a difference in the median time to hematopoietic response with addition of iron to ESAs (hazard ratio (HR) 0.93 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.28); P = 0.65; 1042 participants; seven comparisons; low-quality evidence). In subgroup analyses, RCTs in which dextran (HR 0.95 (95% CI 0.36 to 2.52); P = 0.92; 340 participants; three comparisons), sucrose iron (HR 1.15 (95% CI 0.60 to 2.21); P = 0.67; 102 participants; one comparison) and sulfate iron (HR 1.24 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.56); P = 0.06; 55 participants; one comparison) were used showed no evidence for difference between iron supplementation versus ESAs alone compared with RCTs in which gluconate (HR 0.78 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.94); P = 0.01; 464 participants; two comparisons) was used for median time to hematopoietic response (P = 0.02). There was no evidence for a difference between the subgroups of route of iron administration (P = 0.13) and types of ESAs (P = 0.46) for median time to hematopoietic response.\nOur results indicated that there could be improvement in the hemoglobin (Hb) levels with addition of iron to ESAs (mean difference (MD) 0.48 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.86); P = 0.01; 827 participants; seven comparisons; low-quality evidence). In RCTs in which IV iron was used there was evidence for a difference (MD 0.84 (95% CI 0.21 to 1.46); P = 0.009; 436 participants; four comparisons) compared with oral iron (MD 0.07 (95% CI -0.19 to 0.34); P = 0.59; 391 participants; three comparisons) for mean change in Hb level (P = 0.03). RCTs in which dextran (MD 1.55 (95% CI 0.62 to 2.47); P = 0.001; 102 participants; two comparisons) was used showed evidence for a difference with iron supplementation versus ESAs alone compared with RCTs in which gluconate (MD 0.54 (95% CI -0.15 to 1.22); P = 0.12; 334 participants; two comparisons) and sulfate iron (MD 0.07 (95% CI -0.19 to 0.34); P = 0.59; 391 participants; three comparisons) were used for mean change in Hb level (P = 0.007). RCTs in which epoetin was used showed evidence for a difference with iron supplementation versus ESAs alone (MD 0.77 (95% CI 0.25 to 1.29); P = 0.004; 337 participants; five comparisons) compared with darbepoetin use (MD 0.10 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.33); P = 0.38; 490 participants; two comparisons) for mean change in Hb level (P = 0.02).\nWe found no evidence for a difference in quality of life with addition of iron to ESAs (standardized mean difference 0.01 (95% CI -0.10 to 0.12); P = 0.88; 1124 participants; three RCTs; high-quality evidence).\nWe found no evidence for a difference in risk of grade III-IV thromboembolic events (RR 0.95 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.65); P = 0.85; 783 participants; three RCTs; moderate-quality evidence). The incidence of treatment-related mortality (TRM) was 0% (997 participants; four comparisons; high-quality evidence).\nOther common adverse events included vomiting, asthenia, and leukopenia, and were similar in both arms.\nOverall the risk of bias across outcomes was high to low. Since the included RCTs had shorter follow-up duration (up to 20 weeks), the long-term effects of iron supplementation are unknown. Our main reasons for downgrading the quality of evidence were inconsistency across the included studies and imprecision of results.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur systematic review shows that addition of iron to ESAs offers superior hematopoietic response, reduces the risk of RBC transfusions, and improves Hb levels, and appears to be well tolerated. None of the included RCTs reported overall survival. We found no evidence for a difference in quality of life with iron supplementation.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study funding source\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "All the included trials were industry funded." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAutism spectrum disorder (autism) is a neurodevelopmental condition characterised by impairments in social communication and interaction, plus restricted, repetitive patterns of behaviour and interests. Whilst some people embrace autism as part of their identity, others struggle with their difficulties, and some seek treatment. There are no current interventions that result in complete reduction of autism features.\nAcetylcholine is a neurotransmitter for the cholinergic system and has a role in attention, novelty seeking, and memory. Low levels of acetylcholine have been investigated as a potential contributor to autism symptomatology. Donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine (commonly referred to as acetylcholinesterase inhibitors) all inhibit acetylcholinesterase, and have slightly different modes of action and biological availability, so their effectiveness and side-effect profiles may vary. The effect of various acetylcholinesterase inhibitor on core autism features across the lifespan, and possible adverse effects, have not been thoroughly investigated.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and harms of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors for people with the core features (social interaction, communication, and restrictive and repetitive behaviours) of autism.\nTo assess the effects of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors on non-core features of autism.\nSearch methods\nIn November 2022, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, eight other databases, and two trials registers. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews, and contacted authors of relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparing acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (e.g. galantamine, donepezil, or rivastigmine) of varying doses, delivered orally or via transdermal patch, either as monotherapy or adjunct therapy, with placebo. People of any age, with a clinical diagnosis of autism were eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were core features of autism and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were language, irritability, hyperactivity, and general health and function. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included two RCTs (74 participants). One study was conducted in Iran, the second in the USA, although exact location in the USA is unclear.\nGalantamine plus risperidone versus placebo plus risperidone\nOne study compared the effects of galantamine plus risperidone to placebo plus risperidone (40 participants, aged 4 years to 12 years). Primary and secondary outcomes of interest were measured postintervention, using subscales of the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (score 0 to 3; higher scores = greater impairment). Very low-certainty evidence showed there was little to no difference between the two groups postintervention for social communication (mean difference (MD) -2.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.88 to 0.38), and restricted and repetitive behaviour (MD -0.55, 95% CI -3.47 to 2.37). Overall autism features were not assessed. Adverse events may be higher in the galantamine plus risperidone group (75%) compared with the placebo plus risperidone group (35%): odds ratio 5.57, 95% CI 1.42 to 21.86, low-certainty evidence. No serious adverse events were reported. Low-certainty evidence showed a small difference in irritability (MD -3.50, 95% CI -6.39 to -0.61), with the galantamine plus risperidone group showing a greater decline on the irritability subscale than the placebo group postintervention. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in hyperactivity postintervention (MD -5.20, 95% CI -10.51 to 0.11). General health and function were not assessed.\nDonepezil versus placebo\nOne study compared donepezil to placebo (34 participants aged 8 years to 17 years). Primary outcomes of interest were measured postintervention, using subscales of the Modified Version of The Real Life Rating Scale (scored 0 to 3; higher scores = greater impairment). Very low-certainty evidence showed no evidence of group differences immediately postintervention in overall autism features (MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.33), or in the autism symptom domains of social communication (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.30), and restricted and repetitive behaviours (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.35). Significant adverse events leading to study withdrawal in at least one participant was implied in the data analysis section, but not explicitly reported. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of donepezil, compared to placebo, on the secondary outcomes of interest, including irritability (MD 1.08, 95% CI -0.41 to 2.57), hyperactivity (MD 2.60, 95% CI 0.50 to 4.70), and general health and function (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.54) postintervention.\nAcross all analyses within this comparison, we judged the evidence to be very low-certainty due to high risk of bias, and very serious imprecision (results based on one small study with wide confidence intervals). The study narratively reported adverse events for the study as a whole, rather than by treatment group.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence about the effectiveness of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors as a medication to improve outcomes for autistic adults is lacking, and for autistic children is very uncertain.\nThere is a need for more evidence of improvement in outcomes of relevance to clinical care, autistic people, and their families. There are a number of ongoing studies involving acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, and future updates of this review may add to the current evidence.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main results of the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "It is unclear if acetylcholinesterase inhibitors make any difference to the core features of autism in children or adults.\nGalantamine may cause little to no difference in social interaction and communication skills and irritability levels in children with autism after 10 weeks of treatment. There is no evidence that galantamine reduces difficulties associated with restricted or repetitive behaviours or hyperactivity. Galantamine may also cause some side effects, including nervousness, drowsiness, increased appetite, and tremor.\nThere is no evidence that donepezil reduces difficulties associated with the core features of autism or associated secondary problems. We were unable to find out whether it causes unwanted side effects in children with autism, because the study did not report the results completely." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPostpartum mini-laparotomy tubal ligation (PPTL) is a contraceptive method that works by interrupting the patency of the fallopian tubes. Several methods are used for intraoperative pain relief, such as systemic administration of opioids or intraperitoneal instillation of lidocaine.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of and adverse effects associated with interventions for pain relief in women undergoing PPTL.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for eligible studies published on or before 31 July 2017 in the CENTRAL Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We examined review articles and searched registers of ongoing clinical trials, citation lists of included studies, key textbooks, grey literature, and previous systematic reviews for potentially relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared perioperative pain relief measures during PPTL.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles of potentially relevant studies for inclusion. We extracted the data from the included studies, assessed risk of bias, and calculated and compared results. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or by consulting a third review author. We computed the inverse variance risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous variables.\nMain results\nWe found only three RCTs, in which a total of 230 postpartum women participated. Most of our analyses were based on relatively small numbers of patients and studies. Overall, the certainty of evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions was low, due to risk of bias and imprecision. We found very low-certainty evidence regarding the safety of interventions because of risk of bias and imprecision. Two studies had unclear risk of selection bias. One study had unclear risk of reporting bias and a high risk of other bias associated with the study protocol.\nWomen who received an intraperitoneal instillation of lidocaine experienced lower intensity intraperitoneal pain than those given a placebo (pooled MD -3.34, 95% CI -4.19 to -2.49, three studies, 190 participants, low-certainty evidence), or an intramuscular injection of morphine (MD -4.8, 95% CI -6.43 to -3.17, one study, 40 participants, low-certainty evidence). We found no clear difference in intraperitoneal pain between women who had an intramuscular injection of morphine added to an intraperitoneal instillation of lidocaine and those who had an intraperitoneal instillation of lidocaine alone (MD -0.40, 95% CI -1.52 to 0.72, one study, 40 participants, low-certainty evidence). An intramuscular injection of morphine alone was not effective for intraperitoneal pain relief compared to placebo (MD 0.50, 95% CI -1.33 to 2.33, one study, 40 women, low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported any serious adverse events but the evidence was very low-certainty. Intraperitoneal instillation of lidocaine may reduce the number of women requiring additional pain control when compared to placebo (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.44, three studies, 190 women, low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nAn intraperitoneal instillation of lidocaine during postpartum mini-laparotomy tubal ligation before fallopian tubes were tied may offer better intraperitoneal pain control, although the evidence regarding adverse effects is uncertain. We found no clear difference in intraperitoneal pain between women who received a combination of an injection of morphine, and intraperitoneal instillation of lidocaine and those who received an intraperitoneal instillation of lidocaine alone. These results must be interpreted with caution, since the evidence overall was low to very low-certainty.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The aim of this review was to compare interventions for intraoperative pain relief with other interventions or no intervention, during mini-laparotomy (small surgical incision through the abdominal wall) tubal ligation (uterine tubes tied) after delivery." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOvarian cancer is the seventh most common cancer among women and the leading cause of death in women with gynaecological malignancies. Opinions differ regarding the role of ultra-radical (extensive) cytoreductive surgery in ovarian cancer treatment.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and morbidity associated with ultra-radical/extensive surgery in the management of advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (2021, Issue 11), MEDLINE Ovid and Embase Ovid up to November 2021. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised studies (NRS), analysed using multivariate methods, that compared ultra-radical/extensive and standard surgery in women with advanced primary epithelial ovarian cancer.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria, abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We identified three NRS and conducted meta-analyses where possible.\nMain results\nWe identified three retrospective observational studies for inclusion in the review. Two studies included women exclusively undergoing upfront primary debulking surgery (PDS) and the other study including both PDS and interval debulking surgical (IDS) procedures. All studies were at critical risk of bias due to retrospective and non-randomised study designs.\nMeta-analysis of two studies, assessing 397 participants, found that women who underwent radical procedures, as part of PDS, may have a lower risk of mortality compared to women who underwent standard surgery (adjusted HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. The results were robust to a sensitivity analysis including women with more-extensive disease (carcinomatosis) (adjusted HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.85; I2 = 0%; n = 283, very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain.\nOne study reported a comparison of radical versus standard surgical procedures associated with both PDS and IDS procedures, but a multivariate analysis was only undertaken for disease-free survival (DFS) and therefore the certainty of the evidence was not assessable for overall survival (OS) and remains very low. The lack of reporting of OS meant the study was at high risk of bias for selective reporting of outcomes.\nOne study, 203 participants, found that women who underwent radical procedures as part of PDS may have a lower risk of disease progression or death compared to women who underwent standard surgery (adjusted HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.92; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. The results were robust to a sensitivity analysis in one study including women with carcinomatosis (adjusted HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.82; n = 139; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain.\nA combined analysis in one study found that women who underwent radical procedures (using both PDS and IDS) may have an increased chance of disease progression or death than those who received standard surgery (adjusted HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.31; I2 = 0%; n = 527; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. In absolute and unadjusted terms, the DFS was 19.3 months in the standard surgery group, 15.8 in the PDS group and 15.9 months in the IDS group.\nAll studies were at critical risk of bias and we only identified very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes reported in the review. Perioperative mortality, adverse events and quality of life (QoL) outcomes were either not reported or inadequately reported in the included studies. Two studies reported perioperative mortality (death within 30 days of surgery), but they did not use any statistical adjustment. In total, there were only four deaths within 30 days of surgery in both studies. All were observed in the standard surgery group, but we did not report a risk ratio (RR) to avoid potentially misleading results with so few deaths and very low-certainty evidence. Similarly, one study reported postoperative morbidity, but the authors did not use any statistical adjustment. Postoperative morbidity occurred more commonly in women who received ultra-radical surgery compared to standard surgery, but the certainty of the evidence was very low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found only very low-certainty evidence comparing ultra-radical surgery and standard surgery in women with advanced ovarian cancer. The evidence was limited to retrospective, NRSs and so is at critical risk of bias. The results may suggest that ultra-radical surgery could result in improved OS, but results are based on very few women who were chosen to undergo each intervention, rather than a randomised study and intention-to-treat analysis, and so the evidence is very uncertain. Results for progression/DFS were inconsistent and evidence was sparse. QoL and morbidity was incompletely or not reported in the three included studies.\nA separate prognostic review assessing residual disease as a prognostic factor in this area has been addressed elsewhere, which demonstrates the prognostic effect of macroscopic debulking to no macroscopic residual disease.\nIn order to aid existing guidelines, the role of ultra-radical surgery in the management of advanced-stage ovarian cancer could be addressed through the conduct of a sufficiently powered, RCT comparing ultra-radical and standard surgery, or well-designed NRSs, if this is not possible.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We identified three non-randomised studies. The evidence is very limited and uncertain for all results since women were chosen to undergo each type of treatment, rather than randomly allocated, so there is a very high (critical) risk of bias in these types of studies.\nIn two studies (397 women), women who had radical surgery to remove the tumour may have 18% to 57% less chance of death compared to women who had standard surgery. The results were similar for women with more-extensive disease. There were very few deaths within 30 days of surgery. There may be less chance of disease progression with radical surgery.\nOne study compared radical versus standard surgery associated with both upfront primary (tumour removed before starting chemotherapy) and interval debulking (tumour removed between chemotherapy sessions) surgery on death, but the comparison was not fair and there was high risk of bias for reporting of outcomes.\nOne study (203 women) found that women who had radical procedures as part of upfront primary debulking surgery may have 8% to 58% less chance of disease progression or death compared to women who had standard surgery. The results were similar when including only the 139 women with more-extensive disease (where risk was 18% to 67% lower).\nOne analysis (527 women) merging radical surgery groups in one study found that women who underwent ultra-radical procedures (using both upfront primary and interval debulking surgical procedures) may be associated with 11% to 60% increased chance of disease progression or death than those who received standard surgery.\nAll studies were at very high (critical) risk of bias and we were very unsure about the evidence. We included relatively few women due to our stringent inclusion criteria. Studies either did not report or inadequately reported death, side effects or quality of life." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPrimary autoimmune haemolytic anaemia (AIHA) is an autoantibody mediated condition characterised by a variable disease course. A myriad of immunomodulatory agents have been employed but there is a paucity of evidence to support their use or compare their effectiveness.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effects of various disease-modifying treatment modalities in people with AHIHA.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE (Ovid) (1946 to 2021), Embase (Ovid) (1974 to 2021), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to 2021), and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL). Clinical trial registries and relevant conference proceedings were also reviewed. Records were included as of 7 March 2021. We did not impose any language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory treatments against no treatment, placebo, or another immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory treatment, for people of all age with idiopathic AIHA.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The prioritised pre-defined outcomes included complete haematological response at 12 months, frequency of adverse events at two, six and 12 months, partial haematological response at 12 months, overall survival at six and 12 months, relapse-free survival (RFS) at six and 12 months, red blood cel (RBC) transfusion requirement after treatment at 12 months, and quality of life (QOL) as measured by validated instruments at 12 months. Based on data availability, we were only able to perform meta-analysis on frequency of complete haematological response.\nMain results\nTwo trials were included, enrolling a total of 104 adult participants (96 randomised) with warm AIHA in the setting of tertiary referral centres, both comparing the effectiveness between rituximab (375 mg/m2 weekly for four weeks, or 1000 mg for two doses two weeks apart) plus glucocorticoid (prednisolone 1.5 or 1mg/kg/day with taper) and glucocorticoid monotherapy. The average age of participants in the two trials were 67 and 71, respectively. One of the included studies had good methodological quality with low risk of bias, whereas the other study had high risk of performance and detection bias due to lack of blinding. Compared with glucocorticoid alone, adding rituximab may result in a large increase of complete response at 12 months (n = 96, risk ratio (RR) 2.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 3.40, GRADE: low-certainty evidence).\nRates of adverse effects at prespecified time-points were not reported.\nLimited data on partial haematological response were reported. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of adding rituximab to glucocorticoids on partial haematological response at 12 months (n = 32; study = 1; RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 68.57; GRADE very low-certainty evidence).\nRBC transfusion need at 12 months was reported in one study, with four participants (mean number of packed red cell units 4.0 ± 2.82) from the rituximab group and five participants from the placebo (corticosteroid only) (mean number of packed red cell units 5.6 ± 4.15) group requiring transfusion, indicating very uncertain evidence about the effect of adding rituximab to glucocorticoids (n = 32, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.45, GRADE very low-certainty evidence). The other study did not report transfusion requirement at prespecified time points but reported no difference in transfusion requirement between the two groups when comparing responders from enrolment to end of response or to the end of study follow-up (34 units versus 30 units, median [range]: 0 [1 to 6] versus 0 [1 to 5], P = 0·81).\nOverall survival and RFS rates at prespecified time-points were not explicitly reported in either study. Data on QOL were not available.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAvailable literature on the effectiveness of immunomodulatory therapy for primary AIHA is restricted to comparison between rituximab plus glucocorticoid and glucocorticoid alone, in patients with newly diagnosed warm AIHA, calling for need for additional studies. The current result suggests that combinatory therapy with rituximab and glucocorticoid may increase the rate of complete haematological response over glucocorticoid monotherapy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Recovery after treatment\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "" } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nBetween 4% and 25% of school-aged children at some stage complain of recurrent abdominal pain (RAP) of sufficient severity to interfere with their daily lives. When no clear organic cause is found, the children are managed with reassurance and simple measures; a large range of pharmacological interventions have been recommended for use in these children.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for RAP in children of school age.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and eight other electronic databases up to June 2016. We also searched two trials registers and contacted researchers of published studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials involving children aged five to 18 years old with RAP or an abdominal pain-related functional gastrointestinal disorder, as defined by the Rome III criteria (Rasquin 2006). The interventions were any pharmacological intervention compared to placebo, no treatment, waiting list, or standard care. The primary outcome measures were pain intensity, pain duration or pain frequency, and improvement in pain. The secondary outcome measures were school performance, social or psychological functioning, and quality of daily life.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and potentially relevant full-text reports for eligible studies. Two review authors extracted data and performed a 'Risk of bias' assessment. We used the GRADE approach to rate the overall quality of the evidence. We deemed a meta-analysis to be not appropriate as the studies were significantly heterogeneous. We have consequently provided a narrative summary of the results.\nMain results\nThis review included 16 studies with a total of 1024 participants aged between five and 18 years, all of whom were recruited from paediatric outpatient clinics. Studies were conducted in seven countries: seven in the USA, four in Iran, and one each in the UK, Switzerland, Turkey, Sri Lanka, and India. Follow-up ranged from two weeks to four months. The studies examined the following interventions to treat RAP: tricyclic antidepressants, antibiotics, 5-HT4 receptor agonists, antispasmodics, antihistamines, H2 receptor antagonists, serotonin antagonists, selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, a dopamine receptor antagonist, and a hormone. Although some single studies reported that treatments were effective, all of these studies were either small or had key methodological weaknesses with a substantial risk of bias. None of these 'positive' results have been reproduced in subsequent studies. We judged the evidence of effectiveness to be of low quality. No adverse effects were reported in these studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently no convincing evidence to support the use of drugs to treat RAP in children. Well-conducted clinical trials are needed to evaluate any possible benefits and risks of pharmacological interventions. In practice, if a clinician chooses to use a drug as a 'therapeutic trial', they and the patient need to be aware that RAP is a fluctuating condition and any 'response' may reflect the natural history of the condition or a placebo effect, rather than drug efficacy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "This review suggests there is no evidence for the use of medications to improve symptoms or the child's quality of life. Consequently, if medications are prescribed, this should be done within a well-conducted clinical trial. If a medication is prescribed to a child with RAP, it must be remembered that RAP varies with time, and therefore any improvement or worsening may due to the natural history of the condition rather than a medication response." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAdjuvant tamoxifen reduces the risk of breast cancer recurrence in women with oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Tamoxifen also increases the risk of postmenopausal bleeding, endometrial polyps, hyperplasia, and endometrial cancer. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) causes profound endometrial suppression. This systematic review considered the evidence that the LNG-IUS prevents the development of endometrial pathology in women taking tamoxifen as adjuvant endocrine therapy for breast cancer.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness and safety of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in pre- and postmenopausal women taking adjuvant tamoxifen following breast cancer for the outcomes of endometrial and uterine pathology including abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting, and secondary breast cancer events.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases on 29 June 2020; The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group specialised register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group specialised register on 4 March 2020. We also searched two trials registers, checked references for relevant trials and contacted study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with breast cancer on adjuvant tamoxifen that compared the effectiveness of the LNG-IUS with endometrial surveillance versus endometrial surveillance alone on the incidence of endometrial pathology.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary outcome measure was endometrial pathology (including polyps, endometrial hyperplasia, or endometrial cancer), diagnosed at hysteroscopy or endometrial biopsy. Secondary outcome measures included fibroids, abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting, breast cancer recurrence, and breast cancer-related deaths. We rated the overall certainty of evidence using GRADE methods.\nMain results\nWe included four RCTs (543 women analysed) in this review. We judged the certainty of the evidence to be moderate for all of the outcomes, due to imprecision (i.e. limited sample sizes and low event rates). In the included studies, the active treatment arm was the 20 μg/day LNG-IUS plus endometrial surveillance; the control arm was endometrial surveillance alone.\nIn tamoxifen users, the LNG-IUS probably reduces the incidence of endometrial polyps compared to the control group over both a 12-month period (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.64, I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, n = 212; moderate-certainty evidence) and over a long-term follow-up period (24 to 60 months) (Peto OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.39; I² = 0%; 4 RCTs, n = 417; moderate-certainty evidence). For long-term follow-up, this suggests that if the incidence of endometrial polyps following endometrial surveillance alone is assumed to be 23.5%, the incidence following LNG-IUS with endometrial surveillance would be between 3.8% and 10.7%.\nThe LNG-IUS probably slightly reduces the incidence of endometrial hyperplasia compared with controls over a long-term follow-up period (24 to 60 months) (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.67; I² = 0%; 4 RCTs, n = 417; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of endometrial hyperplasia following endometrial surveillance alone is assumed to be 2.8%, the chance following LNG-IUS with endometrial surveillance would be between 0.1% and 1.9%. However, it should be noted that there were only six cases of endometrial hyperplasia.\nThere was insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion regarding the incidence of endometrial cancer in tamoxifen users, as no studies reported cases of endometrial cancer.\nAt 12 months of follow-up, the LNG-IUS probably increases abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting compared to the control group (Peto OR 7.26, 95% CI 3.37 to 15.66; I² = 0%; 3 RCTs, n = 376; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting following endometrial surveillance alone is assumed to be 1.7%, the chance following LNG-IUS with endometrial surveillance would be between 5.6% and 21.5%. By 24 months of follow-up, abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting occurs less frequently than at 12 months of follow-up, but is still more common in the LNG-IUS group than the control group (Peto OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.04 to 7.10; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, n = 233; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting following endometrial surveillance alone is assumed to be 4.2%, the chance following LNG-IUS with endometrial surveillance would be between 4.4% and 23.9%. By 60 months of follow-up, there were no cases of abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting in either group.\nThe numbers of events for the following outcomes were low: fibroids (n = 13), breast cancer recurrence (n = 18), and breast cancer-related deaths (n = 16). As a result, there is probably little or no difference in these outcomes between the LNG-IUS treatment group and the control group.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe LNG-IUS probably slightly reduces the incidence of benign endometrial polyps and endometrial hyperplasia in women with breast cancer taking tamoxifen. At 12 and 24 months of follow-up, the LNG-IUS probably increases abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting among women in the treatment group compared to those in the control. Data were lacking on whether the LNG-IUS prevents endometrial cancer in these women. There is no clear evidence from the available RCTs that the LNG-IUS affects the risk of breast cancer recurrence or breast cancer-related deaths. Larger studies are necessary to assess the effects of the LNG-IUS on the incidence of endometrial cancer, and to determine whether the LNG-IUS might have an impact on the risk of secondary breast cancer events.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We judged the certainty of the evidence to be moderate because the studies only included a limited number of women and there were not many events. Larger studies are necessary to assess the effects of the LNG-IUS on the incidence of endometrial cancer, and the impact of the LNG-IUS on the risk of secondary breast cancer events." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nExercise training is commonly recommended for individuals with fibromyalgia. This review is one of a series of reviews about exercise training for fibromyalgia that will replace the review titled \"Exercise for treating fibromyalgia syndrome\", which was first published in 2002.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of mixed exercise training protocols that include two or more types of exercise (aerobic, resistance, flexibility) for adults with fibromyalgia against control (treatment as usual, wait list control), non exercise (e.g. biofeedback), or other exercise (e.g. mixed versus flexibility) interventions.\nSpecific comparisons involving mixed exercise versus other exercises (e.g. resistance, aquatic, aerobic, flexibility, and whole body vibration exercises) were not assessed.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Thesis and Dissertations Abstracts, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), the Physiotherapy Evidence Databese (PEDro), Current Controlled Trials (to 2013), WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to December 2017, unrestricted by language, to identify all potentially relevant trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with a diagnosis of fibromyalgia that compared mixed exercise interventions with other or no exercise interventions. Major outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQL), pain, stiffness, fatigue, physical function, withdrawals, and adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and the quality of evidence for major outcomes using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 29 RCTs (2088 participants; 98% female; average age 51 years) that compared mixed exercise interventions (including at least two of the following: aerobic or cardiorespiratory, resistance or muscle strengthening exercise, and flexibility exercise) versus control (e.g. wait list), non-exercise (e.g. biofeedback), and other exercise interventions. Design flaws across studies led to selection, performance, detection, and selective reporting biases. We prioritised the findings of mixed exercise compared to control and present them fully here.\nTwenty-one trials (1253 participants) provided moderate-quality evidence for all major outcomes but stiffness (low quality). With the exception of withdrawals and adverse events, major outcome measures were self-reported and expressed on a 0 to 100 scale (lower values are best, negative mean differences (MDs) indicate improvement; we used a clinically important difference between groups of 15% relative difference). Results for mixed exercise versus control show that mean HRQL was 56 and 49 in the control and exercise groups, respectively (13 studies; 610 participants) with absolute improvement of 7% (3% better to 11% better) and relative improvement of 12% (6% better to 18% better). Mean pain was 58.6 and 53 in the control and exercise groups, respectively (15 studies; 832 participants) with absolute improvement of 5% (1% better to 9% better) and relative improvement of 9% (3% better to 15% better). Mean fatigue was 72 and 59 points in the control and exercise groups, respectively (1 study; 493 participants) with absolute improvement of 13% (8% better to 18% better) and relative improvement of 18% (11% better to 24% better). Mean stiffness was 68 and 61 in the control and exercise groups, respectively (5 studies; 261 participants) with absolute improvement of 7% (1% better to 12% better) and relative improvement of 9% (1% better to 17% better). Mean physical function was 49 and 38 in the control and exercise groups, respectively (9 studies; 477 participants) with absolute improvement of 11% (7% better to 15% better) and relative improvement of 22% (14% better to 30% better). Pooled analysis resulted in a moderate-quality risk ratio for all-cause withdrawals with similar rates across groups (11 per 100 and 12 per 100 in the control and intervention groups, respectively) (19 studies; 1065 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.51) with an absolute change of 1% (3% fewer to 5% more) and a relative change of 11% (28% fewer to 47% more). Across all 21 studies, no injuries or other adverse events were reported; however some participants experienced increased fibromyalgia symptoms (pain, soreness, or tiredness) during or after exercise. However due to low event rates, we are uncertain of the precise risks with exercise. Mixed exercise may improve HRQL and physical function and may decrease pain and fatigue; all-cause withdrawal was similar across groups, and mixed exercises may slightly reduce stiffness. For fatigue, physical function, HRQL, and stiffness, we cannot rule in or out a clinically relevant change, as the confidence intervals include both clinically important and unimportant effects.\nWe found very low-quality evidence on long-term effects. In eight trials, HRQL, fatigue, and physical function improvement persisted at 6 to 52 or more weeks post intervention but improvements in stiffness and pain did not persist. Withdrawals and adverse events were not measured.\nIt is uncertain whether mixed versus other non-exercise or other exercise interventions improve HRQL and physical function or decrease symptoms because the quality of evidence was very low. The interventions were heterogeneous, and results were often based on small single studies. Adverse events with these interventions were not measured, and thus uncertainty surrounds the risk of adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCompared to control, moderate-quality evidence indicates that mixed exercise probably improves HRQL, physical function, and fatigue, but this improvement may be small and clinically unimportant for some participants; physical function shows improvement in all participants. Withdrawal was similar across groups. Low-quality evidence suggests that mixed exercise may slightly improve stiffness. Very low-quality evidence indicates that we are 'uncertain' whether the long-term effects of mixed exercise are maintained for all outcomes; all-cause withdrawals and adverse events were not measured. Compared to other exercise or non-exercise interventions, we are uncertain about the effects of mixed exercise because we found only very low-quality evidence obtained from small, very heterogeneous trials. Although mixed exercise appears to be well tolerated (similar withdrawal rates across groups), evidence on adverse events is scarce, so we are uncertain about its safety. We downgraded the evidence from these trials due to imprecision (small trials), selection bias (e.g. allocation), blinding of participants and care providers or outcome assessors, and selective reporting.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Health-related quality of life (HRQL)\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "After 5 to 26 weeks, people who exercised were 7% better (3% better to 11% better) or improved by 7 points on a 100 point scale.\nPeople who exercised rated their HRQL at 49 points.\nPeople in the control group rated their HRQL at 56 points." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOveractive bladder (OAB) is a common chronic and bothersome condition. Bladder training is widely prescribed as a first-line treatment for OAB, but the efficacy has been systematically evaluated for urinary incontinence rather than OAB alone.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of bladder training for treating adults with OAB compared to no treatment, anticholinergics, β3-adrenoceptor agonists, or pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) alone or in combination.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 6 November 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials involving adults aged 18 years or older with non-neurogenic OAB. We excluded studies of participants whose symptoms were caused by factors outside the urinary tract (e.g. neurologic disorders, cognitive impairment, gynecologic diseases).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. participant-reported cure or improvement, 2. symptom- and condition-related quality of life (QoL), and 3. adverse events. Secondary outcomes included 4. participant-reported satisfaction, 5. number of incontinence episodes, 6. number of urgency episodes, and 7. number of micturition episodes. For the purpose of this review, we considered two time points: immediately after the treatment (early phase) and at least two months after the treatment (late phase). We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 15 trials with 2007 participants; participants in these trials were predominantly women (89.3%). We assessed the risk of bias of results for primary and secondary outcomes, which across all studies was similar and predominantly of high risk of bias, and none were at low risk of bias. The certainty of evidence was low to very low, with some moderate, across measured outcomes.\nBladder training versus no treatment: three studies involving 92 participants compared bladder training to no treatment. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of bladder training on cure or improvement at the early phase (risk ratio (RR) 17.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 256.56; 1 study, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Bladder training may reduce the number of incontinence episodes (mean difference (MD) −1.86, 95% CI −3.47 to −0.25; 1 study, 14 participants; low-certainty evidence). No studies measured symptom- and condition-related QoL, number of adverse events, participant-reported satisfaction, number of urgency episodes, or number of micturition episodes in the early phase.\nBladder training versus anticholinergics: seven studies (602 participants) investigated the effects of bladder training versus anticholinergic therapy. Bladder training may be more effective than anticholinergics on cure or improvement at the early phase (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.70; 4 studies, 258 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of bladder training on symptom- and condition-related QoL (standardized mean difference (SMD) −0.06, 95% CI −0.89 to 0.77; 2 studies, 117 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Although the evidence is very uncertain, there were fewer adverse events in the bladder training group than in the anticholinergics group (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.17; 3 studies, 187 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours (MD 0.36, 95% CI −0.27 to 1.00; 2 studies, 117 participants; very low-certainty evidence), the number of urgency episodes per 24 hours (MD 0.70, 95% CI −0.62 to 2.02; 2 studies, 92 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the number of micturition episodes per 24 hours (MD −0.35, 95% CI −1.90 to 1.20; 3 studies, 175 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies measured participant-reported satisfaction in the early phase.\nBladder training versus PFMT: three studies involving 203 participants compared bladder training to PFMT. The evidence is very uncertain about the different effects between bladder training and PFMT on symptom- and condition-related QoL at the early phase (SMD 0.10, 95% CI −0.19 to 0.40; 2 studies, 178 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were no adverse events in either group at the early phase (1 study, 97 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain about the effects of the number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours (MD 0.02, 95% CI −0.35 to 0.39, 1 study, 81 participants; low-certainty evidence) and very uncertain about the number of micturition episodes per 24 hours (MD 0.10, 95% CI −1.44 to 1.64; 1 study, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies measured cure or improvement, participant-reported satisfaction, or number of urgency episodes in the early phase.\nAlthough we were interested in studies examining bladder training versus β3-adrenoceptor agonists, in combination with β3-adrenoceptor agonists versus β3-adrenoceptor agonists alone, and in combination with PFMT versus PFMT alone, we did not identify any eligible studies for these comparisons.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review focused on the effect of bladder training to treat OAB. However, most of the evidence was low or very-low certainty. Based on the low- or very low-certainty evidence, bladder training may cure or improve OAB compared to no treatment. Bladder training may be more effective to cure or improve OAB than anticholinergics, and there may be fewer adverse events. There may be no difference in efficacy or safety between bladder training and PFMT. More well-designed trials are needed to reach a firm conclusion.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up to date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The evidence is up to date to 6 November 2022." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAsthma is a chronic disease that causes reversible narrowing of the airways due to bronchoconstriction, inflammation and mucus production. Asthma continues to be associated with significant avoidable morbidity and mortality. Self management facilitated by a healthcare professional is important to keep symptoms controlled and to prevent exacerbations.\nTelephone and Internet technologies can now be used by patients to measure lung function and asthma symptoms at home. Patients can then share this information electronically with their healthcare provider, who can provide feedback between clinic visits. Technology can be used in this manner to improve health outcomes and prevent the need for emergency treatment for people with asthma and other long-term health conditions.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of home telemonitoring with healthcare professional feedback between clinic visits, compared with usual care.\nSearch methods\nWe identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Review Group Specialised Register (CAGR) up to May 2016. We also searched www.clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal and reference lists of other reviews, and we contacted trial authors to ask for additional information.\nSelection criteria\nWe included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults or children with asthma in which any form of technology was used to measure and share asthma monitoring data with a healthcare provider between clinic visits, compared with other monitoring or usual care. We excluded trials in which technologies were used for monitoring with no input from a doctor or nurse. We included studies reported as full-text articles, those published as abstracts only and unpublished data.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors screened the search and independently extracted risk of bias and numerical data, resolving disagreements by consensus.\nWe analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) while using study participants as the unit of analysis, and continuous data as mean differences (MDs) while using random-effects models. We rated evidence for all outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group) approach.\nMain results\nWe found 18 studies including 2268 participants: 12 in adults, 5 in children and one in individuals from both age groups. Studies generally recruited people with mild to moderate persistent asthma and followed them for between three and 12 months. People in the intervention group were given one of a variety of technologies to record and share their symptoms (text messaging, Web systems or phone calls), compared with a group of people who received usual care or a control intervention.\nEvidence from these studies did not show clearly whether asthma telemonitoring with feedback from a healthcare professional increases or decreases the odds of exacerbations that require a course of oral steroids (OR 0.93, 95% confidence Interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.44; 466 participants; four studies), a visit to the emergency department (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.58; 1018 participants; eight studies) or a stay in hospital (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.49; 1042 participants; 10 studies) compared with usual care. Our confidence was limited by imprecision in all three primary outcomes. Evidence quality ratings ranged from moderate to very low. None of the studies recorded serious or non-serious adverse events separately from asthma exacerbations.\nEvidence for measures of asthma control was imprecise and inconsistent, revealing possible benefit over usual care for quality of life (MD 0.23, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.45; 796 participants; six studies; I2 = 54%), but the effect was small and study results varied. Telemonitoring interventions may provide additional benefit for two measures of lung function.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrent evidence does not support the widespread implementation of telemonitoring with healthcare provider feedback between asthma clinic visits. Studies have not yet proven that additional telemonitoring strategies lead to better symptom control or reduced need for oral steroids over usual asthma care, nor have they ruled out unintended harms. Investigators noted small benefits for quality of life, but these are subject to risk of bias, as the studies were unblinded. Similarly, some benefits for lung function are uncertain owing to possible attrition bias.\nLarger pragmatic studies in children and adults could better determine the real-world benefits of these interventions for preventing exacerbations and avoiding harms; it is difficult to generalise results from this review because benefits may be explained at least in part by the increased attention participants receive by taking part in clinical trials. Qualitative studies could inform future research by focusing on patient and provider preferences, or by identifying subgroups of patients who are more likely to attain benefit from closer monitoring, such as those who have frequent asthma attacks.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Regular contact with a doctor or an asthma nurse is important to keep on top of asthma symptoms and to change inhalers if necessary. Telephone and Internet technologies are now used for lots of long-term health conditions as a way of monitoring symptoms between visits to a clinic. For asthma, lung function and other asthma symptoms can be measured at home and information sent electronically to the doctor or nurse, who can decide whether action needs to be taken before the person is due to come back to the clinic." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) is common in infants, and feed thickeners are often used to manage it in infants as they are simple to use and perceived to be harmless. However, conflicting evidence exists to support the use of feed thickeners.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the use of feed thickeners in infants up to six months of age with GOR in terms of reduction in a) signs and symptoms of GOR, b) reflux episodes on pH probe monitoring or intraluminal impedance or a combination of both, or c) histological evidence of oesophagitis.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 22 November 2016), Embase (1980 to 22 November 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 22 November 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials if they examined the effects of feed thickeners as compared to unthickened feeds (no treatment or placebo) in treating GOR in term infants up to six months of age or six months of corrected gestational age for those born preterm.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently identified eligible studies from the literature search. Two review authors independently performed data extraction and quality assessments of the eligible studies. Differences in opinion were resolved by discussion with a third review author, and consensus was reached among all three review authors. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.\nMain results\nEight trials recruiting a total of 637 infants met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. The infants included in the review were mainly formula-fed term infants. The trials were of variable methodological quality. Formula-fed term infants with GOR on feed thickeners had nearly two fewer episodes of regurgitation per day (mean difference -1.97 episodes per day, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.32 to -1.61; 6 studies, 442 infants, moderate-certainty evidence) and were 2.5 times more likely to be asymptomatic from regurgitation at the end of the intervention period (risk ratio 2.50, 95% CI 1.38 to 4.51; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome 5, 95% CI 4 to 13; 2 studies, 186 infants, low-certainty evidence) when compared to infants with GOR on unthickened feeds. No studies reported failure to thrive as an outcome. We found low-certainty evidence based on 2 studies recruiting 116 infants that use of feed thickeners improved the oesophageal pH probe parameters of reflux index (i.e. percentage of time pH < 4), number of reflux episodes lasting longer than 5 minutes, and duration of longest reflux episode. No major side effects were reported with the use of feed thickeners. Information was insufficient to conclude which type of feed thickener is superior.\nAuthors' conclusions\nGastro-oesophageal reflux is a physiological self resolving phenomenon in infants that does not necessarily require any treatment. However, we found moderate-certainty evidence that feed thickeners should be considered if regurgitation symptoms persist in term bottle-fed infants. The reduction of two episodes of regurgitation per day is likely to be of clinical significance to caregivers. Due to the limited information available, we were unable to assess the use of feed thickeners in infants who are breastfeeding or preterm nor could we conclude which type of feed thickener is superior.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We examined the research published up to 22 November 2016. We found 8 clinical trials recruiting 637 babies up to 6 months of age who presented with symptoms of GOR. The recruited babies were mainly 'healthy' term babies (i.e. babies born within three weeks of the due date) who were bottle feeding. Three of the studies were funded by a pharmaceutical company, hence the quality of the evidence presented must be interpreted with caution." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe World Health Organization (WHO) recommends treating all school children at regular intervals with deworming drugs in areas where helminth infection is common. Global advocacy organizations claim routine deworming has substantive health and societal effects beyond the removal of worms. In this update of the 2015 edition we included six new trials, additional data from included trials, and addressed comments and criticisms.\nObjectives\nTo summarize the effects of public health programmes to regularly treat all children with deworming drugs on child growth, haemoglobin, cognition, school attendance, school performance, physical fitness, and mortality.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; Embase; LILACS; the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT); reference lists; and registers of ongoing and completed trials up to 19 September 2018.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared deworming drugs for soil-transmitted helminths (STHs) with placebo or no treatment in children aged 16 years or less, reporting on weight, height, haemoglobin, and formal tests of cognition. We also sought data on other measures of growth, school attendance, school performance, physical fitness, and mortality.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion, risk of bias, and extracted data. We analysed continuous data using the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where data were missing, we contacted trial authors. We stratified the analysis based on the background burden of STH infection. We used outcomes at time of longest follow-up. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe identified 51 trials, including 10 cluster-RCTs, that met the inclusion criteria. One trial evaluating mortality included over one million children, and the remaining 50 trials included a total of 84,336 participants. Twenty-four trials were in populations categorized as high burden, including nine trials in children selected because they were helminth-stool positive; 18 with intermediate burden; and nine as low burden.\nFirst or single dose of deworming drugs\nFourteen trials reported on weight after a single dose of deworming drugs (4970 participants, 14 RCTs). The effects were variable. There was little or no effect in studies conducted in low and intermediate worm burden groups. In the high-burden group, there was little or no effect in most studies, except for a large effect detected from one study area in Kenya reported in two trials carried out over 30 years ago. These trials result in qualitative heterogeneity and uncertainty in the meta-analysis across all studies (I2 statistic = 90%), with GRADE assessment assessed as very low-certainty, which means we do not know if a first dose or single dose of deworming impacts on weight.\nFor height, most studies showed little or no effect after a single dose, with one of the two trials in Kenya from 30 years ago showing a large average difference (2621 participants, 10 trials, low-certainty evidence). Single dose probably had no effect on average haemoglobin (MD 0.10 g/dL, 95% CI 0.03 lower to 0.22 higher; 1252 participants, five trials, moderate-certainty evidence), or on average cognition (1596 participants, five trials, low-certainty evidence). The data are insufficient to know if there is an effect on school attendance and performance (304 participants, one trial, low-certainty evidence), or on physical fitness (280 participants, three trials, very low-certainty evidence). No trials reported on mortality.\nMultiple doses of deworming drugs\nThe effect of regularly treating children with deworming drugs given every three to six months on weight was reported in 18 trials, with follow-up times of between six months and three years; there was little or no effect on average weight in all but two trials, irrespective of worm prevalence-intensity. The two trials with large average weight gain included one in the high burden area in Kenya carried out over 30 years ago, and one study from India in a low prevalence area where subsequent studies in the same area did not show an effect. This heterogeneity causes uncertainty in any meta-analysis (I2 = 78%). Post-hoc analysis excluding trials published prior to 2000 gave an estimate of average difference in weight gain of 0.02 kg (95%CI from 0.04 kg loss to 0.08 gain, I2 = 0%). Thus we conclude that we do not know if repeated doses of deworming drugs impact on average weight, with a fewer older studies showing large gains, and studies since 2000 showing little or no average gain.\nRegular treatment probably had little or no effect on the following parameters: average height (MD 0.02 cm higher, 95% CI 0.09 lower to 0.13 cm higher; 13,700 participants, 13 trials, moderate-certainty evidence); average haemoglobin (MD 0.01 g/dL lower; 95% CI 0.05 g/dL lower to 0.07 g/dL higher; 5498 participants, nine trials, moderate-certainty evidence); formal tests of cognition (35,394 participants, 8 trials, moderate-certainty evidence); school performance (34,967 participants, four trials, moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence assessing an effect on school attendance is inconsistent, and at risk of bias (mean attendance 2% higher, 95% CI 5% lower to 8% higher; 20,650 participants, three trials, very low-certainty evidence). No trials reported on physical fitness. No effect was shown on mortality (1,005,135 participants, three trials, low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nPublic health programmes to regularly treat all children with deworming drugs do not appear to improve height, haemoglobin, cognition, school performance, or mortality. We do not know if there is an effect on school attendance, since the evidence is inconsistent and at risk of bias, and there is insufficient data on physical fitness. Studies conducted in two settings over 20 years ago showed large effects on weight gain, but this is not a finding in more recent, larger studies. We would caution against selecting only the evidence from these older studies as a rationale for contemporary mass treatment programmes as this ignores the recent studies that have not shown benefit.\nThe conclusions of the 2015 edition have not changed in this update.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Authors' conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "For public health programmes to regularly treat all children in endemic areas with deworming drugs, there is quite substantial evidence of no benefit in terms of haemoglobin, cognition, school performance, and mortality. For weight, contemporary studies do not show an effect, but unusually large effects were seen in studies over 20 years ago." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMelanoma has one of the fastest rising incidence rates of any cancer. It accounts for a small percentage of skin cancer cases but is responsible for the majority of skin cancer deaths. History-taking and visual inspection of a suspicious lesion by a clinician is usually the first in a series of ‘tests’ to diagnose skin cancer. Establishing the accuracy of visual inspection alone is critical to understating the potential contribution of additional tests to assist in the diagnosis of melanoma.\nObjectives\nTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of visual inspection for the detection of cutaneous invasive melanoma and atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants in adults with limited prior testing and in those referred for further evaluation of a suspicious lesion. Studies were separated according to whether the diagnosis was recorded face-to-face (in-person) or based on remote (image-based) assessment.\nSearch methods\nWe undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases from inception up to August 2016: CENTRAL; CINAHL; CPCI; Zetoc; Science Citation Index; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register; NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database; and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We studied reference lists and published systematic review articles.\nSelection criteria\nTest accuracy studies of any design that evaluated visual inspection in adults with lesions suspicious for melanoma, compared with a reference standard of either histological confirmation or clinical follow-up. We excluded studies reporting data for ‘clinical diagnosis’ where dermoscopy may or may not have been used.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted all data using a standardised data extraction and quality assessment form (based on QUADAS-2). We contacted authors of included studies where information related to the target condition or diagnostic threshold were missing. We estimated summary sensitivities and specificities per algorithm and threshold using the bivariate hierarchical model. We investigated the impact of: in-person test interpretation; use of a purposely developed algorithm to assist diagnosis; and observer expertise.\nMain results\nWe included 49 publications reporting on a total of 51 study cohorts with 34,351 lesions (including 2499 cases), providing 134 datasets for visual inspection. Across almost all study quality domains, the majority of study reports provided insufficient information to allow us to judge the risk of bias, while in three of four domains that we assessed we scored concerns regarding applicability of study findings as 'high'. Selective participant recruitment, lack of detail regarding the threshold for deciding on a positive test result, and lack of detail on observer expertise were particularly problematic.\nAttempts to analyse studies by degree of prior testing were hampered by a lack of relevant information and by the restricted inclusion of lesions selected for biopsy or excision. Accuracy was generally much higher for in-person diagnosis compared to image-based evaluations (relative diagnostic odds ratio of 8.54, 95% CI 2.89 to 25.3, P < 0.001). Meta-analysis of in-person evaluations that could be clearly placed on the clinical pathway showed a general trade-off between sensitivity and specificity, with the highest sensitivity (92.4%, 95% CI 26.2% to 99.8%) and lowest specificity (79.7%, 95% CI 73.7% to 84.7%) observed in participants with limited prior testing (n = 3 datasets). Summary sensitivities were lower for those referred for specialist assessment but with much higher specificities (e.g. sensitivity 76.7%, 95% CI 61.7% to 87.1%) and specificity 95.7%, 95% CI 89.7% to 98.3%) for lesions selected for excision, n = 8 datasets). These differences may be related to differences in the spectrum of included lesions, differences in the definition of a positive test result, or to variations in observer expertise. We did not find clear evidence that accuracy is improved by the use of any algorithm to assist diagnosis in all settings. Attempts to examine the effect of observer expertise in melanoma diagnosis were hindered due to poor reporting.\nAuthors' conclusions\nVisual inspection is a fundamental component of the assessment of a suspicious skin lesion; however, the evidence suggests that melanomas will be missed if visual inspection is used on its own. The evidence to support its accuracy in the range of settings in which it is used is flawed and very poorly reported. Although published algorithms do not appear to improve accuracy, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that the ‘no algorithm’ approach should be preferred in all settings. Despite the volume of research evaluating visual inspection, further prospective evaluation of the potential added value of using established algorithms according to the prior testing or diagnostic difficulty of lesions may be warranted.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The review authors searched for and used studies published up to August 2016." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIschaemic heart disease including heart failure is the most common cause of death in the world, and the incidence of the condition is rapidly increasing. Heart failure is characterised by symptoms such as fatigue and breathlessness during light activity, as well as disordered breathing during sleep. In particular, sleep disordered breathing (SDB), including central sleep apnoea (CSA) and obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA), is highly prevalent in people with chronic heart failure. A previous meta-analysis demonstrated that positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy dramatically increased the survival rate of people with heart failure who had CSA, and thus could contribute to improving the prognosis of these individuals. However, recent trials found that adaptive servo-ventilation (ASV) including PAP therapy had a higher risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. A meta-analysis that included recent trials was therefore needed.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of positive airway pressure therapy for people with heart failure who experience central sleep apnoea.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection on 7 February 2019 with no limitations on date, language, or publication status. We also searched two clinical trials registers in July 2019 and checked the reference lists of primary studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe excluded cross-over trials and included individually randomised controlled trials, reported as full-texts, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted outcome data from the included studies. We double-checked that data had been entered correctly by comparing the data presented in the systematic review with study reports. We analysed dichotomous data as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and continuous data as mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs. Furthermore, we performed subgroup analysis in the ASV group or continuous PAP group separately. We used GRADEpro GDT software to assess the quality of evidence as it relates to those studies that contribute data to the meta-analyses for the prespecified outcomes.\nMain results\nWe included 16 randomised controlled trials involving a total of 2125 participants. The trials evaluated PAP therapy consisting of ASV or continuous PAP therapy for 1 to 31 months. Many trials included participants with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Only one trial included participants with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.\nWe are uncertain about the effects of PAP therapy on all-cause mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.21; participants = 1804; studies = 6; I2 = 47%; very low-quality evidence). We found moderate-quality evidence of no difference between PAP therapy and usual care on cardiac-related mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.24; participants = 1775; studies = 5; I2 = 11%). We found low-quality evidence of no difference between PAP therapy and usual care on all-cause rehospitalisation (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30; participants = 1533; studies = 5; I2 = 40%) and cardiac-related rehospitalisation (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.35; participants = 1533; studies = 5; I2 = 40%). In contrast, PAP therapy showed some indication of an improvement in quality of life scores assessed by all measurements (SMD −0.32, 95% CI −0.67 to 0.04; participants = 1617; studies = 6; I2 = 76%; low-quality evidence) and by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MD −0.51, 95% CI −0.78 to −0.24; participants = 1458; studies = 4; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) compared with usual care. Death due to pneumonia (N = 1, 3% of PAP group); cardiac arrest (N = 18, 3% of PAP group); heart transplantation (N = 8, 1% of PAP group); cardiac worsening (N = 3, 9% of PAP group); deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism (N = 1, 3% of PAP group); and foot ulcer (N = 1, 3% of PAP group) occurred in the PAP therapy group, whereas cardiac arrest (N = 16, 2% of usual care group); heart transplantation (N = 12, 2% of usual care group); cardiac worsening (N = 5, 14% of usual care group); and duodenal ulcer (N = 1, 3% of usual care group) occurred in the usual care group across three trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe effect of PAP therapy on all-cause mortality was uncertain. In addition, although we found evidence that PAP therapy did not reduce the risk of cardiac-related mortality and rehospitalisation, there was some indication of an improvement in quality of life for heart failure patients with CSA. Furthermore, the evidence was insufficient to determine whether adverse events were more common with PAP than with usual care. These findings were limited by low- or very low-quality evidence. PAP therapy may be worth considering for individuals with heart failure to improve quality of life.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Purpose\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "to assess the effects of positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy for people with heart failure who experience CSA." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCompared with people without cancer, people with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE.\nObjectives\nTo compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants (i.e. fixed-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe performed a comprehensive search in the following major databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase (via Ovid). We also handsearched conference proceedings, checked references of included studies, and searched for ongoing studies. This update of the systematic review is based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 August 2021.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in people with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.\nData collection and analysis\nUsing a standardised form, we extracted data – in duplicate – on study design, participants, interventions, outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, symptomatic VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nOf 11,484 identified citations, 3073 were unique citations and 15 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria, none of which were identified in the latest search. These trials enrolled 1615 participants with cancer and VTE: 13 compared LMWH with UFH; one compared fondaparinux with UFH and LMWH; and one compared dalteparin with tinzaparin, two different types of low molecular weight heparin.\nThe meta-analyses showed that LMWH may reduce mortality at three months compared to UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.10; risk difference (RD) 57 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 101 fewer to 17 more; low certainty evidence) and may reduce VTE recurrence slightly (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.76; RD 30 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 70 fewer to 73 more; low certainty evidence). There were no data available for bleeding outcomes, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia.\nThe study comparing fondaparinux with heparin (UFH or LMWH) found that fondaparinux may increase mortality at three months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.81; RD 43 more per 1000, 95% CI 24 fewer to 139 more; low certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference in recurrent VTE (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.54; RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 52 fewer to 63 more; low certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference in major bleeding (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.66; RD 12 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 40 fewer to 44 more; low certainty evidence), and probably increases minor bleeding (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.66; RD 42 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 132 more; moderate certainty evidence). There were no data available for postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia.\nThe study comparing dalteparin with tinzaparin found that dalteparin may reduce mortality slightly (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73; RD 33 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 135 fewer to 173 more; low certainty evidence), may reduce recurrent VTE (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.16; RD 47 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 77 fewer to 98 more; low certainty evidence), may increase major bleeding slightly (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.20 to 23.42; RD 20 more per 1000, 95% CI 14 fewer to 380 more; low certainty evidence), and may reduce minor bleeding slightly (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.21; RD 24 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 95 fewer to 164 more; low certainty evidence). There were no data available for postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is probably superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient-important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review. The decision for a person with cancer to start LMWH therapy should balance the benefits and harms and consider the person's values and preferences.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We judged the certainty of evidence for low molecular weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin to be low for all assessed outcomes; for fondaparinux versus heparin to be low certainty, except for minor bleeding which was moderate certainty; and for tinzaparin versus dalteparin, to be low certainty." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThere are many forms of rhinitis. Patients are diagnosed with non-allergic rhinitis when anatomic, infectious and allergic aetiologies have been excluded. The symptoms, including nasal congestion, blockage or obstruction, clear rhinorrhoea, sneezing and, less frequently, nasal itching, can range from mild to debilitating. It affects between 25% and 50% of patients with rhinitis. Several medications are widely used in the treatment of non-allergic rhinitis, including oral and topical nasal antihistamines, intranasal and (rarely) systemic corticosteroids, and anticholinergics. Capsaicin, the active component of chili peppers, delivered intranasally, is considered a treatment option for non-allergic rhinitis.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of capsaicin in the management of non-allergic rhinitis compared with no therapy, placebo or other topical or systemic medications, or two or more of the above therapies in combination, or different capsaicin regimens.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 5); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 24 June 2015.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials in adult patients with non-allergic rhinitis comparing intranasal capsaicin with no therapy, placebo or other topical or systemic medications, or their combinations.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nWe included four studies (five publications) involving 302 participants with idiopathic non-allergic rhinitis. All the included studies described patients with moderately severe, idiopathic non-allergic rhinitis who were between the ages of 16 and 65. Studies had follow-up periods ranging from four to 38 weeks. The overall risk of bias in the studies was either high or unclear (two studies had overall high risk of bias, while two others had low to unclear risk of bias). Using the GRADE system we assessed the evidence as being of low to moderate quality. A meta-analysis was not possible, given lack of similarity of the reported outcomes.\nTwo studies compared capsaicin with placebo. One study reported that capsaicin resulted in an improvement of overall nasal symptoms (a primary outcome) measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS) of 0 to 10. There was a mean difference (MD) of -3.34 (95% confidence interval (CI) -5.24 to -1.44), MD -3.73 (95% CI -5.45 to -2.01) and MD -3.52 (95% CI -5.55 to -1.48) at two, 12 and 36 weeks post-treatment, respectively. Another study reported that, compared to placebo, capsaicin (at 4 µg/puff) was more likely to produce overall symptom resolution (reduction in nasal blockage, sneezing/itching/coughing and nasal secretion measured with a daily record chart) at four weeks post-treatment (a primary outcome). The risk ratio (RR) was 3.17 (95% CI 1.38 to 7.29).\nOne study compared capsaicin to budesonide (an intranasal corticosteroid). This study found that patients treated with capsaicin had a better overall symptom score compared to those treated with budesonide (MD 2.50, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.94, VAS of 0 to 10). However, there were no differences in the individual symptom scores for headache, postnasal drip, rhinorrhoea, nasal blockage, sneezing and sore throat assessed during the last three days of a four-week treatment.\nOne study compared two different regimens of capsaicin administration: five treatments in one day versus five treatments given every two to three days during two weeks. Using daily record charts, the study reported significant improvement of individual symptom scores for rhinorrhoea in patients treated five times per day, however numerical data were not presented. There were no improvements in the other outcomes: rhinorrhoea, nasal obstruction, sneezing and overall nasal symptoms, measured on a VAS.\nFinally, one of these studies also compared three doses of capsaicin (to placebo). Patients treated with a 1 µg versus 4 µg per puff dose of capsaicin had a worse daily record chart overall symptom score resolution (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.16).\nOnly one study attempted to measure adverse effects (a primary outcome), however due to methodological issues with the assessment we are unable to draw any conclusions.\nWe sought to include other secondary outcomes (e.g. quality of life measures, treatment dropouts, endoscopic scores, turbinate or mucosal size, cost of therapy), but none of these were measured or reported in the included studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCapsaicin may be an option in the treatment of idiopathic non-allergic rhinitis. It is given in the form of brief treatments, usually during the same day. It appears to have beneficial effects on overall nasal symptoms up to 36 weeks after treatment, based on a few, small studies (low-quality evidence). Well-conducted randomised controlled trials are required to further advance our understanding of the effectiveness of capsaicin in non-allergic rhinitis, especially in patients with non-allergic rhinitis of different types and severity, and using different methods of capsaicin application.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Individually, the studies reported that the overall function of the nose in patients with non-allergic rhinitis improved when treated with capsaicin compared to placebo. Capsaicin also seems to work better than another common type of nasal medication, budesonide (a steroid). The best knowledge that we have on capsaicin treatment supports giving it five times in one day, and to use doses of at least 4 micrograms in each puff. We could not combine the results together. The included studies did not have sufficient information to allow us to draw a conclusion about side effects. We also wanted to include other outcomes (e.g. quality of life measures, treatment dropouts, endoscopic scores, turbinate or mucosal size, cost of therapy), but none of these were measured or reported in the included studies." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDuring menopause a decreasing ovarian follicular response generally causes a fluctuation and eventual decrease in estrogen levels. This can lead to the development of various perimenopausal and postmenopausal symptoms (for example hot flushes, night sweats, vaginal dryness). Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) is one of the main precursors of androgens, which in turn are converted to testosterone and estrogens. It is possible that the administration of DHEA may increase estrogen and testosterone levels in peri- and postmenopausal women to alleviate their symptoms and improve general wellbeing and sexual function (for example libido, dyspareunia, satisfaction). Treatment with DHEA is controversial as there is uncertainty about its effectiveness and safety. This review should clearly outline the evidence for DHEA in the treatment of menopausal symptoms and evaluate its effectiveness and safety by combining the results of randomised controlled trials.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of administering DHEA to women with menopausal symptoms in the peri- or postmenopausal phase.\nSearch methods\nThe databases that we searched (3 June 2014) with no language restrictions applied were the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS. We also searched conference abstracts and citation lists in the ISI Web of Knowledge. Ongoing trials were searched in the trials registers. Reference lists of retrieved articles were checked.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing any dose and form of DHEA by any route of administration versus any other active intervention, placebo or no treatment for a minimal treatment duration of seven days in peri- and postmenopausal women.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently extracted data after assessing eligibility for inclusion and quality of studies. Authors were contacted for additional information.\nMain results\nTwenty-eight trials with 1273 menopausal women were included in this review. Data could be extracted from 16 trials to conduct the meta-analysis. The overall quality of the studies was moderate to low with the majority of studies that were included in the meta-analysis having reasonable methodology. Compared to placebo, DHEA did not improve quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.34, P = 0.10, 8 studies, 287 women (132 from parallel and 155 from crossover trials), I² = 0%, moderate quality evidence; one trial of the nine that reported on this outcome was removed in a sensitivity analysis as it was judged to be at high risk of bias). DHEA was found to be associated with androgenic side effects (mainly acne) (odds ratio (OR) 3.77, 95% CI 1.36 to 10.4, P = 0.01, 5 studies, 376 women, I² = 10%, moderate quality evidence) when compared to placebo. No associations were found with other adverse effects. It was unclear whether DHEA affected menopausal symptoms as the results from the trials were inconsistent and could not easily be pooled to provide an overall effect due to different types of measurement (for example continuous, dichotomous, change and end scores). DHEA was found to improve sexual function (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.55, P = 0.01, 5 studies, 261 women (239 women from parallel trials and 22 women from crossover trials), I² = 0%; one trial judged to be at high risk of bias was removed during sensitivity analysis) compared to placebo.\nThere was no difference in the acne associated with DHEA when comparing studies that used oral DHEA (OR 2.16, 95% CI 0.47 to 9.96, P = 0.90, 3 studies, 136 women, I² = 5%, very low quality evidence) to one study that used skin application of DHEA (OR 2.74, 95% CI 0.10 to 74.87, P = 0.90, 1 study, 22 women, very low quality evidence). The effects did not differ for sexual function when studies using oral DHEA (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.35, P = 0.36, 5 studies, 340 women, I² = 0) were compared to a study using intravaginal DHEA (SMD 0.42, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.81, 1 study, 218 women). Test for subgroup differences: Chi² = 1.77, df = 1 (P = 0.18), I² = 43.4%. Insufficient data were available to assess quality of life and menopausal symptoms for this comparison.\nThere were insufficient data available to compare the effects of DHEA to hormone therapy (HT) for quality of life, menopausal symptoms, and adverse effects. No large differences in treatment effects were found for sexual function when comparing DHEA to HT (mean difference (MD) 1.26, 95% CI -0.21 to 2.73, P = 0.09, 2 studies, 41 women, I² = 0%).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no evidence that DHEA improves quality of life but there is some evidence that it is associated with androgenic side effects. There is uncertainty whether DHEA decreases menopausal symptoms, but DHEA may slightly improve sexual function compared with placebo.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Search date\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The evidence was current to 3 June 2014." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOral leukoplakia is a relatively common oral lesion that, in a small proportion of people, precedes the development of oral cancer. Most leukoplakias are asymptomatic; therefore, the primary objective of treatment should be to prevent onset of cancer. This review updates our previous review, published in 2006.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of treatments for leukoplakia in preventing oral cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 16 May 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 16 May 2016), Embase Ovid (1980 to 16 May 2016) and CancerLit via PubMed (1950 to 16 May 2016). We searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (to 10 February 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov (to 16 May 2016) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials (to 16 May 2016). We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people with a diagnosis of oral leukoplakia and compared any treatment versus placebo or no treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nWe collected data using a data extraction form. Oral cancer development, demonstrated by histopathological examination, was our primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were clinical resolution of the lesion, improvement of histological features and adverse events. We contacted trial authors for further details when information was unclear. When valid and relevant data were available, we conducted a meta-analysis of the data using a fixed-effect model when we identified fewer than four studies with no heterogeneity. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of bias in studies by using the Cochrane tool. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence by using standardised criteria (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE)).\nMain results\nWe included 14 studies (909 participants) in this review. Surgical interventions, including laser therapy and cryotherapy, have never been studied by means of an RCT that included a no treatment or placebo arm. The included trials tested a range of medical and complementary treatments, in particular, vitamin A and retinoids (four studies); beta carotene or carotenoids (three studies); non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), specifically ketorolac and celecoxib (two studies); herbal extracts (four studies), including tea components, a Chinese herbal mixture and freeze-dried black raspberry gel; bleomycin (one study); and Bowman-Birk inhibitor (one study).\nWe judged one study to be at low risk of bias, seven at unclear risk and six at high risk. In general, we judged the overall quality of the evidence to be low or very low, so findings are uncertain and further research is needed.\nFive studies recorded cancer incidence, only three of which provided useable data. None of the studies provided evidence that active treatment reduced the risk of oral cancer more than placebo: systemic vitamin A (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.05; 85 participants, one study); systemic beta carotene (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.09; 132 participants, two studies); and topical bleomycin (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 27.83; 20 participants, one study). Follow-up ranged between two and seven years.\nSome individual studies suggested effectiveness of some proposed treatments, namely, systemic vitamin A, beta carotene and lycopene, for achieving clinical resolution of lesions more often than placebo. Similarly, single studies found that systemic retinoic acid and lycopene may provide some benefit in terms of improvement in histological features. Some studies also reported a high rate of relapse.\nSide effects of varying severity were often described; however, it seems likely that interventions were well accepted by participants because drop-out rates were similar between treatment and control groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSurgical treatment for oral leukoplakia has not been assessed in an RCT that included a no treatment or placebo comparison. Nor has cessation of risk factors such as smoking been assessed. The available evidence on medical and complementary interventions for treating people with leukoplakia is very limited. We do not currently have evidence of a treatment that is effective for preventing the development of oral cancer. Treatments such as vitamin A and beta carotene may be effective in healing oral lesions, but relapses and adverse effects are common. Larger trials of longer duration are required to properly evaluate the effects of leukoplakia treatments on the risk of developing oral cancer. High-quality research is particularly needed to assess surgical treatment and to assess the effects of risk factor cessation in people with leukoplakia.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Objectives\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "This review aimed to evaluate whether treatments for oral leukoplakia are effective in preventing oral cancer, and safe and acceptable to patients." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTardive dyskinesia (TD) is a disabling movement disorder associated with the prolonged use of antipsychotic medication. Several strategies have been examined in the treatment of TD. Currently, however, there is no clear evidence of the effectiveness of these drugs in TD and they have been associated with many side effects. One particular strategy would be to use pharmaceutical agents which are known to influence the catecholaminergic system at various junctures.\nObjectives\n1. To determine the effects of any of the following drugs for antipsychotic-induced TD in people with schizophrenia or other chronic mental illnesses.\ni. Drugs which influence the noradrenergic system.\nii. Dopamine receptor agonists.\niii. Dopamine receptor antagonists.\niv. Dopamine-depletor drugs.\nv. Drugs that increase the production or release of dopamine.\n2. To examine whether any improvement occurred with short periods of intervention (less than 6 weeks) and, if this did occur, whether this effect was maintained at longer periods of follow-up.\n3. To examine if there was a differential effect for the various compounds.\n4. To examine whether the use of non-antipsychotic catecholaminergic drugs are most effective in those with more recent onset TD (less than five years).\nSearch methods\nWe retrieved 712 references from searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (July 2015 and April 2017). We also inspected references of all identified studies for further trials and contacted authors of trials for additional information.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected studies if they were randomised controlled trials focusing on people with schizophrenia or other chronic mental illnesses and antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia. We compared the use of catecholaminergic interventions versus placebo, no intervention, or any other intervention for the treatment of antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently extracted data from these trials and we estimated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assumed that people who left the studies early had no improvement.\nMain results\nThere are 10 included trials (N = 261) published between 1973 and 2010; eight are new from the 2015 and 2017 update searches. Forty-eight studies are excluded. Participants were mostly chronically mentally ill inpatients in their 50s, and studies were primarily of short (2 to 6 weeks) duration. The overall risk of bias in these studies was unclear, mainly due to poor reporting of allocation concealment and generation of the sequence. Studies were also not clearly blinded and we are unsure if data are incomplete or selectively reported, or if other biases were operating.\nOne small, three-arm trial found that both alpha-methyldopa (N = 20; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80; low-quality evidence) and reserpine (N = 20; RR 0.52 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; low-quality evidence) may lead to a clinically important improvement in tardive dyskinesia symptoms compared with placebo after 2 weeks' treatment, but found no evidence of a difference between alpha-methyldopa and reserpine (N = 20; RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.86; very low quality evidence). Another small trial compared tetrabenazine and haloperidol after 18 weeks' treatment and found no evidence of a difference on clinically important improvement in tardive dyskinesia symptoms (N = 13; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.95; very low quality evidence). No study reported on adverse events.\nFor remaining outcomes there was no evidence of a difference between any of the interventions: alpha-methyldopa versus placebo for deterioration of tardive dyskinesia symptoms (1 RCT; N = 20; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.02 to 7.32; very low quality evidence), celiprolol versus placebo for leaving the study early (1 RCT; N = 35; RR 5.28, 95% CI 0.27 to 102.58; very low quality evidence) and quality of life (1 RCT; N = 35; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.12; very low quality evidence), alpha-methyldopa versus reserpine for deterioration of tardive dyskinesia symptoms (1 RCT; N = 20; not estimable, no reported events; very low quality evidence), reserpine or carbidopa/levodopa versus placebo for deterioration of tardive dyskinesia symptoms (2 RCTs; N = 37; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.99; very low quality evidence), oxypertine versus placebo for deterioration of mental state (1 RCT; N = 42; RR 2.20, 95% CI 0.22 to 22.45; very low quality evidence), dopaminergic drugs (amantadine, bromocriptine, tiapride, oxypertine, carbidopa/levodopa) versus placebo for leaving the study early (6 RCTs; N = 163; RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.54; very low quality evidence), and tetrabenazine versus haloperidol for deterioration of tardive dyskinesia symptoms (1 RCT; N = 13; RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.09 to 14.92) and leaving the study early (1 RCT; N = 13; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.00).\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough there has been a large amount of research in this area, many studies were excluded due to inherent problems in the nature of their cross-over designs. Usually data are not reported before the cross-over and the nature of TD and its likely response to treatments make it imprudent to use this data. The review provides little usable information for service users or providers and more well-designed and well-reported studies are indicated.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": ".\nThe review includes 10 small, short studies published mainly in the 1980s involving a total of 261 people." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOpioid drugs, including fentanyl, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for fentanyl, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Other opioids are considered in separate reviews.\nObjectives\nTo assess the analgesic efficacy of fentanyl for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to June 2016, together with the reference lists of retrieved articles, and two online study registries.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing fentanyl (in any dose, administered by any route, and in any formulation) with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nOnly one study met our inclusion criteria. Participants were men and women (mean age 67 years), with postherpetic neuralgia, complex regional pain syndrome, or chronic postoperative pain. They were experiencing inadequate relief from non-opioid analgesics, and had not previously taken opioids for their neuropathic pain. The study used an enriched enrolment randomised withdrawal design. It was adequately blinded, but we judged it at unclear risk of bias for other criteria.\nTransdermal fentanyl (one-day fentanyl patch) was titrated over 10 to 29 days to establish the maximum tolerated and effective dose (12.5 to 50 µg/h). Participants who achieved a prespecified good level of pain relief with a stable dose of fentanyl, without excessive use of rescue medication or intolerable adverse events ('responders'), were randomised to continue with fentanyl or switch to placebo for 12 weeks, under double-blind conditions. Our prespecified primary outcomes were not appropriate for this study design, but the measures reported do give an indication of the efficacy of fentanyl in this condition.\nIn the titration phase, 1 in 3 participants withdrew because of adverse events or inadequate pain relief, and almost 90% experienced adverse events. Of 258 participants who underwent open-label titration, 163 were 'responders' and entered the randomised withdrawal phase. The number of participants completing the study (and therefore continuing on treatment) without an increase of pain by more than 15/100 was 47/84 (56%) with fentanyl and 28/79 (35%) with placebo. Because only 63% responded sufficiently to enter the randomised withdrawal phase, this implies that only a maximum of 35% of participants entering the study would have had useful pain relief and tolerability with transdermal fentanyl, compared with 22% with placebo. Almost 60% of participants taking fentanyl were 'satisfied' and 'very satisfied' with their treatment at the end of the study, compared with about 40% with placebo. This outcome approximates to our primary outcome of moderate benefit using the Patient Global Impression of Change scale, but the group was enriched for responders and the method of analysis was not clear. The most common adverse events were constipation, nausea, somnolence, and dizziness.\nThere was no information about other types of neuropathic pain, other routes of administration, or comparisons with other treatments.\nWe downgraded the quality of the evidence to very low because there was only one study, with few participants and events, and there was no information about how data from people who withdrew were analysed.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that fentanyl works in any neuropathic pain condition.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The study found that more people taking fentanyl had pain relief than those taking placebo. About 1 in 7 participants stopped taking fentanyl because of side effects, and 1 in 5 did not get a good level of pain relief in the first part of the study. Almost half of those who continued into the second part of the study also stopped. The most common side effects were constipation, nausea (feeling sick), somnolence (feeling sleepy), and dizziness. These are typical side effects with opioids such as fentanyl. There was so little information from this single study that we concluded there was no convincing evidence to support or reject a meaningful benefit for fentanyl over placebo." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nStaphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) can cause secondary infection in eczema, and may promote inflammation in eczema that does not look infected. There is no standard intervention to reduce S. aureus burden in eczema. It is unclear whether antimicrobial treatments help eczema or promote bacterial resistance. This is an update of a 2008 Cochrane Review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions to reduce S. aureus for treating eczema.\nSearch methods\nWe updated our searches of the following databases to October 2018: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS. We searched five trials registers and three sets of conference proceedings. We checked references of trials and reviews for further relevant studies. We contacted pharmaceutical companies regarding ongoing and unpublished trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of products intended to reduce S. aureus on the skin in people diagnosed with atopic eczema by a medical practitioner. Eligible comparators were a similar treatment regimen without the anti-staphylococcal agent.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our key outcomes were participant- or assessor-rated global improvement in symptoms/signs, quality of life (QOL), severe adverse events requiring withdrawal, minor adverse events, and emergence of antibiotic-resistant micro-organisms.\nMain results\nWe included 41 studies (1753 analysed participants) covering 10 treatment categories. Studies were conducted mainly in secondary care in Western Europe; North America; the Far East; and elsewhere. Twelve studies recruited children; four, adults; 19, both; and six, unclear. Fifty-nine per cent of the studies reported the mean age of participants (range: 1.1 to 34.6 years). Eczema severity ranged from mild to severe. Many studies did not report our primary outcomes. Treatment durations ranged from 10 minutes to 3 months; total study durations ranged from 15 weeks to 27 months. We considered 33 studies at high risk of bias in at least one domain.\nWe present results for three key comparisons. All time point measurements were taken from baseline. We classed outcomes as short-term when treatment duration was less than four weeks, and long-term when treatment was given for more than four weeks.\nFourteen studies evaluated topical steroid/antibiotic combinations compared to topical steroids alone (infective status: infected (two studies), not infected (four studies), unspecified (eight studies)). Topical steroid/antibiotic combinations may lead to slightly greater global improvement in good or excellent signs/symptoms than topical steroid alone at 6 to 28 days follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.21; 224 participants; 3 studies, low-quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference between groups for QOL in children, at 14 days follow-up (mean difference (MD) -0.18, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.04; 42 participants; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence). The subsequent results for this comparison were based on very low-quality evidence, meaning we are uncertain of their validity: severe adverse events were rare (follow-up: between 6 to 28 days): both groups reported flare of dermatitis, worsening of the condition, and folliculitis (325 participants; 4 studies). There were fewer minor adverse events (e.g. flare, stinging, itch, folliculitis) in the combination group at 14 days follow-up (218 participants; 2 studies). One study reported antibiotic resistance in children at three months follow-up, with similar results between the groups (65 participants; 1 study).\nFour studies evaluated oral antibiotics compared to placebo (infective status: infected eczema (two studies), uninfected (one study), one study’s participants had colonisation but no clinical infection). Oral antibiotics may make no difference in terms of good or excellent global improvement in infants and children at 14 to 28 days follow-up compared to placebo (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.18 to 3.50; 75 participants; 2 studies, low-quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference between groups for QOL (in infants and children) at 14 days follow-up (MD 0.11, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.32, 45 participants, 1 study, moderate-quality evidence). The subsequent results for this comparison were based on very low-quality evidence, meaning we are uncertain of their validity: adverse events requiring treatment withdrawal between 14 to 28 days follow-up were very rare, but included eczema worsening (both groups), loose stools (antibiotic group), and Henoch-Schönlein purpura (placebo group) (4 studies, 199 participants). Minor adverse events, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and stomach and joint pains, at 28 days follow-up were also rare and generally low in both groups (1 study, 68 infants and children). Antibiotic resistance at 14 days was reported as similar in both groups (2 studies, 98 infants and children).\nOf five studies evaluating bleach baths compared to placebo (water) or bath emollient (infective status: uninfected (two studies), unspecified (three studies)), one reported global improvement and showed that bleach baths may make no difference when compared with placebo at one month follow-up (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.63; 36 participants; low-quality evidence). One study showed there is probably little or no difference in QOL at 28 days follow-up when comparing bleach baths to placebo (MD 0.90, 95% CI -1.32 to 3.12) (80 infants and children; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain if the groups differ in the likelihood of treatment withdrawals due to adverse events at two months follow-up (only one dropout reported due to worsening itch (placebo group)) as the quality of evidence was very low (1 study, 42 participants). One study reported that five participants in each group experienced burning/stinging or dry skin at two months follow-up, so there may be no difference in minor adverse events between groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.87, 36 participants, low-quality evidence). Very low-quality evidence means we are also uncertain if antibiotic resistance at four weeks follow-up is different between groups (1 study, 80 participants ≤ 18 years).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found insufficient evidence on the effects of anti-staphylococcal treatments for treating people with infected or uninfected eczema. Low-quality evidence, due to risk of bias, imprecise effect estimates and heterogeneity, made pooling of results difficult. Topical steroid/antibiotic combinations may be associated with possible small improvements in good or excellent signs/symptoms compared with topical steroid alone. High-quality trials evaluating efficacy, QOL, and antibiotic resistance are required.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We reviewed the evidence about the effect of treatments aimed at reducing S. aureus on the skin in people with atopic eczema. Eligible comparisons were similar treatments without anti-S. aureus actions. We included 41 studies involving 1753 participants (evidence is current to October 2018)." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHepatitis C virus (HCV) is a single-stranded RNA (ribonucleic acid) virus that has the potential to cause inflammation of the liver. The traditional definition of acute HCV infection is the first six months following infection with the virus. Another commonly used definition of acute HCV infection is the absence of HCV antibody and subsequent seroconversion (presence of HCV antibody in a person who was previously negative for HCV antibody). Approximately 40% to 95% of people with acute HCV infection develop chronic HCV infection, that is, have persistent HCV RNA in their blood. In 2010, an estimated 160 million people worldwide (2% to 3% of the world's population) had chronic HCV infection. The optimal pharmacological treatment of acute HCV remains controversial. Chronic HCV infection can damage the liver.\nObjectives\nTo assess the comparative benefits and harms of different pharmacological interventions in the treatment of acute HCV infection through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available pharmacological treatments according to their safety and efficacy. However, it was not possible to assess whether the potential effect modifiers were similar across different comparisons. Therefore, we did not perform the network meta-analysis and instead we assessed the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions versus each other or versus no intervention using standard Cochrane methodology.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and randomised controlled trials registers to April 2016 to identify randomised clinical trials on pharmacological interventions for acute HCV infection.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in participants with acute HCV infection. We excluded trials which included previously liver transplanted participants and those with other coexisting viral diseases. We considered any of the various pharmacological interventions compared with placebo or each other.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on the available-participant analysis with Review Manager 5. We assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe identified 10 randomised clinical trials with 488 randomised participants that met our inclusion criteria. All the trials were at high risk of bias in one or more domains. Overall, the evidence for all the outcomes was very low quality evidence. Nine trials (467 participants) provided information for one or more outcomes. Three trials (99 participants) compared interferon-alpha versus no intervention. Three trials (90 participants) compared interferon-beta versus no intervention. One trial (21 participants) compared pegylated interferon-alpha versus no intervention, but it did not provide any data for analysis. One trial (41 participants) compared MTH-68/B vaccine versus no intervention. Two trials (237 participants) compared pegylated interferon-alpha versus pegylated interferon-alpha plus ribavirin. None of the trials compared direct-acting antivirals versus placebo or other interventions. The mean or median follow-up period in the trials ranged from six to 36 months.\nThere was no short-term mortality (less than one year) in any group in any trial except for one trial where one participant died in the pegylated interferon-alpha plus ribavirin group (1/95: 1.1%). In the trials that reported follow-up beyond one year, there were no further deaths. The number of serious adverse events was higher with pegylated interferon-alpha plus ribavirin than with pegylated interferon-alpha (rate ratio 2.74, 95% CI 1.40 to 5.33; participants = 237; trials = 2; I2 = 0%). The proportion of people with any adverse events was higher with interferon-alpha and interferon-beta compared with no intervention (OR 203.00, 95% CI 9.01 to 4574.81; participants = 33; trials = 1 and OR 27.88, 95% CI 1.48 to 526.12; participants = 40; trials = 1). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life, liver transplantation, decompensated liver disease, cirrhosis, or hepatocellular carcinoma. The proportion of people with chronic HCV infection as indicated by the lack of sustained virological response was lower in the interferon-alpha group versus no intervention (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.76; participants = 99; trials = 3; I2 = 0%). The differences between the groups were imprecise or not estimable (because neither group had any events) for all the remaining comparisons.\nFour of the 10 trials (40%) received financial or other assistance from pharmaceutical companies who would benefit from the findings of the research; the source of funding was not available in five trials (50%), and one trial (10%) was funded by a hospital.\nAuthors' conclusions\nVery low quality evidence suggests that interferon-alpha may decrease the incidence of chronic HCV infection as measured by sustained virological response. However, the clinical impact such as improvement in health-related quality of life, reduction in cirrhosis, decompensated liver disease, and liver transplantation has not been reported. It is also not clear whether this finding is applicable in the current clinical setting dominated by the use of pegylated interferons and direct-acting antivirals, although we found no evidence to support that pegylated interferons or ribavirin or both are effective in people with acute HCV infection. We could find no randomised trials comparing direct-acting antivirals with placebo or other interventions for acute HCV infection. There is significant uncertainty in the benefits and harms of the interventions, and high-quality randomised clinical trials are required.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Source of funding\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Four of the 10 trials (40%) received financial or other assistance from pharmaceutical companies who would benefit from the findings of the research; the source of funding was not available in five trials (50%), and one trial (10%) was funded by a hospital." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nApnoeic oxygenation is the delivery of oxygen during the apnoeic phase preceding intubation. It is used to prevent respiratory complications of endotracheal intubation that have the potential to lead to significant adverse events including dysrhythmia, haemodynamic decompensation, hypoxic brain injury and death. Oxygen delivered by nasal cannulae during the apnoeic phase of intubation (apnoeic oxygenation) may serve as a non-invasive adjunct to endotracheal intubation to decrease the incidence of hypoxaemia, morbidity and mortality.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of apnoeic oxygenation before intubation in adults in the prehospital, emergency department, intensive care unit and operating theatre environments compared to no apnoeic oxygenation during intubation.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 4 November 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared the use of any form of apnoeic oxygenation including high flow and low flow nasal cannulae versus no apnoeic oxygenation during intubation. We defined quasi-randomization as participant allocation to each arm by means that were not truly random, such as alternation, case record number or date of birth. We excluded comparative prospective cohort and comparative retrospective cohort studies, physiological modelling studies and case reports.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. hospital stay and 2. incidence of severe hypoxaemia. Our secondary outcomes were 3. incidence of hypoxaemia, 4. lowest recorded saturation of pulse oximetry (SpO2), 5. intensive care unit (ICU) stay, 6. first pass success rate, 7. adverse events and 8. mortality. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 23 RCTs (2264 participants) in our analyses. Eight studies (729 participants) investigated the use of low-flow (15 L/minute or less), and 15 studies (1535 participants) investigated the use of high-flow (greater than 15 L/minute) oxygen. Settings were varied and included the emergency department (2 studies, 327 participants), ICU (7 studies, 913 participants) and operating theatre (14 studies, 1024 participants). We considered two studies to be at low risk of bias across all domains.\nNone of the studies reported on hospital length of stay. In predominately critically ill people, there may be little to no difference in the incidence of severe hypoxaemia (SpO2 less than 80%) when using apnoeic oxygenation at any flow rate from the start of apnoea until successful intubation (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.11; P = 0.25, I² = 0%; 15 studies, 1802 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nThere was insufficient evidence of any effect on the incidence of hypoxaemia (SpO2 less than 93%) (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.46; P = 0.25, I² = 36%; 3 studies, 489 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be an improvement in the lowest recorded oxygen saturation, with a mean increase of 1.9% (95% CI 0.75% to 3.05%; P < 0.001, I² = 86%; 15 studies, 1525 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in the duration of ICU stay with the use of apnoeic oxygenation during intubation (mean difference (MD) ‒1.13 days, 95% CI ‒1.51 to ‒0.74; P < 0.0001, I² = 46%; 5 studies, 815 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in first pass success rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; P = 0.79, I² = 0%; 8 studies, 826 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in incidence of adverse events including oral trauma, arrhythmia, aspiration, hypotension, pneumonia and cardiac arrest when apnoeic oxygenation is used. There was insufficient evidence about any effect on mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.00; P = 0.06, I² = 0%; 6 studies, 1015 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was some evidence that oxygenation during the apnoeic phase of intubation may improve the lowest recorded oxygen saturation. However, the differences in oxygen saturation were unlikely to be clinically significant. This did not translate into any measurable effect on the incidence of hypoxaemia or severe hypoxaemia in a group of predominately critically ill people. We were unable to assess the influence on hospital length of stay; however, there was a reduction in ICU stay in the apnoeic oxygenation group. The mechanism for this is unclear as there was little to no difference in first pass success or adverse event rates.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Although we did find some benefits of oxygen therapy, we have low to moderate confidence in the results. This was mainly because the doctors in many studies were aware if the participants were receiving extra oxygen and there were differences between the groups of participants that we could not account for." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with neuromuscular disorders may have a weak, ineffective cough predisposing them to respiratory complications. Cough augmentation techniques aim to improve cough effectiveness and mucous clearance, reduce the frequency and duration of respiratory infections requiring hospital admission, and improve quality of life.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy and safety of cough augmentation techniques in adults and children with chronic neuromuscular disorders.\nSearch methods\nOn 13 April 2020, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and randomised cross-over trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included trials of cough augmentation techniques compared to no treatment, alternative techniques, or combinations thereof, in adults and children with chronic neuromuscular disorders.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were the number and duration of unscheduled hospitalisations for acute respiratory exacerbations. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nThe review included 11 studies involving 287 adults and children, aged three to 73 years. Inadequately reported cross-over studies and the limited additional information provided by authors severely restricted the number of analyses that could be performed.\nStudies compared manually assisted cough, mechanical insufflation, manual and mechanical breathstacking, mechanical insufflation-exsufflation, glossopharyngeal breathing, and combination techniques to unassisted cough and alternative or sham interventions. None of the included studies reported on the primary outcomes of this review (number and duration of unscheduled hospital admissions) or listed 'adverse events' as primary or secondary outcome measures.\nThe evidence suggests that a range of cough augmentation techniques may increase peak cough flow compared to unassisted cough (199 participants, 8 RCTs), but the evidence is very uncertain. There may be little to no difference in peak cough flow outcomes between alternative cough augmentation techniques (216 participants, 9 RCTs).\nThere was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of interventions on measures of gaseous exchange, pulmonary function, quality of life, general function, or participant preference and satisfaction.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are very uncertain about the safety and efficacy of cough augmentation techniques in adults and children with chronic neuromuscular disorders and further studies are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of techniques used to assist coughing in people with chronic neuromuscular disorders (cough augmentation techniques)." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPhysical exercise is effective in managing Parkinson's disease (PD), but the relative benefit of different exercise types remains unclear.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effects of different types of physical exercise in adults with PD on the severity of motor signs, quality of life (QoL), and the occurrence of adverse events, and to generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking using network meta-analyses (NMAs).\nSearch methods\nAn experienced information specialist performed a systematic search for relevant articles in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and five other databases to 17 May 2021. We also searched trial registries, conference proceedings, and reference lists of identified studies up to this date.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one type of physical exercise for adults with PD to another type of exercise, a control group, or both.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data. A third author was involved in case of disagreements.\nWe categorized the interventions and analyzed their effects on the severity of motor signs, QoL, freezing of gait, and functional mobility and balance up to six weeks after the intervention using NMAs. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias using the risk of bias 2 (RoB 2) tool and rated the confidence in the evidence using the CINeMA approach for results on the severity of motor signs and QoL. We consulted a third review author to resolve any disagreements.\nDue to heterogeneous reporting of adverse events, we summarized safety data narratively and rated our confidence in the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 156 RCTs with a total of 7939 participants with mostly mild to moderate disease and no major cognitive impairment. The number of participants per study was small (mean 51, range from 10 to 474). The NMAs on the severity of motor signs and QoL included data from 71 (3196 participants), and 55 (3283 participants) trials, respectively. Eighty-five studies (5192 participants) provided safety data. Here, we present the main results.\nWe observed evidence of beneficial effects for most types of physical exercise included in our review compared to a passive control group. The effects on the severity of motor signs and QoL are expressed as scores on the motor scale of the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS-M) and the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire 39 (PDQ-39), respectively. For both scales, higher scores denote higher symptom burden. Therefore, negative estimates reflect improvement (minimum clinically important difference: -2.5 for UPDRS-M and -4.72 for PDQ-39).\nSeverity of motor signs\nThe evidence from the NMA (71 studies; 3196 participants) suggests that dance has a moderate beneficial effect on the severity of motor signs (mean difference (MD) -10.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) -15.54 to -4.96; high confidence), and aqua-based, gait/balance/functional, and multi-domain training might have a moderate beneficial effect on the severity of motor signs (aqua-based: MD -7.77, 95% CI -13.27 to -2.28; gait/balance/functional: MD -7.37, 95% CI -11.39 to -3.35; multi-domain: MD -6.97, 95% CI -10.32 to -3.62; low confidence). The evidence also suggests that mind-body training and endurance training might have a small beneficial effect on the severity of motor signs (mind-body: MD -6.57, 95% CI -10.18 to -2.81; endurance: MD -6.43, 95% CI -10.72 to -2.28; low confidence). Flexibility training might have a trivial or no effect on the severity of motor signs (MD 2.01, 95% CI -4.82 to 8.98; low confidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of strength/resistance training and \"Lee Silverman Voice training BIG\" (LSVT BIG) on the severity of motor signs (strength/resistance: MD -6.97, 95% CI -11.93 to -2.01; LSVT BIG: MD -5.49, 95% CI -14.74 to 3.62; very low confidence).\nQuality of life\nThe evidence from the NMA (55 studies; 3283 participants) suggests that aqua-based training probably has a large beneficial effect on QoL (MD -14.98, 95% CI -23.26 to -6.52; moderate confidence). The evidence also suggests that endurance training might have a moderate beneficial effect, and that gait/balance/functional and multi-domain training might have a small beneficial effect on QoL (endurance: MD -9.16, 95% CI -15.68 to -2.82; gait/balance/functional: MD -5.64, 95% CI -10.04 to -1.23; multi-domain: MD -5.29, 95% CI -9.34 to -1.06; low confidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of mind-body training, gaming, strength/resistance training, dance, LSVT BIG, and flexibility training on QoL (mind-body: MD -8.81, 95% CI -14.62 to -3.00; gaming: MD -7.05, 95% CI -18.50 to 4.41; strength/resistance: MD -6.34, 95% CI -12.33 to -0.35; dance: MD -4.05, 95% CI -11.28 to 3.00; LSVT BIG: MD 2.29, 95% CI -16.03 to 20.44; flexibility: MD 1.23, 95% CI -11.45 to 13.92; very low confidence).\nAdverse events\nOnly 85 studies (5192 participants) provided some kind of safety data, mostly only for the intervention groups. No adverse events (AEs) occurred in 40 studies and no serious AEs occurred in four studies. AEs occurred in 28 studies. The most frequently reported events were falls (18 studies) and pain (10 studies). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of physical exercise on the risk of adverse events (very low confidence).\nAcross outcomes, we observed little evidence of differences between exercise types.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found evidence of beneficial effects on the severity of motor signs and QoL for most types of physical exercise for people with PD included in this review, but little evidence of differences between these interventions. Thus, our review highlights the importance of physical exercise regarding our primary outcomes severity of motor signs and QoL, while the exact exercise type might be secondary. Notably, this conclusion is consistent with the possibility that specific motor symptoms may be treated most effectively by PD-specific programs. Although the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of exercise on the risk of adverse events, the interventions included in our review were described as relatively safe. Larger, well-conducted studies are needed to increase confidence in the evidence. Additional studies recruiting people with advanced disease severity and cognitive impairment might help extend the generalizability of our findings to a broader range of people with PD.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What does this mean?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We found that many types of physical exercise can help improve movement and quality of life for people with PD. We found scant evidence that certain exercise types work better than others. Therefore, for movement and quality of life, we think physical exercise is important, but the exact exercise type might be less important. Still, it is possible that some symptoms may be relieved best with specific types of training made for people with PD. The types of training we included seemed to be quite safe.\nLarger, well-designed studies are needed to increase our confidence in the evidence. Also, more research is required to understand the features that influence the effects of exercise. More studies involving people who have worse symptoms could help extend the results to more people with PD." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is the second update of previously published reviews in the Cochrane Library (2015, first update 2017). Interleukin-5 (IL-5) is the main cytokine involved in the proliferation, maturation, activation and survival of eosinophils, which cause airway inflammation and are a classic feature of asthma. Studies of monoclonal antibodies targeting IL-5 or its receptor (IL-5R) suggest they reduce asthma exacerbations, improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and lung function in appropriately selected patients, justifying their inclusion in the latest guidelines.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effects of therapies targeting IL-5 signalling (anti-IL-5 or anti-IL-5Rα) with placebo on exacerbations, health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) measures and lung function in adults and children with chronic asthma, and specifically in those with eosinophilic asthma refractory to existing treatments.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers, manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies. The most recent search was 7 February 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab versus placebo in adults and children with asthma.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a random-effects model. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nSeventeen studies on about 7600 participants met the inclusion criteria. Six used mepolizumab, five used reslizumab, and six used benralizumab. One study using benralizumab was terminated early due to sponsor decision and contributed no data. The studies were predominantly on people with severe eosinophilic asthma, which was similarly but variably defined. One was in children aged 6 to 17 years; nine others included children over 12 years but did not report results by age group separately. We deemed the overall risk of bias to be low, with all studies contributing data of robust methodology. We considered the certainty of the evidence for all comparisons to be high overall using the GRADE scheme, except for intravenous (IV) mepolizumab and subcutaneous (SC) reslizumab because these are not currently licensed delivery routes.\nThe anti-IL-5 treatments assessed reduced rates of 'clinically significant' asthma exacerbation (defined by treatment with systemic corticosteroids for three days or more) by approximately half in participants with severe eosinophilic asthma on standard care (at least medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)) with poorly controlled disease (either two or more exacerbations in the preceding year or Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score of 1.5 or more), except for reslizumab SC. The rate ratios for these effects were 0.45 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.55; high-certainty evidence) for mepolizumab SC, 0.53 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.64; moderate-certainty evidence) for mepolizumab IV, 0.43 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.55; high-certainty evidence) for reslizumab IV, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.66; high-certainty evidence) for benralizumab SC. Non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab also showed a significant reduction in exacerbation rates, an effect not seen with reslizumab IV, albeit in only one study. No data were available for non-eosinophilic participants treated with mepolizumab.\nThere were improvements in validated HRQoL scores with all anti-IL-5 agents in severe eosinophilic asthma. This met the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for the broader St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ; 4-point change) for benralizumab only, but the improvement in the ACQ and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), which focus on asthma symptoms, fell short of the MCID (0.5 point change for both ACQ and AQLQ) for all of the interventions. The evidence for an improvement in HRQoL scores in non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab and reslizumab was weak, but the tests for subgroup difference were negative.\nAll anti-IL-5 treatments produced small improvements in mean pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory flow in one second (FEV1) of between 0.08 L and 0.15 L in eosinophilic participants, which may not be sufficient to be detected by patients.\nThere were no excess serious adverse events with any anti-IL-5 treatment; in fact, there was a reduction in such events with benralizumab, likely arising from fewer asthma-related hospital admissions. There was no difference compared to placebo in adverse events leading to discontinuation with mepolizumab or reslizumab, but significantly more discontinued benralizumab than placebo, although the absolute numbers were small (42/2026 (2.1%) benralizumab versus 11/1227 (0.9%) placebo).\nThe implications for efficacy or adverse events are unclear.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall this analysis supports the use of anti-IL-5 treatments as an adjunct to standard care in people with severe eosinophilic asthma and poor symptom control. These treatments roughly halve the rate of asthma exacerbations in this population. There is limited evidence for improved HRQoL scores and lung function, which may not meet clinically detectable levels. The studies did not report safety concerns for mepolizumab or reslizumab, or any excess serious adverse events with benralizumab, although there remains a question over adverse events significant enough to prompt discontinuation.\nFurther research is needed on biomarkers for assessing treatment response, optimal duration and long-term effects of treatment, risk of relapse on withdrawal, non-eosinophilic patients, children (particularly under 12 years), comparing anti-IL-5 treatments to each other and, in patients meeting relevant eligibility criteria, to other biological (monoclonal antibody) therapies. For benralizumab, future studies should closely monitor rates of adverse events prompting discontinuation.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The evidence included in this review is provided by very well-designed studies. We are confident that participants in the studies were randomly placed into different treatment groups, that neither they nor the study team were aware of the treatment they were receiving, and that the small number who did not complete the study did not affect the findings.\nThis plain language summary is up to date as of 7 February 2022." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHealthcare workers are at risk of acquiring viral diseases such as hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV through exposure to contaminated blood and body fluids at work. Most often infection occurs when a healthcare worker inadvertently punctures the skin of their hand with a sharp implement that has been used in the treatment of an infected patient, thus bringing the patient's blood into contact with their own. Such occurrences are commonly known as percutaneous exposure incidents.\nObjectives\nTo determine the benefits and harms of extra gloves for preventing percutaneous exposure incidents among healthcare workers versus no intervention or alternative interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHSEED, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, NIOSHTIC, CISDOC, PsycINFO and LILACS until 26 June 2013.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) with healthcare workers as the majority of participants, extra gloves or special types of gloves as the intervention, and exposure to blood or bodily fluids as the outcome.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed meta-analyses for seven different comparisons.\nMain results\nWe found 34 RCTs that included 6890 person-operations as participating units and reported on 46 intervention-control group comparisons. We grouped interventions as follows: increased layers of standard gloves, gloves manufactured with special protective materials or thicker gloves, and gloves with puncture indicator systems. Indicator gloves show a coloured spot when they are perforated. Participants were surgeons in all studies and they used at least one pair of standard gloves as the control intervention. Twenty-seven studies also included other surgical staff (e.g. nurses). All but one study used perforations in gloves as an indication of exposure. The median control group rate was 18.5 perforations per 100 person-operations. Seven studies reported blood stains on the skin and two studies reported self reported needlestick injuries. Six studies reported dexterity as visual analogue scale scores for the comparison double versus single gloves, 13 studies reported outer glove perforations. We judged the included studies to have a moderate to high risk of bias.\nWe found moderate-quality evidence that double gloves compared to single gloves reduce the risk of glove perforation (rate ratio (RR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.37) and the risk of blood stains on the skin (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.70). Two studies with a high risk of bias also reported the effect of double compared to single gloves on needlestick injuries (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.62).\nWe found low-quality evidence in one small study that the use of three gloves compared to two gloves reduces the risk of perforation further (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.52). There was similar low-quality evidence that the use of one fabric glove over one normal glove reduces perforations compared to two normal gloves (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.93). There was moderate-quality evidence that this effect was similar for the use of one special material glove between two normal material gloves. Thicker gloves did not perform better than thinner gloves.\nThere was moderate to low-quality evidence in two studies that an indicator system does not reduce the total number of perforations during an operation even though it reduces the number of perforations per glove used.\nThere was moderate-quality evidence that double gloves have a similar number of outer glove perforations as single gloves, indicating that there is no loss of dexterity with double gloves (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.31).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate-quality evidence that double gloving compared to single gloving during surgery reduces perforations and blood stains on the skin, indicating a decrease in percutaneous exposure incidents. There is low-quality evidence that triple gloving and the use of special gloves can further reduce the risk of glove perforations compared to double gloving with normal material gloves. The preventive effect of double gloves on percutaneous exposure incidents in surgery does not need further research. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of special material gloves and triple gloves, and of gloves in other occupational groups.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Surgeons and surgical staff can reduce their risk of contracting a serious viral infection by wearing two pairs of gloves instead of one pair of gloves. The use of three glove layers or gloves made from special material probably reduces the risk further but these need better evaluation. We need further studies to evaluate whether gloves have a similar preventive effect in other healthcare professionals outside the operating theatre." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPost-caesarean section infection is a cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. Administration of antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended for preventing infection after caesarean delivery. The route of administration of antibiotic prophylaxis should be effective, safe and convenient. Currently, there is a lack of synthesised evidence regarding the benefits and harms of different routes of antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing infection after caesarean section.\nObjectives\nThe aim of this review was to assess the benefits and harms of different routes of prophylactic antibiotics given for preventing infectious morbidity in women undergoing caesarean section.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (6 January 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing at least two alternative routes of antibiotic prophylaxis for caesarean section (both elective and emergency). Cross-over trials and quasi-RCTs were not eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from the included studies. These steps were checked by a third review author.\nMain results\nWe included 10 studies (1354 women). The risk of bias was unclear or high in most of the included studies.\nAll of the included trials involved women undergoing caesarean section whether elective or non-elective.\nIntravenous antibiotics versus antibiotic irrigation (nine studies, 1274 women)\nNine studies (1274 women) compared the administration of intravenous antibiotics with antibiotic irrigation. There were no clear differences between groups in terms of this review's maternal primary outcomes: endometritis (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.29; eight studies (966 women) (low-quality evidence)); wound infection (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.43; seven studies (859 women) (very low-quality evidence)). The outcome of infant sepsis was not reported in the included studies.\nIn terms of this review's maternal secondary outcomes, there were no clear differences between intravenous antibiotic or irrigation antibiotic groups in terms of postpartum febrile morbidity (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.60; three studies (264 women) (very low-quality evidence)); or urinary tract infection (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.15; five studies (660 women) (very low-quality evidence)). In terms of adverse effects of the treatment on the women, no drug allergic reactions were reported in three studies (284 women) (very low-quality evidence), and there were no cases of serious infectious complications reported (very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between groups in terms of maternal length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) 0.28 days, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.79 days, (random-effects analysis), four studies (512 women). No data were reported for the number of women readmitted to hospital. For the baby, there were no data reported in relation to oral thrush, infant length of hospital stay or immediate adverse effects of the antibiotics on the infant.\nIntravenous antibiotic prophylaxis versus oral antibiotic prophylaxis (one study, 80 women)\nOne study (80 women) compared an intravenous versus an oral route of administration of prophylactic antibiotics, but did not report any of this review's primary or secondary outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was no clear difference between irrigation and intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing the risk of post-caesarean endometritis. For other outcomes, there is insufficient evidence regarding which route of administration of prophylactic antibiotics is most effective at preventing post-caesarean infections. The quality of evidence was very low to low, mainly due to limitations in study design and imprecision. Furthermore, most of the included studies were underpowered (small sample sizes with few events). Therefore, we advise caution in the interpretation and generalisability of the results.\nFor future research, there is a need for well-designed, properly-conducted, and clearly-reported RCTs. Such studies should evaluate the more recently available antibiotics, elaborating on the various available routes of administration, and exploring potential neonatal side effects of such interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is this important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Antibiotics can be given by a number of different routes including by mouth, injection into a vein or by washing inside the uterus and the surgical site with a saline solution containing the antibiotic. We assessed the benefits and harms of different routes of prophylactic antibiotics given for preventing infections in women undergoing caesarean section." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe early detection of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMD), followed by appropriate treatment, may improve survival and reduce the risk for malignant transformation respectively. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo estimate the diagnostic test accuracy of conventional oral examination, vital rinsing, light-based detection, mouth self-examination, remote screening, and biomarkers, used singly or in combination, for the early detection of OPMD or OSCC in apparently healthy adults.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 20 October 2020), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 20 October 2020), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 20 October 2020). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. We conducted citation searches, and screened reference lists of included studies for additional references.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected studies that reported the test accuracy of any of the aforementioned tests in detecting OPMD or OSCC during a screening procedure. Diagnosis of OPMD or OSCC was provided by specialist clinicians or pathologists, or alternatively through follow-up.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance. Eligibility, data extraction, and quality assessment were carried out by at least two authors independently and in duplicate. Studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2). We reported the sensitivity and specificity of the included studies. We provided judgement of the certainty of the evidence using a GRADE assessment.\nMain results\nWe included 18 studies, recruiting 72,202 participants, published between 1986 and 2019. These studies evaluated the diagnostic test accuracy of conventional oral examination (10 studies, none new to this update), mouth self-examination (four studies, two new to this update), and remote screening (three studies, all new to this update). One randomised controlled trial of test accuracy directly evaluated conventional oral examination plus vital rinsing versus conventional oral examination alone. There were no eligible studies evaluating light-based detection or blood or salivary sample analysis (which tests for the presence of biomarkers for OPMD and OSCC). Only one study of conventional oral examination was judged as at overall low risk of bias and overall low concern regarding applicability.\nGiven the clinical heterogeneity of the included studies in terms of the participants recruited, setting, prevalence of the target condition, the application of the index test and reference standard, and the flow and timing of the process, the data could not be pooled within the broader categories of index test. For conventional oral examination (10 studies, 25,568 participants), prevalence in the test accuracy sample ranged from 1% to 51%. For the seven studies with prevalence of 10% or lower, a prevalence more comparable to the general population, the sensitivity estimates were variable, and ranged from 0.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.93) to 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00); the specificity estimates were more consistent and ranged from 0.94 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.97) to 0.99 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.00). We judged the overall certainty of the evidence to be low, and downgraded for inconsistency and indirectness.\nEvidence for mouth self-examination and remote screening was more limited. We judged the overall certainty of the evidence for these index tests to be very low, and downgraded for imprecision, inconsistency, and indirectness. We judged the evidence for vital rinsing (toluidine blue) as an adjunct to conventional oral examination compared to conventional oral examination to be moderate, and downgraded for indirectness as the trial was undertaken in a high-risk population.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is a lack of high-certainty evidence to support the use of screening programmes for oral cavity cancer and OPMD in the general population. Frontline screeners such as general dentists, dental hygienists, other allied professionals, and community healthcare workers should remain vigilant for signs of OPMD and OSCC.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched for studies that reported the test accuracy of different screening tests in detecting cancer of the mouth or OPMDs during a screening procedure. Diagnosis of cancer of the mouth or OPMDs was provided by specialist clinicians or pathologists, or alternatively through follow-up. We compared and summarised the results of the studies and rated our confidence in the evidence, based on factors such as study methods and sizes." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDiabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) can reduce oedema, improve vision, and prevent further visual loss. These drugs have replaced laser photocoagulation as the standard of care for people with DMO. In the previous update of this review, we found moderate-quality evidence that, at 12 months, aflibercept was slightly more effective than ranibizumab and bevacizumab for improving vision in people with DMO, although the difference may have been clinically insignificant (less than 0.1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), or five Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters, or one ETDRS line).\nObjectives\nThe objective of this updated review was to compare the effectiveness and safety of the different anti-VEGF drugs in RCTs at longer follow-up (24 months).\nSearch methods\nWe searched various electronic databases on 8 July 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any anti-angiogenic drug with an anti-VEGF mechanism of action versus another anti-VEGF drug, another treatment, sham, or no treatment in people with DMO.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods for pairwise meta-analysis and we augmented this evidence using network meta-analysis (NMA) methods. We used the Stata 'network' meta-analysis package for all analyses. We used the CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) web application to grade the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 23 studies (13 with industry funding) that enrolled 3513 people with DMO (median central retinal thickness (CRT) 460 microns, interquartile range (IQR) 424 to 482) and moderate vision loss (median best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) 0.48 logMAR, IQR 0.42 to 0.55). One study that investigated ranibizumab versus sham and one study that mainly enrolled people with subclinical DMO and normal BCVA were not suitable for inclusion in the efficacy NMA.\nConsistent with the previous update of this review, we used ranibizumab as the reference drug for efficacy, and control (including laser, observation, and sham) as the reference for systemic safety.\nEight trials provided data on the primary outcome (change in BCVA at 24 months, in logMAR: lower is better). We found no evidence of a difference between the following interventions and ranibizumab alone: aflibercept (mean difference (MD) −0.05 logMAR, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.12 to 0.02; moderate certainty); bevacizumab (MD -0.01 logMAR, 95% CI −0.13 to 0.10; low certainty), brolucizumab (MD 0.00 logMAR, 95% CI −0.08 to 0.07; low certainty), ranibizumab plus deferred laser (MD 0.00 logMAR, 95% CI −0.11 to 0.10; low certainty), and ranibizumab plus prompt laser (MD 0.03 logMAR, 95% CI −0.04 to 0.09; very low certainty).\nWe also analysed BCVA change at 12 months, finding moderate-certainty evidence of increased efficacy with brolucizumab (MD −0.07 logMAR, 95%CI −0.10 to −0.03 logMAR), faricimab (MD −0.08 logMAR, 95% CI −0.12 to −0.05), and aflibercept (MD −0.07 logMAR, 95 % CI −0.10 to −0.04) compared to ranibizumab alone, but the difference could be clinically insignificant.\nCompared to ranibizumab alone, NMA of six trials showed no evidence of a difference with aflibercept (moderate certainty), bevacizumab (low certainty), or ranibizumab with prompt (very low certainty) or deferred laser (low certainty) regarding improvement by three or more ETDRS lines at 24 months.\nThere was moderate-certainty evidence of greater CRT reduction at 24 months with brolucizumab (MD −23 microns, 95% CI −65 to −1 9) and aflibercept (MD −26 microns, 95% CI −53 to 0.9) compared to ranibizumab. There was moderate-certainty evidence of lesser CRT reduction with bevacizumab (MD 28 microns, 95% CI 0 to 56), ranibizumab plus deferred laser (MD 63 microns, 95% CI 18 to 109), and ranibizumab plus prompt laser (MD 72 microns, 95% CI 25 to 119) compared with ranibizumab alone.\nRegarding all-cause mortality at the longest available follow-up (20 trials), we found no evidence of increased risk of death for any drug compared to control, although effects were in the direction of an increase, and clinically relevant increases could not be ruled out. The certainty of this evidence was low for bevacizumab (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 0.75 to 5.88), brolucizumab (RR 2.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 12.58), faricimab (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.45 to 8.00), ranibizumab (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.34), and very low for conbercept (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.81) and aflibercept (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.77). Estimates for Antiplatelet Trialists Collaboration arterial thromboembolic events at 24 months did not suggest an increase with any drug compared to control, but the NMA was overall incoherent and the evidence was of low or very low certainty.\nOcular adverse events were rare and poorly reported and could not be assessed in NMAs.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is limited evidence of the comparative efficacy and safety of anti-VEGF drugs beyond one year of follow-up. We found no clinically important differences in visual outcomes at 24 months in people with DMO, although there were differences in CRT change. We found no evidence that any drug increases all-cause mortality compared to control, but estimates were very imprecise. Evidence from RCTs may not apply to real-world practice, where people in need of antiangiogenic treatment are often under-treated, and the individuals exposed to these drugs may be less healthy than trial participants.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Few studies provided data comparing anti-VEGF medicines at two years, and estimates were often imprecise." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of a previously published version of the review (Issue 10, 2011).\nEpithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the seventh most common cause of cancer death among women worldwide. Treatment consists of a combination of surgical debulking and platinum-based chemotherapy. Between 55% and 75% of women who respond to first-line therapy experience relapse within two years. Second-line chemotherapy is palliative and aims to reduce symptoms and prolong survival. Improved understanding about the molecular basis of EOC has led to the development of novel agents, such as epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors and anti-EGFR antibodies.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effectiveness and harmful effects of interventions that target the epidermal growth factor receptor in the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2010, Issue 4), MEDLINE, and Embase up to October 2010. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, and reference lists of included studies, and we contacted experts in the field. This update includes further searches up to September 2017.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anti-EGFR agents with or without conventional chemotherapy versus conventional chemotherapy alone or no treatment in women with histologically proven EOC.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently abstracted data, assessed risk of bias, and performed GRADE assessment.\nMain results\nFrom 6105 references obtained through the literature search and an additional 15 references derived from grey literature searches, we identified seven RCTs that met our inclusion criteria and included 1725 participants. Trial results show that after first-line chemotherapy is provided, maintenance treatment with erlotinib (EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)) probably makes little or no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.20; one study; 835 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may make little or no difference in progression-free survival (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.23; one study; 835 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Less than 50% of participants provided quality of life data, and study authors reported these results incompletely. The certainty of evidence is very low, but treatment may reduce quality of life compared to observation.\nTreatment with an EGFR TKI (vandetanib) for women with relapsed EOC may make little or no difference in overall survival (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.95; one study; 129 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may make little or no difference in progression-free survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.42; one study; 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In treating patients with relapse, giving EGFR TKI may slightly increase some toxicities, such as severe rash (risk ratio (RR) 13.63, 95% CI 0.78 to 236.87; one study; 125 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life data were not available for meta-analysis.\nAnti-EGFR antibody treatment in relapsed EOC may or may not make a difference to overall survival (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.18; four studies; 658 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may or may not have any effect on progression-free survival (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.16; four studies; 658 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anti-EGFR antibody treatment may or may not increase side effects, including severe nausea and/or vomiting (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.89; three studies; 503 participants; low-certainty evidence), severe fatigue (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.73; I² = 0%; four studies; 652 participants; low-certainty evidence), and hypokalaemia (RR 2.01, 95% CI 0.80 to 5.06; I² = 0%; three studies; 522 participants; low-certainty evidence). Severe diarrhoea rates were heterogeneous across studies (RR 2.87, 95% CI 0.59 to 13.89; four studies; 652 participants; low-certainty evidence), and subgroup analysis revealed that severe diarrhoea was more likely with pertuzumab (RR 6.37, 95% CI 1.89 to 21.45; I² = 0%; three studies; 432 participants; low-certainty evidence) than with seribantumab treatment (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.23; I² = 0%; one study; 220 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life data were incompletely reported, and we were unable to combine them in a meta-analysis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrent evidence suggests that an anti-EGFR single-agent biological treatment (EGFR TKI or anti-EGFR antibody) makes little or no difference to survival, either as maintenance treatment after first-line chemotherapy or in association with chemotherapy in recurrent cancer. Anti-EGFR therapy may increase some side effects and may or may not reduce quality of life.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main results of the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "This review found evidence from seven studies on the effects of an anti-EGFR antibody or an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) (erlotinib and vandetanib) in women treated for EOC. This was given either as maintenance treatment, following completion of first-line chemotherapy, or for EOC that had grown after initial treatment (recurrent or refractory disease) .\nWe found low-certainty evidence to suggest that following first-line chemotherapy, maintenance treatment with erlotinib probably makes little or no difference in overall survival, and very low-certainty evidence that it makes little or no difference in progression-free survival (time before cancer starts to grow again). Treatment may reduce quality of life compared to no treatment (observation), but minimal data were available, and we have very low-certainty about these findings. Data on adverse events were not available for inclusion in the meta-analysis.\nWe found low-certainty evidence to suggest that treatment with vandetanib for women with relapsed EOC probably makes little or no difference in overall survival, and very low-certainty evidence that it makes little or no difference in progression-free survival. Vandetanib treatment probably increases the risk of a severe rash, but data on other side effects were of very low-certainty due to small numbers and very wide confidence intervals.\nWe found moderate-certainty evidence to show that treatment with an anti-EGFR antibody probably makes little or no difference in overall survival, and low-certainty evidence suggesting that it may make little or no difference in progression-free survival in cases of relapsed disease. Treatment with the anti-EGFR antibody pertuzumab probably increases the risk of diarrhoea (low-certainty), but evidence for its effect on other side effects is of very low-certainty due to low numbers of events." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nUpper gastrointestinal bleeding is typically a mild, self-limiting condition that can affect both preterm and term neonates, although it can be severe particularly when associated with co-morbidities. Pharmacological interventions with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), H2 receptor antagonist (H2RA), antacid, bismuth and sucralfate may have effects on both the prevention and treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in infants.\nObjectives\nTo assess how different pharmacological interventions (PPIs, H2RAs, antacids, sucralfate or bismuth salts) administered to preterm and term neonates for the prevention or treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding to reduce morbidity and mortality compare with placebo or no treatment, supportive care, or each other.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2018, Issue 6), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 12 July 2018), Embase (1980 to 12 July 2018), and CINAHL (1982 to 12 July 2018). We also searched clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials, and online for Chinese literature articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected randomised, quasi-randomised and cluster-randomised trials involving preterm and term neonates. Trials were included if they used a proton pump inhibitor, H2 receptor antagonist, antacid, sucralfate or bismuth either for the prevention or treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. We conducted meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model. We used the GRADE approach to assess quality of evidence.\nMain results\nEleven studies with 818 infants met the criteria for inclusion in this review.\nFour trials with 329 infants assessed the use of an H2 receptor antagonist for prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in high-risk newborn infants. Meta-analysis of these four trials identified a reduction in any upper gastrointestinal bleeding when using an H2 receptor antagonist (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.58; typical risk difference (RD) −0.20, 95% CI −0.28 to −0.11; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5, 95% CI 4 to 9). The quality of evidence was moderate. A single trial with 53 infants assessing prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding reported no difference in mortality in infants assigned H2 receptor antagonist versus no treatment; however the quality of evidence was very low.\nSeven trials with 489 infants assessed an inhibitor of gastric acid (H2 receptor antagonist or proton pump inhibitor) for treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding in newborn infants. Meta-analysis of two trials (131 infants) showed no difference in mortality from use of a H2 receptor antagonist compared to no treatment. The quality of evidence was low. Meta-analysis of two trials (104 infants) showed a reduction in duration of upper gastrointestinal bleeding from use of an inhibitor of gastric acid compared to no treatment (mean difference −1.06 days, 95% CI −1.28 to −0.84). The quality of evidence was very low. Meta-analysis of six trials (451 infants) showed a reduction in continued upper gastrointestinal bleeding from use of any inhibitor of gastric acid compared to no treatment (typical RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.49; typical RD −0.26, 95% CI −0.33, −0.19; NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 5). The quality of evidence was low. There were no significant subgroup differences in duration of upper gastrointestinal bleeding or of continued upper gastrointestinal bleeding according to type of inhibitor of gastric acid. A single trial (38 infants) reported no difference in anaemia requiring blood transfusion from use of a H2 receptor antagonist compared to no treatment.\nAlthough no serious adverse events were reported from the use of a H2 receptor antagonist or proton pump inhibitor, some neonatal morbidities — including necrotising enterocolitis, ventilator-associated pneumonia, duration of ventilation and respiratory support, and duration of hospital stay — were not reported. Long-term outcome was not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate-quality evidence that use of an H2 receptor antagonist reduces the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in newborn infants at high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. There is low-quality evidence that use of an inhibitor of gastric acid (H2 receptor antagonist or proton pump inhibitor) reduces the duration of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and the incidence of continued gastric bleeding in newborn infants with gastrointestinal bleeding. However, there is no evidence that use of an inhibitor of gastric acid in newborn infants affects mortality or the need for blood transfusion. As no study reported the incidence of necrotising enterocolitis, ventilator- or hospital-associated pneumonia, sepsis, or long-term outcome, the safety of inhibitors of gastric acid secretion is unclear.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We graded the quality of evidence for prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding as low and moderate. We graded the quality of evidence for the treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding as low and very low." } ]