Datasets:

KenLuo

/

qls

like 0

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIntermittent preventive treatment could help prevent malaria in infants (IPTi) living in areas of moderate to high malaria transmission in sub-Saharan Africa. The World Health Organization (WHO) policy recommended IPTi in 2010, but its adoption in countries has been limited.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of intermittent preventive treatment (IPT) with antimalarial drugs to prevent malaria in infants living in malaria-endemic areas.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following sources up to 3 December 2018: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (OVID), LILACS (Bireme), and reference lists of articles. We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) portal for ongoing trials up to 3 December 2018.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared IPT to placebo or no intervention in infants (defined as young children aged between 1 to 12 months) in malaria-endemic areas.\nData collection and analysis\nThe primary outcome was clinical malaria (fever plus asexual parasitaemia). Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, evaluated the risk of bias, and extracted data. We summarized dichotomous outcomes and count data using risk ratios (RR) and rate ratios respectively, and presented all measures with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We extracted protective efficacy values and their 95% CIs; when an included trial did not report this data, we calculated these values from the RR or rate ratio with its 95% CI. Where appropriate, we combined data in meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 12 trials that enrolled 19,098 infants; all were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. Three trials were cluster-RCTs. IPTi with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) was evaluated in 10 trials from 1999 to 2013 (n = 15,256). Trials evaluating ACTs included dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (1 trial, 147 participants; year 2013), amodiaquine-artesunate (1 study, 684 participants; year 2008), and SP-artesunate (1 trial, 676 participants; year 2008). The earlier studies evaluated IPTi with SP, and were conducted in Tanzania (in 1999 and 2006), Mozambique (2004), Ghana (2004 to 2005), Gabon (2005), Kenya (2008), and Mali (2009). One trial evaluated IPTi with amodiaquine in Tanzania (2000). Later studies included three conducted in Kenya (2008), Tanzania (2008), and Uganda (2013), evaluating IPTi in multiple trial arms that included artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT).\nAlthough the effect size varied over time and between drugs, overall IPTi impacts on the incidence of clinical malaria overall, with a 30% reduction (rate ratio 0.70, 0.62 to 0.80; 10 studies, 10,602 participants). The effect of SP appeared to attenuate over time, with trials conducted after 2009 showing little or no effect of the intervention. IPTi with SP probably resulted in fewer episodes of clinical malaria (rate ratio 0.78, 0.69 to 0.88; 8 trials, 8774 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), anaemia (rate ratio 0.82, 0.68 to 0.98; 6 trials, 7438 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), parasitaemia (rate ratio 0.66, 0.56 to 0.79; 1 trial, 1200 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), and fewer hospital admissions (rate ratio 0.85, 0.78 to 0.93; 7 trials, 7486 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). IPTi with SP probably made little or no difference to all-cause mortality (risk ratio 0.93, 0.74 to 1.15; 9 trials, 14,588 participants, moderate-certainty evidence).\nSince 2009, IPTi trials have evaluated ACTs and indicate impact on clinical malaria and parasitaemia. A small trial of DHAP in 2013 shows substantive effects on clinical malaria (RR 0.42, 0.33 to 0.54; 1 trial, 147 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and parasitaemia (moderate-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn areas of sub-Saharan Africa, giving antimalarial drugs known to be effective against the malaria parasite at the time to infants as IPT probably reduces the risk of clinical malaria, anaemia, and hospital admission. Evidence from SP studies over a 19-year period shows declining efficacy, which may be due to increasing drug resistance. Combinations with ACTs appear promising as suitable alternatives for IPTi.\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": "In areas where malaria is common, infants often suffer repeated episodes of malarial illness. In areas where malaria transmission occurs all-year, some authorities recommend intermittent preventive treatment, which requires giving drugs at regular intervals (at child vaccination visits) regardless of whether the child has malaria symptoms or not to prevent malarial illness.\nWe studied the effects of IPTi with SP and other medicines (including ACTs) on malaria-related outcomes. Review outcomes included clinical malaria, severe malaria, death, hospital admission, parasitaemia, anaemia, change in haemoglobin level, and side effects." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nInhaled antibiotics are commonly used to treat persistent airway infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa that contributes to lung damage in people with cystic fibrosis. Current guidelines recommend inhaled tobramycin for individuals with cystic fibrosis and persistent Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection who are aged six years or older. The aim is to reduce bacterial load in the lungs so as to reduce inflammation and deterioration of lung function. This is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of long-term inhaled antibiotic therapy in people with cystic fibrosis on clinical outcomes (lung function, frequency of exacerbations and nutrition), quality of life and adverse events (including drug-sensitivity reactions and survival).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched ongoing trials registries.\nDate of last search: 28 June 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected trials where people with cystic fibrosis received inhaled anti-pseudomonal antibiotic treatment for at least three months, treatment allocation was randomised or quasi-randomised, and there was a control group (either placebo, no placebo or another inhaled antibiotic).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected trials, judged the risk of bias, extracted data from these trials and judged the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE system.\nMain results\nThe searches identified 410 citations to 125 trials; 18 trials (3042 participants aged between five and 45 years) met the inclusion criteria. Limited data were available for meta-analyses due to the variability of trial design and reporting of results. A total of 11 trials (1130 participants) compared an inhaled antibiotic to placebo or usual treatment for a duration between three and 33 months. Five trials (1255 participants) compared different antibiotics, two trials (585 participants) compared different regimens of tobramycin and one trial (90 participants) compared intermittent tobramycin with continuous tobramycin alternating with aztreonam. One trial (18 participants) compared an antibiotic to placebo and also to a different antibiotic and so fell into both groups. The most commonly studied antibiotic was tobramycin which was studied in 12 trials.\nInhaled antibiotics compared to placebo\nWe found that inhaled antibiotics may improve lung function measured in a variety of ways (4 trials, 814 participants). Compared to placebo, inhaled antibiotics may also reduce the frequency of exacerbations (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 0.93; 3 trials, 946 participants; low-certainty evidence). Inhaled antibiotics may lead to fewer days off school or work (quality of life measure) (mean difference (MD) -5.30 days, 95% CI -8.59 to -2.01; 1 trial, 245 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data for us to be able to report an effect on nutritional outcomes and there was no effect on survival. There was no effect on antibiotic resistance seen in the two trials that were included in meta-analyses. We are uncertain of the effect of the intervention on adverse events (very low-certainty evidence), but tinnitus and voice alteration were the only events occurring more often in the inhaled antibiotics group. The overall certainty of evidence was deemed to be low for most outcomes due to risk of bias within the trials and imprecision due to low event rates.\nDifferent antibiotics or regimens compared\nOf the eight trials comparing different inhaled antibiotics or different antibiotic regimens, there was only one trial for each unique comparison. We found no differences between groups for any outcomes except for the following. Aztreonam lysine for inhalation probably improved forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV1) % predicted compared to tobramycin (MD -3.40%, 95% CI -6.63 to -0.17; 1 trial, 273 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the method of defining the endpoint was different to the remaining trials and the participants were exposed to tobramycin for a long period making interpretation of the results problematic. We found no differences in any measure of lung function in the remaining comparisons. Trials measured pulmonary exacerbations in different ways and showed no differences between groups except for aztreonam lysine probably leading to fewer people needing treatment with additional antibiotics than with tobramycin (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.86; 1 trial, 273 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and there were fewer hospitalisations due to respiratory exacerbations with levofloxacin compared to tobramycin (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.98; 1 trial, 282 participants; high-certainty evidence). Important treatment-related adverse events were not very common across comparisons, but were reported less often in the tobramycin group compared to both aztreonam lysine and colistimethate. We found the certainty of evidence for these comparisons to be directly related to the risk of bias within the individual trials and varied from low to high.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLong-term treatment with inhaled anti-pseudomonal antibiotics probably improves lung function and reduces exacerbation rates, but pooled estimates of the level of benefit were very limited. The best evidence available is for inhaled tobramycin. More evidence from trials measuring similar outcomes in the same way is needed to determine a better measure of benefit. Longer-term trials are needed to look at the effect of inhaled antibiotics on quality of life, survival and nutritional outcomes.\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": "The trials that we included in this review measured lung function in different ways and also how often people experienced a sudden worsening of symptoms. That made it difficult for us to combine the results of different trials to strengthen our evidence. We thought the overall certainty of evidence was low for most outcomes, mainly due to risks of bias within the trials and low event rates meaning results were not precise." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCentral retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) is a common retinal vascular abnormality associated with conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, glaucoma, and a wide variety of hematologic disorders. Macular edema (ME) represents an important vision-threatening complication of CRVO. Intravitreal steroids (IVS), such as triamcinolone acetonide, have been utilized to treat macular edema stemming from a variety of etiologies and may be a treatment option for CRVO-ME.\nObjectives\nTo explore the effectiveness and safety of intravitreal steroids in the treatment of CRVO-ME.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2014 Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to November 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), 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 13 November 2014. For all included primary studies, we used The Science Citation Index (3 December 2014) and manually reviewed reference lists to identify other possible relevant trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared intravitreal steroids, of any dosage and duration of treatment of at least six months, with observation for the treatment of CRVO-ME.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles and abstracts identified from the electronic searches and assessed full-text articles from potentially eligible trials. Two review authors independently assessed trial characteristics, risk of bias, and extracted data from included trials. We contacted investigators of included trials for desired data not provided in the trial reports.\nMain results\nWe included two RCTs that enrolled a total of 708 participants with CRVO-ME. SCORE compared triamcinolone acetonide intravitreal injections (n = 165) with observation (n = 72); GENEVA compared dexamethasone intravitreal implants (n = 290) with sham injections (n = 147). We observed characteristics indicative of high risk of bias due to incomplete outcome data in SCORE and selective outcome reporting in GENEVA. Loss to follow-up was high with 10% in the steroid groups and almost twice as much (17%) in the observation group. GENEVA enrolled participants with both branch and central retinal vein occlusion, but did not present subgroup data for the CRVO-ME population. A qualitative assessment of the results from GENEVA indicated that the dexamethasone implant was not associated with improvement in visual acuity after six months among participants with CRVO-ME. Although the SCORE investigators reported that participants treated with 1 mg (n = 82) or 4 mg (n = 83) triamcinolone intravitreal injections were five times more likely to have gained 15 letters or more in visual acuity compared with participants in the observation group (1 mg; risk ratio (RR): 5.27; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.62 to 17.15; 4 mg RR 4.92; 95% CI 1.50 to 16.10) by the eighth-month follow-up examination, the average visual acuity decreased in all three groups. However, eyes treated with triamcinolone lost fewer letters than participants in the observation group at 8 months (1 mg mean difference (MD): 8.70 letters, 95% CI 1.86 to 15.54; 4 mg MD: 9.80 letters, 95% CI 3.32 to 16.28). A higher incidence of adverse events was noted with IVS therapy when compared with observation alone. As many as 20% to 35% of participants experienced an adverse event in the IVS groups compared with 8% of participants in the observation group of the SCORE study. The GENEVA investigators reported 63% in the treatment arm versus 43% in the observation arm experienced an adverse event. The most commonly encountered adverse events were elevated intraocular pressure, progression of cataracts, and retinal neovascularization. We graded the quality of evidence as low due to study limitations, imprecision of treatment estimates, and selective outcome reporting.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe two RCTs reviewed herein provide insufficient evidence to determine the benefits of IVS for individuals with CRVO-ME. The improvement in visual acuity noted in the SCORE trial should be interpreted with caution as outcome data were missing for a large proportion of the observation group. Adverse events were observed more often with IVS treatment compared with observation/no treatment.\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": "Central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) is a common abnormality of the blood vessels in the retina (back portion of the eye which receives visual images). CRVO usually presents as a painless loss of vision in one eye of people over the age of 40 who often have other health issues such as high blood pressure, diabetes, glaucoma, and blood diseases. Macular edema (ME) is the swelling of the macula (central area of the retina responsible for detailed vision, such as reading and seeing colors). ME is a complication of CRVO and is the primary reason for loss of vision in this condition. Steroids inserted into the eye, either by injection or an implanted device, have been used to treat ME caused by eye disorders other than CRVO. While steroids can lead to improvements in vision, the effect usually lasts only a few months and there is a risk of developing glaucoma, cataracts, and other complications." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPre-eclampsia is a pregnancy-specific multi-organ disorder, which is characterised by hypertension and multisystem organ involvement and which has significant maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. Failure of the placental vascular remodelling and reduced uteroplacental flow form the etiopathological basis of pre-eclampsia. There are several established therapies for pre-eclampsia including antihypertensives and anticonvulsants. Most of these therapies aim at controlling the blood pressure or preventing complications of elevated blood pressure, or both. Epidural therapy aims at blocking the vasomotor tone of the arteries, thereby increasing uteroplacental blood flow. This review was aimed at evaluating the available evidence about the possible benefits and risks of epidural therapy in the management of severe pre-eclampsia, to define the current evidence level of this therapy, and to determine what (if any) further evidence is required.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness, safety and cost of the extended use of epidural therapy for treating severe pre-eclampsia in non-labouring women. This review aims to compare the use of extended epidural therapy with other methods, which include intravenous magnesium sulphate, anticonvulsants other than magnesium sulphate, with or without use of the antihypertensive drugs and adjuncts in the treatment of severe pre-eclampsia.\nThis review only considered the use of epidural anaesthesia in the management of severe pre-eclampsia in the antepartum period and not as pain relief in labour.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (13 July 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing epidural therapy versus traditional therapy for pre-eclampsia in the form of antihypertensives, anticonvulsants, magnesium sulphate, low-dose dopamine, corticosteroids or a combination of these, were eligible for inclusion. Trials using a cluster design, and studies published in abstract form only are also eligible for inclusion in this review. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion in this review.\nData collection and analysis\nThe two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and trial quality. There were no relevant data available for extraction.\nMain results\nWe included one small study (involving 24 women). The study was a single-centre randomised trial conducted in Mexico. This study compared a control group who received antihypertensive therapy, anticonvulsant therapy, plasma expanders, corticosteroids and dypyridamole with an intervention group that received epidural block instead of the antihypertensives, as well as all the other four drugs. Lumbar epidural block was given using 0.25% bupivacaine, 10 mg bolus and 5 mg each hour on continuous epidural infusion for six hours. This study was at low risk of bias in three domains but was assessed to be high risk of bias in two domains due to lack of allocation concealment and blinding of women and staff, and unclear for random sequence generation and outcome assessor blinding.\nThe included study did not report on any of this review's important outcomes. Meta-analysis was not possible.\nFor the mother, these were: maternal death (death during pregnancy or up to 42 days after the end of the pregnancy, or death more than 42 days after the end of the pregnancy); development of eclampsia or recurrence of seizures; stroke; any serious morbidity: defined as at least one of stroke, kidney failure, liver failure, HELLP syndrome (haemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets), disseminated intravascular coagulation, pulmonary oedema.\nFor the baby, these were: death: stillbirths (death in utero at or after 20 weeks' gestation), perinatal deaths (stillbirths plus deaths in the first week of life), death before discharge from the hospital, neonatal deaths (death within the first 28 days after birth), deaths after the first 28 days; preterm birth (defined as the birth before 37 completed weeks' gestation); and side effects of the intervention.\nReported outcomes\nThe included study only reported on a single secondary outcome of interest to this review: the Apgar score of the baby at birth and after five minutes and there was no clear difference between the intervention and control groups.\nThe included study also reported a reduction in maternal diastolic arterial pressure. However, the change in maternal mean arterial pressure and systolic arterial pressure, which were the other reported outcomes of this trial, were not significantly different between the two groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently, there is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness, safety or cost of using epidural therapy for treating severe pre-eclampsia in non-labouring women.\nHigh-quality randomised controlled trials are needed to evaluate the use of epidural agents as therapy for treatment of severe pre-eclampsia. The rationale for the use of epidural is well-founded. However there is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to show that the effect of epidural translates into improved maternal and fetal outcomes. Thus, there is a need for larger, well-designed studies to come to an evidence-based conclusion as to whether the lowering of vasomotor tone by epidural therapy results in better maternal and fetal outcomes and for how long that could be maintained. Another important question that needs to be answered is how long should extended epidural be used to ensure any potential clinical benefits and what could be the associated side effects and costs. Interactions with other modalities of treatment and women's satisfaction could represent other avenues of research.\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": "There is not enough evidence from randomised controlled trials to evaluate the use of epidural therapy in severe pre-eclampsia to improve outcomes for the mother or her baby. High-quality trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy, safety and cost of epidural therapy in severe pre-eclampsia. Future studies could report on important outcomes such as those listed in this review." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPostoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, may reduce the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs).\nObjectives\nTo assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous (IV) ibuprofen, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate-to-severe postoperative pain in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases without language restrictions: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS on 10 June 2021. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous (IV) ibuprofen with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for review inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data.\nOur primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a 4- and 6-hour period.\nOur secondary outcomes were time to, and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and for any other cause; and number of participants reporting or experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and specific NSAID-related or opioid-related AEs.\nWe were not able to carry out any planned meta-analysis. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nOnly one study met our inclusion criteria, involving 201 total participants, mostly female (mean age 42 years), undergoing primary, unilateral, distal, first metatarsal bunionectomy (with osteotomy and internal fixation). Ibuprofen 300 mg, placebo or acetaminophen 1000 mg was administered intravenously to participants reporting moderate pain intensity the day after surgery. Since we identified only one study for inclusion, we did not perform any quantitative analyses. The study was at low risk of bias for most domains. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to serious study limitations, indirectness and imprecision.\nIbuprofen versus placebo\nFindings of the single study found that at both the 4-hour and 6-hour assessment period, the proportion of participants with at least 50% pain relief was 32% (24/76) for those assigned to ibuprofen and 22% (11/50) for those assigned to placebo. These findings produced a risk ratio (RR) of 1.44 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 2.66 versus placebo for at least 50% of maximum pain relief over the 4-hour and 6-hour period (very low-certainty evidence).\nMedian time to rescue medication was 101 minutes for ibuprofen and 71 minutes for placebo (1 study, 126 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The number of participants using rescue medication was not reported within the included study.\nDuring the study (1 study, 126 participants), 58/76 (76%) of participants assigned to ibuprofen and 39/50 (78%) assigned to placebo reported or experienced any adverse event (AE), (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.19; low-certainty evidence).\nNo serious AEs (SAEs) were experienced (1 study, 126 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nIbuprofen versus active comparators\nIbuprofen (300 mg) was similar to the active comparator, IV acetaminophen (1000 mg) at 4 hours and 6 hours (1 study, 126 participants). For those assigned to active control (acetaminophen), the proportion of participants with at least 50% pain relief was 35% (26/75) at 4 hours and 31% (23/75) at 6 hours. At 4 hours, these findings produced a RR of 0.91 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.43; very low-certainty evidence) versus active comparator (acetaminophen). At 6 hours, these findings produced a RR of 1.03 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.66; very low-certainty evidence) versus active comparator (acetaminophen).\nMedian time to rescue medication was 101 minutes for ibuprofen and 125 minutes for the active comparator, acetaminophen (1 study, 151 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The number of participants using rescue medication was not reported within the included study.\nDuring the study, 58/76 (76%) of participants assigned to ibuprofen and 45/75 (60%) assigned to active control (acetaminophen) reported or experienced any AE, (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.59; very low-certainty evidence).\nNo SAEs were experienced (1 study, 151 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that IV ibuprofen is effective and safe for acute postoperative pain in adults.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up to date is this evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The evidence is up to date to June 2021." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPharmacotherapies for smoking cessation increase the likelihood of achieving abstinence in a quit attempt. It is plausible that providing support, or, if support is offered, offering more intensive support or support including particular components may increase abstinence further.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effect of adding or increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition. We also looked at studies which directly compare behavioural interventions matched for contact time, where pharmacotherapy is provided to both groups (e.g. tests of different components or approaches to behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP in June 2018 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline, that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount or type of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact (defined as face-to-face or telephone). The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, a different type of personal contact, written information, or no behavioural support at all. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women and trials which did not set out to assess smoking cessation at six months or longer.\nData collection and analysis\nFor this update, screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates, if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model.\nMain results\nEighty-three studies, 36 of which were new to this update, met the inclusion criteria, representing 29,536 participants. Overall, we judged 16 studies to be at low risk of bias and 21 studies to be at high risk of bias. All other studies were judged to be at unclear risk of bias. Results were not sensitive to the exclusion of studies at high risk of bias. We pooled all studies comparing more versus less support in the main analysis. Findings demonstrated a benefit of behavioural support in addition to pharmacotherapy. When all studies of additional behavioural therapy were pooled, there was evidence of a statistically significant benefit from additional support (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.22, I² = 8%, 65 studies, n = 23,331) for abstinence at longest follow-up, and this effect was not different when we compared subgroups by type of pharmacotherapy or intensity of contact. This effect was similar in the subgroup of eight studies in which the control group received no behavioural support (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43, I² = 20%, n = 4,018). Seventeen studies compared interventions matched for contact time but that differed in terms of the behavioural components or approaches employed. Of the 15 comparisons, all had small numbers of participants and events. Only one detected a statistically significant effect, favouring a health education approach (which the authors described as standard counselling containing information and advice) over motivational interviewing approach (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.94, n = 378).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is high-certainty evidence that providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking increases quit rates. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 20%, based on a pooled estimate from 65 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support. More research is needed to assess the effectiveness of specific components that comprise behavioural support.\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 looked for studies that included smokers and provided or offered medication to everyone. People in the studies were then randomly split into groups which received different amounts or kinds of behavioural support. To assess whether the support given helped people to quit, the studies had to count the number of people not smoking after six months or more. We did not look at studies that only included pregnant women." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nProliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is an advanced complication of diabetic retinopathy that can cause blindness. It consists of the presence of new vessels in the retina and vitreous haemorrhage. Although panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) is the treatment of choice for PDR, it has secondary effects that can affect vision. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF), which produces an inhibition of vascular proliferation, could improve the vision of people with PDR.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of anti-VEGFs for PDR and summarise any relevant economic evaluations of their use.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2022, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP. We did not use any date or language restrictions. We last searched the electronic databases on 1 June 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anti-VEGFs to another active treatment, sham treatment, or no treatment for people with PDR. We also included studies that assessed the combination of anti-VEGFs with other treatments. We excluded studies that used anti-VEGFs in people undergoing vitrectomy.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias (RoB) for all included trials. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or the mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 15 new studies in this update, bringing the total to 23 RCTs with 1755 participants (2334 eyes). Forty-five per cent of participants were women and 55% were men, with a mean age of 56 years (range 48 to 77 years). The mean glycosylated haemoglobin (Hb1Ac) was 8.45% for the PRP group and 8.25% for people receiving anti-VEGFs alone or in combination. Twelve studies included people with PDR, and participants in 11 studies had high-risk PDR (HRPDR).\nTwelve studies were of bevacizumab, seven of ranibizumab, one of conbercept, two of pegaptanib, and one of aflibercept. The mean number of participants per RCT was 76 (ranging from 15 to 305). Most studies had an unclear or high RoB, mainly in the blinding of interventions and outcome assessors. A few studies had selective reporting and attrition bias.\nNo study reported loss or gain of 3 or more lines of visual acuity (VA) at 12 months. Anti-VEGFs ± PRP probably increase VA compared with PRP alone (mean difference (MD) -0.08 logMAR, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.04; I2 = 28%; 10 RCTS, 1172 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP may increase regression of new vessels (MD -4.14 mm2, 95% CI -6.84 to -1.43; I2 = 75%; 4 RCTS, 189 eyes; low-certainty evidence) and probably increase a complete regression of new vessels (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.24; I2 = 46%; 5 RCTS, 405 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP probably reduce vitreous haemorrhage (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.90; I2 = 0%; 6 RCTS, 1008 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP may reduce the need for vitrectomy compared with eyes that received PRP alone (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.93; I2 = 43%; 8 RCTs, 1248 eyes; low-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP may result in little to no difference in the quality of life compared with PRP alone (MD 0.62, 95% CI -3.99 to 5.23; I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 382 participants; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if anti-VEGFs ± PRP compared with PRP alone had an impact on adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). We did not find differences in visual acuity in subgroup analyses comparing the type of anti-VEGFs, the severity of the disease (PDR versus HRPDR), time to follow-up (< 12 months versus 12 or more months), and treatment with anti-VEGFs + PRP versus anti-VEGFs alone.\nThe main reasons for downgrading the certainty of evidence included a high RoB, imprecision, and inconsistency of effect estimates.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAnti-VEGFs ± PRP compared with PRP alone probably increase visual acuity, but the degree of improvement is not clinically meaningful. Regarding secondary outcomes, anti-VEGFs ± PRP produce a regression of new vessels, reduce vitreous haemorrhage, and may reduce the need for vitrectomy compared with eyes that received PRP alone. We do not know if anti-VEGFs ± PRP have an impact on the incidence of adverse events and they may have little or no effect on patients' quality of life. Carefully designed and conducted clinical trials are required, assessing the optimal schedule of anti-VEGFs alone compared with PRP, and with a longer follow-up.\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": "Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is the medical name for advanced damage to the retina. PDR consists of the presence of new vessels in the retina and a vitreous or pre-retinal haemorrhage (leakage of blood in and around the gel that fills the space between the crystalline lens and the retina), and can cause blindness. Panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) using laser is the current treatment. However, it has secondary effects such as loss of vision. Anti-VEGFs stop new vessels from forming. We wanted to find out if anti-VEGFs, either combined with other treatments or alone, were safe and better than a standard alternative to improve PDR." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPostoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication following general anaesthesia. It may be associated with patient dissatisfaction, increased costs of treatment, and unintended admission to hospital.\nSupplemental intravenous crystalloid administration in the perioperative period may be a simple intervention to prevent PONV.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether supplemental intravenous crystalloid administration prevents PONV in patients undergoing surgical procedures under general anaesthesia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1946 to August 2018), Embase (1947 to August 2018), and the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1971 to August 2018). We searched clinical trials registers for ongoing or unpublished completed studies (August 2018), handsearched conference proceedings of anaesthesiology societies, as published in three major journals (British Journal of Anaesthesia, European Journal of Anaesthesiology, and Anesthesiology; August 2018), and conducted backward and forward citation searching of relevant articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials of participants older than six months undergoing surgical procedures under general anaesthesia and given supplemental perioperative intravenous crystalloids, defined as a volume larger than that received by a comparator group, to prevent PONV.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures described by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 41 studies (4224 participants). Participants underwent ambulatory or short length of stay surgical procedures, and were predominantly American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) class I or II. There is one study awaiting classification and three ongoing studies. All studies took place in surgical centres, and were conducted in geographically diverse settings. Risk of bias was generally unclear across all domains.\nSupplemental intravenous crystalloid administration probably reduces the cumulative risk of postoperative nausea (PON) (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.75; 18 studies; 1766 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). When the postoperative period was divided into early (first six hours postoperatively) and late (at the time point closest to or including 24 hours postoperatively) time points, the intervention reduced the risk of early PON (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.78; 20 studies; 2310 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and late PON (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.69; 17 studies; 1682 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nSupplemental intravenous crystalloid administration probably reduces the risk of postoperative vomiting (POV) (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.63; 20 studies; 1970 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The intervention specifically reduced both early POV (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.76; 19 studies; 1998 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and late POV (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.79; 15 studies; 1403 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nSupplemental intravenous crystalloid administration probably reduces the need for pharmacologic treatment of PONV (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.76; 23 studies; 2416 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nThe effect of supplemental intravenous crystalloid administration on the risk of unplanned postoperative admission to hospital is unclear (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.43; 3 studies; 235 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nNo studies reported serious adverse events that may occur following supplemental perioperative intravenous crystalloid administration (i.e. admission to high-dependency unit, postoperative cardiac or respiratory complication, or death).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate-certainty evidence that supplemental perioperative intravenous crystalloid administration reduces PON and POV, in ASA class I to II patients receiving general anaesthesia for ambulatory or short length of stay surgical procedures. The intervention probably also reduces the risk of pharmacologic treatment for PONV. The effect of the intervention on the risk of unintended postoperative admission to hospital is unclear. The risk of serious adverse events resulting from supplemental perioperative intravenous crystalloid administration is unknown as no studies reported this outcome. The one study awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.\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 search was up-to-date as of August 2018." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcupuncture and related techniques are promoted as a treatment for smoking cessation in the belief that they may reduce nicotine withdrawal symptoms.\nObjectives\nThe objectives of this review are to determine the effectiveness of acupuncture and the related interventions of acupressure, laser therapy and electrostimulation in smoking cessation, in comparison with no intervention, sham treatment, or other interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register (which includes trials of smoking cessation interventions identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO) and AMED in October 2013. We also searched four Chinese databases in September 2013: Sino-Med, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data and VIP.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized trials comparing a form of acupuncture, acupressure, laser therapy or electrostimulation with either no intervention, sham treatment or another intervention for smoking cessation.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data in duplicate on the type of smokers recruited, the nature of the intervention and control procedures, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow-up.\nWe assessed abstinence from smoking at the earliest time-point (before six weeks) and at the last measurement point between six months and one year. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Those lost to follow-up were counted as continuing smokers. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis pooling risk ratios using a fixed-effect model.\nMain results\nWe included 38 studies. Based on three studies, acupuncture was not shown to be more effective than a waiting list control for long-term abstinence, with wide confidence intervals and evidence of heterogeneity (n = 393, risk ratio [RR] 1.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98 to 3.28, I² = 57%). Compared with sham acupuncture, the RR for the short-term effect of acupuncture was 1.22 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.38), and for the long-term effect was 1.10 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.40). The studies were not judged to be free from bias, and there was evidence of funnel plot asymmetry with larger studies showing smaller effects. The heterogeneity between studies was not explained by the technique used. Acupuncture was less effective than nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). There was no evidence that acupuncture is superior to psychological interventions in the short- or long-term. There is limited evidence that acupressure is superior to sham acupressure for short-term outcomes (3 trials, n = 325, RR 2.54, 95% CI 1.27 to 5.08), but no trials reported long-term effects, The pooled estimate for studies testing an intervention that included continuous auricular stimulation suggested a short-term benefit compared to sham stimulation (14 trials, n = 1155, RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.16); subgroup analysis showed an effect for continuous acupressure (7 studies, n = 496, RR 2.73, 95% CI 1.78 to 4.18) but not acupuncture with indwelling needles (6 studies, n = 659, RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.69). At longer follow-up the CIs did not exclude no effect (5 trials, n = 570, RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.74). The evidence from two trials using laser stimulation was inconsistent and could not be combined. The combined evidence on electrostimulation suggests it is not superior to sham electrostimulation (short-term abstinence: 6 trials, n = 634, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.46; long-term abstinence: 2 trials, n = 405, RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.23).\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough pooled estimates suggest possible short-term effects there is no consistent, bias-free evidence that acupuncture, acupressure, or laser therapy have a sustained benefit on smoking cessation for six months or more. However, lack of evidence and methodological problems mean that no firm conclusions can be drawn. Electrostimulation is not effective for smoking cessation. Well-designed research into acupuncture, acupressure and laser stimulation is justified since these are popular interventions and safe when correctly applied, though these interventions alone are likely to be less effective than evidence-based interventions.\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 38 randomised studies published up to October 2013. Trials tested a variety of different interventions and controls. The specific points used, the number of sessions and whether there was continuous stimulation varied. Three studies (393 people) compared acupuncture to a waiting list control. Nineteen studies (1,588 people) compared active acupuncture to sham acupuncture, but only 11 of these studies included long-term follow-up of six months or more. Three studies (253 people) compared acupressure to sham acupressure but none had long-term follow-up. Two trials used laser stimulation and six (634 people) used electrostimulation. The overall quality of the evidence was moderate." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCancer is a leading cause of death worldwide. Gynaecologic cancer treatment is known to have the potential for a major impact on quality of life (QoL). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is an umbrella term that covers a range of potential types of measurement but is used specifically to refer to self reports by the patient of their health and well-being. Use of QoL and cancer-specific questionnaires as alternatives to follow-up may have immense psychological benefit to the patient and cost benefit to the healthcare system.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of PROMs as an alternative to routine follow-up of women after treatment for gynaecological cancers to identify recurrences, affect overall survival and assess psychological benefit.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to November 2012. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of review articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs with concurrent comparison groups (of adequate quality that used statistical adjustment for baseline case mix using multivariable analyses) that compared PROMs or QoL questionnaires versus traditional follow-up with multiple visits to the hospital in women after treatment for gynaecological cancers. Studies that involved women completing PROMs at intervals and submitting results for assessment by their cancer care team or structured interviews of women during their follow-up were included in the analysis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria. We found no studies and therefore analysed no data.\nMain results\nThe search strategy identified 2524 unique references, of which all were excluded.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no evidence to make an informed decision about PROMs for follow-up after gynaecological cancer. Ideally, RCTs which are multicentre or multinational or both, or well-designed non-randomised studies are needed that use multivariable analysis to adjust for baseline imbalances, to compare follow-up strategies and improve current knowledge.\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": "No studies suitable for inclusion in our review were found. This highlights the need for good-quality studies comparing PROMs to standard follow-up. Evidence from adequately-powered studies at low risk of bias are needed." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe ubiquity of mobile devices has made it possible for clinical decision-support systems (CDSS) to become available to healthcare providers on handheld devices at the point-of-care, including in low- and middle-income countries. The use of CDSS by providers can potentially improve adherence to treatment protocols and patient outcomes. However, the evidence on the effect of the use of CDSS on mobile devices needs to be synthesized. This review was carried out to support a World Health Organization (WHO) guideline that aimed to inform investments on the use of decision-support tools on digital devices to strengthen primary healthcare.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of digital clinical decision-support systems (CDSS) accessible via mobile devices by primary healthcare providers in the context of primary care settings.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Index Medicus, POPLINE, and two trial registries from 1 January 2000 to 9 October 2020. We conducted a grey literature search using mHealthevidence.org and issued a call for papers through popular digital health communities of practice. Finally, we conducted citation searches of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nStudy design: we included randomized trials, including full-text studies, conference abstracts, and unpublished data irrespective of publication status or language of publication.\nTypes of participants: we included studies of all cadres of healthcare providers, including lay health workers and other individuals (administrative, managerial, and supervisory staff) involved in the delivery of primary healthcare services using clinical decision-support tools; and studies of clients or patients receiving care from primary healthcare providers using digital decision-support tools.\nTypes of interventions: we included studies comparing digital CDSS accessible via mobile devices with non-digital CDSS or no intervention, in the context of primary care. CDSS could include clinical protocols, checklists, and other job-aids which supported risk prioritization of patients. Mobile devices included mobile phones of any type (but not analogue landline telephones), as well as tablets, personal digital assistants, and smartphones. We excluded studies where digital CDSS were used on laptops or integrated with electronic medical records or other types of longitudinal tracking of clients.\nData collection and analysis\nA machine learning classifier that gave each record a probability score of being a randomized trial screened all search results. Two review authors screened titles and abstracts of studies with more than 10% probability of being a randomized trial, and one review author screened those with less than 10% probability of being a randomized trial. We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for the most important outcomes.\nMain results\nEight randomized trials across varying healthcare contexts in the USA,. India, China, Guatemala, Ghana, and Kenya, met our inclusion criteria. A range of healthcare providers (facility and community-based, formally trained, and lay workers) used digital CDSS. Care was provided for the management of specific conditions such as cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal risk assessment, and maternal and child health. The certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate, and we often downgraded evidence for risk of bias and imprecision.\nWe are uncertain of the effect of this intervention on providers' adherence to recommended practice due to the very low certainty evidence (2 studies, 185 participants). The effect of the intervention on patients' and clients' health behaviours such as smoking and treatment adherence is mixed, with substantial variation across outcomes for similar types of behaviour (2 studies, 2262 participants). The intervention probably makes little or no difference to smoking rates among people at risk of cardiovascular disease but probably increases other types of desired behaviour among patients, such as adherence to treatment. The effect of the intervention on patients'/clients' health status and well-being  is also mixed (5 studies, 69,767 participants). It probably makes little or no difference to some types of health outcomes, but we are uncertain about other health outcomes, including maternal and neonatal deaths, due to very low-certainty evidence. The intervention may slightly improve patient or client acceptability and satisfaction (1 study, 187 participants). We found no studies that reported the time between the presentation of an illness and appropriate management, provider acceptability or satisfaction, resource use, or unintended consequences.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain about the effectiveness of mobile phone-based decision-support tools on several outcomes, including adherence to recommended practice. None of the studies had a quality of care framework and focused only on specific health areas.   We need well-designed research that takes a systems lens to assess these issues.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was the aim of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "In this Cochrane Review, we aimed to find out if primary (community) healthcare workers using decision-support tools on mobile phones or other mobile devices give better quality care. We looked for studies where researchers compared a decision-support tool used on mobile phones to routine practice where there may be no guidance or some guidance in a paper format. We searched for studies conducted from 1 January 2000 to 9 October 2020. We found eight studies." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nRaised intraocular pressure is a risk factor for glaucoma. One treatment option is glaucoma drainage surgery (trabeculectomy). Antimetabolites are used during surgery to reduce postoperative scarring during wound healing. Two agents in common use are mitomycin C (MMC) and 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of MMC compared to 5-FU as an antimetabolite adjunct in trabeculectomy surgery.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2015 Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to October 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to October 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to October 2015), 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 2 October 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials where wound healing had been modified with MMC compared to 5-FU.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials and collected data. The primary outcome was failure of a functioning trabeculectomy one year after surgery. Secondary outcomes included mean intraocular pressure at one year. We considered three subgroups: high risk of trabeculectomy failure (people with previous glaucoma surgery, extracapsular cataract surgery, African origin and people with secondary glaucoma or congenital glaucoma); medium risk of trabeculectomy failure (people undergoing trabeculectomy with extracapsular cataract surgery) and low risk of trabeculectomy failure (people who have received no previous surgical eye intervention).\nMain results\nWe identified 11 trials that enrolled 687 eyes of 679 participants. The studies were conducted in the United States, Europe, Asia and Africa. Five studies enrolled participants at low risk of trabeculectomy failure, five studies enrolled participants at high risk of failure, and one study enrolled people with both high and low risk of failure. None of the included trials enrolled participants with combined trabeculectomy/cataract surgery.\nWe considered one study to be at low risk of bias in all domains, six studies to be at high risk of bias in one or more domains, and the remaining four studies to be at an unclear risk of bias in all domains.\nThe risk of failure of trabeculectomy at one year after surgery was less in those participants who received MMC compared to those who received 5-FU, however the confidence intervals were wide and are compatible with no effect (risk ratio (RR) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 1.00; studies = 11; I2 = 40%). There was no evidence for any difference between groups at high and low risk of failure (test for subgroup differences P = 0.69).\nOn average, people treated with MMC had lower intraocular pressure at one year (mean difference (MD) -3.05 mmHg, 95% CI -4.60 to -1.50), but the studies were inconsistent (I2 = 52%). The size of the effect was greater in the high-risk group (MD -4.18 mmHg, 95% CI -6.73 to -1.64) compared to the low-risk group (MD -1.72 mmHg, 95% CI -3.28 to -0.16), but again the test for interaction was not statistically significant (P = 0.11).\nSimilar proportions of eyes treated with MMC lost 2 or more lines of visual acuity one year after surgery compared to 5-FU, but the confidence intervals were wide (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.06).\nAdverse events occurred relatively rarely, and estimates of effect were generally imprecise. There was some evidence for less epitheliopathy in the MMC group (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.47) and less hyphaema in the MMC group (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.91).\nNone of the studies reported quality of life.\nOverall, we graded the quality of the evidence as low largely because of risk of bias in the included studies and imprecision in the estimate of effect.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found low-quality evidence that MMC may be more effective in achieving long-term lower intraocular pressure than 5-FU. Further comparative research on MMC and 5-FU is needed to enhance reliability and validity of the results shown in this review. Furthermore, the development of new agents that control postoperative scar tissue formation without side effects would be valuable and is justified by the results of this review.\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 up to date to October 2015." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHereditary angioedema (HAE) is a serious and potentially life-threatening condition that causes acute attacks of swelling, pain and reduced quality of life. People with Type I HAE (approximately 80% of all HAE cases) have insufficient amounts of C1 esterase inhibitor (C1-INH) protein; people with Type II HAE (approximately 20% of all cases) may have normal C1-INH concentrations, but, due to genetic mutations, these do not function properly. A few people, predominantly females, experience HAE despite having normal C1-INH levels and C1-INH function (rare Type III HAE). Several new drugs have been developed to treat acute attacks and prevent recurrence of attacks. There is currently no systematic review and meta-analysis that included all preventive medications for HAE.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of interventions for the long-term prevention of HAE attacks in people with Type I, Type II or Type III HAE.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 3 August 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials in children or adults with HAE that used medications to prevent HAE attacks. The comparators could be placebo or active comparator, or both; approved and experimental drug trials were eligible for inclusion. There were no restrictions on dose, frequency or intensity of treatment. The minimum length of four weeks of treatment was required for inclusion; this criterion excluded the acute treatment of HAE attacks.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. HAE attacks (number of attacks per person, per population) and change in number of HAE attacks; 2. mortality and 3. serious adverse events (e.g. hepatic dysfunction, hepatic toxicity and deleterious changes in blood tests). Our secondary outcomes were 4. quality of life; 5. severity of breakthrough attacks; 6. disability and 7. adverse events (e.g. weight gain, mild psychological changes and body hair). We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe identified 15 studies (912 participants) that met the inclusion criteria. The studies included people with Type I and II HAE. The studies investigated avoralstat, berotralstat, subcutaneous C1-INH, plasma-derived C1-INH, nanofiltered C1-INH, recombinant human C1-INH, danazol, and lanadelumab for the prevention of HAE attacks. We did not find any studies on the use of tranexamic acid for prevention of HAE attacks.\nAll drugs except avoralstat reduced the number of HAE attacks compared with placebo. For breakthrough attacks that occurred despite prophylactic treatment, intravenous and subcutaneous forms of C1-INH and lanadelumab reduced attack severity. It is not known whether other drugs have a similar effect, as the severity of breakthrough attacks in people taking drugs other than C1-INH and lanadelumab was not reported.\nFor quality of life, avoralstat, berotralstat, C1-INH (all forms) and lanadelumab increased quality of life compared with placebo; there were no data for danazol. Four studies reported on changes in disability during treatment with C1-INH, berotralstat and lanadelumab; all three drugs decreased disability compared with placebo.\nAdverse events, including serious adverse events, did not occur at a rate higher than placebo. However, serious adverse event data and other adverse event data were not available for danazol, which prevented us from drawing conclusions about the absolute or relative safety of this drug. No deaths were reported in the included studies.\nThe analysis was limited by the small number of studies, the small number of participants in each study and the lack of data on older drugs, therefore the certainty of the evidence is low. Given the rarity of HAE, it is not surprising that drugs were rarely directly compared, which does not allow conclusions on the comparative efficacy of the various drugs for people with HAE.\nFinally, we did not identify any studies that included people with Type III HAE. Therefore, we cannot draw any conclusions about the efficacy or safety of any drug in people with this form of HAE.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe available data suggest that berotralstat, C1-INH (subcutaneous, plasma-derived, nanofiltered and recombinant), danazol and lanadelumab are effective in lowering the risk or incidence (or both) of HAE attacks. In addition, C1-INH and lanadelumab decrease the severity of breakthrough attacks (data for other drugs were not available). Avoralstat, berotralstat, C1-INH (all forms) and lanadelumab increase quality of life and do not increase the risk of adverse events, including serious adverse events. It is possible that danazol, subcutaneous C1-INH and recombinant human C1-INH are more effective than berotralstat and lanadelumab in reducing the risk of breakthrough attacks, but the small number of studies and the small size of the studies means that the certainty of the evidence is low. This and the lack of head-to-head trials prevented us from drawing firm conclusions on the relative efficacy of the drugs.\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": "Our findings are limited by the small number of studies and the small number of participants in each study. Therefore, our confidence in these findings is low." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nFor management of pneumothorax that occurs without underlying lung disease, also referred to as primary spontaneous pneumothorax, simple aspiration is technically easier to perform than intercostal tube drainage. In this systematic review, we seek to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of simple aspiration versus intercostal tube drainage for management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax. This review was first published in 2007 and was updated in 2017.\nObjectives\nTo compare the clinical efficacy and safety of simple aspiration versus intercostal tube drainage for management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (1966 to January 2017); and Embase (1980 to January 2017). We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry for ongoing trials (January 2017). We checked the reference lists of included trials and contacted trial authors. We imposed no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults 18 years of age and older with primary spontaneous pneumothorax that compared simple aspiration versus intercostal tube drainage.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We combined studies using the random-effects model.\nMain results\nOf 2332 publications obtained through the search strategy, seven studies met the inclusion criteria; one study was ongoing and six studies of 435 participants were eligible for inclusion in the updated review. Data show a significant difference in immediate success rates of procedures favouring tube drainage over simple aspiration for management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.89; 435 participants, 6 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Duration of hospitalization however was significantly less for patients treated by simple aspiration (mean difference (MD) -1.66, 95% CI -2.28 to -1.04; 387 participants, 5 studies; moderate-quality evidence). A narrative synthesis of evidence revealed that simple aspiration led to fewer adverse events (245 participants, 3 studies; low-quality evidence), but data suggest no differences between groups in terms of one-year success rate (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18; 318 participants, 4 studies; moderate-quality evidence), hospitalization rate (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.47; 245 participants, 3 studies; very low-quality evidence), and patient satisfaction (median between-group difference of 0.5 on a scale from 1 to 10; 48 participants, 1 study; low-quality evidence). No studies provided data on cost-effectiveness.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAvailable trials showed low to moderate-quality evidence that intercostal tube drainage produced higher rates of immediate success, while simple aspiration resulted in a shorter duration of hospitalization. Although adverse events were reported more commonly for patients treated with tube drainage, the low quality of the evidence warrants caution in interpreting these findings. Similarly, although this review observed no differences between groups when early failure rate, one-year success rate, or hospital admission rate was evaluated, this too needs to be put into the perspective of the quality of evidence, specifically, for evidence of very low and low quality for hospitalization rate and patient satisfaction, respectively. Future adequately powered research is needed to strengthen the evidence presented in this review.\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": "Results of this review indicate that tube drainage has a better immediate success rate than simple aspiration for treating people with primary spontaneous pneumothorax. However, simple aspiration results in a shorter hospital stay and, although the evidence presented for this outcome is of low quality, may lead to fewer adverse events than are reported with tube drainage. The overall quality of evidence ranges from very low to moderate, and future research is needed to strengthen the evidence presented in this review." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nProlonged mechanical ventilation is associated with a longer intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay and higher mortality. Consequently, methods to improve ventilator weaning processes have been sought. Two recent Cochrane systematic reviews in ICU adult and paediatric populations concluded that protocols can be effective in reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation, but there was significant heterogeneity in study findings. Growing awareness of the benefits of understanding the contextual factors impacting on effectiveness has encouraged the integration of qualitative evidence syntheses with effectiveness reviews, which has delivered important insights into the reasons underpinning (differential) effectiveness of healthcare interventions.\nObjectives\n1. To locate, appraise and synthesize qualitative evidence concerning the barriers and facilitators of the use of protocols for weaning critically-ill adults and children from mechanical ventilation;\n2. To integrate this synthesis with two Cochrane effectiveness reviews of protocolized weaning to help explain observed heterogeneity by identifying contextual factors that impact on the use of protocols for weaning critically-ill adults and children from mechanical ventilation;\n3. To use the integrated body of evidence to suggest the circumstances in which weaning protocols are most likely to be used.\nSearch methods\nWe used a range of search terms identified with the help of the SPICE (Setting, Perspective, Intervention, Comparison, Evaluation) mnemonic. Where available, we used appropriate methodological filters for specific databases. We searched the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, OVID, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, EBSCOHost, Web of Science Core Collection, ASSIA, IBSS, Sociological Abstracts, ProQuest and LILACS on the 26th February 2015. In addition, we searched: the grey literature; the websites of professional associations for relevant publications; and the reference lists of all publications reviewed. We also contacted authors of the trials included in the effectiveness reviews as well as of studies (potentially) included in the qualitative synthesis, conducted citation searches of the publications reporting these studies, and contacted content experts.\nWe reran the search on 3rd July 2016 and found three studies, which are awaiting classification.\nSelection criteria\nWe included qualitative studies that described: the circumstances in which protocols are designed, implemented or used, or both, and the views and experiences of healthcare professionals either involved in the design, implementation or use of weaning protocols or involved in the weaning of critically-ill adults and children from mechanical ventilation not using protocols. We included studies that: reflected on any aspect of the use of protocols, explored contextual factors relevant to the development, implementation or use of weaning protocols, and reported contextual phenomena and outcomes identified as relevant to the effectiveness of protocolized weaning from mechanical ventilation.\nData collection and analysis\nAt each stage, two review authors undertook designated tasks, with the results shared amongst the wider team for discussion and final development. We independently reviewed all retrieved titles, abstracts and full papers for inclusion, and independently extracted selected data from included studies. We used the findings of the included studies to develop a new set of analytic themes focused on the barriers and facilitators to the use of protocols, and further refined them to produce a set of summary statements. We used the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual) framework to arrive at a final assessment of the overall confidence of the evidence used in the synthesis. We included all studies but undertook two sensitivity analyses to determine how the removal of certain bodies of evidence impacted on the content and confidence of the synthesis. We deployed a logic model to integrate the findings of the qualitative evidence synthesis with those of the Cochrane effectiveness reviews.\nMain results\nWe included 11 studies in our synthesis, involving 267 participants (one study did not report the number of participants). Five more studies are awaiting classification and will be dealt with when we update the review.\nThe quality of the evidence was mixed; of the 35 summary statements, we assessed 17 as ‘low’, 13 as ‘moderate’ and five as ‘high’ confidence. Our synthesis produced nine analytical themes, which report potential barriers and facilitators to the use of protocols. The themes are: the need for continual staff training and development; clinical experience as this promotes felt and perceived competence and confidence to wean; the vulnerability of weaning to disparate interprofessional working; an understanding of protocols as militating against a necessary proactivity in clinical practice; perceived nursing scope of practice and professional risk; ICU structure and processes of care; the ability of protocols to act as a prompt for shared care and consistency in weaning practice; maximizing the use of protocols through visibility and ease of implementation; and the ability of protocols to act as a framework for communication with parents.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is a clear need for weaning protocols to take account of the social and cultural environment in which they are to be implemented. Irrespective of its inherent strengths, a protocol will not be used if it does not accommodate these complexities. In terms of protocol development, comprehensive interprofessional input will help to ensure broad-based understanding and a sense of ‘ownership’. In terms of implementation, all relevant ICU staff will benefit from general weaning as well as protocol-specific training; not only will this help secure a relevant clinical knowledge base and operational understanding, but will also demonstrate to others that this knowledge and understanding is in place. In order to maximize relevance and acceptability, protocols should be designed with the patient profile and requirements of the target ICU in mind. Predictably, an under-resourced ICU will impact adversely on protocol implementation, as staff will prioritize management of acutely deteriorating and critically-ill patients.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Methods\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "To identify studies using qualitative methods, we searched relevant electronic databases of journals in February 2015. We also searched the reference lists of articles, contacted the authors of all of the studies included in the two earlier reviews and in our qualitative synthesis, and contacted experts in mechanical ventilation. We combined the findings of the relevant studies to produce a synthesis of the evidence on what influences health professionals to use protocols. We then combined our synthesis with the findings of the two earlier reviews to help explain why some of the studies had shown protocols to be effective and others had not. We were able to do so by producing explanations of how different factors work together to either promote or hinder the use of protocols. We outlined these explanations in a ‘logic model’." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOsteoporosis is a disorder of bone mineralisation occurring in about one third of adults with cystic fibrosis. Bisphosphonates can increase bone mineral density and decrease the risk of new fractures in post-menopausal women and people receiving long-term oral corticosteroids. This is an updated version of a previous review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of bisphosphonates on the frequency of fractures, bone mineral density, quality of life, adverse events, trial withdrawals, and survival in people with cystic fibrosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Register of references (identified from electronic database searches and hand searches of journals and abstract books) on 5 May 2022.\nWe performed additional searches of PubMed, clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) on 5 May 2022.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of at least six months duration studying bisphosphonates in people with cystic fibrosis.\nData collection and analysis\nAuthors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included studies. Trial investigators were contacted to obtain missing data. We judged the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included nine trials with a total of 385 participants (272 adults and 113 children (aged five to 18 years)). Trial durations ranged from six months to two years. Only two of the studies were considered to have a low risk of bias for all the domains.\nBisphosphonates compared to control in people with cystic fibrosis who have not had a lung transplant\nSeven trials included only adult participants without lung transplants, one trial included both adults and children without lung transplantation (total of 238 adults and 113 children). We analysed adults (n = 238) and children (n = 113) separately.\nAdults\nThree trials assessed intravenous bisphosphonates (one assessed pamidronate and two assessed zoledronate) and five trials assessed oral bisphosphonates (one assessed risedronate and four assessed alendronate). Bisphosphonates were compared to either placebo or calcium (with or without additional vitamin D). Data showed no difference between treatment or control groups in new vertebral fractures at 12 months (odds ratio (OR) 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 2.09; 5 trials, 142 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and two trials (44 participants) reported no vertebral fractures at 24 months. There was no difference in non-vertebral fractures at 12 months (OR 2.11, 95% CI 0.18 to 25.35; 4 trials, 95 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and again two trials (44 participants) reported no non-vertebral fractures at 24 months. There was no difference in total fractures between groups at 12 months (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.50; 5 trials, 142 participants) and no fractures were reported in two trials (44 participants) at 24 months. At 12 months, bisphosphonates may increase bone mineral density at the lumbar spine (mean difference (MD) 6.31, 95% CI 5.39 to 7.22; 6 trials, 171 participants; low-certainty evidence) and at the hip or femur (MD 4.41, 95% 3.44 to 5.37; 5 trials, 155 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in quality of life scores at 12 months (1 trial, 47 participants; low-certainty evidence), but bisphosphonates probably led to more adverse events (bone pain) at 12 months (OR 8.49, 95% CI 3.20 to 22.56; 7 trials, 206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nChildren\nThe single trial in 113 children compared oral alendronate to placebo. We graded all evidence as low certainty. At 12 months we found no difference between treatment and placebo in new vertebral fractures (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.13; 1 trial, 113 participants) and non-vertebral fractures (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.04; 1 trial, 113 participants). There was also no difference in total fractures (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.61; 1 trial, 113 participants). Bisphosphonates may increase bone mineral density at the lumbar spine at 12 months (MD 14.50, 95% CI 12.91 to 16.09). There was no difference in bone or muscle pain (MD 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.22), fever (MD 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.22) or gastrointestinal adverse events (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.26). The trial did not measure bone mineral density at the hip/femur or report on quality of life.\nBisphosphonates compared to control in people with cystic fibrosis who have had a lung transplant\nOne trial of 34 adults who had undergone lung transplantation compared intravenous pamidronate to no bisphosphonate treatment. It did not report at 12 months and we report the 24-month data (not assessed by GRADE). There was no difference in the number of fractures, either vertebral or non-vertebral. However, bone mineral density increased with treatment at the lumbar spine (MD 6.20, 95% CI 4.28 to 8.12) and femur (MD 7.90, 95% CI 5.78 to 10.02). No participants in either group reported either bone pain or fever. The trial did not measure quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOral and intravenous bisphosphonates may increase bone mineral density in people with cystic fibrosis, but there are insufficient data to determine whether treatment reduces fractures. Severe bone pain and flu-like symptoms may occur with intravenous bisphosphonates.\nBefore any firm conclusions can be drawn, trials in larger populations, including children, and of longer duration are needed to determine effects on fracture rate and survival. Additional trials are needed to determine if bone pain is more common or severe (or both) with the more potent zoledronate and if corticosteroids can ameliorate or prevent these adverse events. Future trials should also assess gastrointestinal adverse effects associated with oral bisphosphonates.\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 bisphosphonates (drugs that prevent the loss of bone mass), either oral (taken by mouth) or intravenous (given directly into a vein), on osteoporosis in people with cystic fibrosis (CF)?" } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGiant cell arteritis (GCA) is the most common form of systemic vasculitis in people older than 50 years of age. It causes granulomatous inflammation of medium- to large-sized vessels. Tocilizumab is a recombinant monoclonal antibody directed against interleukin-6 receptors (IL-6R).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of tocilizumab, given alone or with corticosteroids, compared with therapy without tocilizumab for treatment of GCA.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2020, Issue 1); 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). There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 3 January 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared tocilizumab of any dosage regimen (alone or with corticosteroids) with therapy without tocilizumab that had a minimum follow-up of six months. Participants were at least 50 years of age, with biopsy-proven GCA or by large-vessel vasculitis by angiography, and met the American College of Rheumatology 1990 guidelines for GCA.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodology.\nMain results\nMain results\nWe included two RCTs in the review. The studies were conducted in the USA, Canada, and Europe and enrolled a total of 281 participants with GCA, of whom 74% were women. The mean age of participants was 70 years, with new-onset or relapsing GCA, and fulfilled the 1990 American College of Rheumatology criteria with no uncontrolled comorbidities. Both studies were funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, the manufacturer of tocilizumab.\nFindings\nOne RCT (30 participants) compared tocilizumab administered every four weeks versus placebo. Point estimates at 12 months and beyond favored tocilizumab over placebo in terms of sustained remission (risk ratio (RR) 4.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 14.88; moderate-certainty evidence). Point estimates suggest no evidence of a difference for all-cause mortality at 12 months or more (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.94; moderate-certainty evidence). At 12 months, mean time to first relapse after induction of remission was 25 weeks in favor of participants receiving tocilizumab compared to placebo (mean difference (MD) 25, 95% CI 11.4 to 38.6; moderate-certainty evidence).\nThe second RCT (250 participants) randomized participants into two intervention and two comparator groups to receive tocilizumab weekly (100 participants), bi-weekly (49 participants), weekly placebo + 26-week taper (50 participants), or weekly placebo + 52-week taper (51 participants). At 12 months, point estimates from this study on proportion of participants with sustained remission favored participants who received tocilizumab weekly versus placebo + 52-week taper (RR 3.17, 95% CI 1.71 to 5.89; 151 participants); tocilizumab weekly versus placebo + 26-week taper (RR 4.00, 95% CI 1.97 to 8.12; 150 participants); tocilizumab every other week versus placebo + 52-week taper (RR 3.01, 95% CI 1.57 to 5.75; 100 participants); tocilizumab every other week versus placebo + 26-week taper (RR 3.79, 95% CI 1.82 to 7.91; 99 participants) (moderate-certainty evidence). Point estimates on proportion of participants who did not need escape therapy (defined by the study as the inability to keep to the protocol-defined prednisone taper) favored participants who received tocilizumab weekly versus placebo + 52-week taper (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.35; 151 participants); tocilizumab weekly versus placebo + 26-week taper (RR 2.96, 95% CI 1.83 to 4.78; 150 participants); tocilizumab every other week versus placebo + 52-week taper (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.14; 100 participants) but not tocilizumab every other week versus placebo + 26-week taper (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.54; 99 participants) (moderate-certainty evidence). This study did not report mean time to first relapse after induction of remission or all-cause mortality.\nAcross comparison groups, the same study found no evidence of a difference  in vision changes and inconsistent evidence with regard to quality of life. Evidence on quality of life as assessed by the physical (MD 8.17, 95% CI 4.44 to 11.90) and mental (MD 5.61, 95% CI 0.06 to 11.16) component score of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) favored weekly tocilizumab versus placebo + 52-week taper but not bi-weekly tocillizumab versus placebo + 26-week taper (moderate-certainty evidence).\nAdverse events\nOne RCT reported a lower percentage of participants who experienced serious adverse events when receiving tocilizumab every four weeks versus placebo. The second RCT reported no evidence of a difference among groups with regard to adverse events; however, fewer participants reported serious adverse events in the tocilizumab weekly and tocilizumab biweekly interventions compared with the placebo + 26-week taper and placebo + 52-week taper comparators. Investigators in both studies reported that infection was the most frequently reported adverse event.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review indicates that tocilizumab therapy may be beneficial in terms of proportion of participants with sustained remission, relapse-free survival, and the need for escape therapy. While the evidence was of moderate certainty, only two studies were included in the review, suggesting that further research is required to corroborate these findings. Future trials should address issues related to the required duration of therapy, patient-reported outcomes such as quality of life and economic outcomes, as well as the clinical outcomes evaluated in this review.\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 compare the benefits and risks of tocilizumab against those of other treatments for GCA." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMost people with cystic fibrosis (CF) (80% to 90%) need pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) to prevent malnutrition. Enzyme preparations need to be taken whenever food is taken, and the dose needs to be adjusted according to the food consumed. A systematic review on the efficacy and safety of PERT is needed to guide clinical practice, as there is variability between centres with respect to assessment of pancreatic function, time of commencing treatment, dose and choice of supplements. This is an updated version of a published review.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of PERT in children and adults with CF and to compare the efficacy and safety of different formulations of PERT and their appropriateness in different age groups. Also, to compare the effects of PERT in CF according to different diagnostic subgroups (e.g. different ages at introduction of therapy and different categories of pancreatic function).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Most recent search: 07 November 2019.\nWe also searched an ongoing trials website and the websites of the pharmaceutical companies who manufacture pancreatic enzyme replacements for any additional trials. Most recent search: 26 December 2019.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in people of any age, with CF and receiving PERT, at any dosage and in any formulation, for a period of not less than four weeks, compared to placebo or other PERT preparations.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed trials and extracted outcome data. They also assessed the risk of bias and quality of the evidence (GRADE) of the trials included in the review.\nMain results\n14 trials were included in the review (641 children and adults with CF), two of these were parallel trials and 12 were cross-over trials. Interventions included different enteric and non-enteric-coated preparations of varying formulations in comparison to each other. The number of participants in each trial varied between 14 and 129. 13 trials were for a duration of four weeks and one trial lasted seven weeks. The majority of the trials had an unclear risk of bias from the randomisation process as the details of this were not given; they also had a high risk of attrition bias and reporting bias. The quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low.\nWe mostly could not combine data from the trials as they compared different formulations and the findings from individual trials provided insufficient evidence to determine the size and precision of the effects of different formulations.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is limited evidence of benefit from enteric-coated microspheres when compared to non-enteric coated pancreatic enzyme preparations up to one month. In the only comparison where we could combine any data, the fact that these were cross-over trials is likely to underestimate the level of inconsistency between the results of the trials due to over-inflation of CIs from the individual trials.There is no evidence on the long-term effectiveness and risks associated with PERT. There is also no evidence on the relative dosages of enzymes needed for people with different levels of severity of pancreatic insufficiency, optimum time to start treatment and variations based on differences in meals and meal sizes. There is a need for a properly designed trial that can answer these questions.\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 last searched for evidence: 26 December 2019." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMidazolam is used for sedation before diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures. It is an imidazole benzodiazepine that has depressant effects on the central nervous system (CNS) with rapid onset of action and few adverse effects. The drug can be administered by several routes including oral, intravenous, intranasal and intramuscular.\nObjectives\nTo determine the evidence on the effectiveness of midazolam for sedation when administered before a procedure (diagnostic or therapeutic).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL to January 2016), MEDLINE in Ovid (1966 to January 2016) and Ovid EMBASE (1980 to January 2016). We imposed no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials in which midazolam, administered to participants of any age, by any route, at any dose or any time before any procedure (apart from dental procedures), was compared with placebo or other medications including sedatives and analgesics.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each included study. We performed a separate analysis for each different drug comparison.\nMain results\nWe included 30 trials (2319 participants) of midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy (16 trials), bronchoscopy (3), diagnostic imaging (5), cardioversion (1), minor plastic surgery (1), lumbar puncture (1), suturing (2) and Kirschner wire removal (1). Comparisons were: intravenous diazepam (14), placebo (5) etomidate (1) fentanyl (1), flunitrazepam (1) and propofol (1); oral chloral hydrate (4), diazepam (2), diazepam and clonidine (1); ketamine (1) and placebo (3); and intranasal placebo (2). There was a high risk of bias due to inadequate reporting about randomization (75% of trials). Effect estimates were imprecise due to small sample sizes. None of the trials reported on allergic or anaphylactoid reactions.\nIntravenous midazolam versus diazepam (14 trials; 1069 participants)\nThere was no difference in anxiety (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 1.62; 175 participants; 2 trials) or discomfort/pain (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.49; 415 participants; 5 trials; I² = 67%). Midazolam produced greater anterograde amnesia (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.66; 587 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence).\nIntravenous midazolam versus placebo (5 trials; 493 participants)\nOne trial reported that fewer participants who received midazolam were anxious (3/47 versus 15/35; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in discomfort/pain identified in a further trial (3/85 in midazolam group; 4/82 in placebo group; P = 0.876; very low-quality evidence).\nOral midazolam versus chloral hydrate (4 trials; 268 participants)\nMidazolam increased the risk of incomplete procedures (RR 4.01; 95% CI 1.92 to 8.40; moderate-quality evidence).\nOral midazolam versus placebo (3 trials; 176 participants)\nMidazolam reduced pain (midazolam mean 2.56 (standard deviation (SD) 0.49); placebo mean 4.62 (SD 1.49); P < 0.005) and anxiety (midazolam mean 1.52 (SD 0.3); placebo mean 3.97 (SD 0.44); P < 0.0001) in one trial with 99 participants. Two other trials did not find a difference in numerical rating of anxiety (mean 1.7 (SD 2.4) for 20 participants randomized to midazolam; mean 2.6 (SD 2.9) for 22 participants randomized to placebo; P = 0.216; mean Spielberger's Trait Anxiety Inventory score 47.56 (SD 11.68) in the midazolam group; mean 52.78 (SD 9.61) in placebo group; P > 0.05).\nIntranasal midazolam versus placebo (2 trials; 149 participants)\nMidazolam induced sedation (midazolam mean 3.15 (SD 0.36); placebo mean 2.56 (SD 0.64); P < 0.001) and reduced the numerical rating of anxiety in one trial with 54 participants (midazolam mean 17.3 (SD 18.58); placebo mean 49.3 (SD 29.46); P < 0.001). There was no difference in meta-analysis of results from both trials for risk of incomplete procedures (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.12; downgraded to low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no high-quality evidence to determine if midazolam, when administered as the sole sedative agent prior to a procedure, produces more or less effective sedation than placebo or other medications. There is low-quality evidence that intravenous midazolam reduced anxiety when compared with placebo. There is inconsistent evidence that oral midazolam decreased anxiety during procedures compared with placebo. Intranasal midazolam did not reduce the risk of incomplete procedures, although anxiolysis and sedation were observed. There is moderate-quality evidence suggesting that oral midazolam produces less effective sedation than chloral hydrate for completion of procedures for children undergoing non-invasive diagnostic procedures.\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": "Midazolam administered into the bloodstream compared with other medications did not seem to make the participants more drowsy, reduce anxiety or pain, or make the procedure easier to perform. This is based on the low-quality evidence currently available. A potential benefit is that children and adults who received midazolam compared with no active treatment did not remember as much about the procedures. Midazolam made them drowsy, reduced anxiety and made it easier to perform a procedure. There is moderate-quality evidence that a solution of midazolam given to children to drink before a procedure was not as effective as a different medication called chloral hydrate. A nasal spray of midazolam before a procedure made the participants drowsy and reduced their anxiety, but this did not make it easier to perform procedures on them. This review cannot be used to assess the harms of midazolam for sedation before a procedure." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nInfants born preterm are at increased risk of developing cognitive and motor impairment compared with infants born at term. Early developmental interventions have been provided in the clinical setting with the aim of improving overall functional outcomes for these infants. Long-term benefits of these programmes remain unclear.\nObjectives\nPrimary objective \nTo compare the effectiveness of early developmental intervention programmes provided post hospital discharge to prevent motor or cognitive impairment in preterm (< 37 weeks) infants versus standard medical follow-up of preterm infants at infancy (zero to < three years), preschool age (three to < five years), school age (five to < 18 years) and adulthood (≥ 18 years).\nSecondary objectives\nTo perform subgroup analyses to determine the following.\n• Effects of gestational age, birth weight and brain injury (periventricular leukomalacia (PVL)/intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH)) on cognitive and motor outcomes when early intervention is compared with standard follow-up.\n∘ Gestational age: < 28 weeks, 28 to < 32 weeks, 32 to < 37 weeks.\n∘ Birth weight: < 1000 grams, 1000 to < 1500 grams, 1500 to < 2500 grams.\n∘ Brain injury: absence or presence of grade III or grade IV IVH or cystic PVL (or both) or an abnormal ultrasound/magnetic resonance image (MRI) before initiation of the intervention.\n• Effects of interventions started during inpatient stay with a post-discharge component versus standard follow-up care.\n• Effects of interventions focused on the parent-infant relationship, infant development or both compared with standard follow-up care.\nTo perform sensitivity analysis to identify the following.\n• Effects on motor and cognitive impairment when early developmental interventions are provided within high-quality randomised trials with low risk of bias for sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of outcome measures and selective reporting bias.\nSearch methods\nThe search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group was used to identify randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of early developmental interventions provided post hospital discharge. Two review authors independently searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Advanced, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO and EMBASE (1966 to August 2015).\nSelection criteria\nStudies included had to be randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of early developmental intervention programmes that began within the first 12 months of life for infants born before 37 weeks' gestational age. Interventions could commence on an inpatient basis but had to include a post-discharge component for inclusion in this review. Outcome measures were not prespecified, other than that they had to assess cognitive outcomes, motor outcomes or both. Rates of cerebral palsy were documented.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo independent review authors extracted and entered data. Cognitive and motor outcomes were pooled by four age groups: infancy (zero to < three years), preschool age (three to < five years), school age (five to < 18 years) and adulthood (≥ 18 years). Meta-analysis using RevMan 5.1 was carried out to determine the effects of early developmental interventions at each age range. Subgroup analyses focused on gestational age, birth weight, brain injury, commencement of the intervention, focus of the intervention and study quality.\nMain results\nTwenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria (3615 randomly assigned participants). Only 12 of these studies were randomised controlled trials with appropriate allocation concealment. Variability was evident with regard to focus and intensity of the intervention, participant characteristics and length of follow-up. Meta-analysis led to the conclusion that intervention improved cognitive outcomes at infancy (developmental quotient (DQ): standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.32 standard deviations (SDs), 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.47; P value < 0.001; 16 studies; 2372 participants) and at preschool age (intelligence quotient (IQ); SMD 0.43 SDs, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.54; P value < 0.001; eight studies; 1436 participants). However, this effect was not sustained at school age (IQ: SMD 0.18 SDs, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.43; P value = 0.17; five studies; 1372 participants). Heterogeneity between studies for cognitive outcomes at infancy and at school age was significant. With regards to motor outcomes, meta-analysis of 12 studies showed a significant effect in favour of early developmental interventions at infancy only; however, this effect was small (motor scale DQ: SMD 0.10 SDs, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.19; P value = 0.03; 12 studies; 1895 participants). No effect was noted on the rate of cerebral palsy among survivors (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.27; seven studies; 985 participants). Little evidence showed a positive effect on motor outcomes in the long term, but only five included studies reported outcomes at preschool age (n = 3) or at school age (n = 2).\nAuthors' conclusions\nEarly intervention programmes for preterm infants have a positive influence on cognitive and motor outcomes during infancy, with cognitive benefits persisting into preschool age. A great deal of heterogeneity between studies was due to the variety of early developmental intervention programmes tested and to gestational ages of included preterm infants; thus, comparisons of intervention programmes were limited. Further research is needed to determine which early developmental interventions are most effective in improving cognitive and motor outcomes, and to discern the longer-term effects of these programmes.\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": "Preterm infants (babies born before 37 weeks) are at risk for developmental problems, including cognitive and motor delays. Cognitive development refers to thinking and learning abilities, and motor development refers to the ways children move, such as by sitting, crawling and walking. Early developmental interventions aim to reduce cognitive and motor problems; however, the benefits of these programmes are not clear." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTyphoid and paratyphoid (enteric fever) are febrile bacterial illnesses common in many low- and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) currently recommends treatment with azithromycin, ciprofloxacin, or ceftriaxone due to widespread resistance to older, first-line antimicrobials. Resistance patterns vary in different locations and are changing over time. Fluoroquinolone resistance in South Asia often precludes the use of ciprofloxacin. Extensively drug-resistant strains of enteric fever have emerged in Pakistan. In some areas of the world, susceptibility to old first-line antimicrobials, such as chloramphenicol, has re-appeared. A Cochrane Review of the use of fluoroquinolones and azithromycin in the treatment of enteric fever has previously been undertaken, but the use of cephalosporins has not been systematically investigated and the optimal choice of drug and duration of treatment are uncertain.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of cephalosporins for treating enteric fever in children and adults compared to other antimicrobials.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 24 November 2021. We also searched reference lists of included trials, contacted researchers working in the field, and contacted relevant organizations.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults and children with enteric fever that compared a cephalosporin to another antimicrobial, a different cephalosporin, or a different treatment duration of the intervention cephalosporin. Enteric fever was diagnosed on the basis of blood culture, bone marrow culture, or molecular tests.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were clinical failure, microbiological failure and relapse. Our secondary outcomes were time to defervescence, duration of hospital admission, convalescent faecal carriage, and adverse effects. We used the GRADE approach to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 27 RCTs with 2231 total participants published between 1986 and 2016 across Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East and the Caribbean, with comparisons between cephalosporins and other antimicrobials used for the treatment of enteric fever in children and adults. The main comparisons are between antimicrobials in most common clinical use, namely cephalosporins compared to a fluoroquinolone and cephalosporins compared to azithromycin.\nCephalosporin (cefixime) versus fluoroquinolones\nClinical failure, microbiological failure and relapse may be increased in patients treated with cefixime compared to fluoroquinolones in three small trials published over 14 years ago: clinical failure (risk ratio (RR) 13.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.24 to 55.39; 2 trials, 240 participants; low-certainty evidence); microbiological failure (RR 4.07, 95% CI 0.46 to 36.41; 2 trials, 240 participants; low-certainty evidence); relapse (RR 4.45, 95% CI 1.11 to 17.84; 2 trials, 220 participants; low-certainty evidence). Time to defervescence in participants treated with cefixime may be longer compared to participants treated with fluoroquinolones (mean difference (MD) 1.74 days, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.98, 3 trials, 425 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nCephalosporin (ceftriaxone) versus azithromycin\nCeftriaxone may result in a decrease in clinical failure compared to azithromycin, and it is unclear whether ceftriaxone has an effect on microbiological failure compared to azithromycin in two small trials published over 18 years ago and in one more recent trial, all conducted in participants under 18 years of age: clinical failure (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.57; 3 trials, 196 participants; low-certainty evidence); microbiological failure (RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.36 to 10.64, 3 trials, 196 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether ceftriaxone increases or decreases relapse compared to azithromycin (RR 10.05, 95% CI 1.93 to 52.38; 3 trials, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Time to defervescence in participants treated with ceftriaxone may be shorter compared to participants treated with azithromycin (mean difference of −0.52 days, 95% CI −0.91 to −0.12; 3 trials, 196 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nCephalosporin (ceftriaxone) versus fluoroquinolones\nIt is unclear whether ceftriaxone has an effect on clinical failure, microbiological failure, relapse, and time to defervescence compared to fluoroquinolones in three trials published over 28 years ago and two more recent trials: clinical failure (RR 3.77, 95% CI 0.72 to 19.81; 4 trials, 359 participants; very low-certainty evidence); microbiological failure (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 6.83; 3 trials, 316 participants; very low-certainty evidence); relapse (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.92; 3 trials, 297 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and time to defervescence (MD 2.73 days, 95% CI −0.37 to 5.84; 3 trials, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether ceftriaxone decreases convalescent faecal carriage compared to the fluoroquinolone gatifloxacin (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.72; 1 trial, 73 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and length of hospital stay may be longer in participants treated with ceftriaxone compared to participants treated with the fluoroquinolone ofloxacin (mean of 12 days (range 7 to 23 days) in the ceftriaxone group compared to a mean of 9 days (range 6 to 13 days) in the ofloxacin group; 1 trial, 47 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on very low- to low-certainty evidence, ceftriaxone is an effective treatment for adults and children with enteric fever, with few adverse effects. Trials suggest that there may be no difference in the performance of ceftriaxone compared with azithromycin, fluoroquinolones, or chloramphenicol. Cefixime can also be used for treatment of enteric fever but may not perform as well as fluoroquinolones.\nWe are unable to draw firm general conclusions on comparative contemporary effectiveness given that most trials were small and conducted over 20 years previously. Clinicians need to take into account current, local resistance patterns in addition to route of administration when choosing an antimicrobial.\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": "We have low confidence in our estimates, for these findings because of the low number of patients in the included studies. Also, in most included studies patients and doctors knew which antimicrobial the patient was receiving, which could have biased the results." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIn the absence of treatment, endometrial hyperplasia (EH) can progress to endometrial cancer, particularly in the presence of histologic nuclear atypia. The development of EH results from exposure of the endometrium to oestrogen unopposed by progesterone. Oral progestogens have been used as treatment for EH without atypia, and in some cases of EH with atypia in women who wish to preserve fertility or who cannot tolerate surgery. EH without atypia is associated with a low risk of progression to atypia and cancer; EH with atypia is where the cells are structurally abnormal, and has a higher risk of developing cancer. Oral progestogen is not always effective at reversing the hyperplasia, can be associated with side effects, and depends on patient adherence. The levonorgestrel-intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) is an alternative method of administration of progestogen and may have some advantages over non-intrauterine progestogens.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in women with endometrial hyperplasia (EH) with or without atypia compared to medical treatment with non-intrauterine progestogens, placebo, surgery or no treatment.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGF) Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO, and conference proceedings of 10 relevant organisations. We handsearched references in relevant published studies. We also searched ongoing trials in ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, and other trial registries. We performed the final search in May 2020.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials of women with a histological diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia with or without atypia comparing LNG-IUS with non-intrauterine progestogens, placebo, surgery or no treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were regression of EH and adverse effects associated with the LNG-IUS device (such as pelvic inflammatory disease, device expulsion, uterine perforation) when compared to treatment with non-intrauterine progestogens, placebo, surgery or no treatment. Secondary outcomes included hysterectomy, hormone-related adverse effects (such as bleeding/spotting, pelvic pain, breast tenderness, ovarian cysts, weight gain, acne), withdrawal from treatment due to adverse effects, satisfaction with treatment, and cost or resource use. We rated the overall quality of evidence using GRADE methods.\nMain results\nThirteen RCTs (1657 women aged 22 to 75 years) met the inclusion criteria. Two studies had insufficient data for meta-analysis, thus the quantitative analysis included 11 RCTs. All trials evaluated treatment duration of six months or less. The evidence ranged from very low to moderate quality: the main limitations were risk of bias (associated with lack of blinding and poor reporting of study methods), inconsistency and imprecision.\nLNG-IUS versus non-intrauterine progestogens\nPrimary outcomes\nRegression of endometrial hyperplasia\nThe LNG-IUS probably improves regression of EH compared with non-intrauterine progestogens at short-term follow-up (up to six months) (OR 2.94, 95% CI 2.10 to 4.13; I² = 0%; 10 RCTs, 1108 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if regression of EH following treatment with a non-intrauterine progestogen is assumed to be 72%, regression of EH following treatment with LNG-IUS would be between 85% and 92%. Regression of EH may be improved by LNG-IUS compared with non-intrauterine progestogens at long-term follow-up (12 months) (OR 3.80, 95% CI 1.75 to 8.23; 1 RCT, 138 participants; low-quality evidence),\nAdverse effects associated with LNG-IUS\nThere was insufficient evidence to determine device-related adverse effects; only one study reported on expulsion with insufficient data for analysis.\nSecondary outcomes\nThe LNG-IUS may be associated with fewer hysterectomies (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.46; I² = 19%; 4 RCTs, 452 participants; low-quality evidence), fewer withdrawals from treatment due to hormone-related adverse effects (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.35; I² = 0%; 4 RCTs, 360 participants; low-quality evidence) and improved patient satisfaction with treatment (OR 5.28, 95% CI 2.51 to 11.10; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 202 participants; very low-quality evidence) compared to non-intrauterine progestogens. The LNG-IUS may be associated with more bleeding/spotting (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.43; I² = 78%; 3 RCTs, 428 participants) and less nausea (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.95; I² = 0%; 3 RCTs, 428 participants) compared to non-intrauterine progestogens. Data from single trials for mood swings and fatigue had a similar direction of effect as for bleeding/spotting, nausea and weight gain. There was insufficient evidence to determine cost or resource use.\nLNG-IUS versus no treatment\nRegression of endometrial hyperplasia\nOne study demonstrated that the LNG-IUS is associated with regression of EH without atypia (OR 78.41, 95% CI 22.86 to 268.97; I² = 0%; 1 RCT, 190 participants; moderate-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. This study did not report on any other review outcome.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate-quality evidence that treatment with LNG-IUS used for three to six months is probably more effective than non-intrauterine progestogens at reversing EH in the short term (up to six months) and long term (up to two years). Adverse effects (device-related and hormone-related) were poorly and incompletely reported across studies. Very low quality to low-quality evidence suggests the LNG-IUS may reduce the risk of hysterectomy, and may be associated with more bleeding/spotting, less nausea, less withdrawal from treatment due to adverse effects, and increased satisfaction with treatment, compared to non-intrauterine progestogens. There was insufficient evidence to reach conclusions regarding device-related adverse effects, or cost or resource use.\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": "There is moderate-quality evidence that three to six months of treatment with the LNG-IUS is probably more effective than non-intrauterine progestogens in reversing EH at short-term follow-up (up to six months). This suggests that if regression of EH following treatment with a non-intrauterine progestogen is assumed to be 72%, regression of EH following treatment with LNG-IUS would be between 85% and 92%. There is low-quality evidence that LNG-IUS may be more effective in reversing EH at long-term follow-up (12 months up to two years). We found no studies that looked at longer-term duration of treatment or follow-up.\nThere was insufficient evidence to determine adverse effects associated with the LNG-IUS device; only one study reported on expulsion (when the device falls out of the womb).\nVery low quality to low-quality evidence suggests the LNG-IUS may be more acceptable to women, with fewer hysterectomies, fewer women experiencing nausea, fewer withdrawals from treatment secondary to side effects, and higher patient satisfaction with treatment scores. Very low quality evidence suggests the LNG-IUS may be associated with more bleeding/spotting, and we are uncertain regarding effects on other hormone-related side effects such as weight gain or mood changes. There was insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion regarding safety or cost or resource use, as no studies reported data suitable for analysis.\nOne study demonstrated that compared with no treatment, the LNG-IUS reversed EH without atypia, suggesting that if regression of EH with no treatment is assumed to be 27%, regression of EH following treatment with LNG-IUS would be between 89% and 99%." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPelvic organ prolapse (POP) is the descent of a woman's uterus, bladder, or rectum into the vagina. It affects 50% of women over 50 years old who have given birth to at least one child, and recognised risk factors are older age, higher number of births, and higher body mass index. This review assesses the effects of oestrogen therapy, alone or in combination with other treatments, on POP in postmenopausal women.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of local and systemic oestrogen therapy in the management of pelvic organ prolapse symptoms in postmenopausal women, and to summarise the principal findings of relevant economic evaluations.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register (up to 20 June 2022), which includes CENTRAL, MEDLINE, two trials registers, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings. We also checked the reference lists of relevant articles for additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, multi-arm RCTs, and cross-over RCTs that evaluated the effects of oestrogen therapy (alone or in combination with other treatments) versus placebo, no treatment, or other interventions in postmenopausal women with any grade of POP.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data from the included trials using prespecified outcome measures and a piloted extraction form. The same review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of eligible trials using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. Had data allowed, we would have created summary of findings tables for our main outcome measures and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe identified 14 studies including a total of 1002 women. In general, studies were at high risk of bias in terms of blinding of participants and personnel, and there were also some concerns about selective reporting. Owing to insufficient data for the outcomes of interest, we were unable to perform our planned subgroup analyses (systemic versus topical oestrogen, parous versus nulliparous women, women with versus without a uterus).\nNo studies assessed the effects of oestrogen therapy alone versus no treatment, placebo, pelvic floor muscle training, devices such as vaginal pessaries, or surgery. However, we did identify three studies that assessed oestrogen therapy in conjunction with vaginal pessaries versus vaginal pessaries alone and 11 studies that assessed oestrogen therapy in conjunction with surgery versus surgery alone.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was insufficient evidence from RCTs to draw any solid conclusions on the benefits or harms of oestrogen therapy for managing POP symptoms in postmenopausal women. Topical oestrogen in conjunction with pessaries was associated with fewer adverse vaginal events compared with pessaries alone, and topical oestrogen in conjunction with surgery was associated with reduced postoperative urinary tract infections compared with surgery alone; however, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as the studies that contributed data varied substantially in their design.\nThere is a need for larger studies on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oestrogen therapy, used alone or in conjunction with pelvic floor muscle training, vaginal pessaries, or surgery, for the management of POP. These studies should measure outcomes in the medium and long term.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Main results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Although we identified 14 eligible studies, no studies addressed our main comparisons of interest (oestrogen therapy alone compared with no treatment, compared with pelvic floor muscle exercises, compared with surgery, or compared with devices such as vaginal pessaries). Four studies evaluated oestrogen therapy alongside vaginal pessaries compared with vaginal pessaries alone, and 10 studies evaluated oestrogen therapy alongside surgery compared with surgery alone." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAction observation (AO) is a physical rehabilitation approach that facilitates the occurrence of neural plasticity through the activation of the mirror-neural system, promoting motor recovery in people with stroke.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether AO enhances upper limb motor function in people with stroke.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 18 May 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (18 May 2021), MEDLINE (1946 to 18 May 2021), Embase (1974 to 18 May 2021), and five additional databases. We also searched trial registries and reference lists.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AO alone or associated with physical practice in adults after stroke. The primary outcome was upper limb (arm and hand) motor function. Secondary outcomes included dependence on activities of daily living (ADL), motor performance, cortical activation, quality of life, and adverse effects.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials according to the predefined inclusion criteria, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using RoB 1, and applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. The reviews authors contacted trial authors for clarification and missing information.\nMain results\nWe included 16 trials involving 574 individuals. Most trials provided AO followed by the practice of motor actions. Training varied between 1 day and 8 weeks of therapy, 10 to 90 minutes per session. The time of AO ranged from 1 minute to 10 minutes for each motor action, task or movement observed. The total number of motor actions ranged from 1 to 3. Control comparisons included sham observation, physical therapy, and functional activity practice. Primary outcomes: AO improved arm function (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.61; 11 trials, 373 participants; low-certainty evidence); and improved hand function (mean difference (MD) 2.76, 95% CI 1.04 to 4.49; 5 trials, 178 participants; low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes: AO did not improve ADL performance (SMD 0.37, 95% CI -0.34 to 1.08; 7 trials, 302 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or quality of life (MD 5.52, 95% CI -30.74 to 41.78; 2 trials, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We were unable to pool the other secondary outcomes (motor performance and cortical activation). Only two trials reported adverse events without significant adverse effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe effects of AO are small for arm function compared to any control group; for hand function the effects are large, but not clinically significant. For both, the certainty of evidence is low. There is no evidence of benefit or detriment from AO on ADL and quality of life of people with stroke; however, the certainty of evidence is very low. As such, our confidence in the effect estimate is limited because it will likely change with future research.\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": "Trials tested whether the use of action observation compared with an alternative intervention or no intervention resulted in participants' improved ability to use their arms and hands, and found that action observation might have a small effect on arm function (11 trials) and a large effect on hand function (five trials). There is no evidence of benefit or detriment from this therapy on everyday activities and quality of life of stroke patients. It was not possible to evaluate the results of upper extremity performance and activation of brain areas." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe optimal duration of thromboprophylaxis after total hip or knee replacement, or hip fracture repair remains controversial. It is common practice to administer prophylaxis using low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH) until discharge from hospital, usually seven to 14 days after surgery. International guidelines recommend extending thromboprophylaxis for up to 35 days following major orthopaedic surgery but the recommendation is weak due to moderate quality evidence. In addition, recent oral anticoagulants that exert effect by direct inhibition of thrombin or activated factor X lack the need for monitoring and have few known drug interactions. Interest in this topic remains high.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of extended-duration anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in people undergoing elective hip or knee replacement surgery, or hip fracture repair.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Specialised Register (last searched May 2015) and CENTRAL (2015, Issue 4). Clinical trials databases were searched for ongoing or unpublished studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials assessing extended-duration thromboprophylaxis (five to seven weeks) using accepted prophylactic doses of LMWH, UFH, vitamin K antagonists (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) compared with short-duration thromboprophylaxis (seven to 14 days) followed by placebo, no treatment or similar extended-duration thromboprophylaxis with LMWH, UFH, VKA or DOACs in participants undergoing hip or knee replacement or hip fracture repair.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently selected trials and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. We performed fixed-effect model meta-analyses with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a random-effects model when there was heterogeneity.\nMain results\nWe included 16 studies (24,930 participants); six compared heparin with placebo, one compared VKA with placebo, two compared DOAC with placebo, one compared VKA with heparin, five compared DOAC with heparin and one compared anticoagulants chosen at investigators' discretion with placebo. Three trials included participants undergoing knee replacement. No studies assessed hip fracture repair.\nTrials were generally of good methodological quality. The main reason for unclear risk of bias was insufficient reporting. The quality of evidence according to GRADE was generally moderate, as some comparisons included a single study, low number of events or heterogeneity between studies leading to wide CIs.\nWe showed no difference between extended-duration heparin and placebo in symptomatic VTE (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.01; 2329 participants; 5 studies; high quality evidence), symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.38; 2019 participants; 4 studies; moderate quality evidence), symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.33; 1595 participants; 3 studies; low quality evidence) and major bleeding (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.46; 2500 participants; 5 studies; moderate quality evidence). Minor bleeding was increased in the heparin group (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.81; 2500 participants; 5 studies; high quality evidence). Clinically relevant non-major bleeding was not reported.\nWe showed no difference between extended-duration VKA and placebo (one study, 360 participants) for symptomatic VTE (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.94; moderate quality evidence), symptomatic DVT (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.62; moderate quality evidence), symptomatic PE (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.84; moderate quality evidence) and major bleeding (OR 2.89, 95% CI 0.12 to 71.31; low quality evidence). Clinically relevant non-major bleeding and minor bleeding were not reported.\nExtended-duration DOAC showed reduced symptomatic VTE (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.68; 2419 participants; 1 study; moderate quality evidence) and symptomatic DVT (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.81; 2459 participants; 2 studies; high quality evidence) compared to placebo. No differences were found for symptomatic PE (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.25; 1733 participants; 1 study; low quality evidence), major bleeding (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 16.02; 2457 participants; 1 study; low quality evidence), clinically relevant non-major bleeding (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.95; 2457 participants; 1 study; moderate quality evidence) and minor bleeding (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.88; 2457 participants; 1 study; moderate quality evidence).\nWe showed no difference between extended-duration anticoagulants chosen at investigators' discretion and placebo (one study, 557 participants, low quality evidence) for symptomatic VTE (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.74), symptomatic DVT (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.21), symptomatic PE (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 16.13), and major bleeding (OR 5.05, 95% CI 0.24 to 105.76). Clinically relevant non-major bleeding and minor bleeding were not reported.\nWe showed no difference between extended-duration VKA and heparin (one study, low quality evidence) for symptomatic VTE (OR 1.64, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.16; 1279 participants), symptomatic DVT (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.68; 1279 participants), symptomatic PE (OR 9.16, 95% CI 0.49 to 170.42; 1279 participants), major bleeding (OR 3.87, 95% CI 1.91 to 7.85; 1272 participants) and minor bleeding (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.76; 1279 participants). Clinically relevant non-major bleeding was not reported.\nWe showed no difference between extended-duration DOAC and heparin for symptomatic VTE (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.70; 15,977 participants; 5 studies; low quality evidence), symptomatic DVT (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.27; 15,977 participants; 5 studies; low quality evidence), symptomatic PE (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.94; 14,731 participants; 5 studies; moderate quality evidence), major bleeding (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.54; 16,199 participants; 5 studies; high quality evidence), clinically relevant non-major bleeding (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.28; 15,241 participants; 4 studies; high quality evidence) and minor bleeding (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 11,766 participants; 4 studies; high quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate quality evidence suggests extended-duration anticoagulants to prevent VTE should be considered for people undergoing hip replacement surgery, although the benefit should be weighed against the increased risk of minor bleeding. Further studies are needed to better understand the association between VTE and extended-duration oral anticoagulants in relation to knee replacement and hip fracture repair, as well as outcomes such as distal and proximal DVT, reoperation, wound infection and healing.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics and key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "A total of 16 studies were included, with 24,930 randomised participants (current until May 2015). The main outcomes of interest were symptomatic (showing symptoms) VTE, including DVT and PE, and bleeding (major, clinically relevant non-major and minor bleeding). Six studies compared heparin with placebo, one compared the vitamin K antagonist (VKA) warfarin with placebo, two compared DOAC with placebo, one compared VKA with heparin, five compared DOAC with heparin and one study compared using a variety of anticoagulant treatments with placebo. Only three trials included participants undergoing knee replacement and no studies included participants undergoing hip fracture repair.\nFor the comparison heparin versus placebo (six studies) no differences were found between the study arms for symptomatic VTE, symptomatic DVT, symptomatic PE and major bleeding. Minor bleeding was increased in the heparin group. Clinically relevant non-major bleeding was not reported.\nThe comparison VKA versus placebo (one study) and the comparison placebo with anticoagulants chosen at the discretion of the investigators (one study) showed no differences between the study arms for symptomatic VTE, symptomatic DVT, symptomatic PE and major bleeding. Clinically relevant non-major bleeding and minor bleeding were not reported.\nFor the comparison DOACs versus placebo (two studies), reduced symptomatic VTE and symptomatic DVT were found in favour of the DOAC but no differences were found for symptomatic PE, major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding and minor bleeding.\nComparing extended-duration VKA with extended-duration LMWH (one study) there was no difference between the study arms for symptomatic VTE, symptomatic DVT, symptomatic PE, major bleeding and minor bleeding. Clinically relevant non-major bleeding was not reported.\nComparing extended-duration DOAC with extended-duration LMWH (five studies) there was no difference between the study arms for symptomatic VTE, symptomatic DVT, symptomatic PE, major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding and minor bleeding." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nA pterygium is a fleshy, wing-shaped growth from the conjunctiva, crossing over the limbus onto the cornea. Prevalence ranges widely around the world. Evidence suggests that ultraviolet light is a major contributor in the formation of pterygia. Pterygia impair vision, limit eye movements, and can cause eye irritation, foreign body sensation, and dryness. In some susceptible patients, the pterygium can grow over the entire corneal surface, blocking the visual axis.\nSurgery is the only effective treatment for pterygium, though recurrences are common. With simple excision techniques (that is, excising the pterygium and leaving bare sclera), the risk of recurrence has been reported to be upwards of 80%. Pterygium excision combined with a tissue graft has a lower risk of recurrence. In conjunctival autograft surgery, conjunctival tissue from another part of the person's eye along with limbal tissue is resected in one piece and used to cover the area from which the pterygium was excised. Another type of tissue graft surgery for pterygium is amniotic membrane graft, whereby a piece of donor amniotic membrane is fixed to the remaining limbus and bare sclera area after the pterygium has been excised.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review was to assess the safety and effectiveness of conjunctival autograft (with or without adjunctive therapy) compared with amniotic membrane graft (with or without adjunctive therapy) for pterygium. We also planned to determine whether use of MMC yielded better surgical results and to assess the direct and indirect comparative costs of these procedures.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (Issue 10, 2015), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to November 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2015), PubMed (1948 to November 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to November 2015), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) (last searched 21 November 2014), 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 search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 23 November 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe included in this review randomized controlled trials that had compared conjunctival autograft surgery (with or without adjunctive therapy) with amniotic membrane graft surgery (with or without adjunctive therapy) in people with primary or recurrent pterygium.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened search results and assessed full-text reports from among the potentially eligible trials. Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials and assessed the trial characteristics and risk of bias. The primary outcome was the risk of recurrence of pterygium at 3 months and 6 months after surgery. We combined results from individual studies in meta-analyses using random-effects models. Risk of recurrence of pterygium was reported using risk ratios to compare conjunctival autograft with amniotic membrane transplant.\nMain results\nWe identified 20 studies that had analyzed a total of 1947 eyes of 1866 participants (individual studies ranged from 8 to 346 participants who were randomized). The studies were conducted in eight different countries: one in Brazil, three in China, three in Cuba, one in Egypt, two in Iran, two in Thailand, seven in Turkey, and one in Venezuela. Overall risk of bias was unclear, as many studies did not provide information on randomization methods or masking to prevent performance and detection bias.\nThe risk ratio for recurrence of pterygium using conjunctival autograft versus amniotic membrane transplant was 0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.77) and 0.53 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.85) at 3 months and 6 months, respectively. These estimates include participants with primary and recurrent pterygia. We performed a subgroup analysis to compare participants with primary pterygia with participants with recurrent pterygia. For participants with primary pterygia, the risk ratio was 0.92 (95% CI 0.37 to 2.30) and 0.58 (95% CI 0.27 to 1.27) at 3 months and 6 months, respectively. We were only able to estimate the recurrence of pterygia at 6 months for participants with recurrent pterygia, and the risk ratio comparing conjunctival autograft with amniotic membrane transplant was 0.45 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.99). One included study was a doctoral thesis and did not use allocation concealment. When this study was excluded in a sensitivity analysis, the risk ratio for pterygium recurrence at 6 months' follow-up was 0.43 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.62) for participants with primary and recurrent pterygium. One of the secondary outcomes, the proportion of participants with clinical improvement, was analyzed in only one study. This study reported clinical outcome as the risk of non-recurrence, which was seen in 93.8% of participants in the conjunctival limbal autograft group and 93.3% in the amniotic membrane transplant group at 3 months after surgery.\nWe did not analyze data on the need for repeat surgery, vision-related quality of life, and direct and indirect costs of surgery due to an insufficient number of studies reporting these outcomes.\nThirteen studies reported adverse events associated with conjunctival autograft surgery and amniotic membrane transplant surgery. Adverse events that occurred in more than one study were granuloma and pyogenic granuloma and increased intraocular pressure. None of the included studies reported that participants had developed induced astigmatism.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn association with pterygium excision, conjunctival autograft is associated with a lower risk of recurrence at six months' after surgery than amniotic membrane transplant. Participants with recurrent pterygia in particular have a lower risk of recurrence when they receive conjunctival autograft surgery compared with amniotic membrane transplant. There are few studies comparing the two techniques with respect to visual acuity outcomes, and we identified no studies that reported on vision-related quality of life or direct or indirect costs. Comparison of these two procedures in such outcome measures bears further investigation. There were an insufficient number of studies that used adjunctive mitomycin C to estimate the effects on pterygium recurrence following conjunctival autograft or amniotic membrane transplant.\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 to see which surgery used to treat pterygium (a growth in the eye) is better and safer? We wanted to known which surgery was better at preventing the pterygium from growing back." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nUrinary catheterisation is a common procedure, with approximately 15% to 25% of all people admitted to hospital receiving short-term (14 days or less) indwelling urethral catheterisation at some point during their care. However, the use of urinary catheters is associated with an increased risk of developing urinary tract infection. Catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) is one of the most common hospital-acquired infections. It is estimated that around 20% of hospital-acquired bacteraemias arise from the urinary tract and are associated with mortality of around 10%.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005 and last published in 2007.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of strategies for removing short-term (14 days or less) indwelling catheters in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 17 March 2020), and reference lists of relevant articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that evaluated the effectiveness of practices undertaken for the removal of short-term indwelling urethral catheters in adults for any reason in any setting.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors performed abstract and full-text screening of all relevant articles. At least two review authors independently performed risk of bias assessment, data abstraction and GRADE assessment.\nMain results\nWe included 99 trials involving 12,241 participants. We judged the majority of trials to be at low or unclear risk of selection and detection bias, with a high risk of performance bias. We also deemed most trials to be at low risk of attrition and reporting bias. None of the trials reported on quality of life. The majority of participants across the trials had undergone some form of surgical procedure.\nThirteen trials involving 1506 participants compared the removal of short-term indwelling urethral catheters at one time of day (early morning removal group between 6 am to 7 am) versus another (late night removal group between 10 pm to midnight). Catheter removal late at night may slightly reduce the risk of requiring recatheterisation compared with early morning (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.96; 10 RCTs, 1920 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if there is any difference between early morning and late night removal in the risk of developing symptomatic CAUTI (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.63; 1 RCT, 41 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether the time of day makes a difference to the risk of dysuria (RR 2.20; 95% CI 0.70 to 6.86; 1 RCT, 170 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nSixty-eight trials involving 9247 participants compared shorter versus longer durations of catheterisation. Shorter durations may increase the risk of requiring recatheterisation compared with longer durations (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.41; 44 trials, 5870 participants; low-certainty evidence), but probably reduce the risk of symptomatic CAUTI (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.61; 41 RCTs, 5759 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce the risk of dysuria (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.88; 7 RCTs; 1398 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nSeven trials involving 714 participants compared policies of clamping catheters versus free drainage. There may be little to no difference between clamping and free drainage in terms of the risk of requiring recatheterisation (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.21; 5 RCTs; 569 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if there is any difference in the risk of symptomatic CAUTI (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.63; 2 RCTs, 267 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or dysuria (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.54; 1 trial, 79 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nThree trials involving 402 participants compared the use of prophylactic alpha blockers versus no intervention or placebo. We are uncertain if prophylactic alpha blockers before catheter removal has any effect on the risk of requiring recatheterisation (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.42; 2 RCTs, 184 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or risk of symptomatic CAUTI (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.06; 1 trial, 94 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included trials investigating prophylactic alpha blockers reported the number of participants with dysuria.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is some evidence to suggest the removal of indwelling urethral catheters late at night rather than early in the morning may reduce the number of people who require recatheterisation. It appears that catheter removal after shorter compared to longer durations probably reduces the risk of symptomatic CAUTI and may reduce the risk of dysuria. However, it may lead to more people requiring recatheterisation. The other evidence relating to the risk of symptomatic CAUTI and dysuria is too uncertain to allow us to draw any conclusions.\nDue to the low certainty of the majority of the evidence presented here, the results of further research are likely to change our findings and to have a further impact on clinical practice. This systematic review has highlighted the need for a standardised set of core outcomes, which should be measured and reported by all future trials comparing strategies for the removal of short-term urinary catheters. Future trials should also study the effects of short-term indwelling urethral catheter removal on non-surgical patients.\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 investigate the effects of different strategies on the risk of:\n• needing to have the catheter reinserted;\n• developing a urinary tract infection (UTI);\n• experiencing pain when urinating." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSickle cell disease (SCD) is one of the most common inherited diseases worldwide. It is associated with lifelong morbidity and a reduced life expectancy. Hydroxyurea (hydroxycarbamide), an oral chemotherapeutic drug, ameliorates some of the clinical problems of SCD, in particular that of pain, by raising foetal haemoglobin (HbF). This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review.\nObjectives\nThe aims of this review are to determine through a review of randomised or quasi-randomised studies whether the use of hydroxyurea in people with SCD alters the pattern of acute events, including pain; prevents, delays or reverses organ dysfunction; alters mortality and quality of life; or is associated with adverse effects.\nIn addition, we hoped to assess whether the response to hydroxyurea in SCD varies with the type of SCD, age of the individual, duration and dose of treatment, and healthcare setting.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Haemoglobinopathies Register, comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched online trial registries. The date of the most recent search was 17 February 2022.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs and quasi-RCTs), of one month or longer, comparing hydroxyurea with placebo or standard therapy in people  with SCD.\nData collection and analysis\nAuthors independently assessed studies for inclusion, carried out data extraction, assessed the risk of bias and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included nine RCTs recruiting 1104 adults and children with SCD (haemoglobin SS (HbSS), haemoglobin SC (HbSC) or haemoglobin Sβºthalassaemia (HbSβºthal) genotypes). Studies lasted from six to 30 months.\nWe judged the quality of the evidence for the first two comparisons below as moderate to low as the studies contributing to these comparisons were mostly large and well-designed (and at low risk of bias); however, the evidence was limited and imprecise for some outcomes such as quality of life, deaths during the studies and adverse events, and the results are applicable only to individuals with HbSS and HbSβºthal genotypes. We judged the quality of the evidence for the third and fourth comparisons to be very low due to the limited number of participants, the lack of statistical power (both studies were terminated early with approximately only 20% of their target sample size recruited) and the lack of applicability to all age groups and genotypes.\nHydroxyurea versus placebo\nFive studies (784 adults and children with HbSS or HbSβºthal) compared hydroxyurea to placebo; four recruited individuals with only severe disease and one recruited individuals with all disease severities. Hydroxyurea probably improves pain alteration (using measures such as pain crisis frequency, duration, intensity, hospital admissions and opoid use) and life-threatening illness, but we found no difference in death rates (10 deaths occurred during the studies, but the rates did not differ by treatment group) (all moderate-quality evidence). Hydroxyurea may improve measures of HbF (low-quality evidence) and probably decreases neutrophil counts (moderate-quality evidence). There were no consistent differences in terms of quality of life and adverse events (including serious or life-threatening events) (low-quality evidence). There were fewer occurrences of acute chest syndrome and blood transfusions in the hydroxyurea groups.\nHydroxyurea and phlebotomy versus transfusion and chelation\nTwo studies (254 children with HbSS or HbSβºthal also with risk of primary or secondary stroke) contributed to this comparison. There were no consistent differences in terms of pain alteration, death or adverse events (low-quality evidence) or life-threatening illness (moderate-quality evidence). Hydroxyurea with phlebotomy probably increased HbF and decreased neutrophil counts (moderate-quality evidence), but there were more occurrences of acute chest syndrome and infections. Quality of life was not reported. In the primary prevention study, no strokes occurred in either treatment group but in the secondary prevention study, seven strokes occurred in the hydroxyurea and phlebotomy group (none in the transfusion and chelation group) and the study was terminated early.\nHydroxyurea versus observation\nOne study (22 children with HbSS or HbSβºthal also at risk of stoke) compared hydroxyurea to observation. Pain alteration and quality of life were not reported. There were no differences in life-threatening illness, death (no deaths reported in either group) or adverse events (very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if hydroxyurea improves HbF or decreases neutrophil counts (very low-quality evidence).\nTreatment regimens with and without hydroxyurea\nOne study (44 adults and children with HbSC) compared treatment regimens with and without hydroxyurea. Pain alteration, life-threatening illness and quality of life were not reported. There were no differences in death rates (no deaths reported in either group), adverse events or neutrophil levels (very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if hydroxyurea improves HbF (very low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is evidence to suggest that hydroxyurea may be effective in decreasing the frequency of pain episodes and other acute complications in adults and children with sickle cell anaemia of HbSS or HbSβºthal genotypes and in preventing life-threatening neurological events in those with sickle cell anaemia at risk of primary stroke by maintaining transcranial Doppler velocities. However, there is still insufficient evidence on the long-term benefits of hydroxyurea, particularly with regard to preventing chronic complications of SCD, or recommending a standard dose or dose escalation to maximum tolerated dose. There is also insufficient evidence about the long-term risks of hydroxyurea, including its effects on fertility and reproduction. Evidence is also limited on the effects of hydroxyurea on individuals with the HbSC genotype. Future studies should be designed to address such uncertainties.\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 17 February 2022." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSickle cell disease is a genetic disorder involving a defect in the red blood cells due to its sickled hemoglobin. The main therapeutic interventions include preventive and supportive measures. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantations are carried out with the aim of replacing the defective cells and their progenitors (hematopoietic (i.e. blood forming) stem cells) in order to correct the disorder. This is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether stem cell transplantation can improve survival and prevent symptoms and complications associated with sickle cell disease. To examine the risks of stem cell transplantation against the potential long-term gain for people with sickle cell disease.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register complied from electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (updated each new issue of the Cochrane Library) and quarterly searches of MEDLINE. We also searched trial registries for ongoing trials up to April 2020.\nDate of the most recent search of the Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 09 December 2019.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled and quasi-randomized trials that compared any method of stem cell transplantation with either each other or with any of the preventive or supportive interventions (e.g. periodic blood transfusion, use of hydroxyurea, antibiotics, pain relievers, supplemental oxygen) in people with sickle cell disease irrespective of the type of sickle cell disease, gender and setting.\nData collection and analysis\nNo trials were eligible for inclusion in the review.\nMain results\nWe identified 12 potentially-eligible trials by the searches; we excluded 11 of these and the remaining trial is an ongoing trial that may be eligible for inclusion in a future version of the review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nReports on the use of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation improving survival and preventing symptoms and complications associated with sickle cell disease are currently limited to observational and other less robust studies. We did not find any eligible randomized controlled trials assessing the benefit or risk of hematopoietic stem cell transplantations. However, there is an ongoing quasi-randomized trial comparing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with standard care, Thus, this systematic review identifies the need for a multicentre randomized controlled trial assessing the benefits and possible risks of hematopoietic stem cell transplantations comparing sickle status and severity of disease in people with sickle cell disease.\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: 09 December 2019." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003. Cervical dystonia is the most common form of focal dystonia and is a disabling disorder characterised by painful involuntary head posturing. There are two available formulations of botulinum toxin, with botulinum toxin type A (BtA) usually considered the first line therapy for this condition. Botulinum toxin type B (BtB) is an alternative option, with no compelling theoretical reason why it might not be as- or even more effective - than BtA.\nObjectives\nTo compare the efficacy, safety and tolerability of botulinum toxin type A (BtA) versus botulinum toxin type B (BtB) in people with cervical dystonia.\nSearch methods\nTo identify studies for this review we searched the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, reference lists of articles and conference proceedings. All elements of the search, with no language restrictions, were last run in October 2016.\nSelection criteria\nDouble-blind, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BtA versus BtB in adults with cervical dystonia.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo independent authors assessed records, selected included studies, extracted data using a paper pro forma, and evaluated the risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consulting a third author. We performed meta-analyses using the random-effects model, for the comparison BtA versus BtB to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). No prespecified subgroup analyses were carried out. The primary efficacy outcome was improvement on any validated symptomatic rating scale, and the primary safety outcome was the proportion of participants with adverse events.\nMain results\nWe included three RCTs, all new to this update, of very low to low methodological quality, with a total of 270 participants.\nTwo studies exclusively enrolled participants with a known positive response to BtA treatment. This raises concerns of population enrichment, with a higher probability of benefit from BtA treatment. None of the trials were free of for-profit bias, nor did they provide information regarding registered study protocols. All trials evaluated the effect of a single Bt treatment session, and not repeated treatment sessions, using doses from 100 U to 250 U of BtA (all onabotulinumtoxinA, or Botox, formulations) and 5000 U to 10,000 U of BtB (rimabotulinumtoxinB, or Myobloc/Neurobloc).\nWe found no difference between the two types of botulinum toxin in terms of overall efficacy, with a mean difference of -1.44 (95% CI -3.58 to 0.70) points lower on the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) for BtB-treated participants, measured at two to four weeks after injection. The proportion of participants with adverse events was also not different between BtA and BtB (BtB versus BtA risk ratio (RR) 1.40; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.96). However, when compared to BtA, treatment with BtB was associated with an increased risk of one adverse events of special interest, namely treatment-related sore throat/dry mouth (BtB versus BtA RR of 4.39; 95% CI 2.43 to 7.91). Treatment-related dysphagia (swallowing difficulties) was not different between BtA and BtB (RR 2.89; 95% CI 0.80 to 10.41). The two types of botulinum toxin were otherwise clinically non-distinguishable in all the remaining outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe previous version of this review did not include any trials, since these were still ongoing at the time. Therefore, with this update we are able to change the conclusions of this review. There is low quality evidence that a single treatment session of BtA (specifically onabotulinumtoxinA) and a single treatment session of BtB (rimabotulinumtoxinB) are equally effective and safe in the treatment of adults with certain types of cervical dystonia. Treatment with BtB appears to present an increased risk of sore throat/dry mouth, compared to BtA. Overall, there is no clinical evidence from these single-treatment trials to support or contest the preferential use of one form of botulinum toxin over the other.\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 results show little or no difference between BtA and BtB in the main measures of overall improvement and safety, including the total number of adverse (unwanted or harmful) events. There was also little or no difference between BtA and BtB in the self-evaluations reported by the study participants. Based on the results we would expect that, out of 1000 people with cervical dystonia treated with BtB, there would be 362 more people who experience dry mouth/sore throat compared to 1000 people treated with BtA. The studies which looked at the duration of effect showed little or no difference between BtA and BtB. None of the studies examined the impact of either Bt on quality of life." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nRecipients of allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT) can develop acute or chronic, or both forms of graft-versus-host disease (a/cGvHD), whereby immune cells of the donor attack host tissues. Steroids are the primary treatment, but patients with severe, refractory disease have limited options and a poor prognosis. Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) exhibit immunosuppressive properties and are being tested in clinical trials for their safety and efficacy in treating many immune-mediated disorders. GvHD is one of the first areas in which MSCs were clinically applied, and it is important that the accumulating evidence is systematically reviewed to assess whether their use is favoured.\nObjectives\nTo determine the evidence for the safety and efficacy of MSCs for treating immune-mediated inflammation post-transplantation of haematopoietic stem cells.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library 2018, Issue 12), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (from 1990) and ongoing trial databases to 6 December 2018. No constraints were placed on language or publication status.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs of participants with a haematological condition who have undergone an HSCT as treatment for their condition and were randomised to MSCs (intervention arm) or no MSCs (comparator arm), to prevent or treat GvHD. We also included RCTs which compared different doses of MSCs or MSCs of different sources (e.g. bone marrow versus cord). We included MSCs co-transplanted with haematopoietic stem cells as well as MSCs administered post-transplantation of haematopoietic stem cells.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nWe employed a random-effects model for all analyses due to expected clinical heterogeneity arising from differences in participant characteristics and interventions.\nMain results\nWe identified 12 completed RCTs (879 participants), and 13 ongoing trials (1532 enrolled participants planned). Of 12 completed trials, 10 compared MSCs versus no MSCs and two compared different doses of MSCs. One trial was in people with thalassaemia major, the remaining trials were for haematological malignancies. Seven trials administered MSCs to prevent GvHD, whereas five trials gave MSCs to treat GvHD.\nIn the comparison of MSCs with no MSCs, cells were administered at a dose of between 105 and 107 cells/kg in either a single dose (six trials) or in multiple doses (four trials) over a period of three days to four months. The dose-comparison trials compared 2 x 106 cells/kg with 8 x 106 cells/kg in two infusions, or 1 x 106 cells/kg with 3 x 106 cells/kg in a single infusion.\nThe median duration of follow-up in seven trials which administered MSCs prophylactically ranged from 10 to 60 months. In three trials of MSCs as treatment for aGvHD, participants were followed up for 90 or 100 days. In two trials of MSCs as treatment for cGvHD, the mean duration of follow-up was 13.4 months (MSC group) and 23.6 months (control group) in one trial, and 56 weeks in the second trial. Five trials included adults only, six trials included adults and children, and one trial included children only. In eight trials which reported the gender distribution, the percentage of females ranged from 20% to 59% (median 35.8%).\nThe overall quality of the included studies was low: randomisation methods were poorly reported and several of the included studies were subject to a high risk of performance bias and reporting bias. One trial which started in 2008 has not been published and the progress of this trial in unknown, leading to potential publication bias. The quality of evidence was therefore low or very low for all outcomes due to a high risk of bias as well as imprecision due to the low number of overall participants, and in some cases evidence based on a single study. We found that MSCs may make little or no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality in either prophylactic trials (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.42; participants = 301; studies = 5; I2 = 34% ; low-quality evidence) or therapeutic trials (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.56; participants = 244; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence), and no difference in the risk of relapse of malignant disease (prophylactic trials: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.59; participants = 323; studies = 6; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) compared with no MSCs. MSCs were well-tolerated, no infusion-related toxicity or ectopic tissue formation was reported. No study reported health-related quality of life. In prophylactic trials, MSCs may reduce the risk of chronic GvHD (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.89; participants = 283; studies = 6; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). This means that only 310 (95% CI 230 to 418) in every 1000 patients in the MSC arm are expected to develop chronic GvHD compared to 469 in the control arm. However, MSCs may make little or no difference to the risk of aGvHD (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.17; participants = 247; studies = 6; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). In GvHD therapeutic trials, we are very uncertain whether MSCs improve complete response of either aGvHD (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.70, participants = 260, studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) or cGvHD (RR 5.00, 95%CI 0.75 to 33.21, participants = 40, studies = 1; very low-quality evidence).\nIn two trials which compared different doses of MSCs, we found no evidence of any differences in outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nMSCs are an area of intense research activity, and an increasing number of trials have been undertaken or are planned. Despite a number of reports of positive outcomes from the use of MSCs for treating acute GvHD, the evidence to date from RCTs has not supported the conclusion that they are an effective therapy. There is low-quality evidence that MSCs may reduce the risk of cGvHD. New trial evidence will be incorporated into future updates of this review, which may better establish a role for MSCs in the prevention or treatment of GvHD.\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": "In people who receive a stem cell transplant for a haematological condition, can an additional infusion of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) prevent the development of graft-versus-host disease (GvHD)? In people who have already developed GvHD as a result of their stem cell transplant, can MSCs improve their clinical outcome?" } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDiarrhoea is a major contributor to the global disease burden, particularly amongst children under five years in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). As many of the infectious agents associated with diarrhoea are transmitted through faeces, sanitation interventions to safely contain and manage human faeces have the potential to reduce exposure and diarrhoeal disease.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of sanitation interventions for preventing diarrhoeal disease, alone or in combination with other WASH interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Chinese language databases available under the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI-CAJ). We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and conference proceedings, contacted researchers, and searched references of included studies. The last search date was 16 February 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs), and matched cohort studies of interventions aimed at introducing or expanding the coverage and/or use of sanitation facilities in children and adults in any country or population. Our primary outcome of interest was diarrhoea and secondary outcomes included dysentery (bloody diarrhoea), persistent diarrhoea, hospital or clinical visits for diarrhoea, mortality, and adverse events. We included sanitation interventions whether they were conducted independently or in combination with other interventions.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed eligible studies, extracted relevant data, assessed risk of bias, and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used meta-analyses to estimate pooled measures of effect, described results narratively, and investigated potential sources of heterogeneity using subgroup analyses.\nMain results\nFifty-one studies met our inclusion criteria, with a total of 238,535 participants. Of these, 50 studies had sufficient information to be included in quantitative meta-analysis, including 17 cluster-RCTs and 33 studies with non-randomized study designs (20 NRCTs, one CBA, and 12 matched cohort studies). Most were conducted in LMICs and 86% were conducted in whole or part in rural areas. Studies covered three broad types of interventions: (1) providing access to any sanitation facility to participants without existing access practising open defecation, (2) improving participants' existing sanitation facility, or (3) behaviour change messaging to improve sanitation access or practices without providing hardware or subsidy, although many studies overlapped multiple categories. There was substantial heterogeneity amongst individual study results for all types of interventions.\nProviding access to any sanitation facility\nProviding access to sanitation facilities was evaluated in seven cluster-RCTs, and may reduce diarrhoea prevalence in all age groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.08; 7 trials, 40,129 participants, low-certainty evidence). In children under five years, access may have little or no effect on diarrhoea prevalence (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.16, 4 trials, 16,215 participants, low-certainty evidence). Additional analysis in non-randomized studies was generally consistent with these findings. Pooled estimates across randomized and non-randomized studies provided similar protective estimates (all ages: RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94; 15 studies, 73,511 participants; children < 5 years: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.02; 11 studies, 25,614 participants).\nSanitation facility improvement\nInterventions designed to improve existing sanitation facilities were evaluated in three cluster-RCTs in children under five and may reduce diarrhoea prevalence (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.06; 3 trials, 14,900 participants, low-certainty evidence). However, some of these interventions, such as sewerage connection, are not easily randomized. Non-randomized studies across participants of all ages provided estimates that improving sanitation facilities may reduce diarrhoea, but may be subject to confounding (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.74; 23 studies, 117,639 participants, low-certainty evidence). Pooled estimates across randomized and non-randomized studies provided similar protective estimates (all ages: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.78; 26 studies, 132,539 participants; children < 5 years: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.91, 12 studies, 23,353 participants).\nBehaviour change messaging only (no hardware or subsidy provided)\nStrategies to promote behaviour change to construct, upgrade, or use sanitation facilities were evaluated in seven cluster-RCTs in children under five, and probably reduce diarrhoea prevalence (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98; 7 studies, 28,909 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Additional analysis from two non-randomized studies found no effect, though with very high uncertainty. Pooled estimates across randomized and non-randomized studies provided similar protective estimates (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.01; 9 studies, 31,080 participants). No studies measured the effects of this type of intervention in older populations.\nAny sanitation intervention\nA pooled analysis of cluster-RCTs across all sanitation interventions demonstrated that the interventions may reduce diarrhoea prevalence in all ages (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.95, 17 trials, 83,938 participants, low-certainty evidence) and children under five (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.97; 14 trials, 60,024 participants, low-certainty evidence). Non-randomized comparisons also demonstrated a protective effect, but may be subject to confounding. Pooled estimates across randomized and non-randomized studies provided similar protective estimates (all ages: RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.82; 50 studies, 237,130 participants; children < 5 years: RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.89; 32 studies, 80,047 participants). In subgroup analysis, there was some evidence of larger effects in studies with increased coverage amongst all participants (75% or higher coverage levels) and also some evidence that the effect decreased over longer follow-up times for children under five years.\nThere was limited evidence on other outcomes. However, there was some evidence that any sanitation intervention was protective against dysentery (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.00; 5 studies, 34,025 participants) and persistent diarrhoea (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.75; 2 studies, 2665 participants), but not against clinic visits for diarrhoea (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.67; 2 studies, 3720 participants) or all-cause mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.89 to1.09; 7 studies, 46,123 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is evidence that sanitation interventions are effective at preventing diarrhoea, both for young children and all age populations. The actual level of effectiveness, however, varies by type of intervention and setting. There is a need for research to better understand the factors that influence effectiveness.\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": "We searched for studies that had been published up to 16 February 2022." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nUpper endoscopy is the definitive treatment for upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage (UGIH). However, up to 13% of people who undergo upper endoscopy will have incomplete visualisation of the gastric mucosa at presentation. Erythromycin acts as a motilin receptor agonist in the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract and increases gastric emptying, which may lead to better quality of visualisation and improved treatment effectiveness. However, there is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of erythromycin in UGIH.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of erythromycin before endoscopy in adults with acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, compared with any other treatment or no treatment/placebo.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 15 October 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated erythromycin before endoscopy compared to any other treatment or no treatment/placebo before endoscopy in adults with acute UGIH.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. UGIH-related mortality and 2. serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. visualisation of gastric mucosa, 3. non-serious adverse events, 4. rebleeding, 5. blood transfusion, and 5. rescue invasive intervention. We used GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 11 RCTs with 878 participants. The mean age ranged from 53.13 years to 64.5 years, and most participants were men (72.3%). One RCT included only non-variceal haemorrhage, one included only variceal haemorrhage, and eight included both aetiologies. We defined short-term outcomes as those occurring within one week of initial endoscopy.\nErythromycin versus placebo\nThree RCTs (255 participants) compared erythromycin with placebo. There were no UGIH-related deaths. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects of erythromycin compared with placebo on serious adverse events (risk difference (RD) −0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.04 to 0.02; 3 studies, 255 participants; very low certainty), all-cause mortality (RD 0.00, 95% CI −0.03 to 0.03; 3 studies, 255 participants; very low certainty), non-serious adverse events (RD 0.01, 95% CI −0.03 to 0.05; 3 studies, 255 participants; very low certainty), and rebleeding (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.90; 2 studies, 195 participants; very low certainty). Erythromycin may improve gastric mucosa visualisation (mean difference (MD) 3.63 points on 16-point ordinal scale, 95% CI 2.20 to 5.05; higher MD means better visualisation; 2 studies, 195 participants; low certainty). Erythromycin may also result in a slight reduction in blood transfusion (MD −0.44 standard units of blood, 95% CI −0.86 to −0.01; 3 studies, 255 participants; low certainty).\nErythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage versus no intervention/placebo plus nasogastric tube lavage\nSix RCTs (408 participants) compared erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage with no intervention/placebo plus nasogastric tube lavage. There were no UGIH-related deaths and no serious adverse events. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects of erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage compared with no intervention/placebo plus nasogastric tube lavage on all-cause mortality (RD −0.02, 95% CI −0.08 to 0.03; 3 studies, 238 participants; very low certainty), visualisation of the gastric mucosa (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.48 points on 10-point ordinal scale, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.85; higher SMD means better visualisation; 3 studies, 170 participants; very low certainty), non-serious adverse events (RD 0.00, 95% CI −0.05 to 0.05; 6 studies, 408 participants; very low certainty), rebleeding (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.02; 1 study, 169 participants; very low certainty), and blood transfusion (MD −1.85 standard units of blood, 95% CI −4.34 to 0.64; 3 studies, 180 participants; very low certainty).\nErythromycin versus nasogastric tube lavage\nFour RCTs (287 participants) compared erythromycin with nasogastric tube lavage. There were no UGIH-related deaths and no serious adverse events. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects of erythromycin compared with nasogastric tube lavage on all-cause mortality (RD 0.02, 95% CI −0.05 to 0.08; 3 studies, 213 participants; very low certainty), visualisation of the gastric mucosa (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.79; 2 studies, 198 participants; very low certainty), non-serious adverse events (RD −0.10, 95% CI −0.34 to 0.13; 3 studies, 213 participants; very low certainty), rebleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.49; 1 study, 169 participants; very low certainty), and blood transfusion (median 2 standard units of blood, interquartile range 0 to 4 in both groups; 1 study, 169 participants; very low certainty).\nErythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage versus metoclopramide plus nasogastric tube lavage\nOne RCT (30 participants) compared erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage with metoclopramide plus nasogastric tube lavage. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage on all the reported outcomes (serious adverse events, visualisation of gastric mucosa, non-serious adverse events, and blood transfusion).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are unsure if erythromycin before endoscopy in people with UGIH has any clinical benefits or harms. However, erythromycin compared with placebo may improve gastric mucosa visualisation and result in a slight reduction in blood transfusion.\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": "We have very little confidence in the evidence because the results varied widely across studies, and the studies involved only small numbers of people. Some reports did not clearly describe how the study was conducted, or whether the people taking part knew who had received which medicine, which could have affected the results. Further research is likely to change our results." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOedema is a common clinical symptom in people with nephrotic syndrome and human albumin has been widely used in the treatment of oedema by increasing vascular volume and this inducing diuresis. It may be used with or without diuretics such as furosemide. However, the quantitative contribution of human albumin in treating oedema is not fully understood. If human albumin were found to be effective and safe in the treatment of oedema, it could help clinicians to develop therapeutic strategies to improve the management of diuretic resistance associated with nephrotic syndrome.\nObjectives\nThis review aimed to examine the benefits and harms of human albumin infusion for treating oedema associated with nephrotic syndrome.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 23 June 2019 through contact with the Information Specialists 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\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effect of human albumin infusion compared with placebo or no intervention, human albumin with diuretics compared with diuretic alone, human albumin compared with diuretics and other treatments, clinical outcomes, death, quality of life, kidney function and adverse effects in people with nephrotic syndrome. We excluded cross-over studies but data for the first period was to be included if available.\nData collection and analysis\nStandard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration were used. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, risk of bias, study quality and extracted data. We calculated mean difference (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nOne study met our inclusion criteria (26 children with minimal change nephrotic syndrome) and 11 were excluded (nine cross-over studies, one where albumin was not used for nephrotic syndrome and one where authors did not state whether the children had oedema). Risk of bias for the included study was unclear for selection bias, high for performance and detection bias, low for attrition bias, and high for selective reporting. The included study compared albumin plus furosemide with an equal volume of dextrose. Of our prespecified outcomes, the authors reported clinical improvement as weight change, serum sodium and adverse outcomes (blood pressure). The authors reported a greater weight loss in the albumin treated group initially but no difference overall at 10 days. However, the data in the text and the figures were inconsistent so we could not confirm the authors statements (very low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether albumin infusion improves serum sodium when compared with an equal volume of dextrose (MD 2.00 mEq/L, 95% CI -0.09 to 4.09), systolic blood pressure (MD 2.00 mmHg, 95% CI -3.52 to 7.52) or diastolic blood pressure (MD 2.00 mmHg, 95%CI -4.29 to 8.29). Death, quality of life, and kidney function were not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe identified only one small study that was relevant to our review, therefore we are unable to draw any conclusions regarding the use of human albumin with or without diuretics in nephrotic syndrome. More RCTs are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The review found one small RCT (26 patients) comparing human albumin plus the diuretic furosemide with placebo suitable for inclusion. We found nine studies on people with nephrotic syndrome that tested these comparisons but these were 'cross-over' studies which we judged not suitable. To find out whether there was any improvement after albumin, the study measured weight loss and serum sodium. The adverse effect measured was blood pressure. Although the authors reported increased weight loss we were not able to confirm this due to inconsistency between the data reported in the table and the text. There was no change in serum sodium or blood pressure. We judged these outcomes all to be of very low certainty. Death, quality of life, and kidney function were not reported." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOpioid drugs, including hydromorphone, 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 hydromorphone, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Other opioids are considered in separate reviews.\nThis review is part of an update of a previous review, Hydromorphone for acute and chronic pain that was withdrawn in 2013 because it needed updating and splitting to be more specific for different pain conditions. This review focuses only on neuropathic pain.\nObjectives\nTo assess the analgesic efficacy of hydromorphone 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), via the CRSO; MEDLINE via Ovid; and EMBASE via Ovid from inception to 17 November 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing hydromorphone (at any dose, by any route of administration, or 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. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).\nMain results\nSearches identified seven publications relating to four studies. We excluded three studies. One post hoc (secondary) analysis of a study published in four reports assessed the efficacy of hydromorphone in neuropathic pain, satisfied our inclusion criteria, and was included in the review. The single included study had an enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal design with 94 participants who were successfully switched from oral morphine to oral hydromorphone extended release (about 60% of those enrolled). These participants were then randomised to continuing hydromorphone for 12 weeks or tapering down the hydromorphone dose to placebo. The methodological quality of the study was generally good, but we judged the risk of bias for incomplete outcome data as unclear, and for study size as high.\nSince we identified only one study for inclusion, we were unable to carry out any analyses. The included study did not report any of our prespecified primary outcomes, which relate to the number of participants achieving moderate or substantial levels of pain relief. It did report a slightly larger increase in average pain intensity for placebo in the randomised withdrawal phase than for continuing with hydromorphone. It also reported the number of participants who withdrew due to lack of efficacy in the randomised withdrawal phase, which may be an indicator of efficacy. However, in addition to using an enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal study design, there was an unusual choice of imputation methods for withdrawals (about 50% of participants); the evidence was of very low quality and inadequate to make a judgement on efficacy. Adverse events occurred in about half of participants with hydromorphone, the most common being constipation and nausea. A similar proportion of participants experienced adverse events with placebo, the most common being opioid withdrawal syndrome (very low quality evidence). Most adverse events were mild or moderate in intensity. One in eight participants withdrew while taking hydromorphone during the conversion and titration phase, despite participants being opioid-tolerant (very low quality evidence).\nWe downgraded the quality of the evidence to very low because there was only one study with few participants, it did not report clinically useful efficacy outcomes, and it was a post hoc analysis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that hydromorphone has any efficacy in any neuropathic pain condition.\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": "Neuropathic pain is pain coming from damaged nerves. It is different from pain messages that are carried along healthy nerves from damaged tissue (for example, a fall or cut, or arthritic knee). Neuropathic pain is often treated by different medicines (drugs) to those used for pain from damaged tissue, which we often think of as painkillers. Medicines that are sometimes used to treat depression or epilepsy can be very effective in some people with neuropathic pain. But sometimes opioid painkillers are used to treat neuropathic pain.\nOpioid painkillers are drugs like morphine. Morphine is derived from plants, but many opioids are also made by chemical synthesis rather than being extracted from plants. Hydromorphone is one of these synthetic opioids. It is available in numerous countries for use as a painkiller, and can be given by mouth or by injection.\nThis review is part of an update of a previous review, Hydromorphone for acute and chronic pain that was withdrawn in 2013 because it needed updating and splitting to be more specific for different pain conditions. This review focuses only on neuropathic pain." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPharmacological interventions are frequently used for people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to manage behaviours of concern, including irritability, aggression, and self-injury. Some pharmacological interventions might help treat some behaviours of concern, but can also have adverse effects (AEs).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and AEs of pharmacological interventions for managing the behaviours of irritability, aggression, and self-injury in ASD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 11 other databases and two trials registers up to June 2022. We also searched reference lists of relevant studies, and contacted study authors, experts and pharmaceutical companies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials of participants of any age with a clinical diagnosis of ASD, that compared any pharmacological intervention to an alternative drug, standard care, placebo, or wait-list control.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were behaviours of concern in ASD, (irritability, aggression and self-injury); and AEs. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, and tolerability and acceptability. Two review authors independently assessed each study for risk of bias, and used GRADE to judge the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 131 studies involving 7014 participants in this review. We identified 26 studies as awaiting classification and 25 as ongoing. Most studies involved children (53 studies involved only children under 13 years), children and adolescents (37 studies), adolescents only (2 studies) children and adults (16 studies), or adults only (23 studies). All included studies compared a pharmacological intervention to a placebo or to another pharmacological intervention.\nAtypical antipsychotics versus placebo\nAt short-term follow−up (up to 6 months), atypical antipsychotics probably reduce irritability compared to placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) −1.25 to −0.55, 12 studies, 973 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), which may indicate a large effect. However, there was no clear evidence of a difference in aggression between groups (SMD −0.44, 95% CI −0.89 to 0.01; 1 study, 77 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Atypical antipsychotics may also reduce self-injury (SMD −1.43, 95% CI −2.24 to −0.61; 1 study, 30 participants; low-certainty evidence), possibly indicating a large effect.\nThere may be higher rates of neurological AEs (dizziness, fatigue, sedation, somnolence, and tremor) in the intervention group (low-certainty evidence), but there was no clear evidence of an effect on other neurological AEs. Increased appetite may be higher in the intervention group (low-certainty evidence), but we found no clear evidence of an effect on other metabolic AEs. There was no clear evidence of differences between groups in musculoskeletal or psychological AEs.\nNeurohormones versus placebo\nAt short-term follow-up, neurohormones may have minimal to no clear effect on irritability when compared to placebo (SMD −0.18, 95% CI −0.37 to −0.00; 8 studies; 466 participants; very low-certainty evidence), although the evidence is very uncertain. No data were reported for aggression or self -injury.\nNeurohormones may reduce the risk of headaches slightly in the intervention group, although the evidence is very uncertain. There was no clear evidence of an effect of neurohormones on any other neurological AEs, nor on any psychological, metabolic, or musculoskeletal AEs (low- and very low-certainty evidence).\nAttention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)-related medications versus placebo\nAt short-term follow-up, ADHD-related medications may reduce irritability slightly (SMD −0.20, 95% CI −0.40 to −0.01; 10 studies, 400 participants; low-certainty evidence), which may indicate a small effect. However, there was no clear evidence that ADHD-related medications have an effect on self-injury (SMD −0.62, 95% CI −1.63 to 0.39; 1 study, 16 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for aggression.\nRates of neurological AEs (drowsiness, emotional AEs, fatigue, headache, insomnia, and irritability), metabolic AEs (decreased appetite) and psychological AEs (depression) may be higher in the intervention group, although the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between groups for any other metabolic, neurological, or psychological AEs (very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for musculoskeletal AEs.\nAntidepressants versus placebo\nAt short-term follow-up, there was no clear evidence that antidepressants have an effect on irritability (SMD −0.06, 95% CI −0.30 to 0.18; 3 studies, 267 participants; low-certainty evidence). No data for aggression or self-injury were reported or could be included in the analysis.\nRates of metabolic AEs (decreased energy) may be higher in participants receiving antidepressants (very low-certainty evidence), although no other metabolic AEs showed clear evidence of a difference. Rates of neurological AEs (decreased attention) and psychological AEs (impulsive behaviour and stereotypy) may also be higher in the intervention group (very low-certainty evidence) although the evidence is very uncertain. There was no clear evidence of any difference in the other metabolic, neurological, or psychological AEs (very low-certainty evidence), nor between groups in musculoskeletal AEs (very low-certainty evidence).\nRisk of bias\nWe rated most of the studies across the four comparisons at unclear overall risk of bias due to having multiple domains rated as unclear, very few rated as low across all domains, and most having at least one domain rated as high risk of bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence suggests that atypical antipsychotics probably reduce irritability, ADHD-related medications may reduce irritability slightly, and neurohormones may have little to no effect on irritability in the short term in people with ASD. There was some evidence that atypical antipsychotics may reduce self-injury in the short term, although the evidence is uncertain. There was no clear evidence that antidepressants had an effect on irritability. There was also little to no difference in aggression between atypical antipsychotics and placebo, or self-injury between ADHD-related medications and placebo. However, there was some evidence that atypical antipsychotics may result in a large reduction in self-injury, although the evidence is uncertain. No data were reported (or could be used) for self-injury or aggression for neurohormones versus placebo. Studies reported a wide range of potential AEs. Atypical antipsychotics and ADHD-related medications in particular were associated with an increased risk of metabolic and neurological AEs, although the evidence is uncertain for atypical antipsychotics and very uncertain for ADHD-related medications. The other drug classes had minimal or no associated AEs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is autism spectrum disorder (ASD)?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Autism is a disorder that affects a child's physical, mental and behavioural development. It is a lifelong disability that starts in childhood but continues throughout adulthood. People with autism may find it difficult to communicate and interact with the world. However, autism affects each person differently and may be more or less severe in different people, so it is described as a 'spectrum' disorder. Some people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may be irritable, angry or aggressive, or hurt themselves physically (self-injury), which are 'behaviours of concern' that can be difficult to manage and distressing for the person." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nNon-infectious uveitis describes a heterogenous group of ocular disorders characterised by intraocular inflammation in the absence of infection. Uveitis is a leading cause of visual loss, most commonly due to uveitic macular oedema (UMO). Treatment is aimed at reducing disease activity by suppression of the intraocular inflammatory response. In the case of macular oedema, the aim is to restore macular architecture as quickly as possible, in order to prevent irreversible photoreceptor damage in this area. Acute exacerbations are typically managed with corticosteroids, which may be administered topically, locally or systemically. Whilst these are often rapidly effective in achieving disease control, long-term use is associated with significant local and systemic side effects, and 'steroid sparing agents' are typically used to achieve prolonged control in severe or recalcitrant disease. Anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) drugs block a critical cytokine in the inflammatory signalling process, and have emerged as effective steroid-sparing immunomodulatory agents in a wide range of non-ocular conditions. There is mechanistic data to suggest that they may provide a more targeted approach to disease control in UMO than other agents, but to date, these agents have predominantly been used 'off label' as the majority are not licensed for ocular use. This review aims to summarise the available literature reporting the use of anti-TNF therapy in UMO, thus developing the evidence-base on which to make future treatment decisions and develop clinical guidelines in this area.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy of anti-TNF therapy in treatment of UMO.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 2), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (CPCI-S); System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (OpenGrey); the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 29 March 2018.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include all relevant randomised controlled trials assessing the use of anti-TNF agents in treatment of UMO. No limits were applied to participant age, gender or ethnicity. The primary comparisons of this review were: anti-TNF versus no treatment or placebo; anti-TNF versus another pharmacological agent; comparison of different anti-TNF drugs; comparison of different doses and routes of administration of the same anti-TNF drug. The primary outcome measure that we assessed for this review was best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in the treated eye. Secondary outcome measures were anatomical macular change, clinical estimation of vitreous haze and health-related quality of life.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles and abstracts retrieved through the database searches. We retrieved full-text reports of studies categorised as 'unsure' or 'include' after we had reviewed the abstracts. Two review authors independently reviewed each full-text report for eligibility. We resolved discrepancies through discussion.\nMain results\nWe identified no completed or ongoing trial that was eligible for this Cochrane Review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur review did not identify any evidence from randomised controlled trials for or against the role of anti-TNF agents in the management of UMO. Although there are a number of high-quality randomised controlled trials that demonstrate the efficacy of anti-TNF agents in preventing recurrence of inflammation in uveitis, the reported study outcomes do not include changes in UMO. As a result, there were insufficient data to conclude whether there was a significant treatment effect specifically for UMO. Future trials should be designed to include quantitative measures of UMO as primary study outcomes, for example by reporting the presence or absence of UMO, or by measuring central macular thickness for study participants. Furthermore, whilst UMO is an important complication of uveitis, we acknowledge that uveitis is associated with many significant structural and functional complications. It is not possible to determine treatment efficacy based on a single outcome measure. We recommend that future reviews of therapeutic interventions in uveitis should use composite measures of treatment response comprising a range of potential complications of disease.\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": "There is currently no evidence for or against the use of anti-tumour necrosis factor agents in treatment of macular oedema in uveitis." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common diseases in early infancy and childhood. Antibiotic use for AOM varies from 56% in the Netherlands to 95% in the USA, Canada and Australia. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 1, 1997 and previously updated in 1999, 2005, 2009 and 2013.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of antibiotics for children with AOM.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to April week 3, 2015), OLDMEDLINE (1958 to 1965), EMBASE (January 1990 to April 2015), Current Contents (1966 to April 2015), CINAHL (2008 to April 2015) and LILACS (2008 to April 2015).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 1) antimicrobial drugs with placebo and 2) immediate antibiotic treatment with expectant observation (including delayed antibiotic prescribing) in children with AOM.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.\nMain results\nFor the review of antibiotics against placebo, 13 RCTs (3401 children and 3938 AOM episodes) from high-income countries were eligible and had generally low risk of bias. The combined results of the trials revealed that by 24 hours from the start of treatment, 60% of the children had recovered whether or not they had placebo or antibiotics. Pain was not reduced by antibiotics at 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.01) but almost a third fewer had residual pain at two to three days (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.86; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 20). A quarter fewer had pain at four to seven days (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.91; NNTB 16) and two-thirds fewer had pain at 10 to 12 days (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66; NNTB 7) compared with placebo. Antibiotics did reduce the number of children with abnormal tympanometry findings at two to four weeks (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.90; NNTB 11), at six to eight weeks (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00; NNTB 16) and the number of children with tympanic membrane perforations (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.76; NNTB 33) and halved contralateral otitis episodes (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.95; NNTB 11) compared with placebo. However, antibiotics neither reduced the number of children with abnormal tympanometry findings at three months (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.24) nor the number of children with late AOM recurrences (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.10) when compared with placebo. Severe complications were rare and did not differ between children treated with antibiotics and those treated with placebo. Adverse events (such as vomiting, diarrhoea or rash) occurred more often in children taking antibiotics (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.59; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 14). Funnel plots do not suggest publication bias. Individual patient data meta-analysis of a subset of included trials found antibiotics to be most beneficial in children aged less than two years with bilateral AOM, or with both AOM and otorrhoea.\nFor the review of immediate antibiotics against expectant observation, five trials (1149 children) from high-income countries were eligible and had low to moderate risk of bias. Four trials (1007 children) reported outcome data that could be used for this review. From these trials, data from 959 children could be extracted for the meta-analysis of pain at three to seven days. No difference in pain was detectable at three to seven days (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.12). One trial (247 children) reported data on pain at 11 to 14 days. Immediate antibiotics were not associated with a reduction in the number of children with pain (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10) compared with expectant observation. Additionally, no differences in the number of children with abnormal tympanometry findings at four weeks, tympanic membrane perforations and AOM recurrence were observed between groups. No serious complications occurred in either the antibiotic or the expectant observation group. Immediate antibiotics were associated with a substantial increased risk of vomiting, diarrhoea or rash compared with expectant observation (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.36; NNTH 9).\nResults from an individual patient data meta-analysis including data from six high-quality trials (1643 children) that were also included as individual trials in our review showed that antibiotics seem to be most beneficial in children younger than two years of age with bilateral AOM (NNTB 4) and in children with both AOM and otorrhoea (NNTB 3).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review reveals that antibiotics have no early effect on pain, a slight effect on pain in the days following and only a modest effect on the number of children with tympanic perforations, contralateral otitis episodes and abnormal tympanometry findings at two to four weeks and at six to eight weeks compared with placebo in children with AOM. In high-income countries, most cases of AOM spontaneously remit without complications. The benefits of antibiotics must be weighed against the possible harms: for every 14 children treated with antibiotics one child experienced an adverse event (such as vomiting, diarrhoea or rash) that would not have occurred if antibiotics were withheld. Therefore clinical management should emphasise advice about adequate analgesia and the limited role for antibiotics. Antibiotics are most useful in children under two years of age with bilateral AOM, or with both AOM and otorrhoea. For most other children with mild disease in high-income countries, an expectant observational approach seems justified.\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": "AOM is one of the most common infections in early infancy and childhood, causing pain and general symptoms of illness such as fever, irritability and problems feeding and sleeping. By three years of age, most children have had at least one AOM episode. Though AOM usually resolves without treatment, it is often treated with antibiotics." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) need treatment with insulin for survival. Whether any particular type of (ultra-)long-acting insulin provides benefit especially regarding risk of diabetes complications and hypoglycaemia is unknown.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effects of long-term treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues to NPH insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn) or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogue in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the reference lists of systematic reviews, articles and health technology assessment reports. We explored the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medical Agency (EMA) web pages. We asked pharmaceutical companies, EMA and investigators for additional data and clinical study reports (CSRs). The date of the last search of all databases was 24 August 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a duration of 24 weeks or more comparing one (ultra-)long-acting insulin to NPH insulin or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin in people with T1DM.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors assessed risk of bias using the new Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 (RoB 2) tool and extracted data. Our main outcomes were all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life (QoL), severe hypoglycaemia, non-fatal myocardial infarction/stroke (NFMI/NFS), severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia, serious adverse events (SAEs) and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analyses and calculated risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and 95% prediction intervals for effect estimates. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence applying the GRADE instrument.\nMain results\nWe included 26 RCTs. Two studies were unpublished. We obtained CSRs, clinical study synopses or both as well as medical reviews from regulatory agencies on 23 studies which contributed to better analysis of risk of bias and improved data extraction. A total of 8784 participants were randomised: 2428 participants were allocated to NPH insulin, 2889 participants to insulin detemir, 2095 participants to insulin glargine and 1372 participants to insulin degludec. Eight studies contributing 21% of all participants comprised children. The duration of the intervention varied from 24 weeks to 104 weeks.\nInsulin degludec versus NPH insulin: we identified no studies comparing insulin degludec with NPH insulin.\nInsulin detemir versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): five deaths reported in two studies including adults occurred in the insulin detemir group (Peto OR 4.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 31.38; 9 studies, 3334 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Three studies with 870 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). There was a reduction in severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir: 171/2019 participants (8.5%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 138/1200 participants (11.5%) in the NPH insulin group experienced severe hypoglycaemia (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; 8 studies, 3219 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between 0.34 and 1.39. Only 1/331 participants in the insulin detemir group compared with 0/164 participants in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFMI (1 study, 495 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported NFS. A total of 165/2094 participants (7.9%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 102/1238 participants (8.2%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.21; 9 studies, 3332 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 70/1823 participants (3.8%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 60/1102 participants (5.4%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.17; 7 studies, 2925 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin was 0.01%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 8 studies, 3122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence.\nInsulin glargine versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): one adult died in the NPH insulin group (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.98; 8 studies, 2175 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Four studies with 1013 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial effect or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). Severe hypoglycaemia was observed in 122/1191 participants (10.2%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 145/1159 participants (12.5%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.04; 9 studies, 2350 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No participant experienced a NFMI and one participant in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFS in the single study reporting this outcome (585 participants; low-certainty evidence). A total of 109/1131 participants (9.6%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 110/1098 participants (10.0%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.84; 8 studies, 2229 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 69/938 participants (7.4%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 83/955 participants (8.7%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; 6 studies, 1893 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin glargine with NPH insulin was 0.02%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 9 studies, 2285 participants; moderate-certainty evidence.\nInsulin detemir versus insulin glargine (2 RCTs),insulin degludec versus insulin detemir (2 RCTs), insulin degludec versus insulin glargine (4 RCTs): there was no evidence of a clinically relevant difference for all main outcomes comparing (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues with each other.\nFor all outcomes none of the comparisons indicated differences in tests of interaction for children versus adults.\nAuthors' conclusions\nComparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin for T1DM showed lower risk of severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir (moderate-certainty evidence). However, the 95% prediction interval indicated inconsistency in this finding. Both insulin detemir and insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin did not show benefits or harms for severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia. For all other main outcomes with overall low risk of bias and comparing insulin analogues with each other, there was no true beneficial or harmful effect for any intervention. Data on patient-important outcomes such as QoL, macrovascular and microvascular diabetic complications were sparse or missing. No clinically relevant differences were found between children and adults.\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": "In the comparison of the insulin analogues detemir and glargine with NPH insulin, we are moderately confident about the results for death, severe (night-time) hypoglycaemia, serious unwanted effects and HbA1c levels. We are uncertain about the effects on heart attacks, stroke and health-related quality of life, mainly because there were only a few studies which did not last long enough to reliably investigate these outcomes." } ]

[ { "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: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "After receiving breast cancer treatment, women may experience adverse mental and physical events caused by the cancer and by its treatment. These adverse events can result in a shorter life after treatment and can have a negative impact on quality of life (QoL) and on physical and mental health. Some studies suggest that being regularly physically active after treatment might lower the chance that breast cancer may come back, or that women may die of breast cancer. Regular PA may lead to a wide range of other beneficial effects, including improved QoL, mental health, and physical function. We wanted to determine whether PA has an effect on risk of recurrence and dying from breast cancer, QoL, and other aspects of well-being in women who had breast cancer after treatment." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHeavy menstrual bleeding and pain are common reasons women discontinue intrauterine device (IUD) use. Copper IUD (Cu IUD) users tend to experience increased menstrual bleeding, whereas levonorgestrel IUD (LNG IUD) users tend to have irregular menstruation. Medical therapies used to reduce heavy menstrual bleeding or pain associated with Cu and LNG IUD use include non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), anti-fibrinolytics and paracetamol. We analysed treatment and prevention interventions separately because the expected outcomes for treatment and prevention interventions differ. We did not combine different drug classes in the analysis as they have different mechanisms of action. This is an update of a review originally on NSAIDs. The review scope has been widened to include all interventions for treatment or prevention of heavy menstrual bleeding or pain associated with IUD use.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have assessed strategies for treatment and prevention of heavy menstrual bleeding or pain associated with IUD use, for example, pharmacotherapy and alternative therapies.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to January 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs in any language that tested strategies for treatment or prevention of heavy menstrual bleeding or pain associated with IUD (Cu IUD, LNG IUD or other IUD) use. The comparison could be no intervention, placebo or another active intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. Primary outcomes were volume of menstrual blood loss, duration of menstruation and painful menstruation. We used a random-effects model in all meta-analyses. Review authors assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nThis review includes 21 trials involving 3689 participants from middle- and high-income countries. Women were 18 to 45 years old and either already using an IUD or had just had one placed for contraception. The included trials examined NSAIDs and other interventions. Eleven were treatment trials, of these seven were on users of the Cu IUD, one on LNG IUD and three on an unknown type. Ten were prevention trials, six focused on Cu IUD users, and four on LNG IUD users. Sixteen trials had high risk of detection bias due to subjective assessment of pain and bleeding.\nTreatment of heavy menstrual bleeding\nCu IUD\nVitamin B1 resulted in fewer pads used per day (mean difference (MD) −7.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) −8.50 to −5.50) and fewer bleeding days (MD −2.00, 95% CI –2.38 to −1.62; 1 trial; 110 women; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of naproxen on the volume of menstruation compared to placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.09, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.78; 1 trial, 40 women; very low-certainty evidence).\nTreatment with mefenamic acid resulted in less volume of blood loss compared to tranexamic acid (MD −64.26, 95% CI −105.65 to −22.87; 1 trial, 94 women; low-certainty evidence). However, there was no difference in duration of bleeding with treatment of mefenamic acid or tranexamic acid (MD 0.08 days, 95% CI −0.27 to 0.42, 2 trials, 152 women; low-certainty evidence).\nLNG IUD\nThe use of ulipristal acetate in LNG IUD may not reduce the number of bleeding days in 90 days in comparison to placebo (MD −9.30 days, 95% CI −26.76 to 8.16; 1 trial, 24 women; low-certainty evidence).\nUnknown IUD type\nMefenamic acid may not reduce volume of bleeding compared to Vitex agnus measured by pictorial blood assessment chart (MD −2.40, 95% CI −13.77 to 8.97; 1 trial; 84 women; low-certainty evidence).\nTreatment of pain\nCu IUD\nTreatment with tranexamic acid and sodium diclofenac may result in little or no difference in the occurrence of pain (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 17.25; 1 trial, 38 women; very low-certainty evidence).\nUnknown IUD type\nNaproxen may reduce pain (MD 4.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 7.29; 1 trial, 33 women; low-certainty evidence).\nPrevention of heavy menstrual bleeding\nCu IUD\nWe found very low-certainty evidence that tolfenamic acid may prevent heavy bleeding compared to placebo (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.85; 1 trial, 310 women). There was no difference between ibuprofen and placebo in blood volume reduction (MD −14.11, 95% CI −36.04 to 7.82) and duration of bleeding (MD −0.2 days, 95% CI −1.40 to 1.0; 1 trial, 28 women, low-certainty evidence).\nAspirin may not prevent heavy bleeding in comparison to paracetamol (MD −0.30, 95% CI −26.16 to 25.56; 1 trial, 20 women; very low-certainty evidence).\nLNG IUD\nUlipristal acetate may increase the percentage of bleeding days compared to placebo (MD 9.50, 95% CI 1.48 to 17.52; 1 trial, 118 women; low-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data for analysis in a single trial comparing mifepristone and vitamin B.\nThere were insufficient data for analysis in the single trial comparing tranexamic acid and mefenamic acid and in another trial comparing naproxen with estradiol.\nPrevention of pain\nCu IUD\nThere was low-certainty evidence that tolfenamic acid may not be effective to prevent painful menstruation compared to placebo (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.14; 1 trial, 310 women). Ibuprofen may not reduce menstrual cramps compared to placebo (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.11 to 8.95; 1 trial, 20 women, low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nFindings from this review should be interpreted with caution due to low- and very low-certainty evidence. Included trials were limited; the majority of the evidence was derived from single trials with few participants. Further research requires larger trials and improved trial reporting. The use of vitamin B1 and mefenamic acid to treat heavy menstruation and tolfenamic acid to prevent heavy menstruation associated with Cu IUD should be investigated. More trials are needed to generate evidence for the treatment and prevention of heavy and painful menstruation associated with LNG IUD.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "" } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHepatic encephalopathy is a common complication of cirrhosis and has high associated morbidity and mortality. The condition is classified as overt if it is clinically apparent or minimal if only evident though psychometric testing. The exact pathogenesis of this syndrome is unknown although ammonia is thought to play a key role. L-ornithine L-aspartate has ammonia-lowering properties and may, therefore, benefit people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of L-ornithine L-aspartate versus placebo, no intervention, or other active interventions in people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy.\nSearch methods\nWe undertook electronic searches of The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and Science Citation Index Expanded to December 2017 and manual searches of meetings and conference proceedings; checks of bibliographies; and corresponded with investigators and pharmaceutical companies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised clinical trials, irrespective of publication status, language, or blinding. We included participants with cirrhosis who had minimal or overt hepatic encephalopathy or who were at risk for developing hepatic encephalopathy. We compared: L-ornithine L-aspartate versus placebo or no intervention; and L-ornithine L-aspartate versus other active agents such as non-absorbable disaccharides, antibiotics, probiotics, or branched-chain amino acids.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors, working independently, retrieved data from published reports and correspondence with investigators and pharmaceutical companies. The primary outcomes were mortality, hepatic encephalopathy, and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented the results as risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains; we evaluated the risk of publication bias and other small trial effects in regression analyses; conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses; and performed Trial Sequential Analyses. We determined the quality of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe identified 36 randomised clinical trials, involving at least 2377 registered participants, which fulfilled our inclusion criteria including 10 unpublished randomised clinical trials. However, we were only able to access outcome data from 29 trials involving 1891 participants. Five of the included trials assessed prevention, while 31 trials assessed treatment. Five trials were at low risk of bias in the overall assessment of mortality; one trial was at low risk of bias in the assessment of the remaining outcomes.\nL-ornithine L-aspartate had a beneficial effect on mortality compared with placebo or no intervention when including all trials (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.72; I2 = 0%; 19 trials; 1489 participants; very low quality evidence), but not when the analysis was restricted to the trials at low risk of bias (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.06 to 3.58; 4 trials; 244 participants). It had a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy compared with placebo or no intervention when including all trials (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.83; 22 trials; 1375 participants; I2 = 62%; very low quality evidence), but not in the one trial at low risk of bias (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07; 63 participants). The analysis of serious adverse events showed a potential benefit of L-ornithine L-aspartate when including all randomised clinical trials (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.90; 1 trial; 1489 participants; I2 = 0%; very low quality evidence), but not in the one trial at low risk of bias for this outcome (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.15 to 4.65; 63 participants). The Trial Sequential Analyses of mortality, hepatic encephalopathy, and serious adverse events found insufficient evidence to support or refute beneficial effects. Subgroup analyses showed no difference in outcomes in the trials evaluating evaluating the prevention or treatment of either overt or minimal hepatic encephalopathy or trials evaluating oral versus intravenous administration We were unable to undertake a meta-analysis of the three trials involving 288 participants evaluating health-related quality of life. Overall, we found no difference between L-ornithine L-aspartate and placebo or no intervention in non-serious adverse events (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.77; 14 trials; 1076 participants; I2 = 40%). In comparison with lactulose, L-ornithine L-aspartate had no effect on mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.11 to 4.17; 4 trials; 175 participants; I2 = 0%); hepatic encephalopathy (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.57); serious adverse events (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.11); or non-serious adverse events (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.18). In comparison with probiotics, L-ornithine L-aspartate had no effect on mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.51); serious adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.23 to 4.88); or changes in blood ammonia concentrations from baseline (RR -2.30 95% CI -6.08 to 1.48), but it had a possible beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.90). Finally, in comparison with rifaximin, L-ornithine L-aspartate had no effect on mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.03; 2 trials; 105 participants); hepatic encephalopathy (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.96); serious adverse events (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.42), or non-serious adverse events (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.42).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results of this review suggest a possible beneficial effect of L-ornithine L-aspartate on mortality, hepatic encephalopathy, and serious adverse events in comparisons with placebo or no-intervention, but, because the quality of the evidence is very low, we are very uncertain about these findings. There was very low quality evidence of a possible beneficial effect of L-ornithine L-aspartate on hepatic encephalopathy, when compared with probiotics, but no other benefits were demonstrated in comparison with other active agents. Additional access to data from completed, but unpublished trials, and new randomised placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials are needed.\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 we found was very weak, and so we are not confident that L-ornithine L-aspartate is of use for preventing or treating hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis. Many studies were unpublished and so had not been carefully vetted, and many of the published trials received support from the pharmaceutical industry which introduces an element of bias. Accordingly, more information is needed before the value of L-ornithine L-aspartate for preventing and treating hepatic encephalopathy can be determined." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCardiac and thoracic surgery are associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing these types of surgery is uncertain.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of primary thromboprophylaxis on the incidence of symptomatic VTE and major bleeding in patients undergoing cardiac or thoracic surgery.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched May 2014) and CENTRAL (2014, Issue 4). The authors searched the reference lists of relevant studies, conference proceedings, and clinical trial registries.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing any oral or parenteral anticoagulant or mechanical intervention to no intervention or placebo, or comparing two different anticoagulants.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data on methodological quality, participant characteristics, interventions, and outcomes including symptomatic VTE and major bleeding as the primary effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively.\nMain results\nWe identified 12 RCTs and one quasi-RCT (6923 participants), six for cardiac surgery (3359 participants) and seven for thoracic surgery (3564 participants). No study evaluated fondaparinux, the new oral direct thrombin, direct factor Xa inhibitors, or caval filters. All studies had major study design flaws and most lacked a placebo or no treatment control group. We typically graded the quality of the overall body of evidence for the various outcomes and comparisons as low, due to imprecise estimates of effect and risk of bias. We could not pool data because of the different comparisons and the lack of data. In cardiac surgery, 71 symptomatic VTEs occurred in 3040 participants from four studies. In a study of 2551 participants, representing 85% of the review population in cardiac surgery, the combination of unfractionated heparin with pneumatic compression stockings was associated with a 61% reduction of symptomatic VTE compared to unfractionated heparin alone (1.5% versus 4.0%; risk ratio (RR) 0.39; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.64). Major bleeding was only reported in one study, which found a higher incidence with vitamin K antagonists compared to platelet inhibitors (11.3% versus 1.6%, RR 7.06; 95% CI 1.64 to 30.40). In thoracic surgery, 15 symptomatic VTEs occurred in 2890 participants from six studies. In the largest study evaluating unfractionated heparin versus an inactive control the rates of symptomatic VTE were 0.7% versus 0%, respectively, giving a RR of 6.71 (95% CI 0.40 to 112.65). There was insufficient evidence to determine if there was a difference in the risk of major bleeding from two studies evaluating fixed-dose versus weight-adjusted low molecular weight heparin (2.7% versus 8.1%, RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.07 to 1.60) and unfractionated heparin versus low molecular weight heparin (6% and 4%, RR 1.50; 95% CI 0.26 to 8.60).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cardiac and thoracic surgery is limited. Data for important outcomes such as pulmonary embolism or major bleeding were often lacking. Given the uncertainties around the benefit-to-risk balance, no conclusions can be drawn and a case-by-case risk evaluation of VTE and bleeding remains preferable.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics and key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We identified 13 randomised controlled trials (6923 participants), six for cardiac surgery (3359 participants) and seven for thoracic surgery (3564 participants). The evidence is current to May 2014. No study evaluated fondaparinux, the new oral direct thrombin or direct factor Xa inhibitors, or caval filters. Data could not be combined because of the different comparisons and the lack of data. Data for clinically relevant outcomes such as pulmonary embolism (blockage of one or more arteries of the lung) or major bleeding were often lacking. In cardiac surgery, symptomatic venous thromboembolism occurred in 71 out of 3040 participants from three studies. In a study of 2551 participants, representing 85% of the review population in cardiac surgery, the combination of unfractionated heparin with intermittent pneumatic compression was associated with an important reduction of symptomatic venous thromboembolism compared to unfractionated heparin alone. Major (important) bleeding was reported in one study only, and the best estimate was that bleedings occurred seven times more often in participants on vitamin K antagonists compared to participants on platelet inhibitors, but the true estimate may lay between one and a half to 30. In thoracic surgery, symptomatic venous thromboembolism occurred in 15 out of 2890 participants from six studies. Combined analysis could not be performed, but the largest study evaluating unfractionated heparin versus an inactive control did not show a benefit in terms of reduced occurrence of symptomatic venous thromboembolism. Major bleeding was reported in two studies that did not find significantly different rates between fixed-dose and weight-adjusted low molecular weight heparin (2.7% versus 8.1%) and between unfractionated heparin and low molecular weight heparin (6% and 4%)." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCancer is a common disease and radiotherapy is one well-established treatment for some solid tumours. Hyperbaric oxygenation therapy (HBOT) may improve the ability of radiotherapy to kill hypoxic cancer cells, so the administration of radiotherapy while breathing hyperbaric oxygen may result in a reduction in mortality and recurrence.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of administering radiotherapy for the treatment of malignant tumours while breathing HBO.\nSearch methods\nIn September 2017 we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Library Issue 8, 2017, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Database of Randomised Trials in Hyperbaric Medicine using the same strategies used in 2011 and 2015, and examined the reference lists of included articles.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised studies comparing the outcome of malignant tumours following radiation therapy while breathing HBO versus air or an alternative sensitising agent.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently evaluated the quality of and extracted data from the included trials.\nMain results\nWe included 19 trials in this review (2286 participants: 1103 allocated to HBOT and 1153 to control).\nFor head and neck cancer, there was an overall reduction in the risk of dying at both one year and five years after therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 0.98, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 11 and RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98, high-quality evidence), and some evidence of improved local tumour control immediately following irradiation (RR with HBOT 0.58, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.85, moderate-quality evidence due to imprecision). There was a lower incidence of local recurrence of tumour when using HBOT at both one and five years (RR at one year 0.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.78, high-quality evidence; RR at five years 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95, moderate-quality evidence due to inconsistency between trials). There was also some evidence with regard to the chance of metastasis at five years (RR with HBOT 0.45 95% CI 0.09 to 2.30, single trial moderate quality evidence imprecision). No trials reported a quality of life assessment. Any benefits come at the cost of an increased risk of severe local radiation reactions with HBOT (severe radiation reaction RR 2.64, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.23, high-quality evidence). However, the available evidence failed to clearly demonstrate an increased risk of seizures from acute oxygen toxicity (RR 4.3, 95% CI 0.47 to 39.6, moderate-quality evidence).\nFor carcinoma of the uterine cervix, there was no clear benefit in terms of mortality at either one year or five years (RR with HBOT at one year 0.88, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.11, high-quality evidence; RR at five years 0.95, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.14, moderate-quality evidence due to inconsistency between trials). Similarly, there was no clear evidence of a benefit of HBOT in the reported rate of local recurrence (RR with HBOT at one year 0.82, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.06, high-quality evidence; RR at five years 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.13, moderate-quality evidence due to inconsistency between trials). We also found no clear evidence for any effect of HBOT on the rate of development of metastases at both two years and five years (two years RR with HBOT 1.05, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.31, high quality evidence; five years RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.26, moderate-quality evidence due to inconsistency). There were, however, increased adverse effects with HBOT. The risk of a severe radiation injury at the time of treatment with HBOT was 2.05, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.46, high-quality evidence. No trials reported any failure of local tumour control, quality of life assessments, or the risk of seizures during treatment.\nWith regard to the treatment of urinary bladder cancer, there was no clear evidence of a benefit in terms of mortality from HBOT at one year (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.27, high-quality evidence), nor any benefit in the risk of developing metastases at two years (RR 2.0, 95% CI 0.58 to 6.91, moderate-quality evidence due to imprecision). No trial reported on failure of local control, local recurrence, quality of life, or adverse effects.\nWhen all cancer types were combined, there was evidence for an increased risk of severe radiation tissue injury during the course of radiotherapy with HBOT (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.66 to 3.33, high-quality evidence) and of oxygen toxic seizures during treatment (RR with HBOT 6.76, 96% CI 1.16 to 39.31, moderate-quality evidence due to imprecision).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found evidence that HBOT improves local tumour control, mortality, and local tumour recurrence for cancers of the head and neck. These benefits may only occur with unusual fractionation schemes. Hyperbaric oxygenation therapy is associated with severe tissue radiation injury. Given the methodological and reporting inadequacies of the included studies, our results demand a cautious interpretation. More research is needed for head and neck cancer, but is probably not justified for uterine cervical or bladder cancer. There is little evidence available concerning malignancies at other anatomical sites.\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 quality of evidence was generally high with close agreement between several different trials. Similarly, there was high-quality evidence of an increased risk of having a severe reaction to the radiation while breathing HBO. The evidence for an increased risk of seizures during treatment when using HBO was of moderate quality, mainly because of the small numbers of seizures seen in the included studies." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is the second update of this systematic review. High blood pressure represents a major public health problem. Worldwide, approximately one-fourth of the adult population has hypertension. Epidemiological and experimental studies suggest a link between hyperuricaemia and hypertension. Hyperuricaemia affects 25% to 40% of those with untreated hypertension; a much lower prevalence has been reported in those with normotension or in the general population. However, whether lowering serum uric acid (UA) might lower blood pressure (BP), is an unanswered question.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether UA-lowering agents reduce BP in people with primary hypertension or prehypertension, compared with placebo.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to May 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL 2018, Issue 12, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched LILACS (1982 to May 2020), and contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language or date restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nTo be included in this updated review, the studies had to meet the following criteria: 1) randomised or quasi-randomised, with a group assigned to receive a UA-lowering agent and another group assigned to receive placebo; 2) double-blind, single-blind, or open-label; 3) parallel or cross-over trial design; 4) cross-over trials had to have a washout period of at least two weeks; 5) minimum treatment duration of four weeks; 6) participants had to have a diagnosis of essential hypertension or prehypertension plus hyperuricaemia (serum UA greater than 6 mg/dL in women, 7 mg/dL in men, and 5.5 mg/dL in children or adolescents); 7) outcome measures included change in 24-hour ambulatory systolic or diastolic BP, or both; or clinic-measured systolic or diastolic BP, or both.\nData collection and analysis\nThe two review authors independently collected the data using a data extraction form, and resolved any disagreements via discussion. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nIn this review update, we screened 722 records, selected 26 full-text reports for evaluation. We identified no ongoing studies and did not add any new studies. We included three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), enrolling 211 people with hypertension or prehypertension, plus hyperuricaemia.\nLow-certainty evidence from three RCTs found inconclusive results between those who received UA-lowering drugs and placebo, in 24-hour ambulatory systolic (MD -6.2 mmHg, 95% CI -12.8 to 0.5) or diastolic BP (-3.9 mmHg, 95% CI -9.2 to 1.4).\nLow-certainty evidence from two RCTs found that UA-lowering drugs reduced clinic-measured systolic BP (-8.43 mmHg, 95% CI -15.24 to -1.62) but results for clinic-measured diastolic BP were inconclusive (-6.45 mmHg, 95% CI -13.60 to 0.70).\nHigh-certainty evidence from three RCTs found that serum UA levels were reduced by 3.1 mg/dL (95% CI 2.4 to 3.8) in the participants that received UA-lowering drugs.\nLow-certainty evidence from three RCTs found inconclusive results regarding the occurrence of adverse events between those who received UA-lowering drugs and placebo (RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.43 to 8.10).\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn this updated Cochrane Review, the current RCT data are insufficient to know whether UA-lowering therapy lowers BP. More studies are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What the research says\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We found inconclusive results as to whether drug therapy to lower uric acid reduced blood pressure more than placebo, in people who had high blood pressure and high blood levels of uric acid. Drug therapy decreased blood levels of uric acid better than placebo. The results for side effects were inconclusive between the drug therapy and placebo groups.\nThere is not enough evidence to show that drugs that lower blood levels of uric acid also reduce blood pressure in people with hypertension. More research on this question is needed." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPharmacologic therapies for management of heroin withdrawal have been studied and reviewed widely. Opium dependence is generally associated with less severe dependence and milder withdrawal symptoms than heroin. The evidence on withdrawal management of heroin might therefore not be exactly applicable for opium.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of various pharmacologic therapies for the management of the acute phase of opium withdrawal.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following sources up to September 2017: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, regional and national databases (IMEMR, Iranmedex, and IranPsych), main electronic sources of ongoing trials, and reference lists of all relevant papers. In addition, we contacted known investigators to obtain missing data or incomplete trials.\nSelection criteria\nControlled clinical trials and randomised controlled trials on pharmacological therapies, compared with no intervention, placebo, other pharmacologic treatments, different doses of the same drug, and psychosocial intervention, to manage acute withdrawal from opium in a maximum duration of 30 days.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 13 trials involving 1096 participants. No pooled analysis was possible. Studies were carried out in three countries, Iran, India, and Thailand, in outpatient and inpatient settings. The quality of the evidence was generally very low.\nWhen the mean of withdrawal symptoms was provided for several days, we mainly focused on day 3. The reason for this was that the highest severity of opium withdrawal is in the second to fourth day.\nComparing different pharmacological treatments with each other, clonidine was twice as good as methadone for completion of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69 to 2.38; 361 participants, 1 study, low-quality evidence). All the other results showed no differences between the considered drugs: baclofen versus clonidine (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.80; 66 participants, 1 study, very low-quality evidence); clonidine versus clonidine plus amantadine (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.24; 69 participants, 1 study); clonidine versus buprenorphine in an inpatient setting (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20; 1 study, 35 participants, very low-quality evidence); methadone versus tramadol (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.37; 1 study, 72 participants, very low-quality evidence); methadone versus methadone plus gabapentin (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.43; 1 study, 40 participants, low-quality evidence), and tincture of opium versus methadone (1 study, 74 participants, low-quality evidence).\nComparing different pharmacological treatments with each other, adding amantadine to clonidine decreased withdrawal scores rated at day 3 (mean difference (MD) -3.56, 95% CI -5.97 to -1.15; 1 study, 60 participants, very low-quality evidence). Comparing clonidine with buprenorphine in an inpatient setting, we found no difference in withdrawal symptoms rated by a physician (MD -1.40, 95% CI -2.93 to 0.13; 1 study, 34 participants, very low-quality evidence), and results in favour of buprenorpine when rated by participants (MD -11.80, 95% CI -15.56 to -8.04). Buprenorphine was superior to clonidine in controlling severe withdrawal symptoms in an outpatient setting (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.64; 1 study, 76 participants). We found no difference in the comparison of methadone versus tramadol (MD 0.04, 95% CI -2.68 to 2.76; 1 study, 72 participants) and in the comparison of methadone versus methadone plus gabapentin (MD -2.20, 95% CI -6.72 to 2.32; 1 study, 40 participants).\nComparing clonidine versus buprenorphine in an outpatient setting, more adverse effects were reported in the clonidine group (1 study, 76 participants). Higher numbers of participants in the clonidine group experienced hypotension at days 5 to 8, headache at days 1 to 8, sedation at days 5 to 8, dizziness and dry mouth at days 1 to 10, and nausea at days 1 to 9. Sweating was reported in a significantly higher number of participants in the buprenorphine group at days 1 to 10. We found no difference between groups for all the other comparisons considering this outcome.\nComparing different dosages of the same pharmacological detoxification treatment, a high dose of clonidine (1 to 1.2 mg/day) did not differ from a low dose of clonidine (0.5 to 0.6 mg/day) in completion of treatment in an inpatient setting (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.19; 1 study, 68 participants), however a higher number of participants with hypotension was reported in the high-dose group (RR 3.25, 95% CI 1.77 to 5.98). Gradual reduction of methadone was associated with more adverse effects than abrupt withdrawal of methadone (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.02 to 4.94; 1 study, 20 participants, very low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nResults did not support using any specific pharmacological approach for the management of opium withdrawal due to generally very low-quality evidence and small or no differences between treatments. However, it seems that opium withdrawal symptoms are significant, especially at days 2 to 4 after discontinuation of opium. All of the assessed medications might be useful in alleviating symptoms. Those who receive clonidine might experience hypotension.\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": "We searched for studies published up to September 2017." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN) typically occurs in young women of reproductive age. Although several studies have reported the impact that cervical conservative treatment may have on obstetric outcomes, there is much less evidence for fertility and early pregnancy outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of cervical treatment for CIN (excisional or ablative) on fertility and early pregnancy outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched in January 2015 the following databases: the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library, Issue 12, 2014), MEDLINE (up to November week 3, 2014) and EMBASE (up to week 52, 2014).\nSelection criteria\nWe included all studies reporting on fertility and early pregnancy outcomes (less than 24 weeks of gestation) in women with a history of CIN treatment (excisional or ablative) as compared to women that had not received treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nStudies were classified according to the treatment method used and the fertility or early pregnancy endpoint. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model and inter-study heterogeneity was assessed with I2. Two review authors (MK, AM) independently assessed the eligibility of retrieved papers and risk of bias. The two review authors then compared their results and any disagreements were resolved by discussion. If still unresolved, a third review author (MA) was involved until consensus was reached.\nMain results\nFifteen studies (2,223,592 participants - 25,008 treated and 2,198,584 untreated) that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review were identified from the literature search. The meta-analysis demonstrated that treatment for CIN did not adversely affect the chances of conception. The overall pregnancy rate was higher for treated (43%) versus untreated women (38%; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.64; 4 studies, 38,050 participants, very low quality), although the inter-study heterogeneity was considerable (P < 0.01). The pregnancy rates in treated and untreated women with an intention to conceive (88% versus 95%, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.08; 2 studies, 70 participants, very low quality) and the number of women requiring more than 12 months to conceive (14% versus 9%, RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.37; 3 studies, 1348 participants, very low quality) were no different. Although the total miscarriage rate (4.6% versus 2.8%, RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.21; 10 studies, 39,504 participants, low quality) and first trimester miscarriage rate (9.8% versus 8.4%, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.69, 4 studies, 1103 participants, low quality) was similar for treated and untreated women, CIN treatment was associated with an increased risk of second trimester miscarriage, (1.6% versus 0.4%, RR 2.60, 95% CI 1.45 to 4.67; 8 studies, 2,182,268 participants, low quality). The number of ectopic pregnancies (1.6% versus 0.8%, RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.50 to 2.39; 6 studies, 38,193 participants, low quality) and terminations (12.2% versus 7.4%, RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.22; 7 studies, 38,208 participants, low quality) were also higher in treated women.\nThe results should be interpreted with caution. The included studies were often small with heterogenous design. Most of these studies were retrospective and of low or very low quality (GRADE assessment) and were therefore prone to bias. Subgroup analyses for the individual treatment methods and comparison groups and analysis to stratify for the cone length was not possible.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis meta-analysis suggests that treatment for CIN does not adversely affect fertility, although treatment was associated with an increased risk of miscarriage in the second trimester. These results should be interpreted with caution as the included studies were non-randomised and many were of low or very low quality and therefore at high risk of bias. Research should explore mechanisms that may explain the increase in mid-trimester miscarriage risk and stratify this impact of treatment by the length of the cone and the treatment method used.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main findings?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We included all studies that assessed fertility and early pregnancy outcomes in women who had local treatment of CIN versus untreated women. We identified fifteen suitable studies.Fertility outcomesThe results suggest that local treatment of the cervix does not adversely affect the ability to conceive; in fact the overall pregnancy rate was higher for treated women when compared to untreated women (43% versus 38%). There was no difference in the pregnancy rates in women that intended to conceive (88% treated versus 95% untreated) or in the number of women requiring more than 12 months to conceive (15% treated versus 9% untreated).\nEarly pregnancy outcomes \nThe rates of total (less than 24 weeks of gestation) and first trimester (less than 12 weeks of gestation) miscarriage were no different. However, women after treatment had a significantly higher second trimester miscarriage rate (between 12 and 24 weeks of gestation) compared to untreated controls (1.6% versus 0.4%). The rates of ectopic pregnancies and terminations of pregnancy were higher for treated versus untreated women." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nProstate cancer is a common cancer but is oftentimes slow growing. When confined to the prostate, radical prostatectomy (RP), which involves removal of the prostate, offers potential cure that may come at the price of adverse events. Deferred treatment, involving observation and palliative treatment only (watchful waiting (WW)) or close monitoring and delayed local treatment with curative intent as needed in the setting of disease progression (active monitoring (AM)/surveillance (AS)) might be an alternative. This is an update of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2010.\nObjectives\nTo assess effects of RP compared with deferred treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Library (including CDSR, CENTRAL, DARE, and HTA), MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, Web of Science, LILACS, Scopus, and OpenGrey. Additionally, we searched two trial registries and conference abstracts of three conferences (EAU, AUA, and ASCO) until 3 March 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared RP versus deferred treatment in patients with localised prostate cancer, defined as T1-2, N0, M0 prostate cancer.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the eligibility of references and extracted data from included studies. The primary outcome was time to death from any cause; secondary outcomes were: time to death from prostate cancer; time to disease progression; time to metastatic disease; quality of life, including urinary and sexual function; and adverse events. We assessed the certainty of evidence per outcome using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included four studies with 2635 participants (average age between 60 to 70 years). Three multicentre RCTs, from Europe and USA, compared RP with WW (n = 1537), and one compared RP with AM (n = 1098).\nRadical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting\nRP probably reduces the risk of death from any cause (hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.90; 3 studies with 1537 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on overall mortality at 29 years, this corresponds to 764 deaths per 1000 men in the RP group compared to 839 deaths per 1000 men in the WW group. RP probably also lowers the risk of death from prostate cancer (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44-0.73; 2 studies with 1426 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on prostate cancer-specific mortality at 29 years, this corresponds to 195 deaths from prostate cancer per 1000 men in the RP group compared with 316 deaths from prostate cancer per 1000 men in the WW group. RP may reduce the risk of progression (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.35-0.54; 2 studies with 1426 participants; I² = 54%; low-certainty evidence); at 19.5 years, this corresponds to 391 progressions per 1000 men for the RP group compared with 684 progressions per 1000 men for the WW group) and probably reduces the risk of developing metastatic disease (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.46-0.70; 2 studies with 1426 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence); at 29 years, this corresponds to 271 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for RP compared with 431 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for WW.\nGeneral quality of life at 12 years' follow-up is probably similar for both groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.0, 95% CI 0.85-1.16; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to 344  patients with high quality of life per 1000 men for the RP group compared with 344 patients with high quality of life per 1000 men for the WW group. Rates of urinary incontinence may be considerably higher (RR 3.97, 95% CI 2.34-6.74; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to 173 incontinent men per 1000 in the RP group compared with 44 incontinent men per 1000 in the WW group, as are rates of erectile dysfunction (RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.63-4.38; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to 389 erectile dysfunction events per 1000 for the RP group compared with 146 erectile dysfunction events per 1000 for the WW group, both at 10 years' follow-up.\nRadical prostatectomy versus active monitoring\nBased on one study including 1098 participants with 10 years' follow-up, there are probably no differences between RP and AM in time to death from any cause (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65-1.33; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on overall mortality at 10 years, this corresponds to 101 deaths per 1000 men in the RP group compared with 108 deaths per 1000 men in the AM group.\nSimilarly, risk of death from prostate cancer probably is not different between the two groups (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21-1.89; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on prostate cancer-specific mortality at 10 years, this corresponds to nine prostate cancer deaths per 1000 men in the RP group compared with 15 prostate cancer deaths per 1000 men in the AM group. RP probably reduces the risk of progression (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.27-0.56; moderate-certainty evidence; at 10 years, this corresponds to 86 progressions per 1000 men for RP compared with 206 progressions per 1000 men for AM) and the risk of developing metastatic disease (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.21-0.73; moderate-certainty evidence; at 10 years, this corresponds to 24 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for the RP group compared with 61 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for the AM group).The general quality of life during follow-up was not different between the treatment groups. However, urinary function (mean difference (MD) 8.60 points lower, 95% CI 11.2-6.0 lower) and sexual function (MD 14.9 points lower, 95% CI 18.5-11.3 lower) on the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC-26) instrument, were worse in the RP group.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on long-term follow-up, RP compared with WW probably results in substantially improved oncological outcomes in men with localised prostate cancer but also markedly increases rates of urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. These findings are largely based on men diagnosed before widespread PSA screening, thereby limiting generalisability. Compared to AM, based on follow-up to 10 years, RP probably has similar outcomes with regard to overall and disease-specific survival yet probably reduces the risks of disease progression and metastatic disease. Urinary function and sexual function are probably decreased for the patients treated with RP.\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 searched the medical literature until 3 March 2020. We found four randomised controlled trials, including 2635 men with prostate cancer, that compared radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting (3 studies) and one study that compared radical prostatectomy with active monitoring, which is an earlier form of active surveillance." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nNeonatal hyperbilirubinaemia is a common problem which carries a risk of neurotoxicity. Certain infants who have hyperbilirubinaemia develop bilirubin encephalopathy and kernicterus which may lead to long-term disability. Phototherapy is currently the mainstay of treatment for neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia. Among the adjunctive measures to compliment the effects of phototherapy, fluid supplementation has been proposed to reduce serum bilirubin levels. The mechanism of action proposed includes direct dilutional effects of intravenous (IV) fluids, or enhancement of peristalsis to reduce enterohepatic circulation by oral fluid supplementation.\nObjectives\nTo assess the risks and benefits of fluid supplementation compared to standard fluid management in term and preterm newborn infants with unconjugated hyperbilirubinaemia who require phototherapy.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 7 June 2017), Embase (1980 to 7 June 2017), and CINAHL (1982 to 7 June 2017). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials that compared fluid supplementation against no fluid supplementation, or one form of fluid supplementation against another.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group using the Covidence platform. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We expressed our results using mean difference (MD), risk difference (RD), and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).\nMain results\nOut of 1449 articles screened, seven studies were included. Three articles were awaiting classification, among them, two completed trials identified from the trial registry appeared to be unpublished so far.\nThere were two major comparisons: IV fluid supplementation versus no fluid supplementation (six studies) and IV fluid supplementation versus oral fluid supplementation (one study). A total of 494 term, healthy newborn infants with unconjugated hyperbilirubinaemia were evaluated. All studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of care personnel, five studies had unclear risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessors, and most studies had unclear risk of bias in allocation concealment. There was low- to moderate-quality evidence for all major outcomes.\nIn the comparison between IV fluid supplementation and no supplementation, no infant in either group developed bilirubin encephalopathy in the one study that reported this outcome. Serum bilirubin was lower at four hours postintervention for infants who received IV fluid supplementation (MD -34.00 μmol/L (-1.99 mg/dL), 95% CI -52.29 (3.06) to -15.71 (0.92); participants = 67, study = 1) (low quality of evidence, downgraded one level for indirectness and one level for suspected publication bias). Beyond eight hours postintervention, serum bilirubin was similar between the two groups. Duration of phototherapy was significantly shorter for fluid-supplemented infants, but the estimate was affected by heterogeneity which was not clearly explained (MD -10.70 hours, 95% CI -15.55 to -5.85; participants = 218; studies = 3; I² = 67%). Fluid-supplemented infants were less likely to require exchange transfusion (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.71; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.02; participants = 462; studies = 6; I² = 72%) (low quality of evidence, downgraded one level due to inconsistency, and another level due to suspected publication bias), and the estimate was similarly affected by unexplained heterogeneity. The frequencies of breastfeeding were similar between the fluid-supplemented and non-supplemented infants in days one to three based on one study (estimate on day three: MD 0.90 feeds, 95% CI -0.40 to 2.20; participants = 60) (moderate quality of evidence, downgraded one level for imprecision).\nOne study contributed to all outcome data in the comparison of IV versus oral fluid supplementation. In this comparison, no infant in either group developed abnormal neurological signs. Serum bilirubin, as well as the rate of change of serum bilirubin, were similar between the two groups at four hours after phototherapy (serum bilirubin: MD 11.00 μmol/L (0.64 mg/dL), 95% CI -21.58 (-1.26) to 43.58 (2.55); rate of change of serum bilirubin: MD 0.80 μmol/L/hour (0.05 mg/dL/hour), 95% CI -2.55 (-0.15) to 4.15 (0.24); participants = 54 in both outcomes) (moderate quality of evidence for both outcomes, downgraded one level for indirectness). The number of infants who required exchange transfusion was similar between the two groups (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.60 to 4.27; RD 0.11, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.34; participants = 54). No infant in either group developed adverse effects including vomiting or abdominal distension.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no evidence that IV fluid supplementation affects important clinical outcomes such as bilirubin encephalopathy, kernicterus, or cerebral palsy in healthy, term newborn infants with unconjugated hyperbilirubinaemia requiring phototherapy. In this review, no infant developed these bilirubin-associated clinical complications. Low- to moderate-quality evidence shows that there are differences in total serum bilirubin levels between fluid-supplemented and control groups at some time points but not at others, the clinical significance of which is uncertain. There is no evidence of a difference between the effectiveness of IV and oral fluid supplementations in reducing serum bilirubin. Similarly, no infant developed adverse events or complications from fluid supplementation such as vomiting or abdominal distension. This suggests a need for future research to focus on different population groups with possibly higher baseline risks of bilirubin-related neurological complications, such as preterm or low birthweight infants, infants with haemolytic hyperbilirubinaemia, as well as infants with dehydration for comparison of different fluid supplementation regimen.\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": "does giving additional fluid improve outcomes in newborn infants with jaundice who require phototherapy?" } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAqueous shunts are employed to control intraocular pressure (IOP) for people with primary or secondary glaucomas who fail or are not candidates for standard surgery.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of aqueous shunts for reducing IOP in glaucoma compared with standard surgery, another type of aqueous shunt, or modification to the aqueous shunt procedure.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to August 2016), Embase.com (1947 to August 2016), PubMed (1948 to August 2016), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database) (1982 to August 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 15 August 2016, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 15 August 2016. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 15 August 2016. We also searched the reference lists of identified trial reports and the Science Citation Index to find additional trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials that compared various types of aqueous shunts with standard surgery or to each other in eyes with glaucoma.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened search results for eligibility, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data from included trials. We contacted trial investigators when data were unclear or not reported. We graded the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We followed standard methods as recommended by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 27 trials with a total of 2099 participants with mixed diagnoses and comparisons of interventions. Seventeen studies reported adequate methods of randomization, and seven reported adequate allocation concealment. Data collection and follow-up times varied.\nFour trials compared an aqueous shunt (Ahmed or Baerveldt) with trabeculectomy, of which three reported one-year outcomes. At one-year, the difference in IOP between aqueous shunt groups and trabeculectomy groups was uncertain (mean difference (MD) 2.55 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.78 to 5.87; 380 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The difference in logMAR visual acuity was also uncertain (MD 0.12 units, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.31; 380 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In two trials, the difference in visual field score was uncertain (MD -0.25, 95% CI -1.91 to 1.40; 196 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The mean number of antiglaucoma medications was higher in the aqueous shunt group than the trabeculectomy group in one trial (MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.12; 184 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect on needing additional glaucoma surgery was uncertain between groups in two trials (risk ratio (RR) 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.36; 329 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In one trial, fewer total adverse events were reported in the aqueous shunt group than the trabeculectomy group (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.81; 212 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No trial reported quality-of-life outcomes at one-year follow-up.\nTwo trials that compared the Ahmed implant with the Baerveldt implant for glaucoma found higher mean IOP in the Ahmed group at one-year follow-up (MD 2.60 mmHg, 95% CI 1.58 to 3.62; 464 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The difference in logMAR visual acuity was uncertain between groups (MD -0.07 units, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.13; 501 participants; low-certainty evidence). The MD in number of antiglaucoma medications was within one between groups (MD 0.35, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.59; 464 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). More participants in the Ahmed group required additional glaucoma surgery than the Baerveldt group (RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.02 to 7.54; 514 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The two trials reported specific adverse events but not overall number of adverse events. Neither trial reported visual field or quality-of-life outcomes at one-year follow-up.\nOne trial compared the Ahmed implant with the Molteno implant for glaucoma over two-year follow-up. Mean IOP was higher in the Ahmed group than the Molteno group (MD 1.64 mmHg, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.43; 57 participants; low-certainty evidence). The differences in logMAR visual acuity (MD 0.08 units, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.40; 57 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and mean deviation in visual field (MD -0.18 dB, 95% CI -3.13 to 2.77; 57 participants; very low-certainty evidence) were uncertain between groups. The mean number of antiglaucoma medications was also uncertain between groups (MD -0.38, 95% CI -1.03 to 0.27; 57 participants; low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report the proportion needing additional glaucoma surgery, total adverse events, or quality-of-life outcomes.\nTwo trials compared the double-plate Molteno implant with the Schocket shunt for glaucoma; one trial reported outcomes only at six-month follow-up, and the other did not specify the follow-up time. At six-months, mean IOP was lower in the Molteno group than the Schocket group (MD -2.50 mmHg, 95% CI -4.60 to -0.40; 115 participants; low-certainty evidence). Neither trial reported the proportion needing additional glaucoma surgery, total adverse events, or visual acuity, visual field, or quality-of-life outcomes.\nThe remaining 18 trials evaluated modifications to aqueous shunts, including 14 trials of Ahmed implants (early aqueous suppression versus standard medication regimen, 2 trials; anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agent versus none, 4 trials; corticosteroids versus none, 2 trials; shunt augmentation versus none, 3 trials; partial tube ligation versus none, 1 trial; pars plana implantation versus conventional implantation, 1 trial; and model M4 versus model S2,1 trial); 1 trial of 500 mm2 Baerveldt versus 350 mm2 Baerveldt; and 3 trials of Molteno implants (single-plate with oral corticosteroids versus single-plate without oral corticosteroids, 1 trial; double-plate versus single-plate, 1 trial; and pressure-ridge versus double-plate with tube ligation, 1 trial).\nAuthors' conclusions\nInformation was insufficient to conclude whether there are differences between aqueous shunts and trabeculectomy for glaucoma treatment. While the Baerveldt implant may lower IOP more than the Ahmed implant, the evidence was of moderate-certainty and it is unclear whether the difference in IOP reduction is clinically significant. Overall, methodology and data quality among existing randomized controlled trials of aqueous shunts was heterogeneous across studies, and there are no well-justified or widely accepted generalizations about the superiority of one surgical procedure or device over another.\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": "It is uncertain if aqueous shunts are more effective or are safer than standard surgery (trabeculectomy) for glaucoma (very low-certainty evidence). The Baerveldt and Molteno aqueous shunts may reduce eye pressure more than the Ahmed shunt (moderate- and low-certainty evidence)." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAnorexia nervosa is a psychological condition characterised by self-starvation and fear or wait gain or other body image disturbance. The first line of treatment is specific psychological therapy; however, there is no consensus on best practice for treating people who develop severe and enduring anorexia nervosa (SEAN). Notably, there is no universal definition of SEAN.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of specific psychological therapies for severe and enduring anorexia nervosa compared with other specific therapies, non-specific therapies, no treatment/waiting list, antidepressant medication, dietary counselling alone, or treatment as usual.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The last search date was 22 July 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people (any age) with anorexia nervosa of at least three years' duration. Eligible experimental interventions were any specific psychological therapy for improved physical and psychological health in anorexia nervosa, conducted in any treatment setting with no restrictions in terms of number of sessions, modality, or duration of therapy. Eligible comparator interventions included any other specific psychological therapy for anorexia nervosa, non-specific psychological therapy for mental health disorders, no treatment or waiting list, antipsychotic treatment (with or without psychological therapy), antidepressant treatment (with or without psychological therapy), dietary counselling, and treatment as usual as defined by the individual trials.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were clinical improvement (weight restoration to within the normal weight range for participant sample) and treatment non-completion. Results were presented using the GRADE appraisal tool.\nMain results\nWe found two eligible studies, but only one study provided usable data. This was a parallel-group RCT of 63 adults with SEAN who had an illness duration of at least seven years. The trial compared outpatient cognitive behaviour therapy for SEAN (CBT-SEAN) with specialist supportive clinical management for SEAN (SSCM-SE) over eight months. It is unclear if there is any difference between the effect of CBT-SEAN versus SSCM-SE on clinical improvement at 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 3.05) or treatment non-completion (RR 1.72, 95% CI 0.45 to 6.59). There were no reported data on adverse effects. The trial was at high risk of performance and detection bias.\nWe rated the GRADE level of evidence as very low-certainty for both primary outcomes, downgrading for imprecision and risk of bias concerns.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review reports evidence from one trial that evaluated CBT-SEAN versus SSCM-SE. There was very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in clinical improvement and treatment non-completion between the two therapies. There is a need for larger high-quality trials to determine the benefits of specific psychological therapies for people with SEAN. These should take into account the duration of illness as well as participants' previous experience with evidence-based psychological therapy for anorexia nervosa.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up to date is this evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The evidence is current to July 2022." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAt birth, infants' lungs are fluid-filled. For newborns to have a successful transition, this fluid must be replaced by air to enable gas exchange. Some infants are judged to have inadequate breathing at birth and are resuscitated with positive pressure ventilation (PPV). Giving prolonged (sustained) inflations at the start of PPV may help clear lung fluid and establish gas volume within the lungs.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of an initial sustained lung inflation (SLI) (> 1 second duration) versus standard inflations (≤ 1 second) in newborn infants receiving resuscitation with intermittent PPV.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 3), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 1 April 2019), Embase (1980 to 1 April 2019), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 1 April 2019). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles to identify randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing initial sustained lung inflation (SLI) versus standard inflations given to infants receiving resuscitation with PPV at birth.\nData collection and analysis\nWe assessed the methodological quality of included trials using Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) criteria (assessing randomisation, blinding, loss to follow-up, and handling of outcome data). We evaluated treatment effects using a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for categorical data; and mean standard deviation (SD), and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.\nMain results\nTen trials enrolling 1467 infants met our inclusion criteria. Investigators in nine trials (1458 infants) administered sustained inflation with no chest compressions. Use of sustained inflation had no impact on the primary outcomes of this review: mortality in the delivery room (typical RR 2.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 63.40 (I² not applicable); typical RD 0.00, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.02; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 479 participants); and mortality during hospitalisation (typical RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.43; I² = 42%; typical RD 0.01, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.04; I² = 24%; 9 studies, 1458 participants). The quality of the evidence was low for death in the delivery room because of limitations in study design and imprecision of estimates (only one death was recorded across studies). For death before discharge the quality was moderate: with longer follow-up there were more deaths (n = 143) but limitations in study design remained. Among secondary outcomes, duration of mechanical ventilation was shorter in the SLI group (mean difference (MD) −5.37 days, 95% CI −6.31 to −4.43; I² = 95%; 5 studies, 524 participants; low-quality evidence). Heterogeneity, statistical significance, and magnitude of effects of this outcome are largely influenced by a single study at high risk of bias: when this study was removed from the analysis, the size of the effect was reduced (MD −1.71 days, 95% CI −3.04 to −0.39; I² = 0%). Results revealed no differences in any of the other secondary outcomes (e.g. risk of endotracheal intubation outside the delivery room by 72 hours of age (typical RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.04; I² = 65%; 5 studies, 811 participants); risk of surfactant administration during hospital admission (typical RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.08; I² = 0%; 9 studies, 1458 participants); risk of chronic lung disease (typical RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.18; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 735 participants); pneumothorax (typical RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.40; I² = 34%; 8 studies, 1377 infants); or risk of patent ductus arteriosus requiring pharmacological treatment (typical RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; I² = 48%; 7 studies, 1127 infants). The quality of evidence for these secondary outcomes was moderate (limitations in study design ‒ GRADE) except for pneumothorax (low quality: limitations in study design and imprecision of estimates ‒ GRADE). We could not perform any meta-analysis in the comparison of the use of initial sustained inflation versus standard inflations in newborns receiving resuscitation with chest compressions because we identified only one trial for inclusion (a pilot study of nine preterm infants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur meta-analysis of nine studies shows that sustained lung inflation without chest compression was not better than intermittent ventilation for reducing mortality in the delivery room (low-quality evidence ‒ GRADE) or during hospitalisation (moderate-quality evidence ‒ GRADE), which were the primary outcomes of this review. However, the single largest study, which was well conducted and had the greatest number of enrolled infants, was stopped early for higher mortality rate in the sustained inflation group. When considering secondary outcomes, such as rate of intubation, rate or duration of respiratory support, or bronchopulmonary dysplasia, we found no benefit of sustained inflation over intermittent ventilation (moderate-quality evidence ‒ GRADE). Duration of mechanical ventilation was shortened in the SLI group (low-quality evidence ‒ GRADE); this result should be interpreted cautiously, however, as it might have been influenced by study characteristics other than the intervention. There is no evidence to support the use of sustained inflation based on evidence from our review.\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": "We searched for studies that had been published up to April 2019." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSome dental implant failures may be due to bacterial contamination at implant insertion. Infections around biomaterials are difficult to treat, and almost all infected implants have to be removed. In general, antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery is only indicated for patients at risk of infectious endocarditis; with reduced host-response; when surgery is performed in infected sites; in cases of extensive and prolonged surgical interventions; and when large foreign materials are implanted. A variety of prophylactic systemic antibiotic regimens have been suggested to minimise infections after dental implant placement. More recent protocols recommended short-term prophylaxis, if antibiotics have to be used. Adverse events may occur with the administration of antibiotics, and can range from diarrhoea to life-threatening allergic reactions. Another major concern associated with the widespread use of antibiotics is the selection of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The use of prophylactic antibiotics in implant dentistry is controversial.\nObjectives\nTo assess the beneficial or harmful effects of systemic prophylactic antibiotics at dental implant placement versus no antibiotic or placebo administration and, if antibiotics are beneficial, to determine which type, dosage and duration is the most effective.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 17 June 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 5), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 17 June 2013) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 17 June 2013). There were no language or date restrictions placed on the searches of the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) with a follow-up of at least three months, that compared the administration of various prophylactic antibiotic regimens versus no antibiotics to people undergoing dental implant placement. Outcome measures included prosthesis failures, implant failures, postoperative infections and adverse events (gastrointestinal, hypersensitivity, etc).\nData collection and analysis\nScreening of eligible studies, assessment of the risk of bias of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RRs) using a random-effects model for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity, including both clinical and methodological factors, was to be investigated.\nMain results\nSix RCTs with 1162 participants were included: three trials compared 2 g of preoperative amoxicillin versus placebo (927 participants), one compared 3 g of preoperative amoxicillin versus placebo (55 participants), one compared 1 g of preoperative amoxicillin plus 500 mg four times a day for two days versus no antibiotics (80 participants), and one compared four groups: (1) 2 g of preoperative amoxicillin; (2) 2 g of preoperative amoxicillin plus 1 g twice a day for seven days; (3) 1 g of postoperative amoxicillin twice a day for seven days, and (4) no antibiotics (100 participants). The overall body of evidence was considered to be of moderate quality. The meta-analyses of the six trials showed a statistically significant higher number of participants experiencing implant failures in the group not receiving antibiotics (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.67, P value 0.002, heterogeneity: Tau2 0.00; Chi2 2.87, df = 5 (P value 0.57); I2 0%). The number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) to prevent one person having an implant failure is 25 (95% CI 14 to 100), based on an implant failure rate of 6% in participants not receiving antibiotics. There was borderline statistical significance for prosthesis failures (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.00), with no statistically significant differences for infections (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.35), or adverse events (RR 1; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.85) (only two minor adverse events were recorded, one in the placebo group). No conclusive information can be derived from the only trial that compared three different durations of antibiotic prophylaxis since no event (implant/prosthesis failures, infections or adverse events) occurred in any of the 25 participants included in each study group. There were no trials that evaluated different antibiotics or different antibiotic dosages.\nAuthors' conclusions\nScientific evidence suggests that, in general, antibiotics are beneficial for reducing failure of dental implants placed in ordinary conditions. Specifically 2 g or 3 g of amoxicillin given orally, as a single administration, one hour preoperatively significantly reduces failure of dental implants. No significant adverse events were reported. It might be sensible to suggest the use of a single dose of 2 g prophylactic amoxicillin prior to dental implant placement. It is still unknown whether postoperative antibiotics are beneficial, and which antibiotic is the most effective.\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": "The evidence on which this review is based was up to date as of 17 June 2013. Six trials were included with a total of 1162 participants.\nAll six of these trials compared the use of antibiotics to prevent infection (failures and complications) with no treatment or treatment with a placebo (a fake medicine with no active ingredient). The antibiotic used in all the trials was amoxicillin; doses and timing of doses varied, although most used a single dose taken just before the implant was placed. One of the trials, with 100 participants, also looked at different doses of amoxicillin taken at different times.\nThere were no trials that looked at alternative antibiotics.\nParticipants were people over 18 years of age who were able to give consent to taking part in a medical trial. Potential participants were excluded for a variety of reasons that included: if they were at risk of heart disease, had artificial joints, had problems with their immune system, were affected by diabetes, had received radiotherapy in the head and neck area, had need of additional procedures at the time of implant placement, were allergic to penicillin, had chronic/acute infections near the planned implant site, were already receiving antibiotic treatment for any other reasons (or had taken them up to six months previously), had been treated with or were receiving intravenous amino-bisphosphonates, were pregnant or breast feeding, were receiving long-term nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy, or had blood clotting problems. The follow-up period in all the trials was at least three months." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with liver cirrhosis who have had one episode of variceal bleeding are at risk for repeated episodes of bleeding. Endoscopic intervention and portosystemic shunts are used to prevent further bleeding, but there is no consensus as to which approach is preferable.\nObjectives\nTo compare the benefits and harms of shunts (surgical shunts (total shunt (TS), distal splenorenal shunt (DSRS), or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS)) versus endoscopic intervention (endoscopic sclerotherapy or banding, or both) with or without medical treatment (non-selective beta blockers or nitrates, or both) for prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with liver cirrhosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the CHBG Controlled Trials Register; CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; LILACS (Bireme); Science Citation Index - Expanded (Web of Science); and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (Web of Science); as well as conference proceedings and the references of trials identified until 22 June 2020. We contacted study investigators and industry researchers.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised clinical trials comparing shunts versus endoscopic interventions with or without medical treatment in people with cirrhosis who had recovered from a variceal haemorrhage.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. When possible, we collected data to allow intention-to-treat analysis. For each outcome, we estimated a meta-analysed estimate of treatment effect across trials (risk ratio for binary outcomes). We used random-effects model meta-analysis as our main analysis and as a means of presenting results. We reported differences in means for continuous outcomes without a meta-analytic estimate due to high variability in their assessment among all trials. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe identified 27 randomised trials with 1828 participants. Three trials assessed TSs, five assessed DSRSs, and 19 trials assessed TIPSs. The endoscopic intervention was sclerotherapy in 16 trials, band ligation in eight trials, and a combination of band ligation and either sclerotherapy or glue injection in three trials. In eight trials, endoscopy was combined with beta blockers (in one trial plus isosorbide mononitrate). We judged all trials to be at high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence for all the outcome review results as very low (i.e. the true effects of the results are likely to be substantially different from the results of estimated effects). The very low evidence grading is due to the overall high risk of bias for all trials, and to imprecision and publication bias for some outcomes. Therefore, we are very uncertain whether portosystemic shunts versus endoscopy interventions with or without medical treatment have effects on all-cause mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.13; 1828 participants; 27 trials), on rebleeding (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.50; 1769 participants; 26 trials), on mortality due to rebleeding (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76; 1779 participants; 26 trials), and on occurrence of hepatic encephalopathy, both acute (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.92; 1649 participants; 24 trials) and chronic (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.38 to 4.55; 956 participants; 13 trials). No data were available regarding health-related quality of life.\nAnalysing each modality of portosystemic shunts individually (i.e. TS, DSRS, and TIPS) versus endoscopic interventions with or without medical treatment, we are very uncertain if each type of shunt has effect on all-cause mortality: TS, RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.13; 164 participants; 3 trials; DSRS, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.33; 352 participants; 4 trials; and TIPS, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.31; 1312 participants; 19 trial; on rebleeding: TS, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.56; 127 participants; 2 trials; DSRS, RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.65; 330 participants; 5 trials; and TIPS, RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.55; 1312 participants; 19 trials; on mortality due to rebleeding: TS, RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.96; 164 participants; 3 trials; DSRS, RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.74; 352 participants; 5 trials; and TIPS, RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.04; 1263 participants; 18 trials; on acute hepatic encephalopathy: TS, RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.92; 115 participants; 2 trials; DSRS, RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.94 to 3.08; 287 participants; 4 trials, TIPS, RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.99; 1247 participants; 18 trials; and chronic hepatic encephalopathy: TS, Fisher's exact test P = 0.11; 69 participants; 1 trial; DSRS, RR 4.87, 95% CI 1.46 to 16.23; 170 participants; 2 trials; and TIPS, RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.93 to 3.80; 717 participants; 10 trials.\nThe proportion of participants with shunt occlusion or dysfunction was overall 37% (95% CI 33% to 40%). It was 3% (95% CI 0.8% to 10%) following TS, 7% (95% CI 3% to 13%) following DSRS, and 47.1% (95% CI 43% to 51%) following TIPS. Shunt dysfunction in trials utilising polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents was 17% (95% CI 11% to 24%).\nLength of inpatient hospital stay and cost were not comparable across trials.\nFunding was unclear in 16 trials; 11 trials were funded by government, local hospitals, or universities.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence on whether portosystemic shunts versus endoscopy interventions with or without medical treatment in people with cirrhosis and previous hypertensive portal bleeding have little or no effect on all-cause mortality is very uncertain. Evidence on whether portosystemic shunts may reduce bleeding and mortality due to bleeding while increasing hepatic encephalopathy is also very uncertain. We need properly conducted trials to assess effects of these interventions not only on assessed outcomes, but also on quality of life, costs, and length of hospital stay.\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 Cochrane Review was to compare shunts versus endoscopic treatments with or without further medications in people with liver cirrhosis who had previously bled from varices, by collecting and analysing all relevant studies in this topic area and by reviewing the evidence." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nConstipation is a common symptom experienced during pregnancy. It has a range of consequences from reduced quality of life and perception of physical health to haemorrhoids. An understanding of the effectiveness and safety of treatments for constipation in pregnancy is important for the clinician managing pregnant women.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for treating constipation in pregnancy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 April 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered all published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs and quasi-RCTs, evaluating interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for constipation in pregnancy. Cross-over studies were not eligible for inclusion in this review. Trials published in abstract form only (without full text publication) were not eligible for inclusion.\nWe compared one intervention (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) against another intervention, placebo or no treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.\nMain results\nFour studies were included, but only two studies with a total of 180 women contributed data to this review. It was not clear whether they were RCTs or quasi-RCTs because the sequence generation was unclear. We classified the overall risk of bias of three studies as moderate and one study as high risk of bias. No meta-analyses were carried out due to insufficient data.\nThere were no cluster-RCTs identified for inclusion. Comparisons were available for stimulant laxatives versus bulk-forming laxatives, and fibre supplementation versus no intervention. There were no data available for any other comparisons.\nDuring the review process we found that studies reported changes in symptoms in different ways. To capture all data available, we added a new primary outcome (improvement in constipation) - this new outcome was not prespecified in our published protocol.\nStimulant laxatives versus bulk-forming laxatives\nNo data were identified for any of this review's prespecified primary outcomes: pain on defecation, frequency of stools and consistency of stools.\nCompared to bulk-forming laxatives, pregnant women who received stimulant laxatives (Senokot or Normax) had an improvement in constipation (risk ratio (RR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 2.09; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence), but also had more abdominal discomfort (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.73; 140 women, one study, low quality of evidence), and a borderline difference in diarrhoea (RR 4.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 20.09; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence). In addition, there was no clear difference in women's satisfaction (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.46; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence).\nOne of the stimulant laxatives, Normax (dioctyl sodium sulphosuccinate and dihydroxy anthraquinone) is no longer used for the treatment of constipation in pregnant women (and the package information advises that it should not be used during pregnancy or breastfeeding). We therefore carried out a non-prespecified sensitivity analysis with the data for Senokot and Normax presented separately. Results for Senokot and Normax were very similar, thus results for the individual drugs largely reflected findings for the combined analysis, although when individual drugs were compared with bulk-forming laxatives there was no longer a clear difference between groups in terms of abdominal discomfort and diarrhoea.\nNo usable data were identified for any of this review's secondary outcomes: quality of life; dehydration; electrolyte imbalance; acute allergic reaction; or asthma.\nFibre supplementation versus no intervention\nPregnant women who received fibre supplementation had a higher frequency of stools compared to no intervention (mean difference (MD) 2.24 times per week, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.52; 40 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence). Fibre supplementation was associated with improved stool consistency as defined by trialists (hard stool decreased by 11% to 14%, normal stool increased by 5% to 10%, and loose stool increased by 0% to 6%).\nNo usable data were reported for either the primary outcomes of pain on defecation and improvement in constipation or any of this review's secondary outcomes as listed above.\nQuality\nFive outcomes were assessed with the GRADE software: improvement in constipation, frequency of stools, abdominal discomfort, diarrhoea and women's satisfaction. These were assessed to be of moderate quality except for abdominal discomfort which was assessed to be of low quality. The results should therefore be interpreted with caution. There were no data available for evaluation of pain on defecation or consistency of stools.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to comprehensively assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for treating constipation in pregnancy, due to limited data (few studies with small sample size and no meta-analyses). Compared with bulk-forming laxatives, stimulant laxatives appear to be more effective in improvement of constipation (moderate quality evidence), but are accompanied by an increase in diarrhoea (moderate quality evidence) and abdominal discomfort (low quality evidence) and no difference in women's satisfaction (moderate quality evidence). Additionally, fibre supplementation may increase frequency of stools compared with no intervention (moderate quality evidence), although these results were of moderate risk of bias.\nThere were no data for a comparison of other types of interventions, such as osmotic laxatives, stool softeners, lubricant laxatives and enemas and suppositories.\nMore RCTs evaluating interventions for treating constipation in pregnancy are needed. These should cover different settings and evaluate the effectiveness of various interventions (including fibre, osmotic, and stimulant laxatives) on improvement in constipation, pain on defecation, frequency of stools and consistency of stools.\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": "Constipation during pregnancy is associated with impaired quality of life and distress for pregnant women as well as physical problems including, occasionally, haemorrhoids. There are a range of suggested treatments with drugs, supplements or dietary modifications.\nGenerally, non-pharmacological interventions (changes in diet, water intake and exercise) are recommended initially, followed by pharmacological interventions if the non-pharmacological interventions fail or are insufficient. Pharmacological interventions include medications from a wide range of drug classes including lubricants, bulk-forming agents, osmotic laxatives, stimulant laxatives, stool softeners, and enemas and suppositories.\nThis review looked at the benefits of drug and non-drug interventions for constipation in pregnancy and whether they are safe for women and babies." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAlmost half of people with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer have metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis. Chemotherapy and targeted therapies are increasingly used with a palliative intent to control tumor growth, improve quality of life, and prolong survival. To date, and with the exception of ramucirumab, evidence for the efficacy of palliative treatments for esophageal and gastroesophageal cancer is lacking.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of cytostatic or targeted therapy for treating esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer with palliative intent.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Web of Science, PubMed Publisher, Google Scholar, and trial registries up to 13 May 2015, and we handsearched the reference lists of studies. We did not restrict the search to publications in English. Additional searches were run in September 2017 prior to publication, and they are listed in the 'Studies awaiting assessment' section.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy versus best supportive care or control in people with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and risk of bias of eligible studies according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We calculated pooled estimates of effect using an inverse variance random-effects model for meta-analysis.\nMain results\nWe identified 41 RCTs with 11,853 participants for inclusion in the review as well as 49 ongoing studies. For the main comparison of adding a cytostatic and/or targeted agent to a control arm, we included 11 studies with 1347 participants. This analysis demonstrated an increase in overall survival in favor of the arm with an additional cytostatic or targeted therapeutic agent with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 0.84, high-quality evidence). The median increased survival time was one month. Five studies in 750 participants contributed data to the comparison of palliative therapy versus best supportive care. We found a benefit in overall survival in favor of the group receiving palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy compared to best supportive care (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.92, high-quality evidence). Subcomparisons including only people receiving second-line therapies, chemotherapies, targeted therapies, adenocarcinomas, and squamous cell carcinomas all showed a similar benefit. The only individual agent that more than one study found to improve both overall survival and progression-free survival was ramucirumab. Palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy increased the frequency of grade 3 or higher treatment-related toxicity. However, treatment-related deaths did not occur more frequently. Quality of life often improved in the arm with an additional agent.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPeople who receive more chemotherapeutic or targeted therapeutic agents have an increased overall survival compared to people who receive less. These agents, administered as both first-line or second-line treatments, also led to better overall survival than best supportive care. With the exception of ramucirumab, it remains unclear which other individual agents cause the survival benefit. Although treatment-associated toxicities of grade 3 or more occurred more frequently in arms with an additional chemotherapy or targeted therapy agent, there is no evidence that palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy decrease quality of life. Based on this meta-analysis, palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy can be considered standard care for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction carcinoma.\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 that more chemotherapeutic or targeted therapeutic agents increase survival is of high quality, as is the evidence for improved survival compared to best supportive care. The evidence for the increased occurrence of severe treatment-related toxicities is of very low quality, while the evidence showing no decrease in quality of life is also low quality." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPatent ductus arteriosus (PDA) complicates the clinical course of preterm infants and increases the risk of adverse outcomes. Indomethacin has been the standard treatment to close a PDA but is associated with renal, gastrointestinal, and cerebral side effects. Ibuprofen has less effect on blood flow velocity to important organs.\nObjectives\nPrimary objectives\nTo determine the effectiveness and safety of ibuprofen compared to placebo/no intervention, or other cyclo-oxygenase inhibitor drugs in the prevention of PDA in preterm infants.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 10), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 17 October 2018), Embase (1980 to 17 October 2018), and CINAHL; 1982 to 17 October 2018). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing ibuprofen with placebo/no intervention or other cyclo-oxygenase inhibitor drugs to prevent PDA in preterm or low birth weight infants.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted outcomes data including presence of PDA on day three or four of life (after 72 hours of treatment), need for surgical ligation or rescue treatment with cyclo-oxygenase inhibitors, mortality, cerebral, renal, pulmonary, and gastrointestinal complications. We performed meta-analyses and reported treatment estimates as typical mean difference (MD), risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD) and, if statistically significant, number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) or to harm (NNTH), along with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed between-study heterogeneity by the I-squared test (I²). We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.\nMain results\nIn this updated analysis, we included nine trials (N = 1070 infants) comparing prophylactic ibuprofen (IV or oral) with placebo/no intervention or indomethacin. Ibuprofen (IV or oral) probably decreases the risk of PDA on day 3 or 4 (typical RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.48; typical RD -0.26, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.21; NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 5; 9 trials; N = 1029) (moderate-quality evidence). In the control group, the spontaneous closure rate was 58% by day 3 to 4 of age. In addition, ibuprofen probably decreases the need for rescue treatment with cyclo-oxygenase inhibitors (typical RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.26; typical RD -0.27, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.22; NNTB 4; 95% CI 3 to 5),and the need for surgical ductal ligation (typical RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.96; typical RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.05 to -0.00; NNTB 33, 95% CI 20 to infinity; 7 trials; N = 925) (moderate-quality evidence). There was a possible decrease in the risk of grade 3 or 4 intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) in infants receiving prophylactic ibuprofen (typical RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.00; I² = 34%; typical RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to- 0.00; I² = 60%; 7 trials; N = 925) (moderate-quality evidence). High quality evidence showed increased risk for oliguria (typical RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.02; typical RD 0.06, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.11; NNTH 17, 95% CI 9 to 100; 4 trials; N = 747). Low quality results from four studies (N = 202) showed that administering oral ibuprofen may decrease the risk of PDA (typical RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.74) and may increase risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (NNTH 7, 95% CI 4 to 25). No evidence of a difference was identified for mortality, any intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), or chronic lung disease.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review shows that prophylactic use of ibuprofen, compared to placebo or no intervention, probably decreases the incidence of patent ductus arteriosus, the need for rescue treatment with cyclo-oxygenase inhibitors, and for surgical ductal closure. Adverse effects associated with ibuprofen (IV or oral) included increased risks for oliguria, increase in serum creatinine levels, and increased risk of gastrointestinal haemorrhage. There was a reduced risk for intraventricular haemorrhage (grade III - IV) but no evidence of a difference in mortality, chronic lung disease, necrotising enterocolitis, or time to reach full feeds. In the control group, the patent ductus arteriosus had closed spontaneously by day 3 or 4 in 58% of neonates. Prophylactic treatment exposes a large proportion of infants unnecessarily to a drug that has important side effects without conferring any important short-term benefits. Current evidence does not support the use of ibuprofen for prevention of patent ductus arteriosus. Until long-term follow-up results of the trials included in this review have been published, no further trials of prophylactic ibuprofen are recommended.\nA new approach to patent ductus arteriosus management is an early targeted treatment based on echocardiographic criteria within the first 72 hours of life, that have a high sensitivity for diagnosing a patent ductus arteriosus that is unlikely to close spontaneously. Such trials are currently ongoing in many parts of the world. Results of such trials will be included in updates of our \"Ibuprofen for treatment of PDA\" review.\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": "Patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) is a common complication for very preterm (premature) or very small babies. PDA is an open vessel that channels blood from the lungs to the body. It should close after birth but sometimes remains open because of the baby's immature stage of development, and this can lead to life-threatening complications. Indomethacin is successful in causing PDA closure but can cause serious adverse effects. Another option is the drug ibuprofen, which can be given to prevent PDA." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHypertonic saline enhances mucociliary clearance and may lessen the destructive inflammatory process in the airways. This is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo investigate efficacy and tolerability of nebulised hypertonic saline treatment in people with cystic fibrosis (CF) compared to placebo or other treatments that enhance mucociliary clearance.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched ongoing trials databases.\nMost recent search: 25 April 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials assessing hypertonic saline compared to placebo or other mucolytic therapy, for any duration or dose regimen in people with CF (any age or disease severity).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently reviewed all identified trials and data, and assessed trial quality. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. For cross-over trials we stipulated a one-week washout period. We planned to use results from a paired analysis in the review, but this was only possible in one trial. For other cross-over trials, we chose to treat the trials as if they were parallel.\nMain results\nWe included 24 trials (1318 participants, aged one month to 56 years); we excluded 29 trials, two trials are ongoing and six are awaiting classification. We judged 15 of the 24 included trials to have a high risk of bias due to participants' ability to discern the taste of the solutions.\nHypertonic saline 3% to 7% versus placebo (stable disease)\nWe are uncertain whether the regular use of nebulised hypertonic saline in stable lung disease leads to an improvement in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) % predicted at four weeks, (mean difference (MD) 3.30%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 5.89; 4 trials, 246 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In preschool children we found no difference in lung clearance index (LCI) at four weeks, but a small improvement after 48 weeks of treatment with hypertonic saline compared to isotonic saline (MD -0.60, 95% CI -1.00 to -0.19; 2 trials, 192 participants). We are also uncertain whether hypertonic saline made a difference to mucociliary clearance, pulmonary exacerbations or adverse events compared to placebo.\nHypertonic saline versus control (acute exacerbation)\nTwo trials compared hypertonic saline to control, but only one provided data. There may be little or no difference in lung function measured by FEV1 % predicted after hypertonic saline compared to isotonic saline (MD 5.10%, 95% CI -14.67 to 24.87; 1 trial, 130 participants). Neither trial reported any deaths or measures of sputum clearance. There were no serious adverse events.\nHypertonic saline versus rhDNase\nThree trials compared a similar dose of hypertonic saline to recombinant deoxyribonuclease (rhDNase); two trials (61 participants) provided data for inclusion in the review. We are uncertain whether there was an effect of hypertonic saline on FEV1 % predicted after three weeks (MD 1.60%, 95% CI -7.96 to 11.16; 1 trial, 14 participants; very low-certainty evidence). At three months, rhDNase may lead to a greater increase in FEV1 % predicted than hypertonic saline (5 mL twice daily) at 12 weeks in participants with moderate to severe lung disease (MD 8.00%, 95% CI 2.00 to 14.00; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether adverse events differed between the two treatments. No deaths were reported.\nHypertonic saline versus amiloride\nOne trial (12 participants) compared hypertonic saline to amiloride but did not report on most of our outcomes. The trial found that there was no difference between treatments in measures of sputum clearance (very low-certainty evidence).\nHypertonic saline compared with sodium-2-mercaptoethane sulphonate (Mistabron®)\nOne trial (29 participants) compared hypertonic saline to sodium-2-mercaptoethane sulphonate. The trial did not measure our primary outcomes. There was no difference between treatments in any measures of sputum clearance, courses of antibiotics or adverse events (very low-certainty evidence).\nHypertonic saline versus mannitol\nOne trial (12 participants) compared hypertonic saline to mannitol, but did not report lung function at relevant time points for this review; there were no differences in sputum clearance, but mannitol was reported to be more 'irritating' (very low-certainty evidence).\nHypertonic saline versus xylitol\nTwo trials compared hypertonic saline to xylitol, but we are uncertain whether there is any difference in FEV1 % predicted or median time to exacerbation between groups (very low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes were reported in the review.\nHypertonic saline 7% versus hypertonic saline 3%\nWe are uncertain whether there was an improvement in FEV1 % predicted after treatment with 7% hypertonic saline compared with 3% (very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are very uncertain if regular use of nebulised hypertonic saline by adults and children over the age of 12 years with CF results in an improvement in lung function after four weeks (three trials; very low-certainty evidence); there was no difference seen at 48 weeks (one trial; low-certainty evidence). Hypertonic saline improved LCI modestly in children under the age of six years.\nEvidence from one small cross-over trial in children indicates that rhDNase may lead to better lung function than hypertonic saline at three months; qualifying this, we highlight that while the study did demonstrate that the improvement in FEV1 was greater with daily rhDNase, there were no differences seen in any of the secondary outcomes.\nHypertonic saline does appear to be an effective adjunct to physiotherapy during acute exacerbations of lung disease in adults. However, for the outcomes assessed, the certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to low at best, according to the GRADE criteria.\nThe role of hypertonic saline in conjunction with cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator therapy now needs to be considered, and future research needs to focus on this aspect.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of this evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We are not confident in the evidence from these trials. There is a high risk that people knew which treatment they were receiving in half the trials as they could taste the difference between the solutions.\nOther factors that made us unsure of the results were the small numbers of people taking part in the trials combined with a wide variation in results; also, some trials limited participants to those who could tolerate hypertonic saline or to certain age groups." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nInhaled short-acting anticholinergics (SAAC) and short-acting beta₂-agonists (SABA) are effective therapies for adult patients with acute asthma who present to the emergency department (ED). It is unclear, however, whether the combination of SAAC and SABA treatment is more effective in reducing hospitalisations compared to treatment with SABA alone.\nObjectives\nTo conduct an up-to-date systematic search and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of combined inhaled therapy (SAAC + SABA agents) vs. SABA alone to reduce hospitalisations in adult patients presenting to the ED with an exacerbation of asthma.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SCOPUS, LILACS, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global and evidence-based medicine (EBM) databases using controlled vocabulary, natural language terms, and a variety of specific and general terms for inhaled SAAC and SABA drugs. The search spanned from 1946 to July 2015. The Cochrane Airways Group provided search results from the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials which was most recently conducted in July 2016. An extensive search of the grey literature was completed to identify any other potentially relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nIncluded studies were randomised or controlled clinical trials comparing the effectiveness of combined inhaled therapy (SAAC and SABA) to SABA treatment alone to prevent hospitalisations in adults with acute asthma in the emergency department. Two independent review authors assessed studies for inclusion using pre-determined criteria.\nData collection and analysis\nFor dichotomous outcomes, we calculated individual and pooled statistics as risk ratios (RR) or odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random-effects model and reporting heterogeneity (I²). For continuous outcomes, we reported individual trial results using mean differences (MD) and pooled results as weighted mean differences (WMD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs using a random-effects model.\nMain results\nWe included 23 studies that involved a total of 2724 enrolled participants. Most studies were rated at unclear or high risk of bias.\nOverall, participants receiving combination inhaled therapy were less likely to be hospitalised (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.87; participants = 2120; studies = 16; I² = 12%; moderate quality of evidence). An estimated 65 fewer patients per 1000 would require hospitalisation after receiving combination therapy (95% 30 to 95), compared to 231 per 1000 patients receiving SABA alone. Although combination inhaled therapy was more effective than SABA treatment alone in reducing hospitalisation in participants with severe asthma exacerbations, this was not found for participants with mild or moderate exacerbations (test for difference between subgroups P = 0.02).\nParticipants receiving combination therapy were more likely to experience improved forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) (MD 0.25 L, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.48; participants = 687; studies = 6; I² = 70%; low quality of evidence), peak expiratory flow (PEF) (MD 36.58 L/min, 95% CI 23.07 to 50.09; participants = 1056; studies = 12; I² = 25%; very low quality of evidence), increased percent change in PEF from baseline (MD 24.88, 95% CI 14.83 to 34.93; participants = 551; studies = 7; I² = 23%; moderate quality of evidence), and were less likely to return to the ED for additional care (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98; participants = 1180; studies = 5; I² = 0%; moderate quality of evidence) than participants receiving SABA alone.\nParticipants receiving combination inhaled therapy were more likely to experience adverse events than those treated with SABA agents alone (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.28 to 3.20; participants = 1392; studies = 11; I² = 14%; moderate quality of evidence). Among patients receiving combination therapy, 103 per 1000 were likely to report adverse events (95% 31 to 195 more) compared to 131 per 1000 patients receiving SABA alone.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, combination inhaled therapy with SAAC and SABA reduced hospitalisation and improved pulmonary function in adults presenting to the ED with acute asthma. In particular, combination inhaled therapy was more effective in preventing hospitalisation in adults with severe asthma exacerbations who are at increased risk of hospitalisation, compared to those with mild-moderate exacerbations, who were at a lower risk to be hospitalised. A single dose of combination therapy and multiple doses both showed reductions in the risk of hospitalisation among adults with acute asthma. However, adults receiving combination therapy were more likely to experience adverse events, such as tremor, agitation, and palpitations, compared to patients receiving SABA alone.\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": "Asthma attacks result from airway passages to the lungs becoming constricted due to inflammation, resulting in wheezing, coughing, and difficulty breathing. People experiencing asthma attacks often go to emergency departments, and are usually treated using short-acting inhaled beta-agonists, although some patients may be treated with short-acting inhaled anticholinergics.\nSome research looks at whether treating people with asthma in emergency departments with a combination of beta-agonists and anticholinergics is more effective than beta-agonists alone." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAround 16% of adults have symptoms of overactive bladder (OAB; urgency with frequency and/or urge incontinence), with prevalence increasing with age. Anticholinergic drugs are commonly used to treat this condition.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2006.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of anticholinergic drugs compared with placebo or no treatment for treating overactive bladder syndrome in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 14 January 2020), and the reference lists of relevant articles. We updated this search on 3 May 2022, but these results have not yet been fully incorporated.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised or quasi-randomised trials in adults with overactive bladder syndrome that compared an anticholinergic drug alone with placebo treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed eligibility and extracted data from the included studies, including an assessment of the risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence using the GRADE approach. We processed data as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.\nMain results\nWe included 104 studies, 71 of which were new or updated for this version of the review. Although 12 studies did not report the number of participants, there were 47,106 people in the remainder of the included studies. The majority of the studies had insufficient information to allow judgement of risk of bias and we judged them to be unclear for all domains. Nine anticholinergic drugs were included in these studies: darifenacin; fesoterodine; imidafenacin; oxybutynin; propantheline; propiverine; solifenacin; tolterodine and trospium. No studies were found that compared anticholinergic drugs to no treatment.\nAt the end of the treatment period, anticholinergics may slightly increase condition-specific quality of life (mean difference (MD) 4.41 lower, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.28 lower to 3.54 lower (scale range -100 to 0); 12 studies, 6804 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticholinergics are probably better than placebo in terms of patient perception of cure or improvement (risk ratio (RR) 1.38, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.66; 9 studies, 8457 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and the mean number of urgency episodes per 24-hour period (MD 0.85 lower, 95% CI 1.03 lower to 0.67 lower; 23 studies, 16,875 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nCompared to placebo, anticholinergics may result in an increase in dry mouth adverse events (RR 3.50, 95% CI 3.26 to 3.75; 66 studies, 38,368 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may result in an increased risk of urinary retention (RR 3.52, 95% CI 2.04 to 6.08; 17 studies, 7862 participants; low-certainty evidence). Taking anticholinergics may be more likely to lead to participants withdrawing from the studies due to adverse events (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.56; 61 studies, 36,943 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, taking anticholinergics probably reduces the mean number of micturitions per 24-hour period compared to placebo (MD 0.85 lower, 95% CI 0.98 lower to 0.73 lower; 30 studies, 19,395 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe use of anticholinergic drugs by people with overactive bladder syndrome results in important but modest improvements in symptoms compared with placebo treatment. In addition, recent studies suggest that this is generally associated with only modest improvement in quality of life. Adverse effects were higher with all anticholinergics compared with placebo. Withdrawals due to adverse effects were also higher for all anticholinergics except tolterodine. It is not known whether any benefits of anticholinergics are sustained during long-term treatment or after treatment stops.\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 104 studies in this review. Seventy-one of these were new or had been updated since the last time this review was published in 2006.\nTwelve of these studies did not report how many people were included in their research. In total across the rest of the studies, 29,682 people were given an anticholinergic drug compared to 17,424 people who were given a placebo. The smallest study was made up of 18 people while the largest had 2334 participants. Most of the studies we included in the review lasted for 12 weeks. One study investigated symptoms only in men, while nine looked at symptoms in women. The rest of the studies included both men and women.\nWe only included studies that used anticholinergic drugs taken by mouth, and only at dosages that doctors normally prescribe to patients. Across the studies, nine different anticholinergic drugs were included: darifenacin; fesoterodine; imidafenacin; oxybutynin; propantheline; propiverine; solifenacin; tolterodine and trospium." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nInformed consent is a critical component of clinical research. Different methods of presenting information to potential participants of clinical trials may improve the informed consent process. Audio-visual interventions (presented, for example, on the Internet or on DVD) are one such method. We updated a 2008 review of the effects of these interventions for informed consent for trial participation.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of audio-visual information interventions regarding informed consent compared with standard information or placebo audio-visual interventions regarding informed consent for potential clinical trial participants, in terms of their understanding, satisfaction, willingness to participate, and anxiety or other psychological distress.\nSearch methods\nWe searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Library, issue 6, 2012; MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1946 to 13 June 2012); EMBASE (OvidSP) (1947 to 12 June 2012); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1806 to June week 1 2012); CINAHL (EbscoHOST) (1981 to 27 June 2012); Current Contents (OvidSP) (1993 Week 27 to 2012 Week 26); and ERIC (Proquest) (searched 27 June 2012). We also searched reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles, and contacted study authors and experts. There were no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing audio-visual information alone, or in conjunction with standard forms of information provision (such as written or verbal information), with standard forms of information provision or placebo audio-visual information, in the informed consent process for clinical trials. Trials involved individuals or their guardians asked to consider participating in a real or hypothetical clinical study. (In the earlier version of this review we only included studies evaluating informed consent interventions for real studies).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. We synthesised the findings using meta-analysis, where possible, and narrative synthesis of results. We assessed the risk of bias of individual studies and considered the impact of the quality of the overall evidence on the strength of the results.\nMain results\nWe included 16 studies involving data from 1884 participants. Nine studies included participants considering real clinical trials, and eight included participants considering hypothetical clinical trials, with one including both. All studies were conducted in high-income countries.\nThere is still much uncertainty about the effect of audio-visual informed consent interventions on a range of patient outcomes. However, when considered across comparisons, we found low to very low quality evidence that such interventions may slightly improve knowledge or understanding of the parent trial, but may make little or no difference to rate of participation or willingness to participate. Audio-visual presentation of informed consent may improve participant satisfaction with the consent information provided. However its effect on satisfaction with other aspects of the process is not clear. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about anxiety arising from audio-visual informed consent. We found conflicting, very low quality evidence about whether audio-visual interventions took more or less time to administer. No study measured researcher satisfaction with the informed consent process, nor ease of use.\nThe evidence from real clinical trials was rated as low quality for most outcomes, and for hypothetical studies, very low. We note, however, that this was in large part due to poor study reporting, the hypothetical nature of some studies and low participant numbers, rather than inconsistent results between studies or confirmed poor trial quality. We do not believe that any studies were funded by organisations with a vested interest in the results.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe value of audio-visual interventions as a tool for helping to enhance the informed consent process for people considering participating in clinical trials remains largely unclear, although trends are emerging with regard to improvements in knowledge and satisfaction. Many relevant outcomes have not been evaluated in randomised trials. Triallists should continue to explore innovative methods of providing information to potential trial participants during the informed consent process, mindful of the range of outcomes that the intervention should be designed to achieve, and balancing the resource implications of intervention development and delivery against the purported benefits of any intervention.\nMore trials, adhering to CONSORT standards, and conducted in settings and populations underserved in this review, i.e. low- and middle-income countries and people with low literacy, would strengthen the results of this review and broaden its applicability. Assessing process measures, such as time taken to administer the intervention and researcher satisfaction, would inform the implementation of audio-visual consent materials.\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 audio-visual presentation of information used in the informed consent process for people considering entering a clinical trial. We compared this with the usual informed consent information (either written and/or verbal) and placebo (sham) audio-visual information." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nConstipation within childhood is an extremely common problem. Despite the widespread use of osmotic and stimulant laxatives by health professionals to manage constipation in children, there has been a long standing paucity of high quality evidence to support this practice.\nObjectives\nWe set out to evaluate the efficacy and safety of osmotic and stimulant laxatives used to treat functional childhood constipation.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Trials Register from inception to 10 March 2016. There were no language restrictions. We also searched the references of all included studies, personal contacts and drug companies to identify studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared osmotic or stimulant laxatives to placebo or another intervention, with participants aged 0 to 18 years old were considered for inclusion. The primary outcome was frequency of defecation. Secondary endpoints included faecal incontinence, disimpaction, need for additional therapies and adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nRelevant papers were identified and two authors independently assessed the eligibility of trials, extracted data and assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was frequency of defecation. Secondary endpoints included faecal incontinence, disimpaction, need for additional therapies and adverse events. For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For dichotomous outcomes we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI using a fixed-effect model. The Chi2 and I2 statistics were used to assess statistical heterogeneity. A random-effects model was used in situations of unexplained heterogeneity. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary and secondary outcomes using the GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nTwenty-five RCTs (2310 participants) were included in the review. Fourteen studies were judged to be at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding, incomplete outcome data and selective reporting. Meta-analysis of two studies (101 patients) comparing polyethylene glycol (PEG) with placebo showed a significantly increased number of stools per week with PEG (MD 2.61 stools per week, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.08). Common adverse events in the placebo-controlled studies included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhoea and headache. Participants receiving high dose PEG (0.7 g/kg) had significantly more stools per week than low dose PEG (0.3 g/kg) participants (1 study, 90 participants, MD 1.30, 95% 0.76 to 1.84). Meta-analysis of 6 studies with 465 participants comparing PEG with lactulose showed a significantly greater number of stools per week with PEG (MD 0.70 , 95% CI 0.10 to 1.31), although follow-up was short. Patients who received PEG were significantly less likely to require additional laxative therapies. Eighteen per cent (27/154) of PEG patients required additional therapies compared to 31% (47/150) of lactulose patients (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.83). No serious adverse events were reported with either agent. Common adverse events in these studies included diarrhoea, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting and pruritis ani. Meta-analysis of 3 studies with 211 participants comparing PEG with milk of magnesia showed that the stools per week were significantly greater with PEG (MD 0.69, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.89). However, the magnitude of this difference was quite small and may not be clinically significant. One child was noted to be allergic to PEG, but there were no other serious adverse events reported. One study found a significant difference in stools per week favouring milk of magnesia over lactulose (MD -1.51, 95% CI -2.63 to -0.39, 50 patients), Meta-analysis of 2 studies with 287 patients comparing liquid paraffin (mineral oil) with lactulose revealed a relatively large statistically significant difference in the number of stools per week favouring liquid paraffin (MD 4.94 , 95% CI 4.28 to 5.61). No serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events included abdominal pain, distention and watery stools. No statistically significant differences in the number of stools per week were found between PEG and enemas (1 study, 90 patients, MD 1.00, 95% CI -1.58 to 3.58), dietary fibre mix and lactulose (1 study, 125 patients, P = 0.481), senna and lactulose (1 study, 21 patients, P > 0.05), lactitol and lactulose (1 study, 51 patients, MD -0.80, 95% CI -2.63 to 1.03), hydrolyzed guar gum and lactulose (1 study, 61 patients, MD 1.00, 95% CI -1.80 to 3.80), PEG and flixweed (1 study, 109 patients, MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.33), PEG and dietary fibre (1 study, 83 patients, MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.64 to 1.04), and PEG and liquid paraffin (2 studies, 261 patients, MD 0.35, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.95).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe pooled analyses suggest that PEG preparations may be superior to placebo, lactulose and milk of magnesia for childhood constipation. GRADE analyses indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcome (number of stools per week) was low or very low due to sparse data, inconsistency (heterogeneity), and high risk of bias in the studies in the pooled analyses. Thus, the results of the pooled analyses should be interpreted with caution because of quality and methodological concerns, as well as clinical heterogeneity, and short follow-up. There is also evidence suggesting the efficacy of liquid paraffin (mineral oil). There is no evidence to demonstrate the superiority of lactulose when compared to the other agents studied, although there is a lack of placebo controlled studies. Further research is needed to investigate the long term use of PEG for childhood constipation, as well as the role of liquid paraffin. The optimal dose of PEG also warrants further investigation.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are osmotic and stimulant laxatives?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Osmotic laxatives are medications that draw water into the stool, resulting in softer stools and more frequent, easier to pass bowel movements. Some commonly used osmotic laxatives include polyethylene glycol (PEG), milk of magnesia, and lactulose. Stimulant laxatives induce bowel movements by increasing the contraction of muscles in the intestines. Examples of stimulant laxatives include aloe, cascara, senna compounds, bisacodyl, and castor oil." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOlder patients with multiple health problems (multi-morbidity) value being involved in decision-making about their health care. However, they are less frequently involved than younger patients. To maximise quality of life, day-to-day function, and patient safety, older patients require support to identify unmet healthcare needs and to prioritise treatment options.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions for older patients with multi-morbidity aiming to involve them in decision-making about their health care during primary care consultations.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; all years to August 2018), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1966 to August 2018); Embase (OvidSP) (1988 to August 2018); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1806 to August 2018); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (Ovid) (1982 to September 2008), then in Ebsco (2009 to August 2018); Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Databases (Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effects (DARE)) (all years to August 2018); the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database (all years to August 2018); the Ongoing Reviews Database (all years to August 2018); and Dissertation Abstracts International (1861 to August 2018).\nSelection criteria\nWe sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, and quasi-RCTs of interventions to involve patients in decision-making about their health care versus usual care/control/another intervention, for patients aged 65 years and older with multi-morbidity in primary care.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Meta-analysis was not possible; therefore we prepared a narrative synthesis.\nMain results\nWe included three studies involving 1879 participants: two RCTs and one cluster-RCT. Interventions consisted of:\n· patient workshop and individual coaching using behaviour change techniques;\n· individual patient coaching utilising cognitive-behavioural therapy and motivational interviewing; and\n· holistic patient review, multi-disciplinary practitioner training, and organisational change.\nNo studies reported the primary outcome ‘patient involvement in decision-making’ or the primary adverse outcome ‘less patient involvement as a result of the intervention’.\nComparing interventions (patient workshop and individual coaching, holistic patient review plus practitioner training, and organisational change) to usual care: we are uncertain whether interventions had any effect on patient reports of high self-rated health (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 5.49; very low-certainty evidence) or on patient enablement (mean difference (MD) 0.60, 95% CI -9.23 to 10.43; very low-certainty evidence) compared with usual care. Interventions probably had no effect on health-related quality of life (adjusted difference in means 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; moderate-certainty evidence) or on medication adherence (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.17; moderate-certainty evidence) but probably improved the number of patients discussing their priorities (adjusted odds ratio 1.85, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.38; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably increased the number of nurse consultations (incident rate ratio from adjusted multi-level Poisson model 1.37, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.61; moderate-certainty evidence) compared with usual care. Practitioner outcomes were not measured. Interventions were not reported to adversely affect rates of participant death or anxiety, emergency department attendance, or hospital admission compared with usual care.\nComparing interventions (patient workshop and coaching, individual patient coaching) to attention-control conditions: we are uncertain whether interventions affect patient-reported high self-rated health (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.00, favouring attention control, with very low-certainty evidence; RR 2.17, 95% CI 0.85 to 5.52, favouring the intervention, with very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions affect patient enablement and engagement by increasing either patient activation (MD 1.20, 95% CI -8.21 to 10.61; very low-certainty evidence) or self-efficacy (MD 0.29, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.79; very low-certainty evidence); or whether interventions affect the number of general practice visits (MD 0.51, 95% CI -0.34 to 1.36; very low-certainty evidence), compared to attention-control conditions. The intervention may however lead to more patient-reported changes in management of their health conditions (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.44; low-certainty evidence). Practitioner outcomes were not measured. Interventions were not reported to adversely affect emergency department attendance nor hospital admission when compared with attention control.\nComparing one form of intervention with another: not measured.\nThere was 'unclear' risk across studies for performance bias, detection bias, and reporting bias; however, no aspects were 'high' risk. Evidence was downgraded via GRADE, most often because of 'small sample size' and 'evidence from a single study'.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLimited available evidence does not allow a robust conclusion regarding the objectives of this review. Whilst patient involvement in decision-making is seen as a key mechanism for improving care, it is rarely examined as an intervention and was not measured by included studies. Consistency in design, analysis, and evaluation of interventions would enable a greater likelihood of robust conclusions in future reviews.\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": "The number of older people with more than one long-term health problem is steadily increasing worldwide. Such individuals can have complicated healthcare needs. Although they frequently want to be involved in making decisions about their health care, they are less often involved than younger, healthier people. As a result, they may not be offered the same treatment options." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) is a manifestation of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) that includes chronic ischaemic rest pain or ischaemic skin lesions, ulcers, or gangrene for longer than two weeks. The severity of the disease depends on the extent of arterial stenosis and the availability of collateral circulation. Treatment for CLTI aims to relieve ischaemic pain, heal ischaemic ulcers, prevent limb loss, improve quality of life, and prolong survival. CLTI due to occlusive disease in the infrapopliteal arterial circulation (below-knee circulation) can be treated via an endovascular technique by a balloon opening the narrowed vessel, so called angioplasty, with or without the additional deployment of a scaffold made of metal alloy or other material, so called stenting. Endovascular interventions in the infrapopliteal vasculature may improve symptoms in patients with CLTI by re-establishing in-line blood flow to the foot. Controversy remains as to whether a balloon should be used alone to open the vessel, or whether a stent should also be deployed.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy and safety of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) alone versus PTA with stenting of infrapopliteal arterial lesions (anterior tibial artery, posterior tibial artery, fibular artery (formerly known as peroneal artery), and common tibioperoneal trunk) for patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI).\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED databases, as well as World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 25 June 2018. We applied no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing PTA versus PTA with a stent and including patients aged 18 years or over with CLTI. We defined CLTI as Fontaine stage III (ischaemic rest pain) and IV (ischaemic ulcers or gangrene) or consistent with Rutherford category 4 (ischaemic rest pain), 5 (minor tissue loss), and 6 (major tissue loss), with stenotic (> 50% luminal loss) or occluded infrapopliteal artery, including tibiofibular trunk, anterior tibial artery, posterior tibial artery, and fibular artery. We included all types of stents irrespective of design (e.g. bare-metal, drug-eluting, bio-absorbable).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors (CC-TH and GNCK) independently selected suitable trials, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. An additional third review author (MLvD) assessed trial quality and, when necessary, acted as arbiter for study selection and data extraction. Outcomes included technical success of the procedure, procedural complications, patency, major amputation, and mortality. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included in the review seven trials with 542 participants. One trial randomised limbs to undergo PTA alone or PTA with stent placement, and the remaining studies randomised participants. Five trials with 476 participants show that the technical success rate was greater in the stent group than in the angioplasty group (odds ratio (OR) 3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 7.93; 476 lesions; 5 studies; I² = 23%). Meta-analysis of three eligible trials with 456 participants did not show a clear difference in short-term (within six months) patency between infrapopliteal arterial lesions treated with PTA and those treated with PTA and stenting (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.11; 456 lesions; 3 studies; I² = 77%). Results also did not show clear differences between treatment groups in procedure complication rate (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.01 to 53.60; 360 participants; 5 studies; I² = 85%), rate of major amputations at 12 months (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.22; 306 participants; 4 studies; I² = 0%), and rate of mortality at 12 months (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.17; 497 participants; 6 studies; I² = 0%). Heterogeneity between studies was high for the outcomes procedure complications and primary patency. The overall methodological quality of the trials included in this review was moderate due to selection and performance bias. Studies used different regimens for pretreatment and post-treatment antiplatelet/anticoagulant medication. We downgraded the certainty of the overall evidence for all outcomes by one level to moderate due to inconsistency of results across studies and large confidence intervals (small numbers of trials and participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nTrials show that the immediate technical success rate of restoring luminal patency is higher in the stent group but reveal no clear differences in short-term patency at six months between infrapopliteal arterial lesions treated with PTA with stenting versus those treated with PTA without stenting. We ascertained no clear differences between groups in periprocedural complications, major amputation, and mortality. However, use of different regimens for pretreatment and post-treatment antiplatelet/anticoagulant medication and the duration of its use within and between trials may have influenced the outcomes. Limited currently available data suggest that high-quality evidence is insufficient to show that PTA with stent insertion is superior to use of standard PTA alone without stenting for treatment of infrapopliteal arterial lesions. Further studies should standardise the use of antiplatelets/anticoagulants before and after the intervention to improve the comparability of the two treatments.\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": "Chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) is a manifestation of peripheral arterial disease that occurs as chronic ischaemic rest pain or ischaemic skin lesions, ulcers, or gangrene with symptoms present for longer than two weeks. The symptoms are a result of impaired blood flow to the leg and the foot due to narrowing of the arteries by atherosclerosis. Atherosclerosis is a disease of the arteries caused by a buildup of plaque composed of fat, cholesterol, calcium, and other substances in the blood; over time, the plaque narrows the artery. Patients can have narrowing of the artery in the thigh or below the knee. This review focusses on a subgroup of patients with below-knee arterial disease (infrapopliteal arterial disease) who might benefit from an intervention that re-establishes blood flow by inserting and inflating a balloon to re-open the narrowed artery (percutaneous transluminal angioplasty). This can be performed with or without additional placement of a stent (a scaffold made of metal alloy or other material). The types of stents used in this procedure vary from a simple bare-metal stent to a stent coated with medication. However, it is not clear whether deploying stents after ballooning in narrowed below-knee arteries (infrapopliteal arteries) provides any additional benefit for the patient." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nClinical practice does not always reflect best practice and evidence, partly because of unconscious acts of omission, information overload, or inaccessible information. Reminders may help clinicians overcome these problems by prompting them to recall information that they already know or would be expected to know and by providing information or guidance in a more accessible and relevant format, at a particularly appropriate time. This is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of reminders automatically generated through a computerized system (computer-generated) and delivered on paper to healthcare professionals on quality of care (outcomes related to healthcare professionals' practice) and patient outcomes (outcomes related to patients' health condition).\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and two trials registers up to 21 September 2016 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included individual- or cluster-randomized and non-randomized trials that evaluated the impact of computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals, alone (single-component intervention) or in addition to one or more co-interventions (multi-component intervention), compared with usual care or the co-intervention(s) without the reminder component.\nData collection and analysis\nReview authors working in pairs independently screened studies for eligibility and abstracted data. For each study, we extracted the primary outcome when it was defined or calculated the median effect size across all reported outcomes. We then calculated the median improvement and interquartile range (IQR) across included studies using the primary outcome or median outcome as representative outcome. We assessed the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe identified 35 studies (30 randomized trials and five non-randomized trials) and analyzed 34 studies (40 comparisons). Twenty-nine studies took place in the USA and six studies took place in Canada, France, Israel, and Kenya. All studies except two took place in outpatient care. Reminders were aimed at enhancing compliance with preventive guidelines (e.g. cancer screening tests, vaccination) in half the studies and at enhancing compliance with disease management guidelines for acute or chronic conditions (e.g. annual follow-ups, laboratory tests, medication adjustment, counseling) in the other half.\nComputer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals, alone or in addition to co-intervention(s), probably improves quality of care slightly compared with usual care or the co-intervention(s) without the reminder component (median improvement 6.8% (IQR: 3.8% to 17.5%); 34 studies (40 comparisons); moderate-certainty evidence).\nComputer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals alone (single-component intervention) probably improves quality of care compared with usual care (median improvement 11.0% (IQR 5.4% to 20.0%); 27 studies (27 comparisons); moderate-certainty evidence). Adding computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals to one or more co-interventions (multi-component intervention) probably improves quality of care slightly compared with the co-intervention(s) without the reminder component (median improvement 4.0% (IQR 3.0% to 6.0%); 11 studies (13 comparisons); moderate-certainty evidence).\nWe are uncertain whether reminders, alone or in addition to co-intervention(s), improve patient outcomes as the certainty of the evidence is very low (n = 6 studies (seven comparisons)). None of the included studies reported outcomes related to harms or adverse effects of the intervention.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate-certainty evidence that computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals probably slightly improves quality of care, in terms of compliance with preventive guidelines and compliance with disease management guidelines. It is uncertain whether reminders improve patient outcomes because the certainty of the evidence is very low. The heterogeneity of the reminder interventions included in this review also suggests that reminders can probably improve quality of care in various settings under various conditions.\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": "Doctors do not always provide care that is recommended or that reflects the latest research, partly because of too much information or inaccessible information. Reminders may help doctors overcome these problems by reminding them about guidelines and research findings, or by providing advice, in a more accessible and relevant format, at a particularly appropriate time. For example, when a doctor sees a patient for an annual check-up, the doctor would receive the patient's chart with a reminder section listing the screening tests due that year, such as colorectal cancer screening. In this review, we evaluated the effects of reminders on the quality of care delivered by physicians, on patient outcomes, and on adverse effects. These reminders were automatically generated through a computer system but delivered on paper." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nLymphomas are the third most common malignancy in childhood. Cure rates are high but have reached a plateau. Therefore new treatment modalities should be developed. Antibody therapy is a successful new treatment option in adult lymphoma. However, none of the therapeutic antibodies available for adults with cancer have been approved for treatment of paediatric lymphoma.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy of antibody therapy for childhood lymphoma in terms of survival, response and relapse rates, compared with therapy not including antibody treatment. To assess quality of life and the occurrence of adverse effects caused by antibody therapy treatment in children compared with therapy not including antibody treatment.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE in PubMed (from 1945 to October 2014), EMBASE in EMBASE.com (from 1980 to October 2014) and reference lists of relevant articles. Furthermore, we searched conference proceedings abstracts of SIOP, ASCO and ASH for studies from 2009 to 2013), and the World Health Organization (WHO) ICTRP portal and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials comparing conventional therapy with antibody therapy in children with lymphoma.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently performed the study selection.\nMain results\nWe found no studies meeting the inclusion criteria of the review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAt this moment, it is not possible to draw evidence-based conclusions regarding clinical practice. Phase I and II studies show a positive effect of using antibody therapy in childhood lymphoma. Further research is needed to evaluate and implement antibody therapy for paediatric lymphoma.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Use of statistics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We performed no analyses." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPediatric cervical spine injury (CSI) after blunt trauma is rare. Nonetheless, missing these injuries can have severe consequences. To prevent the overuse of radiographic imaging, two clinical decision tools have been developed: The National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) criteria and the Canadian C-spine Rule (CCR). Both tools are proven to be accurate in deciding whether or not diagnostic imaging is needed in adults presenting for blunt trauma screening at the emergency department. However, little information is known about the accuracy of these triage tools in a pediatric population.\nObjectives\nTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of the NEXUS criteria and the Canadian C-spine Rule in a pediatric population evaluated for CSI following blunt trauma.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases to 24 February 2015: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE Non-Indexed and In-Process Citations, PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database, OpenGrey, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Health Technology Assessment, and the Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all retrospective and prospective studies involving children following blunt trauma that evaluated the accuracy of the NEXUS criteria, the Canadian C-spine Rule, or both. Plain radiography, computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the cervical spine, and follow-up were considered as adequate reference standards.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the quality of included studies using the QUADAS-2 checklists. They extracted data on study design, patient characteristics, inclusion and exclusion criteria, clinical parameters, target condition, reference standard, and the diagnostic two-by-two table. We calculated and plotted sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value in ROC space, and constructed forest plots for visual examination of variation in test accuracy.\nMain results\nThree cohort studies were eligible for analysis, including 3380 patients ; 96 children were diagnosed with CSI. One study evaluated the accuracy of the Canadian C-spine Rule and the NEXUS criteria, and two studies evaluated the accuracy of the NEXUS criteria. The studies were of moderate quality. Due to the small number of included studies and the diverse outcomes of those studies, we could not describe a pooled estimate for the diagnostic test accuracy. The sensitivity of the NEXUS criteria of the individual studies was 0.57 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.90), 0.98 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.00). The specificity of the NEXUS criteria was 0.35 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.45), 0.54 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.62) and 0.2 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.21). For the Canadian C-spine Rule the sensitivity was 0.86 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.00) and specificity was 0.15 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.23). Since the quantity of the data was small we were not able to investigate heterogeneity.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere are currently few studies assessing the diagnostic test accuracy of the NEXUS criteria and CCR in children. At the moment, there is not enough evidence to determine the accuracy of the Canadian C-spine Rule to detect CSI in pediatric trauma patients following blunt trauma. The confidence interval of the sensitivity of the NEXUS criteria between the individual studies showed a wide range, with a lower limit varying from 0.18 to 0.91 with a total of four false negative test results, meaning that if physicians use the NEXUS criteria in children, there is a chance of missing CSI. Since missing CSI could have severe consequences with the risk of significant morbidity, we consider that the NEXUS criteria are at best a guide to clinical assessment, with current evidence not supporting strict or protocolized adoption of the tool into pediatric trauma care. Moreover, we have to keep in mind that the sensitivity differs among several studies, and individual confidence intervals of these studies show a wide range. Our main conclusion is therefore that additional well-designed studies with large sample sizes are required to better evaluate the accuracy of the NEXUS criteria or the Canadian C-spine Rule, or both, in order to determine whether they are appropriate triage tools for the clearance of the cervical spine in children following blunt trauma.\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 searched medical literature databases to identify studies which tested how well both decision tools can establish whether children are at risk for CSI after blunt trauma. We performed the search in February 2015." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is any degree of glucose intolerance that first presents and is recognised during pregnancy and usually resolves after the birth of the baby. GDM is associated with increased short- and long-term morbidity for the mother and her baby. Treatment usually includes lifestyle modification and/or pharmacological therapy (oral antidiabetic agents or insulin) with the aim to maintain treatment targets for blood glucose concentrations. Finding novel treatment agents which are effective, acceptable and safe for the mother and her baby are important. One such emerging potential intervention is myo-inositol which is an isomer of inositol and occurs endogenously and is found in natural dietary sources such as fruits, vegetables, nuts and cereals.\nObjectives\nTo assess if dietary supplementation with myo-inositol during pregnancy is safe and effective, for the mother and fetus, in treating gestational diabetes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register (30 April 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (7 April 2016), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nAll published and unpublished randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised controlled trials reporting on the use of myo-inositol compared with placebo, no treatment or another intervention for the treatment of women with gestational diabetes. Quasi-randomised and cross-over studies are not eligible for inclusion. Women with pre-existing diabetes were excluded.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. For key outcomes (where data were available), we assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included two studies (142 women and infants), both were conducted in women in Italy and compared myo-inositol with a placebo control.\nNone of the maternal primary outcomes pre-specified for this review were reported in the included studies: hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; caesarean section; development of subsequent type 2 diabetes mellitus. No data were reported for the majority of this review's maternal secondary outcomes. We could only perform meta-analysis for two secondary outcomes: fasting oral glucose tolerance test and additional pharmacological treatment. All other results are based on data from single studies. Overall, the risk of bias of the included studies was judged to be unclear due to lack of key methodological information.\nThere was no evidence of a difference between treatment groups in need for additional pharmacotherapy or weight gain during pregnancy, although myo-inositol was associated with a lower body mass index (BMI) change (mean difference (MD) -1.50 kg/m2; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.35 to -0.65; one trial, n = 73). Myo-inositol was associated with a reduction in the fasting blood glucose concentration at the end of treatment (MD -0.47 mmol/L; 95% CI -0.59 to -0.35; two trials, n = 142 women) compared with the control group. One small trial reported that myo-inositol was associated with a reduction in one-hour post-prandial blood glucose concentration at the end of treatment (MD -0.90 mmol/L; 95% CI -1.73 to -0.07; one trial, n = 73 women) compared with the control group. There was no difference between groups for the two-hour post-prandial blood glucose concentrations between groups (MD -0.70 mmol/L; 95% CI -1.46 to 0.06; one trial, n = 73 women). The one-hour and two-hour blood glucose concentrations show evidence of imprecision associated with wide CIs and small sample size.\nFor the infant, there was no evidence of a difference in the risk for being born large-for-gestational age between the myo-inositol and the control group (risk ratio (RR) 0.36; 95% CI 0.02 to 8.58; one trial, n = 73 infants; low-quality evidence). The evidence was downgraded due to imprecision. This review's other primary outcomes were not reported in the included trials: perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality); mortality of morbidity composite (as defined by the trials); neurosensory disability. Infants in the myo-inositol group were less likely to have neonatal hypoglycaemia compared with the placebo group (RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.85; one study, n = 73 infants; low-quality evidence). There is evidence of imprecision for this outcome with low event rates and small sample size. There was no evidence of a difference between treatment and placebo groups for preterm birth or birthweight. Myo-inositol was associated with a later gestational age at birth compared with the placebo group (MD 2.10 weeks; 95% CI 1.27 to 2.93; one trial, n = 73 infants). No data were reported for any of the other neonatal outcomes for this review.\nNo long-term outcomes were reported for the mother, infant as a child, infant as an adult, or health service outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere are insufficient data to evaluate the effect of myo-inositol for the treatment of gestational diabetes, with no data to examine the majority of outcomes in this review. There do not appear to be any benefits for the infant associated with exposure to myo-inositol such as reduced risk of being born large-for-gestational age. Although the risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia is reduced for the myo-inositol group, there is evidence of imprecision. Evidence from two studies suggested that myo-inositol was associated with a reduced change in maternal BMI and fasting blood sugar concentration compared with placebo. There is a lack of reporting of the clinically meaningful outcomes pre-specified for this review.\nUncertainty of the effectiveness of myo-inositol as a treatment for GDM for key maternal and infant outcomes remains and further high- quality trials with appropriate sample sizes are required to further investigate the role of myo-inositol as a treatment or co-treatment for women with gestational diabetes. Future trials should report on the core outcomes for GDM identified in the methods section of this review. Participants of varying ethnicities and with varying risk factors for GDM should be included in future trials. In addition, further trials of myo-inositol for the treatment of GDM should explore the optimal dose, frequency and timing of supplementation, report on adverse effects and assess the long- term effects of this intervention. Economic analysis or health service use and costs should also be included.\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": "During pregnancy the mother develops resistance to insulin and the uptake of glucose from the blood is reduced to ensure the baby has a consistent supply of glucose. The mother has to produce extra insulin to keep her blood glucose levels under control or she is at risk of developing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). GDM is diabetes that occurs during pregnancy and resolves after the birth of the baby. It is an increasing problem around the world, causing both long- and short-term complications for the mother and her baby. Women with GDM are at greater risk of developing high blood pressure and having a caesarean section for the birth. Their babies can grow large for their gestational age, which increases the likelihood of having an injury at birth such as broken bones or a shoulder becoming stuck. In the long term both the mother and her child are at increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nApproximately 50% of patients with newly diagnosed non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are over 70 years of age at diagnosis. Despite this fact, these patients are underrepresented in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). As a consequence, the most appropriate regimens for these patients are controversial, and the role of single-agent or combination therapy is unclear. In this setting, a critical systematic review of RCTs in this group of patients is warranted.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of different cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens for previously untreated elderly patients with advanced (stage IIIB and IV) NSCLC. To also assess the impact of cytotoxic chemotherapy on quality of life.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1966 to 31 October 2014), EMBASE (1974 to 31 October 2014), and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to 31 October 2014). In addition, we handsearched the proceedings of major conferences, reference lists from relevant resources, and the ClinicalTrial.gov database.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only RCTs that compared non-platinum single-agent therapy versus non-platinum combination therapy, or non-platinum therapy versus platinum combination therapy in patients over 70 years of age with advanced NSCLC. We allowed inclusion of RCTs specifically designed for the elderly population and those designed for elderly subgroup analyses.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed search results, and a third review author resolved disagreements. We analyzed the following endpoints: overall survival (OS), one-year survival rate (1yOS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), major adverse events, and quality of life (QoL).\nMain results\nWe included 51 trials in the review: non-platinum single-agent therapy versus non-platinum combination therapy (seven trials) and non-platinum combination therapy versus platinum combination therapy (44 trials).\nNon-platinum single-agent versus non-platinum combination therapy\nLow-quality evidence suggests that these treatments have similar effects on overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.17; participants = 1062; five RCTs), 1yOS (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.07; participants = 992; four RCTs), and PFS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07; participants = 942; four RCTs). Non-platinum combination therapy may better improve ORR compared with non-platinum single-agent therapy (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.26; participants = 1014; five RCTs; low-quality evidence).\nDifferences in effects on major adverse events between treatment groups were as follows: anemia: RR 1.10, 95% 0.53 to 2.31; participants = 983; four RCTs; very low-quality evidence; neutropenia: RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.65; participants = 983; four RCTs; low-quality evidence; and thrombocytopenia: RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.89; participants = 914; three RCTs; very low-quality evidence. Only two RCTs assessed quality of life; however, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis because of the paucity of available data.\nNon-platinum therapy versus platinum combination therapy\nPlatinum combination therapy probably improves OS (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.85; participants = 1705; 13 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence), 1yOS (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.96; participants = 813; 13 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence), and ORR (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.85; participants = 1432; 11 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence) compared with non-platinum therapies. Platinum combination therapy may also improve PFS, although our confidence in this finding is limited because the quality of evidence was low (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93; participants = 1273; nine RCTs).\nEffects on major adverse events between treatment groups were as follows: anemia: RR 2.53, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.76; participants = 1437; 11 RCTs; low-quality evidence; thrombocytopenia: RR 3.59, 95% CI 2.22 to 5.82; participants = 1260; nine RCTs; low-quality evidence; fatigue: RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.38; participants = 1150; seven RCTs; emesis: RR 3.64, 95% CI 1.82 to 7.29; participants = 1193; eight RCTs; and peripheral neuropathy: RR 7.02, 95% CI 2.42 to 20.41; participants = 776; five RCTs; low-quality evidence. Only five RCTs assessed QoL; however, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis because of the paucity of available data.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn people over the age of 70 with advanced NSCLC who do not have significant co-morbidities, increased survival with platinum combination therapy needs to be balanced against higher risk of major adverse events when compared with non-platinum therapy. For people who are not suitable candidates for platinum treatment, we have found low-quality evidence suggesting that non-platinum combination and single-agent therapy regimens have similar effects on survival. We are uncertain as to the comparability of their adverse event profiles. Additional evidence on quality of life gathered from additional studies is needed to help inform decision making.\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": "Non-platinum single-agent versus non-platinum combination therapy\nWe analyzed five trials involving 1294 participants. We found that these regimens are equally effective for survival. However, combinations of non-platinum agents are associated with a greater chance of decreasing tumor size. We also found that these regimens are similar regarding chance of major toxicity such as low hemoglobin levels, platelets, and white cell counts (neutrophils). Only two trials assessed the impact of treatment on quality of life, and we were not able to combine these results because of lack of information.\nNon-platinum therapy versus platinum combination therapy\nWe analyzed 14 trials involving 1705 elderly participants. We found that platinum therapy is associated with longer survival and greater chance of decreasing tumor size among elderly patients. However, we found that these regimens are more toxic than those based on non-platinum agents and provide greater risk of low hemoglobin and platelet levels, fatigue, nausea or vomiting, and numbness or tingling in the hands and feet. Only five trials assessed the impact of treatment on quality of life, and we were not able to combine these results because of lack of information." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 5, 2015.\nCervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women worldwide, with estimated 569,847 new diagnoses and 311,365 deaths per year. However, incidence and stage at diagnosis vary greatly between geographic areas and are largely dependent on the availability of a robust population screening programme. For example, in Nigeria, advanced-stage disease at presentation is common (86% to 89.3% of new cases), whereas in the UK, only 21.9% of women present with International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage II+ disease. Women with advanced cancer of the cervix often need palliation for distressing symptoms, such as vaginal bleeding. Vaginal bleeding can be life threatening in advanced disease, with an incidence ranging from 0.7% to 100%. Bleeding is the immediate cause of death in 6% of women with cervical cancer and its management often poses a challenge.\nThus, vaginal bleeding remains a common consequence of advanced cervical cancer. Currently, there is no systematic review that addresses palliative interventions for controlling vaginal bleeding caused by advanced cervical cancer. A systematic evaluation of the available palliative interventions is needed to inform decision-making.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid, vaginal packing (with or without formalin-soaked packs), interventional radiology or other interventions compared with radiotherapy for palliative treatment of vaginal bleeding in women with advanced cervical cancer.\nSearch methods\nThe search for the original review was run in 23 March 2015, and subsequent searches for this update were run 21 March 2018. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 3) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via Ovid to March week 2, 2018; and Embase via Ovid to March week 12, 2018. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of review articles, and contacted experts in the field. We handsearched citation lists of relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for randomised and non-randomised comparative studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid, vaginal packing (with or without formalin-soaked packs), interventional radiology or other interventions compared with radiotherapy techniques for palliative treatment of vaginal bleeding in women with advanced cervical cancer (with or without metastasis), irrespective of publication status, year of publication or language in the review.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria. We found no studies for inclusion and, therefore, we analysed no data.\nMain results\nThe search strategy identified 1522 unique references of which we excluded 1330 on the basis of title and abstract. We retrieved the remaining 22 articles in full, but none satisfied the inclusion criteria. We identified only observational data from single-arm studies of women treated with formalin-soaked packs, interventional radiology or radiotherapy techniques for palliative control of vaginal bleeding in women with cervical cancer.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSince the last version of this review we found no new studies. There is no evidence from controlled trials to support or refute the use of any of the proposed interventions compared with radiotherapy. Therefore, the choice of intervention will be based on local resources. Radiotherapy techniques for managing vaginal bleeding are not readily available in resource-poor settings, where advanced cases of cervical cancer are predominant. Thus, this systematic review identified the need for a randomised controlled trial assessing the benefits and risks of palliative treatments for vaginal bleeding in women with advanced cervical cancer.\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": "the searches were updated to March 2018. We found no randomised controlled trials (clinical studies where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups) for inclusion, so there is an absence of evidence that tranexamic acid, vaginal packing (with or without formalin-soaked packs), interventional radiology techniques or other interventions are as effective or safe as radiotherapy for palliative control of bleeding from the vagina in advanced cervical cancer. There is a need for randomised controlled trials or good-quality non-randomised comparative studies to determine the effectiveness and safety of these interventions when compared with radiotherapy in terms of symptom control, quality of life and side events." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is one of the most frequently performed orthopaedic procedures. The most common technical cause of reconstruction failure is graft malpositioning. Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) aims to improve the accuracy of graft placement. Although posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injury and reconstruction are far less common, PCL reconstruction has comparable difficulties relating to graft placement. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2011.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of computer-assisted reconstruction surgery versus conventional operating techniques for ACL or PCL injuries in adults.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (from 2010 to July 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 5, 2013), MEDLINE (from 2010 to July 2013), EMBASE (from 2010 to July 2013), CINAHL (from 2010 to July 2013), article references and prospective trial registers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared CAS for ACL or PCL reconstruction versus conventional operating techniques not involving CAS.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened search results, assessed the risk of bias in the studies and extracted data. Where appropriate, we pooled data using risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI).\nMain results\nThe updated search resulted in the inclusion of one new study. This review now includes five RCTs with 366 participants. There were more female than male participants (70% were female); their ages ranged from 14 to 53 years. All trials involved ACL reconstructions performed by experienced surgeons.\nAssessing the studies' risk of bias was hampered by poor reporting of trial methods, and consequently several studies were judged to be 'unclear' for several types of bias. One trial presenting primary outcome data was at high risk of detection bias from lack of clinician blinding and attrition bias from an unaccounted loss to follow-up at two years.\nWe found moderate quality evidence (three trials, 193 participants) of no clinically relevant difference between CAS and conventional surgery in International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective scores (self-reported measure of knee function; scale of 0 to 100 where 100 was best function). Pooled data from two of these trials (120 participants) showed a small, but clinically irrelevant difference favouring CAS (MD 2.05, 95% CI -2.16 to 6.25). A third trial (73 participants) also found minimal difference in IKDC subjective scores (reported MD 0.2).\nWe found low quality evidence (two trials, 120 participants) showing no difference between the two groups in Lysholm scores, also measured on a scale 0 to 100 where 100 is best function (MD 0.25, 95% CI -3.75 to 4.25). We found very low quality evidence (one trial, 40 participants) showing no difference between the two groups in Tegner scores. We found low quality evidence (three trials, 173 participants) showing the majority of participants in both groups were assessed as having normal or nearly normal knee function (86/87 with CAS versus 84/86 with no CAS; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.06).\nSimilarly, no differences were found for our secondary outcome measures of knee stability, loss in range of motion and tunnel placement. None of the trials reported on re-operation.\nNo adverse post-surgical events were reported in two trials (133 participants); this outcome was not reported by the other three trials.\nCAS use was associated with longer operating times compared with conventional operating techniques: the mean difference in operating times reported in the studies ranged between 9 and 27 minutes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFrom the available evidence, we are unable to demonstrate or refute a favourable effect of CAS for cruciate ligament reconstructions of the knee compared with conventional reconstructions. However, the currently available evidence does not indicate that CAS in knee ligament reconstruction improves outcome. There is a need for improved reporting of future studies of this technology.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results and quality of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We found five studies for inclusion in this review. These studies involved 366 participants, mainly female (70%), aged 14 to 53 years. All five trials involved ACL reconstruction.\nWe were uncertain about the reliability of study findings due to poor reporting of trial methods and, sometimes, results. Our assessment of the quality of the evidence available for individual outcomes ranged from 'moderate' quality (which means further research may change the estimate) to 'very low' quality (which means we are very uncertain about the estimate).\nThe trials provided some moderate quality evidence that there was no difference between computer-assisted surgery and conventional surgery for patient-reported knee function. There was low quality evidence of no difference between the two groups in self-reported function score and very low quality evidence of no difference in a score measuring activity levels. There was low quality evidence of no difference between the two treatment groups in the number of people assessed by clinicians as having a normal or nearly normal knee function at the final follow-up time. No adverse post-surgical events were reported in two trials; this outcome was not reported by the other three trials. CAS took longer to do than conventional surgery (from 9 to 27 minutes longer).\nOverall, the currently available evidence does not indicate that CAS in knee ligament reconstruction improves outcome compared with conventional surgery." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHealthcare professionals are important contributors to healthcare quality and patient safety, but their performance does not always follow recommended clinical practice. There are many approaches to influencing practice among healthcare professionals. These approaches include audit and feedback, reminders, educational materials, educational outreach visits, educational meetings or conferences, use of local opinion leaders, financial incentives, and organisational interventions. In this review, we evaluated the effectiveness of patient-mediated interventions. These interventions are aimed at changing the performance of healthcare professionals through interactions with patients, or through information provided by or to patients. Examples of patient-mediated interventions include 1) patient-reported health information, 2) patient information, 3) patient education, 4) patient feedback about clinical practice, 5) patient decision aids, 6) patients, or patient representatives, being members of a committee or board, and 7) patient-led training or education of healthcare professionals.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of patient-mediated interventions on healthcare professionals' performance (adherence to clinical practice guidelines or recommendations for clinical practice).\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Ovid in March 2018, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in March 2017, and ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry (ICTRP) in September 2017, and OpenGrey, the Grey Literature Report and Google Scholar in October 2017. We also screened the reference lists of included studies and conducted cited reference searches for all included studies in October 2017.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised studies comparing patient-mediated interventions to either usual care or other interventions to improve professional practice.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes using Mantel-Haenszel statistics and the random-effects model. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) using inverse variance statistics. Two review authors independently assessed the certainty of the evidence (GRADE).\nMain results\nWe included 25 studies with a total of 12,268 patients. The number of healthcare professionals included in the studies ranged from 12 to 167 where this was reported. The included studies evaluated four types of patient-mediated interventions: 1) patient-reported health information interventions (for instance information obtained from patients about patients' own health, concerns or needs before a clinical encounter), 2) patient information interventions (for instance, where patients are informed about, or reminded to attend recommended care), 3) patient education interventions (intended to increase patients' knowledge about their condition and options of care, for instance), and 4) patient decision aids (where the patient is provided with information about treatment options including risks and benefits). For each type of patient-mediated intervention a separate meta-analysis was produced.\nPatient-reported health information interventions probably improve healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (moderate-certainty evidence). We found that for every 100 patients consulted or treated, 26 (95% CI 23 to 30) are in accordance with recommended clinical practice compared to 17 per 100 in the comparison group (no intervention or usual care). We are uncertain about the effect of patient-reported health information interventions on desirable patient health outcomes and patient satisfaction (very low-certainty evidence). Undesirable patient health outcomes and adverse events were not reported in the included studies and resource use was poorly reported.\nPatient information interventions may improve healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (low-certainty evidence). We found that for every 100 patients consulted or treated, 32 (95% CI 24 to 42) are in accordance with recommended clinical practice compared to 20 per 100 in the comparison group (no intervention or usual care). Patient information interventions may have little or no effect on desirable patient health outcomes and patient satisfaction (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of patient information interventions on undesirable patient health outcomes because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Adverse events and resource use were not reported in the included studies.\nPatient education interventions probably improve healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (moderate-certainty evidence). We found that for every 100 patients consulted or treated, 46 (95% CI 39 to 54) are in accordance with recommended clinical practice compared to 35 per 100 in the comparison group (no intervention or usual care). Patient education interventions may slightly increase the number of patients with desirable health outcomes (low-certainty evidence). Undesirable patient health outcomes, patient satisfaction, adverse events and resource use were not reported in the included studies.\nPatient decision aid interventions may have little or no effect on healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (low-certainty evidence). We found that for every 100 patients consulted or treated, 32 (95% CI 24 to 43) are in accordance with recommended clinical practice compared to 37 per 100 in the comparison group (usual care). Patient health outcomes, patient satisfaction, adverse events and resource use were not reported in the included studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found that two types of patient-mediated interventions, patient-reported health information and patient education, probably improve professional practice by increasing healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (moderate-certainty evidence). We consider the effect to be small to moderate. Other patient-mediated interventions, such as patient information may also improve professional practice (low-certainty evidence). Patient decision aids may make little or no difference to the number of healthcare professionals' adhering to recommended clinical practice (low-certainty evidence).\nThe impact of these interventions on patient health and satisfaction, adverse events and resource use, is more uncertain mostly due to very low certainty evidence or lack of evidence.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Strategies where information was given to patients\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "In these studies, patients were given information about recommended care or were reminded to use services, for instance to go for a check-up. The review shows that these strategies:\n- may improve the extent to which healthcare professionals follow recommended clinical practice (low-certainty evidence);\n- may have little or no effect on patient satisfaction (low-certainty evidence);\n- may have little or no effect on some patient health outcomes, such as the number of patients who reach controlled blood pressure (low-certainty evidence). However, we are uncertain about the effect of these strategies on other patient health outcomes because the certainty of the evidence is very low. We also lack information to draw conclusions about resource use." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMagnesium sulphate is the drug of choice for the prevention and treatment of women with eclampsia. Regimens for administration of this drug have evolved over the years, but there is no clarity on the comparative benefits or harm of alternative regimens. This is an update of a review first published in 2010.\nObjectives\nTo assess if one magnesium sulphate regimen is better than another when used for the care of women with pre-eclampsia or eclampsia, or both, to reduce the risk of severe morbidity and mortality for the woman and her baby.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (29 April 2022), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised trials and cluster-randomised trials comparing different regimens for administration of magnesium sulphate used in women with pre-eclampsia or eclampsia, or both. Comparisons included different dose regimens, intramuscular versus intravenous route for maintenance therapy, and different durations of therapy. We excluded studies with quasi-random or cross-over designs. We included abstracts of conference proceedings if compliant with the trustworthiness assessment.\nData collection and analysis\nFor this update, two review authors assessed trials for inclusion, performed risk of bias assessment, and extracted data. We checked data for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nFor this update, a total of 16 trials (3020 women) met our inclusion criteria: four trials (409 women) compared regimens for women with eclampsia, and 12 trials (2611 women) compared regimens for women with pre-eclampsia. Most of the included trials had small sample sizes and were conducted in low- and middle-income countries. Eleven trials reported adequate randomisation and allocation concealment. Blinding of participants and clinicians was not possible in most trials. The included studies were for the most part at low risk of attrition and reporting bias.\nTreatment of women with eclampsia (four comparisons)\nOne trial compared a loading dose-alone regimen with a loading dose plus maintenance dose regimen (80 women). It is uncertain whether either regimen has an effect on the risk of recurrence of convulsions or maternal death (very low-certainty evidence).\nOne trial compared a lower-dose regimen with standard-dose regimen over 24 hours (72 women). It is uncertain whether either regimen has an effect on the risk of recurrence of convulsion, severe morbidity, perinatal death, or maternal death (very low-certainty evidence).\nOne trial (137 women) compared intravenous (IV) versus standard intramuscular (IM) maintenance regimen. It is uncertain whether either route has an effect on recurrence of convulsions, death of the baby before discharge (stillbirth and neonatal death), or maternal death (very low-certainty evidence).\nOne trial (120 women) compared a short maintenance regimen with a standard (24 hours after birth) maintenance regimen. It is uncertain whether the duration of the maintenance regimen has an effect on recurrence of convulsions, severe morbidity, or side effects such as nausea and respiratory failure. A short maintenance regimen may reduce the risk of flushing when compared to a standard 24 hours maintenance regimen (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.93; 1 trial, 120 women; low-certainty evidence).\nMany of our prespecified critical outcomes were not reported in the included trials.\nPrevention of eclampsia for women with pre-eclampsia (five comparisons)\nTwo trials (462 women) compared loading dose alone with loading dose plus maintenance therapy. Low-certainty evidence suggests an uncertain effect with either regimen on the risk of eclampsia (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.61 to 6.54; 2 trials, 462 women) or perinatal death (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.36; 2 trials, 462 women).\nOne small trial (17 women) compared an IV versus IM maintenance regimen for 24 hours. It is uncertain whether IV or IM maintenance regimen has an effect on eclampsia or stillbirth (very low-certainty evidence).\nFour trials (1713 women) compared short postpartum maintenance regimens with continuing for 24 hours after birth. Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be a wide range of benefit or harm between groups regarding eclampsia (RR 1.99, 95% CI 0.18 to 21.87; 4 trials, 1713 women). Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be little or no effect on severe morbidity (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.29; 2 trials, 1233 women) or side effects such as respiratory depression (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.61; 2 trials, 1424 women).\nThree trials (185 women) compared a higher-dose maintenance regimen versus a lower-dose maintenance regimen. It is uncertain whether either regimen has an effect on eclampsia (very low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence suggests that a higher-dose maintenance regimen has little or no effect on side effects when compared to a lower-dose regimen (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.01; 1 trial 62 women).\nOne trial (200 women) compared a maintenance regimen by continuous infusion versus a serial IV bolus regimen. It is uncertain whether the duration of the maintenance regimen has an effect on eclampsia, side effects, perinatal death, maternal death, or other neonatal morbidity (very low-certainty evidence).\nMany of our prespecified critical outcomes were not reported in the included trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDespite the number of trials evaluating various magnesium sulphate regimens for eclampsia prophylaxis and treatment, there is still no compelling evidence that one particular regimen is more effective than another. Well-designed randomised controlled trials are needed to answer this question.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is pre-eclampsia and eclampsia?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Pre-eclampsia (or toxaemia) is a condition that is usually associated with raised blood pressure (hypertension) and protein in the urine. It can occur at any time during the second half of pregnancy or in the first few weeks after delivery. Consequences of severe pre-eclampsia include maternal fits (eclampsia), problems with the mother's liver and kidneys, death of the baby, and placental abruption (separation of the placenta from the uterine wall before birth of the baby)." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOsteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in older people. Opioids may be a viable treatment option if people have severe pain or if other analgesics are contraindicated. However, the evidence about their effectiveness and safety is contradictory. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effects on pain, function, safety, and addiction of oral or transdermal opioids compared with placebo or no intervention in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (up to 28 July 2008, with an update performed on 15 August 2012), checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared oral or transdermal opioids with placebo or no treatment in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis. We excluded studies of tramadol. We applied no language restrictions.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data in duplicate. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pain and function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. We combined trials using an inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis.\nMain results\nWe identified 12 additional trials and included 22 trials with 8275 participants in this update. Oral oxycodone was studied in 10 trials, transdermal buprenorphine and oral tapentadol in four, oral codeine in three, oral morphine and oral oxymorphone in two, and transdermal fentanyl and oral hydromorphone in one trial each. All trials were described as double-blind, but the risk of bias for other domains was unclear in several trials due to incomplete reporting. Opioids were more beneficial in pain reduction than control interventions (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.20), which corresponds to a difference in pain scores of 0.7 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS) between opioids and placebo. This corresponds to a difference in improvement of 12% (95% CI 9% to 15%) between opioids (41% mean improvement from baseline) and placebo (29% mean improvement from baseline), which translates into a number needed to treat (NNTB) to cause one additional treatment response on pain of 10 (95% CI 8 to 14). Improvement of function was larger in opioid-treated participants compared with control groups (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.17), which corresponds to a difference in function scores of 0.6 units between opioids and placebo on a standardised Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) disability scale ranging from 0 to 10. This corresponds to a difference in improvement of 11% (95% CI 7% to 14%) between opioids (32% mean improvement from baseline) and placebo (21% mean improvement from baseline), which translates into an NNTB to cause one additional treatment response on function of 11 (95% CI 7 to 14). We did not find substantial differences in effects according to type of opioid, analgesic potency, route of administration, daily dose, methodological quality of trials, and type of funding. Trials with treatment durations of four weeks or less showed larger pain relief than trials with longer treatment duration (P value for interaction = 0.001) and there was evidence for funnel plot asymmetry (P value = 0.054 for pain and P value = 0.011 for function). Adverse events were more frequent in participants receiving opioids compared with control. The pooled risk ratio was 1.49 (95% CI 1.35 to 1.63) for any adverse event (9 trials; 22% of participants in opioid and 15% of participants in control treatment experienced side effects), 3.76 (95% CI 2.93 to 4.82) for drop-outs due to adverse events (19 trials; 6.4% of participants in opioid and 1.7% of participants in control treatment dropped out due to adverse events), and 3.35 (95% CI 0.83 to 13.56) for serious adverse events (2 trials; 1.3% of participants in opioid and 0.4% of participants in control treatment experienced serious adverse events). Withdrawal symptoms occurred more often in opioid compared with control treatment (odds ratio (OR) 2.76, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.77; 3 trials; 2.4% of participants in opioid and 0.9% of participants control treatment experienced withdrawal symptoms).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe small mean benefit of non-tramadol opioids are contrasted by significant increases in the risk of adverse events. For the pain outcome in particular, observed effects were of questionable clinical relevance since the 95% CI did not include the minimal clinically important difference of 0.37 SMDs, which corresponds to 0.9 cm on a 10-cm VAS.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Best estimate of what happens to people with osteoarthritis who take opioids\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "" } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nA key aim of asthma care is to empower each person to take control of his or her own condition. A personalised asthma action plan (PAAP), also known as a written action plan, an individualised action plan, or a self-management action plan, contributes to this endeavour. A PAAP includes individualised self-management instructions devised collaboratively with the patient to help maintain asthma control and regain control in the event of an exacerbation. A PAAP includes baseline characteristics (such as lung function), maintenance medication and instructions on how to respond to increasing symptoms and when to seek medical help.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of PAAPs used alone or in combination with education, for patient-reported outcomes, resource use and safety among adults with asthma.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, clinical trial registers, reference lists of included studies and review articles, and relevant manufacturers’ websites up to 14 September 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs), both blinded and unblinded, that evaluated written PAAPs in adults with asthma. Included studies compared PAAP alone versus no PAAP, and/or PAAP plus education versus education alone.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted study characteristics and outcome data and assessed risk of bias for each included study. Primary outcomes were number of participants reporting at least one exacerbation requiring an emergency department (ED) visit or hospitalisation, asthma symptom scores on a validated scale and adverse events (all causes). Secondary outcomes were quality of life measured on a validated scale, number of participants reporting at least one exacerbation requiring systemic corticosteroids, respiratory function and days lost from work or study. We used a random-effects model for all analyses and standard Cochrane methods throughout.\nMain results\nWe identified 15 studies described in 27 articles that met our inclusion criteria. These 15 included studies randomised a total of 3062 participants (PAAP vs no PAAP: 2602 participants; PAAP plus education vs education alone: 460 participants). Ten studies (eight PAAP vs no PAAP; two PAAP plus education vs education alone) provided outcome data that contributed to quantitative analyses. The overall quality of evidence was rated as low or very low.\nFourteen studies lasted six months or longer, and the remaining study lasted for 14 weeks. When reported, mean age ranged from 22 to 49 years and asthma severity ranged from mild to severe/high risk.\nPAAP alone compared with no PAAP\nResults showed no clear benefit or harm associated with PAAPs in terms of the number of participants requiring an ED visit or hospitalisation for an exacerbation (odds ratio (OR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.24; 1385 participants; five studies; low-quality evidence), change from baseline in asthma symptoms (mean difference (MD) -0.16, 95% CI -0.25 to - 0.07; 141 participants; one study; low-quality evidence) or the number of serious adverse events, including death (OR 3.26, 95% CI 0.33 to 32.21; 125 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). Data revealed a statistically significant improvement in quality of life scores for those receiving PAAP compared with no PAAP (MD 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.30; 441 participants; three studies; low-quality evidence), but this was below the threshold for a minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Results also showed no clear benefit or harm associated with PAAPs on the number of participants reporting at least one exacerbation requiring oral corticosteroids (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.48; 1136 participants; three studies; very low-quality evidence) nor on respiratory function (change from baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1): MD -0.04 L, 95% CI -0.25L to 0.17 L; 392 participants; three studies; low-quality evidence). In one study, PAAPs were associated with significantly fewer days lost from work or study (MD -6.20, 95% CI -7.32 to - 5.08; 74 participants; low-quality evidence).\nPAAP plus education compared with education alone\nResults showed no clear benefit or harm associated with adding a PAAP to education in terms of the number of participants requiring an ED visit or hospitalisation for an exacerbation (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.32; 70 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), change from baseline in asthma symptoms (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.34; 70 participants; one study; low-quality evidence), change in quality of life scores from baseline (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.39; 174 participants; one study; low-quality evidence) and number of participants requiring oral corticosteroids for an exacerbation (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.12; 70 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). No studies reported serious adverse events, respiratory function or days lost from work or study.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAnalysis of available studies was limited by variable reporting of primary and secondary outcomes; therefore, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions related to the effectiveness of PAAPs in the management of adult asthma. We found no evidence from randomised controlled trials of additional benefit or harm associated with use of PAAP versus no PAAP, or PAAP plus education versus education alone, but we considered the quality of the evidence to be low or very low, meaning that we cannot be confident in the magnitude or direction of reported treatment effects. In the context of this caveat, we found no observable effect on the primary outcomes of hospital attendance with an asthma exacerbation, asthma symptom scores or adverse events. We recommend further research with a particular focus on key patient-relevant outcomes, including exacerbation frequency and quality of life, in a broad spectrum of adults, including those over 60 years of age.\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 the 15 included studies as low or very low because the few studies included in this review had problems with study design, including how to enrol people into the study and how to handle missing data for some people. Also, studies had problems with how outcome data for those who did not finish the study should be managed. This means that as future studies are completed and added to future versions of this review, the findings of the review may change." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPortal hypertension commonly accompanies advanced liver disease and often gives rise to life-threatening complications, including haemorrhage from oesophageal and gastrointestinal varices. Variceal haemorrhage commonly occurs in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein obstruction. Prevention is therefore important. In adults, numerous randomised clinical trials have demonstrated benefits of non-selective beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation as primary prevention in decreasing the risk of variceal haemorrhage. In children, band ligation, beta-blockers, and sclerotherapy have been proposed as alternatives for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding. However, primary prophylaxis is not the current standard of care in children because it is unknown whether those treatments are of benefit or cause harm when used for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents.\nObjectives\nTo determine the benefits and harms of band ligation versus sclerotherapy for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index Expanded (27 April 2020). We scrutinised the reference lists of retrieved publications, and performed a manual search from the main paediatric gastroenterology and hepatology conferences (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN) abstract books from 2008 to 2019. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA, EMA, and WHO for ongoing clinical trials. There were no language or document type restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include randomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status for assessment of benefits and harms. If the search for randomised clinical trials retrieved quasi-randomised and observational studies, then we read them through to extract information on harms.\nData collection and analysis\nWe planned to summarise data from randomised clinical trials by standard Cochrane methodologies. We planned to assess risk of bias and use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence per outcome. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and liver-related morbidity, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were oesophageal variceal bleeding and adverse events not considered serious. We planned to analyse data with intention-to-treat. We planned to use Review Manager 5 to analyse the data.\nMain results\nWe found no randomised clinical trials assessing band ligation versus sclerotherapy for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nRandomised clinical trials assessing the benefits or harms of band ligation versus sclerotherapy for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis are lacking. Therefore, trials with adequate power and proper design, assessing the benefits and harms of band ligation versus sclerotherapy on patient-relevant clinical outcomes such as mortality, quality of life, failure to control variceal bleeding, and adverse events are needed. Unless such trials are conducted and the results become published, we cannot make any conclusions regarding the benefits or harms of these two interventions.\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": "Portal hypertension is defined as an increase in the blood pressure within a system of veins (a type of blood vessel) called the portal venous system, which drains blood from the gastrointestinal tract (gut) and spleen into the liver. Portal hypertension commonly accompanies advanced liver disease and often gives rise to life-threatening complications, including haemorrhage (bleeding) from oesophageal (gullet) and gastrointestinal varices (enlarged or swollen veins).\nIn adults, numerous randomised clinical trials (studies where people are randomly allocated to one of two or more treatment groups) have demonstrated benefits of medicines called non-selective beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation (where an enlarged vein is tied off or ligated by a rubber band) on the risk of first variceal haemorrhage. These treatments are used as primary prophylaxis (preventing or increasing resistance to disease that has not occurred) in adults, but it is unknown whether they are of benefit or cause harm when used in children and adolescents. Sclerotherapy (the endoscopic injection of tissue irritants that cause obliteration of blood vessels) is the only endoscopic prophylactic option currently available in infants weighing less than 10 kg of body weight (because of the size)." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEvidence from systematic reviews demonstrates that multi-disciplinary rehabilitation is effective in the stroke population, in which older adults predominate. However, the evidence base for the effectiveness of rehabilitation following acquired brain injury (ABI) in younger adults has not been established, perhaps because this scenario presents different methodological challenges in research.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of multi-disciplinary rehabilitation following ABI in adults 16 to 65 years of age.\nSearch methods\nWe ran the most recent search on 14 September 2015. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic+Embase (OvidSP), Web of Science (ISI WOS) databases, clinical trials registers, and we screened reference lists.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multi-disciplinary rehabilitation versus routinely available local services or lower levels of intervention; or trials comparing an intervention in different settings, of different intensities or of different timing of onset. Controlled clinical trials were included, provided they met pre-defined methodological criteria.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently selected trials and rated their methodological quality. A fourth review author would have arbitrated if consensus could not be reached by discussion, but in fact, this did not occur. As in previous versions of this review, we used the method described by Van Tulder 1997 to rate the quality of trials and to perform a 'best evidence' synthesis by attributing levels of evidence on the basis of methodological quality. Risk of bias assessments were performed in parallel using standard Cochrane methodology. However, the Van Tulder system provided a more discriminative evaluation of rehabilitation trials, so we have continued to use it for our primary synthesis of evidence. We subdivided trials in terms of severity of brain injury, setting and type and timing of rehabilitation offered.\nMain results\nWe identified a total of 19 studies involving 3480 people. Twelve studies were of good methodological quality and seven were of lower quality, according to the van Tulder scoring system. Within the subgroup of predominantly mild brain injury, 'strong evidence' suggested that most individuals made a good recovery when appropriate information was provided, without the need for additional specific interventions. For moderate to severe injury, 'strong evidence' showed benefit from formal intervention, and 'limited evidence' indicated that commencing rehabilitation early after injury results in better outcomes. For participants with moderate to severe ABI already in rehabilitation, 'strong evidence' revealed that more intensive programmes are associated with earlier functional gains, and 'moderate evidence' suggested that continued outpatient therapy could help to sustain gains made in early post-acute rehabilitation. The context of multi-disciplinary rehabilitation appears to influence outcomes. 'Strong evidence' supports the use of a milieu-oriented model for patients with severe brain injury, in which comprehensive cognitive rehabilitation takes place in a therapeutic environment and involves a peer group of patients. 'Limited evidence' shows that specialist in-patient rehabilitation and specialist multi-disciplinary community rehabilitation may provide additional functional gains, but studies serve to highlight the particular practical and ethical restraints imposed on randomisation of severely affected individuals for whom no realistic alternatives to specialist intervention are available.\nAuthors' conclusions\nProblems following ABI vary. Consequently, different interventions and combinations of interventions are required to meet the needs of patients with different problems. Patients who present acutely to hospital with mild brain injury benefit from follow-up and appropriate information and advice. Those with moderate to severe brain injury benefit from routine follow-up so their needs for rehabilitation can be assessed. Intensive intervention appears to lead to earlier gains, and earlier intervention whilst still in emergency and acute care has been supported by limited evidence. The balance between intensity and cost-effectiveness has yet to be determined. Patients discharged from in-patient rehabilitation benefit from access to out-patient or community-based services appropriate to their needs. Group-based rehabilitation in a therapeutic milieu (where patients undergo neuropsychological rehabilitation in a therapeutic environment with a peer group of individuals facing similar challenges) represents an effective approach for patients requiring neuropsychological rehabilitation following severe brain injury. Not all questions in rehabilitation can be addressed by randomised controlled trials or other experimental approaches. For example, trial-based literature does not tell us which treatments work best for which patients over the long term, and which models of service represent value for money in the context of life-long care. In the future, such questions will need to be considered alongside practice-based evidence gathered from large systematic longitudinal cohort studies conducted in the context of routine clinical practice.\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": "Studies show that multi-disciplinary (MD) rehabilitation is beneficial for patients with brain damage from stroke. Some MD programmes are targeted to working-age adults who have brain injury following trauma or other causes. These patients tend to be younger than most stroke patients and may have different treatment goals, such as returning to work or parenting. Brain-injured people can have a variety of difficulties, including problems with physical functions, communication, thought processes, behaviour or emotions. The seriousness of problems can vary from mild to severe. MD rehabilitation addresses one or more of these areas instead of focusing on a single aspect such as physical (motor) function." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAccording to the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015, lower respiratory tract infection is the leading cause of infectious disease death, and the fifth most common cause of death overall. Vitamin C has a role in modulating resistance to infectious agents, therefore vitamin C supplementation may be important in preventing and treating pneumonia.\nObjectives\nTo assess the impact of vitamin C supplementation to prevent and treat pneumonia in children and adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science, and two trials registers to 4 March 2020. We also checked references to identify additional studies. We did not apply any publication status or language filters.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (studies using allocation methods that are not random, e.g. date of birth, medical record number) assessing the role of vitamin C supplementation in the prevention and treatment of pneumonia in children and adults compared to control or placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included five studies in the review and identified two ongoing studies. The five included studies involved a total of 2655 participants; two studies were RCTs and three were quasi-RCTs. The included studies were conducted in one high-income country (USA) and three lower-middle-income countries (Bangladesh and Pakistan). Three studies were conducted in hospital inpatient settings, one in school, and one in a military training centre. Three studies included children under five years of age, one study included school-aged children, and one study included adult participants. Two studies assessed the effect of vitamin C supplementation for pneumonia prevention; and three studies assessed the effect of vitamin C supplementation as an adjunct to pneumonia treatment. For pneumonia prevention, the included studies provided supplementation in doses of 1 g daily for 14 weeks, 2 g daily for 8 weeks, and 2 g daily for 14 weeks. For pneumonia treatment, the included studies provided vitamin C supplementation in doses of 125 mg daily and 200 mg daily until the symptoms resolved or discharge, as an adjunct to the pneumonia treatment. Overall, the included studies were judged to be at either high or unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding; and the evidence certainty was very low.\nTwo studies assessed the effect of vitamin C supplementation for pneumonia prevention; we judged the certainty of the evidence as very low. We are uncertain about the effect of vitamin C supplementation on pneumonia incidence and adverse events (urticaria). None of the included studies reported other primary outcomes (pneumonia prevalence and mortality) or any of the secondary outcomes.\nThree studies assessed the effect of vitamin C supplementation as an adjunct to pneumonia treatment; we judged the certainty of the evidence as very low. We are uncertain of the effect of vitamin C supplementation on duration of illness and hospitalisation. None of the included studies reported other primary or secondary outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to the small number of included studies and very low certainty of the existing evidence, we are uncertain of the effect of vitamin C supplementation for the prevention and treatment of pneumonia. Further good-quality studies are required to assess the role of vitamin C supplementation in the prevention and treatment of pneumonia.\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 searched for evidence up to 4 March 2020." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIntestinal dysbiosis may contribute to the pathogenesis of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) in very preterm or very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. Dietary supplementation with synbiotics (probiotic micro-organisms combined with prebiotic oligosaccharides) to modulate the intestinal microbiome has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of NEC and associated mortality and morbidity.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of enteral supplementation with synbiotics (versus placebo or no treatment, or versus probiotics or prebiotics alone) for preventing NEC and associated morbidity and mortality in very preterm or VLBW infants.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, the Maternity and Infant Care database and CINAHL, from earliest records to 17 June 2021. We searched clinical trials databases and conference proceedings, and examined the reference lists of retrieved articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing prophylactic synbiotics supplementation with placebo or no synbiotics in very preterm (< 32 weeks' gestation) or very low birth weight (< 1500 g) infants.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors separately performed the screening and selection process,  evaluated risk of bias of the trials, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and mean difference, with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the level of certainty for effects on NEC, all-cause mortality, late-onset invasive infection, and neurodevelopmental impairment.\nMain results\nWe included six trials in which a total of 925 infants participated. Most trials were small (median sample size 200). Lack of clarity on methods used to conceal allocation and mask caregivers or investigators were potential sources of bias in four of the trials. The studied synbiotics preparations contained lactobacilli or bifidobacteria (or both) combined with fructo- or galacto-oligosaccharides (or both).\nMeta-analyses suggested that synbiotics may reduce the risk of NEC (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.40; RD 70 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 100 fewer to 40 fewer; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 14, 95% CI 10 to 25; six trials (907 infants); low certainty evidence); and all-cause mortality prior to hospital discharge (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.85; RD 50 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 120 fewer to 100 fewer; NNTB 20, 95% CI 8 to 100; six trials (925 infants); low-certainty evidence). Synbiotics may have little or no effect on late-onset invasive infection, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.21; RD 20 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 70 fewer to 30 more; five trials (707 infants); very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials assessed neurodevelopmental outcomes. In the absence of high levels of heterogeneity, we did not undertake any subgroup analysis (including the type of feeding).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe available trial data provide only low-certainty evidence about the effects of synbiotics on the risk of NEC and associated morbidity and mortality for very preterm or very low birth weight infants. Our confidence in the effect estimates is limited; the true effects may be substantially different from these estimates. Large, high-quality trials would be needed to provide evidence of sufficient validity and applicability to inform policy and practice.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up to date is this evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We conducted our database searches on 17 June 2021." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIn at least a third of primary angle closure cases, appositional angle closure persists after laser peripheral iridotomy, and further intervention may be considered. Laser peripheral iridoplasty (LPIp) can be used in treating chronic angle closure when angle closure persists after laser peripheral iridotomy. Previous reviews have found insufficient data to determine its clinical effectiveness, compared to other interventions. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2008 and updated in 2012. It examines all studies to date to establish whether LPIp shows any effectiveness over other available treatment options.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of laser peripheral iridoplasty in the treatment of people with chronic angle closure, when compared to laser peripheral iridotomy, medical therapy or no further treatment.\nSearch methods\nWe searched various electronic databases. The date of the search was 20 December 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the use of LPIp in cases of suspected primary angle closure (PACS), confirmed primary angle closure (PAC), or primary chronic angle-closure glaucoma (PACG). We applied no restrictions with respect to gender, age or ethnicity of participants. Trials evaluating LPIp for acute attacks of angle closure were not eligible.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently assessed studies for risk of bias using Cochrane’s 'risk of bias' tool. We collected adverse effects information from the trials.\nMain results\nWe included four RCTs involving 252 participants (276 eyes). In total, three different methods of intervention were used and 15 outcomes reported, with different time points. We used narrative synthesis to describe the majority of the findings, as meta-analysis was only possible for a limited number of outcomes due to the variation in study design and outcomes assessed.\nStudy Characteristics\nParticipants were adults recruited from outpatient settings in the UK, Singapore, China and Korea with either PACS, PAC or PACG. All studies compared argon LPIp (as either a primary or secondary procedure) to an alternative intervention or no further treatment. Three studies were of parallel group design, and one within-person, randomised by eye. All studies showed elements of high risk of bias. Due to the nature of the intervention assessed, a lack of masking of both participants and assessors was noted in all trials.\nFindings\nLaser peripheral iridoplasty with iridotomy versus iridotomy alone as a primary procedure\nTwo RCTs assessed the use of argon LPIp as a primary procedure with peripheral iridotomy, compared with peripheral iridotomy alone. However, neither study reported data for the primary outcome, disease progression. Argon LPIp showed no evidence of effect on: final mean intraocular pressure (IOP) at 3 months and 12 months (mean difference (MD) 0.39 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.07 to 1.85; I2 = 38%; 2 studies, 174 participants; low-certainty evidence); further surgical or laser intervention at 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.21; 1 study, 126 participants; low-certainty evidence); or mean number of additional medications required at 12 months (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.54; 1 study, 126 participants; low-certainty evidence). Complications were assessed at 3 to 12 months (2 studies, 206 participants; low-certainty evidence) and found to be mild and uncommon, with comparable levels between groups. The only severe complication encountered was one case of malignant glaucoma in one study's argon LPIp group. Quality of life measures were not assessed. In the other study, investigators found that argon LPIp showed no evidence of effect on final mean anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) measurements, including anterior chamber depth (MD 0.00 mm, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.10; 24 participants, 48 eyes; very low-certainty evidence).\nLaser peripheral iridoplasty as a secondary procedure versus no treatment\nOne RCT assessed the use of argon LPIp as a secondary procedure compared with no further treatment in 22 participants over three months. Disease progression, additional medications required, complications, further surgical or laser intervention, and quality of life outcomes were not assessed. There was only very low-certainty evidence regarding final maximum IOP value (MD -1.81 mmHg, 95% CI -3.11 to -0.51; very low-certainty evidence), with no evidence of effect on final minimum IOP values (MD -0.31 mmHg, 95% CI -1.93 to 1.31; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of argon LPIp on AS-OCT parameters. The trial did not report AS-OCT measurements for the control group.\nLaser peripheral iridoplasty as a secondary procedure versus medication\nOne RCT assessed the use of argon LPIp as a secondary procedure compared with travoprost 0.004% in 80 participants over 12 months. The primary outcome of disease progression was reported for this method: argon LPIp showed no evidence of effect on mean final cup/disk ratio (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.05; low-certainty evidence). Argon LPIp showed no evidence of effect for: mean change in IOP (MD -1.20 mmHg, 95% CI -2.87 to 0.47; low-certainty evidence) or mean number of additional medications (MD 0.42, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.61; low-certainty evidence). Further surgical intervention was required by one participant in the intervention group alone, with none in the control group  (low-certainty evidence). No serious adverse events were reported, with mild complications consisting of two cases of ‘post-laser IOP spike' in the argon LPIp group. Quality of life measures were not assessed. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of argon LPIp on AS-OCT parameters. The trial did not report AS-OCT measurements for the control group.\nAdverse events\nAvailability of data were limited for adverse effects. Similar rates were observed in control and intervention groups, where reported. Serious adverse events were rare.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAfter reviewing the outcomes of four RCTs, argon LPIp as an intervention may be no more clinically effective than comparators in the management of people with chronic angle closure. Despite a potential positive impact on anterior chamber morphology, its use in clinical practice in treating people with chronic angle closure is not supported by the results of trials published to date. Given these results, further research into LPIp is unlikely to be worthwhile.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"LPIp compared to no treatment, as a secondary treatment\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We found one study on 22 people that compared the effects of LPIp to no treatment on:\n- eye pressure; and\n- the shape of the front of the eye.\nThis study was not robust enough for us to determine which treatment is better.\nThe study did not investigate whether LPIp is better than no treatment to:\n- slow disease progression;\n- limit the need for medications;\n- avoid the need for more laser or surgical treatment; or\n- improve quality of life.\nThe study did not investigate unwanted events." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of the review published on the Cochrane Library in 2016, Issue 8. Having cancer may result in extensive emotional, physical and social suffering. Music interventions have been used to alleviate symptoms and treatment side effects in people with cancer. This review includes music interventions defined as music therapy offered by trained music therapists, as well as music medicine, which was defined as listening to pre-recorded music offered by medical staff.\nObjectives\nTo assess and compare the effects of music therapy and music medicine interventions for psychological and physical outcomes in people with cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 3) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, Science Citation Index, CancerLit, CAIRSS, Proquest Digital Dissertations, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, the RILM Abstracts of Music Literature, http://www.wfmt.info/Musictherapyworld/ and the National Research Register. We searched all databases, except for the last two, from their inception to April 2020; the other two are no longer functional, so we searched them until their termination date. We handsearched music therapy journals, reviewed reference lists and contacted experts. There was no language restriction.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of music interventions for improving psychological and physical outcomes in adults and pediatric patients with cancer. We excluded patients undergoing biopsy and aspiration for diagnostic purposes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. Where possible, we presented results in meta-analyses using mean differences and standardized mean differences. We used post-test scores. In cases of significant baseline difference, we used change scores. We conducted separate meta-analyses for studies with adult participants and those with pediatric participants. Primary outcomes of interest included psychological outcomes and physical symptoms and secondary outcomes included physiological responses, physical functioning, anesthetic and analgesic intake, length of hospitalization, social and spiritual support, communication, and quality of life (QoL) . We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe identified 29 new trials for inclusion in this update. In total, the evidence of this review rests on 81 trials with a total of 5576 participants. Of the 81 trials, 74 trials included adult (N = 5306) and seven trials included pediatric (N = 270) oncology patients. We categorized 38 trials as music therapy trials and 43 as music medicine trials. The interventions were compared to standard care.\nPsychological outcomes\nThe results suggest that music interventions may have a large anxiety-reducing effect in adults with cancer, with a reported average anxiety reduction of 7.73 units (17 studies, 1381 participants; 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.02 to -5.44; very low-certainty evidence) on the Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory scale (range 20 to 80; lower values reflect lower anxiety). Results also suggested a moderately strong, positive impact of music interventions on depression in adults (12 studies, 1021 participants; standardized mean difference (SMD): −0.41, 95% CI −0.67 to −0.15; very low-certainty evidence). We found no support for an effect of music interventions on mood (SMD 0.47, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.97; 5 studies, 236 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Music interventions may increase hope in adults with cancer, with a reported average increase of 3.19 units (95% CI 0.12 to 6.25) on the Herth Hope Index (range 12 to 48; higher scores reflect greater hope), but this finding was based on only two studies (N = 53 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nPhysical outcomes\nWe found a moderate pain-reducing effect of music interventions (SMD −0.67, 95% CI −1.07 to −0.26; 12 studies, 632 adult participants; very low-certainty evidence). In addition, music interventions had a small treatment effect on fatigue (SMD −0.28, 95% CI −0.46 to −0.10; 10 studies, 498 adult participants; low-certainty evidence).\nThe results suggest a large effect of music interventions on adult participants' QoL, but the results were highly inconsistent across studies, and the pooled effect size was accompanied by a large confidence interval (SMD 0.88, 95% CI −0.31 to 2.08; 7 studies, 573 participants; evidence is very uncertain). Removal of studies that used improper randomization methods resulted in a moderate effect size that was less heterogeneous (SMD 0.47, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.88, P = 0.02, I2 = 56%).\nA small number of trials included pediatric oncology participants. The findings suggest that music interventions may reduce anxiety but this finding was based on only two studies (SMD −0.94, 95% CI −1.9 to 0.03; very low-certainty evidence). Due to the small number of studies, we could not draw conclusions regarding the effects of music interventions on mood, depression, QoL, fatigue or pain in pediatric participants with cancer.\nThe majority of studies included in this review update presented a high risk of bias, and therefore the overall certainty of the evidence is low. For several outcomes (i.e. anxiety, depression, pain, fatigue, and QoL) the beneficial treatment effects were consistent across studies for music therapy interventions delivered by music therapists. In contrast, music medicine interventions resulted in inconsistent treatment effects across studies for these outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis systematic review indicates that music interventions compared to standard care may have beneficial effects on anxiety, depression, hope, pain, and fatigue in adults with cancer. The results of two trials suggest that music interventions may have a beneficial effect on anxiety in children with cancer. Too few trials with pediatric participants were included to draw conclusions about the treatment benefits of music for other outcomes. For several outcomes, music therapy interventions delivered by a trained music therapist led to consistent results across studies and this was not the case for music medicine interventions. Moreover, evidence of effect was found for music therapy interventions for QoL and fatigue but not for music medicine interventions. Most trials were at high risk of bias and low or very low certainty of evidence; therefore, these results need to be interpreted with caution.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main findings?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We identified 29 new studies, so the evidence in this review update now rests on 81 studies with 5576 participants. Of the 81 studies, 74 trials included adults and 7 included children.The findings suggest that music therapy and music medicine interventions may have a beneficial effect on anxiety, depression, hope, pain, fatigue, heart rate and blood pressure in adults with cancer. Music therapy but not music medicine interventions may improve adult patients' quality of life and levels of fatigue. We did not find evidence that music interventions improve mood, distress or physical functioning, but only a few trials studied these outcomes. We could not draw any conclusions about the effect of music interventions on immunologic functioning, resilience, spiritual well-being or communication outcomes in adults because there were not enough trials looking at these aspects. Due to the small number of trials, we could not draw conclusions for children. Therefore, more research is needed.\nOverall, the treatment benefits of music therapy interventions were more consistent across trials than those of music medicine interventions, leading to greater confidence in the treatment impact of music therapy interventions delivered by a trained music therapist.\nNo adverse effects of music interventions were reported." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDepression is an important morbidity associated with stroke that impacts on recovery, yet is often undetected or inadequately treated.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of pharmacological intervention, non-invasive brain stimulation, psychological therapy, or combinations of these to treat depression after stroke.\nSearch methods\nThis is a living systematic review. We search for new evidence every two months and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.\nWe searched the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Stroke, and Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, two clinical trials registers, reference lists and conference proceedings (February 2022). We contacted study authors.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing: 1) pharmacological interventions with placebo; 2) non-invasive brain stimulation with sham stimulation or usual care; 3) psychological therapy with usual care or attention control; 4) pharmacological intervention and psychological therapy with pharmacological intervention and usual care or attention control; 5) pharmacological intervention and non-invasive brain stimulation with pharmacological intervention and sham stimulation or usual care; 6) non-invasive brain stimulation and psychological therapy versus sham brain stimulation or usual care and psychological therapy; 7) pharmacological intervention and psychological therapy with placebo and psychological therapy; 8) pharmacological intervention and non-invasive brain stimulation with placebo and non-invasive brain stimulation; and 9) non-invasive brain stimulation and psychological therapy versus non-invasive brain stimulation and usual care or attention control, with the intention of treating depression after stroke.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data from included studies. We calculated mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, and risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed heterogeneity using the I² statistic and certainty of the evidence according to GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 65 trials (72 comparisons) with 5831 participants. Data were available for: 1) 20 comparisons; 2) nine comparisons; 3) 25 comparisons; 4) three comparisons; 5) 14 comparisons; and 6) one comparison. We found no trials for comparisons 7 to 9.\nComparison 1: Pharmacological interventions\nVery low-certainty evidence from eight trials suggests pharmacological interventions decreased the number of people meeting the study criteria for depression (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.88; P = 0.002; 8 RCTs; 1025 participants) at end of treatment and very low-certainty evidence from six trials suggests that pharmacological interventions decreased the number of people with inadequate response to treatment (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.70; P = 0.0002; 6 RCTs; 511 participants) compared to placebo. More adverse events related to the central nervous system (CNS) (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.15; P = 0.008; 5 RCTs; 488 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and gastrointestinal system (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.19; P = 0.002; 4 RCTs; 473 participants; very low-certainty evidence) were noted in the pharmacological intervention than in the placebo group.\nComparison 2: Non-invasive brain stimulation\nVery low-certainty evidence from two trials show that non-invasive brain stimulation had little to no effect on the number of people meeting the study criteria for depression (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.14; P = 0.14; 2 RCTs; 130 participants) and the number of people with inadequate response to treatment (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.52, 1.37; P = 0.49; 2 RCTs; 130 participants) compared to sham stimulation. Non-invasive brain stimulation resulted in no deaths.\nComparison 3: Psychological therapy\nVery low-certainty evidence from six trials suggests that psychological therapy decreased the number of people meeting the study criteria for depression at end of treatment (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95; P = 0.01; 521 participants) compared to usual care/attention control. No trials of psychological therapy reported on the outcome inadequate response to treatment. No differences in the number of deaths or adverse events were found in the psychological therapy group compared to the usual care/attention control group.\nComparison 4: Pharmacological interventions with psychological therapy\nNo trials of this combination reported on the primary outcomes. Combination therapy resulted in no deaths.\nComparison 5: Pharmacological interventions with non-invasive brain stimulation\nNon-invasive brain stimulation with pharmacological intervention reduced the number of people meeting study criteria for depression at end of treatment (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91; P = 0.002; 3 RCTs; 392 participants; low-certainty evidence) but not the number of people with inadequate response to treatment (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.30; P = 0.75; 3 RCTs; 392 participants; very low-certainty evidence) compared to pharmacological therapy alone. Very low-certainty evidence from five trials suggest no difference in deaths between this combination therapy (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.16; P = 0.93; 487 participants) compared to pharmacological therapy intervention and sham stimulation or usual care.\nComparison 6: Non-invasive brain stimulation with psychological therapy\nNo trials of this combination reported on the primary outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nVery low-certainty evidence suggests that pharmacological, psychological and combination therapies can reduce the prevalence of depression while non-invasive brain stimulation had little to no effect on the prevalence of depression. Pharmacological intervention was associated with adverse events related to the CNS and the gastrointestinal tract. More research is required before recommendations can be made about the routine use of such treatments.\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 identified studies by searches conducted on 8 February 2022. This is a living systematic review. We search for new evidence every two months and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAbstracts of presentations at scientific meetings are usually available only in conference proceedings. If subsequent full publication of results reported in these abstracts is based on the magnitude or direction of the results, publication bias may result. Publication bias creates problems for those conducting systematic reviews or relying on the published literature for evidence about health and social care.\nObjectives\nTo systematically review reports of studies that have examined the proportion of meeting abstracts and other summaries that are subsequently published in full, the time between meeting presentation and full publication, and factors associated with full publication.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, reference lists, and author files. The most recent search was done in February 2016 for this substantial update to our earlier Cochrane Methodology Review (published in 2007).\nSelection criteria\nWe included reports of methodology research that examined the proportion of biomedical results initially presented as abstracts or in summary form that were subsequently published. Searches for full publications had to be at least two years after meeting presentation.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated the proportion of abstracts published in full using a random-effects model. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using risk ratio (RR), with multivariable models taking into account various characteristics of the reports. We assessed time to publication using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses.\nMain results\nCombining data from 425 reports (307,028 abstracts) resulted in an overall full publication proportion of 37.3% (95% confidence interval (CI), 35.3% to 39.3%) with varying lengths of follow-up. This is significantly lower than that found in our 2007 review (44.5%. 95% CI, 43.9% to 45.1%). Using a survival analyses to estimate the proportion of abstracts that would be published in full by 10 years produced proportions of 46.4% for all studies; 68.7% for randomized and controlled trials and 44.9% for other studies. Three hundred and fifty-three reports were at high risk of bias on one or more items, but only 32 reports were considered at high risk of bias overall.\nForty-five reports (15,783 abstracts) with 'positive' results (defined as any 'significant' result) showed an association with full publication (RR = 1.31; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.40), as did 'positive' results defined as a result favoring the experimental treatment (RR =1.17; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.28) in 34 reports (8794 abstracts). Results emanating from randomized or controlled trials showed the same pattern for both definitions (RR = 1.21; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.32 (15 reports and 2616 abstracts) and RR = 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.32 (13 reports and 2307 abstracts), respectively.\nOther factors associated with full publication include oral presentation (RR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.40 to 1.52; studied in 143 reports with 115,910 abstracts); acceptance for meeting presentation (RR = 1.65; 95% CI 1.48 to 1.85; 22 reports with 22,319 abstracts); randomized trial design (RR = 1.51; 95% CI 1.36 to 1.67; 47 reports with 28,928 abstracts); and basic research (RR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.82; 92 reports with 97,372 abstracts). Abstracts originating at an academic setting were associated with full publication (RR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.34 to 1.92; 34 reports with 16,913 abstracts), as were those considered to be of higher quality (RR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.73; 12 reports with 3364 abstracts), or having high impact (RR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.41 to 1.82; 11 reports with 6982 abstracts). Sensitivity analyses excluding reports that were abstracts themselves or classified as having a high risk of bias did not change these findings in any important way.\nIn considering the reports of the methodology research that we included in this review, we found that reports published in English or from a native English-speaking country found significantly higher proportions of studies published in full, but that there was no association with year of report publication. The findings correspond to a proportion of abstracts published in full of 31.9% for all reports, 40.5% for reports in English, 42.9% for reports from native English-speaking countries, and 52.2% for both these covariates combined.\nAuthors' conclusions\nMore than half of results from abstracts, and almost a third of randomized trial results initially presented as abstracts fail to be published in full and this problem does not appear to be decreasing over time. Publication bias is present in that 'positive' results were more frequently published than 'not positive' results. Reports of methodology research written in English showed that a higher proportion of abstracts had been published in full, as did those from native English-speaking countries, suggesting that studies from non-native English-speaking countries may be underrepresented in the scientific literature. After the considerable work involved in adding in the more than 300 additional studies found by the February 2016 searches, we chose not to update the search again because additional searches are unlikely to change these overall conclusions in any important way.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Our question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We reviewed the evidence about how often studies submitted as abstracts at a scientific meeting are published in full, usually as a journal article. We found 425 relevant reports, involving 307,028 abstracts." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIntermittent catheterisation (IC) is a commonly recommended procedure for people with incomplete bladder emptying. Frequent complications are urinary tract infection (UTI), urethral trauma and discomfort during catheter use. Despite the many designs of intermittent catheter, including different lengths, materials and coatings, it is unclear which catheter techniques, strategies or designs affect the incidence of UTI and other complications, measures of satisfaction/quality of life and cost-effectiveness.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.\nObjectives\nTo assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of different catheterisation techniques, strategies and catheter designs, and their impact, on UTI and other complications, and measures of satisfaction/quality of life among adults and children whose long-term bladder condition is managed by intermittent catheterisation.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 12 April 2021), the reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings, and we attempted to contact other investigators for unpublished data or for clarification.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) or randomised cross-over trials comparing at least two different catheterisation techniques, strategies or catheter designs.\nData collection and analysis\nAs per standard Cochrane methodological procedures, two review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Outcomes included the number of people with symptomatic urinary tract infections, complications such as urethral trauma/bleeding, comfort and ease of use of catheters, participant satisfaction and preference, quality of life measures and economic outcomes.\nMain results\nWe included 23 trials (1339 randomised participants), including twelve RCTs and eleven cross-over trials. Most were small (fewer than 60 participants completed), although three trials had more than 100 participants. Length of follow-up ranged from one month to 12 months and there was considerable variation in definitions of UTI. Most of the data from cross-over trials were not presented in a useable form for this review.\nRisk of bias was unclear in many domains due to insufficient information in the trial reports and several trials were judged to have a high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding and a high risk of attrition bias. The certainty of evidence was downgraded for risk of bias, and imprecision due to low numbers of participants.\nAseptic versus clean technique\nWe are uncertain if there is any difference between aseptic and clean techniques in the risk of symptomatic UTI because the evidence is low-certainty and the 95% confidence interval (CI) is consistent with possible benefit and possible harm (RR 1.20 95% CI 0.54 to 2.66; one study; 36 participants). We identified no data relating to the risk of adverse events comparing aseptic and clean techniques or participant satisfaction or preference.\nSingle-use (sterile) catheter versus multiple-use (clean)\nWe are uncertain if there is any difference between single-use and multiple-use catheters in terms of the risk of symptomatic UTI because the certainty of evidence is low and the 95% CI is consistent with possible benefit and possible harm (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.55, 1.74; two studies; 97 participants). One study comparing single-use catheters to multiple-use catheters reported zero adverse events in either group; no other adverse event data were reported for this comparison. We identified no data for participant satisfaction or preference.\nHydrophilic-coated catheters versus uncoated catheters\nWe are uncertain if there is any difference between hydrophilic and uncoated catheters in terms of the number of people with symptomatic UTI because the certainty of evidence is low and the 95% CI is consistent with possible benefit and possible harm (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.14; two studies; 98 participants). Uncoated catheters probably slightly reduce the risk of urethral trauma and bleeding compared to hydrophilic-coated catheters (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.87; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain if hydrophilic-coated catheters compared with uncoated catheters has any effect on participant satisfaction measured on a 0-10 scale (MD 0.7 higher, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.21; very low-certainty evidence; one study; 114 participants). Due to the paucity of data, we could not assess the certainty of evidence relating to participant preference (one cross-over trial of 29 participants reported greater preference for a hydrophilic-coated catheter (19/29) compared to an uncoated catheter (10/29)).\nAuthors' conclusions\nDespite a total of 23 trials, the paucity of useable data and uncertainty of the evidence means that it remains unclear whether the incidence of UTI or other complications is affected by use of aseptic or clean technique, single (sterile) or multiple-use (clean) catheters, coated or uncoated catheters or different catheter lengths. The current research evidence is uncertain and design and reporting issues are significant. More well-designed trials are needed. Such trials should include analysis of cost-effectiveness because there are likely to be substantial differences associated with the use of different catheterisation techniques and strategies, and catheter designs.\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": "Intermittent catheterisation is a common strategy used by people who have bladder emptying problems. A hollow tube (catheter) is passed through the channel to the bladder (urethra) or through a surgically made channel to the skin surface. The catheter is emptied regularly, usually several times every day. Intermittent catheterisation can be done by a healthcare professional or by the person (or carer) themselves. There are various approaches to intermittent catheterisation which could impact on infection, other complications and user experience.\nThere are four main types of intervention considered in this review which might make a difference to users or to costs." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSeizures are common following perinatal asphyxia and may exacerbate secondary neuronal injury. Barbiturate therapy has been used for infants with perinatal asphyxia in order to prevent seizures. However, barbiturate therapy may adversely affect neurodevelopment leading to concern regarding aggressive use in neonates.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effect of administering prophylactic barbiturate therapy on death or neurodevelopmental disability in term and late preterm infants following perinatal asphyxia.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 11), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 30 November 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 30 November 2015), and CINAHL (1982 to 30 November 2015). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCTs.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all RCTs or quasi-RCTs of prophylactic barbiturate therapy in term and late preterm infants without clinical or electroencephalographic evidence of seizures compared to controls following perinatal asphyxia.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently selected, assessed the quality of, and extracted data from the included studies. We assessed methodologic quality and validity of studies without consideration of the results. The review authors independently extracted data and performed meta-analyses using risk ratios (RR) and risk differences (RD) for dichotomous data and mean difference for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For significant results, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH).\nMain results\nIn this updated review, we identified nine RCTs of any barbiturate therapy in term and late preterm infants aged less than three days old with perinatal asphyxia without evidence of seizures. Eight of these studies compared prophylactic barbiturate therapy to conventional treatment (enrolling 439 infants) and one study compared barbiturate therapy to treatment with phenytoin (enrolling 17 infants).\nProphylactic barbiturate therapy versus conventional treatment: one small trial reported a decreased risk of death or severe neurodevelopmental disability for barbiturate therapy (phenobarbital) versus conventional treatment (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.78; RD -0.55, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.25; NNTB 2, 95% CI 1 to 4; 1 study, 31 infants) (very low quality evidence).\nEight trials comparing prophylactic barbiturate therapy with conventional treatment following perinatal asphyxia demonstrated no significant impact on the risk of death (typical RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.42; typical RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.05; 8 trials, 429 infants) (low quality evidence) and the one small trial noted above reported a significant decrease in the risk of severe neurodevelopmental disability (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.92; RD -0.43, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.13; NNTB 2, 95% CI 1 to 8; 1 study, 31 infants) (very low quality evidence).\nA meta-analysis of the six trials reporting on seizures in the neonatal period demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in seizures in the prophylactic barbiturate group versus conventional treatment (typical RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.81; typical RD -0.18, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.09; NNTB 5, 95% CI 4 to 11; 6 studies, 319 infants) (low quality evidence). There were similar results in subgroup analyses based on type of barbiturate and Sarnat score.\nProphylactic barbiturate therapy versus other prophylactic anticonvulsant therapy: one study reported on prophylactic barbiturate versus prophylactic phenytoin. There was no significant difference in seizure activity in the neonatal period between the two study groups (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.07 to 12.00; 1 trial, 17 infants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found only low or very low quality evidence addressing the use of prophylactic barbiturates in infants with perinatal asphyxia. Although the administration of prophylactic barbiturate therapy to infants following perinatal asphyxia did reduce the risk of seizures, there was no reduction seen in mortality and there were few data addressing long-term outcomes. The administration of prophylactic barbiturate therapy for late preterm and term infants in the immediate period following perinatal asphyxia cannot be recommended for routine clinical practice. If used at all, barbiturates should be reserved for the treatment of seizures. The results of the current review support the use of prophylactic barbiturate therapy as a promising area of research. Future studies should be of sufficient size and duration to detect clinically important reductions in mortality and severe neurodevelopmental disability and should be conducted in the context of the current standard of care, including the use of therapeutic hypothermia.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusion\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "It is unclear whether giving barbiturates to newborn babies soon after birth asphyxia but before seizures start is safe or effective. More studies are needed." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThalassaemia is a genetic disorder of the haemoglobin protein in red blood cells. It has been historically classified into thalassaemia minor, intermedia and major, depending on the genetic defect and severity of the disease. The clinical presentation of β-thalassaemia varies widely from a mild asymptomatic form in thalassaemia minor, to a severe disease in thalassaemia major where individuals are dependant on life-long blood transfusions. The hallmark of thalassaemia syndromes is the production of defective red blood cells that are removed by the spleen resulting in an enlarged hyperfunctioning spleen (splenomegaly). Removal of the spleen may thus prolong red blood cell survival by reducing the amount of red blood cells removed from circulation and may ultimately result in the reduced need for blood transfusions.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of splenectomy in people with β-thalassaemia major or intermedia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Review Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, compiled from searches of electronic databases and the handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched online trial registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews (27 July 2018).\nDate of the most recent search of the Group's trials register: 02 August 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled and quasi-randomised controlled studies of people of any age with thalassaemia major or intermedia, evaluating splenectomy in comparison to conservative treatment (transfusion therapy and iron chelation) or other forms of splenectomy compared to each other (laparoscopic, open, radio-frequency).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected and extracted data from the single included study using a customised data extraction form and assessed the risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.\nMain results\nOne study, including 28 participants was included in the review; the results were described, primarily, in a narrative manner. This study assessed the feasibility of splenectomy using a laparoscopic approach versus open surgery. Given the lack of detail regarding the study methods beyond randomisation, the overall risk of bias for this study was unclear. The study was carried out over a period of 3.5 years, with each participant followed up only until discharge (less than one week after the intervention); it did not assess the majority of the outcomes outlined in this review (including two of the three primary outcomes, frequency of transfusion and quality of life). A total of three serious post-operative adverse events (the review's third primary outcome) were reported in the laparoscopic splenectomy group (one case of atelectasis and two cases of bleeding), compared to two events of atelectasis in the open surgery group; however, there were no significant differences between the groups for either atelectasis, risk ratio (RR) 0.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 4.90) or for bleeding, RR 5.00 (95% CI 0.26 to 95.61) (very low-quality evidence). In addition, the study also reported three serious cases of intra-operative bleeding in the laparoscopic group which mandated conversion to open surgery, although the difference between groups was not statistically significant, RR 7.00 (95% CI 0.39 to 124.14) (very low-quality evidence). These effect estimates are based on very small numbers and hence are unreliable and imprecise. From this small study, there appeared to be an advantage for the laparoscopic approach, in terms of post-operative hospital stay, although the group difference was not large (median difference of 1.5 days, P = 0.03).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe review was unable to find good quality evidence, in the form of randomised controlled studies, regarding the efficacy of splenectomy for treating thalassaemia major or intermedia. The single included study provided little information about the efficacy of splenectomy, and compared open surgery and laparoscopic methods. Further studies need to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of splenectomy and the comparative advantages of surgical methods. Due to a lack of high quality evidence from randomised controlled studies, well-conducted observational studies may be used to answer this question.\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": "One study with a total of 28 participant was included in the review. This study compared two methods of splenectomy - laparoscopic (keyhole) versus an open surgical approach. Study participants were recruited over a period of 3.5 years, but participants were only followed up to the end of their hospital stay (usually less than one week)." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAfter the introduction of microsurgical principles in endodontics involving new techniques for root canal treatment, there has been a drive to enhance the visualisation of the surgical field. It is important to know if the technical advantages for the operator brought in by magnification devices such as surgical microscopes, endoscopes and magnifying loupes, are also associated with advantages for the patient in terms of improvement of clinical and radiographic outcomes. This version updates the review published in 2009.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate and compare the effects of endodontic treatment performed with the aid of magnification devices versus endodontic treatment without magnification devices. We also aimed to compare the different magnification devices used in endodontics with one another.\nSearch methods\nThe following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 13 October 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 13 October 2015) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 13 October 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing endodontic therapy performed with versus without one or more magnification devices, as well as randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing two or more magnification devices used as an adjunct to endodontic therapy.\nData collection and analysis\nWe conducted screening of search results independently and in duplicate. We obtained full papers for potentially relevant trials. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were to be followed for data synthesis.\nMain results\nNo trials met the inclusion criteria for this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nNo article was identified in the current literature that satisfied the criteria for inclusion. It is unknown if and how the type of magnification device affects the treatment outcome, considering the high number of factors that may have a significant impact on the success of endodontic surgical procedure. This should be investigated by further long-term, well-designed RCTs that conform to the CONSORT statement (www.consort-statement.org/).\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": "This review showed that there is no evidence available to assess whether magnification devices improve the success of endodontic therapy. There is therefore a need for further research to help clinicians and patients to make informed choices about treatment options." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is the second updated version of the Cochrane Review published in Issue 3, 2010 and first updated in Issue 5, 2013.\nPeople with a primary brain tumour often experience depression, for which drug treatment may be prescribed. However, they are also at high risk of epileptic seizures, cognitive impairment, and fatigue, all of which are potential adverse side effects of antidepressants. The benefit, or harm, of pharmacological treatment of depression in people with a primary brain tumour is unclear.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatment of depression in people with a primary brain tumour.\nSearch methods\nWe updated the search to include CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to September 2019. As in the original review, we also handsearched Neuro-Oncology, Journal of Neuro-Oncology, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, and Journal of Clinical Oncology: for the current update we handsearched the latest three years of articles from these journals (up to November 2019).\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies of any pharmacological treatment of depression in people with a histologically diagnosed primary brain tumour.\nData collection and analysis\nNo studies met the inclusion criteria.\nMain results\nWe found no eligible studies evaluating the benefits of any pharmacological treatment of depression in people with a primary brain tumour.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe identified no high-quality studies that investigated the value of pharmacological treatment of depression in people with a primary brain tumour. RCTs and detailed prospective studies are required to inform the effective pharmacological treatment of this common and important complication of brain tumours. Since the last version of this review none of the related new literature has provided additional information to change these conclusions.\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": "No studies were eligible for this review." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGovernance arrangements include changes in rules or processes that determine authority and accountability for health policies, organisations, commercial products and health professionals, as well as the involvement of stakeholders in decision-making. Changes in governance arrangements can affect health and related goals in numerous ways, generally through changes in authority, accountability, openness, participation and coherence. A broad overview of the findings of systematic reviews can help policymakers, their technical support staff and other stakeholders to identify strategies for addressing problems and improving the governance of their health systems.\nObjectives\nTo provide an overview of the available evidence from up-to-date systematic reviews about the effects of governance arrangements for health systems in low-income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on governance arrangements and informing refinements of the framework for governance arrangements outlined in the overview.\nMethods\nWe searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ Evidence up to 17 December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well-conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of governance arrangements on patient outcomes (health and health behaviours), the quality or utilisation of healthcare services, resource use (health expenditures, healthcare provider costs, out-of-pocket payments, cost-effectiveness), healthcare provider outcomes (such as sick leave), or social outcomes (such as poverty, employment) and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations that were important enough to compromise the reliability of the findings of the review. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence) and assessments of the relevance of findings to low-income countries.\nMain results\nWe identified 7272 systematic reviews and included 21 of them in this overview (19 primary reviews and 2 supplementary reviews). We focus here on the results of the 19 primary reviews, one of which had important methodological limitations. The other 18 were reliable (with only minor limitations).\nWe grouped the governance arrangements addressed in the reviews into five categories: authority and accountability for health policies (three reviews); authority and accountability for organisations (two reviews); authority and accountability for commercial products (three reviews); authority and accountability for health professionals (seven reviews); and stakeholder involvement (four reviews).\nOverall, we found desirable effects for the following interventions on at least one outcome, with moderate- or high-certainty evidence and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of undesirable effects.\nDecision-making about what is covered by health insurance\n- Placing restrictions on the medicines reimbursed by health insurance systems probably decreases the use of and spending on these medicines (moderate-certainty evidence).\nStakeholder participation in policy and organisational decisions\n- Participatory learning and action groups for women probably improve newborn survival (moderate-certainty evidence).\n- Consumer involvement in preparing patient information probably improves the quality of the information and patient knowledge (moderate-certainty evidence).\nDisclosing performance information to patients and the public\n- Disclosing performance data on hospital quality to the public probably encourages hospitals to implement quality improvement activities (moderate-certainty evidence).\n- Disclosing performance data on individual healthcare providers to the public probably leads people to select providers that have better quality ratings (moderate-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nInvestigators have evaluated a wide range of governance arrangements that are relevant for low-income countries using sound systematic review methods. These strategies have been targeted at different levels in health systems, and studies have assessed a range of outcomes. Moderate-certainty evidence shows desirable effects (with no undesirable effects) for some interventions. However, there are important gaps in the availability of systematic reviews and primary studies for the all of the main categories of governance arrangements.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Main results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "" } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nBronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) remains a major complication of prematurity and currently lacks efficient treatments. Mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) have been extensively explored as a potential therapy in several preclinical and clinical settings. Human and animal MSCs have been shown to prevent and treat lung injury in various preclinical models of lung diseases, including experimental BPD.\nObjectives\nTo determine if MSCs, administered intravenously or endotracheally, are safe and effective in preventing or treating BPD, or both, in preterm infants.\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 10), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 6 November 2016), Embase (1980 to 6 November 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 6 November 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered RCTs and quasi-RCTs investigating prevention or treatment of BPD, or both, in preterm infants.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality according to prespecified criteria.\nMain results\nWe found no RCTs or quasi-RCTs addressing the use of MSCs for prevention or treatment of BPD in premature infants. Two RCTs are currently registered and ongoing.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to determine the safety and efficacy of MSCs in the treatment or prevention of BPD in premature infants. The results of the ongoing trials addressing this issue are expected in the near future.\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": "There is insufficient evidence to determine the safety and efficacy of MSCs for the treatment or prevention of BPD in premature infants. The results of the ongoing trials are expected in the near future." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMalignant melanoma is a form of skin cancer associated with significant mortality once it has spread beyond the skin. Melanoma in situ (MIS) is the earliest histologically recognisable stage of malignant melanoma and represents a precursor of invasive melanoma. Lentigo maligna (LM) represents a subtype of pre-invasive intraepidermal melanoma associated specifically with chronic exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Over the past two decades, the incidence of MIS has increased significantly, even more than the invasive counterpart. There are several treatment options for MIS, but no consensus exists on the best therapeutic management of this condition.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of all available interventions, surgical and non-surgical, for the treatment of melanoma in situ, including LM.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to November 2014: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), African Index Medicus (from inception), IndeMED of India (from inception), and Index Medicus for the South-East Asia Region (IMSEAR) (from inception). We scanned the references of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant trials and searched five trials registries. We checked the abstracts of major dermatology and oncology conference proceedings, and we shared our lists of included and excluded studies with industry contacts and other experts in the field of melanoma to try to identify further relevant trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCT) on the management of MIS, including LM, that compared any intervention to placebo or active treatment. We included individuals, irrespective of age and sex, diagnosed with MIS, including LM, based on histological examination.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently evaluated possible studies for inclusion; extracted data from the included study using a standard data extraction form modified for our review; assessed risk of bias; and analysed data on efficacy, safety, and tolerability. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third author. We collected adverse effects information from included studies.\nMain results\nOur search identified only 1 study eligible for inclusion (and 1 ongoing study in active recruitment stage), which was a single centre, open label, parallel group, 2-arm RCT with 90 participants, who had 91 histologically proven LM lesions.\nForty-four participants, with 44 LM lesions, were treated with imiquimod 5% cream 5 days per week plus tazarotene 0.1% gel 2 days/week for 3 months, and 46 participants, with 47 LM lesions, were treated with imiquimod 5% cream 5 days per week for 3 months. Two months after cessation of topical treatment, the initial tumour footprint was excised using 2 mm margins via a staged excision. This study was open label, and analysis was not intention-to-treat, leading to a high risk of incomplete outcome data.\nOur primary outcome 'Histological or clinical complete response' was measured at 5 months in 29/44 participants (66%) treated with imiquimod plus tazarotene (combination therapy) and 27/46 participants (59%) treated with imiquimod (monotherapy). The difference was not statistically significant (risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.55, P value = 0.48).\nWith regard to our secondary outcomes on recurrence and inflammation, after a mean follow up of 42 months, no local recurrences were observed among complete responders. Difference in overall inflammation score between the 2 groups was significant (mean difference (MD) 0.6, 95% CI 0.2 to 1, P value = 0.004), with the mean overall inflammation score being significantly higher in the combination group.\nThe study authors did not clearly report on side-effects. Because of adverse effects, there was a dropout rate of 6/44 participants (13.7%) in the combination group compared with 1/46 (2.2%) in the imiquimod monotherapy group (due to excessive inflammation) before the cessation of topical treatment (first 3 months), but this was not statistically significant (RR 6.27, 95% CI 0.79 to 50.02, P value = 0.08).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is a lack of high-quality evidence for the treatment of MIS and LM.\nFor the treatment of MIS, we found no RCTs of surgical interventions aiming to optimise margin control (square method, perimeter technique, 'slow Mohs', staged radial sections, staged \"mapped\" excisions, or Mohs micrographic surgery), which are the most widely used interventions recommended as first-line therapy. The use of non-surgical interventions in selected cases (patients with contraindications to surgical interventions) may be effective and may be considered preferable for experienced providers and under close and adequate follow up.\nFor the treatment of LM, we found no RCTs of surgical interventions, which remain the most widely used and recommended available treatment. The use of non-surgical interventions, such as imiquimod, as monotherapy may be effective and may be considered in selected cases where surgical procedures are contraindicated and used preferentially by experienced providers under close and adequate follow up. The use of topical therapies, such as 5-fluorouracil and imiquimod, as neoadjuvant therapies warrants further investigation. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the addition of tazarotene to imiquimod as adjuvant therapy; the current evidence suggests that it can increase topical inflammatory response and withdrawal of participants because of treatment-related side-effects.\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": "Melanoma in situ (MIS) is the earliest stage of malignant melanoma. Over the past two decades, the incidence of MIS has increased. Lentigo maligna (LM) is a subtype of pre-invasive melanoma associated with chronic exposure to ultraviolet radiation, primarily affecting the head and neck. It accounts for 79% to 83% of all MIS tumours. Delayed recognition is common." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nA variety of minimally invasive treatments are available as an alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). However, it is unclear which treatments provide better results.\nObjectives\nOur primary objective was to assess the comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with BPH through a network meta-analysis. Our secondary objective was to obtain an estimate of relative ranking of these minimally invasive treatments, according to their effects.\nSearch methods\nWe performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and LILACS), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to 24 February 2021. We had no restrictions on language of publication or publication status.\nSelection criteria\nWe included parallel-group randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of the following minimally invasive treatments, compared to TURP or sham treatment, on men with moderate to severe LUTS due to BPH: convective radiofrequency water vapor therapy (CRFWVT); prostatic arterial embolization (PAE); prostatic urethral lift (PUL); temporary implantable nitinol device (TIND); and transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model for pair-wise comparisons and a frequentist network meta-analysis for combined estimates. We interpreted them according to Cochrane methods. We considered a minimally important difference of three points for the International Prostate Symptoms Score[IPSS]. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 27 trials involving 3017 men, mostly over age 50, with severe LUTS due to BPH. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low due to concerns regarding bias, imprecision, inconsistency (heterogeneity), and incoherence. Based on the network meta-analysis, results for our main outcomes were as follows.\nUrologic symptoms (19 studies, 1847 participants): PUL and PAE may result in little to no difference in urologic symptoms scores compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; MD of IPSS range 0 to 35; higher scores indicate worse symptoms; PUL: 1.47, 95% CI -4.00 to 6.93; PAE: 1.55, 95% CI -1.23 to 4.33; low-certainty evidence). CRFWVT, TUMT, and TIND may result in worse urologic symptoms scores compared to TURP at short-term follow-up, but the CIs include little to no difference (CRFWVT: 3.6, 95% CI -4.25 to 11.46; TUMT: 3.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 7.10; TIND: 7.5, 95% CI -0.68 to 15.69; low-certainty evidence).\nQuality of life (QoL) (13 studies, 1459 participants): All interventions may result in little to no difference in the QoL scores, compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; MD of IPSS-QoL score; MD range 0 to 6; higher scores indicate worse symptoms; PUL: 0.06, 95% CI -1.17 to 1.30; PAE: 0.09, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.75; CRFWVT: 0.37, 95% CI -1.45 to 2.20; TUMT: 0.65, 95% CI -0.48 to 1.78; TIND: 0.87, 95% CI -1.04 to 2.79; low-certainty evidence).\nMajor adverse events (15 studies, 1573 participants): TUMT probably results in a large reduction of major adverse events compared to TURP (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.43; moderate-certainty evidence). PUL, CRFWVT, TIND and PAE may also result in a large reduction in major adverse events, but CIs include substantial benefits and harms at three months to 36 months; PUL: RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.22; CRFWVT: RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.01 to 18.62; TIND: RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.01 to 24.46; PAE: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.68; low-certainty evidence).\nRetreatment (10 studies, 799 participants): We are uncertain about the effects of PAE and PUL on retreatment compared to TURP (12 to 60 months; PUL: RR 2.39, 95% CI 0.51 to 11.1; PAE: RR 4.39, 95% CI 1.25 to 15.44; very low-certainty evidence). TUMT may result in higher retreatment rates (RR 9.71, 95% CI 2.35 to 40.13; low-certainty evidence). There was insufficient data to include data on CRFWVT and TIND in this analysis.\nErectile function (six studies, 640 participants): We are very uncertain of the effects of minimally invasive treatments on erectile function (MD of International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF-5]; range 5 to 25; higher scores indicates better function; CRFWVT: 6.49, 95% CI -8.13 to 21.12; TIND: 5.19, 95% CI -9.36 to 19.74; PUL: 3.00, 95% CI -5.45 to 11.44; PAE: -0.03, 95% CI -6.38, 6.32; very low-certainty evidence).\nEjaculatory dysfunction (eight studies, 461 participants): We are uncertain of the effects of PUL, PAE and TUMT on ejaculatory dysfunction compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; PUL: RR 0.05, 95 % CI 0.00 to 1.06; PAE: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.92; TUMT: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.68; low-certainty evidence). There was insufficient data to include data on CRFWVT and TIND in this analysis.\nTURP is the reference treatment with the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for urinary symptoms, QoL and retreatment, but the least favorable in terms of major adverse events, erectile function and ejaculatory function. Among minimally invasive procedures with sufficient data for analysis, PUL and PAE have the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for urinary symptoms and QoL, TUMT for major adverse events, PUL for retreatment, CRFWVT and TIND for erectile function and PUL for ejaculatory function.\nAuthors' conclusions\nMinimally invasive treatments may result in similar or worse effects concerning urinary symptoms and QoL compared to TURP at short-term follow-up. They may also result in fewer major adverse events. PUL and PAE resulted in better rankings for symptoms scores and PUL may result in fewer retreatments, especially compared to TUMT, which had the highest retreatment rates. We are very uncertain about the effects of these interventions on erectile and ejaculatory function. There was limited long-term data, especially for CRFWVT and TIND. Future high-quality studies with more extended follow-up, comparing different, active treatment modalities, and adequately reporting critical outcomes relevant to patients, including those related to sexual function, could provide more information on the relative effectiveness of these interventions.\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 only report the results for what we thought were the three most important outcomes: urinary symptoms, urinary quality of life, and unwanted effects, comparing these treatments to traditional surgery. The review also includes information on several other outcomes and how they compared to sham surgery.\nProstatic urethral lift and arterial embolization may result in little to no difference in men's symptoms than traditional surgery in the short term (up to 12 months). The other minimally invasive interventions may result in worse symptom scores than traditional surgery at short-term follow-up, but there may be no difference. All treatments may result in little to no difference in the quality of life compared to traditional surgery at short-term follow-up. Transurethral microwave thermotherapy probably results in a large reduction in major adverse events compared to traditional surgery, whereas the other minimally invasive treatments may result in a large reduction in major adverse events. Transurethral microwave thermotherapy may result in higher retreatment rates, but we are uncertain about the other minimally invasive procedures. We are also uncertain of the effects of these interventions on erectile function and ejaculation." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCoronary heart disease (CHD) is the most common cause of death globally. However, with falling CHD mortality rates, an increasing number of people living with CHD may need support to manage their symptoms and prognosis. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) aims to improve the health and outcomes of people with CHD. This is an update of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2016.\nObjectives\nTo assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of exercise-based CR (exercise training alone or in combination with psychosocial or educational interventions) compared with 'no exercise' control, on mortality, morbidity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in people with CHD.\nSearch methods\nWe updated searches from the previous Cochrane Review, by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases in September 2020. We also searched two clinical trials registers in June 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of exercise-based interventions with at least six months’ follow-up, compared with 'no exercise' control. The study population comprised adult men and women who have had a myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or have angina pectoris, or coronary artery disease.\nData collection and analysis\nWe screened all identified references, extracted data and assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane methods. We stratified meta-analysis by duration of follow-up: short-term (6 to 12 months); medium-term (> 12 to 36 months); and long-term ( > 3 years), and used meta-regression to explore potential treatment effect modifiers. We used GRADE for primary outcomes at 6 to 12 months (the most common follow-up time point).\nMain results\nThis review included 85 trials which randomised 23,430 people with CHD. This latest update identified 22 new trials (7795 participants). The population included predominantly post-MI and post-revascularisation patients, with a mean age ranging from 47 to 77 years.\nIn the last decade, the median percentage of women with CHD has increased from 11% to 17%, but females still account for a similarly small percentage of participants recruited overall ( < 15%). Twenty-one of the included trials were performed in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Overall trial reporting was poor, although there was evidence of an improvement in quality over the last decade. The median longest follow-up time was 12 months (range 6 months to 19 years).\nAt short-term follow-up (6 to 12 months), exercise-based CR likely results in a slight reduction in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.04; 25 trials; moderate certainty evidence), a large reduction in MI (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93; 22 trials; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 75, 95% CI 47 to 298; high certainty evidence), and a large reduction in all-cause hospitalisation (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.77; 14 trials;  NNTB 12, 95% CI 9 to 21; moderate certainty evidence). Exercise-based CR likely results in little to no difference in risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.14; 15 trials; moderate certainty evidence), CABG (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.27; 20 trials; high certainty evidence), and PCI (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.19; 13 trials; moderate certainty evidence) up to 12 months' follow-up. We are uncertain about the effects of exercise-based CR on cardiovascular hospitalisation, with a wide confidence interval including considerable benefit as well as harm (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.59; low certainty evidence). There was evidence of substantial heterogeneity across trials for cardiovascular hospitalisations (I2 = 53%), and of small study bias for all-cause hospitalisation, but not for all other outcomes.\nAt medium-term follow-up, although there may be little to no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.02; 15 trials), MI (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.27; 12 trials), PCI (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.35; 6 trials), CABG (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; 9 trials), and all-cause hospitalisation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.03; 9 trials), a large reduction in cardiovascular mortality was found (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.93; 5 trials). Evidence is uncertain for difference in risk of cardiovascular hospitalisation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.12; 3 trials).\nAt long-term follow-up, although there may be little to no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10), exercise-based CR may result in a large reduction in cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.78; 8 trials) and MI (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; 10 trials). Evidence is uncertain for CABG (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.27; 4 trials), and PCI (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.20; 3 trials).\nMeta-regression showed benefits in outcomes were independent of CHD case mix, type of CR, exercise dose, follow-up length, publication year, CR setting, study location, sample size or risk of bias.\nThere was evidence that exercise-based CR may slightly increase HRQoL across several subscales (SF-36 mental component, physical functioning, physical performance, general health, vitality, social functioning and mental health scores) up to 12 months' follow-up; however, these may not be clinically important differences. The eight trial-based economic evaluation studies showed exercise-based CR to be a potentially cost-effective use of resources in terms of gain in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis updated Cochrane Review supports the conclusions of the previous version, that exercise-based CR provides important benefits to people with CHD, including reduced risk of MI, a likely small reduction in all-cause mortality, and a large reduction in all-cause hospitalisation, along with associated healthcare costs, and improved HRQoL up to 12 months' follow-up. Over longer-term follow-up, benefits may include reductions in cardiovascular mortality and MI. In the last decade, trials were more likely to include females, and be undertaken in LMICs, increasing the generalisability of findings. Well-designed, adequately-reported RCTs of CR in people with CHD more representative of usual clinical practice are still needed. Trials should explicitly report clinical outcomes, including mortality and hospital admissions, and include validated HRQoL outcome measures, especially over longer-term follow-up, and assess costs and cost-effectiveness.\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 latest update identified an additional 22 trials (7795 participants). We included a total of 85 trials that studied 23,430 people with CHD, predominantly heart attack survivors and those who had undergone heart bypass surgery or angioplasty (a procedure which widens narrowed or obstructed arteries or veins). Thirty-eight (45%) of the trials involved exercise-only interventions and 47 (55%) involved interventions with exercise plus other components. The type of exercise most often included was stationary cycling, walking or circuit training. Twenty-one (25%) of the interventions were delivered in the participants' homes.\nThe findings of this update are consistent with the previous (2016) version of this Cochrane Review, and show important benefits of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation that include a reduction in the risk of death due to any cause, heart attack, and hospital admission, and improvements in health-related quality of life, compared with not undertaking exercise. A small body of economic evidence was identified, indicating exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation to be cost-effective. Many of the studies identified in this current update were undertaken in low- and middle-income countries, which increases the generalisability of our results to these settings where levels of CHD are high and continue to increase." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nNeuroblastoma is a rare malignant disease and mainly affects infants and very young children. The tumours mainly develop in the adrenal medullary tissue, with an abdominal mass as the most common presentation. About 50% of patients have metastatic disease at diagnosis. The high-risk group is characterised by metastasis and other features that increase the risk of an adverse outcome. High-risk patients have a five-year event-free survival of less than 50%. Retinoic acid has been shown to inhibit growth of human neuroblastoma cells and has been considered as a potential candidate for improving the outcome of patients with high-risk neuroblastoma. This review is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of additional retinoic acid as part of a postconsolidation therapy after high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) followed by autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), compared to placebo retinoic acid or to no additional retinoic acid in people with high-risk neuroblastoma (as defined by the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) classification system).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2016, Issue 11), MEDLINE in PubMed (1946 to 24 November 2016), and Embase in Ovid (1947 to 24 November 2016). Further searches included trial registries (on 22 December 2016), conference proceedings (on 23 March 2017) and reference lists of recent reviews and relevant studies. We did not apply limits by publication year or languages.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating additional retinoic acid after HDCT followed by HSCT for people with high-risk neuroblastoma compared to placebo retinoic acid or to no additional retinoic acid. Primary outcomes were overall survival and treatment-related mortality. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival, event-free survival, early toxicity, late toxicity, and health-related quality of life.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nThe update search did not identify any additional studies. We identified one RCT that included people with high-risk neuroblastoma who received HDCT followed by autologous HSCT (N = 98) after a first random allocation and who received retinoic acid (13-cis-retinoic acid; N = 50) or no further therapy (N = 48) after a second random allocation. These 98 participants had no progressive disease after HDCT followed by autologous HSCT. There was no clear evidence of difference between the treatment groups either in overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.63; one trial; P = 0.66) or in event-free survival (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.49; one trial; P = 0.59). We calculated the HR values using the complete follow-up period of the trial. The study also reported overall survival estimates at a fixed point in time. At the time point of five years, the survival estimate was reported to be 59% for the retinoic acid group and 41% for the no-further-therapy group (P value not reported). We did not identify results for treatment-related mortality, progression-free survival, early or late toxicity, or health-related quality of life. We could not rule out the possible presence of selection bias, performance bias, attrition bias, and other bias. We judged the evidence to be of low quality for overall survival and event-free survival, downgraded because of study limitations and imprecision.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe identified one RCT that evaluated additional retinoic acid as part of a postconsolidation therapy after HDCT followed by autologous HSCT versus no further therapy in people with high-risk neuroblastoma. There was no clear evidence of a difference in overall survival and event-free survival between the treatment alternatives. This could be the result of low power. Information on other outcomes was not available. This trial was performed in the 1990s, since when many changes in treatment and risk classification have occurred. Based on the currently available evidence, we are therefore uncertain about the effects of retinoic acid in people with high-risk neuroblastoma. More research is needed for a definitive conclusion.\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 adding retinoic acid as part of a postconsolidation therapy after intensive chemotherapy (high-dose chemotherapy) followed by autologous (from the same person) bone marrow transplantation (haematopoietic stem cell transplantation) in people with high-risk neuroblastoma. A consolidation therapy tries to destroy possible remnant cancer cells after a preceding therapy has achieved the elimination of detectable tumour. A postconsolidation therapy is applied after that consolidation therapy. The addition of retinoic acid was compared to the same pretreatment but placebo (inactive) retinoic acid or no addition of retinoic acid for two primary and five secondary outcomes. The primary outcomes were overall survival (participants who did not die) and treatment-related mortality (participants who died due to complications of the intervention). Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (the condition did not worsen), event-free survival (staying free of any of a particular group of events), early and late toxicity (harmful effects), and health-related quality of life." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThere remains uncertainty about the optimum timing of antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation in HIV-positive people with cryptococcal meningitis. This uncertainty is the result of conflicting data on the mortality risk and occurrence of immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS) when ART is initiated less than four weeks after cryptococcal meningitis treatment is commenced.\nObjectives\nTo compare the outcomes of early initiation of ART (less than four weeks after starting antifungal treatment) versus delayed initiation of ART (four weeks or more after starting antifungal treatment) in HIV-positive people with concurrent cryptococcal meningitis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for trials published between 1 January 1980 and 7 August 2017. We additionally searched international trial registries, including ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and conference abstracts from the International AIDS Society (IAS) and the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) for ongoing or unpublished studies between 2015 and 2017. We reviewed reference lists of included studies to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared early versus delayed ART initiation in HIV-positive people with cryptococcal meningitis. Children, adults, and adolescents from any setting were eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria and extracted data. We presented dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We presented time-to-death data as hazard ratios with 95% CIs. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nFour trials including 294 adult participants met the inclusion criteria of this review. Participants were predominantly from low- and middle-income countries. Two trials treated cryptococcal meningitis with amphotericin B and fluconazole; a third trial used fluconazole monotherapy; and the fourth trial did not specify the antifungal used.\nEarly ART initiation may increase all-cause mortality compared to delayed ART initiation (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.97; 294 participants, 4 trials; low-certainty evidence). Early ART initiation may reduce relapse of cryptococcal meningitis compared to delayed ART initiation (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.04; 205 participants, 2 trials, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether early ART initiation increases or reduces cryptococcal IRIS events compared to delayed ART initiation (RR 3.56, 95% CI 0.51 to 25.02; 205 participants, 2 trials; I2 = 54%; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if early ART initiation increases or reduces virological suppression at six months compared to delayed ART initiation (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.22; 205 participants, 2 trials; I2 statistic = 0%; very low-certainty evidence).\nWe were unable to pool results related to rate of fungal clearance for the two trials that reported this outcome; individual trial results indicated that there was no difference in cerebrospinal fluid fungal clearance between trial arms. Similarly, we were unable to pool results on adverse events for the trials reporting on this outcome; individual trial results indicated no difference in the occurrence of grade 3 to 5 adverse events between trial arms.\nThree of the four included trials had an overall low or unclear risk of bias related to the primary outcome of all-cause mortality. However, we assessed one trial as at high risk of bias due to selective outcome reporting and other bias. This, in addition to the few clinical events and imprecision of effect estimates, led to downgrading of the evidence to low or very low certainty.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results of this review are relevant to HIV-positive adults with cryptococcal meningitis in low- and middle-income countries. These data suggest a higher risk of mortality among people who initiate ART within four weeks of cryptococcal meningitis diagnosis. However, it is unclear if this higher mortality risk is related to cryptococcal meningitis-IRIS.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up to date is the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched for studies up to 7 August 2017." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPain after caesarean sections (CS) can affect the well-being of the mother and her ability with her newborn. Conventional pain-relieving strategies are often underused because of concerns about the adverse maternal and neonatal effects. Complementary alternative therapies (CAM) may offer an alternative for post-CS pain.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of CAM for post-caesarean pain.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, LILACS, PEDro, CAMbase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (6 September 2019), and checked the reference lists of retrieved articles.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), including quasi-RCTs and cluster-RCTs, comparing CAM, alone or associated with other forms of pain relief, versus other treatments or placebo or no treatment, for the treatment of post-CS pain.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed study selection, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 37 studies (3076 women) which investigated eight different CAM therapies for post-CS pain relief. There is substantial heterogeneity among the trials. We downgraded the certainty of evidence due to small numbers of women participating in the trials and to risk of bias related to lack of blinding and inadequate reporting of randomisation processes. None of the trials reported pain at six weeks after discharge.\nPrimary outcomes were pain and adverse effects, reported per intervention below. Secondary outcomes included vital signs, rescue analgesic requirement at six weeks after discharge; all of which were poorly reported, not reported, or we are uncertain as to the effect\nAcupuncture or acupressure\nWe are very uncertain if acupuncture or acupressure (versus no treatment) or acupuncture or acupressure plus analgesia (versus placebo plus analgesia) has any effect on pain because the quality of evidence is very low. Acupuncture or acupressure plus analgesia (versus analgesia) may reduce pain at 12 hours (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.64 to 0.07; 2 studies; 130 women; low-certainty evidence) and 24 hours (SMD -0.63, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.26; 2 studies; 130 women; low-certainty evidence).\nIt is uncertain whether acupuncture or acupressure (versus no treatment) or acupuncture or acupressure plus analgesia (versus analgesia) has any effect on the risk of adverse effects because the quality of evidence is very low.\nAromatherapy\nAromatherapy plus analgesia may reduce pain when compared with placebo plus analgesia at 12 hours (mean difference (MD) -2.63 visual analogue scale (VAS), 95% CI -3.48 to -1.77; 3 studies; 360 women; low-certainty evidence) and 24 hours (MD -3.38 VAS, 95% CI -3.85 to -2.91; 1 study; 200 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if aromatherapy plus analgesia has any effect on adverse effects (anxiety) compared with placebo plus analgesia.\nElectromagnetic therapy\nElectromagnetic therapy may reduce pain compared with placebo plus analgesia at 12 hours (MD -8.00, 95% CI -11.65 to -4.35; 1 study; 72 women; low-certainty evidence) and 24 hours (MD -13.00 VAS, 95% CI -17.13 to -8.87; 1 study; 72 women; low-certainty evidence).\nMassage\nWe identified six studies (651 women), five of which were quasi-RCTs, comparing massage (foot and hand) plus analgesia versus analgesia. All the evidence relating to pain, adverse effects (anxiety), vital signs and rescue analgesic requirement was very low-certainty.\nMusic\nMusic plus analgesia may reduce pain when compared with placebo plus analgesia at one hour (SMD -0.84, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.46; 2 studies; 115 women; low-certainty evidence), 24 hours (MD -1.79, 95% CI -2.67 to -0.91; 1 study; 38 women; low-certainty evidence), and also when compared with analgesia at one hour (MD -2.11, 95% CI -3.11 to -1.10; 1 study; 38 women; low-certainty evidence) and at 24 hours (MD -2.69, 95% CI -3.67 to -1.70; 1 study; 38 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether music plus analgesia has any effect on adverse effects (anxiety), when compared with placebo plus analgesia because the quality of evidence is very low.\nReiki\nWe are uncertain if Reiki plus analgesia compared with analgesia alone has any effect on pain, adverse effects, vital signs or rescue analgesic requirement because the quality of evidence is very low (one study, 90 women).\nRelaxation\nRelaxation may reduce pain compared with standard care at 24 hours (MD -0.53 VAS, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.01; 1 study; 60 women; low-certainty evidence).\nTranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulation\nTENS (versus no treatment) may reduce pain at one hour (MD -2.26, 95% CI -3.35 to -1.17; 1 study; 40 women; low-certainty evidence). TENS plus analgesia (versus placebo plus analgesia) may reduce pain at one hour (SMD -1.10 VAS, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.82; 3 studies; 238 women; low-certainty evidence) and at 24 hours (MD -0.70 VAS, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.53; 1 study; 108 women; low-certainty evidence).\nTENS plus analgesia (versus placebo plus analgesia) may reduce heart rate (MD -7.00 bpm, 95% CI -7.63 to -6.37; 108 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) and respiratory rate (MD -1.10 brpm, 95% CI -1.26 to -0.94; 108 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).\nWe are uncertain if TENS plus analgesia (versus analgesia) has any effect on pain at six hours or 24 hours, or vital signs because the quality of evidence is very low (two studies, 92 women).\nAuthors' conclusions\nSome CAM therapies may help reduce post-CS pain for up to 24 hours. The evidence on adverse events is too uncertain to make any judgements on safety and we have no evidence about the longer-term effects on pain.\nSince pain control is the most relevant outcome for post-CS women and their clinicians, it is important that future studies of CAM for post-CS pain measure pain as a primary outcome, preferably as the proportion of participants with at least moderate (30%) or substantial (50%) pain relief. Measuring pain as a dichotomous variable would improve the certainty of evidence and it is easy to understand for non-specialists. Future trials also need to be large enough to detect effects on clinical outcomes; measure other important outcomes as listed lin this review, and use validated scales.\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": "The findings of this review will be useful to help inform women, midwives and doctors about the potential benefits and disadvantages of CAM for pain relief after CS." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nChemotherapy is the treatment of choice in patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) where surgical resection of metastases is not an option. Both irinotecan (IRI) and fluoropyrimidines are often included in first- or second- line chemotherapy treatment regimens in such patients. However, it is not clear whether combining these agents is superior to irinotecan alone.\nObjectives\nTo compare the efficacy and safety of two chemotherapeutic regimens, irinotecan monotherapy or irinotecan in combination with fluoropyrimidines, for patients with advanced CRC when administered in the first or second-line settings.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases to identify randomized controlled trials: Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group Specialised Register (January 13, 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)(The Cochrane Library Issue 12, 2016), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to January 13, 2016), Ovid EMBASE (1974 to January 13, 2016), registers of controlled trials in progress, references cited in relevant publications and conference proceedings in related fields (BioMed Central and Medscape's Conference). The key authors or investigators of all eligible studies, and professionals in the field were contacted when necessary. The search from January 2016 identified one eligible study, an ongoing trial currently presented as an abstract, to be considered in an update of this review.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy and safety of IRI chemotherapy combined with fluoropyrimidine compared with IRI alone for the treatment of patients with advanced CRC, regardless of treatment line settings.\nData collection and analysis\nStudy eligibility and methodological quality were assessed independently by the two authors, and any disagreement was solved by a third author. The data collected from the studies were reviewed qualitatively and quantitatively using the Cochrane Collaboration statistical software RevMan 5.3.\nMain results\nFive studies were included in this review with a total of 1,726 patients. The top-up search resulted in an additional ongoing trial, the results of which have not been incorporated in this review. Among five included studies, no reduction in all-cause mortality was observed in the combination arm, with a summary hazard ratio (HR) of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.81-1.02). Longer progression-free survival was observed in those treated with the combination chemotherapy (HR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.53-0.87), however, this result may have been driven by findings from the single first-line treatment setting study.\nThe quality of evidence for overall survival was low and for progression-free survival was moderate, mainly due to study limitation from the lack of information on randomisation methods and allocation concealment.\nThere were higher risks of toxicity outcomes grade 3 or 4 diarrhoea and grade 1 or 2 alopecia, and a lower risk of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia in controls compared to the invervention group. Evidence for toxicity has been assessed to be low to moderate quality.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was no overall survival benefit of the irinotecan and fluoropyrimidine treatment over irinotecan alone, thus both regimens remain reasonable options in treating patients with advanced or metastatic CRC. Given the low and moderate quality of the evidence, future studies with sufficient numbers of patients in each treatment arms are needed to clarify the benefit observed in progression-free survival with combination irinotecan and fluoropyrimidines.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Investigation and study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched the literature on January 13, 2016. We identified five randomised controlled trials with a total of 1,726 patients comparing the combination of IRI and fluoropyrimidine with IRI alone. The search in January 2016 resulted in an additional ongoing trial, the results of which have not been incorporated in this review.\nThis review compared IRI and fluoropyrimidine with IRI alone in terms of overall survival, progression-free survival, toxicity, response rates and quality of life." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSickle cell disease (SCD) is a genetic chronic haemolytic and pro-inflammatory disorder. With increased catabolism and deficits in energy and nutrient intake, individuals with SCD suffer multiple macro- and micro-nutritional deficiencies, including vitamin D deficiency. This is an update of a previous review.\nObjectives\nTo investigate the effects of vitamin D supplementation in children and adults with SCD and to compare different dose regimens.\nTo determine the effects of vitamin D supplementation on general health (e.g. growth status and health-related quality of life), on musculoskeletal health (including bone mineral density, pain crises, bone fracture and muscle health), on respiratory health (including lung function, acute chest syndrome, acute exacerbation of asthma and respiratory infections) and the safety of vitamin D supplementation.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. Date of last search: 19 March 2020.\nWe also searched database such as PubMed, clinical trial registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Date of last search: 14 January 2020.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing oral administration of any form of vitamin D supplementation at any dose and for any duration to another type or dose of vitamin D or placebo or no supplementation in people with SCD, of all ages, gender, and phenotypes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. They used the GRADE guidelines to assess the quality of the evidence.\nMain results\nVitamin D versus placebo\nOne double-blind RCT (n = 39) compared oral vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) supplementation (20 participants) to placebo (19 participants) for six weeks. Only 25 participants completed the full six months of follow-up. The study had a high risk of bias due to incomplete outcome data, but a low risk of bias for randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding (of participants, personnel and outcome assessors) and selective outcome reporting; and an unclear risk of other biases.\nVitamin D supplementation probably led to higher serum 25(OH)D levels at eight weeks, mean difference (MD) 29.79 (95% confidence interval (CI) 26.63 to 32.95); at 16 weeks, MD 12.67 (95% CI 10.43 to 14.90); and at 24 weeks, MD 15.52 (95% CI 13.50 to 17.54) (moderate-quality evidence). There was little or no difference in adverse events (tingling of lips or hands) between the vitamin D and placebo groups, risk ratio 3.16 (95% CI 0.14 to 72.84) (low-quality evidence). Vitamin D supplementation probably caused fewer pain days compared to the placebo group at eight weeks, MD -10.00 (95% CI -16.47 to -3.53) (low-quality evidence), but probably led to a lower (worse) health-related quality of life score (change from baseline in physical functioning PedsQL scores); at both 16 weeks, MD -12.56 (95% CI -16.44 to -8.69) and 24 weeks, MD -12.59 (95% CI -17.43 to -7.76), although this may not be the case at eight weeks (low-quality evidence).\nVitamin D supplementation regimens compared\nTwo double-blind RCTs (83 participants) compared different regimens of vitamin D. One RCT (n = 62) compared oral vitamin D3 7000 IU/day to 4000 IU/day for 12 weeks, while the second RCT (n = 21) compared oral vitamin D3 100,000 IU/month to 12,000 IU/month for 24 months. Both RCTs had low risk of bias for blinding (of participants, personnel and outcome assessors) and incomplete outcome data, but the risk of selective outcome reporting bias was high. The bias from randomisation and allocation concealment was low in one study but not in the second. There was an unclear risk of other biases.\nWhen comparing oral vitamin D 100,000 IU/month to 12,000 IU/month, the higher dose may have resulted in higher serum 25(OH)D levels at one year, MD 16.40 (95% CI 12.59 to 20.21) and at two years, MD 18.96 (95% CI 15.20 to 22.72) (low-quality evidence). There was little or no difference in adverse events between doses (low-quality evidence). There were more episodes of acute chest syndrome in the high-dose group, at one year, MD 0.27 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.52) but there was little or no difference at two years, MD 0.09 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.22) (moderate-quality evidence). At one year and two years there was also little or no difference between the doses in the presence of pain (moderate-quality evidence) or forced expiratory volume in one second % predicted. However, the high-dose group had lower values for % predicted forced vital capacity at both one and two years, MD -7.20% predicted (95% CI -14.15 to -0.25) and MD -7.10% predicted (95% CI -14.03 to -0.17), respectively. There were little or no differences between dose regimens in the muscle health of either hand or the dominant hand.\nThe study comparing oral vitamin D3 7000 IU/day to 4000 IU/day (21 participants) did not provide data for analysis, but median serum 25(OH)D levels were reported to be lower in the low-dose group at both six and 12 weeks. At 12 weeks the median serum parathyroid hormone level was lower in the high-dose group.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe included three RCTs of varying quality. We consider that the current evidence presented in this review is not of sufficient quality to guide clinical practice. Until further evidence becomes available, clinicians should consider the relevant existing guidelines for vitamin D supplementation and dietary reference intakes for calcium and vitamin D. Well-designed RCTs of parallel design, are required to determine the effects and the safety of vitamin D supplementation as well as to assess the relative benefits of different doses in children and adults with SCD.\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 looked at three studies where individuals were selected for different treatments at random. In one study, 39 people with SCD took either vitamin D or placebo tablets for six weeks and were then followed up for six months. In a second study, 62 people with SCD took either vitamin D 100,000 international units (IU)/month or 12,000 IU/month for two years. In the third study, 21 people with SCD took either 7000 IU/day or 4000 IU/day for three months." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIn subfertile couples, couples who have tried to conceive for at least one year, intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) is one of the treatment modalities that can be offered. When IUI is performed a second IUI in the same cycle might add to the chances of conceiving. In a previous update of this review in 2010 it was shown that double IUI increases pregnancy rates when compared to single IUI. Since 2010, different clinical trials have been published with differing conclusions about whether double IUI increases pregnancy rates compared to single IUI.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness and safety of double intrauterine insemination (IUI) compared to single IUI in stimulated cycles for subfertile couples.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL in July 2020 and LILACS, Google scholar and Epistemonikos in February 2021, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled, parallel trials of double versus single IUIs in stimulated cycles in subfertile couples.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.\nMain results\nWe identified in nine studies involving subfertile women. The evidence was of low quality; the main limitations were unclear risk of bias, inconsistent results for some outcomes and imprecision, due to small trials with imprecise results.\nWe are uncertain whether double IUI improves live birth rate compared to single IUI (odds ratio (OR) 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.88; I2 = 29%; studies = 3, participants = 468; low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth following single IUI is 16%, the chance of live birth following double IUI would be between 12% and 27%. Performing a sensitivity analysis restricted to only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with low risk of selection bias showed similar results.\nWe are uncertain whether double IUI reduces miscarriage rate compared to single IUI (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.24; I2 = 0%; studies = 6, participants = 2363; low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that chance of miscarriage following single IUI is 1.5% and the chance following double IUI would be between 1.5% and 5%.\nThe reported clinical pregnancy rate per woman randomised may increase with double IUI group (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.86; I2 = 34%; studies = 9, participants = 2716; low quality evidence). This result should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality of the evidence and the moderate inconsistency. The evidence suggests that the chance of a pregnancy following single IUI is 14% and the chance following double IUI would be between 16% and 23%.\nWe are uncertain whether double IUI affects multiple pregnancy rate compared to single IUI (OR 2.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 4.56; I2 = 8%; studies = 5; participants = 2203; low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that chance of multiple pregnancy following single IUI is 0.7% and the chance following double IUI would be between 0.85% and 3.7%.\nWe are uncertain whether double IUI has an effect on ectopic pregnancy rate compared to single IUI (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.28; I2 = 0%; studies = 4, participants = 1048; low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that the chance of an ectopic pregnancy following single IUI is 0.8% and the chance following double IUI would be between 0.3% and 3.2%.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur main analysis, of which the evidence is low quality, shows that we are uncertain if double IUI improves live birth and reduces miscarriage compared to single IUI. Our sensitivity analysis restricted to studies of low risk of selection bias for both outcomes is consistent with the main analysis. Clinical pregnancy rate may increase in the double IUI group, but this should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality evidence. We are uncertain whether double IUI has an effect on multiple pregnancy rate and ectopic pregnancy rate compared to single IUI.\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 found nine randomised controlled trials (clinical studies where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups) comparing double IUI with single IUI with 2751 woman. The evidence is current to July 2020." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of the Cochrane review \"Teriflunomide for multiple sclerosis\" (first published in The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12).\nMultiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic immune-mediated disease of the central nervous system. It is clinically characterized by recurrent relapses or progression, or both, often leading to severe neurological disability and a serious decline in quality of life. Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS aim to prevent occurrence of relapses and disability progression. Teriflunomide is a pyrimidine synthesis inhibitor approved by both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) as a DMT for adults with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS).\nObjectives\nTo assess the absolute and comparative effectiveness and safety of teriflunomide as monotherapy or combination therapy versus placebo or other disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) (interferon beta (IFNβ), glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, mitoxantrone, fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, alemtuzumab) for modifying the disease course in people with MS.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Group Specialised Trials Register (30 September 2015). We checked reference lists of published reviews and retrieved articles and searched reports (2004 to September 2015) from the MS societies in Europe and America. We also communicated with investigators participating in trials of teriflunomide and the pharmaceutical company, Sanofi-Aventis.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized, controlled, parallel-group clinical trials with a length of follow-up of one year or greater evaluating teriflunomide, as monotherapy or combination therapy, versus placebo or other approved DMDs for people with MS without restrictions regarding dose, administration frequency and duration of treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures of Cochrane. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Disagreements were discussed and resolved by consensus among the review authors. We contacted the principal investigators of included studies for additional data or confirmation of data.\nMain results\nFive studies involving 3231 people evaluated the efficacy and safety of teriflunomide 7 mg and 14 mg, alone or with add-on IFNβ, versus placebo or IFNβ-1a for adults with relapsing forms of MS and an entry Expanded Disability Status Scale score of less than 5.5.\nOverall, there were obvious clinical heterogeneities due to diversities in study designs or interventions and methodological heterogeneities across studies. All studies had a high risk of detection bias for relapse assessment and a high risk of bias due to conflicts of interest. Among them, three studies additionally had a high risk of attrition bias due to a high dropout rate and two studies had an unclear risk of attrition bias. The studies of combination therapy with IFNβ (650 participants) and the study with IFNβ-1a as controls (324 participants) also had a high risk for performance bias and a lack of power due to the limited sample.\nTwo studies evaluated the benefit and the safety of teriflunomide as monotherapy versus placebo over a period of one year (1169 participants) or two years (1088 participants). A meta-analysis was not conducted. Compared to placebo, administration of teriflunomide at a dose of 7 mg/day or 14 mg/day as monotherapy reduced the number of participants with at least one relapse over one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.87, P value = 0.001 with 7 mg/day and RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.75, P value < 0.00001 with 14 mg/day) or two years (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98, P value = 0.03 with 7 mg/day and RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.93, P value = 0.004 with 14 days). Only teriflunomide at a dose of 14 mg/day reduced the number of participants with disability progression over one year (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.84, P value = 0.006) or two years (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.96, P value = 0.02). When taking the effect of drop-outs into consideration, the likely-case scenario analyses still showed a benefit in reducing the number of participants with at least one relapse, but not for the number of participants with disability progression. Both doses also reduced the annualized relapse rate and the number of gadolinium-enhancing T1-weighted lesions over two years. Quality of evidence for relapse outcomes at one year or at two years was low, while for disability progression at one year or at two years was very low.\nWhen compared to IFNβ-1a, teriflunomide at a dose of 14 mg/day had a similar efficacy to IFNβ-1a in reducing the proportion of participants with at least one relapse over one year, while teriflunomide at a dose of 7 mg/day was inferior to IFNβ-1a (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.67, P value = 0.14; 215 participants with 14 mg/day and RR 2.74, 95% CI 1.66 to 4.53, P value < 0.0001; 213 participants with 7 mg/day). However, the quality of evidence was very low.\nIn terms of safety profile, the most common adverse events associated with teriflunomide were diarrhoea, nausea, hair thinning, elevated alanine aminotransferase, neutropenia and lymphopenia. These adverse events had a dose-related effects and rarely led to treatment discontinuation.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was low-quality evidence to support that teriflunomide at a dose of 7 mg/day or 14 mg/day as monotherapy reduces both the number of participants with at least one relapse and the annualized relapse rate over one year or two years of treatment in comparison with placebo. Only teriflunomide at a dose of 14 mg/day reduced the number of participants with disability progression and delayed the progression of disability over one year or two years, but the quality of the evidence was very low. The quality of available data was too low to evaluate the benefit teriflunomide as monotherapy versus IFNβ-1a or as combination therapy with IFNβ. The common adverse effects were diarrhoea, nausea, hair thinning, elevated alanine aminotransferase, neutropenia and lymphopenia. These adverse effects were mostly mild-to-moderate in severity, but had a dose-related effect. New studies of high quality and longer follow-up are needed to evaluate the comparative benefit of teriflunomide on these outcomes and the safety in comparison with other DMTs.\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": "The review authors considered the effectiveness of teriflunomide mainly in terms of the number of participants with at least one relapse, the number of people with disability progression, the annualized rate of relapse (number of relapses per participant-year) and the time to disability progression. They evaluated safety as the number of participants with side effects, number of participants with serious side effects, and number of participants who withdrew or dropped out from the study because of side effects at one year or two years. Among the pertinent literature, five studies met the inclusion criteria. They involved 3231 participants and evaluated the effectiveness and safety of teriflunomide alone or with another medicine called interferon-β (IFNβ), versus placebo (a pretend medicine) or IFNβ-1a. The evidence is current to September 2015." } ]