Datasets:

KenLuo

/

qls

like 0

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHip or knee replacement is a major surgical procedure that can be physically and psychologically stressful for patients. It is hypothesised that education before surgery reduces anxiety and enhances clinically important postoperative outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether preoperative education in people undergoing total hip replacement or total knee replacement improves postoperative outcomes with respect to pain, function, health-related quality of life, anxiety, length of hospital stay and the incidence of adverse events (e.g. deep vein thrombosis).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2013, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2013), EMBASE (1980 to May 2013), CINAHL (1982 to May 2013), PsycINFO (1872 to May 2013) and PEDro to July 2010. We handsearched the Australian Journal of Physiotherapy (1954 to 2009) and reviewed the reference lists of included trials and other relevant reviews.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised or quasi-randomised trials of preoperative education (verbal, written or audiovisual) delivered by a health professional within six weeks of surgery to people undergoing hip or knee replacement compared with usual care.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We analysed dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios. We combined continuous outcomes using mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where possible, we pooled data using a random-effects meta-analysis.\nMain results\nWe included 18 trials (1463 participants) in the review. Thirteen trials involved people undergoing hip replacement, three involved people undergoing knee replacement and two included both people with hip and knee replacements. Only six trials reported using an adequate method of allocation concealment, and only two trials blinded participants. Few trials reported sufficient data to analyse the major outcomes of the review (pain, function, health-related quality of life, global assessment, postoperative anxiety, total adverse events and re-operation rate). There did not appear to be an effect of time on any outcome, so we chose to include only the latest time point available per outcome in the review.\nIn people undergoing hip replacement, preoperative education may not offer additional benefits over usual care. The mean postoperative anxiety score at six weeks with usual care was 32.16 on a 60-point scale (lower score represents less anxiety) and was 2.28 points lower with preoperative education (95% confidence interval (CI) -5.68 to 1.12; 3 RCTs, 264 participants, low-quality evidence), an absolute risk difference of -4% (95% CI -10% to 2%). The mean pain score up to three months postoperatively with usual care was 3.1 on a 10-point scale (lower score represents less pain) and was 0.34 points lower with preoperative education (95% CI -0.94 to 0.26; 3 RCTs, 227 participants; low-quality evidence), an absolute risk difference of -3% (95% CI -9% to 3%). The mean function score at 3 to 24 months postoperatively with usual care was 18.4 on a 68-point scale (lower score represents better function) and was 4.84 points lower with preoperative education (95% CI -10.23 to 0.66; 4 RCTs, 177 participants; low-quality evidence), an absolute risk difference of -7% (95% CI -15% to 1%). The number of people reporting adverse events, such as infection and deep vein thrombosis, did not differ between groups, but the effect estimates are uncertain due to very low quality evidence (23% (17/75) reported events with usual care versus 18% (14/75) with preoperative education; risk ratio (RR) 0.79; 95% CI 0.19 to 3.21; 2 RCTs, 150 participants). Health-related quality of life, global assessment of treatment success and re-operation rates were not reported.\nIn people undergoing knee replacement, preoperative education may not offer additional benefits over usual care. The mean pain score at 12 months postoperatively with usual care was 80 on a 100-point scale (lower score represents less pain) and was 2 points lower with preoperative education (95% CI -3.45 to 7.45; 1 RCT, 109 participants), an absolute risk difference of -2% (95% CI -4% to 8%). The mean function score at 12 months postoperatively with usual care was 77 on a 100-point scale (lower score represents better function) and was no different with preoperative education (0; 95% CI -5.63 to 5.63; 1 RCT, 109 participants), an absolute risk difference of 0% (95% CI -6% to 6%). The mean health-related quality of life score at 12 months postoperatively with usual care was 41 on a 100-point scale (lower score represents worse quality of life) and was 3 points lower with preoperative education (95% CI -6.38 to 0.38; 1 RCT, 109 participants), an absolute risk difference of -3% (95% CI -6% to 1%). The number of people reporting adverse events, such as infection and deep vein thrombosis, did not differ between groups (18% (11/60) reported events with usual care versus 13% (7/55) with preoperative education; RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.29 to 1.66; 1 RCT, 115 participants), an absolute risk difference of -6% (-19% to 8%). Global assessment of treatment success, postoperative anxiety and re-operation rates were not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough preoperative education is embedded in the consent process, we are unsure if it offers benefits over usual care in terms of reducing anxiety, or in surgical outcomes, such as pain, function and adverse events. Preoperative education may represent a useful adjunct, with low risk of undesirable effects, particularly in certain patients, for example people with depression, anxiety or unrealistic expectations, who may respond well to preoperative education that is stratified according to their physical, psychological and social need.\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 shows that in people receiving hip or knee replacement who are provided with preoperative education:\nThere is low-quality evidence suggesting that preoperative education may not improve pain, function, health-related quality of life and postoperative anxiety any more than usual care. Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in these estimates and is likely to change the estimates.\nHealth-related quality of life, global assessment of treatment success and re-operation rates were not reported.\nWe are uncertain whether preoperative education results in any fewer adverse events, such as infection or deep vein thrombosis, compared with usual care, due to the very low quality evidence." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOral anticoagulants may improve the survival of people with cancer through an antithrombotic effect, yet increase the risk of bleeding.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulants in ambulatory people with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or radiotherapy (either alone or in combination), with no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted comprehensive searches on 14 June 2021, following the original electronic searches performed in February 2016 (last major search). We electronically searched the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase. In addition, we handsearched conference proceedings, checked references of included studies, and searched for ongoing studies. As part of the living systematic review approach, we are running continual searches and will incorporate new evidence rapidly after it is identified.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in ambulatory people with cancer (i.e., not hospital inpatients during the time of their participation in trials) These people are typically undergoing systemic anticancer therapy, possibly including chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.\nData collection and analysis\nUsing a standardised form, two review authors independently extracted data on study design, participants, intervention outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), major bleeding, minor bleeding and health-related quality of life. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nOf 12,620 identified citations, 10 RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The oral anticoagulant was a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) in six of these RCTs, and a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) in the remaining four RCTs (three studies used apixaban; one used rivaroxaban). The comparator was either placebo or no prophylaxis.\nCompared to no prophylaxis, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) probably reduce mortality at six months slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.13; risk difference (RD) 22 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 72 fewer to 41 more; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably reduce mortality at 12 months slightly (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; RD 29 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 75 fewer to 17 more; moderate-certainty evidence). One study assessed the effect of a VKA compared to no prophylaxis on thrombosis; the evidence was very uncertain about the effect of VKA compared to no VKA on pulmonary embolism and symptomatic DVT (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.58; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 6 fewer to 98 more; very low-certainty evidence; RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.42; RD 35 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 37 fewer to 16 more; very low-certainty evidence, respectively). Also, VKAs probably increase major and minor bleeding at 12 months (RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.86 to 4.62; RD 107 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 201 more; moderate-certainty evidence for major bleeding, and RR 3.14, 95% CI 1.85 to 5.32; RD 167 more per 1000, 95% CI 66 more to 337 more; moderate-certainty evidence for minor bleeding).\nCompared to no prophylaxis, at three to six months, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) probably reduce mortality slightly (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.38, RD 11 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 67 fewer to 70 more; moderate-certainty evidence), probably reduce the risk of pulmonary embolism slightly compared to no prophylaxis (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.98; RD 24 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 35 fewer to 1 fewer; moderate-certainty evidence), probably reduce symptomatic DVT slightly (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.15; RD 21 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 35 fewer to 8 more; moderate-certainty evidence), probably do not increase major bleeding (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.72 to 3.80; RD 9 more per 1000, 95% CI 4 fewer to 40 more; moderate-certainty evidence), and may increase minor bleeding (RR 3.58, 95% CI 0.55 to 23.44; RD 55 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 482 more; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn ambulatory people with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or radiotherapy (either alone or in combination), the current evidence on VKA thromboprophylaxis suggests that the harm of major bleeding might outweigh the benefit of reduction in venous thromboembolism. With DOACs, the benefit of reduction in venous thromboembolic events outweighs the risk of major bleeding.\nEditorial note: this is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence, as it becomes available. Please refer to the 'What's new' section in the  Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.\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 reasonable to give direct oral anticoagulants (a type of blood thinning medicine) to people being treated for cancer, especially if they have an increased risk of blood clots, because the benefit of reduction in blood clots appears to outweigh the risk of major bleeding.\n- For a different type of blood thinner, vitamin K antagonists (warfarin), the risk of major bleeding might outweigh the benefit of a reduction in formation of blood clots in the legs and lungs.\n- More research is needed on the effects of blood thinners in people with different types and stages of cancers." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGeneral anaesthesia is usually associated with unconsciousness. 'Awareness' is when patients have postoperative recall of events or experiences during surgery. 'Wakefulness' is when patients become conscious during surgery, but have no postoperative recollection of the period of consciousness.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy of two types of anaesthetic interventions in reducing clinically significant awareness:\n- anaesthetic drug regimens; and\n- intraoperative anaesthetic depth monitors.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, ISSUE 4 2016); PubMed from 1950 to April 2016; MEDLINE from 1950 to April 2016; and Embase from 1980 to April 2016. We contacted experts to identify additional studies. We performed a handsearch of the citations in the review. We did not search trial registries.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of either anaesthetic regimens or anaesthetic depth monitors. We excluded volunteer studies, studies of patients prior to skin incision, intensive care unit studies, and studies that only randomized different word presentations for memory tests (not anaesthetic interventions).\nAnaesthetic drug regimens included studies of induction or maintenance, or both. Anaesthetic depth monitors included the Bispectral Index monitor, M-Entropy, Narcotrend monitor, cerebral function monitor, cerebral state monitor, patient state index, and lower oesophageal contractility monitor. The use of anaesthetic depth monitors allows the titration of anaesthetic drugs to maintain unconsciousness.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two authors independently scanned abstracts, extracted data from the studies, and evaluated studies for risk of bias. We made attempts to contact all authors for additional clarification. We performed meta-analysis statistics in packages of the R language.\nMain results\nWe included 160 studies with 54,109 enrolled participants; 53,713 participants started the studies and 50,034 completed the studies or data analysis (or both). We could not use 115 RCTs in meta-analytic comparisons because they had zero awareness events. We did not merge 27 of the remaining 45 studies because they had excessive clinical and methodological heterogeneity. We pooled the remaining 18 eligible RCTs in meta-analysis. There are 10 studies awaiting classification which we will process when we update the review.\nThe meta-analyses included 18 trials with 36,034 participants. In the analysis of anaesthetic depth monitoring (either Bispectral Index or M-entropy) versus standard clinical and electronic monitoring, there were nine trials with 34,744 participants. The overall event rate was 0.5%. The effect favoured neither anaesthetic depth monitoring nor standard clinical and electronic monitoring, with little precision in the odds ratio (OR) estimate (OR 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.62).\nIn a five-study subset of Bispectral Index monitoring versus standard clinical and electronic monitoring, with 34,181 participants, 503 participants gave awareness reports to a blinded, expert panel who adjudicated or judged the outcome for each patient after reviewing the questionnaires: no awareness, possible awareness, or definite awareness. Experts judged 351 patient awareness reports to have no awareness, 87 to have possible awareness, and 65 to have definite awareness. The effect size favoured neither Bispectral Index monitoring nor standard clinical and electronic monitoring, with little precision in the OR estimate for the combination of definite and possible awareness (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.65). The effect size favoured Bispectral Index monitoring for definite awareness, but with little precision in the OR estimate (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.75).\nWe performed three smaller meta-analyses of anaesthetic drugs. There were nine studies with 1290 participants. Wakefulness was reduced by ketamine and etomidate compared to thiopental. Wakefulness was more frequent than awareness. Benzodiazepines reduces awareness compared to thiopental, ketamine, and placebo., Also, higher doses of inhaled anaesthetics versus lower doses reduced the risk of awareness.\nWe graded the quality of the evidence as low or very low in the 'Summary of findings' tables for the five comparisons.\nMost of the secondary outcomes in this review were not reported in the included RCTs.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAnaesthetic depth monitors may have similar effects to standard clinical and electrical monitoring on the risk of awareness during surgery. In older studies comparing anaesthetics in a smaller portion of the patient sample, wakefulness occurred more frequently than awareness. Use of etomidate and ketamine lowered the risk of wakefulness compared to thiopental. Benzodiazepines compared to thiopental and ketamine, or higher doses of inhaled anaesthetics versus lower doses, reduced the risk of awareness.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We reviewed the evidence about the use of devices to adjust the amount of drugs given during anaesthesia to prevent premature waking up. We also reviewed the evidence about the choice of drugs used during anaesthesia to prevent premature waking up." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThoracic aortic dissection (TAD) is a severe and often lethal complication in people with hypertension. Current practice in the treatment of chronic type B aortic dissections is the use of beta-blockers as first-line therapy to decrease aortic wall stress. Other antihypertensive medications, such as calcium channel blockers (CCBs), angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), have been suggested for the medical therapy of type B TAD.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of first-line beta-blockers compared with other first-line antihypertensive drug classes for treating chronic type B TAD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) for related reviews. We searched the Hypertension Group Specialised Register (1946 to 26 January 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to 24 January 2014), MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE (1974 to 24 January 2014) and ClinicalTrials.gov (to 26 January 2014).\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different antihypertensive medications in the treatment of chronic type B TAD to be eligible for inclusion. Total mortality rate was the primary outcome of this review. Secondary outcomes included total non-fatal adverse events relating to TADs and number of people not requiring surgical treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors (KC, PL) independently reviewed titles and abstracts and decided on studies to include based on the inclusion criteria. We resolved discrepancies between the two review authors by discussion.\nMain results\nAfter a thorough review of the search results, we identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe did not find any RCTs that compared first-line beta-blockers with other first-line antihypertensive medications for the treatment of chronic type B TAD. Therefore, there is no RCT evidence to support the current guidelines recommending the use of beta-blockers. RCTs are required to assess the benefits and harms of beta-blockers and other antihypertensive medications as first-line treatment of chronic type B TAD.\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 found no randomized controlled trials." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPeripheral joint osteoarthritis is a major cause of pain and functional limitation. Few treatments are safe and effective.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of acupuncture for treating peripheral joint osteoarthritis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 1), MEDLINE, and EMBASE (both through December 2007), and scanned reference lists of articles.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing needle acupuncture with a sham, another active treatment, or a waiting list control group in people with osteoarthritis of the knee, hip, or hand.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We calculated standardized mean differences using the differences in improvements between groups.\nMain results\nSixteen trials involving 3498 people were included. Twelve of the RCTs included only people with OA of the knee, 3 only OA of the hip, and 1 a mix of people with OA of the hip and/or knee. In comparison with a sham control, acupuncture showed statistically significant, short-term improvements in osteoarthritis pain (standardized mean difference -0.28, 95% confidence interval -0.45 to -0.11; 0.9 point greater improvement than sham on 20 point scale; absolute percent change 4.59%; relative percent change 10.32%; 9 trials; 1835 participants) and function (-0.28, -0.46 to -0.09; 2.7 point greater improvement on 68 point scale; absolute percent change 3.97%; relative percent change 8.63%); however, these pooled short-term benefits did not meet our predefined thresholds for clinical relevance (i.e. 1.3 points for pain; 3.57 points for function) and there was substantial statistical heterogeneity. Additionally, restriction to sham-controlled trials using shams judged most likely to adequately blind participants to treatment assignment (which were also the same shams judged most likely to have physiological activity), reduced heterogeneity and resulted in pooled short-term benefits of acupuncture that were smaller and non-significant. In comparison with sham acupuncture at the six-month follow-up, acupuncture showed borderline statistically significant, clinically irrelevant improvements in osteoarthritis pain (-0.10, -0.21 to 0.01; 0.4 point greater improvement than sham on 20 point scale; absolute percent change 1.81%; relative percent change 4.06%; 4 trials;1399 participants) and function (-0.11, -0.22 to 0.00; 1.2 point greater improvement than sham on 68 point scale; absolute percent change 1.79%; relative percent change 3.89%). In a secondary analysis versus a waiting list control, acupuncture was associated with statistically significant, clinically relevant short-term improvements in osteoarthritis pain (-0.96, -1.19 to -0.72; 14.5 point greater improvement than sham on 100 point scale; absolute percent change 14.5%; relative percent change 29.14%; 4 trials; 884 participants) and function (-0.89, -1.18 to -0.60; 13.0 point greater improvement than sham on 100 point scale; absolute percent change 13.0%; relative percent change 25.21%). In the head-on comparisons of acupuncture with the 'supervised osteoarthritis education' and the 'physician consultation' control groups, acupuncture was associated with clinically relevant short- and long-term improvements in pain and function. In the head on comparisons of acupuncture with 'home exercises/advice leaflet' and 'supervised exercise', acupuncture was associated with similar treatment effects as the controls. Acupuncture as an adjuvant to an exercise based physiotherapy program did not result in any greater improvements than the exercise program alone. Information on safety was reported in only 8 trials and even in these trials there was limited reporting and heterogeneous methods.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSham-controlled trials show statistically significant benefits; however, these benefits are small, do not meet our pre-defined thresholds for clinical relevance, and are probably due at least partially to placebo effects from incomplete blinding. Waiting list-controlled trials of acupuncture for peripheral joint osteoarthritis suggest statistically significant and clinically relevant benefits, much of which may be due to expectation or placebo effects.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is osteoarthritis and what is acupuncture?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Osteoarthritis (OA) is a disease of the joints, such as your knee or hip. When the joint loses cartilage, the bone grows to try and repair the damage. Instead of making things better, however, the bone grows abnormally and makes things worse. For example, the bone can become misshapen and make the joint painful and unstable. This can affect your physical function or ability to use your knee.\nAccording to the philosophy of traditional acupuncture, energy circulates in 'meridians' located throughout the body.  Pain or ill health happens when something occurs to cause this meridian energy circulation to be blocked. The way to restore health is to stimulate the appropriate combination of acupuncture points in the body by inserting very thin needles.  Sometimes in painful conditions, electrical stimulation along with the needles is also used.  According to acupuncture theory, one way you can tell that acupuncture is relieving pain is that you may feel numbness or tingling, called de qi, where the needle is inserted." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMaintaining adequate nutrition is critical for people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as motor neuron disease (MND). Enteral tube feeding is offered to people experiencing difficulty swallowing (dysphagia) to prevent weight loss and aspiration pneumonia. Among the types of enteral tube feeding, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the typical procedure offered to people with ALS and will be mainly discussed here.\nObjectives\nTo examine the effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy or other enteral tube feeding in people with ALS, compared to oral feeds without enteral tube feeding on:\n1. survival;\n2. nutritional status;\n3. quality of life.\nTo examine the incidence of minor and major complications of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and other enteral tube feeding procedures in people with ALS.\nSearch methods\nOn 3 January 2020 and 6 February 2021, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE. Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP. We screened the results to identify randomized controlled studies on enteral tube feeding in ALS. We reviewed all references from the search in published articles to identify any additional references.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cross-over trials evaluating the effectiveness and complications of PEG or other enteral tube feeding placement in ALS.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe found no RCTs or quasi-RCTs comparing the effectiveness of enteral tube feeding versus oral feeds without enteral tube feeding.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere are no RCTs or quasi-RCTs to indicate whether enteral tube feeding is effective compared to continuation of oral feeding for any of the outcome measures. Such RCTs are very unlikely to be performed for ethical reasons. RCTs evaluating the effect of different enteral tube insertion techniques and timings of tube placement on survival and quality of life of people with ALS dysphagia are feasible and warranted.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched for randomized controlled trials that looked at enteral feeding compared with feeding by mouth in people with ALS, or that studied the safety and timing of different types or methods of feeding tube placement in people with ALS. We planned to summarize their results and evaluate the evidence." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nWe performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA), which updates the 2009 Cochrane Overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)'. This review is focused on biologic monotherapy in people with RA in whom treatment with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) including methotrexate (MTX) had failed (MTX/other DMARD-experienced).\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of biologic monotherapy (includes anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) or non-TNF (abatacept, anakinra, rituximab, tocilizumab)) or tofacitinib monotherapy (oral small molecule) versus comparator (placebo or MTX/other DMARDs) in adults with RA who were MTX/other DMARD-experienced.\nMethods\nWe searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6, June), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and Embase (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Article selection, data extraction and risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We calculated absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB).\nMain results\nThis update includes 40 new RCTs for a total of 46 RCTs, of which 41 studies with 14,049 participants provided data. The comparator was placebo in 16 RCTs (4,532 patients), MTX or other DMARD in 13 RCTs (5,602 patients), and another biologic in 12 RCTs (3,915 patients).\nMonotherapy versus placebo\nBased on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR50) and physical function, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) versus placebo. RR was 4.68 for ACR50 (95% CI, 2.93 to 7.48); absolute benefit RD 23% (95% CI, 18% to 29%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI, 3 to 8). The mean difference (MD) was -0.32 for HAQ (95% CI, -0.42 to -0.23; a negative sign represents greater HAQ improvement); absolute benefit of -10.7% (95% CI, -14% to -7.7%); and NNTB = 4 (95% CI, 3 to 5). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy showed similar results for ACR50 , downgraded to moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, anakinra or tofacitinib monotherapy showed a similar results for HAQ versus placebo with mostly moderate quality evidence.\nBased on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant greater proportion of disease remission versus placebo with RR 1.12 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.22); absolute benefit 10% (95% CI, 3% to 17%; NNTB = 10 (95% CI, 8 to 21)).\nBased on low-quality direct evidence, results for biologic monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase. The direct estimate for TNF monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events showed a clinically meaningful and statistically significant result with RR 2.02 (95% CI, 1.08 to 3.78), absolute benefit RD 3% (95% CI,1% to 4%), based on moderate-quality evidence. The NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic, anakinra, or tofacitinib monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and for serious adverse events were all inconclusive and downgraded to low-quality evidence.\nMonotherapy versus active comparator (MTX/other DMARDs)\nBased on direct evidence of moderate quality, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 and HAQ scores versus MTX/other DMARDs with a RR of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.14 to 2.08); absolute benefit 13% (95% CI, 2% to 23%), NNTB = 7 (95% CI, 4 to 26) and a mean difference in HAQ of -0.27 (95% CI, -0.40 to -0.14); absolute benefit of -9% (95% CI, -13.3% to -4.7%), NNTB = 2 (95% CI, 2 to 4). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF monotherapy and NMA estimate for non-TNF biologic monotherapy for ACR50 showed similar results, based on moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for non-TNF biologic monotherapy, but not TNF monotherapy, showed similar HAQ improvements , based on mostly moderate-quality evidence.\nThere were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for direct estimates of biologic monotherapy versus active comparator for RA disease remission. NMA estimates showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful difference versus active comparator for TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 7% (95% CI, 2% to 14%)) and non-TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 19% (95% CrI, 7% to 36%)), both downgraded to moderate quality.\nBased on moderate-quality direct evidence from a single study, radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologic monotherapy versus active comparator, MD -4.34 (95% CI, -7.56 to -1.12), though the absolute reduction was small, -0.97% (95% CI, -1.69% to -0.25%). We are not sure of the clinical relevance of this reduction.\nDirect and NMA evidence (downgraded to low quality), showed inconclusive results for withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events and cancer, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased mostly on RCTs of six to 12-month duration in people with RA who had previously experienced and failed treatment with MTX/other DMARDs, biologic monotherapy improved ACR50, function and RA remission rates compared to placebo or MTX/other DMARDs.\nRadiographic progression was reduced versus active comparator, although the clinical significance was unclear.\nResults were inconclusive for whether biologic monotherapy was associated with an increased risk of withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events or cancer, versus placebo (no data on cancer) or MTX/other DMARDs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Withdrawal from study due to adverse events\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "80 people out of 1000 who took biologic monotherapy withdrew from the study compared to 70 people out of 1000 who were on MTX/other DMARDs, that is 10 more people out of 1000 (1% more withdrawals)." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nLaparoscopic adrenalectomy is an accepted treatment worldwide for adrenal gland disease in adults. The transperitoneal approach is more common. The retroperitoneal approach may be preferred, to avoid entering the peritoneum, but no clear advantage has been demonstrated so far.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of laparoscopic transperitoneal adrenalectomy (LTPA) versus laparoscopic retroperitoneal adrenalectomy (LRPA) for adrenal tumours in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ICTRP Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov to 3 April 2018. We applied no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nTwo review authors independently scanned the abstract, title, or both sections of every record retrieved to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on laparoscopic adrenalectomy for preoperatively assessed adrenal tumours. Participants were affected by corticoid and medullary, benign and malignant, functional and silent tumours or masses of the adrenal gland, which were assessed by both laboratory and imaging studies.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data, assessed trials for risk of bias, and evaluated overall study quality using GRADE criteria. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, or the mean difference (MD) for continuous variables, and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). We primarily used a random-effects model for pooling data.\nMain results\nWe examined 1069 publications, scrutinized 42 full-text publications or records, and included five RCTs. Altogether, 244 participants entered the five trials; 127 participants were randomised to retroperitoneal adrenalectomy and 117 participants to transperitoneal adrenalectomy. Two trials had a follow-up of nine months, and three trials a follow-up of 31 to 70 months. Most participants were women, and the average age was around 40 years. Three trials reported all-cause mortality; in two trials, there were no deaths, and in one trial with six years of follow-up, four participants died in the LRPA group and one participant in the LTPA group (164 participants; low-certainty evidence). The trials did not report all-cause morbidity. Therefore, we analysed early and late morbidity, and included specific adverse events under these outcome measures. The results were inconclusive between LRPA and LTPA for early morbidity (usually reported within 30 to 60 days after surgery; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.16; P = 0.12; 5 trials, 244 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Nine out of 127 participants (7.1%) in the LRPA group, compared with 16 out of 117 participants (13.7%) in the LTPA group experienced an adverse event. Participants in the LRPA group may have a lower risk of developing late morbidity (reported as latest available follow-up; RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.92; P = 0.04; 3 trials, 146 participants; very low-quality evidence). None of the 78 participants in the LRPA group, compared with 7 of the 68 participants (10.3%) in the LTPA group experienced an adverse event.\nNone of the trials reported health-related quality of life. The results were inconclusive for socioeconomic effects, assessed as time to return to normal activities and length of hospital stay, between the intervention and comparator groups (very low-certainty evidence). Participants who had LRPA may have had an earlier start on oral fluid or food intake (MD -8.6 hr, 95% CI -13.5 to -3.7; P = 0.0006; 2 trials, 89 participants), and ambulation (MD -5.4 hr, 95% CI -6.8 to -4.0 hr; P < 0.0001; 2 trials, 89 participants) than those in the LTPA groups. Postoperative and operative parameters (duration of surgery, operative blood loss, conversion to open surgery) showed inconclusive results between the intervention and comparator groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe body of evidence on laparoscopic retroperitoneal adrenalectomy compared with laparoscopic transperitoneal adrenalectomy is limited. Late morbidity might be reduced following laparoscopic retroperitoneal adrenalectomy, but we are uncertain about this effect because of very low-quality evidence. The effects on other key outcomes, such as all-cause mortality, early morbidity, socioeconomic effects, and operative and postoperative parameters are uncertain. LRPA might show a shorter time to oral fluid or food intake and time to ambulation, but we are uncertain whether this finding can be replicated. New long-term RCTs investigating additional data, such as health-related quality of life, surgeons' level of experience, treatment volume of surgical centres, and details on techniques used are needed.\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 five randomised controlled trials (clinical trials where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups) with 244 participants. A total of 127 participants were randomised to retroperitoneal adrenalectomy and 117 participants to transperitoneal adrenalectomy. Two studies had an observation period after surgery of nine months. Three studies observed their participants for 31 to 70 months. Most participants were women, and the average age was around 40 years.\nThis evidence is up to date as of April 2018." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nVenous leg ulcers (VLUs) are a serious manifestation of chronic venous disease affecting up to 3% of the adult population. This typically recalcitrant and recurring condition significantly impairs quality of life, and its treatment places a heavy financial burden upon healthcare systems. The longstanding mainstay treatment for VLUs is compression therapy. Surgical removal of incompetent veins reduces the risk of ulcer recurrence. However, open surgery is an unpopular option amongst people with VLU, and many people are unsuitable for it. The efficacy of the newer, minimally-invasive endovenous techniques has been established in uncomplicated superficial venous disease, and these techniques can also be used in the management of VLU. When used with compression, endovenous ablation aims to further reduce pressure in the veins of the leg, which may impact ulcer healing.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effects of superficial endovenous ablation on the healing and recurrence of venous leg ulcers and the quality of life of people with venous ulcer disease.\nSearch methods\nIn April 2022 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scrutinised reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions on the language of publication, but there was a restriction on publication year from 1998 to April 2022 as superficial endovenous ablation is a comparatively new technology.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing endovenous ablative techniques with compression versus compression therapy alone for the treatment of VLU were eligible for inclusion. Studies needed to have assessed at least one of the following primary review outcomes related to objective measures of ulcer healing such as: proportion of ulcers healed at a given time point; time to complete healing; change in ulcer size; proportion of ulcers recurring over a given time period or at a specific point; or ulcer-free days. Secondary outcomes of interest were patient-reported quality of life, economic data and adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data, carried out risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool, and assessed GRADE certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nThe previous version of this review found no RCTs meeting the inclusion criteria. In this update, we identified two eligible RCTs and included them in a meta-analysis. There was a total of 506 participants with an active VLU, with mean durations of 3.1 months ± 1.1 months in the EVRA trial and 60.5 months ± 96.4 months in the VUERT trial. Both trials randomised participants to endovenous treatment and compression or compression alone, however the compression alone group in the EVRA trial received deferred endovenous treatment (after ulcer healing or from six months).\nThere is high-certainty evidence that combined endovenous ablation and compression compared with compression therapy alone, or compression with deferred endovenous treatment, improves time to complete ulcer healing (pooled hazard ratio (HR) 1.41, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.47; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 466 participants). There is moderate-certainty evidence that the proportion of ulcers healed at 90 days is probably higher with combined endovenous ablation and compression compared with compression therapy alone or compression with deferred endovenous treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.30; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 466 participants). There is low-certainty evidence showing an unclear effect on ulcer recurrence at one year in people with healed ulcers with combined endovenous treatment and compression when compared with compression alone or compression with deferred endovenous treatment (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.48; I2 = 78%; 2 studies, 460 participants). There is also low-certainty evidence that the median number of ulcer-free days at one year may not differ (306 (interquartile range (IQR) 240 to 328) days versus 278 (IQR 175 to 324) days) following combined endovenous treatment and compression when compared with compression and deferred endovenous treatment; (1 study, 450 participants).\nThere is low-certainty evidence of an unclear effect in rates of thromboembolism between groups (RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.51 to 7.97; I2 = 78%, 2 studies, 506 participants). The addition of endovenous ablation to compression is probably cost-effective at one year (99% probability at GBP 20,000/QALY; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nEndovenous ablation of superficial venous incompetence in combination with compression improves leg ulcer healing when compared with compression alone. This conclusion is based on high-certainty evidence. There is moderate-certainty evidence to suggest that it is probably cost-effective at one year and low certainty evidence of unclear effects on recurrence and complications. Further research is needed to explore the additional benefit of endovenous ablation in ulcers of greater than six months duration and the optimal modality of endovenous ablation.\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 majority of the participants had an ulcer for less than six months. Although the results were similar in those with longer-term ulcers, further research is required to confirm this.\nThis review did not find any studies which assessed whether some techniques of endovenous ablation are more effective than others for people with venous leg ulcers." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDevelopmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) describes the abnormal development of a hip in childhood, ranging from complete dislocation of the hip joint to subtle immaturity of a hip that is enlocated and stable within the socket. DDH occurs in around 10 per 1000 live births, though only one per 1000 are completely dislocated. There is variation in treatment pathways for DDH, which differs between hospitals and even between clinicians within the same hospital. The variation is related to the severity of dysplasia that is believed to require treatment, and the techniques used to treat dysplasia.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness of splinting and the optimal treatment strategy for the non-operative management of DDH in babies under six months of age.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, seven other electronic databases, and two trials registers up to November 2021. We also checked reference lists, contacted study authors, and handsearched relevant meetings abstracts.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), including quasi-RCTs, as well as non-RCTs and cohort studies conducted after 1980 were included. Participants were babies with all severities of DDH who were under six months of age. Interventions included dynamic splints (e.g. Pavlik harness), static splints (e.g Fixed abduction brace) or double nappies (diapers), compared to no splinting or delayed splinting.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and performed risk of bias and GRADE assessments. The primary outcomes were: measurement of acetabular index at years one, two and five, as determined by radiographs (angle): the need for operative intervention to achieve reduction and to address dysplasia; and complications. We also investigated other outcomes highlighted by parents as important, including the bond between parent and child and the ability of mothers to breastfeed.\nMain results\nWe included six RCTs or quasi-RCTs (576 babies). These were supported by 16 non-RCTs (8237 babies). Five studies had non-commercial funding, three studies stated 'no funding' and 14 studies did not state funding source. The RCTs were generally at unclear risk of bias, although we judged three RCTs to be at high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data. The non-RCTs were of moderate and critical risk of bias. We did not undertake meta-analysis due to methodological and clinical differences between studies; instead, we have summarised the results narratively.\nDynamic splinting versus delayed or no splinting\nFour RCTs and nine non-RCTs compared immediate dynamic splinting and delayed dynamic splinting or no splinting. Of the RCTs, two considered stable hips and one considered unstable (dislocatable) hips and one jointly considered unstable and stable hips. No studies considered only dislocated hips.\nTwo RCTs (265 babies, very low-certainty evidence) reported acetabular index at one year amongst stable or dislocatable hips. Both studies found there may be no evidence of a difference in splinting stable hips at first diagnosis compared to a strategy of active surveillance: one reported a mean difference (MD) of 0.10 (95% confidence interval (CI) −0.74 to 0.94), and the other an MD of 0.20 (95% CI −1.65 to 2.05). Two RCTs of stable hips (181 babies, very low-certainty evidence) reported there may be no evidence of a difference between groups for acetabular index at two years: one study reported an MD of −1.90 (95% CI −4.76 to 0.96), and another study reported an MD of −0.10 (95% CI −1.93 to 1.73), but did not take into account hips from the same child. No study reported data at five years.\nFour RCTs (434 babies, very low-certainty evidence) reported the need for surgical intervention. Three studies reported that no surgical interventions occurred. In the remaining study, two babies in the dynamic splinting group developed instability and were subsequently treated surgically. This study did not explicitly state if this treatment was to achieve concentric reduction or address residual dysplasia.\nThree RCTs (390 babies, very low-certainty evidence) reported no complications (avascular necrosis and femoral nerve palsy).\nDynamic splinting versus static splinting\nOne RCT and five non-RCTs compared dynamic versus static splinting. The RCT (118 hips) reported no occurrences of avascular necrosis (very low-certainty evidence) and did not report radiological outcomes or need for operative intervention.\nOne quasi-RCT compared double nappies versus delayed or no splinting but reported no outcomes of interest.\nOther comparisons\nNo RCTs compared static splinting versus delayed or no splinting or staged weaning versus immediate removal.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is a paucity of RCT evidence for splinting for the non-operative management of DDH: we included only six RCTs with 576 babies. Moreover, there was considerable heterogeneity between the studies, precluding meta-analysis. We judged the RCT evidence for all primary outcomes as being of very low certainty, meaning we are very uncertain about the true effects.\nResults from individual studies provide limited evidence of intervention effects on different severities of DDH. Amongst stable dysplastic hips, there was no evidence to suggest that treatment at any stage expedited the development of the acetabulum. For dislocatable hips, a delay in treatment onset to six weeks does not appear to result in any evidence of a difference in the development of the acetabulum at one year or increased risk of surgery. However, delayed splinting may reduce the number of babies requiring treatment with a harness.\nNo RCTs compared static splinting with delayed or no splinting, staged weaning versus immediate removal or double nappies versus delayed or no splinting.\nThere were few operative interventions or complications amongst the RCTs and the non-randomised studies. There's no apparent signal to indicate a higher frequency of either outcome in either intervention group.\nGiven the frequency of this disease, and the fact that many countries undertake mandatory DDH screening, there is a clear need to develop an evidence-based pathway for treatment. Particular uncertainties requiring future research are the effectiveness of splinting amongst stable dysplastic hips, the optimal timing for the onset of splinting, the optimal type of splint to use and the need for 'weaning of splints'. Only once a robust pathway for treatment is established, can we properly assess the cost-effectiveness of screening interventions for DDH.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Overall summary\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Only 576 babies have been involved in randomized studies to find the best treatments in DDH. Amongst stable hips, there was no clear evidence to support treatment with splints at any time point. For unstable hips, a delay in treatment of up to six weeks had similar results at one year, with fewer hips requiring treatment.\nResults from studies without randomization supported the findings from the studies with randomization, without offering any additional clarity." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSmith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome (SLOS) is a multiple congenital malformations syndrome caused by defective cholesterol biosynthesis. Affected individuals show cholesterol deficiency and accumulation of various precursor molecules, mainly 7-dehydrocholesterol and 8-dehydrocholesterol. There is currently no cure for SLOS, with cholesterol supplementation being primarily a biochemical therapy of limited evidence. However, several anecdotal reports and preclinical studies have highlighted statins as a potential therapy for SLOS.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of statins, either alone or in combination with other non-statin therapies (e.g. cholesterol, bile acid, or vitamin co-supplementation), compared to cholesterol supplementation alone or in combination with other non-statin therapies (e.g. bile acid or vitamin supplementation) on several important outcomes including overall survival, neurobehavioral features, and adverse effects in individuals with SLOS.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and three trials registers on 15 February 2022, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs with parallel or cross-over designs, and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) including non-randomized trials, cohort studies, and controlled before-and-after studies, were eligible for inclusion in this review if they met our prespecified inclusion criteria, i.e. involved human participants with biochemically or genetically diagnosed SLOS receiving statin therapy or cholesterol supplementation, or both.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors screened titles and abstracts and subsequently full-texts for all potentially-relevant references. Both authors independently extracted relevant data from included studies and assessed the risks of bias. We analyzed the data extracted from the included NRSIs and cohort studies separately from the data extracted from the single included RCT. We used a random-effects model to account for the inherent heterogeneity and methodological variation between these different study designs. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included six studies (61 participants with SLOS); one RCT (N = 18), three prospective NRSIs (N = 20), and two retrospective NRSIs (N = 22). Five studies included only children, and two limited their participant inclusion by disease severity. Overall, there were nearly twice as many males as females. All six studies compared add-on statin therapy to cholesterol supplementation alone. However, the dosages, formulations, and durations of treatment were highly variable across studies.\nWe judged the RCT as having a high risk of bias due to missing data and selective reporting. All included NRSIs had a serious or critical overall risk of bias assessed by the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool (ROBINS-I).\nNone of the included studies evaluated survival or reported quality of life (QoL). Only the included RCT formally assessed changes in the neurobehavioral manifestations of SLOS, and we are uncertain whether statin therapy improves this outcome (very low-certainty evidence). We are also uncertain whether the adverse events reported in the RCT were statin-related (very low-certainty evidence). In contrast, the adverse events reported in the NRSIs seem to be possibly due to statin therapy (risk ratio 13.00, 95% confidence interval 1.85 to 91.49; P = 0.01; low-certainty evidence), with only one of the NRSIs retrospectively mentioning changes in the irritability of two of their participants. We are uncertain whether statins affect growth based on the RCT or NRSI results (very low-certainty evidence). The RCT showed that statins may make little or no difference to plasma biomarker levels (low-certainty evidence), while we are uncertain of their effects on such parameters in the NRSIs (very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently, there is no evidence on the potential effects of statin therapy in people with SLOS regarding survival or QoL, and very limited evidence on the effects on neurobehavioral manifestations. Likewise, current evidence is insufficient and of very low certainty regarding the effects of statins on growth parameters in children with SLOS and plasma or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) levels of various disease biomarkers. Despite these limitations, current evidence seemingly suggests that statins may increase the risk of adverse reactions in individuals with SLOS receiving statins compared to those who are not. Given the insufficient evidence on potential benefits of statins in individuals with SLOS, and their potential for causing adverse reactions, anyone considering this therapy should take these findings into consideration. Future studies should address the highlighted gaps in evidence on the use of statins in individuals with SLOS by collecting prospective data on survival and performing serial standardized assessments of neurobehavioral features, QoL, anthropometric measures, and plasma and CSF biomarker levels after statin introduction. Future studies should also attempt to use consistent dosages, formulations and durations of cholesterol and statin therapy.\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": "In this review, we included six studies of different designs that included a total of 61 people with SLOS, mostly males. Five of the studies only included children (18 years old or younger). All studies compared a combination of statin and cholesterol therapy to cholesterol supplementation alone. However, the studies used different doses and formulations of statin or cholesterol therapy (or both), as well as different durations of treatment." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nRehabilitation is effective for recovery after stroke and other non-progressive brain injuries but it is unclear if the rehabilitation environment itself, outside of limited therapy hours, is maximally conducive to recovery. Environmental enrichment is a relatively new concept within rehabilitation for humans. In this review, this is defined as an intervention designed to facilitate physical (motor and sensory), cognitive and social activity by the provision of equipment and organisation of a structured, stimulating environment. The environment should be designed to encourage (but not force) activities without additional specialised rehabilitation input.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of environmental enrichment on well-being, functional recovery, activity levels and quality of life in people who have stroke or non-progressive brain injury.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted the search on 26 October 2020. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (from 1950); Embase (from 1980); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; from 1982); the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED; from 1985); PsycINFO (from 1806); the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro; from 1999); and 10 additional bibliographic databases and ongoing trial registers.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared environmental enrichment with standard services.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed study quality. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion with a third review author. We determined the risk of bias for the included study and performed a 'best evidence' synthesis using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe identified one RCT, involving 53 participants with stroke, comparing environmental enrichment (which included physical, cognitive and social activities such as reading material, board and card games, gaming technology, music, artwork, and computer with Internet) with standard services in an inpatient rehabilitation setting. We excluded five studies, found two studies awaiting classification and one ongoing study which described environmental enrichment in their interventions. Of the excluded studies, three were non-RCTs and two described co-interventions with a significant component of rehabilitation. Based on the single small included RCT at high risk of bias, data are insufficient to provide any reliable indication of benefit or risk to guide clinical practice in terms of the provision of environmental enrichment.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe gap in current research should not, however, be interpreted as proof that environmental enrichment is ineffective.\nFurther research is needed with robust study designs, such as cluster RCTs, and consistent outcome measurement evaluating the effectiveness of environmental enrichment in different settings (inpatient versus outpatient), the relative effectiveness of various components of environmental enrichment, cost-effectiveness, and safety of the intervention in people following stroke or other non-progressive brain injuries. It should be noted, however, that it is challenging to randomise or double-blind trials of environmental enrichment given the nature of the intervention.\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 26 October 2020." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with adverse health outcomes for mothers and their infants both perinatally and long term. Women with a history of GDM are at risk of recurrence in subsequent pregnancies and may benefit from intervention in the interconception period to improve maternal and infant health outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interconception care for women with a history of GDM on maternal and infant health outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (7 April 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials, including quasi-randomised controlled trials and cluster-randomised trials evaluating any protocol of interconception care with standard care or other forms of interconception care for women with a history of GDM on maternal and infant health outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed study eligibility. In future updates of this review, at least two review authors will extract data and assess the risk of bias of included studies; the quality of the evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nNo eligible published trials were identified. We identified a completed randomised controlled trial that was designed to evaluate the effects of a diet and exercise intervention compared with standard care in women with a history of GDM, however to date, it has only published results on women who were pregnant at randomisation (and not women in the interconception period). We also identified an ongoing trial, in obese women with a history of GDM planning a subsequent pregnancy, which is assessing the effects of an intensive lifestyle intervention, supported with liraglutide treatment, compared with usual care. We also identified a trial that was designed to evaluate the effects of a weight loss and exercise intervention compared with lifestyle education also in obese women with a history of GDM planning a subsequent pregnancy, however it has not yet been published. These trials will be re-considered for inclusion in the next review update.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe role of interconception care for women with a history of GDM remains unclear. Randomised controlled trials are required evaluating different forms and protocols of interconception care for these women on perinatal and long-term maternal and infant health outcomes, acceptability of such interventions and cost-effectiveness.\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": "The aim of this Cochrane review was to look at the effects of specialised, targeted care given to mothers who have had a least one pregnancy affected by gestational diabetes. Does this sort of care improve the health of the mother and her baby, during and after her next pregnancy? We collected and analysed all relevant studies to answer this question (date of search: April 2017)." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMelanoma has one of the fastest rising incidence rates of any cancer. It accounts for a small percentage of skin cancer cases but is responsible for the majority of skin cancer deaths. Although history-taking and visual inspection of a suspicious lesion by a clinician are usually the first in a series of ‘tests’ to diagnose skin cancer, dermoscopy has become an important tool to assist diagnosis by specialist clinicians and is increasingly used in primary care settings. Dermoscopy is a magnification technique using visible light that allows more detailed examination of the skin compared to examination by the naked eye alone. Establishing the additive value of dermoscopy over and above visual inspection alone across a range of observers and settings is critical to understanding its contribution for the diagnosis of melanoma and to future understanding of the potential role of the growing number of other high-resolution image analysis techniques.\nObjectives\nTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy alone, or when added to visual inspection of a skin lesion, for the detection of cutaneous invasive melanoma and atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants in adults. We separated studies according to whether the diagnosis was recorded face-to-face (in-person), or based on remote (image-based), assessment.\nSearch methods\nWe undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases from inception up to August 2016: CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; CPCI; Zetoc; Science Citation Index; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register; NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database; and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We studied reference lists and published systematic review articles.\nSelection criteria\nStudies of any design that evaluated dermoscopy in adults with lesions suspicious for melanoma, compared with a reference standard of either histological confirmation or clinical follow-up. Data on the accuracy of visual inspection, to allow comparisons of tests, was included only if reported in the included studies of dermoscopy.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted all data using a standardised data extraction and quality assessment form (based on QUADAS-2). We contacted authors of included studies where information related to the target condition or diagnostic threshold were missing. We estimated accuracy using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC),methods. Analysis of studies allowing direct comparison between tests was undertaken. To facilitate interpretation of results, we computed values of sensitivity at the point on the SROC curve with 80% fixed specificity and values of specificity with 80% fixed sensitivity. We investigated the impact of in-person test interpretation; use of a purposely developed algorithm to assist diagnosis; observer expertise; and dermoscopy training.\nMain results\nWe included a total of 104 study publications reporting on 103 study cohorts with 42,788 lesions (including 5700 cases), providing 354 datasets for dermoscopy. The risk of bias was mainly low for the index test and reference standard domains and mainly high or unclear for participant selection and participant flow. Concerns regarding the applicability of study findings were largely scored as ‘high’ concern in three of four domains assessed. Selective participant recruitment, lack of reproducibility of diagnostic thresholds and lack of detail on observer expertise were particularly problematic.\nThe accuracy of dermoscopy for the detection of invasive melanoma or atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants was reported in 86 datasets; 26 for evaluations conducted in person (dermoscopy added to visual inspection), and 60 for image-based evaluations (diagnosis based on interpretation of dermoscopic images). Analyses of studies by prior testing revealed no obvious effect on accuracy; analyses were hampered by the lack of studies in primary care, lack of relevant information and the restricted inclusion of lesions selected for biopsy or excision. Accuracy was higher for in-person diagnosis compared to image-based evaluations (relative diagnostic odds ratio (RDOR) 4.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.4 to 9.0; P < 0.001).\nWe compared accuracy for (a), in-person evaluations of dermoscopy (26 evaluations; 23,169 lesions and 1664 melanomas),versus visual inspection alone (13 evaluations; 6740 lesions and 459 melanomas), and for (b), image-based evaluations of dermoscopy (60 evaluations; 13,475 lesions and 2851 melanomas),versus image-based visual inspection (11 evaluations; 1740 lesions and 305 melanomas). For both comparisons, meta-analysis found dermoscopy to be more accurate than visual inspection alone, with RDORs of (a), 4.7 (95% CI 3.0 to 7.5; P < 0.001), and (b), 5.6 (95% CI 3.7 to 8.5; P < 0.001). For a), the predicted difference in sensitivity at a fixed specificity of 80% was 16% (95% CI 8% to 23%; 92% for dermoscopy + visual inspection versus 76% for visual inspection), and predicted difference in specificity at a fixed sensitivity of 80% was 20% (95% CI 7% to 33%; 95% for dermoscopy + visual inspection versus 75% for visual inspection). For b) the predicted differences in sensitivity was 34% (95% CI 24% to 46%; 81% for dermoscopy versus 47% for visual inspection), at a fixed specificity of 80%, and predicted difference in specificity was 40% (95% CI 27% to 57%; 82% for dermoscopy versus 42% for visual inspection), at a fixed sensitivity of 80%.\nUsing the median prevalence of disease in each set of studies ((a), 12% for in-person and (b), 24% for image-based), for a hypothetical population of 1000 lesions, an increase in sensitivity of (a), 16% (in-person), and (b), 34% (image-based), from using dermoscopy at a fixed specificity of 80% equates to a reduction in the number of melanomas missed of (a), 19 and (b), 81 with (a), 176 and (b), 152 false positive results. An increase in specificity of (a), 20% (in-person), and (b), 40% (image-based), at a fixed sensitivity of 80% equates to a reduction in the number of unnecessary excisions from using dermoscopy of (a), 176 and (b), 304 with (a), 24 and (b), 48 melanomas missed.\nThe use of a named or published algorithm to assist dermoscopy interpretation (as opposed to no reported algorithm or reported use of pattern analysis), had no significant impact on accuracy either for in-person (RDOR 1.4, 95% CI 0.34 to 5.6; P = 0.17), or image-based (RDOR 1.4, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.3; P = 0.22), evaluations. This result was supported by subgroup analysis according to algorithm used. We observed higher accuracy for observers reported as having high experience and for those classed as ‘expert consultants’ in comparison to those considered to have less experience in dermoscopy, particularly for image-based evaluations. Evidence for the effect of dermoscopy training on test accuracy was very limited but suggested associated improvements in sensitivity.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDespite the observed limitations in the evidence base, dermoscopy is a valuable tool to support the visual inspection of a suspicious skin lesion for the detection of melanoma and atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants, particularly in referred populations and in the hands of experienced users. Data to support its use in primary care are limited, however, it may assist in triaging suspicious lesions for urgent referral when employed by suitably trained clinicians. Formal algorithms may be of most use for dermoscopy training purposes and for less expert observers, however reliable data comparing approaches using dermoscopy in person are lacking.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the implications of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "When used by specialists, dermoscopy is better at diagnosing melanoma compared to inspection of a suspicious skin lesion using the naked eye alone. Dermoscopy is more accurate when interpreted with the patient present rather than using dermoscopy images. Dermoscopy might help general practitioners to correctly identify people with suspicious lesions who need to be seen by a specialist. Checklists to help interpret dermoscopy might improve the accuracy of people with less expertise and training. Further, well-reported studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy when used in primary care and to identify the best way of delivering dermoscopy training are needed." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMeasles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (chickenpox) are serious diseases that can lead to serious complications, disability, and death. However, public debate over the safety of the trivalent MMR vaccine and the resultant drop in vaccination coverage in several countries persists, despite its almost universal use and accepted effectiveness. This is an update of a review published in 2005 and updated in 2012.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness, safety, and long- and short-term adverse effects associated with the trivalent vaccine, containing measles, rubella, mumps strains (MMR), or concurrent administration of MMR vaccine and varicella vaccine (MMR+V), or tetravalent vaccine containing measles, rubella, mumps, and varicella strains (MMRV), given to children aged up to 15 years.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2019, Issue 5), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to 2 May 2019), Embase (1974 to 2 May 2019), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (2 May 2019), and ClinicalTrials.gov (2 May 2019).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), prospective and retrospective cohort studies (PCS/RCS), case-control studies (CCS), interrupted time-series (ITS) studies, case cross-over (CCO) studies, case-only ecological method (COEM) studies, self-controlled case series (SCCS) studies, person-time cohort (PTC) studies, and case-coverage design/screening methods (CCD/SM) studies, assessing any combined MMR or MMRV / MMR+V vaccine given in any dose, preparation or time schedule compared with no intervention or placebo, on healthy children up to 15 years of age.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. We grouped studies for quantitative analysis according to study design, vaccine type (MMR, MMRV, MMR+V), virus strain, and study settings. Outcomes of interest were cases of measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella, and harms. Certainty of evidence of was rated using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 138 studies (23,480,668 participants). Fifty-one studies (10,248,159 children) assessed vaccine effectiveness and 87 studies (13,232,509 children) assessed the association between vaccines and a variety of harms. We included 74 new studies to this 2019 version of the review.\nEffectiveness\nVaccine effectiveness in preventing measles was 95% after one dose (relative risk (RR) 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.13; 7 cohort studies; 12,039 children; moderate certainty evidence) and 96% after two doses (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.28; 5 cohort studies; 21,604 children; moderate certainty evidence). The effectiveness in preventing cases among household contacts or preventing transmission to others the children were in contact with after one dose was 81% (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.89; 3 cohort studies; 151 children; low certainty evidence), after two doses 85% (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.75; 3 cohort studies; 378 children; low certainty evidence), and after three doses was 96% (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.23; 2 cohort studies; 151 children; low certainty evidence). The effectiveness (at least one dose) in preventing measles after exposure (post-exposure prophylaxis) was 74% (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.50; 2 cohort studies; 283 children; low certainty evidence).\nThe effectiveness of Jeryl Lynn containing MMR vaccine in preventing mumps was 72% after one dose (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.76; 6 cohort studies; 9915 children; moderate certainty evidence), 86% after two doses (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.35; 5 cohort studies; 7792 children; moderate certainty evidence). Effectiveness in preventing cases among household contacts was 74% (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.49; 3 cohort studies; 1036 children; moderate certainty evidence). \nVaccine effectiveness against rubella, using a vaccine with the BRD2 strain which is only used in China, is 89% (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.42; 1 cohort study; 1621 children; moderate certainty evidence). \nVaccine effectiveness against varicella (any severity) after two doses in children aged 11 to 22 months is 95% in a 10 years follow-up (rate ratio (rr) 0.05, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.08; 1 RCT; 2279 children; high certainty evidence).\nSafety\nThere is evidence supporting an association between aseptic meningitis and MMR vaccines containing Urabe and Leningrad-Zagreb mumps strains, but no evidence supporting this association for MMR vaccines containing Jeryl Lynn mumps strains (rr 1.30, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.56; low certainty evidence). The analyses provide evidence supporting an association between MMR/MMR+V/MMRV vaccines (Jeryl Lynn strain) and febrile seizures. Febrile seizures normally occur in 2% to 4% of healthy children at least once before the age of 5. The attributable risk febrile seizures vaccine-induced is estimated to be from 1 per 1700 to 1 per 1150 administered doses.\nThe analyses provide evidence supporting an association between MMR vaccination and idiopathic thrombocytopaenic purpura (ITP). However, the risk of ITP after vaccination is smaller than after natural infection with these viruses. Natural infection of ITP occur in 5 cases per 100,000 (1 case per 20,000) per year. The attributable risk is estimated about 1 case of ITP per 40,000 administered MMR doses.\nThere is no evidence of an association between MMR immunisation and encephalitis or encephalopathy (rate ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.61; 2 observational studies; 1,071,088 children; low certainty evidence), and autistic spectrum disorders (rate ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.01; 2 observational studies; 1,194,764 children; moderate certainty). There is insufficient evidence to determine the association between MMR immunisation and inflammatory bowel disease (odds ratio 1.42, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.16; 3 observational studies; 409 cases and 1416 controls; moderate certainty evidence).\nAdditionally, there is no evidence supporting an association between MMR immunisation and cognitive delay, type 1 diabetes, asthma, dermatitis/eczema, hay fever, leukaemia, multiple sclerosis, gait disturbance, and bacterial or viral infections.\nAuthors' conclusions\nExisting evidence on the safety and effectiveness of MMR/MMRV vaccines support their use for mass immunisation. Campaigns aimed at global eradication should assess epidemiological and socioeconomic situations of the countries as well as the capacity to achieve high vaccination coverage. More evidence is needed to assess whether the protective effect of MMR/MMRV could wane with time since immunisation.\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": "" } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nRecent cohort studies show that salt intake below 6 g is associated with increased mortality. These findings have not changed public recommendations to lower salt intake below 6 g, which are based on assumed blood pressure (BP) effects and no side-effects.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of sodium reduction on BP, and on potential side-effects (hormones and lipids)\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to April 2018 and a top-up search in March 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions. The top-up search articles are recorded under \"awaiting assessment.\"\nSelection criteria\nStudies randomizing persons to low-sodium and high-sodium diets were included if they evaluated at least one of the outcome parameters (BP, renin, aldosterone, noradrenalin, adrenalin, cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein and triglyceride,.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently collected data, which were analysed with Review Manager 5.3. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.\nMain results\nSince the first review in 2003 the number of included references has increased from 96 to 195 (174 were in white participants). As a previous study found different BP outcomes in black and white study populations, we stratified the BP outcomes by race.\nThe effect of sodium reduction (from 203 to 65 mmol/day) on BP in white participants was as follows: Normal blood pressure: SBP: mean difference (MD) -1.14 mmHg (95% confidence interval (CI): -1.65 to -0.63), 5982 participants, 95 trials; DBP: MD + 0.01 mmHg (95% CI: -0.37 to 0.39), 6276 participants, 96 trials. Hypertension: SBP: MD -5.71 mmHg (95% CI: -6.67 to -4.74), 3998 participants,88 trials; DBP: MD -2.87 mmHg (95% CI: -3.41 to -2.32), 4032 participants, 89 trials (all high-quality evidence).\nThe largest bias contrast across studies was recorded for the detection bias element. A comparison of detection bias low-risk studies versus high/unclear risk studies showed no differences.\nThe effect of sodium reduction (from 195 to 66 mmol/day) on BP in black participants was as follows: Normal blood pressure: SBP: mean difference (MD) -4.02 mmHg (95% CI:-7.37 to -0.68); DBP: MD -2.01 mmHg (95% CI:-4.37, 0.35), 253 participants, 7 trials. Hypertension: SBP: MD -6.64 mmHg (95% CI:-9.00, -4.27); DBP: MD -2.91 mmHg (95% CI:-4.52, -1.30), 398 participants, 8 trials (low-quality evidence).\nThe effect of sodium reduction (from 217 to 103 mmol/day) on BP in Asian participants was as follows: Normal blood pressure: SBP: mean difference (MD) -1.50 mmHg (95% CI: -3.09, 0.10); DBP: MD -1.06 mmHg (95% CI:-2.53 to 0.41), 950 participants, 5 trials. Hypertension: SBP: MD -7.75 mmHg (95% CI:-11.44, -4.07); DBP: MD -2.68 mmHg (95% CI: -4.21 to -1.15), 254 participants, 8 trials (moderate-low-quality evidence).\nDuring sodium reduction renin increased 1.56 ng/mL/hour (95%CI:1.39, 1.73) in 2904 participants (82 trials); aldosterone increased 104 pg/mL (95%CI:88.4,119.7) in 2506 participants (66 trials); noradrenalin increased 62.3 pg/mL: (95%CI: 41.9, 82.8) in 878 participants (35 trials); adrenalin increased 7.55 pg/mL (95%CI: 0.85, 14.26) in 331 participants (15 trials); cholesterol increased 5.19 mg/dL (95%CI:2.1, 8.3) in 917 participants (27 trials); triglyceride increased 7.10 mg/dL (95%CI: 3.1,11.1) in 712 participants (20 trials); LDL tended to increase 2.46 mg/dl (95%CI: -1, 5.9) in 696 participants (18 trials); HDL was unchanged -0.3 mg/dl (95%CI: -1.66,1.05) in 738 participants (20 trials) (All high-quality evidence except the evidence for adrenalin).\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn white participants, sodium reduction in accordance with the public recommendations resulted in mean arterial pressure (MAP) decrease of about 0.4 mmHg in participants with normal blood pressure and a MAP decrease of about 4 mmHg in participants with hypertension. Weak evidence indicated that these effects may be a little greater in black and Asian participants. The effects of sodium reduction on potential side effects (hormones and lipids) were more consistent than the effect on BP, especially in people with normal BP.\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": "Only randomised controlled trials were included and the grade of evidence was therefore considered to be high, although downgraded in some of the smaller analyses." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nBenign smooth muscle tumours of the uterus, known as fibroids or myomas, are often symptomless. However, about one-third of women with fibroids will present with symptoms that are severe enough to warrant treatment. The standard treatment of symptomatic fibroids is hysterectomy (that is surgical removal of the uterus) for women who have completed childbearing, and myomectomy for women who desire future childbearing or simply want to preserve their uterus. Myomectomy, the surgical removal of myomas, can be associated with life-threatening bleeding. Excessive bleeding can necessitate emergency blood transfusion. Knowledge of the effectiveness of the interventions to reduce bleeding during myomectomy is essential to enable evidence-based clinical decisions. This is an update of the review published in The Cochrane Library (2011, Issue 11).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness, safety, tolerability and costs of interventions to reduce blood loss during myomectomy.\nSearch methods\nIn June 2014, we conducted electronic searches in the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO, and trial registers for ongoing and registered trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared potential interventions to reduce blood loss during myomectomy to placebo or no treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nThe two authors independently selected RCTs for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from the included RCTs. The primary review outcomes were blood loss and need for blood transfusion. We expressed study results as mean differences (MD) for continuous data and odds ratios for dichotomous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE methods.\nMain results\nEighteen RCTs with 1250 participants met our inclusion criteria. The studies were conducted in hospital settings in low, middle and high income countries.\nBlood loss\nWe found significant reductions in blood loss with the following interventions:\nvaginal misoprostol (2 RCTs, 89 women: MD -97.88 ml, 95% CI -125.52 to -70.24; I2 = 43%; moderate-quality evidence); intramyometrial vasopressin (3 RCTs, 128 women: MD -245.87 ml, 95% CI -434.58 to -57.16; I2 = 98%; moderate-quality evidence); intramyometrial bupivacaine plus epinephrine (1 RCT, 60 women: MD -68.60 ml, 95% CI -93.69 to -43.51; low-quality evidence); intravenous tranexamic acid (1 RCT, 100 women: MD -243 ml, 95% CI -460.02 to -25.98; low-quality evidence); gelatin-thrombin matrix (1 RCT, 50 women: MD -545.00 ml, 95% CI -593.26 to -496.74; low-quality evidence); intravenous ascorbic acid (1 RCT, 102 women: MD -411.46 ml, 95% CI -502.58 to -320.34; low-quality evidence); vaginal dinoprostone (1 RCT, 108 women: MD -131.60 ml, 95% CI -253.42 to -9.78; low-quality evidence); loop ligation of the myoma pseudocapsule (1 RCT, 70 women: MD -305.01 ml, 95% CI -354.83 to -255.19; low-quality evidence); a fibrin sealant patch (1 RCT, 70 women: MD -26.50 ml, 95% CI -44.47 to -8.53; low-quality evidence), a Foley catheter tied around the cervix (1 RCT, 93 women: MD -240.70 ml, 95% CI -359.61 to -121.79; low-quality evidence), and a polyglactin suture round both cervix and infundibulopelvic ligament (1 RCT, 28 women: MD -1870.0 ml, 95% CI -2547.16 to 1192.84; low-quality evidence). There was no good evidence of an effect on blood loss with oxytocin, morcellation or clipping of the uterine artery.\nNeed for blood transfusion\nWe found significant reductions in the need for blood transfusion with vasopressin (2 RCTs, 90 women: OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.74; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence); tourniquet tied round the cervix (1 RCT, 98 women: OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.55; low-quality evidence); tourniquet tied round both cervix and infundibulopelvic ligament (1 RCT, 28 women: OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.23; low-quality evidence); gelatin-thrombin matrix (1 RCT, 100 women: OR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.10; low-quality evidence) and dinoprostone (1 RCT, 108 women: OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.81; low-quality evidence), but no evidence of effect on the need for blood transfusion with misoprostol, oxytocin, tranexamic acid, ascorbic acid, loop ligation of the myoma pseudocapsule and a fibrin sealant patch.\nThere were insufficient data on the adverse effects and costs of the different interventions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAt present there is moderate-quality evidence that misoprostol or vasopressin may reduce bleeding during myomectomy, and low-quality evidence that bupivacaine plus epinephrine, tranexamic acid, gelatin-thrombin matrix, ascorbic acid, dinoprostone, loop ligation, a fibrin sealant patch, a peri-cervical tourniquet or a tourniquet tied round both cervix and infundibulopelvic ligament may reduce bleeding during myomectomy. There is no evidence that oxytocin, morcellation and temporary clipping of the uterine artery reduce blood loss. Further well designed studies are required to establish the effectiveness, safety and costs of different interventions for reducing blood loss during myomectomy.\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": "Some women have non-cancerous growths of the uterus, called fibroids. In a third of cases the fibroids produce symptoms, such as vaginal bleeding, that warrant treatment. The surgical removal of the fibroids, called myomectomy, is one of the treatment options for fibroids. It can be accomplished by either laparotomy (through an incision into the abdomen) or laparoscopy (keyhole surgery). The procedure is associated with heavy bleeding. Many interventions have been used by doctors to reduce bleeding during an operation for removing fibroids but it is unclear whether or not the interventions are effective." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPost-stroke fatigue (PSF) is a common and distressing problem after stroke. The best ways to prevent or treat PSF are uncertain. Several different interventions can be argued to have a rational basis.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether, among people with stroke, any intervention reduces the proportion of people with fatigue, fatigue severity, or both; and to determine the effect of intervention on health-related quality of life, disability, dependency and death, and whether such intervention is cost effective.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched May 2014), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2014, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to May 2014), EMBASE (1980 to May 2014), CINAHL (1982 to May 2014), AMED (1985 to May 2014), PsycINFO (1967 to May 2014), Digital Dissertations (1861 to May 2014), British Nursing Index (1985 to May 2014), PEDro (searched May 2014) and PsycBITE (searched May 2014). We also searched four ongoing trials registries, scanned reference lists, performed citation tracking of included trials and contacted experts.\nSelection criteria\nTwo review authors independently scrutinised all titles and abstracts and excluded obviously irrelevant studies. We obtained the full texts for potentially relevant studies and three review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared an intervention with a control, or compared different interventions for PSF.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each included trial. The primary outcomes were severity of fatigue, or proportion of people with fatigue after treatment. We performed separate analyses for trials investigating efficacy in treating PSF, trials investigating efficacy in preventing PSF and trials not primarily investigating efficacy in PSF but which reported fatigue as an outcome. We pooled results from trials that had a control arm. For trials that compared different potentially active interventions without a control arm, we performed analyses for individual trials without pooling.\nWe calculated standardised mean difference (SMD) as the effect size for continuous outcomes and risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. We pooled the results using a random-effects model and assessed heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. We performed separate subgroup analyses for pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. We also performed sensitivity analyses to assess the influence of methodological quality.\nMain results\nWe retrieved 12,490 citations, obtained full texts for 58 studies and included 12 trials (three from the 2008 search and nine from the 2014 search) with 703 participants. Eight trials primarily investigated the efficacy in treating PSF, of which six trials with seven comparisons provided data suitable for meta-analysis (five pharmacological interventions: fluoxetine, enerion, (-)-OSU6162, citicoline and a combination of Chinese herbs; and two non-pharmacological interventions: a fatigue education programme and a mindfulness-based stress reduction programme). The fatigue severity was lower in the intervention groups than in the control groups (244 participants, pooled SMD -1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.93 to -0.21), with significant heterogeneity between trials (I2 = 87%, degrees of freedom (df) = 6, P value < 0.00001). The beneficial effect was not seen in trials that had used adequate allocation concealment (two trials, 89 participants, SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.04) or trials that had used adequate blinding of outcome assessors (four trials, 198 participants, SMD -1.10, 95% CI -2.31 to 0.11).\nNo trial primarily investigated the efficacy in preventing PSF.\nFour trials (248 participants) did not primarily investigate the efficacy on fatigue but other symptoms after stroke. None of these interventions showed any benefit on reducing PSF, which included tirilazad mesylate, continuous positive airway pressure for sleep apnoea, antidepressants and a self management programme for recovery from chronic diseases.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was insufficient evidence on the efficacy of any intervention to treat or prevent fatigue after stroke. Trials to date have been small and heterogeneous, and some have had a high risk of bias. Some of the interventions described were feasible in people with stroke, but their efficacy should be investigated in RCTs with a more robust study design and adequate sample sizes.\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 general study quality was low. The available data were limited as each identified intervention was only investigated in a single trial. In addition, some trials were small and used poor study designs. Therefore, further trials of better quality are needed." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPrevious Cochrane Reviews have shown that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is effective in treating childhood anxiety disorders. However, questions remain regarding the following: up-to-date evidence of the relative efficacy and acceptability of CBT compared to waiting lists/no treatment, treatment as usual, attention controls, and alternative treatments; benefits across a range of outcomes; longer-term effects; outcomes for different delivery formats; and amongst children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and children with intellectual impairments.\nObjectives\nTo examine the effect of CBT for childhood anxiety disorders, in comparison with waitlist/no treatment, treatment as usual (TAU), attention control, alternative treatment, and medication.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (all years to 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (each to October 2019), international trial registries, and conducted grey literature searches.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials of CBT that involved direct contact with the child, parent, or both, and included non-CBT comparators (waitlist/no treatment, treatment as usual, attention control, alternative treatment, medication). Participants were younger than age 19, and met diagnostic criteria for an anxiety disorder diagnosis. Primary outcomes were remission of primary anxiety diagnosis post-treatment, and acceptability (number of participants lost to post-treatment assessment), and secondary outcomes included remission of all anxiety diagnoses, reduction in anxiety symptoms, reduction in depressive symptoms, improvement in global functioning, adverse effects, and longer-term effects.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 87 studies and 5964 participants in quantitative analyses.\nCompared with waitlist/no treatment, CBT probably increases post-treatment remission of primary anxiety diagnoses (CBT: 49.4%, waitlist/no treatment: 17.8%; OR 5.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.90 to 7.60; n = 2697, 39 studies, moderate quality); NNTB 3 (95% CI 2.25 to 3.57) and all anxiety diagnoses (OR 4.43, 95% CI 2.89 to 6.78; n = 2075, 28 studies, moderate quality).\nLow-quality evidence did not show a difference between CBT and TAU in post-treatment primary anxiety disorder remission (OR 3.19, 95% CI 0.90 to 11.29; n = 487, 8 studies), but did suggest CBT may increase remission from all anxiety disorders compared to TAU (OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.16 to 6.46; n = 203, 5 studies).\nCompared with attention control, CBT may increase post-treatment remission of primary anxiety disorders (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.89; n = 822, 10 studies, low quality) and all anxiety disorders (OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.22 to 6.17; n = 378, 5 studies, low quality).\nThere was insufficient available data to compare CBT to alternative treatments on post-treatment remission of primary anxiety disorders, and low-quality evidence showed there may be little to no difference between these groups on post-treatment remission of all anxiety disorders (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.23; n = 401, 4 studies)\nLow-quality evidence did not show a difference for acceptability between CBT and waitlist/no treatment (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.41; n=3158, 45 studies), treatment as usual (OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.56; n = 441, 8 studies), attention control (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.49; n = 797, 12 studies) and alternative treatment (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.13; n=515, 7 studies).\nNo adverse effects were reported across all studies; however, in the small number of studies where any reference was made to adverse effects, it was not clear that these were systematically monitored.\nResults from the anxiety symptom outcomes, broader outcomes, longer-term outcomes and subgroup analyses are provided in the text.\nWe did not find evidence of consistent differences in outcomes according to delivery formats (e.g. individual versus group; amount of therapist contact time) or amongst samples with and without ASD, and no studies included samples of children with intellectual impairments.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCBT is probably more effective in the short-term than waiting lists/no treatment, and may be more effective than attention control. We found little to no evidence across outcomes that CBT is superior to usual care or alternative treatments, but our confidence in these findings are limited due to concerns about the amount and quality of available evidence, and we still know little about how best to efficiently improve outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What should happen next?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Future research should compare CBT to alternative treatments and medication; identify who does and does not benefit from CBT and what those who do not benefit need; establish how to make CBT more accessible; and give far more consideration to neglected populations, including children and young people from low- and middle-income countries." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute psychotic illness, especially when associated with agitated or violent behaviour, can require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. In several countries, clinicians often use benzodiazepines (either alone or in combination with antipsychotics) for this outcome.\nObjectives\nTo examine whether benzodiazepines, alone or in combination with other pharmacological agents, is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation when compared with placebo, other pharmacological agents (alone or in combination) or non-pharmacological approaches.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (January 2012, 20 August 2015 and 3 August 2016), inspected reference lists of included and excluded studies, and contacted authors of relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing benzodiazepines alone or in combination with any antipsychotics, versus antipsychotics alone or in combination with any other antipsychotics, benzodiazepines or antihistamines, for people who were aggressive or agitated due to psychosis.\nData collection and analysis\nWe reliably selected studies, quality assessed them and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) between groups. If there was heterogeneity, this was explored using a random-effects model. We assessed risk of bias and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.\nMain results\nTwenty trials including 695 participants are now included in the review. The trials compared benzodiazepines or benzodiazepines plus an antipsychotic with placebo, antipsychotics, antihistamines, or a combination of these. The quality of evidence for the main outcomes was low or very low due to very small sample size of included studies and serious risk of bias (randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding were not well conducted in the included trials, 30% of trials (six out of 20) were supported by pharmaceutical institutes). There was no clear effect for most outcomes.\nBenzodiazepines versus placebo\nOne trial compared benzodiazepines with placebo. There was no difference in the number of participants sedated at 24 hours (very low quality evidence). However, for the outcome of global state, clearly more people receiving placebo showed no improvement in the medium term (one to 48 hours) (n = 102, 1 RCT, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.97, very low quality evidence).\nBenzodiazepines versus antipsychotics\nFor the outcome of sedation by 16 hours, there was no difference between haloperidol and benzodiazepine (n = 434, 8 RCTs, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.54, low quality evidence). There was no difference in the number of participants who had not improved in the medium term (n = 188, 5 RCTs, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.11, low quality evidence). However, one small study found fewer participants improved when receiving benzodiazepines compared with olanzapine (n = 150, 1 RCT, RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.18, very low quality evidence). People receiving benzodiazepines were less likely to experience extrapyramidal effects in the medium term compared to people receiving haloperidol (n = 233, 6 RCTs, RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.41, low quality evidence).\nBenzodiazepines versus combined antipsychotics/antihistamines\nWhen benzodiazepine was compared with combined antipsychotics/antihistamines (haloperidol plus promethazine), there was a higher risk of no improvement in people receiving benzodiazepines in the medium term (n = 200, 1 RCT, RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.05, low quality evidence). However, for sedation, the results were controversial between two groups: lorazepam may lead to lower risk of sedation than combined antipsychotics/antihistamines (n = 200, 1 RCT, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.98, low quality evidence); while, midazolam may lead to higher risk of sedation than combined antipsychotics/antihistamines (n = 200, 1 RCT, RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.23, low quality evidence).\nOther combinations\nData comparing benzodiazepines plus antipsychotics versus benzodiazepines alone did not yield any results with clear differences; all were very low quality evidence. When comparing combined benzodiazepines/antipsychotics (all studies compared haloperidol) with the same antipsychotics alone (haloperidol), there was no difference between groups in improvement in the medium term (n = 185, 4 RCTs, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.46, low quality evidence), but sedation was more likely in people who received the combination therapy (n = 172, 3 RCTs, RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.67, very low quality evidence). Only one study compared combined benzodiazepine/antipsychotics with antipsychotics; however, this study did not report our primary outcomes. One small study compared combined benzodiazepines/antipsychotics with combined antihistamines/antipsychotics. Results showed a higher risk of no clinical improvement (n = 60, 1 RCT, RR 25.00, 95% CI 1.55 to 403.99, very low quality evidence) and sedation status (n = 60, 1 RCT, RR 12.00, 95% CI 1.66 to 86.59, very low quality evidence) in the combined benzodiazepines/antipsychotics group.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence from RCTs for the use of benzodiazepines alone is not good. There were relatively few good data. Most trials were too small to highlight differences in either positive or negative effects. Adding a benzodiazepine to other drugs does not seem to confer clear advantage and has potential for adding unnecessary adverse effects. Sole use of older antipsychotics unaccompanied by anticholinergic drugs seems difficult to justify. Much more high-quality research is still needed in this area.\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": "The existing trials are not informative enough to support or refute the use of benzodiazepines alone or in additional to other medicines when urgent tranquillisation or sedation with medicines is required. Although benzodiazepines alone may cause fewer side effects compared to older antipsychotics, when they are added on to other medicines this may lead to unnecessary side effects. Further studies are needed to provide good-quality evidence with robust conclusions to inform clinical practice and policies around rapid tranquillisation for people with psychoses who are aggressive or agitated." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nNon-transfusion-dependent β-thalassaemia (NTDβT) is a subset of inherited haemoglobin disorders characterised by reduced production of the β-globin chain of haemoglobin leading to anaemia of varying severity. Although blood transfusion is not a necessity for survival, it may be required to prevent complications of chronic anaemia, such as impaired growth and hypercoagulability. People with NTDβT also experience iron overload due to increased iron absorption from food sources which becomes more pronounced in those requiring blood transfusion.\nPeople with a higher foetal haemoglobin (HbF) level have been found to require fewer blood transfusions, thus leading to the emergence of treatments that could increase its level. HbF inducers stimulate HbF production without altering any gene structures. Evidence for the possible benefits and harms of these inducers is important for making an informed decision on their use.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effectiveness and safety of the following for reducing blood transfusion for people with NTDβT:\n1. HbF inducers versus usual care or placebo;\n2. single HbF inducer with another HbF inducer, and single dose with another dose; and\n3. combination of HbF inducers versus usual care or placebo, or single HbF inducer.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 21 August 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing single HbF inducer with placebo or usual care, with another single HbF inducer or with a combination of HbF inducers; or comparing different doses of the same HbF inducer.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were blood transfusion and haemoglobin levels. Our secondary outcomes were HbF levels, the long-term sequelae of NTDβT, quality of life and adverse events.\nMain results\nWe included seven RCTs involving 291 people with NTDβT, aged two to 49 years, from five countries. We reported 10 comparisons using eight different HbF inducers (four pharmacological and four natural): three RCTs compared a single HbF inducer to placebo and seven to another HbF inducer. The duration of the intervention lasted from 56 days to six months. Most studies did not adequately report the randomisation procedures or whether and how blinding was achieved.\nHbF inducer against placebo or usual care\nThree HbF inducers, HQK-1001, Radix Astragali or a 3-in-1 combined natural preparation (CNP), were compared with a placebo. None of the comparisons reported the frequency of blood transfusion. We are uncertain whether Radix Astragali and CNP increase haemoglobin at three months (mean difference (MD) 1.33 g/dL, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 2.11; 1 study, 2 interventions, 35 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether Radix Astragali and CNP have any effect on HbF (MD 12%, 95% CI −0.74% to 24.75%; 1 study, 2 interventions, 35 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Only medians on haemoglobin and HbF levels were reported for HQK-1001.\nAdverse effects reported for HQK-1001 were nausea, vomiting, dizziness and suprapubic pain. There were no prespecified adverse effects for Radix Astragali and CNP.\nHbF inducer versus another HbF inducer\nFour studies compared a single inducer with another over three to six months. Comparisons included hydroxyurea versus resveratrol, hydroxyurea versus thalidomide, hydroxyurea versus decitabine and Radix Astragali versus CNP. No study reported our prespecified outcomes on blood transfusion. Haemoglobin and HbF were reported for the comparison Radix Astragali versus CNP, but we are uncertain whether there were any differences (1 study, 24 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nDifferent doses of the same HbF inducer\nTwo studies compared two different types of HbF inducers at different doses over two to six months. Comparisons included hydroxyurea 20 mg/kg/day versus 10 mg/kg/day and HQK-1001 10 mg/kg/day, 20 mg/kg/day, 30 mg/kg/day and 40 mg/kg/day. Blood transfusion, as prespecified, was not reported. In one study (61 participants) we are uncertain whether the lower levels of both haemoglobin and HbF at 24 weeks were due to the higher dose of hydroxyurea (haemoglobin: MD −2.39 g/dL, 95% CI −2.80 to −1.98; very low-certainty evidence; HbF: MD −10.20%, 95% CI −16.28% to −4.12%; very low-certainty evidence). The study of the four different doses of HQK-1001 did not report results for either haemoglobin or HbF. We are not certain if major adverse effects may be more common with higher hydroxyurea doses (neutropenia: risk ratio (RR) 9.93, 95% CI 1.34 to 73.97; thrombocytopenia: RR 3.68, 95% CI 1.12 to 12.07; very low-certainty evidence). Taking HQK-1001 20 mg/kg/day may result in the fewest adverse effects.\nA combination of HbF inducers versus a single HbF inducer\nTwo studies compared three combinations of two inducers with a single inducer over six months: hydroxyurea plus resveratrol versus resveratrol or hydroxyurea alone, and hydroxyurea plus l-carnitine versus hydroxyurea alone. Blood transfusion was not reported.\nHydroxyurea plus resveratrol may reduce haemoglobin compared with either resveratrol or hydroxyurea alone (MD −0.74 g/dL, 95% CI −1.45 to −0.03; 1 study, 54 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are not certain whether the gastrointestinal disturbances, headache and malaise more commonly reported with hydroxyurea plus resveratrol than resveratrol alone were due to the interventions.\nWe are uncertain whether hydroxyurea plus l-carnitine compared with hydroxyurea alone may increase mean haemoglobin, and reduce pulmonary hypertension (1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were reported but not in the intervention group.\nNone of the comparisons reported the outcome of HbF.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain whether any of the eight HbF inducers in this review have a beneficial effect on people with NTDβT. For each of these HbF inducers, we found only one or at the most two small studies. There is no information on whether any of these HbF inducers have an effect on our primary outcome, blood transfusion. For the second primary outcome, haemoglobin, there may be small differences between intervention groups, but these may not be clinically meaningful and are of low- to very low-certainty evidence. Data on adverse effects and optimal doses are limited. Five studies are awaiting classification, but none are ongoing.\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 main reason we are very uncertain about the effects of HbF inducers are because the studies were all very small and had weaknesses in their design. None of the studies lasted long enough to provide meaningful information for many of the outcomes we measured." } ]

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

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nShock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is a widely used method to treat renal and ureteral stone. It fragments stones into smaller pieces that are then able to pass spontaneously down the ureter and into the bladder. Alpha-blockers may assist in promoting the passage of stone fragments, but their effectiveness remains uncertain.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of alpha-blockers as adjuvant medical expulsive therapy plus usual care compared to placebo and usual care or usual care alone in adults undergoing shock wave lithotripsy for renal or ureteral stones.\nSearch methods\nWe performed a comprehensive literature search of the Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, several clinical trial registries and grey literature for published and unpublished studies irrespective of language. The date of the most recent search was 27 February 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials of adults undergoing SWL. Participants in the intervention group had to have received an alpha-blocker as adjuvant medical expulsive therapy plus usual care. For the comparator group, we considered studies in which participants received placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies for inclusion/exclusion, and performed data abstraction and risk of bias assessment. We conducted meta-analysis for the identified dichotomous and continuous outcomes using RevManWeb according to Cochrane methods using a random-effects model. We judged the certainty of evidence on a per outcome basis using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 40 studies with 4793 participants randomized to usual care and an alpha-blocker versus usual care alone. Only four studies were placebo controlled. The mean age of participants was 28.6 to 56.8 years and the mean stone size prior to SWL was 7.1 mm to 13.2 mm. The most widely used alpha-blocker was tamsulosin; others were silodosin, doxazosin, terazosin and alfuzosin.\nAlpha-blockers may improve clearance of stone fragments after SWL (risk ratio (RR) 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 1.23; I² = 78%; studies = 36; participants = 4084; low certainty evidence). Based on the stone clearance rate of 69.3% observed in the control arm, an alpha-blocker may increase stone clearance to 80.4%. This corresponds to 111 more (62 more to 159 more) participants per 1000 clearing their stone fragments.\nAlpha-blockers may reduce the need for auxiliary treatments after SWL (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.00; I² = 16%; studies = 12; participants = 1251; low certainty evidence), but also includes the possibility of no effect. Based on a rate of auxiliary treatments in the usual care arm of 9.7%, alpha-blockers may reduce the rate to 6.5%. This corresponds 32 fewer (53 fewer to 0 fewer) participants per 1000 undergoing auxiliary treatments.\nAlpha-blockers may reduce major adverse events (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80; I² = 0%; studies = 7; participants = 747; low certainty evidence). Major adverse events occurred in 25.8% of participants in the usual care group; alpha-blockers would reduce this to 15.5%. This corresponds to 103 fewer (139 fewer to 52 fewer) major adverse events per 1000 with alpha-blocker treatment. None of the reported major adverse events appeared drug-related; most were emergency room visits or rehospitalizations.\nAlpha-blockers may reduce stone clearance time in days (mean difference (MD) –3.74, 95% CI –5.25 to –2.23; I² = 86%; studies = 14; participants = 1790; low certainty evidence). We found no evidence for the outcome of quality of life.\nFor those outcomes for which we were able to perform subgroup analyses, we found no evidence of interaction with stone location, stone size or type of alpha-blocker. We were unable to conduct an analysis by lithotripter type. The results were also largely unchanged when the analyses were limited to placebo controlled studies and those in which participants explicitly only received a single SWL session.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on low certainty evidence, adjuvant alpha-blocker therapy following SWL in addition to usual care may result in improved stone clearance, less need for auxiliary treatments, fewer major adverse events and a reduced stone clearance time compared to usual care alone. We did not find evidence for quality of life. The low certainty of evidence means that our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched for studies that looked at giving alpha-blockers to adults, after shock wave treatment, to clear kidney stone fragments.\nWe looked for randomized controlled studies, in which the treatments that people received were decided at random, because these studies usually give the most reliable evidence about the effects of a treatment." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe finding that exercise is inversely related to metabolic syndrome after transplantation is novel and suggests that exercise interventions might provide a means for reducing metabolic syndrome complications in liver transplantation recipients. The use of exercise for increasing the physical activity daily levels by more frequent, higher intensity, and longer duration of training sessions, or the sum of these components may be necessary to counteract the effects of the pretransplant reduced activity, metabolic disturbances, and post-transplant immunosuppression, as well as improve physical function and aerobic capacity following liver transplantation. Regular physical activity has a long-term positive impact on recovery following various surgical procedures including transplantation, giving people the opportunity to return to an active life with their families, in society, and in their professional life. Likewise, specific muscle strength training may attenuate the loss of strength after liver transplantation.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of exercise-based interventions in adults after liver transplantation compared to no exercise, sham interventions, or another type of exercise.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 2 September 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised clinical trials in liver transplantation recipients comparing any type of exercise with no exercise, sham interventions, or another type of exercise.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality; 2. serious adverse events; and 3. health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were 4. a composite of cardiovascular mortality and cardiac disease; 5. aerobic capacity; 6. muscle strength; 7. morbidity; 8. non-serious adverse events; and 9. cardiovascular disease post-transplantation. We assessed risk of bias of the individual trials using RoB 1, described the interventions using the TIDieR checklist, and used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included three randomised clinical trials. The trials randomised 241 adults with liver transplantation, of which 199 participants completed the trials. The trials were conducted in the USA, Spain, and Turkey. They compared exercise versus usual care. The duration of the interventions ranged from two to 10 months. One trial reported that 69% of participants who received the exercise intervention were adherent to the exercise prescription. A second trial reported a 94% adherence to the exercise programme, with participants attending 45/48 sessions. The remaining trial reported a 96.8% adherence to the exercise intervention during the hospitalisation period.\nTwo trials received funding; one from the National Center for Research Resources (US) and the other from Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Spain). The remaining trial did not receive funding.\nAll trials were at an overall high risk of bias, derived from high risk of selective reporting bias and attrition bias in two trials. The results on all-cause mortality showed a higher risk of death in the exercise group versus the control group, but these results are very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 3.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 13.37; 2 trials, 165 participants; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). The trials did not report data on serious adverse events excluding mortality or non-serious adverse events. However, all trials reported that there were no adverse effects associated with exercise. We are very uncertain on whether exercise compared with usual care has a beneficial or harmful effect on health-related quality of life assessed using the 36-item Short Form Physical Functioning subscale at the end of the intervention (mean difference (MD) 10.56, 95% CI −0.12 to 21.24; 2 trials, 169 participants; I² = 71%; very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reported data on composite of cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular disease, and cardiovascular disease post-transplantation. We are very uncertain if there are differences in aerobic capacity in terms of VO2peak at the end of the intervention between groups (MD 0.80, 95% CI −0.80 to 2.39; 3 trials, 199 participants; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if there are differences in muscle strength at end of the intervention between groups (MD 9.91, 95% CI −3.68 to 23.50; 3 trials, 199 participants; I² = 44%; very low-certainty evidence). One trial measured perceived fatigue using the Checklist Individual Strength (CIST). Participants in the exercise group showed a clinically important lower degree of fatigue perception than participants in the control group, with a mean reduction of 40 points in the CIST (95% CI 15.62 to 64.38; 1 trial, 30 participants).\nWe identified three ongoing studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on very low-certainty evidence in our systematic review, we are very uncertain of the role of exercise training (aerobic, resistance-based exercises, or both) in affecting mortality, health-related quality of life, and physical function (i.e. aerobic capacity and muscle strength) in liver transplant recipients. There were few data on the composite of cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular disease post-transplantation, and adverse event outcomes. We lack larger trials with blinded outcome assessment, designed according to the SPIRIT statement and reported according to the CONSORT statement.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched medical databases for well-designed clinical trials in liver transplantation recipients comparing any type of exercise with no exercise, sham interventions, or another type of exercise." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nShift work is associated with insufficient sleep, which can compromise worker alertness with ultimate effects on occupational health and safety. Adapting shift work schedules may reduce adverse occupational outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of shift schedule adaptation on sleep quality, sleep duration, and sleepiness among shift workers.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and eight other databases on 13 December 2020, and again on 20 April 2022, applying no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, including controlled before-after (CBA) trials, interrupted time series, and cross-over trials. Eligible trials evaluated any of the following shift schedule components.\n• Permanency of shifts\n• Regularity of shift changes\n• Direction of shift rotation\n• Speed of rotation\n• Shift duration\n• Timing of start of shifts\n• Distribution of shift schedule\n• Time off between shifts\n• Split shifts\n• Protected sleep\n• Worker participation\nWe included studies that assessed sleep quality off-shift, sleep duration off-shift, or sleepiness during shifts.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of the records recovered by the search, read through the full-text articles of potentially eligible studies, and extracted data. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, with specific additional domains for non-randomised and cluster-randomised studies. For all stages, we resolved any disagreements by consulting a third review author. We presented the results by study design and combined clinically homogeneous studies in meta-analyses using random-effects models. We assessed the certainty of the evidence with GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 11 studies with a total of 2125 participants. One study was conducted in a laboratory setting and was not considered for drawing conclusions on intervention effects. The included studies investigated different and often multiple changes to shift schedule, and were heterogeneous with respect to outcome measurement.\nForward versus backward rotation\nThree CBA trials (561 participants) investigated the effects of forward rotation versus backward rotation. Only one CBA trial provided sufficient data for the quantitative analysis; it provided very low-certainty evidence that forward rotation compared with backward rotation did not affect sleep quality measured with the Basic Nordic Sleep Questionnaire (BNSQ; mean difference (MD) −0.20 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) −2.28 to 1.89; 62 participants) or sleep duration off-shift (MD −0.21 hours, 95% CI −3.29 to 2.88; 62 participants). However, there was also very low-certainty evidence that forward rotation reduced sleepiness during shifts measured with the BNSQ (MD −1.24 points, 95% CI −2.24 to −0.24; 62 participants).\nFaster versus slower rotation\nTwo CBA trials and one non-randomised cross-over trial (341 participants) evaluated faster versus slower shift rotation. We were able to meta-analyse data from two studies. There was low-certainty evidence of no difference in sleep quality off-shift (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.01, 95% CI −0.26 to 0.23) and very low-certainty evidence that faster shift rotation reduced sleep duration off-shift (SMD −0.26, 95% CI −0.51 to −0.01; 2 studies, 282 participants). The SMD for sleep duration translated to an MD of 0.38 hours' less sleep per day (95% CI −0.74 to −0.01). One study provided very low-certainty evidence that faster rotations decreased sleepiness during shifts measured with the BNSQ (MD −1.24 points, 95% CI −2.24 to −0.24; 62 participants).\nLimited shift duration (16 hours) versus unlimited shift duration\nTwo RCTs (760 participants) evaluated 80-hour workweeks with maximum daily shift duration of 16 hours versus workweeks without any daily shift duration limits. There was low-certainty evidence that the 16-hour limit increased sleep duration off-shift (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.78; which translated to an MD of 0.73 hours' more sleep per day, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.13; 2 RCTs, 760 participants) and moderate-certainty evidence that the 16-hour limit reduced sleepiness during shifts, measured with the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (SMD −0.29, 95% CI −0.44 to −0.14; which translated to an MD of 0.37 fewer points, 95% CI −0.55 to −0.17; 2 RCTs, 716 participants).\nShorter versus longer shifts\nOne RCT, one CBA trial, and one non-randomised cross-over trial (692 participants) evaluated shorter shift duration (eight to 10 hours) versus longer shift duration (two to three hours longer). There was very low-certainty evidence of no difference in sleep quality (SMD −0.23, 95% CI −0.61 to 0.15; which translated to an MD of 0.13 points lower on a scale of 1 to 5; 2 studies, 111 participants) or sleep duration off-shift (SMD 0.18, 95% CI −0.17 to 0.54; which translated to an MD of 0.26 hours' less sleep per day; 2 studies, 121 participants). The RCT and the non-randomised cross-over study found that shorter shifts reduced sleepiness during shifts, while the CBA study found no effect on sleepiness.\nMore compressed versus more spread out shift schedules\nOne RCT and one CBA trial (346 participants) evaluated more compressed versus more spread out shift schedules. The CBA trial provided very low-certainty evidence of no difference between the groups in sleep quality off-shift (MD 0.31 points, 95% CI −0.53 to 1.15) and sleep duration off-shift (MD 0.52 hours, 95% CI −0.52 to 1.56).\nAuthors' conclusions\nForward and faster rotation may reduce sleepiness during shifts, and may make no difference to sleep quality, but the evidence is very uncertain. Very low-certainty evidence indicated that sleep duration off-shift decreases with faster rotation. Low-certainty evidence indicated that on-duty workweeks with shift duration limited to 16 hours increases sleep duration, with moderate-certainty evidence for minimal reductions in sleepiness. Changes in shift duration and compression of workweeks had no effect on sleep or sleepiness, but the evidence was of very low-certainty. No evidence is available for other shift schedule changes. There is a need for more high-quality studies (preferably RCTs) for all shift schedule interventions to draw conclusions on the effects of shift schedule adaptations on sleep and sleepiness in shift workers.\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": "We included 11 studies, with 2125 participants. One study was conducted in a laboratory; we disregarded the results of this study when drawing conclusions. Most studies investigated a change in one feature of the shift schedule, while some investigated changes in two features. Four studies investigated the effect of changes in direction of shift rotation, three studies speed of rotation, five studies changes in shift duration, and one study changes in the distribution of days off.\nForward rotation compared to backward rotation may have no effect on sleep duration or sleep quality on rest days, but may reduce sleepiness at work. However, all of these results are very uncertain.\nFaster shift rotation compared to slower shift rotation may have no effect on sleep quality on rest days. Faster rotation may reduce sleep duration on rest days, but may also reduce sleepiness at work; however, the evidence for both results is very uncertain.\nTwo studies investigated 80-hour workweeks among doctors. They found that a schedule with shifts of no more than 16 hours, compared with a schedule with unlimited shift duration (including shifts of 24 to 28 hours), may increase sleep duration on rest days and probably results in a slight reduction in sleepiness at work.\nShorter shift duration (eight or 10 hours) compared to longer shift duration (two to three hours longer) may have no effect on sleep quality or sleep duration on rest days, but the results are very uncertain. The effects of shift duration on sleepiness differed across studies.\nChanges in the distribution shift schedules (e.g. two days versus four days off in a row) may have no effect on sleep quality or sleep duration on rest days, but the results are very uncertain.\nWe found no studies investigating other changes in shift schedules.\nOverall, there is a need for more high-quality studies to draw firm conclusions on the effects of shift schedule changes on sleep and sleepiness. Currently, we cannot draw useful conclusions from the available evidence." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPain in Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is common, yet it is often under recognised and poorly managed. In recent years, a variety of pharmacological treatment options have been investigated in clinical trials for people with GBS-associated pain. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 10, 2013.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments for various pain symptoms associated with GBS, during both the acute and convalescent (three months or more after onset) phases of GBS.\nSearch methods\nOn 3 November 2014, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE. In addition, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in participants with confirmed GBS, with pain assessment as either the primary or secondary outcome. For cross-over trials, an adequate washout period between phases was required for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified records, selected studies for inclusion, extracted eligible data, cross-checked the data for accuracy and assessed the risk of bias of each study.\nMain results\nThree short-term RCTs, which enrolled 277 randomised participants with acute phase GBS, were included. Risk of bias in the included studies was generally unclear due to insufficient information. None of the included studies reported the primary outcome selected for this review, which was number of patients with self reported pain relief of 50% or greater. One small study investigated seven-day regimens of gabapentin versus placebo. Pain was rated on a scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (maximum pain). Amongst the 18 participants, significantly lower mean pain scores were found at the endpoint (day 7) in the gabapentin phase compared to the endpoint of the placebo phase (mean difference -3.61, 95% CI -4.12 to -3.10) (very low quality evidence). For adverse events, no significant differences were found in the incidence of nausea (risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.04) or constipation (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.54). A second study enrolling 36 participants compared gabapentin, carbamazepine and placebo, all administered over seven days. Participants in the gabapentin group had significantly lower median pain scores on all treatment days in comparison to the placebo and carbamazepine groups (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the median pain scores between the carbamazepine and placebo groups from day 1 to day 3, but from day 4 until the end of the study significantly lower median pain scores were noted in the carbamazepine group (P < 0.05) (very low quality evidence). There were no adverse effects of gabapentin or carbamazepine reported, other than sedation. One large RCT (223 participants, all also treated with intravenous immunoglobulin), compared a five-day course of methylprednisolone with placebo and found no statistically significant differences in number of participants developing pain (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.16), number of participants with decreased pain (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.42) or number of participants with increased pain (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.41) (low quality evidence). The study did not report whether there were any adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSince the last version of this review we found no new studies. While management of pain in GBS is essential and pharmacotherapy is widely accepted as being an important component of treatment, this review does not provide sufficient evidence to support the use of any pharmacological intervention in people with pain in GBS. Although reductions in pain severity were found when comparing gabapentin and carbamazepine with placebo, the evidence was limited and its quality very low. Larger, well-designed RCTs are required to further investigate the efficacy and safety of potential interventions for patients with pain in GBS. Additionally, interventions for pain in the convalescent phase of GBS should be investigated.\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": "GBS is a rare disease that affects the nerves and nerve roots outside the brain and spinal cord. It occurs when the person's immune system attacks the nerves. The trigger is sometimes an infection. Pain in GBS is often under recognised and poorly managed." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common and progressive disease characterised by chronic cough, airflow limitation and recurrent exacerbations. Since COPD exacerbations are linked to rising mortality and reduced quality of life, the condition poses a substantial burden on individuals, society and the healthcare system. Effective management of COPD exacerbations that includes treatment of related conditions in people with COPD is thus recognised as a relevant clinical question and an important research topic. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a known comorbidity of COPD, and pulmonary microaspiration of gastric acid is thought to be a possible cause of COPD exacerbations. Therefore, reducing gastric acid secretion may lead to a reduction in COPD exacerbations. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are one of the most commonly prescribed medications and are recommended as first-line therapy for people with GERD because of their inhibitory effects on gastric acid secretion. Treatment with PPIs may present a viable treatment option for people with COPD.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of PPI administration for people with COPD, focusing on COPD-specific outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Register of Trials and conventional clinical trial registers from inception to 22 May 2020. We also screened bibliographies of relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nParallel-group and cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral PPIs versus placebo, usual care or low-dose PPIs in adults with COPD were eligible for inclusion. We excluded cross-over RCTs, as well as studies with a duration of less than two months.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo independent review authors screened search results, selected studies for inclusion, extracted study characteristics and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias according to standard Cochrane methodology. We resolved discrepancies by involving a third review author. Primary outcomes of interest were COPD exacerbations, pneumonia and other serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, lung function test indices, acute respiratory infections and disease-specific adverse events. We extracted data on these outcome measures and entered into them into Review Manager software for analysis.\nMain results\nThe search identified 99 records, and we included one multicentre RCT that randomised 103 adults with COPD. The 12-month RCT compared an oral PPI (lansoprazole) and usual care versus usual care alone. It was conducted at one tertiary care hospital and three secondary care hospitals in Japan. This study recruited participants with a mean age of 75 years, and excluded people with symptoms or history of GERD. No placebo was used in the usual care arm.\nAmong the primary and secondary outcomes of this review, the study only reported data on COPD exacerbations and acute respiratory infections (the common cold). As we only included one study, we could not conduct a meta-analysis.\nThe included study reported that 12 of the 50 people on lansoprazole had at least one exacerbation over a year, compared to 26 out of 50 on usual care (risk ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.81). The frequency of COPD exacerbations per person in a year was also lower in the PPI plus usual care group than in the usual care alone group（0.34 ± 0.72 vs 1.18 ± 1.40; P < 0.001). The number of people with at least one cold over the year was similar in both groups: 26 people on lansoprazole and 27 people in the usual care group. We judged the evidence to be of low to very low certainty, according to GRADE criteria.\nThe study reported no data on pneumonia and other serious adverse events, quality of life, lung function test indices or disease-specific adverse events. The risk of bias was largely low or unclear for the majority of domains, though the performance bias was a high risk, as the study was not blinded.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence identified by this review is insufficient to determine whether treatment with PPIs is a potential option for COPD. The sample size of the included trial is small, and the evidence is low to very low-certainty. The efficacy and safety profile of PPIs for people with COPD remains uncertain. Future large-scale, high-quality studies are warranted, which investigate major clinical outcomes such as COPD exacerbation rate, serious adverse events and quality of life.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main results of the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We found only one relevant study. It was from a university hospital and three city hospitals in Japan. This study compared the effects of a PPI plus usual care against usual care alone in people with COPD who had no history or symptoms of GERD. The researchers investigated changes in the frequency of COPD exacerbations and the common cold over a 12-month period. This study used a 15 mg daily dose of a PPI called lansoprazole. There was low-certainty evidence of a reduction in the number of people on lansoprazole who had COPD exacerbations compared with people who had usual care, and very low-certainty evidence that similar numbers of people in each group had at least one common cold.\nThe review authors did not find any studies that described the effects of PPIs on pneumonia and serious adverse events, quality of life, lung function, or disease-specific adverse events." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nShortening the duration of radiation therapy would benefit women with early breast cancer treated with breast conserving surgery. It may also improve access to radiation therapy by improving efficiency in radiation oncology departments globally. This can only happen if the shorter treatment is as effective and safe as conventional radiation therapy. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2008 and updated in 2009.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of altered radiation fraction size for women with early breast cancer who have had breast conserving surgery.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Specialised Register (23 May 2015), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE (Jan 1996 to May 2015), EMBASE (Jan 1980 to May 2015), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal (June 2010 to May 2015) and ClinicalTrials.gov (16 April 2015), reference lists of articles and relevant conference proceedings. No language or publication constraints were applied.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of altered fraction size versus conventional fractionation for radiation therapy in women with early breast cancer who had undergone breast conserving surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors performed data extraction independently, with disagreements resolved by discussion. We sought missing data from trial authors.\nMain results\nWe studied 8228 women in nine studies. Eight out of nine studies were at low or unclear risk of bias. Altered fraction size (delivering radiation therapy in larger amounts each day but over fewer days than with conventional fractionation) did not have a clinically meaningful effect on: local recurrence-free survival (Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.94, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.15, 7095 women, four studies, high-quality evidence), cosmetic outcome (Risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.01, 2103 women, four studies, high-quality evidence) or overall survival (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.03, 5685 women, three studies, high-quality evidence). Acute radiation skin toxicity (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.45, 357 women, two studies) was reduced with altered fraction size. Late radiation subcutaneous toxicity did not differ with altered fraction size (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.05, 5130 women, four studies, high-quality evidence). Breast cancer-specific survival (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06, 5685 women, three studies, high quality evidence) and relapse-free survival (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.05, 5685 women, three studies, moderate-quality evidence) did not differ with altered fraction size. We found no data for mastectomy rate. Altered fraction size was associated with less patient-reported (P < 0.001) and physician-reported (P = 0.009) fatigue at six months (287 women, one study). We found no difference in the issue of altered fractionation for patient-reported outcomes of: physical well-being (P = 0.46), functional well-being (P = 0.38), emotional well-being (P = 0.58), social well-being (P = 0.32), breast cancer concerns (P = 0.94; 287 women, one study). We found no data with respect to costs.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found that using altered fraction size regimens (greater than 2 Gy per fraction) does not have a clinically meaningful effect on local recurrence, is associated with decreased acute toxicity and does not seem to affect breast appearance, late toxicity or patient-reported quality-of-life measures for selected women treated with breast conserving therapy. These are mostly women with node negative tumours smaller than 3 cm and negative pathological margins.\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 asked if giving fewer radiation treatments (using a higher radiation dose at each visit) was as effective as the conventional 25 to 30 radiation treatments for women with early breast cancer who have breast conserving therapy (keep their breast)." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcross the developed world, an estimated 150,000 to 300,000 people are treated annually with pelvic radiotherapy and 80% will develop gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms during treatment. Acute GI symptoms are associated with a greater risk of chronic, often debilitating, GI symptoms. Up to one-third of patients are malnourished before pelvic radiotherapy and up to four-fifths of patients lose weight during treatment. Malnutrition is linked to a higher risk of GI toxicity, which can lead to breaks in radiotherapy and early cessation of chemotherapy, thus compromising the efficacy of the primary cancer treatment.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of nutritional interventions for reducing GI toxicity in adults undergoing radical pelvic radiotherapy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 4, 2012, MEDLINE and EMBASE to May 2012. We handsearched the citation lists of included studies and previous systematic reviews identified to identify further relevant trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised studies with concurrent comparison groups including quasi-randomised trials, cluster RCTs, non-randomised trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and case series of 30 or more patients. We only included studies if they assessed the effect of a nutritional intervention in adults aged 18 years or over undergoing radical pelvic radiotherapy as part of anticancer treatment for a primary pelvic malignancy. We excluded patients with stomas and a previous history of inflammatory bowel disease. Nutritional support interventions could be provided at any stage before or during pelvic radiotherapy and included dietary counselling; dietary modification of fibre, lactose or fat; supplementary foods or drinks or fortified foods; standard oral nutrition supplements including polymeric-, peptide- or amino acid-based supplements and those where novel substrates have been added; enteral tube feeds; or parenteral nutrition (partial or total). We excluded probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors to obtain missing data. We assessed bias for each of the included studies using the bias assessment tables in the Cochrane software Review Manager5. We performed meta-analysis, when indicated, using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method or inverse variance fixed-effect method displayed with heterogeneity. We undertook meta-analyses on trials evaluating dietary modification against standard treatment for diarrhoea at the end of radiotherapy and for change in weight from baseline to end of radiotherapy.\nMain results\nThe searches identified 7558 titles, and we excluded 7513 during title and abstract searches. We reviewed 45 papers in full, and excluded 39. We identified four studies on handsearching of the references, which, along with the six eligible papers from the database search, led to 10 studies being included. Four studies, three of which were RCTs and one prospective study, investigated the effect of elemental diet on GI symptoms; one RCT investigated the effect of dietary modification and elemental diet; and five RCTs investigated dietary modification. Studies were varied in terms of risk of bias. Data were dichotomised for presence and absence of diarrhoea at the end of radiotherapy for four trials evaluating dietary modification comprising modified fat, lactose, fibre or combinations of these dietary changes. A reduction in diarrhoea was demonstrated with nutritional intervention (risk ratio (RR) 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.87, four studies, 413 participants, moderate quality of evidence) with low heterogeneity (Chi2 = 3.50, I2 = 14%). Two trials evaluating dietary modification on weight change (comparing baseline and end of radiotherapy) showed no difference between intervention or control (mean difference (MD) -0.57 kg; 95% CI -1.22 to 0.09) with low heterogeneity (Chi2 = 1.41, I2 = 29%). Generally adverse effects were poorly reported in included studies. Elemental diet in particular was poorly tolerated. GI symptoms or toxicity > 6 months after radiotherapy was not reported in included studies\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere have been benefits demonstrated with dietary modification during pelvic radiotherapy to reduce diarrhoea. Those diets included single interventions or combinations of modified fat, lactose-restriction, fat-restriction and fibre supplementation. We were unable to meta-analyse elemental diet, as data were not available. We considered some of the studies to be at high risk of bias. There have been recent advances in novel, more targeted radiotherapy techniques, such that the findings of older studies need to be interpreted with caution. In addition, there were problems with compliance and palatability with some of the interventions, particularly elemental diet, which limits its usefulness in clinical practice.\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": "While some changes to diet during radiotherapy may benefit patients by reducing diarrhoea, it is important to recognise that some of the studies reviewed were dated and there have been changes in radiotherapy technique since then that may give patients less diarrhoea anyway. In addition, many studies were of poor quality and, therefore, only a small number were able to be included in this review. Some interventions described, for example, having to take a liquid diet, were not acceptable as many patients found them difficult to tolerate and were unable to take them completely." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nProvision of assistive technology is a widely used intervention for people with rheumatoid arthritis. Assistive technology is any item used to increase or maintain functional ability in individuals with disabilities. It includes a wide range of products, from low-technology devices to technologically complex equipment. Yet, there are few systematic reviews on the effectiveness of assistive technology in this population.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits of assistive technology for adults with rheumatoid arthritis in terms of improving functional ability and reducing pain, and to assess potential adverse effects in terms of psychological discomfort, personal injury or material damage related to device use.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, ISI Web of Science, PEDro, and OTseeker (to October 2008). In addition, we scanned reference lists, sought grey literature, and had personally communicated with authors. We updated the literature searches in January 2009.\nSelection criteria\nIncluded study designs were randomised controlled trials, clinical controlled trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series where the effectiveness of assistive technology was evaluated. In addition, comparative observational studies were included if addressing adverse effects.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed study quality. Investigators were contacted to obtain missing information.\nMain results\nOnly one randomised controlled trial with 29 participants was included. The study compared the use of an eye drop device to a standard bottle in people with rheumatoid arthritis suffering from persistent dry eyes. The study was considered to have low quality of evidence. The proportions with observed difficulties when using the device to squeeze out drops and getting the drops in the eyes were 10% and 14%, respectively. This compared to 52% and 52% when using the standard bottle (P = 0.001; P = 0.003, respectively). The proportions of participants reporting difficulties with squeezing the bottle, controlling the number of drops, and aiming the drops when using the device were 40%, 44%, and 46% respectively, while using the standard bottle the proportions with difficulties were 72%, 84%, and 76% (P = 0.001; P = 0.003; P = 0.031, respectively).\nAuthors' conclusions\nOnly one trial met the inclusion criteria for this review. Thus, there is very limited evidence for the effect of assistive technology for adults with rheumatoid arthritis and, therefore, an urgent need for high-quality research addressing the effectiveness of commonly used interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Best estimate of what happens to people with rheumatoid arthritis who use an eye drop device\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "" } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nStillbirth is generally defined as a death prior to birth at or after 22 weeks' gestation. It remains a major public health concern globally. Antenatal interventions may reduce stillbirths and improve maternal and neonatal outcomes in settings with high rates of stillbirth. There are several key antenatal strategies that aim to prevent stillbirth including nutrition, and prevention and management of infections.\nObjectives\nTo summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of antenatal interventions for preventing stillbirth for low risk or unselected populations of women.\nMethods\nWe collaborated with Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Information Specialist to identify all their published reviews that specified or reported stillbirth; and we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (search date: 29 Feburary 2020) to identify reviews published within other Cochrane groups. The primary outcome measure was stillbirth but in the absence of stillbirth data, we used perinatal mortality (both stillbirth and death in the first week of life), fetal loss or fetal death as outcomes. Two review authors independently evaluated reviews for inclusion, extracted data and assessed quality of evidence using AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Reviews) and GRADE tools. We assigned interventions to categories with graphic icons to classify the effectiveness of interventions as: clear evidence of benefit or harm; clear evidence of no effect or equivalence; possible benefit or harm; or unknown benefit or harm or no effect or equivalence.\nMain results\nWe identified 43 Cochrane Reviews that included interventions in pregnant women with the potential for preventing stillbirth; all of the included reviews reported our primary outcome 'stillbirth' or in the absence of stillbirth, 'perinatal death' or 'fetal loss/fetal death'. AMSTAR quality was high in 40 reviews with scores ranging from 8 to 11 and moderate in three reviews with a score of 7.\nNutrition interventions\nClear evidence of benefit: balanced energy/protein supplementation versus no supplementation suggests a probable reduction in stillbirth (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.94, 5 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 3408 women; moderate-certainty evidence).\nClear evidence of no effect or equivalence for stillbirth or perinatal death: vitamin A alone versus placebo or no treatment; and multiple micronutrients with iron and folic acid versus iron with or without folic acid.\nUnknown benefit or harm or no effect or equivalence: for all other nutrition interventions examined the effects were uncertain.\nPrevention and management of infections\nPossible benefit for fetal loss or death: insecticide-treated anti-malarial nets versus no nets (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.97, 4 RCTs; low-certainty).\nUnknown evidence of no effect or equivalence: drugs for preventing malaria (stillbirth RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.36, 5 RCTs, 7130 women, moderate certainty in women of all parity; perinatal death RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.63, 4 RCTs, 5216 women, moderate-certainty in women of all parity).\nPrevention, detection and management of other morbidities\nClear evidence of benefit: the following interventions suggest a reduction: midwife-led models of care in settings where the midwife is the primary healthcare provider particularly for low-risk pregnant women (overall fetal loss/neonatal death reduction RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99, 13 RCTs, 17,561 women; high-certainty), training versus not training traditional birth attendants in rural populations of low- and middle-income countries (stillbirth reduction odds ratio (OR) 0.69, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.83, 1 RCT, 18,699 women, moderate-certainty; perinatal death reduction OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.83, 1 RCT, 18,699 women, moderate-certainty).\nClear evidence of harm: a reduced number of antenatal care visits probably results in an increase in perinatal death (RR 1.14 95% CI 1.00 to 1.31, 5 RCTs, 56,431 women; moderate-certainty evidence).\nClear evidence of no effect or equivalence: there was evidence of no effect in the risk of stillbirth/fetal loss or perinatal death for the following interventions and comparisons: psychosocial interventions; and providing case notes to women.\nPossible benefit: community-based intervention packages (including community support groups/women's groups, community mobilisation and home visitation, or training traditional birth attendants who made home visits) may result in a reduction of stillbirth (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.91, 15 RCTs, 201,181 women; low-certainty) and perinatal death (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.86, 17 RCTs, 282,327 women; low-certainty).\nUnknown benefit or harm or no effect or equivalence: the effects were uncertain for other interventions examined.\nScreening and management of fetal growth and well-being\nClear evidence of benefit: computerised antenatal cardiotocography for assessing infant's well-being in utero compared with traditional antenatal cardiotocography (perinatal mortality reduction RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.88, 2 RCTs, 469 women; moderate-certainty).\nUnknown benefit or harm or no effect or equivalence: the effects were uncertain for other interventions examined.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhile most interventions were unable to demonstrate a clear effect in reducing stillbirth or perinatal death, several interventions suggested a clear benefit, such as balanced energy/protein supplements, midwife-led models of care, training versus not training traditional birth attendants, and antenatal cardiotocography. Possible benefits were also observed for insecticide-treated anti-malarial nets and community-based intervention packages, whereas a reduced number of antenatal care visits were shown to be harmful. However, there was variation in the effectiveness of interventions across different settings, indicating the need to carefully understand the context in which these interventions were tested.\nFurther high-quality RCTs are needed to evaluate the effects of antenatal preventive interventions and which approaches are most effective to reduce the risk of stillbirth. Stillbirth (or fetal death), perinatal and neonatal death need to be reported separately in future RCTs of antenatal interventions to allow assessment of different interventions on these rare but important outcomes and they need to clearly define the target populations of women where the intervention is most likely to be of benefit. As the high burden of stillbirths occurs in low- and middle-income countries, further high-quality trials need to be conducted in these settings as a priority.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What does this mean?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We found a large number of reviews but few produced clear evidence. The effectiveness of the methods used to prevent stillbirth varied depending on where they took place, highlighting that it is important to understand how they were tested. The findings cannot be applied to women in general and across all global settings." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nKawasaki disease (KD), or mucocutaneous syndrome, is the leading cause of childhood-acquired heart disease in high-income countries. There is much controversy on how best to treat children with KD and in particular who may benefit from additional treatment beyond the standard intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and aspirin, such as the addition of corticosteroids. This is an update of the review first published in 2017.\nObjectives\nTo assess the impact of corticosteroid use on the incidence of coronary artery abnormalities in KD as either first-line or second-line treatment.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers to 8 February 2021. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles for additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected randomised controlled trials involving children with all severities of KD who were treated with corticosteroids, including different types of corticosteroids, different durations of treatment, and where corticosteroids were used alone or in conjunction with other accepted KD treatments. We included trials using corticosteroids for both first- and second-line treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, assessed study quality and extracted data using standard Cochrane methods. We performed fixed-effect model meta-analyses with odds ratios (ORs) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a random-effects model when there was heterogeneity. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The outcomes of interest were incidence of coronary artery abnormalities, serious adverse events, mortality, duration of acute symptoms (such as fever), time for laboratory parameters to normalise, length of hospital stay and longer-term coronary morbidity.\nMain results\nThis update identified one new study, therefore the analysis included eight trials consisting of 1877 participants. Seven trials investigated the use of corticosteroids in first-line treatment and one investigated second-line treatment. The trials were all of good methodological quality.\nOn pooled analysis, corticosteroid treatment reduced the subsequent occurrence of coronary artery abnormalities (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.75; 8 studies, 986 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), without resultant serious adverse events (0 events; 6 studies, 737 participants; moderate-certainty) and mortality (0 events; 8 studies, 1075 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In addition, corticosteroids reduced the duration of fever (MD −1.34 days, 95% CI −2.24 to -0.45; 3 studies, 290 participants; low-certainty evidence), time for laboratory parameters (erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP)) to normalise (MD −2.80 days, 95% CI −4.38 to −1.22; 1 study, 178 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (MD −1.01 days, 95% CI −1.72 to −0.30; 2 studies, 119 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported long-term (greater than one year after disease onset) coronary morbidity.\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate-certainty evidence shows that use of steroids in the acute phase of KD can be associated with reduced coronary artery abnormalities, reduced inflammatory markers and shorter duration of hospital stay when compared to no corticosteroids. There were no serious adverse events or deaths reported with or without corticosteroid use. Low-certainty evidence shows use of corticosteroids can reduce duration of clinical symptoms (fever and rash). None of the included studies reported on long-term (greater than one year after disease onset) coronary morbidity. Evidence presented in this systematic review agrees with current clinical guidelines on the use of corticosteroids in the first-line treatment in KD.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is Kawasaki disease and how is it treated?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Kawasaki disease is an inflammation of the blood vessels. Standard medicines to treat Kawasaki disease are intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and aspirin. This treatment is usually effective, but it does not work for all children. We currently have a limited understanding of Kawasaki disease and how best to manage it. This is important as one of the long-term consequences can involve the heart, putting the children with the disease at higher risk of life-shortening outcomes." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time and relief of pain is now seen as important.\nWe designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions.\nAs the leading cause of morbidity in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (that is pain lasting three months or longer) can arise in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications (nociceptive, neuropathic, or idiopathic) from genetic conditions, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, as well as for other unknown reasons.\nAntidepressants have been used in adults for pain relief and pain management since the 1970s. The clinical impression from extended use over many years is that antidepressants are useful for some neuropathic pain symptoms, and that effects on pain relief are divorced and different from effects on depression; for example, the effects of tricyclic antidepressants on pain may occur at different, and often lower, doses than those on depression. Amitriptyline is one of the most commonly used drugs for treating neuropathic pain in the UK.\nObjectives\nTo assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of antidepressants used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, of any dose and any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing any antidepressant with placebo or an active comparator.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.\nMain results\nWe included four studies with a total of 272 participants (6 to 18 years of age) who had either chronic neuropathic pain, complex regional pain syndrome type 1, irritable bowel syndrome, functional abdominal pain, or functional dyspepsia. All of the studies were small. One study investigated amitriptyline versus gabapentin (34 participants), two studies investigated amitriptyline versus placebo (123 participants), and one study investigated citalopram versus placebo (115 participants). Due to a lack of available data we were unable to complete any quantitative analysis.\nRisk of bias for the four included studies varied, due to issues with randomisation and allocation concealment (low to unclear risk); blinding of participants, personnel, and outcome assessors (low to unclear risk); reporting of results (low to unclear risk); and size of the study populations (high risk). We judged the remaining domains, attrition and other potential sources of bias, as low risk of bias.\nPrimary outcomes\nNo studies reported our primary outcomes of participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater or 50% or greater, or Patient Global Impression of Change.\nSecondary outcomes\nAll studies measured adverse events, with very few reported (11 out of 272 participants). All but one adverse event occurred in the active treatment groups (amitriptyline, citalopram, and gabapentin). Adverse events in all studies, across active treatment and comparator groups, were considered to be a mild reaction, such as nausea, dizziness, drowsiness, tiredness, and abdominal discomfort (very low-quality evidence).\nThere were also very few withdrawals due to adverse events, again all but one from the active treatment groups (very low-quality evidence).\nNo serious adverse events were reported across any of the studies (very low-quality evidence).\nThere were few or no data for our remaining secondary outcomes.\nQuality of evidence\nFor the outcomes with available data, we downgraded the quality of the evidence by three levels to very low-quality due to too few data and the fact that the number of events was too small to be meaningful.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe identified only a small number of studies with small numbers of participants and insufficient data for analysis.\nAs we could undertake no meta-analysis, we are unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of antidepressants to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. Similarly, we could not comment on our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning; and quality of life.\nWe know from adult randomised controlled trials that some antidepressants, such as amitriptyline, can provide some pain relief in certain chronic non-cancer pain conditions.\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": "In September 2016 we searched for clinical trials in which antidepressants were used to treat chronic nerve, menstrual, muscular, joint, or stomach pain. We found four trials with a total of 272 participants (aged 6 to 18 years old) who had nerve pain, general painful inflammation, stomach pain, or irritable bowel syndrome, for more than 3 months." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPanic disorder is characterised by recurrent unexpected panic attacks consisting of a wave of intense fear that reaches a peak within a few minutes. Panic disorder is a common disorder, with an estimated lifetime prevalence of 1% to 5% in the general population and a 7% to 10% prevalence in primary care settings. Its aetiology is not fully understood and is probably heterogeneous.\nPanic disorder is treated with psychological and pharmacological interventions, often used in combination. Although benzodiazepines are frequently used in the treatment of panic disorder, guidelines recommend antidepressants, mainly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), as first-line treatment for panic disorder, particularly due to their lower incidence of dependence and withdrawal reaction when compared to benzodiazepines. Despite these recommendations, benzodiazepines are widely used in the treatment of panic disorder, probably because of their rapid onset of action.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and acceptability of benzodiazepines versus placebo in the treatment of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR Studies and References), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1950-), Embase (1974-), and PsycINFO (1967-) up to 29 May 2018. We handsearched reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews. We contacted experts in the field for supplemental data.\nSelection criteria\nAll double-blind (blinding of patients and personnel) controlled trials randomising adults with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia to benzodiazepine or placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently checked the eligibility of studies and extracted data using a standardised form. Data were then entered data into Review Manager 5 using a double-check procedure. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details, settings, and outcome measures in terms of efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability.\nMain results\nWe included 24 studies in the review with a total of 4233 participants, of which 2124 were randomised to benzodiazepines and 1475 to placebo. The remaining 634 participants were randomised to other active treatments in three-arm trials. We assessed the overall methodological quality of the included studies as poor. We rated all studies as at unclear risk of bias in at least three domains. In addition, we judged 20 of the 24 included studies as having a high risk of bias in at least one domain.\nTwo primary outcomes of efficacy and acceptability showed a possible advantage of benzodiazepines over placebo. The estimated risk ratio (RR) for a response to treatment was 1.65 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39 to 1.96) in favour of benzodiazepines, which corresponds to an estimated number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 4 (95% CI 3 to 7). The dropout rate was lower among participants treated with benzodiazepines (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.64); the estimated NNTB was 6 (95% CI 5 to 9). We rated the quality of the evidence as low for both primary outcomes. The possible advantage of benzodiazepine was also seen for remission (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.38 to 1.88) and the endpoint data for social functioning (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.53, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.42), both with low-quality evidence. We assessed the evidence for the other secondary outcomes as of very low quality. With the exception of the analyses of the change score data for depression (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.04) and social functioning (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.88 to 0.24), all secondary outcome analyses showed an effect in favour of benzodiazepines compared to placebo. However, the number of dropouts due to adverse effects was higher with benzodiazepines than with placebo (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.15; low-quality evidence). Furthermore, our analyses of adverse events showed that a higher proportion of participants experienced at least one adverse effect when treated with benzodiazepines (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.37; low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow-quality evidence shows a possible superiority of benzodiazepine over placebo in the short-term treatment of panic disorders. The validity of the included studies is questionable due to possible unmasking of allocated treatments, high dropout rates, and probable publication bias. Moreover, the included studies were only short-term studies and did not examine the long-term efficacy nor the risks of dependency and withdrawal symptoms. Due to these limitations, our results regarding the efficacy of benzodiazepines versus placebo provide only limited guidance for clinical practice. Furthermore, the clinician's choice is not between benzodiazepines and placebo, but between benzodiazepines and other agents, notably SSRIs, both in terms of efficacy and adverse effects. The choice of treatment should therefore be guided by the patient's preference and should balance benefits and harms from treatment in a long-term perspective.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is this review important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Panic disorder is common in the general population and is characterised by recurrent unexpected panic attacks consisting of a wave of intense fear that reaches a peak within a few minutes. Agoraphobia often develops after one or more panic attacks and is a fear of being in situations where escape may be difficult or help would not be available if needed. Panic disorder is treated with psychological interventions and medication, often used in combination. Although not usually recommended as first-line treatment, benzodiazepines are frequently used in the treatment of panic disorder. Benzodiazepines show a rapid onset of action, but they also have a high risk of dependency and withdrawal symptoms." } ]

[ { "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: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Overall, the included studies were of good methodological quality, with the majority of studies having little risk of bias due to study design and reporting. The majority of concerns came from lack of reporting of specific details. The quality of the evidence was generally moderate, either because only one study was included in a comparison, because of few events or because there were a lot of differences between the findings of the studies meaning that the data were difficult to interpret. Further studies are needed to better understand the relationship between VTE and extended-duration oral anticoagulants for knee replacement and hip fracture repair as well as outcomes such as DVT below the knee and above the knee, reoperation, wound infection and healing." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPseudomonas aeruginosa is the most common bacterial pathogen causing lung infections in people with cystic fibrosis and appropriate antibiotic therapy is vital. Antibiotics for pulmonary exacerbations are usually given intravenously, and for long-term treatment, via a nebuliser. Oral anti-pseudomonal antibiotics with the same efficacy and safety as intravenous or nebulised antibiotics would benefit people with cystic fibrosis due to ease of treatment and avoidance of hospitalisation. This is an update of a previous review.\nObjectives\nTo determine the benefit or harm of oral anti-pseudomonal antibiotic therapy for people with cystic fibrosis, colonised with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, in the:\n1. treatment of a pulmonary exacerbation; and\n2. long-term treatment of chronic infection.\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.\nWe contacted pharmaceutical companies and checked reference lists of identified trials.\nDate of last search: 08 July 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing any dose of oral anti-pseudomonal antibiotics, to other combinations of inhaled, oral or intravenous antibiotics, or to placebo or usual treatment for pulmonary exacerbations and long-term treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected the trials, extracted data and assessed quality. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing information.\nMain results\nWe included three trials examining pulmonary exacerbations (171 participants) and two trials examining long-term therapy (85 participants). We regarded the most important outcomes as quality of life and lung function. The analysis did not identify any statistically significant difference between oral anti-pseudomonal antibiotics and other treatments for these outcome measures for either pulmonary exacerbations or long-term treatment. One of the included trials reported significantly better lung function when treating a pulmonary exacerbation with ciprofloxacin when compared with intravenous treatment; however, our analysis did not confirm this finding. We found no evidence of difference between oral anti-pseudomonal antibiotics and other treatments regarding adverse events or development of antibiotic resistance, but trials were not adequately powered to detect this. None of the studies had a low risk of bias from blinding which may have an impact particularly on subjective outcomes such as quality of life. The risk of bias for other criteria could not be clearly stated across the studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no conclusive evidence that an oral anti-pseudomonal antibiotic regimen is more or less effective than an alternative treatment for either pulmonary exacerbations or long-term treatment of chronic infection with P. aeruginosa. Until results of adequately-powered future trials are available, treatment needs to be selected on a pragmatic basis, based upon any available non-randomised evidence, the clinical circumstances of the individual, the known effectiveness of drugs against local strains and upon individual preference.\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 found no conclusive evidence to show that oral antibiotics were more or less effective than an alternative treatment for either flare ups of disease or long-term treatment of chronic infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. One of the trials with volunteers being treated for a flare up of disease reported significantly better lung function when using ciprofloxacin compared with intravenous treatment; but we did not agree with this finding when we analysed the same data. We did not find any evidence of differences between oral antibiotics and other treatments in terms of adverse events or the development of antibiotic resistance, but we do note that the trials were not designed to detect such differences.\nUntil the results of large trials are available, people should choose their treatment on a practical basis, basing decisions on any available evidence, their clinical circumstances, the known effectiveness of drugs against local strains of the bug and individual preference." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOral mucositis is a side effect of chemotherapy, head and neck radiotherapy, and targeted therapy, affecting over 75% of high risk patients. Ulceration can lead to severe pain and difficulty eating and drinking, which may necessitate opioid analgesics, hospitalisation and nasogastric or intravenous nutrition. These complications may lead to interruptions or alterations to cancer therapy, which may reduce survival. There is also a risk of death from sepsis if pathogens enter the ulcers of immunocompromised patients. Ulcerative oral mucositis can be costly to healthcare systems, yet there are few preventive interventions proven to be beneficial. Oral cryotherapy is a low-cost, simple intervention which is unlikely to cause side-effects. It has shown promise in clinical trials and warrants an up-to-date Cochrane review to assess and summarise the international evidence.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of oral cryotherapy for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer who are receiving treatment.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 17 June 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 5), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 17 June 2015), EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 17 June 2015), CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 17 June 2015) and CINAHL via EBSCO (1937 to 17 June 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry, and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching databases.\nSelection criteria\nWe included parallel-design randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of oral cryotherapy in patients with cancer receiving treatment. We used outcomes from a published core outcome set registered on the COMET website.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the results of electronic searches, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors for information where feasible. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). For continuous outcomes, we reported mean differences (MD) and 95% CIs. We pooled similar studies in random-effects meta-analyses. We reported adverse effects in a narrative format.\nMain results\nWe included 14 RCTs analysing 1280 participants. The vast majority of participants did not receive radiotherapy to the head and neck, so this review primarily assesses prevention of chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis. All studies were at high risk of bias. The following results are for the main comparison: oral cryotherapy versus control (standard care or no treatment).\nAdults receiving fluorouracil-based (5FU) chemotherapy for solid cancers\nOral cryotherapy probably reduces oral mucositis of any severity (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.72, 5 studies, 444 analysed, moderate quality evidence). In a population where 728 per 1000 would develop oral mucositis, oral cryotherapy would reduce this to 444 (95% CI 379 to 524). The number needed to treat to benefit one additional person (NNTB), i.e. to prevent them from developing oral mucositis, is 4 people (95% CI 3 to 5).\nThe results were similar for moderate to severe oral mucositis (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.65, 5 studies, 444 analysed, moderate quality evidence). NNTB 4 (95% CI 4 to 6).\nSevere oral mucositis is probably reduced (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.61, 5 studies, 444 analysed, moderate quality evidence). Where 300 per 1000 would develop severe oral mucositis, oral cryotherapy would reduce this to 120 (95% CI 81 to 183), NNTB 6 (95% CI 5 to 9).\nAdults receiving high-dose melphalan-based chemotherapy before haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT)\nOral cryotherapy may reduce oral mucositis of any severity (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.01, 5 studies, 270 analysed, low quality evidence). Where 824 per 1000 would develop oral mucositis, oral cryotherapy would reduce this to 486 (95% CI reduced to 289 to increased to 833). The NNTB is 3, although the uncertainty surrounding the effect estimate means that the 95% CI ranges from 2 NNTB, to 111 NNTH (number needed to treat in order to harm one additional person, i.e. for one additional person to develop oral mucositis).\nThe results were similar for moderate to severe oral mucositis (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.09, 5 studies, 270 analysed, low quality evidence). NNTB 3 (95% CI 2 NNTB to 17 NNTH).\nSevere oral mucositis is probably reduced (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.72, 5 studies, 270 analysed, moderate quality evidence). Where 427 per 1000 would develop severe oral mucositis, oral cryotherapy would reduce this to 162 (95% CI 85 to 308), NNTB 4 (95% CI 3 to 9).\nOral cryotherapy was shown to be safe, with very low rates of minor adverse effects, such as headaches, chills, numbness/taste disturbance, and tooth pain. This appears to contribute to the high rates of compliance seen in the included studies.\nThere was limited or no evidence on the secondary outcomes of this review, or on patients undergoing other chemotherapies, radiotherapy, targeted therapy, or on comparisons of oral cryotherapy with other interventions or different oral cryotherapy regimens. Therefore no further robust conclusions can be made. There was also no evidence on the effects of oral cryotherapy in children undergoing cancer treatment.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are confident that oral cryotherapy leads to large reductions in oral mucositis of all severities in adults receiving 5FU for solid cancers. We are less confident in the ability of oral cryotherapy to reduce oral mucositis in adults receiving high-dose melphalan before HSCT. Evidence suggests that it does reduce oral mucositis in these adults, but we are less certain about the size of the reduction, which could be large or small. However, we are confident that there is an appreciable reduction in severe oral mucositis in these adults.\nThis Cochrane review includes some very recent and currently unpublished data, and strengthens international guideline statements for adults receiving the above cancer treatments.\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": "Authors from the Cochrane Oral Health Group carried out this review of existing studies and the evidence is current up to 17 June 2015. It includes 14 studies published from 1991 to 2015 in which 1316 participants were randomised (1280 of whom were included in the analyses) to receive oral cryotherapy versus standard care (usually saline mouthrinses) or no treatment or a different treatment or a different method of oral cryotherapy, and the number of people developing oral mucositis of different severities was compared. Nearly all the evidence was on adults receiving oral cryotherapy versus standard care or no treatment. This evidence fell into two main groups: 1) adults receiving fluorouracil-based (5FU) treatment for solid cancers; or 2) adults receiving high-dose melphalan-based cancer treatment before haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). HSCT is given to help the body to produce all types of blood cells, which are destroyed during cancer treatment." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nFractures of the mandible (lower jaw) are a common occurrence and usually related to interpersonal violence or road traffic accidents. Mandibular fractures may be treated using open (surgical) and closed (non-surgical) techniques. Fracture sites are immobilized with intermaxillary fixation (IMF) or other external or internal devices (i.e. plates and screws) to allow bone healing. Various techniques have been used, however uncertainty exists with respect to the specific indications for each approach.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review is to provide reliable evidence of the effects of any interventions either open (surgical) or closed (non-surgical) that can be used in the management of mandibular fractures, excluding the condyles, in adult patients.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 28 February 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 28 February 2013), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 28 February 2013), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (to 7 April 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (to 7 April 2013) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 7 April 2013). The reference lists of all trials identified were checked for further studies. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials evaluating the management of mandibular fractures without condylar involvement. Any studies that compared different treatment approaches were included.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Results were to be expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was to be investigated to include both clinical and methodological factors.\nMain results\nTwelve studies, assessed as high (six) and unclear (six) risk of bias, comprising 689 participants (830 fractures), were included. Interventions examined different plate materials and morphology; use of one or two lag screws; microplate versus miniplate; early and delayed mobilization; eyelet wires versus Rapid IMF™ and the management of angle fractures with intraoral access alone or combined with a transbuccal approach. Patient-oriented outcomes were largely ignored and post-operative pain scores were inadequately reported. Unfortunately, only one or two trials with small sample sizes were conducted for each comparison and outcome. Our results and conclusions should therefore be interpreted with caution. We were able to pool the results for two comparisons assessing one outcome. Pooled data from two studies comparing two miniplates versus one miniplate revealed no significant difference in the risk of post-operative infection of surgical site (risk ratio (RR) 1.32, 95% CI 0.41 to 4.22, P = 0.64, I2 = 0%). Similarly, no difference in post-operative infection between the use of two 3-dimensional (3D) and standard (2D) miniplates was determined (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.19 to 8.13, P = 0.81, I2 = 27%). The included studies involved a small number of participants with a low number of events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review illustrates that there is currently inadequate evidence to support the effectiveness of a single approach in the management of mandibular fractures without condylar involvement. The lack of high quality evidence may be explained by clinical diversity, variability in assessment tools used and difficulty in grading outcomes with existing measurement tools. Until high level evidence is available, treatment decisions should continue to be based on the clinician's prior experience and the individual circumstances.\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 is up to date as of 28 February 2013. Twelve studies with a combined total of 689 participants were included in this review. Participants ranged in age from 16 to 68 years and most participants (90%) were male. All of the studies compared different types of surgical treatments, and each study evaluated a different aspect of surgical treatment such as different types of plates, screws, or wires or how long the jaw was immobilized after surgery." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIn response to the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), governments have implemented a variety of measures to control the spread of the virus and the associated disease. Among these, have been measures to control the pandemic in primary and secondary school settings.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of measures implemented in the school setting to safely reopen schools, or keep schools open, or both, during the COVID-19 pandemic, with particular focus on the different types of measures implemented in school settings and the outcomes used to measure their impacts on transmission-related outcomes, healthcare utilisation outcomes, other health outcomes as well as societal, economic, and ecological outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and the Educational Resources Information Center, as well as COVID-19-specific databases, including the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease (indexing preprints) on 9 December 2020. We conducted backward-citation searches with existing reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered experimental (i.e. randomised controlled trials; RCTs), quasi-experimental, observational and modelling studies assessing the effects of measures implemented in the school setting to safely reopen schools, or keep schools open, or both, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Outcome categories were (i) transmission-related outcomes (e.g. number or proportion of cases); (ii) healthcare utilisation outcomes (e.g. number or proportion of hospitalisations); (iii) other health outcomes (e.g. physical, social and mental health); and (iv) societal, economic and ecological outcomes (e.g. costs, human resources and education). We considered studies that included any population at risk of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 and/or developing COVID-19 disease including students, teachers, other school staff, or members of the wider community.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. One review author extracted data and critically appraised each study. One additional review author validated the extracted data. To critically appraise included studies, we used the ROBINS-I tool for quasi-experimental and observational studies, the QUADAS-2 tool for observational screening studies, and a bespoke tool for modelling studies. We synthesised findings narratively. Three review authors made an initial assessment of the certainty of evidence with GRADE, and several review authors discussed and agreed on the ratings.\nMain results\nWe included 38 unique studies in the analysis, comprising 33 modelling studies, three observational studies, one quasi-experimental and one experimental study with modelling components.\nMeasures fell into four broad categories: (i) measures reducing the opportunity for contacts; (ii) measures making contacts safer; (iii) surveillance and response measures; and (iv) multicomponent measures. As comparators, we encountered the operation of schools with no measures in place, less intense measures in place, single versus multicomponent measures in place, or closure of schools.\nAcross all intervention categories and all study designs, very low- to low-certainty evidence ratings limit our confidence in the findings. Concerns with the quality of modelling studies related to potentially inappropriate assumptions about the model structure and input parameters, and an inadequate assessment of model uncertainty. Concerns with risk of bias in observational studies related to deviations from intended interventions or missing data. Across all categories, few studies reported on implementation or described how measures were implemented. Where we describe effects as 'positive', the direction of the point estimate of the effect favours the intervention(s); 'negative' effects do not favour the intervention.\nWe found 23 modelling studies assessing measures reducing the opportunity for contacts (i.e. alternating attendance, reduced class size). Most of these studies assessed transmission and healthcare utilisation outcomes, and all of these studies showed a reduction in transmission (e.g. a reduction in the number or proportion of cases, reproduction number) and healthcare utilisation (i.e. fewer hospitalisations) and mixed or negative effects on societal, economic and ecological outcomes (i.e. fewer number of days spent in school).\nWe identified 11 modelling studies and two observational studies assessing measures making contacts safer (i.e. mask wearing, cleaning, handwashing, ventilation). Five studies assessed the impact of combined measures to make contacts safer. They assessed transmission-related, healthcare utilisation, other health, and societal, economic and ecological outcomes. Most of these studies showed a reduction in transmission, and a reduction in hospitalisations; however, studies showed mixed or negative effects on societal, economic and ecological outcomes (i.e. fewer number of days spent in school).\nWe identified 13 modelling studies and one observational study assessing surveillance and response measures , including testing and isolation, and symptomatic screening and isolation. Twelve studies focused on mass testing and isolation measures, while two looked specifically at symptom-based screening and isolation. Outcomes included transmission, healthcare utilisation, other health, and societal, economic and ecological outcomes. Most of these studies showed effects in favour of the intervention in terms of reductions in transmission and hospitalisations, however some showed mixed or negative effects on societal, economic and ecological outcomes (e.g. fewer number of days spent in school).\nWe found three studies that reported outcomes relating to multicomponent measures , where it was not possible to disaggregate the effects of each individual intervention, including one modelling, one observational and one quasi-experimental study. These studies employed interventions, such as physical distancing, modification of school activities, testing, and exemption of high-risk students, using measures such as hand hygiene and mask wearing. Most of these studies showed a reduction in transmission, however some showed mixed or no effects.\nAs the majority of studies included in the review were modelling studies, there was a lack of empirical, real-world data, which meant that there were very little data on the actual implementation of interventions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur review suggests that a broad range of measures implemented in the school setting can have positive impacts on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, and on healthcare utilisation outcomes related to COVID-19. The certainty of the evidence for most intervention-outcome combinations is very low, and the true effects of these measures are likely to be substantially different from those reported here. Measures implemented in the school setting may limit the number or proportion of cases and deaths, and may delay the progression of the pandemic. However, they may also lead to negative unintended consequences, such as fewer days spent in school (beyond those intended by the intervention). Further, most studies assessed the effects of a combination of interventions, which could not be disentangled to estimate their specific effects. Studies assessing measures to reduce contacts and to make contacts safer consistently predicted positive effects on transmission and healthcare utilisation, but may reduce the number of days students spent at school. Studies assessing surveillance and response measures predicted reductions in hospitalisations and school days missed due to infection or quarantine, however, there was mixed evidence on resources needed for surveillance. Evidence on multicomponent measures was mixed, mostly due to comparators. The magnitude of effects depends on multiple factors. New studies published since the original search date might heavily influence the overall conclusions and interpretation of findings for this review.\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 order to reduce the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19, many governments and societies put mitigation measures in place in schools. However, we do not know whether these measures work with regards to reducing the spread of the virus, or how these measures affect other aspects of life, such as education, the economy or society as a whole." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOtitis media with effusion (OME) is characterised by an accumulation of fluid in the middle ear behind an intact tympanic membrane, without the symptoms or signs of acute infection. Since most cases of OME will resolve spontaneously, only children with persistent middle ear effusion and associated hearing loss potentially require treatment. Previous Cochrane reviews have focused on the effectiveness of ventilation tube insertion, adenoidectomy, nasal autoinflation, antihistamines, decongestants and corticosteroids in OME. This review, focusing on the effectiveness of antibiotics in children with OME, is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2012.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of oral antibiotics in children up to 18 years with OME.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 3); PubMed; Ovid EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 14 April 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing oral antibiotics with placebo, no treatment or therapy of unproven effectiveness in children with OME.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nTwenty-five trials (3663 children) were eligible for inclusion. Two trials did not report on any of the outcomes of interest, leaving 23 trials (3258 children) covering a range of antibiotics, participants, outcome measures and time points for evaluation. Overall, we assessed most studies as being at low to moderate risk of bias.\nWe found moderate quality evidence (six trials including 484 children) that children treated with oral antibiotics are more likely to have complete resolution at two to three months post-randomisation (primary outcome) than those allocated to the control treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.58 to 2.53; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 5). However, there is evidence (albeit of low quality; five trials, 742 children) indicating that children treated with oral antibiotics are more likely to experience diarrhoea, vomiting or skin rash (primary outcome) than those allocated to control treatment (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.29 to 3.60; number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) 20).\nIn respect of the secondary outcome of complete resolution at any time point, we found low to moderate quality evidence from five meta-analyses, including between two and 14 trials, of a beneficial effect of antibiotics, with a NNTB ranging from 3 to 7. Time periods ranged from 10 to 14 days to six months.\nIn terms of other secondary outcomes, only two trials (849 children) reported on hearing levels at two to four weeks and found conflicting results. None of the trials reported data on speech, language and cognitive development or quality of life. Low quality evidence did not show that oral antibiotics were associated with a decrease in the rate of ventilation tube insertion (two trials, 121 children) or in tympanic membrane sequelae (one trial, 103 children), while low quality evidence indicated that children treated with antibiotics were less likely to have acute otitis media episodes within four to eight weeks (five trials, 1086 children; NNTB 18) and within six months post-randomisation (two trials, 199 children; NNTB 5). It should, however, be noted that the beneficial effect of oral antibiotics on acute otitis media episodes within four to eight weeks was no longer significant when we excluded studies with high risk of bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review presents evidence of both benefits and harms associated with the use of oral antibiotics to treat children up to 16 years with OME. Although evidence indicates that oral antibiotics are associated with an increased chance of complete resolution of OME at various time points, we also found evidence that these children are more likely to experience diarrhoea, vomiting or skin rash. The impact of antibiotics on short-term hearing is uncertain and low quality evidence did not show that oral antibiotics were associated with fewer ventilation tube insertions. Furthermore, we found no data on the impact of antibiotics on other important outcomes such as speech, language and cognitive development or quality of life.\nEven in situations where clear and relevant benefits of oral antibiotics have been demonstrated, these must always be carefully balanced against adverse effects and the emergence of bacterial resistance. This has specifically been linked to the widespread use of antibiotics for common conditions such as otitis media.\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": "Glue ear is one of the most common conditions of early childhood. Glue ear means that there is fluid in the middle ear space behind the eardrum. This may cause hearing difficulties that may in turn affect children's behaviour, language and progress at school. In approximately one in three children with glue ear, bacteria are identified in the middle ear fluid. Therefore, people have suggested that antibiotics may be beneficial in children with glue ear." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nRegional anaesthesia may reduce the rate of persistent postoperative pain (PPP), a frequent and debilitating condition. This review was originally published in 2012 and updated in 2017.\nObjectives\nTo compare local anaesthetics and regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia for the prevention of PPP beyond three months in adults and children undergoing elective surgery.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase to December 2016 without any language restriction. We used a combination of free text search and controlled vocabulary search. We limited results to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We updated this search in December 2017, but these results have not yet been incorporated in the review. We conducted a handsearch in reference lists of included studies, review articles and conference abstracts. We searched the PROSPERO systematic review registry for related systematic reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs comparing local or regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia with a pain outcome beyond three months after elective, non-orthopaedic surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data and adverse events. We contacted study authors for additional information. We presented outcomes as pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), based on random-effects models (inverse variance method). We analysed studies separately by surgical intervention, but pooled outcomes reported at different follow-up intervals. We compared our results to Bayesian and classical (frequentist) models. We investigated heterogeneity. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE.\nMain results\nIn this updated review, we identified 40 new RCTs and seven ongoing studies. In total, we included 63 RCTs in the review, but we were only able to synthesize data on regional anaesthesia for the prevention of PPP beyond three months after surgery from 39 studies, enrolling a total of 3027 participants in our inclusive analysis.\nEvidence synthesis of seven RCTs favoured epidural anaesthesia for thoracotomy, suggesting the odds of having PPP three to 18 months following an epidural for thoracotomy were 0.52 compared to not having an epidural (OR 0.52 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.84, 499 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Simlarly, evidence synthesis of 18 RCTs favoured regional anaesthesia for the prevention of persistent pain three to 12 months after breast cancer surgery with an OR of 0.43 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.68, 1297 participants, low-quality evidence). Pooling data at three to 8 months after surgery from four RCTs favoured regional anaesthesia after caesarean section with an OR of 0.46, (95% CI 0.28 to 0.78; 551 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Evidence synthesis of three RCTs investigating continuous infusion with local anaesthetic for the prevention of PPP three to 55 months after iliac crest bone graft harvesting (ICBG) was inconclusive (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.09; 123 participants, low-quality evidence). However, evidence synthesis of two RCTs also favoured the infusion of intravenous local anaesthetics for the prevention of PPP three to six months after breast cancer surgery with an OR of 0.24 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.69, 97 participants, moderate-quality evidence).\nWe did not synthesize evidence for the surgical subgroups of limb amputation, hernia repair, cardiac surgery and laparotomy. We could not pool evidence for adverse effects because the included studies did not examine them systematically, and reported them sparsely. Clinical heterogeneity, attrition and sparse outcome data hampered evidence synthesis. High risk of bias from missing data and lack of blinding across a number of included studies reduced our confidence in the findings. Thus results must be interpreted with caution.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe conclude that there is moderate-quality evidence that regional anaesthesia may reduce the risk of developing PPP after three to 18 months after thoracotomy and three to 12 months after caesarean section. There is low-quality evidence that regional anaesthesia may reduce the risk of developing PPP three to 12 months after breast cancer surgery. There is moderate evidence that intravenous infusion of local anaesthetics may reduce the risk of developing PPP three to six months after breast cancer surgery.\nOur conclusions are considerably weakened by the small size and number of studies, by performance bias, null bias, attrition and missing data. Larger, high-quality studies, including children, are needed. We caution that except for breast surgery, our evidence synthesis is based on only a few small studies. On a cautionary note, we cannot extend our conclusions to other surgical interventions or regional anaesthesia techniques, for example we cannot conclude that paravertebral block reduces the risk of PPP after thoracotomy. There are seven ongoing studies and 12 studies awaiting classification that may change the conclusions of the current review once they are published and incorporated.\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": "Pain that persists long after surgery is called persistent postoperative pain (PPP), and is not uncommon. Tissue damage and nerve injury can change pain pathways and sensibility to pain so that pain persists for months. A person may also feel pain more intensely or with a stimulus that normally is not perceived as pain. These changes can be permanent. Applying local anaesthetics close to nerves, bundles of nerves, or nerve roots in the central nervous system, as with an epidural, can interrupt the conduction of pain impulses from the surgical site to the central nervous system. Effective treatment of acute pain may prevent PPP. Wound infiltration uses a specially designed tube with multiple holes that is placed inside the wound to deliver the local anaesthetic." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening condition caused by direct or indirect injury to the lungs. Despite improvements in clinical management (for example, lung protection strategies), mortality in this patient group is at approximately 40%. This is an update of a previous version of this review, last published in 2004.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacological agents in adults with ARDS on mortality, mechanical ventilation, and fitness to return to work at 12 months.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL on 10 December 2018. We searched clinical trials registers and grey literature, and handsearched reference lists of included studies and related reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological agents with control (placebo or standard therapy) to treat adults with established ARDS. We excluded trials of nitric oxide, inhaled prostacyclins, partial liquid ventilation, neuromuscular blocking agents, fluid and nutritional interventions and medical oxygen. We excluded studies published earlier than 2000, because of changes to lung protection strategies for people with ARDS since this date.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 48 RCTs with 6299 participants who had ARDS; two included only participants with mild ARDS (also called acute lung injury). Most studies included causes of ARDS that were both direct and indirect injuries. We noted differences between studies, for example the time of administration or the size of dose, and because of unclear reporting we were uncertain whether all studies had used equivalent lung protection strategies.\nWe included five types of agents as the primary comparisons in the review: corticosteroids, surfactants, N-acetylcysteine, statins, and beta-agonists. We included 15 additional agents (sivelestat, mesenchymal stem cells, ulinastatin, anisodimine, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, recombinant human ACE2 (palifermin), AP301, granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF), levosimendan, prostacyclins, lisofylline, ketaconazole, nitroglycerins, L-2-oxothiazolidine-4-carboxylic acid (OTZ), and penehyclidine hydrochloride).\nWe used GRADE to downgrade outcomes for imprecision (because of few studies and few participants), for study limitations (e.g. high risks of bias) and for inconsistency (e.g. differences between study data).\nCorticosteroids versus placebo or standard therapy\nCorticosteroids may reduce all-cause mortality within three months by 86 per 1000 patients (with as many as 161 fewer to 19 more deaths); however, the 95% confidence interval (CI) includes the possibility of both increased and reduced deaths (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.05; 6 studies, 574 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to the very low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain whether corticosteroids make little or no difference to late all-cause mortality (later than three months) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.52; 1 study, 180 participants), or to the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference (MD) −4.30, 95% CI −9.72 to 1.12; 3 studies, 277 participants). We found that ventilator-free days up to day 28 (VFD) may be improved with corticosteroids (MD 4.09, 95% CI 1.74 to 6.44; 4 studies, 494 participants; low-certainty evidence). No studies reported adverse events leading to discontinuation of study medication, or fitness to return to work at 12 months (FTR).\nSurfactants versus placebo or standard therapy\nWe are uncertain whether surfactants make little or no difference to early mortality (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.29; 9 studies, 1338 participants), or whether they reduce late all-cause mortality (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.61; 1 study, 418 participants). Similarly, we are uncertain whether surfactants reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD −2.50, 95% CI −4.95 to -0.05; 1 study, 16 participants), make little or no difference to VFD (MD −0.39, 95% CI −2.49 to 1.72; 2 studies, 344 participants), or to adverse events leading to discontinuation of study medication (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.44; 2 studies, 88 participants). We are uncertain of these effects because we assessed them as very low-certainty. No studies reported FTR.\nN-aceytylcysteine versus placebo\nWe are uncertain whether N-acetylcysteine makes little or no difference to early mortality, because we assessed this as very low-certainty evidence (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.30; 1 study, 36 participants). No studies reported late all-cause mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, VFD, adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation, or FTR.\nStatins versus placebo\nStatins probably make little or no difference to early mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.26; 3 studies, 1344 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or to VFD (MD 0.40, 95% CI −0.71 to 1.52; 3 studies, 1342 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Statins may make little or no difference to duration of mechanical ventilation (MD 2.70, 95% CI -3.55 to 8.95; 1 study, 60 participants; low-certainty evidence). We could not include data for adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation in one study because it was unclearly reported. No studies reported late all-cause mortality or FTR.\nBeta-agonists versus placebo control\nBeta-agonists probably slightly increase early mortality by 40 per 1000 patients (with as many as 119 more or 25 fewer deaths); however, the 95% CI includes the possibility of an increase as well as a reduction in mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.42; 3 studies, 646 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Due to the very low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain whether beta-agonists increase VFD (MD −2.20, 95% CI −3.68 to −0.71; 3 studies, 646 participants), or make little or no difference to adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation (one study reported little or no difference between groups, and one study reported more events in the beta-agonist group). No studies reported late all-cause mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, or FTR.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found insufficient evidence to determine with certainty whether corticosteroids, surfactants, N-acetylcysteine, statins, or beta-agonists were effective at reducing mortality in people with ARDS, or duration of mechanical ventilation, or increasing ventilator-free days. Three studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of this review. As the potential long-term consequences of ARDS are important to survivors, future research should incorporate a longer follow-up to measure the impacts on quality of life.\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": "We found insufficient evidence to determine confidently whether any type of drug was effective at reducing deaths in people with ARDS, or reducing the length of time that they needed mechanical ventilation. No studies reported fitness to return to work at 12 months. We assessed most outcomes to be low or very low certainty, which reduces our confidence in the findings of the review." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMore than 90% of the global population lives in areas exceeding World Health Organization air quality limits. More than four million people each year are thought to die early due to air pollution, and poor air quality is thought to reduce an average European's life expectancy by one year. Individuals may be able to reduce health risks through interventions such as masks, behavioural changes and use of air quality alerts. To date, evidence is lacking about the efficacy and safety of such interventions for the general population and people with long-term respiratory conditions. This topic, and the review question relating to supporting evidence to avoid or lessen the effects of air pollution, emerged directly from a group of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in South London, UK.\nObjectives\n1. To assess the efficacy, safety and acceptability of individual-level interventions that aim to help people with or without chronic respiratory conditions to reduce their exposure to outdoor air pollution.\n2. To assess the efficacy, safety and acceptability of individual-level interventions that aim to help people with chronic respiratory conditions reduce the personal impact of outdoor air pollution and improve health outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe identified studies from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other major databases. We did not restrict our searches by date, language or publication type and included a search of the grey literature (e.g. unpublished information). We conducted the most recent search on 16 October 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRS) that included a comparison treatment arm, in adults and children that investigated the effectiveness of an individual-level intervention to reduce risks of outdoor air pollution. We included studies in healthy individuals and those in people with long-term respiratory conditions. We excluded studies which focused on non-respiratory long-term conditions, such as cardiovascular disease. We did not restrict eligibility of studies based on outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted study characteristics and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) as appropriate. One review author entered data into the review; this was spot-checked by a second author. We planned to meta-analyse results from RCTs and NRS separately, using a random-effects model. This was not possible, so we presented evidence narratively. We assessed certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Primary outcomes were: measures of air pollution exposure; exacerbation of respiratory conditions; hospital admissions; quality of life; and serious adverse events.\nMain results\nWe identified 11 studies (3372 participants) meeting our inclusion criteria (10 RCTs and one NRS). Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 74 years, and the duration of studies ranged from 24 hours to 104 weeks. Six cross-over studies recruited healthy adults and five parallel studies included either people with pre-existing conditions (three studies) or only pregnant women (two studies). Interventions included masks (e.g. an N95 mask designed to filter out airborne particles) (five studies), an alternative cycle route (one study), air quality alerts and education (five studies). Studies were set in Australia, China, Iran, the UK, and the USA.\nDue to the diversity of study designs, populations, interventions and outcomes, we did not perform any meta-analyses and instead summarised results narratively. We judged both RCTs and the NRS to be at risk of bias from lack of blinding and lack of clarity regarding selection methods. Many studies did not provide a prepublished protocol or trial registration.\nFrom five studies (184 participants), we found that masks or altered cycle routes may have little or no impact on physiological markers of air pollution exposure (e.g. blood pressure and heart rate variability), but we are very uncertain about this estimate using the GRADE approach. We found conflicting evidence regarding health care usage from three studies of air pollution alerts, with one non-randomised cross-over trial (35 participants) reporting an increase in emergency hospital attendances and admissions, but the other two randomised parallel trials (1553 participants) reporting little to no difference. We also gave the evidence for this outcome a very uncertain GRADE rating. None of our included trials reported respiratory exacerbations, quality of life or serious adverse events.\nSecondary outcomes were not well reported, but indicated inconsistent impacts of air quality alerts and education interventions on adherence, with some trials reporting improvements in the intervention groups and others reporting little or no difference. Symptoms were reported by three trials, with one randomised cross-over trial (15 participants) reporting a small increase in breathing difficulties associated with the mask intervention, one non-randomised cross-over trial (35 participants) reporting reduced throat and nasal irritation in the lower-pollution cycle route group (but no clear difference in other respiratory symptoms), and another randomised parallel trial (519 participants) reporting no clear difference in symptoms between those who received a smog warning and those who did not.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe lack of evidence and study diversity has limited the conclusions of this review. Using a mask or a lower-pollution cycle route may mitigate some of the physiological impacts from air pollution, but evidence was very uncertain. We found conflicting results for other outcomes, including health care usage, symptoms and adherence/behaviour change. We did not find evidence for adverse events.\nFunders should consider commissioning larger, longer studies, using high-quality and well-described methods, recruiting participants with pre-existing respiratory conditions. Studies should report outcomes of importance to people with respiratory conditions, such as exacerbations, hospital admissions, quality of life and adverse events.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study identification and selection\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched multiple online databases for studies that tried different options, such as masks and air pollution alerts. We looked for studies in any language, published anywhere in the world and at any time, and also unpublished information. Two researchers looked at the lists of studies separately and then agreed on which ones we should include. We carried out our most recent search on 16 October 2020." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcne is a chronic skin disease characterised by inflamed spots and blackheads on the face, neck, back, and chest. Cysts and scarring can also occur, especially in more severe disease. People with acne often turn to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), such as herbal medicine, acupuncture, and dietary modifications, because of their concerns about the adverse effects of conventional medicines. However, evidence for CAM therapies has not been systematically assessed.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects and safety of any complementary therapies in people with acne vulgaris.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases from inception up to 22 January 2014: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014,Issue 1), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), PsycINFO (from 1806), AMED (from 1985), CINAHL (from 1981), Scopus (from 1966), and a number of other databases listed in the Methods section of the review. The Cochrane CAM Field Specialised Register was searched up to May 2014. We also searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of articles for further references to relevant trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (or the first phase data of randomised cross-over trials) of any kind of CAM, compared with no treatment, placebo, or other active therapies, in people with a diagnosis of acne vulgaris.\nData collection and analysis\nThree authors collected data from each included trial and evaluated the methodological quality independently. They resolved disagreements by discussion and, as needed, arbitration by another author.\nMain results\nWe included 35 studies, with a total of 3227 participants. We evaluated the majority as having unclear risk of selection, attrition, reporting, detection, and other biases. Because of the clinical heterogeneity between trials and the incomplete data reporting, we could only include four trials in two meta-analyses, with two trials in each meta-analysis. The categories of CAM included herbal medicine, acupuncture, cupping therapy, diet, purified bee venom (PBV), and tea tree oil. A pharmaceutical company funded one trial; the other trials did not report their funding sources.\nOur main primary outcome was 'Improvement of clinical signs assessed through skin lesion counts', which we have reported as 'Change in inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesion counts', 'Change of total skin lesion counts', 'Skin lesion scores', and 'Change of acne severity score'. For 'Change in inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesion counts', we combined 2 studies that compared a low- with a high-glycaemic-load diet (LGLD, HGLD) at 12 weeks and found no clear evidence of a difference between the groups in change in non-inflammatory lesion counts (mean difference (MD) -3.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.07 to 2.29, P = 0.10, 75 participants, 2 trials, low quality of evidence). However, although data from 1 of these 2 trials showed benefit of LGLD for reducing inflammatory lesions (MD -7.60, 95% CI -13.52 to -1.68, 43 participants, 1 trial) and total skin lesion counts (MD -8.10, 95% CI -14.89 to -1.31, 43 participants, 1 trial) for people with acne vulgaris, data regarding inflammatory and total lesion counts from the other study were incomplete and unusable in synthesis.\nData from a single trial showed potential benefit of tea tree oil compared with placebo in improving total skin lesion counts (MD -7.53, 95% CI -10.40 to -4.66, 60 participants, 1 trial, low quality of evidence) and acne severity scores (MD -5.75, 95% CI -9.51 to -1.99, 60 participants, 1 trial). Another trial showed pollen bee venom to be better than control in reducing numbers of skin lesions (MD -1.17, 95% CI -2.06 to -0.28, 12 participants, 1 trial).\nResults from the other 31 trials showed inconsistent effects in terms of whether acupuncture, herbal medicine, or wet-cupping therapy were superior to controls in increasing remission or reducing skin lesions.\nTwenty-six of the 35 included studies reported adverse effects; they did not report any severe adverse events, but specific included trials reported mild adverse effects from herbal medicines, wet-cupping therapy, and tea tree oil gel.\nThirty trials measured two of our secondary outcomes, which we combined and expressed as 'Number of participants with remission'. We were able to combine 2 studies (low quality of evidence), which compared Ziyin Qinggan Xiaocuo Granule and the antibiotic, minocycline (100 mg daily) (worst case = risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.53, 2 trials, 206 participants at 4 weeks; best case = RR 2.82, 95% CI 0.82 to 9.06, 2 trials, 206 participants at 4 weeks), but there was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups.\nNone of the included studies assessed 'Psychosocial function'.\nTwo studies assessed 'Quality of life', and significant differences in favour of the complementary therapy were found in both of them on 'feelings of self-worth' (MD 1.51, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.14, P < 0.00001, 1 trial, 70 participants; MD 1.26, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.32, 1 trial, 46 participants) and emotional functionality (MD 2.20, 95% CI 1.75 to 2.65, P < 0.00001, 1 trial, 70 participants; MD 0.93, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.69, 1 trial, 46 participants).\nBecause of limitations and concerns about the quality of the included studies, we could not draw a robust conclusion for consistency, size, and direction of outcome effects in this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is some low-quality evidence from single trials that LGLD, tea tree oil, and bee venom may reduce total skin lesions in acne vulgaris, but there is a lack of evidence from the current review to support the use of other CAMs, such as herbal medicine, acupuncture, or wet-cupping therapy, for the treatment of this condition. There is a potential for adverse effects from herbal medicines; however, future studies need to assess the safety of all of these CAM therapies. Methodological and reporting quality limitations in the included studies weakened any evidence. Future studies should be designed to ensure low risk of bias and meet current reporting standards for clinical trials.\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 relevant databases and trials registers up to 22 January 2014. We identified 35 randomised controlled trials, with 3227 participants, which used 6 kinds of CAM (herbal medicine, acupuncture, wet cupping, diet, purified bee venom, and tea tree oil). A pharmaceutical company funded one trial; the other trials did not report their funding sources." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute sinusitis is the inflammation and swelling of the nasal and paranasal mucous membranes and is a common reason for patients to seek primary care consultations. The related impairment of daily functioning and quality of life is attributable to symptoms such as facial pain and nasal congestion.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of systemic corticosteroids on clinical response rates and to determine adverse effects and relapse rates of systemic corticosteroids compared to placebo or standard clinical care in children and adults with acute sinusitis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to February week 1, 2014) and EMBASE (January 2009 to February 2014).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing systemic corticosteroids to placebo or standard clinical care for patients with acute sinusitis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the methodological quality of the trials and extracted data.\nMain results\nFive RCTs with a total of 1193 adult participants met our inclusion criteria. We judged methodological quality to be moderate in four trials and high in one trial. Acute sinusitis was defined clinically in all trials. However, the three trials performed in ear, nose and throat (ENT) outpatient clinics also used radiological assessment as part of their inclusion criteria. All participants were assigned to either oral corticosteroids (prednisone 24 mg to 80 mg daily or betamethasone 1 mg daily) or the control treatment (placebo in four trials and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in one trial). In four trials antibiotics were prescribed in addition to oral corticosteroids or control treatment, while one trial investigated the effects of oral corticosteroids as a monotherapy.\nWhen combining data from the five trials, participants treated with oral corticosteroids were more likely to have short-term resolution or improvement of symptoms than those receiving the control treatment: at days three to seven (risk ratio (RR) 1.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1 to 1.6; risk difference (RD) 17%, 95% CI 6% to 29%) and at days four to 14 (RR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.5; RD 14%, 95% CI 1% to 27%). A sensitivity analysis including the four trials with placebo as a control treatment showed similar results but with a lesser effect size: at days three to seven (RR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.3; RD 11%, 95% CI 4% to 17%) and days four to 14 (RR 1.1, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.2; RD 8%, 95% CI 2% to 13%). Statistical heterogeneity was high for many analyses. Subgroup analyses revealed that corticosteroid monotherapy had no beneficial effects. Furthermore, scenario analysis showed that outcomes missing from the trial reports might have introduced attrition bias (a worst-case scenario showed no statistically significant beneficial effect of oral corticosteroids). No trial reported effects on relapse or recurrence rates. Reported side effects in patients treated with oral corticosteroids were mild (nausea, vomiting, gastric complaints) and did not significantly differ from those receiving placebo.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOral corticosteroids as a monotherapy appear to be ineffective for adult patients with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis. Current data on the use of oral corticosteroids as an adjunctive therapy to oral antibiotics are limited: almost all trials are performed in secondary care settings and there is a significant risk of bias. This limited evidence suggests that oral corticosteroids in combination with antibiotics may be modestly beneficial for short-term relief of symptoms in acute sinusitis, with a number needed to treat to benefit of seven for resolution or symptom improvement. A large primary care factorial trial is needed to establish whether oral corticosteroids offer additional benefits over antibiotics in acute sinusitis.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key outcomes\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "After combining trial findings, the results suggest that adults treated with oral corticosteroids plus antibiotics are more likely to have short-term symptom relief than those receiving a placebo or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug plus antibiotics. To benefit a single person, seven would need to receive treatment (number needed to treat to benefit). The trial assessing the effects of oral corticosteroids without antibiotics found no beneficial effects compared to placebo. Reported side effects in patients treated with oral corticosteroids were mild (nausea, vomiting, gastric complaints) and did not significantly differ from those receiving placebo." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHydrocephalus is a common neurological disorder, caused by a progressive accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) within the intracranial space that can lead to increased intracranial pressure, enlargement of the ventricles (ventriculomegaly) and, consequently, to brain damage. Ventriculo-peritoneal shunt systems are the mainstay therapy for this condition, however there are different types of shunt systems.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effectiveness and adverse effects of conventional and complex shunt devices for CSF diversion in people with hydrocephalus.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2020 Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to February 2020); Embase (Elsevier) (1974 to February 2020); Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS) (1980 to February 2020); ClinicalTrials.gov; and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised trials of different types of ventriculo-peritoneal shunting devices for people with hydrocephalus. Primary outcomes included: treatment failure, adverse events and mortality.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors screened studies for selection, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Due to the scarcity of data, we performed a Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) incorporating GRADE for the quality of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included six studies with 962 participants assessing the effects of standard valves compared to anti-syphon valves, other types of standard valves, self-adjusting CSF flow-regulating valves and external differential programmable pressure valves. All included studies started in a hospital setting and offered ambulatory follow-up. Most studies were conducted in infants or children with hydrocephalus from diverse causes. The certainty of the evidence for most comparisons was low to very low.\n1. Standard valve versus anti-syphon valve\nThree studies with 296 randomised participants were included under this comparison. We are uncertain about the incidence of treatment failure in participants with standard valve and anti-syphon valves (very low certainty of the evidence). The incidence of adverse events may be similar in those with standard valves (range 0 to 1.9%) and anti-syphon valves (range 0 to 2.9%) (low certainty of the evidence). Mortality may be similar in those with standard valves (0%) and anti-syphon valves (0.9%) (RD 0.01%, 95% CI -0.02% to 0.03%, low certainty of the evidence). Ventricular size and head circumference may be similar in those with standard valves and anti-syphon valves (low certainty of the evidence). None of the included studies reported the quality of life of participants.\n2. Comparison between different types of standard valves\nTwo studies with 174 randomised participants were included under this comparison. We are uncertain about the incidence of treatment failure in participants with different types of standard valves (early postoperative period: RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.27; at 12 months follow-up: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.92, very low certainty of the evidence). None of the included studies reported adverse events beyond those included under \"treatment failure\". We are uncertain about the effects of different types of standard valves on mortality (range 2% to 17%, very low certainty of the evidence). The included studies did not report the effects of these interventions on quality of life, ventricular size reduction or head circumference.\n3. Standard valve versus self-adjusting CSF flow-regulating valve\nOne study with 229 randomised participants addressed this comparison. The incidence of treatment failure may be similar in those with standard valves (42.98%) and self-adjusting CSF flow-regulating valves (39.13%) (low certainty of the evidence). The incidence of adverse events may be similar in those with standard valves (range 0 to 1.9%) and those with self-adjusting CSF flow-regulating valves (range 0 to 7.2%) (low certainty of the evidence). The included study reported no deaths in either group in the postoperative period. Beyond the early postoperative period, the authors stated that nine patients died (no disaggregated data by each type of intervention was available, low certainty of the evidence). The included studies did not report the effects of these interventions on quality of life, ventricular size reduction or head circumference.\n4. External differential programmable pressure valve versus non-programmable valve\nOne study with 377 randomised participants addressed this comparison. The incidence of treatment failure may be similar in those with programmable valves (52%) and non-programmable valves (52%)  (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.24, low certainty of the evidence). The incidence of adverse events may be similar in those with programmable valves (6.19%) and non-programmable valves (6.01%) (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.15, low certainty of the evidence). The included study did not report the effect of these interventions on mortality, quality of life or head circumference. Ventricular size reduction may be similar in those with programmable valves and non-programmable valves (low certainty of the evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nStandard shunt valves for hydrocephalus compared to anti-syphon or self-adjusting CSF flow-regulating valves may cause little to no difference on the main outcomes of this review, however we are very uncertain due to the low to very low certainty of evidence. Similarly, different types of standard valves and external differential programmable pressure valves versus non-programmable valves may be associated with similar outcomes. Nevertheless, this review did not include valves with the latest technology, for which we need high-quality randomised controlled trials focusing on patient-important outcomes including costs.\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 are uncertain about the differences in treatment failure between standard valves and anti-syphon valves, however, the incidence of adverse events, mortality, ventricular size and head circumference may be similar. None of the included studies reported the quality of life of participants.\nWe are uncertain about the differences in treatment failure and mortality in participants with different types of standard valves. The included studies did not report the effects of these interventions on quality of life, ventricular size and head circumference.\nThe incidence of treatment failure and adverse events may be similar in those with standard valves and self-adjusting cerebrospinal fluid flow-regulating valves. The included study reported no deaths in either group early after the operation; we are uncertain about effects beyond this period. The included studies did not report the effects of these interventions on quality of life, ventricular size reduction or head circumference.\nThe incidence of treatment failure is probably similar in those with programmable valves and non-programmable valves, and the incidence of adverse events and ventricular size may be also similar. The included study did not report the effect of these interventions on mortality, quality of life or head circumference." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSystematic reviews are essential for decision-making. Systematic reviews on observational studies help answer research questions on aetiology, risk, prognosis, and frequency of rare outcomes or complications. However, identifying observational studies as part of systematic reviews efficiently is challenging due to poor and inconsistent indexing in literature databases. Search strategies that include a methodological filter focusing on study design of observational studies might be useful for improving the precision of the search performance.\nObjectives\nTo assess the sensitivity and precision of a search strategy with a methodological filter to identify observational studies in MEDLINE and Embase.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE (1946 to April 2018), Embase (1974 to April 2018), CINAHL (1937 to April 2018), the Cochrane Library (1992 to April 2018), Google Scholar and Open Grey in April 2018, and scanned reference lists of articles.\nSelection criteria\nStudies using a relative recall approach, i.e. comparing sensitivity or precision of a search strategy containing a methodological filter to identify observational studies in MEDLINE and Embase against a reference standard, or studies that compared two or more methodological filters.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened articles, extracted relevant information and assessed the quality of the search strategies using the InterTASC Information Specialists' Sub-Group (ISSG) Search Filter Appraisal Checklist.\nMain results\nWe identified two eligible studies reporting 18 methodological filters. All methodological filters in these two studies were developed using terms from the reference standard records.\nThe first study evaluated six filters for retrieving observational studies of surgical interventions. The study reported on six filters: one Precision Terms Filter (comprising terms with higher precision while maximum sensitivity was maintained) and one Specificity Terms Filter (comprising terms with higher specificity while maximum sensitivity was maintained), both of which were adapted for MEDLINE, for Embase, and for combined MEDLINE/Embase searches. The study reported one reference standard consisting of 217 articles from one systematic review of which 83.9% of the included studies were case series\nThe second study reported on 12 filters for retrieving comparative non-randomised studies (cNRSs) including cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. This study reported on 12 filters using four different approaches: Fixed method A (comprising of a fixed set of controlled vocabulary (CV) words), Fixed method B (comprising a fixed set of CV words and text words (TW)), Progressive method (CV) (a random choice of study design-related CV terms), and Progressive method (CV or TW) (a random choice of study design-related CV terms, and title and abstracts-based TWs). The study reported four reference standards consisting of 89 cNRSs from four systematic reviews.\nThe six methodological filters developed from the first study reported sensitivity of 99.5% to 100% and precision of 16.7% to 21.1%. The Specificity Terms Filter for combined MEDLINE/Embase was preferred because it had higher precision and equal sensitivity to the Precision Terms Filter. The 12 filters from the second study reported lower sensitivity (48% to 100%) and much lower precision (0.09% to 4.47%). The Progressive method (CV or TW) had the highest sensitivity.\nThere were methodological limitations in both included studies. The first study used one surgical intervention-focused systematic review thus limiting the generalizability of findings. The second study used four systematic reviews but with less than 100 studies. The external validation was performed only on Specificity Terms Filter from the first study Both studies were published 10 years ago and labelling and indexing of observational studies has changed since then.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found 18 methodological filters across two eligible studies. Search strategies from the first study had higher sensitivity and precision, underwent external validation and targeted observational studies. Search strategies from the second study had lower sensitivity and precision, focused on cNRSs, and were not validated externally. Given this limited and heterogeneous evidence, and its methodological limitations, further research and better indexation are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The included studies had several limitations. The first study used only one systematic review for search strategy development and focused on observational studies of surgical interventions, which might limit the generalizability of the findings to other literature searches. The reference standard in the second study, although encompassing four different systematic reviews, included a limited number of studies, which might affect the accuracy of the performance assessment. Both studies were published 10 years ago and labelling and indexing of observational studies has changed since then." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPrimary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT), a disorder in which the parathyroid glands produce excessive amounts of parathyroid hormone, is most common in older adults and postmenopausal women. While most people with PHPT are asymptomatic at diagnosis, symptomatic disease can lead to hypercalcaemia, osteoporosis, renal stones, cardiovascular abnormalities and reduced quality of life. Surgical removal of abnormal parathyroid tissue (parathyroidectomy) is the only established treatment for adults with symptomatic PHPT to prevent exacerbation of symptoms and to be cured of PHPT. However, the benefits and risks of parathyroidectomy compared to simple observation or medical therapy for asymptomatic and mild PHPT are not well established.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of parathyroidectomy in adults with PHPT compared to simple observation or medical therapy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP from their date of inception until 26 November 2021. We applied no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing parathyroidectomy with simple observation or medical therapy for the treatment of adults with PHPT.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. cure of PHPT, 2. morbidity related to PHPT and 3. serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. health-related quality of life and 3. hospitalisation for hypercalcaemia, acute renal impairment or pancreatitis. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe identified eight eligible RCTs that included 447 adults with (mostly asymptomatic) PHPT; 223 participants were randomised to parathyroidectomy. Follow-up duration varied from six months to 24 months.\nOf the 223 participants (37 men) randomised to surgery, 164 were included in the analyses, of whom 163 were cured at six to 24 months (overall cure rate 99%). Parathyroidectomy compared to observation probably results in a large increase in cure rate at six to 24 months follow-up: 163/164 participants (99.4%) in the parathyroidectomy group and 0/169 participants in the observation or medical therapy group were cured of their PHPT (8 studies, 333 participants; moderate certainty).\nNo studies explicitly reported intervention effects on morbidities related to PHPT, such as osteoporosis, osteopenia, kidney dysfunction, urolithiasis, cognitive dysfunction or cardiovascular disease, although some studies reported surrogate outcomes for osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease. A post-hoc analysis revealed that parathyroidectomy, compared to observation or medical therapy, may have little or no effect after one to two years on bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine (mean difference (MD) 0.03 g/cm2,95% CI −0.05 to 0.12; 5 studies, 287 participants; very low certainty). Similarly, compared to observation, parathyroidectomy may have little or no effect on femoral neck BMD after one to two years (MD −0.01 g/cm2, 95% CI −0.13 to 0.11; 3 studies, 216 participants; very low certainty). However, the evidence is very uncertain for both BMD outcomes. Furthermore, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of parathyroidectomy on improving left ventricular ejection fraction (MD −2.38%, 95% CI −4.77 to 0.01; 3 studies, 121 participants; very low certainty).\nFour studies reported serious adverse events. Three of these reported zero events in both the intervention and control groups; consequently, we were unable to include data from these three studies in the pooled analysis. The evidence suggests that parathyroidectomy compared to observation may have little or no effect on serious adverse events (RR 3.35, 95% CI 0.14 to 78.60; 4 studies, 168 participants; low certainty).\nOnly two studies reported all-cause mortality. One study could not be included in the pooled analysis as zero events were observed in both the intervention and control groups. Parathyroidectomy compared to observation may have little or no effect on all-cause mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 2.11, 95% CI 0.20 to 22.60; 2 studies, 133 participants; very low certainty).\nThree studies measured health-related quality of life using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and reported inconsistent differences in scores for different domains of the questionnaire between parathyroidectomy and observation.\nSix studies reported hospitalisations for the correction of hypercalcaemia. Two studies reported zero events in both the intervention and control groups and could not be included in the pooled analysis. Parathyroidectomy, compared to observation, may have little or no effect on hospitalisation for hypercalcaemia (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.25; 6 studies, 287 participants; low certainty). There were no reported hospitalisations for renal impairment or pancreatitis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn accordance with the literature, our review findings suggest that parathyroidectomy, compared to simple observation or medical (etidronate) therapy, probably results in a large increase in cure rates of PHPT (with normalisation of serum calcium and parathyroid hormone levels to laboratory reference values). Parathyroidectomy, compared with observation, may have little or no effect on serious adverse events or hospitalisation for hypercalcaemia, and the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of parathyroidectomy on other short-term outcomes, such as BMD, all-cause mortality and quality of life. The high uncertainty of evidence limits the applicability of our findings to clinical practice; indeed, this systematic review provides no new insights with regard to treatment decisions for people with (asymptomatic) PHPT. In addition, the methodological limitations of the included studies, and the characteristics of the study populations (mainly comprising white women with asymptomatic PHPT), warrant caution when extrapolating the results to other populations with PHPT.\nLarge-scale multi-national, multi-ethnic and long-term RCTs are needed to explore the potential short- and long-term benefits of parathyroidectomy compared to non-surgical treatment options with regard to osteoporosis or osteopenia, urolithiasis, hospitalisation for acute kidney injury, cardiovascular disease and quality of life.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined parathyroidectomy compared to non-surgical treatment options in adults with PHPT. We compared and summarised the results of the studies and rated our confidence in the evidence based on factors such as study methods and sizes." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCohort studies have suggested that nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) starting in the immediate postnatal period before the onset of respiratory disease (prophylactic CPAP) may be beneficial in reducing the need for intubation and intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV), and in preventing bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), in preterm or low birth weight infants.\nObjectives\nTo determine if prophylactic nasal CPAP (started within the first 15 minutes) or very early nasal CPAP regardless of respiratory status (started within the first hour of life), reduces the use of mechanical ventilation and the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia without any adverse effects in preterm infants.\nSearch methods\nA comprehensive search was run on 6 November 2020 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL via CRS Web) and MEDLINE via Ovid. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in preterm infants (under 37 weeks of gestation). We included trials if they compared prophylactic nasal CPAP (started within the first 15 minutes) or very early nasal CPAP (started within the first hour of life) in infants with minimal signs of respiratory distress with 'supportive care', such as supplemental oxygen therapy, standard nasal cannula, or mechanical ventilation. We excluded studies where prophylactic CPAP was compared with CPAP along with co-interventions.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal, including independent study selection, assessment of trial quality, and extraction of data by two review authors.\nMain results\nWe included eight trials (seven from the previous version of the review and one new study), recruiting 3201 babies, in the meta-analysis. Four trials, involving 765 babies, compared CPAP with supportive care, and three trials (2364 babies) compared CPAP with mechanical ventilation. One trial (72 babies) compared prophylactic CPAP with very early CPAP. Apart from a lack of blinding of the intervention, we judged seven studies to have a low risk of bias. However, one study had a high risk of selection bias.\nProphylactic or very early CPAP compared to supportive care\nThere may be a reduction in failed treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 0.74; risk difference (RD) -0.16, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.02; 4 studies, 765 infants; very low certainty evidence). CPAP possibly reduces BPD at 36 weeks (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.14; 3 studies, 683 infants, moderate certainty evidence); there may be little or no difference in death (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.93; 4 studies, 765 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Prophylactic CPAP may reduce the composite outcome of death or BPD (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.19; 1 study, 256 infants; low certainty evidence). There may be no difference in pulmonary air leak (pneumothorax) (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.16; 3 studies, 568 infants; low certainty evidence), or intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) Grade 3 or 4 (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.37; 2 studies, 486 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Neurodevelopmental impairment was not reported in any of the studies.\nProphylactic or very early CPAP compared to mechanical ventilation\nThere was probably a reduction in the incidence of BPD at 36 weeks (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.8 to 0.99; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.00; 3 studies, 2150 infants; moderate certainty evidence); and death or BPD (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.01; 3 studies, 2358 infants; moderate certainty evidence). There was also probably a reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation (failed treatment) (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.54; RD -0.50, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.45; 2 studies, 1042 infants; moderate certainty evidence). There was probably a reduction in the incidence of death (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 3 studies, 2358 infants; moderate certainty evidence); pulmonary air leak (pneumothorax) (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.69; 3 studies, 2357 infants; low certainty evidence); and IVH Grade 3 or 4 (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.39; 3 studies, 2301 infants; moderate certainty evidence). One study in this comparison reported that there was probably little or no difference between the groups in the incidence of neurodevelopmental impairment at 18 to 22 months (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.32; 976 infants; moderate certainty evidence).\nProphylactic CPAP compared with very early CPAP\nThere was one study in this comparison. We are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the incidence of BPD (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.27; very low certainty evidence). The combined outcome of death and BPD was not reported, and failed treatment was reported but without data. There may have been little to no effect on death (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.29 to1.94; 1 study, 72 infants; very low certainty evidence). Intraventricular haemorrhage Grade 3 or 4 and neurodevelopmental outcomes were not reported in this study. Pulmonary air leak (pneumothorax) was reported in this study, but there were no events in either group.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor preterm and very preterm infants, there is insufficient evidence to evaluate prophylactic CPAP compared to oxygen therapy and other supportive care. When compared to mechanical ventilation, prophylactic nasal CPAP in very preterm infants reduces the incidence of BPD, the combined outcome of death and BPD, and mechanical ventilation. There is probably no difference in neurodevelopmental impairment at 18 to 22 months of age.\nWhen prophylactic CPAP is compared to early CPAP, we are very uncertain about whether there is any difference between prophylactic and very early CPAP.\nThere is no information about the effect of prophylactic or very early CPAP in late preterm infants.\nThere is one study awaiting classification.\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 limited evidence about CPAP compared to supportive care. CPAP compared to ventilators probably reduces BPD and combined numbers of death and BPD. We are very uncertain about the effect of preventive CPAP compared with very early CPAP because there was one small study that lacked the details we needed." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAlcohol use in young people is a risk factor for a range of short- and long-term harms and is a cause of concern for health services, policy-makers, youth workers, teachers, and parents.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of universal, selective, and indicated family-based prevention programmes in preventing alcohol use or problem drinking in school-aged children (up to 18 years of age).\nSpecifically, on these outcomes, the review aimed:\n• to assess the effectiveness of universal family-based prevention programmes for all children up to 18 years (‘universal interventions’);\n• to assess the effectiveness of selective family-based prevention programmes for children up to 18 years at elevated risk of alcohol use or problem drinking (‘selective interventions’); and\n• to assess the effectiveness of indicated family-based prevention programmes for children up to 18 years who are currently consuming alcohol, or who have initiated use or regular use (‘indicated interventions’).\nSearch methods\nWe identified relevant evidence from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid 1966 to June 2018), Embase (1988 to June 2018), Education Resource Information Center (ERIC; EBSCOhost; 1966 to June 2018), PsycINFO (Ovid 1806 to June 2018), and Google Scholar. We also searched clinical trial registers and handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs (C-RCTs) involving the parents of school-aged children who were part of the general population with no known risk factors (universal interventions), were at elevated risk of alcohol use or problem drinking (selective interventions), or were already consuming alcohol (indicated interventions). Psychosocial or educational interventions involving parents with or without involvement of children were compared with no intervention, or with alternate (e.g. child only) interventions, allowing experimental isolation of parent components.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 46 studies (39,822 participants), with 27 classified as universal, 12 as selective, and seven as indicated. We performed meta-analyses according to outcome, including studies reporting on the prevalence, frequency, or volume of alcohol use. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low, and there was high, unexplained heterogeneity.\nUpon comparing any family intervention to no intervention/standard care, we found no intervention effect on the prevalence (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.08 to 0.08; studies = 12; participants = 7490; I² = 57%; low-quality evidence) or frequency (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.83 to 0.21; studies = 8; participants = 1835; I² = 96%; very low-quality evidence) of alcohol use in comparison with no intervention/standard care. The effect of any parent/family interventions on alcohol consumption volume compared with no intervention/standard care was very small (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.00; studies = 5; participants = 1825; I² = 42%; low-quality evidence).\nWhen comparing parent/family and adolescent interventions versus interventions with young people alone, we found no difference in alcohol use prevalence (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.14; studies = 4; participants = 5640; I² = 99%; very low-quality evidence) or frequency (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.09; studies = 4; participants = 915; I² = 73%; very low-quality evidence). For this comparison, no trials reporting on the volume of alcohol use could be pooled in meta-analysis.\nIn general, the results remained consistent in separate subgroup analyses of universal, selective, and indicated interventions. No adverse effects were reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results of this review indicate that there are no clear benefits of family-based programmes for alcohol use among young people. Patterns differ slightly across outcomes, but overall, the variation, heterogeneity, and number of analyses performed preclude any conclusions about intervention effects. Additional independent studies are required to strengthen the evidence and clarify the marginal effects observed.\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": "Overall, only very low- or low-quality evidence shows the small effects found in this review. Many of the studies did not adequately describe how families/young people/parents were allocated to the study groups, or how they concealed the group allocation from participants and personnel. We downgraded the quality of evidence due to the heterogeneity (variability) between studies and imprecision (variation) in results. These problems with study quality could result in inflated estimates of intervention effects, so we cannot rule out the possibility that slight effects observed in this review may be overstated.\nThe US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institutes of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), Drug Abuse (NIDA), and Mental Health provided funding for over half (28/46) of the studies included in this review. Three studies provided no information about funding, and only 13 papers had a clear conflict of interest statement." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nLow back pain is costly and disabling. Prognostic factor evidence can help healthcare providers and patients understand likely prognosis, inform the development of prediction models to identify subgroups, and may inform new treatment strategies. Recent studies have suggested that people who have poor expectations for recovery experience more back pain disability, but study results have differed.\nObjectives\nTo synthesise evidence on the association between recovery expectations and disability outcomes in adults with low back pain, and explore sources of heterogeneity.\nSearch methods\nThe search strategy included broad and focused electronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO to 12 March 2019, reference list searches of relevant reviews and included studies, and citation searches of relevant expectation measurement tools.\nSelection criteria\nWe included low back pain prognosis studies from any setting assessing general, self-efficacy, and treatment expectations (measured dichotomously and continuously on a 0 - 10 scale), and their association with work participation, clinically important recovery, functional limitations, or pain intensity outcomes at short (3 months), medium (6 months), long (12 months), and very long (> 16 months) follow-up.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted study characteristics and all reported estimates of unadjusted and adjusted associations between expectations and related outcomes. Two review authors independently assessed risks of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. We conducted narrative syntheses and meta-analyses when appropriate unadjusted or adjusted estimates were available. Two review authors independently graded and reported the overall quality of evidence.\nMain results\nWe screened 4635 unique citations to include 60 studies (30,530 participants). Thirty-five studies were conducted in Europe, 21 in North America, and four in Australia. Study populations were mostly chronic (37%), from healthcare (62%) or occupational settings (26%). General expectation was the most common type of recovery expectation measured (70%); 16 studies measured more than one type of expectation.\nUsable data for syntheses were available for 52 studies (87% of studies; 28,885 participants). We found moderate-quality evidence that positive recovery expectations are strongly associated with better work participation (narrative synthesis: 21 studies; meta-analysis: 12 studies, 4777 participants: odds ratio (OR) 2.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.64 to 3.62), and low-quality evidence for clinically important recovery outcomes (narrative synthesis: 12 studies; meta-analysis: 5 studies, 1820 participants: OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.41), both at follow-up times closest to 12 months, using adjusted data. The association of recovery expectations with other outcomes of interest, including functional limitations (narrative synthesis: 10 studies; meta-analysis: 3 studies, 1435 participants: OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.31) and pain intensity (narrative synthesis: 9 studies; meta-analysis: 3 studies, 1555 participants: OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.23) outcomes at follow-up times closest to 12 months using adjusted data, is less certain, achieving very low- and low-quality evidence, respectively. No studies reported statistically significant or clinically important negative associations between recovery expectations and any low back pain outcome.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found that individual recovery expectations are probably strongly associated with future work participation (moderate-quality evidence) and may be associated with clinically important recovery outcomes (low-quality evidence). The association of recovery expectations with other outcomes of interest is less certain. Our findings suggest that recovery expectations should be considered in future studies, to improve prognosis and management of low back pain.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the aim of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The aim of this Cochrane Review is to find out if positive recovery expectations of people with low back pain are related to their future pain, activities they are able to do and return to work. Are people who think they will recover from their low back pain more likely to get better?" } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPit and fissure sealants are plastic materials that are used to seal deep pits and fissures on the occlusal surfaces of teeth, where decay occurs most often in children and adolescents. Deep pits and fissures can retain food debris and bacteria, making them difficult to clean, thereby causing them to be more susceptible to dental caries. The application of a pit and fissure sealant, a non-invasive preventive approach, can prevent dental caries by forming a protective barrier that reduces food entrapment and bacterial growth. Though moderate-certainty evidence shows that sealants are effective in preventing caries in permanent teeth, the effectiveness of applying pit and fissure sealants to primary teeth has yet to be established.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of sealants compared to no sealant or a different sealant in preventing pit and fissure caries on the occlusal surfaces of primary molars in children and to report the adverse effects and the retention of different types of sealants.\nSearch methods\nAn information specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 11 February 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies. Review authors scanned the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included parallel-group and split-mouth randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a sealant with no sealant, or different types of sealants, for the prevention of caries in primary molars, with no restriction on follow-up duration. We included studies in which co-interventions such as oral health preventive measures, oral health education or tooth brushing demonstrations were used, provided that the same adjunct was used with the intervention and comparator. We excluded studies with complex interventions for the prevention of dental caries in primary teeth such as preventive resin restorations, or studies that used sealants in cavitated carious lesions.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We presented outcomes for the development of new carious lesions on occlusal surfaces of primary molars as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where studies were similar in clinical and methodological characteristics, we planned to pool effect estimates using a random-effects model where appropriate. We used GRADE methodology to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included nine studies that randomised 1120 children who ranged in age from 18 months to eight years at the start of the study. One study compared fluoride-releasing resin-based sealant with no sealant (139 tooth pairs in 90 children); two studies compared glass ionomer-based sealant with no sealant (619 children); two studies compared glass ionomer-based sealant with resin-based sealant (278 tooth pairs in 200 children); two studies compared fluoride-releasing resin-based sealant with resin-based sealant (113 tooth pairs in 69 children); one study compared composite with fluoride-releasing resin-based sealant (40 tooth pairs in 40 children); and one study compared autopolymerised sealant with light polymerised sealant (52 tooth pairs in 52 children).\nThree studies evaluated the effects of sealants versus no sealant and provided data for our primary outcome. Due to differences in study design such as age of participants and duration of follow-up, we elected not to pool the data. At 24 months, there was insufficient evidence of a difference in the development of new caries lesions for the fluoride-releasing sealants or no treatment groups (Becker Balagtas odds ratio (BB OR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.42; 1 study, 85 children, 255 tooth surfaces). For glass ionomer-based sealants, the evidence was equivocal; one study found insufficient evidence of a difference at follow-up between 12 and 30 months (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.49; 449 children), while another with 12-month follow-up found a large, beneficial effect of sealants (OR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.15; 107 children). We judged the certainty of the evidence to be low, downgrading two levels in total for study limitations, imprecision and inconsistency.\nWe included six trials randomising 411 children that directly compared different sealant materials, four of which (221 children) provided data for our primary outcome. Differences in age of the participants and duration of follow-up precluded pooling of the data. The incidence of development of new caries lesions was typically low across the different sealant types evaluated. We judged the certainty of the evidence to be low or very low for the outcome of caries incidence.\nOnly one study assessed and reported adverse events, the nature of which was gag reflex while placing the sealant material.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe certainty of the evidence for the comparisons and outcomes in this review was low or very low, reflecting the fragility and uncertainty of the evidence base. The volume of evidence for this review was limited, which typically included small studies where the number of events was low. The majority of studies in this review were of split-mouth design, an efficient study design for this research question; however, there were often shortcomings in the analysis and reporting of results that made synthesising the evidence difficult. An important omission from the included studies was the reporting of adverse events. Given the importance of prevention for maintaining good oral health, there exists an important evidence gap pertaining to the caries-preventive effect and retention of sealants in the primary dentition, which should be addressed through robust RCTs.\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 nine studies that involved 1120 children (aged 18 months to eight years). The studies used a variety of dental sealants to prevent tooth decay in baby teeth. We assessed most studies as being at high risk of bias overall, because the dental professionals who were measuring the outcomes could see whether a sealant had been placed, and also differentiated between sealant materials." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nParent-infant psychotherapy (PIP) is a dyadic intervention that works with parent and infant together, with the aim of improving the parent-infant relationship and promoting infant attachment and optimal infant development. PIP aims to achieve this by targeting the mother’s view of her infant, which may be affected by her own experiences, and linking them to her current relationship to her child, in order to improve the parent-infant relationship directly.\nObjectives\n1. To assess the effectiveness of PIP in improving parental and infant mental health and the parent-infant relationship.\n2. To identify the programme components that appear to be associated with more effective outcomes and factors that modify intervention effectiveness (e.g. programme duration, programme focus).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases on 13 January 2014: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2014, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, BIOSIS Citation Index, Science Citation Index, ERIC, and Sociological Abstracts. We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, checked reference lists, and contacted study authors and other experts.\nSelection criteria\nTwo review authors assessed study eligibility independently. We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-randomised controlled trials (quasi-RCT) that compared a PIP programme directed at parents with infants aged 24 months or less at study entry, with a control condition (i.e. waiting-list, no treatment or treatment-as-usual), and used at least one standardised measure of parental or infant functioning. We also included studies that only used a second treatment group.\nData collection and analysis\nWe adhered to the standard methodological procedures of The Cochrane Collaboration. We standardised the treatment effect for each outcome in each study by dividing the mean difference (MD) in post-intervention scores between the intervention and control groups by the pooled standard deviation. We presented standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous data, and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data. We undertook meta-analysis using a random-effects model.\nMain results\nWe included eight studies comprising 846 randomised participants, of which four studies involved comparisons of PIP with control groups only. Four studies involved comparisons with another treatment group (i.e. another PIP, video-interaction guidance, psychoeducation, counselling or cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)), two of these studies included a control group in addition to an alternative treatment group. Samples included women with postpartum depression, anxious or insecure attachment, maltreated, and prison populations. We assessed potential bias (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, and other bias). Four studies were at low risk of bias in four or more domains. Four studies were at high risk of bias for allocation concealment, and no study blinded participants or personnel to the intervention. Five studies did not provide adequate information for assessment of risk of bias in at least one domain (rated as unclear).\nSix studies contributed data to the PIP versus control comparisons producing 19 meta-analyses of outcomes measured at post-intervention or follow-up, or both, for the primary outcomes of parental depression (both dichotomous and continuous data); measures of parent-child interaction (i.e. maternal sensitivity, child involvement and parent engagement; infant attachment category (secure, avoidant, disorganised, resistant); attachment change (insecure to secure, stable secure, secure to insecure, stable insecure); infant behaviour and secondary outcomes (e.g. infant cognitive development). The results favoured neither PIP nor control for incidence of parental depression (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.04, 3 studies, 278 participants, low quality evidence) or parent-reported levels of depression (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.02, 4 studies, 356 participants, low quality evidence). There were improvements favouring PIP in the proportion of infants securely attached at post-intervention (RR 8.93, 95% CI 1.25 to 63.70, 2 studies, 168 participants, very low quality evidence); a reduction in the number of infants with an avoidant attachment style at post-intervention (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.95, 2 studies, 168 participants, low quality evidence); fewer infants with disorganised attachment at post-intervention (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.58, 2 studies, 168 participants, low quality evidence); and an increase in the proportion of infants moving from insecure to secure attachment at post-intervention (RR 11.45, 95% CI 3.11 to 42.08, 2 studies, 168 participants, low quality evidence). There were no differences between PIP and control in any of the meta-analyses for the remaining primary outcomes (i.e. adverse effects), or secondary outcomes.\nFour studies contributed data at post-intervention or follow-up to the PIP versus alternative treatment analyses producing 15 meta-analyses measuring parent mental health (depression); parent-infant interaction (maternal sensitivity); infant attachment category (secure, avoidant, resistant, disorganised) and attachment change (insecure to secure, stable secure, secure to insecure, stable insecure); infant behaviour and infant cognitive development. None of the remaining meta-analyses of PIP versus alternative treatment for primary outcomes (i.e. adverse effects), or secondary outcomes showed differences in outcome or any adverse changes.\nWe used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) approach to rate the overall quality of the evidence. For all comparisons, we rated the evidence as low or very low quality for parental depression and secure or disorganised infant attachment. Where we downgraded the evidence, it was because there was risk of bias in the study design or execution of the trial. The included studies also involved relatively few participants and wide CI values (imprecision), and, in some cases, we detected clinical and statistical heterogeneity (inconsistency). Lower quality evidence resulted in lower confidence in the estimate of effect for those outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough the findings of the current review suggest that PIP is a promising model in terms of improving infant attachment security in high-risk families, there were no significant differences compared with no treatment or treatment-as-usual for other parent-based or relationship-based outcomes, and no evidence that PIP is more effective than other methods of working with parents and infants. Further rigorous research is needed to establish the impact of PIP on potentially important mediating factors such as parental mental health, reflective functioning, and parent-infant interaction.\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 studies comparing PIP with a no-treatment control group contributed data to 19 meta-analyses of the primary outcomes of parental mental health (depression), parent-infant interaction outcomes of maternal sensitivity (i.e. the extent to which the caregiver responds in a timely and attuned manner), child involvement and parent positive engagement, and infant outcomes of infant attachment category (the infant's ability to seek and maintain closeness to primary caregiver - infant attachment is classified as follows: 'secure' infant attachment is a positive outcome, which indicates that the infant is able to be comforted when distressed and is able to use the parent as a secure base from which to explore the environment. Infants who are insecurely attached are either 'avoidant' (i.e. appear not to need comforting when they are distressed and attempt to manage the distress themselves); or 'resistant' (i.e. unable to be comforted when distressed and alternate between resistance and anger). Children who are defined as ‘disorganised’ are unable to produce a coherent strategy in the face of distress and produce behaviour that is a mixture of approach and avoidance to the caregiver); and the secondary outcomes of infant behaviour and infant cognitive development (i.e. intellectual development, including thinking, problem solving and communicating).\nIn our analyses, parents who received PIP were more likely to have an infant who was securely emotionally attached to the parent after the intervention; this a favourable outcome but there is very low quality evidence to support it.\nThe studies comparing PIP with another model of treatment contributed data to 15 meta-analysis assessments of primary outcomes, including parental mental health, parent-infant interaction (maternal sensitivity); infant attachment and infant behaviour, or secondary infant outcomes such as infant cognitive development. None of these comparisons showed differences that favoured either PIP or the alternative intervention.\nNone of the comparisons of PIP with either a control or comparison treatment group showed adverse changes for any outcome.\nWe conclude that although PIP appears to be a promising method of improving infant attachment security, there is no evidence about its benefits in terms of other outcomes, and no evidence to show that it is more effective than other types of treatment for parents and infants. Further research is needed." } ]

[ { "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: \"Key messages\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "• Removing drainage tubes late at night instead of early in the morning might reduce the number of people who need to have the drainage tube reinserted.\n• Removing drainage tubes sooner rather than later probably reduces the risk of infection caused by the drainage tube and painful urination. However, it may lead to more people needing to have the tube reinserted.\n• We need future studies to research the effects of drainage tube removal for people who did not have surgery." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPhysical inactivity is a leading cause of preventable death and morbidity in developed countries. In addition physical activity can potentially be an effective treatment for various medical conditions (e.g. cardiovascular disease, osteoarthritis). Many types of physical activity programs exist ranging from simple home exercise programs to intense highly supervised hospital (center) based programs.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of 'home based' versus 'center based' physical activity programs on the health of older adults.\nSearch methods\nThe reviewers searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (1991-present), MEDLINE (1966-Sept 2002), EMBASE (1988 to Sept 2002), CINAHL (1982-Sept 2002), Health Star (1975-Sept 2002), Dissertation Abstracts (1980 to Sept 2002), Sport Discus (1975-Sept 2002) and Science Citation Index (1975-Sept 2002), reference lists of relevant articles and contacted principal authors where possible.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of different physical activity interventions in older adults (50 years or older) comparing a 'home based' to a 'center based' exercise program. Study participants had to have either a recognised cardiovascular risk factor, or existing cardiovascular disease, or chronic obstructive airways disease (COPD) or osteoarthritis. Cardiac and post-operative programs within one year of the event were excluded.\nData collection and analysis\nThree reviewers selected and appraised the identified studies independently. Data from studies that then met the inclusion/exclusion criteria were extracted by two additional reviewers.\nMain results\nSix trials including 224 participants who received a 'home based' exercise program and 148 who received a 'center based' exercise program were included in this review. Five studies were of medium quality and one poor. A meta-analysis was not undertaken given the heterogeneity of these studies.\nCardiovascular \nThe largest trial (accounting for approximately 60% of the participants) looked at sedentary older adults. Three trials looked at patients with peripheral vascular disease (intermittent claudication). In patients with peripheral vascular disease center based programs were superior to home at improving distance walked and time to claudication pain at up to 6 months. However the risk of a training effect may be high. There are no longer term studies in this population.\nNotably home based programs appeared to have a significantly higher adherence rate than center based programs. However this was based primarily on the one study (with the highest quality rating of the studies found) of sedentary older adults. This showed an adherence rate of 68% in the home based program at two year follow-up compared with a 36% adherence in the center based group. There was essentially no difference in terms of treadmill performance or cardiovascular risk factors between groups.\nChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) \nTwo trials looked at older adults with COPD. In patients with COPD the evidence is conflicting. One study showed similar changes in various physiological measures at 3 months that persisted in the home based group up to 18 months but not in the center based group. The other study showed significantly better improvements in physiological measures in the center based group after 8 weeks but again the possibility of a training effect is high.\nOsteoarthritis \nNo studies were found.\nNone of the studies dealt with measures of cost, or health service utilization.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn the short-term, center based programs are superior to home based programs in patients with PVD. There is a high possibility of a training effect however as the center based groups were trained primarily on treadmills (and the home based were not) and the outcome measures were treadmill based. There is conflicting evidence which is better in patients with COPD. Home based programs appear to be superior to center based programs in terms of the adherence to exercise (especially in the long-term)\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"To improve health, is it better to do an exercise programme at home or at a hospital center?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "To answer this question scientists from the Cochrane Group found and analyzed 6 studies. These studies tested over 370 people over 50 years old who had heart disease (or high risk of heart disease), Chronic Obstructive Airways Disease (COPD). The studies compared people who did an exercise programme at home to those who did an exercise programme at a hospital or center up to 2 years. This review provides the best evidence we have today." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDietary supplements are frequently used for the treatment of several medical conditions, both prescribed by physicians or self administered. However, evidence of benefit and safety of these supplements is usually limited or absent.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of dietary supplementation for people with chronic gout.\nSearch methods\nWe updated the original search by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and four trials registers (August 2020). We applied no date or language restrictions. We also handsearched the abstracts from the 2010 to 2019 American College of Rheumatology and European League against Rheumatism conferences, and checked the references of all included studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered all published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared dietary supplements with no supplements, placebo, another supplement, or pharmacological agents for adults with chronic gout for inclusion. Dietary supplements included, but were not limited to, amino acids, antioxidants, essential minerals, polyunsaturated fatty acids, prebiotic agents, probiotic agents, and vitamins. The major outcomes were acute gout flares, study withdrawal due to adverse events (AEs), serum uric acid (sUA) reduction, joint pain reduction, participant global assessment, total number of AEs, and tophus regression.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nTwo previously included RCTs (160 participants) met our inclusion criteria; we did not identify any new trials for this update. As these two trials evaluated different diet supplements (enriched skim milk powder (SMP) and vitamin C) with different outcomes (gout flare prevention for enriched SMP, and sUA reduction for vitamin C), we reported the results separately.\nOne trial (120 participants), at unclear risk of selection and detection bias, compared SMP enriched with glycomacropeptides (GMP) with un-enriched SMP, and with lactose, over three months. Participants were predominantly men, aged in their 50s, who had severe gout. The results for all major outcomes were imprecise, except for pain. None of the results were clinically significant.\nThe frequency of acute gout attacks, measured as the number of flares per month, decreased in all three groups over the three-month study period. The effects of enriched SMP (SMP/GMP/G600) compared with the combined control groups (SMP and lactose powder) at three months in terms of mean number of gout flares per month were not clinically significant (mean (standard deviation (SD)) flares per month: 0.49 (1.52) in SMP/GMP/G600 group versus 0.70 (1.28) in the control groups; absolute risk difference: mean difference (MD) -0.21 flares per month, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.76 to 0.34; low-quality evidence).\nThe number of withdrawals due to adverse effects was similar between groups (7/40 in SMP/GMP/G600 group versus 11/80 in control groups; (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.03); there were 4% more withdrawals in the SMP/lactose groups (10% fewer to 18% more; low-quality evidence).\nSerum uric acid reduction was similar across groups (mean (SD) -0.025 (0.067) mmol/L in SMP/GMP/G600 group versus -0.010 (0.069) in control groups; MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.01; low-quality evidence).\nPain from self-reported gout flares (measured on a 10-point Likert scale) improved slightly more in the GMP/G600 SMP group compared with controls (mean (SD) -1.97 (2.28) in SMP/GMP/G600 group versus -0.94 (2.25) in control groups; MD -1.03, 95% CI -1.89 to -0.17). This was an absolute reduction of 10% (95% CI 20% to 1% reduction; low-quality evidence), which may not be of clinical relevance.\nThe risk of adverse events was similar between groups (19/40 in SMP/GMP/G600 group versus 39/80 in control groups; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.45); the absolute risk difference was 1% fewer adverse events (1% fewer to 2% more), low-quality evidence). Gastrointestinal events such as nausea, flatulence and diarrhoea were the most commonly reported adverse effects.\nData for participant global assessment were not available for analysis; the study did not report tophus regression.\nOne trial (40 participants), at high risk of selection, performance, and detection bias, compared vitamin C alone with allopurinol, and with allopurinol plus vitamin C, in a three-arm study. We only included data from the vitamin C versus allopurinol comparison in this review. Participants were predominantly middle-aged men, and their severity of gout was representative of gout in general.\nAllopurinol reduced sUA levels more than vitamin C (MD 0.10 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.15), low-quality evidence. The study reported no adverse events; none of the participants withdrew due to adverse events.\nThe study did not assess the rate of gout attacks, joint pain reduction, participant global assessment, or tophus regression.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhile dietary supplements may be widely used for gout, this review found no high-quality that supported or refuted the use of glycomacropeptide-enriched skim milk powder or vitamin C for adults with chronic gout.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is gout, and what are dietary supplements?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Gout is caused by crystal formation in the joints, due to high uric acid levels in the blood. People have attacks of painful, warm, and swollen joints, often in the big toe. Some people develop a large buildup of crystals just beneath the skin, known as tophi. A cure can be achieved if uric acid levels in the blood return to normal for a prolonged time, making the crystal deposits dissolve.\nDietary supplements are preparations, such as vitamins, essential minerals, and probiotics. Few studies evaluate their benefits, fewer evaluate their harmful side effects." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nBetween 40% and 70% of people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia do not respond to clozapine, despite adequate blood levels. For these people, a number of treatment strategies have emerged, including the prescription of a second anti-psychotic drug in combination with clozapine.\nObjectives\nTo determine the clinical effects of various clozapine combination strategies with antipsychotic drugs in people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia both in terms of efficacy and tolerability.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (to 28 August 2015) and MEDLINE (November 2008). We checked the reference lists of all identified randomised controlled trials (RCT). For the first version of the review, we also contacted pharmaceutical companies to identify further trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only RCTs recruiting people of both sexes, aged 18 years or more, with a diagnosis of treatment-resistant schizophrenia (or related disorders) and comparing clozapine plus another antipsychotic drug with clozapine plus a different antipsychotic drug.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data independently. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis using a random-effects meta-analysis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and 95% CIs. We used GRADE to create 'Summary of findings' tables and assessed risk of bias for included studies.\nMain results\nWe identified two further studies with 169 participants that met our inclusion criteria. This review now includes five studies with 309 participants. The quality of evidence was low, and, due to the high degree of heterogeneity between studies, we were unable to undertake a formal meta-analysis to increase the statistical power.\nFor this update, we specified seven main outcomes of interest: clinical response in mental state (clinically significant response, mean score/change in mental state), clinical response in global state (mean score/change in global state), weight gain, leaving the study early (acceptability of treatment), service utilisation outcomes (hospital days or admissions to hospital) and quality of life.\nWe found some significant differences between clozapine combination strategies for global and mental state (clinically significant response and change), and there were data for leaving the study early and weight gain. We found no data for service utilisation and quality of life.\nClozapine plus aripiprazole versus clozapine plus haloperidol\nThere was no long-term significant difference between aripiprazole and haloperidol combination strategies in change of mental state (1 RCT, n = 105, MD 0.90, 95% CI -4.38 to 6.18, low quality evidence). There were no adverse effect data for weight gain but there was a benefit of aripiprazole for adverse effects measured by the LUNSERS at 12 weeks (1 RCT, n = 105, MD -4.90, 95% CI -8.48 to -1.32) and 24 weeks (1 RCT, n = 105, MD -4.90, 95% CI -8.25 to -1.55), but not 52 weeks (1 RCT, n = 105, MD -4.80, 95% CI -9.79 to 0.19). Similar numbers of participants from each group left the study early (1 RCT, n = 106, RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.22, very low quality evidence).\nClozapine plus amisulpride versus clozapine plus quetiapine\nOne study showed a significant benefit of amisulpride over quetiapine in the short term, for both change in global state (Clinical Global Impression (CGI): 1 RCT, n = 50, MD -0.90, 95% CI -1.38 to -0.42, very low quality evidence) and mental state (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS): 1 RCT, n = 50, MD -4.00, 95% CI -5.86 to -2.14, low quality evidence). Similar numbers of participants from each group left the study early (1 RCT, n = 56, RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.60, very low quality evidence)\nClozapine plus risperidone versus clozapine plus sulpiride\nThere was no difference between risperidone and sulpiride for clinically significant response, defined by the study as 20% to 50% reduction in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.68, very low quality evidence). There were similar equivocal results for weight gain (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.90, very low quality evidence) and mental state (PANSS total: 1 RCT, n = 60, MD -2.28, 95% CI -7.41 to 2.85, very low quality evidence). No-one left the study early.\nClozapine plus risperidone versus clozapine plus ziprasidone\nThere was no difference between risperidone and ziprasidone for clinically significant response (1 RCT, n = 24, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.27, very low quality evidence), change in global state CGI-II score (1 RCT, n = 22, MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.82 to 0.22, very low quality evidence), change in PANSS total score (1 RCT, n = 16, MD 1.00, 95% CI -7.91 to 9.91, very low quality evidence) or leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 24, RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.49, very low quality evidence).\nClozapine plus ziprasidone versus clozapine plus quetiapine\nOne study found, in the medium term, a superior effect for ziprasidone combination compared with quetiapine combination for clinically significant response in mental state (> 50% reduction PANSS: 1 RCT, n = 63, RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.81, low quality evidence), global state (CGI - Severity score: 1 RCT, n = 60, MD -0.70, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.22, low quality evidence) and mental state (PANSS total score: 1 RCT, n = 60, MD -12.30, 95% CI -22.43 to -2.17, low quality evidence). There was no effect for leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 63, RR 0.52, CI 0.05 to 5.41, very low quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe reliability of results from this review is limited, evidence is of low or very low quality. Furthermore, due to the limited number of included studies, we were unable to undertake formal meta-analyses. As a consequence, any conclusions drawn from these findings are based on single, small-sized RCTs with high risk of type II error. Properly conducted and adequately powered RCTs are required. Future trialists should seek to measure patient-important outcomes such as quality of life, as well as clinical response and adverse 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": "Schizophrenia is a severe mental illness that includes symptoms of hallucinations (sensations that appear real but are created by a person's mind), delusions (unrealistic beliefs) and apathy (lack of interest) which can significantly impact on people's lives. The main treatment is with antipsychotic medicines; however, some people with schizophrenia do not respond to antipsychotic medicines (called treatment resistance), which is a major challenge in the management of schizophrenia. The antipsychotic medicine, clozapine, is an effective medicine to use if treatment resistance occurs; however, it can cause unwanted side effects that include drowsiness, dizziness, headache, tremor (shaking), and excessive salivation (mouth watering). A more serious side effect is the reduction in the number of white blood cells, which can lead to an increased risk of infection. Clozapine is often used in combination with other antipsychotic medicines for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, and this review investigated the clinical effects and safety of various clozapine combinations." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nImplantation of an embryo within the endometrial cavity is a critical step in the process of in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Previous research has suggested that endometrial injury (also known as endometrial scratching), defined as intentional damage to the endometrium, can increase the chance of pregnancy in women undergoing IVF.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of endometrial injury performed before embryo transfer in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) including intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and frozen embryo transfer.\nSearch methods\nIn June 2020 we searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, DARE and two trial registries. We also checked the reference sections of relevant studies and contacted experts in the field for any additional trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing intentional endometrial injury before embryo transfer in women undergoing IVF, versus no intervention or a sham procedure.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Two independent review authors screened studies, evaluated risk of bias and assessed the certainty of the evidence by using GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. We contacted and corresponded with study investigators as required. Due to the high risk of bias associated with many of the studies, the primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at a low risk of bias for selection bias and other bias. Sensitivity analysis was then performed including all studies. The primary review outcomes were live birth and miscarriage.\nMain results\nEndometrial injury versus control (no procedure or a sham procedure)\nA total of 37 studies (8786 women) were included in this comparison. Most studies performed endometrial injury by pipelle biopsy in the luteal phase of the cycle before the IVF cycle. The primary analysis was restricted to studies at low risk of bias, and included eight studies. The effect of endometrial injury on live birth is unclear as the result is consistent with no effect, or a small reduction, or an improvement (odds ratio (OR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.28; participants = 4402; studies = 8; I2 = 15%, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth with IVF is usually 27%, then the chance when using endometrial injury would be somewhere between < 27% and 32%.\nSimilarly, the effect of endometrial injury on clinical pregnancy is unclear (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.23; participants = 4402; studies = 8; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy from IVF is normally 32%, then the chance when using endometrial injury before IVF is between 31% and 37%. When all studies were included in the sensitivity analysis, we were unable to conduct meta-analysis for the outcomes of live birth and clinical pregnancy due to high risk of bias and statistical heterogeneity.\nEndometrial injury probably results in little to no difference in chance of miscarriage (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.13; participants = 4402; studies = 8; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence), and this result was similar in the sensitivity analysis that included all studies. The result suggests that if the chance of miscarriage with IVF is usually 6.0%, then when using endometrial injury it would be somewhere between 4.2% and 6.8%.\nEndometrial injury was associated with mild to moderate pain (approximately 4 out of 10), and was generally associated with some minimal bleeding.\nThe evidence was downgraded for imprecision due to wide confidence intervals and therefore all primary analyses were graded as moderate certainty.\nHigher versus lower degree of injury\nOnly one small study was included in this comparison (participants = 129), which compared endometrial injury using two different instruments in the cycle prior to the IVF cycle: a pipelle catheter and a Shepard catheter. This trial was excluded from the primary analysis due to risk of bias. In the sensitivity analysis, all outcomes reported for this study were graded as very-low certainty due to risk of bias, and as such we were not able to interpret the study results.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe effect of endometrial injury on live birth and clinical pregnancy among women undergoing IVF is unclear. The results of the meta-analyses are consistent with an increased chance, no effect and a small reduction in these outcomes. We are therefore uncertain whether endometrial injury improves the chance of live birth or clinical pregnancy in women undergoing IVF. Endometrial injury does not appear to affect the chance of miscarriage. It is a somewhat painful procedure associated with a small amount of bleeding. In conclusion, current evidence does not support the routine use of endometrial injury for women undergoing IVF.\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": "For the primary analyses, the evidence is of moderate certainty. The evidence was reduced because the results were imprecise, and consistent with endometrial injury having no effect, being beneficial, and being harmful to the chance of getting pregnant or having a baby." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSchizophrenia is a disabling serious mental illness that can be chronic. Haloperidol, one of the first generation of antipsychotic drugs, is effective in the treatment of schizophrenia but can have adverse side effects. The effects of stopping haloperidol in people with schizophrenia who are stable on their prescription are not well researched in the context of systematic reviews.\nObjectives\nTo review the effects of haloperidol discontinuation in people with schizophrenia who are stable on haloperidol.\nSearch methods\nOn 20 February 2015, 24 May 2017, and 12 January 2019, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group’s Study-Based Register of Trials including trial registers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included clinical trials randomising adults with schizophrenia or related disorders who were receiving haloperidol, and were stable. We included trials that randomised such participants to either continue their current treatment with haloperidol or discontinue their haloperidol treatment. We included trials that met our selection criteria and reported usable data.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently checked all records retrieved from the search and obtained full reports of relevant records for closer inspection. We extracted data from included studies independently. All usable data were dichotomous, and we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) using a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias within the included studies and used GRADE to create a 'Summary of findings' table.\nMain results\nWe included five randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 232 participants comparing haloperidol discontinuation with haloperidol continuation. Discontinuation was achieved in all five studies by replacing haloperidol with placebo. The trials' size ranged between 23 and 87 participants. The methods of randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding were poorly reported.\nParticipants allocated to discontinuing haloperidol treatment were more likely to show no improvement in global state compared with those in the haloperidol continuation group (n = 49; 1 RCT; RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.20; very low quality evidence: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited due to relevant methodological shortcomings of included trials). Those who continued haloperidol treatment were less likely to experience a relapse compared to people who discontinued taking haloperidol (n = 165; 4 RCTs; RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.74; very low quality evidence). Satisfaction with treatment (measured as numbers leaving the study early) was similar between groups (n = 43; 1 RCT; RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.28; very low quality evidence).\nNo usable mental state, general functioning, general behaviour or adverse effect data were reported by any of the trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review provides limited evidence derived from small, short-term studies. The longest study was for one year, making it difficult to generalise the results to a life-long disorder. Very low quality evidence shows that discontinuation of haloperidol is associated with an increased risk of relapse and a reduction in the risk of 'global state improvement'. However, participant satisfaction with haloperidol treatment was not different from participant satisfaction with haloperidol discontinuation as measured by leaving the studies early. Due to the very low quality of these results, firm conclusions cannot be made. In addition, the available studies did not report usable data regarding the adverse effects of haloperidol treatment.\nConsidering that haloperidol is one of the most widely used antipsychotic drugs, it was surprising that only a small number of studies into the benefit and harm of haloperidol discontinuation were available. Moreover, the available studies did not report on outcomes that are important to clinicians and to people with schizophrenia, particularly adverse effects and social outcomes. Better designed trials are warranted.\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 discontinuing the antipsychotic haloperidol in people with schizophrenia who are stable on haloperidol treatment." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis review was published originally in 1999 and was updated in 2001, 2002, 2009, 2017, and 2020. Updating was deemed necessary due to the high incidence of hip fractures, the large number of official societies providing recommendations on this condition, the possibility that perioperative peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) may improve patient outcomes, and the major role that PNBs may play in reducing preoperative and postoperative opioid use for analgesia.\nObjectives\nTo compare PNBs used as preoperative analgesia, as postoperative analgesia, or as a supplement to general anaesthesia versus no nerve block (or sham block) for adults with hip fracture. Outcomes were pain on movement at 30 minutes after block placement, acute confusional state, myocardial infarction, chest infection, death, time to first mobilization, and costs of an analgesic regimen for single-injection blocks.\nWe undertook the update to look for new studies and to update the methods to reflect Cochrane standards.\nSearch methods\nFor the updated review, we searched the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 11), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (Ovid SP, 1966 to November 2019); Embase (Ovid SP, 1974 to November 2019); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCO, 1982 to November 2019), as well as trial registers and reference lists of relevant articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing use of PNBs compared with no nerve block (or sham block) as part of the care provided for adults 16 years of age and older with hip fracture.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened new trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias-2 tool, and extracted data. When appropriate, we pooled results of outcome measures. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 49 trials (3061 participants; 1553 randomized to PNBs and 1508 to no nerve block (or sham block)). For this update, we added 18 new trials. Trials were published from 1981 to 2020. Trialists followed participants for periods ranging from 5 minutes to 12 months. The average age of participants ranged from 59 to 89 years. People with dementia were often excluded from the included trials. Additional analgesia was available for all participants.\nResults of 11 trials with 503 participants show that PNBs reduced pain on movement within 30 minutes of block placement (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.25 to -0.86; equivalent to -2.5 on a scale from 0 to 10; high-certainty evidence). Effect size was proportionate to the concentration of local anaesthetic used (P = 0.0003). Based on 13 trials with 1072 participants, PNBs reduce the risk of acute confusional state (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 12, 95% CI 7 to 47; high-certainty evidence). For myocardial infarction, there were no events in one trial with 31 participants (RR not estimable; low-certainty evidence). From three trials with 131 participants, PNBs probably reduce the risk for chest infection (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.89; NNTB 7, 95% CI 5 to 72; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on 11 trials with 617 participants, the effects of PNBs on mortality within six months are uncertain due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.60; low-certainty evidence). From three trials with 208 participants, PNBs likely reduce time to first mobilization (mean difference (MD) -10.80 hours, 95% CI -12.83 to -8.77 hours; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial with 75 participants indicated there may be a small reduction in the cost of analgesic drugs with a single-injection PNB (MD -4.40 euros, 95% CI -4.84 to -3.96 euros; low-certainty evidence).\nWe identified 29 ongoing trials, of which 15 were first posted or at least were last updated after 1 January 2018.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPNBs reduce pain on movement within 30 minutes after block placement, risk of acute confusional state, and probably also reduce the risk of chest infection and time to first mobilization. There may be a small reduction in the cost of analgesic drugs for single-injection PNB. We did not find a difference for myocardial infarction and mortality, but the numbers of participants included for these two outcomes were insufficient. Although randomized clinical trials may not be the best way to establish risks associated with an intervention, our review confirms low risks of permanent injury associated with PNBs, as found by others.\nSome trials are ongoing, but it is unclear whether any further RCTs should be registered, given the benefits found. Good-quality non-randomized trials with appropriate sample size may help to clarify the potential effects of PNBs on myocardial infarction and mortality.\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": "PNBs reduced pain on movement by 2.5 on a scale of 1 to 10, compared with no nerve block (11 studies, 503 participants). PNBs reduced the risk of confusion; for every 12 people with a hip fracture, one person less will become confused with PNBs (13 studies, 1072 participants). We did not find a difference in risk of myocardial infarction (1 study, 31 participants).\nPNBs probably reduce the risk of chest infection (3 studies, 131 participants) and time to first mobilization after surgery by 11 hours (3 studies, 208 participants). We did not find a difference in deaths from any cause within six months (11 studies, 617 participants). Costs of drugs used for pain management were slightly lower when a single-injection PNB was compared to no PNB (1 study, 75 participants)." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPelvic organ prolapse is a common problem in women. About 40% of women will experience prolapse in their lifetime, with the proportion expected to rise in line with an ageing population. Women experience a variety of troublesome symptoms as a consequence of prolapse, including a feeling of 'something coming down' into the vagina, pain, urinary symptoms, bowel symptoms and sexual difficulties. Treatment for prolapse includes surgery, pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) and vaginal pessaries. Vaginal pessaries are passive mechanical devices designed to support the vagina and hold the prolapsed organs back in the anatomically correct position. The most commonly used pessaries are made from polyvinyl-chloride, polythene, silicone or latex. Pessaries are frequently used by clinicians with high numbers of clinicians offering a pessary as first-line treatment for prolapse.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2003 and last published in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of pessaries (mechanical devices) for managing pelvic organ prolapse in women; and summarise the principal findings of relevant economic evaluations of this intervention.\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 28 January 2020). We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted the authors of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials which included a pessary for pelvic organ prolapse in at least one arm of the study.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed abstracts, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and carried out GRADE assessments with arbitration from a third review author if necessary.\nMain results\nWe included four studies involving a total of 478 women with various stages of prolapse, all of which took place in high-income countries. In one trial, only six of the 113 recruited women consented to random assignment to an intervention and no data are available for those six women. We could not perform any meta-analysis because each of the trials addressed a different comparison. None of the trials reported data about perceived resolution of prolapse symptoms or about psychological outcome measures. All studies reported data about perceived improvement of prolapse symptoms.\nGenerally, the trials were at high risk of performance bias, due to lack of blinding, and low risk of selection bias. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for imprecision resulting from the low numbers of women participating in the trials.\nPessary versus no treatment: at 12 months' follow-up, we are uncertain about the effect of pessaries compared with no treatment on perceived improvement of prolapse symptoms (mean difference (MD) in questionnaire scores -0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.61 to 0.55; 27 women; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), and cure or improvement of sexual problems (MD -0.29, 95% CI -1.67 to 1.09; 27 women; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). In this comparison we did not find any evidence relating to prolapse-specific quality of life or to the number of women experiencing adverse events (abnormal vaginal bleeding or de novo voiding difficulty).\nPessary versus pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT): at 12 months' follow-up, we are uncertain if there is a difference between pessaries and PFMT in terms of women's perceived improvement in prolapse symptoms (MD -9.60, 95% CI -22.53 to 3.33; 137 women; low-certainty evidence), prolapse-specific quality of life (MD -3.30, 95% CI -8.70 to 15.30; 1 study; 116 women; low-certainty evidence), or cure or improvement of sexual problems (MD -2.30, 95% -5.20 to 0.60; 1 study; 48 women; low-certainty evidence). Pessaries may result in a large increase in risk of adverse events compared with PFMT (RR 75.25, 95% CI 4.70 to 1205.45; 1 study; 97 women; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events included increased vaginal discharge, and/or increased urinary incontinence and/or erosion or irritation of the vaginal walls.\nPessary plus PFMT versus PFMT alone: at 12 months' follow-up, pessary plus PFMT probably leads to more women perceiving improvement in their prolapse symptoms compared with PFMT alone (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.94; 1 study; 260 women; moderate-certainty evidence). At 12 months' follow-up, pessary plus PFMT probably improves women's prolapse-specific quality of life compared with PFMT alone (median (interquartile range (IQR)) POPIQ score: pessary plus PFMT 0.3 (0 to 22.2); 132 women; PFMT only 8.9 (0 to 64.9); 128 women; P = 0.02; moderate-certainty evidence). Pessary plus PFMT may slightly increase the risk of abnormal vaginal bleeding compared with PFMT alone (RR 2.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 6.91; 1 study; 260 women; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain if pessary plus PFMT has any effect on the risk of de novo voiding difficulty compared with PFMT alone (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.19; 1 study; 189 women; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain if pessaries improve pelvic organ prolapse symptoms for women compared with no treatment or PFMT but pessaries in addition to PFMT probably improve women's pelvic organ prolapse symptoms and prolapse-specific quality of life. However, there may be an increased risk of adverse events with pessaries compared to PFMT. Future trials should recruit adequate numbers of women and measure clinically important outcomes such as prolapse specific quality of life and resolution of prolapse symptoms.\nThe review found two relevant economic evaluations. Of these, one assessed the cost-effectiveness of pessary treatment, expectant management and surgical procedures, and the other compared pessary treatment to PFMT.\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": "None of the studies reported whether or not the women's prolapse symptoms were completely resolved. We are uncertain about the effect of pessaries compared with no treatment on perceived improvement of prolapse symptoms, and cure or improvement of sexual problems. We did not find any evidence relating to the risk of vaginal bleeding or difficulty urinating in the studies comparing pessaries with no treatment.\nWe are uncertain if pessaries have any effect on improving women's prolapse symptoms when pessary is compared with PFMT. The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of pessaries compared with PFMT on prolapse-specific quality of life and on sexual problems. Pessaries may result in a greater risk of adverse events, including vaginal discharge, increased urinary incontinence and erosion of the vaginal walls, compared with PFMT.\nPessary plus PFMT probably leads to more women perceiving improvement in their prolapse symptoms and in their prolapse-specific quality of life compared with PFMT alone. Compared with PFMT alone, pessary plus PFMT may slightly increase the risk of abnormal vaginal bleeding and the risk of having difficulty urinating, for women who did not have this problem before starting prolapse treatment, but the evidence is very uncertain." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nBypass surgery using a large saphenous vein graft, or another autologous venous graft, is a well-recognised treatment option for managing peripheral arterial disease of the lower limb, including chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) and intermittent claudication, peripheral limb aneurysms, and major limb arterial trauma. Bypass surgery has good results in terms of limb preservation rates and long-term graft patency but is limited by the possibility of vein graft failure due to stenoses of the graft. Detection of stenoses through clinical and ultrasonographic surveillance, followed by treatment, is used to avoid graft occlusion. The conventional approach to treatment of patients with graft stenosis following infrainguinal bypass consists of open surgical repair, which usually is performed under general anaesthesia. Endoluminal treatment with angioplasty is less invasive and uses local anaesthesia. Both methods aim to improve blood flow to the limb.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of endoluminal interventions versus surgical intervention for people with vein graft stenosis following infrainguinal bypass.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov to 25 August 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe aimed to include all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared endoluminal interventions versus surgical intervention for people with vein graft stenosis following infrainguinal bypass.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed all identified studies for potential inclusion in the review. We aimed to use standard methodological procedures in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The main outcomes of interest were primary patency, primary assisted patency, and all-cause mortality.\nMain results\nWe identified no RCTs that met the inclusion criteria for this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no RCTs that compared endoluminal interventions versus surgical intervention for stenosis in vein grafts following infrainguinal bypass. Currently, there is no high-certainty evidence to support the use of one type of intervention over another. High-quality studies are needed to provide evidence on managing vein graft stenosis following infrainguinal bypass.\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": "We found no RCTs that compared endoluminal interventions versus surgical intervention for vein graft stenosis following leg bypass. High-quality studies that provide evidence on managing vein graft stenosis following infrainguinal bypass are needed." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nRecurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATa) following catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common problem. Antiarrhythmic drugs have been used shortly after ablation in an attempt to maintain sinus rhythm, particularly Class I and III agents. However, it still needs to be established if the use of Class I or III antiarrhythmic medications, or both, reduce the risk of recurrence of ATa.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of oral Class I and III antiarrhythmic drugs versus control (standard medical therapy without Class I or III antiarrhythmics, or placebo) for maintaining sinus rhythm in people undergoing catheter ablation for AF.\nSearch methods\nWe systematically searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and two clinical trial registers without restrictions on language or date to 5 August 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe sought published, unpublished, and ongoing parallel-design, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving adult participants undergoing ablation for AF, with subsequent comparison of Class I and/or III antiarrhythmic use versus control (standard medical therapy or non-Class I and/or III antiarrhythmic use).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and performed meta-analyses with risk ratios (RR) and Peto odds ratios (Peto OR). Our primary outcomes were recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias; adverse events: thromboembolic events; adverse events: myocardial infarction; adverse events: new diagnosis of heart failure; and adverse events: requirement for one or more hospitalisations for atrial tachyarrhythmia. Our secondary outcomes were: all-cause mortality; and requirement for one or more repeat ablations. Where possible, we performed comparison analysis by Class I and/or III antiarrhythmic and divided follow-up periods for our primary outcome. We performed comprehensive assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence applying the GRADE methodology.\nMain results\nWe included nine RCTs involving a total of 3269 participants. Participants were on average 59.3 years old; 71.0% were male; and 72.9% and 27.4% had paroxysmal and persistent AF, respectively. Class I and/or III antiarrhythmics may reduce recurrence of ATa at 0 to 3 months postablation (risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.94, 8 trials, 3046 participants, low-certainty evidence) and likely reduce recurrence at > 3 to 6 months, our a priori primary time point (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.93, 5 trials, 2591 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Beyond six months the evidence is very uncertain, and the benefit of antiarrhythmics may not persist (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.55, 4 trials, 2244 participants, very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that Class I and/or III antiarrhythmics may not increase the risk of thromboembolic events, myocardial infarction, all-cause mortality, or requirement for repeat ablation, at 0 to 3, > 3 to 6, and > 6 months (where data were available; low- to very low-certainty evidence). The use of Class I and/or III antiarrhythmics postablation likely reduces hospitalisations for ATa by approximately 57% at 0 to 3 months (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.64, moderate-certainty evidence). No data were available beyond three months. No data were available on new diagnoses of heart failure.\nFewer data were available for Class I and III antiarrhythmics individually. Based on only one and two trials (n = 125 to 309), Class I antiarrhythmics may have little effect on recurrence of ATa at 0 to 3, > 3 to 6, and > 6 months (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.20, 2 trials, 309 participants; RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.19, 1 trial, 125 participants; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.32, 1 trial, 125 participants; low-certainty evidence throughout); requirement for hospitalisation for ATa at 0 to 3 months (low-certainty evidence); or requirement for repeat ablation at 0 to 3 months (low-certainty evidence). No data were available for thromboembolic events, myocardial infarction, new diagnosis of heart failure, or all-cause mortality at any time points, or hospitalisation or repeat ablation beyond three months.\nClass III antiarrhythmics may have little effect on recurrence of ATa at up to 3 months and at > 3 to 6 months (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.16, 4 trials, 599 participants, low-certainty evidence; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.09, 2 trials, 318 participants, low-certainty evidence), and beyond 6 months one trial reported a possible increase in recurrence of ATa (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.94, 1 trial, 112 participants, low-certainty evidence). Class III antiarrhythmics likely reduce hospitalisations for ATa at 0 to 3 months (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.63, moderate-certainty evidence), and may have little effect on all-cause mortality (low- to very low-certainty evidence). The effect of Class III antiarrhythmics on thromboembolic events and requirement for repeat ablation was uncertain (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). No data were available for myocardial infarction or new diagnosis of heart failure at any time point, outcomes other than recurrence beyond 6 months, or for hospitalisation and repeat ablation > 3 to 6 months.\nWe assessed the majority of included trials as at low or unclear risk of bias. One trial reported an error in the randomisation process, raising the potential risk of selection bias; most of the included trials were non-blinded; and two trials were at high risk of attrition bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found evidence to suggest that the use of Class I and/or III antiarrhythmics up to 3 months after ablation is associated with a reduced recurrence of ATa 0 to 6 months after ablation, which may not persist beyond 6 months, and an immediate reduction in hospitalisation for ATa 0 to 3 months after ablation. The evidence suggests there is no difference in rates of all-cause mortality, thromboembolic events, or myocardial infarction between Class I and/or III antiarrhythmics versus control.\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 wanted to find out how effective certain classes of antiarrhythmic drugs (medications used to prevent or treat an irregular heart rhythm) are for maintaining sinus rhythm (normal heart rhythm) in people after catheter ablation (a technique using catheters to create controlled burns in the heart to prevent and treat arrhythmia occurrence) for atrial fibrillation (a common type of irregular heart rhythm), compared to catheter ablation alone." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEnhancing health equity is endorsed in the Sustainable Development Goals. The failure of systematic reviews to consider potential differences in effects across equity factors is cited by decision-makers as a limitation to their ability to inform policy and program decisions.\nObjectives\nTo explore what methods systematic reviewers use to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to 26 February 2021: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, Education Resources Information Center, Education Abstracts, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Hein Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals, PAIS International, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Digital Dissertations and the Health Technology Assessment Database. We searched SCOPUS to identify articles that cited any of the included studies on 10 June 10 2021. We contacted authors and searched the reference lists of included studies to identify additional potentially relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included empirical studies of cohorts of systematic reviews that assessed methods for measuring effects on health inequalities. We define health inequalities as unfair and avoidable differences across socially stratifying factors that limit opportunities for health. We operationalised this by assessing studies which evaluated differences in health across any component of the PROGRESS-Plus acronym, which stands for Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender or sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital. \"Plus\" stands for other factors associated with discrimination, exclusion, marginalisation or vulnerability such as personal characteristics (e.g. age, disability), relationships that limit opportunities for health (e.g. children in a household with parents who smoke) or environmental situations which provide limited control of opportunities for health (e.g. school food environment).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data using a pre-tested form. Risk of bias was appraised for included studies according to the potential for bias in selection and detection of systematic reviews.\nMain results\nIn total, 48,814 studies were identified and the titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate. In this updated review, we identified an additional 124 methodological studies published in the 10 years since the first version of this review, which included 34 studies. Thus, 158 methodological studies met our criteria for inclusion. The methods used by these studies focused on evidence relevant to populations experiencing health inequity (108 out of 158 studies), assess subgroup analysis across PROGRESS-Plus (26 out of 158 studies), assess analysis of a gradient in effect across PROGRESS-Plus (2 out of 158 studies) or use a combination of subgroup analysis and focused approaches (20 out of 158 studies). The most common PROGRESS-Plus factors assessed were age (43 studies), socioeconomic status in 35 studies, low- and middle-income countries in 24 studies, gender or sex in 22 studies, race or ethnicity in 17 studies, and four studies assessed multiple factors across which health inequity may exist.\nOnly 16 studies provided a definition of health inequity. Five methodological approaches to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness were identified: 1) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in systematic reviews (140 of 158 studies used a type of descriptive method); 2) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in original trials (50 studies); 3) analytic approaches which assessed differential effects across one or more PROGRESS-Plus factors (16 studies); 4) applicability assessment (25 studies) and 5) stakeholder engagement (28 studies), which is a new finding in this update and examines the appraisal of whether relevant stakeholders with lived experience of health inequity were included in the design of systematic reviews or design and delivery of interventions. Reporting for both approaches (analytic and applicability) lacked transparency and was insufficiently detailed to enable the assessment of credibility.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is a need for improvement in conceptual clarity about the definition of health equity, describing sufficient detail about analytic approaches (including subgroup analyses) and transparent reporting of judgments required for applicability assessments in order to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We reviewed the methods that systematic reviewers use to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSubstance use disorders (SUDs) are highly prevalent and associated with a substantial public health burden. Although evidence-based interventions exist for treating SUDs, many individuals remain symptomatic despite treatment, and relapse is common.Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) have been examined for the treatment of SUDs, but available evidence is mixed.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effects of MBIs for SUDs in terms of substance use outcomes, craving and adverse events compared to standard care, further psychotherapeutic, psychosocial or pharmacological interventions, or instructions, waiting list and no treatment.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to April 2021: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Specialised Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We searched two trial registries and checked the reference lists of included studies for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs).\nSelection criteria\nRCTs testing a MBI versus no treatment or another treatment in individuals with SUDs. SUDs included alcohol and/or drug use disorders but excluded tobacco use disorders. MBIs were defined as interventions including training in mindfulness meditation with repeated meditation practice. Studies in which SUDs were formally diagnosed as well as those merely demonstrating elevated SUD risk were eligible.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nForty RCTs met our inclusion criteria, with 35 RCTs involving 2825 participants eligible for meta-analysis. All studies were at high risk of performance bias and most were at high risk of detection bias.\nMindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) versus no treatment\nTwenty-four RCTs included a comparison between MBI and no treatment. The evidence was uncertain about the effects of MBIs relative to no treatment on all primary outcomes: continuous abstinence rate (post: risk ratio (RR) = 0.96, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.14, 1 RCT, 112 participants; follow-up: RR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.01, 1 RCT, 112 participants); percentage of days with substance use (post-treatment: standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.05, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.47, 4 RCTs, 248 participants; follow-up: SMD = 0.21, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.54, 3 RCTs, 167 participants); and consumed amount (post-treatment: SMD = 0.10, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.52, 3 RCTs, 221 participants; follow-up: SMD = 0.33, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.66, 2 RCTs, 142 participants). Evidence was uncertain for craving intensity and serious adverse events. Analysis of treatment acceptability indicated MBIs result in little to no increase in study attrition relative to no treatment (RR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.40, 21 RCTs, 1087 participants). Certainty of evidence for all other outcomes was very low due to imprecision, risk of bias, and/or inconsistency. Data were unavailable to evaluate adverse events.\nMindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) versus other treatments (standard of care, cognitive behavioral therapy, psychoeducation, support group, physical exercise, medication)\nNineteen RCTs included a comparison between MBI and another treatment. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of MBIs relative to other treatments on continuous abstinence rate at post-treatment (RR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.44, 1 RCT, 286 participants) and follow-up (RR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.16, 1 RCT, 286 participants), and on consumed amount at post-treatment (SMD = -0.42, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.39, 1 RCT, 25 participants) due to imprecision and risk of bias. The evidence suggests that MBIs reduce percentage of days with substance use slightly relative to other treatments at post-treatment (SMD = -0.21, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.03, 5 RCTs, 523 participants) and follow-up (SMD = -0.39, 95% CI -0.96 to 0.17, 3 RCTs, 409 participants). The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of MBIs relative to other treatments on craving intensity due to imprecision and inconsistency. Analysis of treatment acceptability indicated MBIs result in little to no increase in attrition relative to other treatments (RR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.26, 14 RCTs, 1531 participants). Data were unavailable to evaluate adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn comparison with no treatment, the evidence is uncertain regarding the impact of MBIs on SUD-related outcomes. MBIs result in little to no higher attrition than no treatment. In comparison with other treatments, MBIs may slightly reduce days with substance use at post-treatment and follow-up (4 to 10 months). The evidence is uncertain regarding the impact of MBIs relative to other treatments on abstinence, consumed substance amount, or craving. MBIs result in little to no higher attrition than other treatments. Few studies reported adverse events.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The review authors searched for studies published up to April 2021." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an updated version of an original Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library, 2011, Issue 1.\nVulval intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN) is a pre-malignant condition of the vulval skin. This uncommon chronic skin condition of the vulva is associated with a high risk of recurrence and the potential to progress to vulval cancer. The condition is complicated by its multicentric and multifocal nature. The incidence of this condition appears to be rising, particularly in the younger age group. There is a lack of consensus on the optimal surgical treatment method. However, the rationale for the surgical treatment of VIN has been to treat the symptoms and exclude any underlying malignancy, with the continued aim of preserving the vulval anatomy and function. Repeated treatments affect local cosmesis and cause psychosexual morbidity, thus impacting the individual's quality of life.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of surgical interventions in women with high-grade VIN.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE up to 1 September 2015. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of included studies, and contacted experts in the field.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared surgical interventions in adult women diagnosed with high-grade VIN.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias.\nMain results\nWe identified one RCT, including 30 women, that met our inclusion criteria; this trial reported data on carbon dioxide (CO2) laser surgery versus cavitational ultrasonic surgical aspiration (CUSA). There were no differences in the risks of disease recurrence after one year of follow-up, pain, scarring, dysuria or burning, adhesions, infection, abnormal discharge or eschar between women who underwent CO2 laser surgery and those who received CUSA. The trial lacked statistical power, due to the small number of women in each group and the low number of observed events, but was at low risk of bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe included trial lacked statistical power, due to the small number of women in each group and the low number of observed events. The absence of reliable evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of the two surgical techniques for the management of VIN therefore precludes any definitive guidance or recommendations for clinical practice.\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": "This review is based on one randomised controlled trial (RCT) which included 30 participants and therefore the results are restricted to the analyses of a single study. This RCT compared two ablative techniques: carbon dioxide (CO2) laser surgery and cavitational ultrasonic surgical aspiration (CUSA). There was no evidence for differences in the risks of disease recurrence after one year follow up, pain, scarring, painful/uncomfortable urination (dysuria) or burning on urination, adhesions (fusion of the 'lips' or labia as part of the healing process by the formation of bridges of tissue), infection, abnormal discharge or the presence of dead tissue shedding from healthy skin (eschar) between women who received CO2 laser surgery and those who underwent CUSA." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPatients prefer oral to intravenous (IV) palliative chemotherapy, provided that oral therapy is not less effective. We compared the efficacy and safety of oral and IV fluoropyrimidines for treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC).\nObjectives\nTo compare the effects of oral and IV fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy in patients treated with curative or palliative intent for CRC.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 5), along with OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, and Web of Science databases, in June 2016. We also searched five clinical trials registers, several conference proceedings, and reference lists from study reports and systematic reviews. We contacted pharmaceutical companies to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral and IV fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy in patients treated with curative or palliative intent for CRC.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently. We assessed the seven domains in the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and three additional domains: schedules of outcome assessment and/or follow-up; use of intention-to-treat analysis; and baseline comparability of treatment arms.\nMain results\nWe included nine RCTs (total of 10,918 participants) that examined treatment with curative intent for CRC with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy. We included 35 RCTs (total of 12,592 participants) that examined treatment with palliative intent for inoperable advanced or metastatic CRC with chemotherapy (31 first-line studies, two second-line studies, and two studies of first- or second-line chemotherapy). All studies included male and female participants, and no studies included participants younger than 18 years of age.\nPatients treated with curative intent for CRC with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy\n• Disease-free survival (DFS): DFS did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (hazard ratio (HR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.00; seven studies, 8903 participants; moderate-quality evidence).\n• Overall survival (OS): OS did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.00; seven studies, 8902 participants analysed; high-quality evidence).\n• Grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs): Participants treated with oral fluoropyrimidines experienced less grade ≥ 3 neutropenia/granulocytopenia (odds ratio (OR) 0.14, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.16; seven studies, 8087 participants; moderate-quality evidence), stomatitis (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.30; five studies, 4212 participants; low-quality evidence), and any grade ≥ 3 AEs (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.90; five studies, 7741 participants; low-quality evidence). There was more grade ≥ 3 hand foot syndrome (OR 4.59, 95% CI 2.97 to 7.10; five studies, 5731 participants; low-quality evidence) in patients treated with oral fluoropyrimidines. There were no differences between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines in occurrence of grade ≥ 3 diarrhoea (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.25; nine studies, 9551 participants; very low-quality evidence), febrile neutropenia (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.90; four studies, 2925 participants; low-quality evidence), vomiting (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34; eight studies, 9385 participants; low-quality evidence), nausea (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.51; seven studies, 9233 participants; low-quality evidence), mucositis (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.62; four studies, 2233 participants; very low-quality evidence), and hyperbilirubinaemia (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.52 to 5.38; three studies, 2757 participants; very low-quality evidence).\nPatients treated with palliative intent for inoperable advanced or metastatic CRC with chemotherapy\n• Progression-free survival (PFS): Overall, PFS was inferior in participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11; 23 studies, 9927 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Whilst PFS was worse in participants treated with oral compared with IV fluoropyrimidines when UFT/Ftorafur or eniluracil with oral 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was used, PFS did not differ between individuals treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines when capecitabine, doxifluridine, or S-1 was used.\n• OS: Overall, OS did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.05; 29 studies, 12,079 participants; high-quality evidence). OS was inferior in participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines when eniluracil with oral 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was used.\n• Time to progression (TTP): TTP was inferior in participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.14; six studies, 1970 participants; moderate-quality evidence).\n• Objective response rate (ORR): ORR did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.06; 32 studies, 11,115 participants; moderate-quality evidence).\n• Grade ≥ 3 AEs: Participants treated with oral fluoropyrimidines experienced less grade ≥ 3 neutropenia/granulocytopenia (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.18; 29 studies, 11,794 participants; low-quality evidence), febrile neutropenia (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.36; 19 studies, 9407 participants; moderate-quality evidence), stomatitis (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.33; 21 studies, 8718 participants; low-quality evidence), mucositis (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.24; 12 studies, 4962 participants; low-quality evidence), and any grade ≥ 3 AEs (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.94; 14 studies, 5436 participants; low-quality evidence). There was more grade ≥ 3 diarrhoea (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.50 to 1.84; 30 studies, 11,997 participants; low-quality evidence) and hand foot syndrome (OR 3.92, 95% CI 2.84 to 5.43; 18 studies, 6481 participants; moderate-quality evidence) in the oral fluoropyrimidine arm. There were no differences between oral and IV fluoropyrimidine arms in terms of grade ≥ 3 vomiting (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.40; 23 studies, 9528 participants; low-quality evidence), nausea (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.36; 25 studies, 9796 participants; low-quality evidence), and hyperbilirubinaemia (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.64; nine studies, 2699 participants; low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nResults of this review should provide confidence that treatment for CRC with most of the oral fluoropyrimidines commonly used in current clinical practice is similarly efficacious to treatment with IV fluoropyrimidines. Treatment with eniluracil with oral 5-FU was associated with inferior PFS and OS among participants treated with palliative intent for CRC, and eniluracil is no longer being developed. Oral and IV fluoropyrimidines have different patterns of side effects; future research may focus on determining the basis for these differences.\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 compared the effects of oral and IV fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy in patients with CRC who were treated with the aim of cure, or who were treated with palliative chemotherapy because the cancer could not be removed by surgery or was metastatic (it had spread from the place where it originated to other places in the body)." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nA key function of health systems is implementing interventions to improve health, but coverage of essential health interventions remains low in low-income countries. Implementing interventions can be challenging, particularly if it entails complex changes in clinical routines; in collaborative patterns among different healthcare providers and disciplines; in the behaviour of providers, patients or other stakeholders; or in the organisation of care. Decision-makers may use a range of strategies to implement health interventions, and these choices should be based on evidence of the strategies' effectiveness.\nObjectives\nTo provide an overview of the available evidence from up-to-date systematic reviews about the effects of implementation strategies for health systems in low-income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on alternative implementation strategies and informing refinements of the framework for implementation strategies presented in the overview.\nMethods\nWe searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ-Evidence up to 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 implementation strategies on professional practice and patient outcomes and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations important enough to compromise the reliability of the review findings. 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 39 of them in this overview. An additional four reviews provided supplementary information. Of the 39 reviews, 32 had only minor limitations and 7 had important methodological limitations. Most studies in the reviews were from high-income countries. There were no studies from low-income countries in eight reviews.\nImplementation strategies addressed in the reviews were grouped into four categories – strategies targeting:\n1. healthcare organisations (e.g. strategies to change organisational culture; 1 review);\n2. healthcare workers by type of intervention (e.g. printed educational materials; 14 reviews);\n3. healthcare workers to address a specific problem (e.g. unnecessary antibiotic prescription; 9 reviews);\n4. healthcare recipients (e.g. medication adherence; 15 reviews).\nOverall, we found the following interventions to have desirable effects on at least one outcome with moderate- or high-certainty evidence and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of undesirable effects.\n1.Strategies targeted at healthcare workers: educational meetings, nutrition training of health workers, educational outreach, practice facilitation, local opinion leaders, audit and feedback, and tailored interventions.\n2.Strategies targeted at healthcare workers for specific types of problems: training healthcare workers to be more patient-centred in clinical consultations, use of birth kits, strategies such as clinician education and patient education to reduce antibiotic prescribing in ambulatory care settings, and in-service neonatal emergency care training.\n3. Strategies targeted at healthcare recipients: mass media interventions to increase uptake of HIV testing; intensive self-management and adherence, intensive disease management programmes to improve health literacy; behavioural interventions and mobile phone text messages for adherence to antiretroviral therapy; a one time incentive to start or continue tuberculosis prophylaxis; default reminders for patients being treated for active tuberculosis; use of sectioned polythene bags for adherence to malaria medication; community-based health education, and reminders and recall strategies to increase vaccination uptake; interventions to increase uptake of cervical screening (invitations, education, counselling, access to health promotion nurse and intensive recruitment); health insurance information and application support.\nAuthors' conclusions\nReliable systematic reviews have evaluated a wide range of strategies for implementing evidence-based interventions in low-income countries. Most of the available evidence is focused on strategies targeted at healthcare workers and healthcare recipients and relates to process-based outcomes. Evidence of the effects of strategies targeting healthcare organisations is scarce.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main results of the overview?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The following implementation strategies had desirable effects on at least one outcome with moderate- or high-certainty evidence and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of undesirable effects." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDuchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is an X-linked recessive disorder characterised by progressive muscle weakness beginning in early childhood. Respiratory failure and weak cough develop in all patients as a consequence of muscle weakness leading to a risk of atelectasis, pneumonia, or the need for ventilatory support. There is no curative treatment for DMD. Corticosteroids are the only pharmacological intervention proven to delay the onset and progression of muscle weakness and thus respiratory decline in DMD. Antioxidant treatment has been proposed to try to reduce muscle weakness in general, and respiratory decline in particular.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of antioxidant agents on preventing respiratory decline in people with Duchenne muscular dystrophy during the respiratory decline phase of the condition.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers to 23 March 2021, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. We included male patients with a diagnosis of DMD who had respiratory decline evidenced by a forced vital capacity (FVC%) less than 80% but greater than 30% of predicted values, receiving any antioxidant agent compared with other therapies for the management of DMD or placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors screened studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias of studies, and extracted data. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. The primary outcomes were FVC and hospitalisation due to respiratory infections. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, adverse events, change in muscle function, forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), and peak expiratory flow (PEF).\nMain results\nWe included one study with 66 participants who were not co-treated with corticosteroids, which was the only study to contribute data to our main analysis. We also included a study that enrolled 255 participants treated with corticosteroids, which was only available as a press release without numerical results. The studies were parallel-group RCTs that assessed the effect of idebenone on respiratory function compared to placebo. The trial that contributed numerical data included patients with a mean (standard deviation) age of 14.3 (2.7) years at the time of inclusion, with a documented diagnosis of DMD or severe dystrophinopathy with clinical features consistent with typical DMD. The overall risk of bias across most outcomes was similar and judged as 'low'.\nIdebenone may result in a slightly less of a decline in FVC from baseline to one year compared to placebo (mean difference (MD) 3.28%, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.41 to 6.97; 64 participants; low-certainty evidence), and probably has little or no effect on change in quality of life (MD −3.80, 95% CI −10.09 to 2.49; 63 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) (Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL), range 0 to 100, 0 = worst, 100 = best quality of life). As a related but secondary outcome, idebenone may result in less of a decline from baseline in FEV1 (MD 8.28%, 95% CI 0.89 to 15.67; 53 participants) and PEF (MD 6.27%, 95% CI 0.61 to 11.93; 1 trial, 64 participants) compared to placebo.\nIdebenone was associated with fewer serious adverse events (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.04; 66 participants; low-certainty evidence) and little to no difference in non-serious adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13; 66 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. Idebenone may result in little to no difference in change in arm muscle function (MD −2.45 N, 95% CI −8.60 to 3.70 for elbow flexors and MD −1.06 N, 95% CI −6.77 to 4.65 for elbow extensors; both 52 participants) compared to placebo. We found no studies evaluating the outcome hospitalisation due to respiratory infection.\nThe second trial, involving 255 participants, for which data were available only as a press release without numerical data, was prematurely discontinued due to futility after an interim efficacy analysis based on FVC. There were no safety concerns.\nThe certainty of the evidence was low for most outcomes due to imprecision and publication bias (the lack of a full report of the larger trial, which was prematurely terminated).\nAuthors' conclusions\nIdebenone is the only antioxidant agent tested in RCTs for preventing respiratory decline in people with DMD for which evidence was available for assessment. Idebenone may result in slightly less of a decline in FVC and less of a decline in FEV1 and PEF, but probably has little to no measurable effect on change in quality of life. Idebenone is associated with fewer serious adverse events than placebo. Idebenone may result in little to no difference in change in muscle function.\nDiscontinuation due to the futility of the SIDEROS trial and its expanded access programmes may indicate that idebenone research in this condition is no longer needed, but we await the trial data. Further research is needed to establish the effect of different antioxidant agents on preventing respiratory decline in people with DMD during the respiratory decline phase of the condition.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study funding sources\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The studies were sponsored by Santhera Pharmaceuticals, the maker of idebenone." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAlthough vascular dementia is the second most common cause of dementia globally, evidence-based treatments are still lacking. Cerebrolysin is a porcine brain-derived preparation that is said to have neurotrophic and neuroprotective activity. In many parts of the world Cerebrolysin, given as a series of daily intravenous infusions, is used as a potential intervention for vascular dementia. A previous Cochrane Review on Cerebrolysin in vascular dementia yielded inconsistent results. We wished to update the review to add new studies from the international literature and employ contemporary methods for appraising the strength of the evidence.\nThis is the first update of a review first published in 2013.\nObjectives\nPrimary: to assess the effect of Cerebrolysin on cognitive function, global function, and all-cause mortality in people living with vascular dementia.\nSecondary: to assess the adverse effects of Cerebrolysin and to assess the effect of Cerebrolysin on quality of life and caregiver burden.\nSearch methods\nWe searched ALOIS, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ISI Web of Knowledge, LILACS, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP on 16 June 2017, 9 May 2018, and 9 May 2019. We expanded the search by adding four Chinese databases, searched from 1 January 2012 to 19 May 2019. We checked bibliographies of relevant papers identified and contacted pharmaceutical companies, trial authors, and experts in the field to identify any additional published or unpublished data.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials of Cerebrolysin used in people living with vascular dementia. We applied no language restriction.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and evaluated their methodological quality. Data were extracted and analysed using mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for continuous outcomes. We reported dichotomous outcomes as risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. We assessed the strength of the available evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe identified six randomised controlled trials with a total of 597 participants that were eligible for inclusion in the 2013 review. No new studies were eligible for inclusion in this update. Participants in the included studies, where dementia severity was reported, had mild to moderate severity of vascular dementia (four trials). The included studies tested varying doses and duration of Cerebrolysin treatment. Follow-up ranged from 15 days to three years. Five of included studies were conducted in China (three studies), Russia (one study), and Romania (one study), while relevant information of other study was unclear. Where details of funding were available, all studies were supported by the pharmaceutical industry (three studies).\nCognitive function was measured using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) or Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive Subpart, extended version (ADAS-cog+). Combining the MMSE and ADAS-cog+ data (three studies, 420 people), there was a beneficial effect of Cerebrolysin (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.58; very low-quality evidence).\nGlobal function was measured by Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change plus Caregiver Input (CIBIC+) or Investigator's Clinical Global Impression (CGI). We assessed response rates on these measures (the proportion of participants with a CIBIC+ score of < 3; or at least moderate improvement of the CGI rating at the last visit). There was a beneficial effect of Cerebrolysin (two studies, 379 participants, RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.82 to 3.98; very low-quality evidence).\nOnly one trial described mortality and reported no deaths. Four studies reported adverse events; data from two studies (379 people) were in a format that permitted meta-analysis, and there was no difference in rates of adverse effects (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.85; very low-quality evidence). No studies reported on quality of life or caregiver burden.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCourses of intravenous Cerebrolysin improved cognition and general function in people living with vascular dementia, with no suggestion of adverse effects. However, these data are not definitive. Our analyses were limited by heterogeneity, and the included papers had high risk of bias. If there are benefits of Cerebrolysin, the effects may be too small to be clinically meaningful. There have been no new studies of Cerebrolysin in vascular dementia since the last Cochrane Review. Cerebrolysin continues to be used and promoted as a treatment for vascular dementia, but the supporting evidence base is weak. Adequately powered, methodologically robust trials are needed to properly assess the effects of Cerebrolysin in vascular dementia.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Purpose of this review\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We wanted to learn whether Cerebrolysin can benefit people living with vascular dementia. We were particularly interested in the effects of the medication on memory and thinking; daily functioning; side effects; and and quality of life for people with vascular dementia and their caregivers. As some time has passed since the last review of Cerebrolysin, we wanted to update the review with a search for any new studies." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPulmonary complications are often seen during the postoperative period following lung resection for patients with lung cancer. Some situations such as intubation, a long stay in the intensive care unit, the high cost of antibiotics and mortality may be avoided with the prevention of postoperative pulmonary complications. Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is widely used in hospitals, and is thought to reduce the number of pulmonary complications and mortality after this type of surgery. Therefore, a systematic review is needed to critically assess the benefits and harms of NIPPV for patients undergoing lung resection. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2015.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of NIPPV for preventing complications in patients following pulmonary resection for lung cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and PEDro until 21 December 2018, to identify potentially eligible trials. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches. We searched the reference lists of relevant papers and contacted experts in the field for information about additional published and unpublished studies. We also searched the Register of Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com) and ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov) to identify ongoing studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials that compared NIPPV in the immediate postoperative period after pulmonary resection with no intervention or conventional respiratory therapy.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors collected data and assessed trial risk of bias. Where possible, we pooled data from the individual studies using a fixed-effect model (quantitative synthesis), but where this was not possible we tabulated or presented the data in the main text (qualitative synthesis). Where substantial heterogeneity existed, we applied a random-effects model.\nMain results\nOf the 190 references retrieved from the searches, 7 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) (1 identified with the new search) and 1 quasi-randomised trial fulfilled the eligibility criteria for this review, including a total of 486 patients. Five studies described quantitative measures of pulmonary complications, with pooled data showing no difference between NIPPV compared with no intervention (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.47). Three studies reported intubation rates and there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.20). Five studies reported measures of mortality on completion of the intervention period. There was no statistical difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.53). Similar results were observed in the subgroup analysis considering ventilatory mode (bi-level versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). No study evaluated the postoperative use of antibiotics. Two studies reported the length of intensive care unit stay and there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups (MD -0.75; 95% CI -3.93 to 2.43). Four studies reported the length of hospital stay and there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups (MD -0.12; 95% CI -6.15 to 5.90). None of the studies described any complications related to NIPPV. Of the seven included studies, four studies were considered as 'low risk of bias' in all domains, two studies were considered 'high risk of bias' for the allocation concealment domain, and one of these was also considered 'high risk of bias' for random sequence generation. One other study was considered ‘high risk of bias’ for including participants with more severe disease. The new study identified could not be included in the meta-analysis as its intervention differed from the other studies (use of pre and postoperative NIPPV in the same population).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review demonstrated that there was no additional benefit of using NIPPV in the postoperative period after pulmonary resection for all outcomes analysed (pulmonary complications, rate of intubation, mortality, postoperative consumption of antibiotics, length of intensive care unit stay, length of hospital stay and adverse effects related to NIPPV). However, the quality of evidence is 'very low', 'low' and 'moderate' since there were few studies, with small sample size and low frequency of outcomes. New well-designed and well-conducted randomised trials are needed to answer the questions of this review with greater certainty.\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": "Death after major lung surgery for lung cancer resection is usually caused by complications, particularly lung complications, in the first week or so. Some experts recommend the use of NIPPV, a technique that provides pressurised gas to the airway, inflating the lungs through a mask without using any tubes put into the nostrils or main airway." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nWomen with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may require surgery, which may result in higher risk of infertility. Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal anal pouch anastomosis (IPAA) may increase infertility, but the degree to which IPAA affects infertility remains unclear, and the impact of other surgical interventions on infertility is unknown.\nObjectives\nPrimary objective\n• To determine the effects of surgical interventions for IBD on female infertility.\nSecondary objectives\n• To evaluate the impact of surgical interventions on the need for assisted reproductive technology (ART), time to pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, prematurity, mode of delivery (spontaneous vaginal, instrumental vaginal, or Caesarean section), infant requirement for resuscitation and neonatal intensive care, low and very low birth weight, small for gestational age, antenatal and postpartum hemorrhage, retained placenta, postpartum depression, gestational diabetes, and gestational hypertension/preeclampsia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register from inception to September 27, 2018, to identify relevant studies. We also searched references of relevant articles, conference abstracts, grey literature, and trials registers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included observational studies that compared women of reproductive age (≥ 12 years of age) who underwent surgery to women with IBD who had a different type of surgery or no surgery (i.e. treated medically). We also included studies comparing women before and after surgery. Any type of IBD-related surgery was permitted. Infertility was defined as an inability to become pregnant following 12 months of unprotected intercourse. Infertility at 6, 18, and 24 months was included as a secondary outcome. We excluded studies that included women without IBD and those comparing women with IBD to women without IBD..\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened studies and extracted data. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess bias and GRADE to assess the overall certainty of evidence. We calculated the pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effects models. When individual studies reported odds ratios (ORs) and did not provide raw numbers, we pooled ORs instead.\nMain results\nWe identified 16 observational studies for inclusion. Ten studies were included in meta-analyses, of which nine compared women with and without a previous IBD-related surgery and the other compared women with open and laparoscopic IPAA. Of the ten studies included in meta-analyses, four evaluated infertility, one evaluated ART, and seven reported on pregnancy-related outcomes. Seven studies in which women were compared before and after colectomy and/or IPAA were summarized qualitatively, of which five included a comparison of infertility, three included the use of ART, and three included other pregnancy-related outcomes. One study included a comparison of women with and without IPAA, as well as before and after IPAA, and was therefore included in both the meta-analysis and the qualitative summary. All studies were at high risk of bias for at least two domains.\nWe are very uncertain of the effect of IBD surgery on infertility at 12 months (RR 5.45, 95% CI 0.41 to 72.57; 114 participants; 2 studies) and at 24 months (RR 3.59, 95% CI 1.32 to 9.73; 190 participants; 1 study). Infertility was lower in women who received laparoscopic surgery compared to open restorative proctocolectomy at 12 months (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.27; 37 participants; 1 study).\nWe are very uncertain of the effect of IBD surgery on pregnancy-related outcomes, including miscarriage (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.60; 776 pregnancies; 5 studies), use of ART (RR 25.09, 95% CI 1.56 to 403.76; 106 participants; 1 study), delivery via Caesarean section (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 4.95; 20 pregnancies; 1 study), stillbirth (RR 1.96, 95% CI 0.42 to 9.18; 246 pregnancies; 3 studies), preterm birth (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.67 to 5.48; 194 pregnancies; 3 studies), low birth weight (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.08 to 4.83), and small for gestational age (RR 2.54, 95% CI 0.80 to 8.01; 65 pregnancies; 1 study).\nStudies comparing infertility before and after IBD-related surgery reported numerically higher rates of infertility at six months (before: 1/5, 20.0%; after: 9/15, 60.0%; 1 study), at 12 months (before: 68/327, 20.8%; after: 239/377, 63.4%; 5 studies), and at 24 months (before: 14/89, 15.7%; after: 115/164, 70.1%; 2 studies); use of ART (before: 5.3% to 42.2%; after: 30.3% to 34.3%; proportions varied across studies due to differences in which women were identified as at risk of using ART); and delivery via Caesarean section (before: 8/73, 11.0%; after: 36/75, 48.0%; 2 studies). In addition, women had a longer time to conception after surgery (two to five months; 2 studies) than before surgery (5 to 16 months; 2 studies). The proportions of women experiencing miscarriage (before: 19/123, 15.4%; after: 21/134, 15.7%; 3 studies) and stillbirth (before: 2/38, 5.3%; after: 3/80: 3.8%; 2 studies) were similar before and after surgery. Fewer women experienced gestational diabetes after surgery (before: 3/37, 8.1%; after: 0/37; 1 study), and the risk of preeclampsia was similar before and after surgery (before: 2/37, 5.4%; after: 0/37; 1 study). We are very uncertain of the effects of IBD-related surgery on these outcomes due to poor quality evidence, including confounding bias due to increased age of women after surgery.\nWe rated evidence for all outcomes and comparisons as very low quality due to the observational nature of the data, inclusion of small studies with imprecise estimates, and high risk of bias among included studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe effect of surgical therapy for IBD on female infertility is uncertain. It is also uncertain if there are any differences in infertility among those undergoing open versus laparoscopic procedures. Previous surgery was associated with higher risk of miscarriage, use of ART, Caesarean section delivery, and giving birth to a low birth weight infant, but was not associated with risk of stillbirth, preterm delivery, or delivery of a small for gestational age infant. These findings are based on very low-quality evidence. As a result, definitive conclusions cannot be made, and future well-designed studies are needed to fully understand the impact of surgery on infertility and pregnancy outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did researchers investigate?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Researchers reviewed the literature to identify previous studies that reported the risk of infertility in women with IBD who had previous IBD-related surgeries as well as studies that reported the impact of previous surgery on pregnancy outcomes (miscarriage, stillbirth, prematurity, low birth weight, and small for gestational age) or pregnancy complications (gestational diabetes, gestational hypertension, postpartum depression, and bleeding)." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAspirin is the prophylactic antiplatelet drug of choice for people with cardiovascular disease. Adding a second antiplatelet drug to aspirin may produce additional benefit for people at high risk and people with established cardiovascular disease. This is an update to a previously published review from 2011.\nObjectives\nTo review the benefit and harm of adding clopidogrel to aspirin therapy for preventing cardiovascular events in people who have coronary disease, ischaemic cerebrovascular disease, peripheral arterial disease, or were at high risk of atherothrombotic disease, but did not have a coronary stent.\nSearch methods\nWe updated the searches of CENTRAL (2017, Issue 6), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 4 July 2017) and Embase (Ovid, 1947 to 3 July 2017) on 4 July 2017. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP portal, and handsearched reference lists. We applied no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials comparing over 30 days use of aspirin plus clopidogrel with aspirin plus placebo or aspirin alone in people with coronary disease, ischaemic cerebrovascular disease, peripheral arterial disease, or at high risk of atherothrombotic disease. We excluded studies including only people with coronary drug-eluting stent (DES) or non-DES, or both.\nData collection and analysis\nWe collected data on mortality from cardiovascular causes, all-cause mortality, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal and non-fatal ischaemic stroke, major and minor bleeding. The overall treatment effect was estimated by the pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), using a fixed-effect model (Mantel-Haenszel); we used a random-effects model in cases of moderate or severe heterogeneity (I2 ≥ 30%). We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We used GRADE profiler (GRADE Pro) to import data from Review Manager to create a 'Summary of findings' table.\nMain results\nThe search identified 13 studies in addition to the two studies in the previous version of our systematic review. Overall, we included data from 15 trials with 33,970 people. We completed a 'Risk of bias' assessment for all studies. The risk of bias was low in four trials because they were at low risk of bias for all key domains (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, selective outcome reporting and incomplete outcome data), even if some of them were funded by the pharmaceutical industry.\nAnalysis showed no difference in the effectiveness of aspirin plus clopidogrel in preventing cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.10; participants = 31,903; studies = 7; moderate quality evidence), and no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.25; participants = 32,908; studies = 9; low quality evidence).\nThere was a lower risk of fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction with clopidogrel plus aspirin compared with aspirin plus placebo or aspirin alone (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.90; participants = 16,175; studies = 6; moderate quality evidence). There was a reduction in the risk of fatal and non-fatal ischaemic stroke (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.91; participants = 4006; studies = 5; moderate quality evidence).\nHowever, there was a higher risk of major bleeding with clopidogrel plus aspirin compared with aspirin plus placebo or aspirin alone (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.64; participants = 33,300; studies = 10; moderate quality evidence) and of minor bleeding (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.75 to 2.36; participants = 14,731; studies = 8; moderate quality evidence).\nOverall, we would expect 13 myocardial infarctions and 23 ischaemic strokes be prevented for every 1000 patients treated with the combination in a median follow-up period of 12 months, but 9 major bleeds and 33 minor bleeds would be caused during a median follow-up period of 10.5 and 6 months, respectively.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe available evidence demonstrates that the use of clopidogrel plus aspirin in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease and people with established cardiovascular disease without a coronary stent is associated with a reduction in the risk of myocardial infarction and ischaemic stroke, and an increased risk of major and minor bleeding compared with aspirin alone. According to GRADE criteria, the quality of evidence was moderate for all outcomes except all-cause mortality (low quality evidence) and adverse events (very low quality evidence).\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"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 clopidogrel and aspirin in people at high risk of getting heart disease or having a stroke, and in those who already have heart disease." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe choice of antibiotic, and the use of single or combined therapy are controversial areas in the treatment of respiratory infection due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis (CF). Advantages of combination therapy include wider range of modes of action, possible synergy and reduction of resistant organisms; advantages of monotherapy include lower cost, ease of administration and reduction of drug-related toxicity. Current evidence does not provide a clear answer and the use of intravenous antibiotic therapy in CF requires further evaluation. This is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of single compared to combination intravenous anti-pseudomonal antibiotic therapy for treating people with CF.\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.\nMost recent search of the Group's Trials Register: 07 October 2020.\nWe also searched online trials registries on 16 November 2020.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a single intravenous anti-pseudomonal antibiotic with a combination of that antibiotic plus a second anti-pseudomonal antibiotic in people with CF.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We assessed the certainty of the data using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe identified 59 trials, of which we included eight trials (356 participants) comparing a single anti-pseudomonal agent to a combination of the same antibiotic and one other. There was a wide variation in the individual antibiotics used in each trial. In total, the trials included seven comparisons of a beta-lactam antibiotic (penicillin-related or third generation cephalosporin) with a beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination and three comparisons of an aminoglycoside with a beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination.\nThere was considerable heterogeneity amongst these trials, leading to difficulties in performing the review and interpreting the results. These results should be interpreted cautiously. Six of the included trials were published between 1977 and 1988; these were single-centre trials with flaws in the randomisation process and small sample size. Overall, the methodological quality was poor and the certainty of the evidence ranged from low to moderate.\nThe review did not find any differences between monotherapy and combination therapy in either the short term or in the long term for the outcomes of different lung function measures, bacteriological outcome measures, need for additional treatment, adverse effects, quality of life or symptom scores.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results of this review are inconclusive. The review raises important methodological issues. There is a need for an RCT which needs to be well-designed in terms of adequate randomisation allocation, blinding, power and long-term follow-up. Results need to be standardised to a consistent method of reporting, in order to validate the pooling of results from multiple trials.\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 did not find any differences between the two therapies for lung function, bacteriological outcomes, side effects or symptom scores. We do not think that there is enough evidence to compare the different therapies properly. More research is needed, particularly looking at side effects of treatment." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe use of etomidate for emergency airway interventions in critically ill patients is very common. In one large registry trial, etomidate was the most commonly used agent for this indication. Etomidate is known to suppress adrenal gland function, but it remains unclear whether or not this adrenal gland dysfunction affects mortality.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective was to assess, in populations of critically ill patients, whether a single induction dose of etomidate for emergency airway intervention affects mortality.\nThe secondary objectives were to address, in populations of critically ill patients, whether a single induction dose of etomidate for emergency airway intervention affects adrenal gland function, organ dysfunction, or health services utilization (as measured by intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), duration of mechanical ventilation, or vasopressor requirements).\nWe repeated analyses within subgroups defined by the aetiologies of critical illness, timing of adrenal gland function measurement, and the type of comparator drug used.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; CINAHL; EMBASE; LILACS; International Pharmaceutical Abstracts; Web of Science; the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE); and ISI BIOSIS Citation indexSM on 8 February 2013. We reran the searches in August 2014. We will deal with any studies of interest when we update the review.\nWe also searched the Scopus database of dissertations and conference proceedings and the US Food and Drug Administration Database. We handsearched major emergency medicine, critical care, and anaesthesiology journals.\nWe handsearched the conference proceedings of major emergency medicine, anaesthesia, and critical care conferences from 1990 to current, and performed a grey literature search of the following: Current Controlled Trials; National Health Service – The National Research Register; ClinicalTrials.gov; NEAR website.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials in patients undergoing emergency endotracheal intubation for critical illness, including but not limited to trauma, stroke, myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, septic shock, hypovolaemic or haemorrhagic shock, and undifferentiated shock states. We included single (bolus) dose etomidate for emergency airway intervention compared to any other rapid-acting intravenous bolus single-dose induction agent.\nData collection and analysis\nRefinement of our initial search results by title review, and then by abstract review was carried out by three review authors. Full-text review of potential studies was based on their adherence to our inclusion and exclusion criteria. This was decided by three independent review authors. We reported the decisions regarding inclusion and exclusion in accordance with the PRISMA statement.\nElectronic database searching yielded 1635 potential titles, and our grey literature search yielded an additional 31 potential titles. Duplicate titles were filtered leaving 1395 titles which underwent review of their titles and abstracts by three review authors. Sixty seven titles were judged to be relevant to our review, however only eight met our inclusion criteria and seven were included in our analysis.\nMain results\nWe included eight studies in the review and seven in the meta-analysis. Of those seven studies, only two were judged to be at low risk of bias. Overall, no strong evidence exists that etomidate increases mortality in critically ill patients when compared to other bolus dose induction agents (odds ratio (OR) 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.60, 6 studies, 772 participants, moderate quality evidence). Due to a large number of participants lost to follow-up, we performed a post hoc sensitivity analysis. This gave a similar result (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.53). There was evidence that the use of etomidate in critically ill patients was associated with a positive adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) stimulation test, and this difference was more pronounced at between 4 to 6 hours (OR 19.98; 95% CI 3.95 to 101.11) than after 12 hours (OR 2.37; 95% CI 1.61 to 3.47) post-dosing. Etomidate's use in critically ill patients was associated with a small increase in SOFA score, indicating a higher risk of multisystem organ failure (mean difference (MD) 0.70; 95% CI 0.01 to 1.39, 2 studies, 591 participants, high quality evidence), but this difference was not clinically meaningful. Etomidate use did not have an effect on ICU LOS (MD 1.70 days; 95% CI -2.00 to 5.40, 4 studies, 621 participants, moderate quality evidence), hospital LOS (MD 2.41 days; 95% CI -7.08 to 11.91, 3 studies, 152 participants, moderate quality evidence), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD 2.14 days; 95% CI -1.67 to 5.95, 3 studies, 621 participants, moderate quality evidence), or duration of vasopressor use (MD 1.00 day; 95% CI -0.53 to 2.53, 1 study, 469 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough we have not found conclusive evidence that etomidate increases mortality or healthcare resource utilization in critically ill patients, it does seem to increase the risk of adrenal gland dysfunction and multi-organ system dysfunction by a small amount. The clinical significance of this finding is unknown. This evidence is judged to be of moderate quality, owing mainly to significant attrition bias in some of the smaller studies, and new research may influence the outcomes of our review. The applicability of these data may be limited by the fact that 42% of the patients in our review were intubated for \"being comatose\", a population less likely to benefit from the haemodynamic stability inherent in etomidate use, and less at risk from its potential negative downstream effects of adrenal suppression.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "People who are critically ill often need help breathing. One way to do this is called endotracheal intubation. This involves placing a tube into the windpipe (trachea) and having a ventilator (breathing machine) help the patient breathe.\nPeople are often given sedative agents during endotracheal intubation to make them unaware of the procedure. Many sedative agents cause a potentially harmful drop in blood pressure.\nEtomidate is commonly used to sedate patients before endotracheal intubation because it has minimal effects on blood pressure. However, when someone is given etomidate their adrenal glands do not function as well. This may be harmful to them." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nInfluenza is an acute respiratory illness caused by influenza A and B viruses. Complications may occur, especially among children and the elderly.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of amantadine and rimantadine in preventing, treating and shortening the duration of influenza A in children and the elderly.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1966 to September week 4, 2014) and EMBASE (1980 to October 2014).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing amantadine and/or rimantadine with no intervention, placebo, other antivirals or different doses or schedules of amantadine or rimantadine in children and the elderly with influenza A.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the search results. We extracted and analysed data using the standard Cochrane methodology.\nMain results\nWe identified 12 studies (2494 participants: 1586 children and 908 elderly) comparing amantadine and rimantadine with placebo, paracetamol (one trial: 69 children) or zanamivir (two trials: 545 elderly) to treat influenza A.\nAmantadine was effective in preventing influenza A in children (773 participants, risk ratio (RR) 0.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.30). The assumed risk of influenza A in the control group was 10 per 100. The corresponding risk in the rimantadine group was one per 100 (95% CI 0 to 3). Nevertheless, the quality of the evidence was low and the safety of the drug was not well established.\nFor treatment, rimantadine was beneficial in abating fever on day three of treatment in children: one selected study with low risk of bias, moderate evidence quality and 69 participants (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.91). The assumed risk was 38 per 100. The corresponding risk in the rimantadine group was 14 per 100 (95% CI 5 to 34).\nRimantadine did not show any prophylactic effect in the elderly. The quality of evidence was very low: 103 participants (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.14 to 1.41). The assumed risk was 17 per 100. The corresponding risk in the rimantadine group was 7 per 100 (95% CI 2 to 23).\nThere was no evidence of adverse effects caused by treatment with amantadine or rimantadine.\nWe found no studies assessing amantadine in the elderly.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe quality of the evidence combined with a lack of knowledge about the safety of amantadine and the limited benefits of rimantadine, do not indicate that amantadine and rimantadine compared to control (placebo or paracetamol) could be useful in preventing, treating and shortening the duration of influenza A in children and the elderly.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results and quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We identified 12 trials (2494 participants: 1586 children and 908 elderly). We looked for trials that compared amantadine or rimantadine with no intervention, placebos or control drugs in children and the elderly. The most recent searches were completed in October 2014. We looked at several outcomes, including influenza A, fever duration, cough, headache, nausea/vomiting, dizziness and stimulation/insomnia.\nAlthough amantadine was effective in preventing influenza A in children, it would be necessary to use it in up to 17 children over a period of 14 to 18 weeks to prevent one case of influenza A. Furthermore, the safety of the drug was not well established. The quality of the evidence was low.\nThe effectiveness of both antivirals was limited to a benefit from rimantadine in the reduction of fever by day three of treatment in children. The quality of the evidence was moderate. This benefit does not seem to justify a recommendation for using rimantadine to treat all children with influenza A.\nRimantadine did not show a prophylactic (preventative) effect in the elderly. The quality of evidence was very low." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nChorioamnionitis is a leading cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality. Amnioinfusion aims at reducing the adverse effects of chorioamnionitis by dilution of the infective organisms or by an anti-microbial effect of the fluid infused.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review was to determine the effect of amnioinfusion on clinical and sub-clinical chorioamnionitis, fetal well-being, fetal heart rate characteristics and perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (6 July 2016), PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (6 July 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised clinical trials (RCTs) of amnioinfusion (treatment group) versus no amnioinfusion in women with chorioamnionitis.\nWe would have also considered trials comparing amnioinfusion with sham amnioinfusion; different types or volumes of amnioinfusion fluid but none were identified.\nCluster-RCTs and quasi-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. We identified one study published in abstract form but it did not contain any numerical data and has therefore been excluded. Studies using a cross-over design are not an appropriate study design and thus were not eligible for inclusion in this review.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed potential studies for inclusion and assessed trial quality. Both review authors independently extracted data and data were checked for accuracy.\nMain results\nWe included one small trial (with data from 34 participants) comparing transcervical amnioinfusion with no amnioinfusion. The trial was considered to be at a high risk of bias overall, due to small numbers, inconsistency in the reporting and lack of information on blinding. Meta-analysis was not possible. Transcervical amnioinfusion was with room temperature saline at 10 mL per minute for 60 minutes, then 3 mL per minute until delivery versus no amnioinfusion. All women received intrauterine pressure catheter, acetaminophen and antibiotics (ampicillin or, if receiving Group B beta streptococcal prophylaxis, penicillin and gentamycin). We did not identify any trials that used transabdominal amnioinfusion.\nCompared to no amnioinfusion, transcervical amnioinfusion had no clear effect on the incidence of postpartum endometritis (risk ratio (RR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 7.87; absolute risk 176/1000 (95% CI 34 to 96) versus 118/1000;low-quality evidence). Nor was there a clear effect in the incidence of neonatal infection (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 68.84; absolute risk 0/1000 (95% CI 0 to 0) versus 0/1000; low-quality evidence). The outcome of perinatal death or severe morbidity (such as neonatal encephalopathy, intraventricular haemorrhage, admission to intensive/high care) was not reported in the included trial.\nIn terms of this review's secondary outcomes, the rate of caesarean section was the same in both groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.83; absolute risk 294/1000 (95% CI 103 to 832) versus 294/1000; low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the duration of maternal antibiotic treatment between the amnioinfusion and no amnioinfusion control group (mean difference (MD) 16 hours, 95% CI -1.75 to 33.75); nor in the duration of hospitalisation (MD 3.00 hours, 95% CI -15.49 to 21.49). The study did not report any information about how many babies had a low Apgar score at five minutes after birth.\nWomen in the amnioinfusion group had a lower temperature at delivery compared to women in the control group (MD -0.38°C, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.02) but this outcome was not pre-specified in the protocol for this review.\nThe majority of this review's secondary outcomes were not reported in the included study.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to fully evaluate the effectiveness of using transcervical amnioinfusion for chorioamnionitis and to assess the safety of this intervention or women’s satisfaction. We did not identify any trials that used transabdominal amnioinfusion. The evidence in this review can neither support nor refute the use of transcervical amnioinfusion outside of clinical trials. We included one small study that reported on a limited number of outcomes of interest in this review. The numbers included in this review are too small for meaningful assessment of substantive outcomes, where reported. For those outcomes we assessed using GRADE (postpartum endometritis, neonatal infection, and caesarean section), we downgraded the quality of the evidence to low - with downgrading decisions based on small numbers and a lack of information on blinding. The included study did not report on this review's other primary outcome (perinatal death or severe morbidity).\nThe reduction in pyrexia, though not a pre-specified outcome of this review, may be of relevance in terms of benefits to the fetus of reduced exposure to heat. We postulate that the temperature reduction found may be a direct cooling effect of amnioinfusion with room temperature fluid, rather than reduction of infection. Larger trials are needed to confirm and extend the findings of the trial reviewed here. These should be randomised controlled trials; participants, women with chorioamnionitis; interventions, amnioinfusion; comparisons, no amnioinfusion; outcomes, maternal and perinatal outcomes including neurodevelopmental measures.\nFurther research is justified to determine possible benefits or risks of amnioinfusion for chorioamnionitis, and to investigate possible benefits of reducing temperature in fetuses considered at risk of neurological damage. Research should include randomised trials to examine transcervical or transabdominal amnioinfusion compared with no infusion for chorioamnionitis and examine outcomes listed in the methods of this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"infection of the mother's womb after the birth\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "infection of the mother's womb after the birth(low-quality evidence);infection of the baby(low-quality evidence);caesarean section(low-quality evidence);duration of antibiotic treatment; norduration of hospital stay. Themother's temperature at delivery, which was not a pre-defined outcome for our review, was lower in the women who received amnioinfusion, by 0.38 °C (with a likely range of 0.74 lower to 0.02 lower). The outcomedeath or severe illness in the babywas not reported, nor did the study report on the number of babies with alow Apgar scoreafter they were born (a low Apgar score could indicate that the baby is in need of medical attention). Similarly, the majority of other outcomes listed in this review were not reported in the included study.\nWe did not identify any studies that looked at introducing the solution through the mother's abdomen (transabdominal route)." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDifferentiating both typhoid (Salmonella Typhi) and paratyphoid (Salmonella Paratyphi A) infection from other causes of fever in endemic areas is a diagnostic challenge. Although commercial point-of-care rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for enteric fever are available as alternatives to the current reference standard test of blood or bone marrow culture, or to the widely used Widal Test, their diagnostic accuracy is unclear. If accurate, they could potentially replace blood culture as the World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended main diagnostic test for enteric fever.\nObjectives\nTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of commercially available rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) and prototypes for detecting Salmonella Typhi or Paratyphi A infection in symptomatic persons living in endemic areas.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, IndMED, African Index Medicus, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) up to 4 March 2016. We manually searched WHO reports, and papers from international conferences on Salmonella infections. We also contacted test manufacturers to identify studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included diagnostic accuracy studies of enteric fever RDTs in patients with fever or with symptoms suggestive of enteric fever living in endemic areas. We classified the reference standard used as either Grade 1 (result from a blood culture and a bone marrow culture) or Grade 2 (result from blood culture and blood polymerase chain reaction, or from blood culture alone).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted the test result data. We used a modified QUADAS-2 extraction form to assess methodological quality. We performed a meta-analysis when there were sufficient studies for the test and heterogeneity was reasonable.\nMain results\nThirty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria and included a total of 5080 participants (range 50 to 1732). Enteric fever prevalence rates in the study populations ranged from 1% to 75% (median prevalence 24%, interquartile range (IQR) 11% to 46%). The included studies evaluated 16 different RDTs, and 16 studies compared two or more different RDTs. Only three studies used the Grade 1 reference standard, and only 11 studies recruited unselected febrile patients. Most included studies were from Asia, with five studies from sub-Saharan Africa. All of the RDTs were designed to detect S.Typhi infection only.\nMost studies evaluated three RDTs and their variants: TUBEX in 14 studies; Typhidot (Typhidot, Typhidot-M, and TyphiRapid-Tr02) in 22 studies; and the Test-It Typhoid immunochromatographic lateral flow assay, and its earlier prototypes (dipstick, latex agglutination) developed by the Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam (KIT) in nine studies. Meta-analyses showed an average sensitivity of 78% (95% confidence interval (CI) 71% to 85%) and specificity of 87% (95% CI 82% to 91%) for TUBEX; and an average sensitivity of 69% (95% CI 59% to 78%) and specificity of 90% (95% CI 78% to 93%) for all Test-It Typhoid and prototype tests (KIT). Across all forms of the Typhidot test, the average sensitivity was 84% (95% CI 73% to 91%) and specificity was 79% (95% CI 70% to 87%). When we based the analysis on the 13 studies of the Typhidot test that either reported indeterminate test results or where the test format means there are no indeterminate results, the average sensitivity was 78% (95% CI 65% to 87%) and specificity was 77% (95% CI 66% to 86%). We did not identify any difference in either sensitivity or specificity between TUBEX, Typhidot, and Test-it Typhoid tests when based on comparison to the 13 Typhidot studies where indeterminate results are either reported or not applicable. If TUBEX and Test-it Typhoid are compared to all Typhidot studies, the sensitivity of Typhidot was higher than Test-it Typhoid (15% (95% CI 2% to 28%), but other comparisons did not show a difference at the 95% level of CIs.\nIn a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients presenting with fever where 30% (300 patients) have enteric fever, on average Typhidot tests reporting indeterminate results or where tests do not produce indeterminate results will miss the diagnosis in 66 patients with enteric fever, TUBEX will miss 66, and Test-It Typhoid and prototype (KIT) tests will miss 93. In the 700 people without enteric fever, the number of people incorrectly diagnosed with enteric fever would be 161 with Typhidot tests, 91 with TUBEX, and 70 with Test-It Typhoid and prototype (KIT) tests. The CIs around these estimates were wide, with no difference in false positive results shown between tests.\nThe quality of the data for each study was evaluated using a standardized checklist called QUADAS-2. Overall, the certainty of the evidence in the studies that evaluated enteric fever RDTs was low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn 37 studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of RDTs for enteric fever, few studies were at a low risk of bias. The three main RDT tests and variants had moderate diagnostic accuracy. There was no evidence of a difference between the average sensitivity and specificity of the three main RDT tests. More robust evaluations of alternative RDTs for enteric fever are needed.\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": "Sensitivity indicates the percentage of patients with a positive test result who are correctly diagnosed with disease. Specificity indicates the percentage of patients who are correctly identified as not having disease. TUBEX showed an average sensitivity of 78% and specificity of 87%. Typhidot studies, grouped together to include Typhidot, Typhidot-M, and TyphiRapid-Tr02, showed an average sensitivity of 84% and specificity of 79%. When Typhidot studies with clear reporting of indeterminate results are considered, the average sensitivity and specificity of Typhidot was 78% and 77% respectively. Test-It Typhoid and prototypes (KIT) showed an average sensitivity of 69% and specificity of 90%.\nBased on these results, in 1000 patients with fever where 30% (300 patients) have enteric fever, we would expect Typhidot tests reporting indeterminate results or where tests do not produce indeterminate results to, on average, miss the diagnosis (give a false negative result) in 66 patients with enteric fever, TUBEX to miss 66, and Test-It Typhoid and prototypes (KIT) to miss 93. In the 700 people without enteric fever, the number of people incorrectly given a diagnosis of enteric fever (a false positive result) would be on average 161 with these Typhidot tests, 91 with TUBEX, and 70 with the Test-It Typhoid and prototypes (KIT). These differences in the number of false negative and false positive results in patients from the different tests are not statistically important. The RDTs evaluated are not sufficiently accurate to replace blood culture as a diagnostic test for enteric fever." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCustom foot orthoses are commonly recommended for the treatment of foot pain.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of custom foot orthoses for different types of foot pain.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 2), MEDLINE (from January 1966), EMBASE (from January 1980), CINAHL (from January 1982) and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) (to June 2007). We also contacted authors of included trials and known researchers in the field and checked the reference lists of included trials to identify trials. No language or publication restrictions were applied.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials evaluating custom-made foot orthoses for any type of foot pain. Outcomes included quantifiable levels of foot pain, function, disability, health-related quality of life, participant satisfaction, adverse effects and compliance.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected trials, rated methodological quality and cross checked data extraction. Data were analysed separately for different diagnoses of foot pain and follow-up time points.\nMain results\nEleven trials involving 1332 participants were included: five trials evaluated custom-made foot orthoses for plantar fasciitis (691 participants); three for foot pain in rheumatoid arthritis (231 participants); and one each for foot pain in pes cavus (154 participants), hallux valgus (209 participants) and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) (47 participants). Comparisons to custom-made foot orthoses included sham orthoses; no intervention; standardised interventions given to all participants; non-custom (prefabricated) foot orthoses; combined manipulation, mobilisation or stretching; night splints; and surgery. Follow up ranged from one week to three years. Custom-made foot orthoses were effective for painful pes cavus (NNTB:5), rearfoot pain in rheumatoid arthritis (NNTB:4), foot pain in JIA (NNTB:3) and painful hallux valgus (NNTB:6); however, surgery was even more effective for hallux valgus and non-custom foot orthoses appeared just as effective for JIA but the analysis may have lacked sufficient power to detect a difference in effect. It is unclear if custom-made foot orthoses were effective for plantar fasciitis or metatarsophalangeal joint pain in rheumatoid arthritis. Custom-made foot orthoses were a safe intervention in all studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is limited evidence on which to base clinical decisions regarding the prescription of custom-made foot orthoses for the treatment of foot pain. Currently, there is gold level evidence for painful pes cavus and silver level evidence for foot pain in JIA, rheumatoid arthritis, plantar fasciitis and hallux valgus.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Best estimate of what happens to people with foot pain caused by a high arch who use custom foot orthoses compared to a fake foot orthoses\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "After 3 months, a custom-made foot orthoses improves foot pain by 11 more points on a scale of 0 to 100 (possibly as many as 19 points or as few as 3 points)." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nControversy exists as to whether revascularisation of the left subclavian artery (LSA) confers improved outcomes in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Even though preemptive revascularisation of the LSA has theoretical advantages, including a reduced risk of ischaemic damage to vital organs, such as the brain and the spinal cord, it is not without risks. Current practice guidelines recommend routine revascularisation of the LSA in patients undergoing elective TEVAR where achievement of a proximal seal necessitates coverage of the LSA, and in patients who have an anatomy that compromises perfusion to critical organs. However, this recommendation was based on very low-quality evidence.\nObjectives\nTo assess the comparative efficacy of routine LSA revascularisation versus either selective or no revascularisation in patients with descending thoracic aortic disease undergoing TEVAR with coverage of the LSA origin.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Specialised Register (June 2015). In addition, the TSC searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CENTRAL (2015, Issue 5)).Trials databases were also searched (June 2015).\nSelection criteria\nWe had planned to consider all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared routine revascularisation of the LSA with selective or no revascularisation, in patients undergoing TEVAR.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the title and abstract of articles identified through literature searches. An independent third review author was consulted in the event of disagreement. We had planned for two review authors to independently extract data and assess the risk of bias of identified trials using the criteria recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.\nMain results\nWe did not identify any RCTs relevant to our review topic. Therefore, no quantitative analysis was conducted.\nAuthors' conclusions\nHigh quality RCT evidence for or against routine or selective revascularisation of the LSA in TEVAR is not currently available. It is not possible to draw conclusions with regard to the optimal management of LSA coverage in TEVAR, and whether routine revascularisation, which was defined as the intervention of interest in our review, confers beneficial effects, as indicated by reduced mortality, cerebrovascular events, and spinal cord ischaemia. This review highlights the need for continued research to provide RCT evidence and define the role of LSA revascularisation in the context of TEVAR with coverage of the LSA.\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 thoracic aorta is the largest blood vessel in the chest. It originates from the heart and supplies blood to the whole body. It can be affected by several diseases, including an aneurysm, which is an enlargement of a weakened section of the aorta, and dissection, which occurs when a tear in the aortic lining causes blood to flow between the layers of the wall of the aorta, forcing the layers apart. The traditional treatment of these conditions is open surgical repair. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has evolved as an alternative treatment for a wide variety of aortic diseases. It is less invasive than open surgery, and involves inserting an artificial graft (a tube composed of fabric) into the thoracic aorta through an artery in the groin (the femoral artery), to help reinforce the aortic wall. A significant proportion of patients with thoracic aortic disease have abnormalities close to, or involving the origin of the left subclavian artery (LSA; one of the branches of the thoracic aorta). In these situations, the aortic stent graft needs to be placed close to the LSA, thereby blocking the blood vessel opening. This can potentially result in reduced blood supply to the brain and spinal cord, causing stroke and spinal cord ischaemia (spinal cord stroke). This review aimed to look at the value of a surgical bypass, which can provide an alternative route for blood supply (revascularisation) to the brain and spinal cord in cases of TEVAR, where the LSA is covered.\nControversy exists as to whether routine revascularisation of the LSA, with a surgical bypass, results in improved outcomes in patients undergoing TEVAR, as measured by a reduced risk of stroke and paraplegia (paralysis of the legs). Even though preemptive LSA revascularisation has theoretical advantages, it is not without risks, including nerve damage, bleeding, and graft infection. The Society for Vascular Surgery Practice Guidelines recommend routine revascularisation of the LSA in non-emergency TEVAR, where the LSA origin is covered. However, this recommendation was based on very low-quality evidence.\nWe undertook a comprehensive, systematic search of the pertinent literature to identify the best available evidence and had planned to synthesise outcome data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), in order to assist clinicians and patients to make evidence-based decisions." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIn people with sickle cell disease, sickled red blood cells cause the occlusion of small blood vessels, which presents as episodes of severe pain known as pain crises or vaso-occlusive crises. The pain can occur in the bones, chest, or other parts of the body, and may last several hours to days. Pain relief during crises includes both pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatments. The efficacy of inhaled nitric oxide in pain crises has been a subject of controversy; hypotheses have been made suggesting a beneficial response due to its vasodilator properties, yet no conclusive evidence has been presented. This review aimed to evaluate the available randomised controlled studies addressing this topic.\nObjectives\nTo capture the body of evidence evaluating the efficacy and safety of the use of inhaled nitric oxide in treating pain crises in people with sickle cell disease, and to assess the relevance, robustness, and validity of the treatment to better guide medical practice in the fields of haematology and palliative care (since the recent literature seems to favour the involvement of palliative care for such people).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register. We searched for unpublished work in the abstract books of the European Haematology Association conference, the American Society of Hematology conference, the British Society for Haematology Annual Scientific Meeting, the Caribbean Health Research Council Meetings, and the National Sickle Cell Disease Program Annual Meeting. The most recent search was conducted on 1 September 2021. We also searched ongoing study registries on 19 November 2021.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing inhaled nitric oxide with placebo for treating pain crises in people with sickle cell disease.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data (including adverse event data), with any disagreements resolved by consulting a third review author. When the data were not reported in the text, we attempted to extract the data from available tables or figures. We contacted trial authors for additional information. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nWe included three trials involving a total of 188 participants in the review. There were equal numbers of males and females. Most participants were adults, although one small trial was conducted in a children's hospital and recruited children over the age of 10 years. All three parallel trials compared inhaled nitric oxygen (80 parts per million (ppm)) to placebo (nitrogen gas mixed with oxygen or room air) for four hours; one trial continued administering nitric oxide (40 ppm) for a further four hours. This extended trial had an overall low risk of bias; however, we had concerns about risk of bias for the remaining two trials due to their small sample size, and additionally a high risk of bias due to financial conflicts of interest in one of these smaller trials. We were only able to analyse some limited data from the eight-hour trial, reporting the remaining results narratively.\nEvidence from one trial (150 participants) suggested that inhaled nitric oxide may not reduce the time to pain resolution: inhaled nitric oxide median 73.0 hours (95% confidence interval (CI) 46.0 to 91.0) and with placebo median 65.5 hours (95% CI 48.1 to 84.0) (low-certainty evidence). No trial reported on the duration of the initial pain crisis. Only one large trial reported on the frequency of pain crises in the follow-up period and found there may be little or no difference between the inhaled nitric oxide and placebo groups for return to the emergency department (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.71) and rehospitalisation (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.11) (150 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nThere may be little or no difference between treatment and placebo in terms of reduction in pain score at any time point up to eight hours (150 participants). The two smaller trials reported a beneficial effect of inhaled nitric oxide in reducing the visual analogue pain score after four hours of the intervention.\nAnalgesic use was reported not to differ greatly between the inhaled nitric oxide group and placebo group in any of the three trials, but no analysable data were provided. Two trials reported the median duration of hospitalisation: in the largest trial the placebo group had the shorter duration, whilst in the second smaller (paediatric) trial hospitalisation was shorter in the treatment group.\nOnly the largest trial (150 participants) reported serious adverse events, with no increase in the inhaled nitric oxide group during or after the intervention compared to the control group (acute chest syndrome occurred in 5 out of 75 participants from each group, pyrexia in 1 out of 75 participants from each group, and dysphagia and a drop in haemoglobin were each reported in 1 out of 75 participants in the inhaled nitric oxide group) (low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe currently available evidence is insufficient to determine the effects (benefits or harms) of using inhaled nitric oxide to treat pain (vaso-occlusive) crises in people with sickle cell disease. Large-scale, long-term trials are needed to provide more robust data in this area. Patient-important outcomes (e.g. measures of pain and time to pain resolution and amounts of analgesics used), as well as use of healthcare services, should be measured and reported in a standardised manner.\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": "Sickle cell disease is a condition that affects the red blood cells. Normal red blood cells are round, but in people with sickle cell disease some of the red blood cells can have an abnormal shape like a crescent (or a sickle, a tool with a curved blade). The abnormally shaped cells easily become stuck in blood vessels, which can cause episodes of severe pain known as pain crises. The pain can be in the bones, chest, or other parts of the body, and can last from several hours to days.\nPainkillers are the main treatment of these pain crises. Another suggested treatment is inhaled nitric oxide, a gas that can relax the blocked blood vessels so they can widen and allow the sickled cells to pass. We wanted to find out whether inhaled nitric oxide is effective in relieving pain in people with sickle cell disease." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe Cystic Fibrosis Foundation recommends both short-term and long-acting insulin therapy when cystic fibrosis-related diabetes (CFRD) has been diagnosed. Diagnosis is based on: an elevated fasting blood glucose level greater than 6.94 mmol/L (125 mg/dL); or oral glucose tolerance tests greater than 11.11 mmol/L (200 mg/dL) at two hours; or symptomatic diabetes for random glucose levels greater than 11.11 mmol/L (200 mg/dL); or glycated hemoglobin levels of at least 6.5%. This is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo establish the effectiveness of insulin and oral agents for managing diabetes in people with cystic fibrosis in relation to blood sugar levels, lung function and weight management.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also handsearched abstracts from pulmonary symposia and the North American Cystic Fibrosis Conferences.\nDate of most recent register search: 10 September 2020.\nWe searched online trials registries; date of most recent searches: 21 March 2020.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials comparing all methods of pharmacological diabetes therapy in people with diagnosed CFRD.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. Authors also used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.\nMain results\nThe searches identified 29 trials (45 references). Four included trials provide results: one short-term single-center cross-over trial (seven adults) comparing insulin with oral repaglinide and no medication in adults with CFRD and normal fasting glucose; one long-term multicenter trial (61 adults with CFRD) comparing insulin with oral repaglinide and placebo; one long-term multicenter trial (67 adults) comparing insulin with oral repaglinide; and one 12-week single-center cross-over trial (20 adults) comparing the long-acting insulin glargine to short-term neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin. Two ongoing trials of newly approved incretin mimics have been noted for possible future inclusion.\nDowngrading of the quality of the evidence was mainly due to risks of bias across all domains, but particularly due to concerns surrounding allocation concealment and selective reporting. There were also some concerns due to imprecision from small sample sizes and low event rates. Finally, there may be some bias due to the amounts of insulin and repaglinide given not being comparable.\nData from one trial comparing insulin to placebo (39 participants) did not show any difference between groups for the primary outcomes of blood glucose levels (very low-quality evidence), lung function (low-quality evidence) or nutritional status (low-quality evidence). Similarly, no differences between groups were seen for the secondary outcomes of number of hypoglycemic episodes (low-quality evidence), secondary infection complications or quality of life (QoL). These results were mirrored in the narrative reports for the second trial in this comparison (seven participants).\nData from the one-year trial comparing repaglinide to placebo (38 participants), showed no differences between groups for the primary outcomes of blood glucose levels (very low-quality evidence), lung function (low-quality evidence) and nutritional status (low-quality evidence). Also, no differences were seen between groups for the secondary outcomes of number of hypoglycemic episodes (low-quality evidence), secondary infection complications or QoL. These findings were mirrored in the narrative reports for the second trial (n = 7) in this comparison.\nThree trials compared insulin to repaglinide (119 participants). Data from one trial (n = 67) showed no difference in blood glucose levels at either 12 months (high-quality evidence) or 24 months; narrative reports from one trial (45 participants) reported no difference between groups, but the second trial (7 participants) reported a beneficial effect of insulin over repaglinide. Two trials (112 participants) found no difference between insulin and repaglinide in lung function or nutritional status (moderate-quality evidence). Two trials (56 participants) reported no difference in the number of hypoglycemic episodes (low-quality evidence). One trial (45 participants) reported no difference between groups in secondary infections and cystic fibrosis QoL.\nThe single trial comparing glargine to neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin did not report directly on the review's primary outcomes, but did report no differences between groups in post-prandial glucose values and weight; neither group reported infectious complications. There was no difference in episodes of hypoglycemia (very low-quality evidence) and while there was no difference reported in QoL, all participants opted to continue treatment with glargine after the trial was completed.\nMortality was not reported by any trial in any comparison, but death was not given as a reason for withdrawal in any trial.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review has not found any conclusive evidence that any agent has a distinct advantage over another in controlling hyperglycemia or the clinical outcomes associated with CFRD. Given the treatment burden already experienced by people with cystic fibrosis, oral therapy may be a viable treatment option.\nWhile some cystic fibrosis centers use oral medications to help control diabetes, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (USA) clinical practice guidelines support the use of insulin therapy and this remains the most widely-used treatment method. Randomized controlled trials specifically related to controlling diabetes and its impact on the course of pulmonary disease process in cystic fibrosis continue to be a high priority. Specifically, investigators should evaluate adherence to different therapies and also whether there is benefit in using additional hypoglycemic agents as well as the newly approved incretin mimics. Agents that potentiate insulin action, especially agents with additional anti-inflammatory potential should also be further investigated as adjuvant therapy to insulin.\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 had some concerns about the quality of the evidence; mainly that there would be bias because clinicians probably knew in advance which treatment group the next person was going to be put into (e.g. healthier participants might be put into one group to show better results for that treatment) or bias from people taking part knowing which treatment group they were in (e.g. insulin via a syringe or repaglinide as a tablet). There may also be bias because results may only be selectively reported. We had some concerns that the analysis would not be precise due to small numbers of participants and low event rates. Finally, there may be bias in the results as the amounts of insulin and repaglinide given were not comparable." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCarpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a compression neuropathy of the median nerve causing pain and numbness and tingling typically in the thumb, index and middle finger. It sometimes results in muscle wasting, diminished sensitivity and loss of dexterity. Splinting the wrist (with or without the hand) using an orthosis is usually offered to people with mild-to-moderate findings, but its effectiveness remains unclear.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects (benefits and harms) of splinting for people with CTS.\nSearch methods\nOn 12 December 2021, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP with no limitations. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials were included if the effect of splinting could be isolated from other treatment modalities. The comparisons included splinting versus no active treatment (or placebo), splinting versus another disease-modifying non-surgical treatment, and comparisons of different splint-wearing regimens. We excluded studies comparing splinting with surgery or one splint design with another. We excluded participants if they had previously undergone surgical release.\nData collection and analysis\nReview authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed study risk of bias and the certainty in the body of evidence for primary outcomes using the GRADE approach, according to standard Cochrane methodology.\nMain results\nWe included 29 trials randomising 1937 adults with CTS. The trials ranged from 21 to 234 participants, with mean ages between 42 and 60 years. The mean duration of CTS symptoms was seven weeks to five years. Eight studies with 523 hands compared splinting with no active intervention (no treatment, sham-kinesiology tape or sham-laser); 20 studies compared splinting (or splinting delivered along with another non-surgical intervention) with another non-surgical intervention; and three studies compared different splinting regimens (e.g. night-time only versus full time).\nTrials were generally at high risk of bias for one or more domains, including lack of blinding (all included studies) and lack of information about randomisation or allocation concealment in 23 studies.\nFor the primary comparison, splinting compared to no active treatment, splinting may provide little or no benefits in symptoms in the short term (< 3 months). The mean Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) Symptom Severity Scale (SSS) (scale 1 to 5, higher is worse; minimal clinically important difference (MCID) 1 point) was 0.37 points better with splint (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 better to 0.08 worse; 6 studies, 306 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared with no active treatment. Removing studies with high or unclear risk of bias due to lack of randomisation or allocation concealment supported our conclusion of no important effect (mean difference (MD) 0.01 points worse with splint; 95% CI 0.20 better to 0.22 worse; 3 studies, 124 participants). In the long term (> 3 months), we are uncertain about the effect of splinting on symptoms (mean BCTQ SSS 0.64 better with splinting; 95% CI 1.2 better to 0.08 better; 2 studies, 144 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nSplinting probably does not improve hand function in the short term and may not improve hand function in the long term. In the short term, the mean BCTQ Functional Status Scale (FSS) (1 to 5, higher is worse; MCID 0.7 points) was 0.24 points better (95% CI 0.44 better to 0.03 better; 6 studies, 306 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) with splinting compared with no active treatment. In the long term, the mean BCTQ FSS was 0.25 points better (95% CI 0.68 better to 0.18 worse; 1 study, 34 participants; low-certainty evidence) with splinting compared with no active treatment.\nNight-time splinting may result in a higher rate of overall improvement in the short term (risk ratio (RR) 3.86, 95% CI 2.29 to 6.51; 1 study, 80 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 2, 95% CI 2 to 2; low-certainty evidence).\nWe are uncertain if splinting decreases referral to surgery, RR 0.47 (95% CI 0.14 to 1.58; 3 studies, 243 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nNone of the trials reported health-related quality of life.\nLow-certainty evidence from one study suggests that splinting may have a higher rate of adverse events, which were transient, but the 95% CIs included no effect. Seven of 40 participants (18%) reported adverse effects in the splinting group and 0 of 40 participants (0%) in the no active treatment group (RR 15.0, 95% CI 0.89 to 254.13; 1 study, 80 participants).\nThere was low- to moderate-certainty evidence for the other comparisons: splinting may not provide additional benefits in symptoms or hand function when given together with corticosteroid injection (moderate-certainty evidence) or with rehabilitation (low-certainty evidence); nor when compared with corticosteroid (injection or oral; low certainty), exercises (low certainty), kinesiology taping (low certainty), rigid taping (low certainty), platelet-rich plasma (moderate certainty), or extracorporeal shock wave treatment (moderate certainty). Splinting for 12 weeks may not be better than six weeks, but six months of splinting may be better than six weeks of splinting in improving symptoms and function (low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to conclude whether splinting benefits people with CTS. Limited evidence does not exclude small improvements in CTS symptoms and hand function, but they may not be clinically important, and the clinical relevance of small differences with splinting is unclear. Low-certainty evidence suggests that people may have a greater chance of experiencing overall improvement with night-time splints than no treatment. As splinting is a relatively inexpensive intervention with no plausible long-term harms, small effects could justify its use, particularly when patients are not interested in having surgery or injections.\nIt is unclear if a splint is optimally worn full time or at night-time only and whether long-term use is better than short-term use, but low-certainty evidence suggests that the benefits may manifest in the long term.\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 collected and analysed all relevant studies to answer our review question and found 29 studies that assessed the safety and benefit of splinting for people with CTS. The average ages of participants were between 42 and 60 years, the number of participants was 1937, and 81% were women. Most had mild-to-moderate symptoms." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAnkylosing spondylitis (AS) is a chronic, inflammatory rheumatic disease. Physiotherapy is considered an important part of the overall management of AS.\nObjectives\nTo summarise the available scientific evidence on the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions in the management of AS.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL and PEDro up to January 2007 for all relevant publications, without any language restrictions. We checked the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted the authors of included articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised studies with AS patients and where at least one of the comparison groups received physiotherapy. The main outcomes of interest were pain, stiffness, spinal mobility, physical function and patient global assessment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed trial quality. Investigators were contacted to obtain missing information.\nMain results\nEleven trials with a total of 763 participants were included in this updated review. \nFour trials compared individualised home exercise programs or a supervised exercise program with no intervention and reported low quality evidence for effects in spinal mobility (Relative percentage differences (RPDs) from 5-50%) and physical function (four points on a 33-point scale). \nThree trials compared supervised group physiotherapy with an individualised home-exercise program and reported moderate quality evidence for small differences in spinal mobility (RPDs 7.5-18%) and patient global assessment (1.46 cm) in favour of supervised group exercises. \nIn one study, a three-week inpatient spa-exercise therapy followed by 37 weeks of weekly outpatient group physiotherapy (without spa) was compared with weekly outpatient group physiotherapy alone; there was moderate quality evidence for effects in pain (18%), physical function (24%) and patient global assessment (27%) in favour of the combined spa-exercise therapy. One study compared daily outpatient balneotherapy and an exercise program with only exercise program, and another study compared balneotherapy with fresh water therapy. None of these studies showed significant between-group differences. One study compared an experimental exercise program with a conventional program; statistically significant change scores were reported on nearly all spinal mobility measures and physical function in favour of the experimental program.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results of this review suggest that an individual home-based or supervised exercise program is better than no intervention; that supervised group physiotherapy is better than home exercises; and that combined inpatient spa-exercise therapy followed by group physiotherapy is better than group physiotherapy alone.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the bottom line?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Physiotherapy or exercises are helpful to people with ankylosing spondylitis.\nThere is \"silver\" level evidence (www.cochranemsk.org) that exercise programs, home-based or supervised, are better than no exercises and improve movement and physical function. Group exercises are better than home exercises, and improve movement and overall well-being. Adding a few weeks of exercising at a spa resort to weekly group exercises is better than just weekly group exercises. Balneotherapy in addition to exercise program did not show additional effect, nor did balneotherapy compared to fresh water therapy. An experimental exercise program showed more improvement on mobility and physical function than conventional exercises, but differences between groups were not statistically significant. We still need more information about the different types of physiotherapy and exercise, and how long, how intensive and how often physiotherapy should be done for the most improvement." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMany people with dementia are cared for at home by unpaid informal caregivers, usually family members. Caregivers may experience a range of physical, emotional, financial and social harms, which are often described collectively as caregiver burden. The degree of burden experienced is associated with characteristics of the caregiver, such as gender, and characteristics of the person with dementia, such as dementia stage, and the presence of behavioural problems or neuropsychiatric disturbances. It is a strong predictor of admission to residential care for people with dementia.\nPsychoeducational interventions might prevent or reduce caregiver burden. Overall, they are intended to improve caregivers' knowledge about the disease and its care; to increase caregivers' sense of competence and their ability to cope with difficult situations; to relieve feelings of isolation and allow caregivers to attend to their own emotional and physical needs. These interventions are heterogeneous, varying in their theoretical framework, components, and delivery formats. Interventions that are delivered remotely, using printed materials, telephone or video technologies, may be particularly suitable for caregivers who have difficulty accessing face-to-face services because of their own health problems, poor access to transport, or absence of substitute care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, containment measures in many countries required people to be isolated in their homes, including people with dementia and their family carers. In such circumstances, there is no alternative to remote delivery of interventions.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and acceptability of remotely delivered interventions aiming to reduce burden and improve mood and quality of life of informal caregivers of people with dementia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, MEDLINE, Embase and four other databases, as well as two international trials registries, on 10 April 2020. We also examined the bibliographies of relevant review papers and published trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only randomised controlled trials that assessed the remote delivery of structured interventions for informal caregivers who were providing care for people with dementia living at home. Caregivers had to be unpaid adults (relatives or members of the person's community). The interventions could be delivered using printed materials, the telephone, the Internet or a mixture of these, but could not involve any face-to-face contact with professionals. We categorised intervention components as information, training or support. Information interventions included two key elements: (i) they provided standardised information, and (ii) the caregiver played a passive role. Support interventions promoted interaction with other people (professionals or peers). Training interventions trained caregivers in practical skills to manage care. We excluded interventions that were primarily individual psychotherapy.\nOur primary outcomes were caregiver burden, mood, health-related quality of life and dropout for any reason. Secondary outcomes were caregiver knowledge and skills, use of health and social care resources, admission of the person with dementia to institutional care, and quality of life of the person with dementia.\nData collection and analysis\nStudy selection, data extraction and assessment of the risk of bias in included studies were done independently by two review authors. We used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) to describe the interventions. We conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model to derive estimates of effect size. We used GRADE methods to describe our degree of certainty about effect estimates.\nMain results\nWe included 26 studies in this review (2367 participants). We compared (1) interventions involving training, support or both, with or without information (experimental interventions) with usual treatment, waiting list or attention control (12 studies, 944 participants); and (2) the same experimental interventions with provision of information alone (14 studies, 1423 participants).\nWe downgraded evidence for study limitations and, for some outcomes, for inconsistency between studies. There was a frequent risk of bias from self-rating of subjective outcomes by participants who were not blind to the intervention. Randomisation methods were not always well-reported and there was potential for attrition bias in some studies. Therefore, all evidence was of moderate or low certainty.\nIn the comparison of experimental interventions with usual treatment, waiting list or attention control, we found that the experimental interventions probably have little or no effect on caregiver burden (nine studies, 597 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.35 to 0.23); depressive symptoms (eight studies, 638 participants; SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.12); or health-related quality of life (two studies, 311 participants; SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.32). The experimental interventions probably result in little or no difference in dropout for any reason (eight studies, 661 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.15, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.53).\nIn the comparison of experimental interventions with a control condition of information alone, we found that experimental interventions may result in a slight reduction in caregiver burden (nine studies, 650 participants; SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.04); probably result in a slight improvement in depressive symptoms (11 studies, 1100 participants; SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.06); may result in little or no difference in caregiver health-related quality of life (two studies, 257 participants; SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.21); and probably result in an increase in dropouts for any reason (12 studies, 1266 participants; RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.20).\nAuthors' conclusions\nRemotely delivered interventions including support, training or both, with or without information, may slightly reduce caregiver burden and improve caregiver depressive symptoms when compared with provision of information alone, but not when compared with usual treatment, waiting list or attention control. They seem to make little or no difference to health-related quality of life. Caregivers receiving training or support were more likely than those receiving information alone to drop out of the studies, which might limit applicability. The efficacy of these interventions may depend on the nature and availability of usual services in the study settings.\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": "Caring for a family member or friend with dementia can offer positive experiences, but often also has negative consequences for the caregiver. These negative consequences may be emotional, physical, social and financial, and are sometimes described as caregiver 'burden.' Many interventions have been developed to try to help caregivers in their caring role. Often, these interventions involve several components. In this review we divided the intervention components into information (increasing caregivers' knowledge about dementia), training (helping them to practice important skills for successful caring) and support (providing an opportunity to share experiences and feelings with other people). We chose to review only interventions delivered remotely, in part because we were writing during the COVID-19 pandemic, when many countries required people to remain in their homes. However, remotely delivered interventions may also be useful in many other kinds of situations when it is difficult for caregivers to access services in person." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPlatelet transfusions are used to prevent and treat bleeding in people who are thrombocytopenic. Despite improvements in donor screening and laboratory testing, a small risk of viral, bacterial, or protozoal contamination of platelets remains. There is also an ongoing risk from newly emerging blood transfusion-transmitted infections for which laboratory tests may not be available at the time of initial outbreak.\nOne solution to reduce the risk of blood transfusion-transmitted infections from platelet transfusion is photochemical pathogen reduction, in which pathogens are either inactivated or significantly depleted in number, thereby reducing the chance of transmission. This process might offer additional benefits, including platelet shelf-life extension, and negate the requirement for gamma-irradiation of platelets. Although current pathogen-reduction technologies have been proven to reduce pathogen load in platelet concentrates, a number of published clinical studies have raised concerns about the effectiveness of pathogen-reduced platelets for post-transfusion platelet count recovery and the prevention of bleeding when compared with standard platelets.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of pathogen-reduced platelets for the prevention of bleeding in people of any age requiring platelet transfusions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 9), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and ongoing trial databases to 24 October 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs comparing the transfusion of pathogen-reduced platelets with standard platelets, or comparing different types of pathogen-reduced platelets.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe identified five new trials in this update of the review. A total of 15 trials were eligible for inclusion in this review, 12 completed trials (2075 participants) and three ongoing trials. Ten of the 12 completed trials were included in the original review. We did not identify any RCTs comparing the transfusion of one type of pathogen-reduced platelets with another.\nNine trials compared Intercept® pathogen-reduced platelets to standard platelets, two trials compared Mirasol® pathogen-reduced platelets to standard platelets; and one trial compared both pathogen-reduced platelets types to standard platelets. Three RCTs were randomised cross-over trials, and nine were parallel-group trials. Of the 2075 participants enrolled in the trials, 1981 participants received at least one platelet transfusion (1662 participants in Intercept® platelet trials and 319 in Mirasol® platelet trials).\nOne trial included children requiring cardiac surgery (16 participants) or adults requiring a liver transplant (28 participants). All of the other participants were thrombocytopenic individuals who had a haematological or oncological diagnosis. Eight trials included only adults.\nFour of the included studies were at low risk of bias in every domain, while the remaining eight included studies had some threats to validity.\nOverall, the quality of the evidence was low to high across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology.\nWe are very uncertain as to whether pathogen-reduced platelets increase the risk of any bleeding (World Health Organization (WHO) Grade 1 to 4) (5 trials, 1085 participants; fixed-effect risk ratio (RR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.15; I2 = 59%, random-effect RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.38; I2 = 59%; low-quality evidence).\nThere was no evidence of a difference between pathogen-reduced platelets and standard platelets in the incidence of clinically significant bleeding complications (WHO Grade 2 or higher) (5 trials, 1392 participants; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.25; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), and there is probably no difference in the risk of developing severe bleeding (WHO Grade 3 or higher) (6 trials, 1495 participants; RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.02; I2 = 32%; moderate-quality evidence).\nThere is probably no difference between pathogen-reduced platelets and standard platelets in the incidence of all-cause mortality at 4 to 12 weeks (6 trials, 1509 participants; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.29; I2 = 26%; moderate-quality evidence).\nThere is probably no difference between pathogen-reduced platelets and standard platelets in the incidence of serious adverse events (7 trials, 1340 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.35; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). However, no bacterial transfusion-transmitted infections occurred in the six trials that reported this outcome.\nParticipants who received pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions had an increased risk of developing platelet refractoriness (7 trials, 1525 participants; RR 2.94, 95% CI 2.08 to 4.16; I2 = 0%; high-quality evidence), though the definition of platelet refractoriness differed between trials.\nParticipants who received pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions required more platelet transfusions (6 trials, 1509 participants; mean difference (MD) 1.23, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.61; I2 = 27%; high-quality evidence), and there was probably a shorter time interval between transfusions (6 trials, 1489 participants; MD -0.42, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.32; I2 = 29%; moderate-quality evidence). Participants who received pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions had a lower 24-hour corrected-count increment (7 trials, 1681 participants; MD -3.02, 95% CI -3.57 to -2.48; I2 = 15%; high-quality evidence).\nNone of the studies reported quality of life.\nWe did not evaluate any economic outcomes.\nThere was evidence of subgroup differences in multiple transfusion trials between the two pathogen-reduced platelet technologies assessed in this review (Intercept® and Mirasol®) for all-cause mortality and the interval between platelet transfusions (favouring Intercept®).\nAuthors' conclusions\nFindings from this review were based on 12 trials, and of the 1981 participants who received a platelet transfusion only 44 did not have a haematological or oncological diagnosis.\nIn people with haematological or oncological disorders who are thrombocytopenic due to their disease or its treatment, we found high-quality evidence that pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions increase the risk of platelet refractoriness and the platelet transfusion requirement. We found moderate-quality evidence that pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions do not affect all-cause mortality, the risk of clinically significant or severe bleeding, or the risk of a serious adverse event. There was insufficient evidence for people with other diagnoses.\nAll three ongoing trials are in adults (planned recruitment 1375 participants) with a haematological or oncological diagnosis.\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": "In people with cancer who have a low platelet count due to their disease or its treatment, we found that pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions lead to an increase in the number of platelet transfusions required and an increase in the risk of no longer achieving a rise in the platelet count after a transfusion (platelet refractoriness). Pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions probably do not affect the risk of death, bleeding, or a serious side effect. None of the studies reported on quality of life. No bacterial transfusion-transmitted infections occurred in the six trials that reported this outcome.\nThere was insufficient evidence for people with other diagnoses.\nAll three ongoing studies are in adults with blood disorders (planned recruitment 1375 participants), there are no ongoing studies in children or in adults with other diagnoses.\nFindings from this review were based on 12 studies and the 1981 participants who received a platelet transfusion.\nWe did not evaluate any economic outcomes." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPlague is a severe disease associated with high mortality. Late diagnosis leads to advance stage of the disease with worse outcomes and higher risk of spread of the disease. A rapid diagnostic test (RDT) could help in establishing a prompt diagnosis of plague. This would improve patient care and help appropriate public health response.\nObjectives\nTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of the RDT based on the antigen F1 (F1RDT) for detecting plague in people with suspected disease.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the CENTRAL, Embase, Science Citation Index, Google Scholar, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 15 May 2019, and PubMed (MEDLINE) up to 27 August 2019, regardless of language, publication status, or publication date. We handsearched the reference lists of relevant papers and contacted researchers working in the field.\nSelection criteria\nWe included cross-sectional studies that assessed the accuracy of the F1RDT for diagnosing plague, where participants were tested with both the F1RDT and at least one reference standard. The reference standards were bacterial isolation by culture, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and paired serology (this is a four-fold difference in F1 antibody titres between two samples from acute and convalescent phases).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We appraised the methodological quality of each selected studies and applicability by using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. When meta-analysis was appropriate, we used the bivariate model to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. We stratified all analyses by the reference standard used and presented disaggregated data for forms of plague. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included eight manuscripts reporting seven studies. Studies were conducted in three countries in Africa among adults and children with any form of plague. All studies except one assessed the F1RDT produced at the Institut Pasteur of Madagascar (F1RDT-IPM) and one study assessed a F1RDT produced by New Horizons (F1RDT-NH), utilized by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We could not pool the findings from the F1RDT-NH in meta-analyses due to a lack of raw data and a threshold of the test for positivity different from the F1RDT-IPM.\nRisk of bias was high for participant selection (retrospective studies, recruitment of participants not consecutive or random, unclear exclusion criteria), low or unclear for index test (blinding of F1RDT interpretation unknown), low for reference standards, and high or unclear for flow and timing (time of sample transportation was longer than seven days, which can lead to decreased viability of the pathogen and overgrowth of contaminating bacteria, with subsequent false-negative results and misclassification of the target condition).\nF1RDT for diagnosing all forms of plague\nF1RDT-IPM pooled sensitivity against culture was 100% (95% confidence interval (CI) 82 to 100; 4 studies, 1692 participants; very low certainty evidence) and pooled specificity was 70.3% (95% CI 65 to 75; 4 studies, 2004 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nThe performance of F1RDT-IPM against PCR was calculated from a single study in participants with bubonic plague (see below).\nThere were limited data on the performance of F1RDT against paired serology.\nF1RDT for diagnosing pneumonic plague\nPerformed in sputum, F1RDT-IPM pooled sensitivity against culture was 100% (95% CI 0 to 100; 2 studies, 56 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and pooled specificity was 71% (95% CI 59 to 80; 2 studies, 297 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nThere were limited data on the performance of F1RDT against PCR or against paired serology for diagnosing pneumonic plague.\nF1RDT for diagnosing bubonic plague\nPerformed in bubo aspirate, F1RDT-IPM pooled sensitivity against culture was 100% (95% CI not calculable; 2 studies, 1454 participants; low-certainty evidence) and pooled specificity was 67% (95% CI 65 to 70; 2 studies, 1198 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nPerformed in bubo aspirate, F1RDT-IPM pooled sensitivity against PCR for the caf1 gene was 95% (95% CI 89 to 99; 1 study, 88 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and pooled specificity was 93% (95% CI 84 to 98; 1 study, 61 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nThere were no data providing data on both F1RDT and paired serology for diagnosing bubonic plague.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAgainst culture, the F1RDT appeared highly sensitive for diagnosing either pneumonic or bubonic plague, and can help detect plague in remote areas to assure management and enable a public health response. False positive results mean culture or PCR confirmation may be needed. F1RDT does not replace culture, which provides additional information on resistance to antibiotics and bacterial strains.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What do the results mean?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "In a hypothetical population of 1000 people:\n• with symptoms of pneumonic plague where 40 of them have the disease confirmed by culture, the utilization of F1RDT would result in: 318 people to be F1RDT-positive, of which 278 would not have pneumonic plague (called false positives); and 682 people to be F1RDT-negative, of which none would have pneumonic plague (called false negatives).\n• with symptoms of bubonic plague where 40 of them have the disease confirmed by culture, the utilization of F1RDT would result in: 357 people to be F1RDT-positive, of which 317 would not have bubonic plague (false positives); and 643 people to be F1RDT-negative, of which none would have bubonic plague (false negatives).\n• with symptoms of bubonic plague where 40 of them have the disease confirmed by molecular test, the utilization of F1RDT would result in: 105 people to be F1RDT-positive, of which 67 would not have bubonic plague (false positives); and 895 people to be F1RDT-negative, of which two would have bubonic plague (false negatives)." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMany women, and other females, with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) develop resistance to conventional chemotherapy drugs. Drugs that inhibit angiogenesis (development of new blood vessels), essential for tumour growth, control cancer growth by denying blood supply to tumour nodules.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effectiveness and toxicities of angiogenesis inhibitors for treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).\nSearch methods\nWe identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase (from 1990 to 30 September 2022). We searched clinical trials registers and contacted investigators of completed and ongoing trials for further information.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs comparing angiogenesis inhibitors with standard chemotherapy, other types of anti-cancer treatment, other angiogenesis inhibitors with or without other treatments, or placebo/no treatment in a maintenance setting, in women with EOC.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), quality of life (QoL), adverse events (grade 3 and above) and hypertension (grade 2 and above).\nMain results\nWe identified 50 studies (14,836 participants) for inclusion (including five studies from the previous version of this review): 13 solely in females with newly-diagnosed EOC and 37 in females with recurrent EOC (nine studies in platinum-sensitive EOC; 19 in platinum-resistant EOC; nine with studies with mixed or unclear platinum sensitivity). The main results are presented below.\nNewly-diagnosed EOC\nBevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), given with chemotherapy and continued as maintenance, likely results in little to no difference in OS compared to chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio (HR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.07; 2 studies, 2776 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence is very uncertain for PFS (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.05; 2 studies, 2746 participants; very low-certainty evidence), although the combination results in a slight reduction in global QoL (mean difference (MD) -6.4, 95% CI -8.86 to -3.94; 1 study, 890 participants; high-certainty evidence). The combination likely increases any adverse event (grade ≥ 3) (risk ratio (RR) 1.16, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.26; 1 study, 1485 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may result in a large increase in hypertension (grade ≥ 2) (RR 4.27, 95% CI 3.25 to 5.60; 2 studies, 2707 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nTyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) to block VEGF receptors (VEGF-R), given with chemotherapy and continued as maintenance, likely result in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.17; 2 studies, 1451 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and likely increase PFS slightly (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.00; 2 studies, 2466 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The combination likely reduces QoL slightly (MD -1.86, 95% CI -3.46 to -0.26; 1 study, 1340 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but it increases any adverse event (grade ≥ 3) slightly (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.55; 1 study, 188 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may result in a large increase in hypertension (grade ≥ 3) (RR 6.49, 95% CI 2.02 to 20.87; 1 study, 1352 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nRecurrent EOC (platinum-sensitive)\nModerate-certainty evidence from three studies (with 1564 participants) indicates that bevacizumab with chemotherapy, and continued as maintenance, likely results in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.02), but likely improves PFS (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.63) compared to chemotherapy alone. The combination may result in little to no difference in QoL (MD 0.8, 95% CI -2.11 to 3.71; 1 study, 486 participants; low-certainty evidence), but it increases the rate of any adverse event (grade ≥ 3) slightly (RR 1.11, 1.07 to 1.16; 3 studies, 1538 participants; high-certainty evidence). Hypertension (grade ≥ 3) was more common in arms with bevacizumab (RR 5.82, 95% CI 3.84 to 8.83; 3 studies, 1538 participants).\nTKIs with chemotherapy may result in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.11; 1 study, 282 participants; low-certainty evidence), likely increase PFS (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.72; 1 study, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may have little to no effect on QoL (MD 6.1, 95% CI -0.96 to 13.16; 1 study, 146 participants; low-certainty evidence). Hypertension (grade ≥ 3) was more common with TKIs (RR 3.32, 95% CI 1.21 to 9.10).\nRecurrent EOC (platinum-resistant)\nBevacizumab with chemotherapy and continued as maintenance increases OS (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.88; 5 studies, 778 participants; high-certainty evidence) and likely results in a large increase in PFS (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.58; 5 studies, 778 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The combination may result in a large increase in hypertension (grade ≥ 2) (RR 3.11, 95% CI 1.83 to 5.27; 2 studies, 436 participants; low-certainty evidence). The rate of bowel fistula/perforation (grade ≥ 2) may be slightly higher with bevacizumab (RR 6.89, 95% CI 0.86 to 55.09; 2 studies, 436 participants).\nEvidence from eight studies suggest TKIs with chemotherapy likely result in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.08; 940 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), with low-certainty evidence that it may increase PFS (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89; 940 participants), and may result in little to no meaningful difference in QoL (MD ranged from -0.19 at 6 weeks to -3.40 at 4 months). The combination increases any adverse event (grade ≥ 3) slightly (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.49; 3 studies, 402 participants; high-certainty evidence). The effect on bowel fistula/perforation rates is uncertain (RR 2.74, 95% CI 0.77 to 9.75; 5 studies, 557 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nBevacizumab likely improves both OS and PFS in platinum-resistant relapsed EOC. In platinum-sensitive relapsed disease, bevacizumab and TKIs probably improve PFS, but may or may not improve OS. The results for TKIs in platinum-resistant relapsed EOC are similar. The effects on OS or PFS in newly-diagnosed EOC are less certain, with a decrease in QoL and increase in adverse events. Overall adverse events and QoL data were more variably reported than were PFS data.\nThere appears to be a role for anti-angiogenesis treatment, but given the additional treatment burden and economic costs of maintenance treatments, benefits and risks of anti-angiogenesis treatments should be carefully considered.\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": "This review updates our previous review of 2011 and is up to date to September 2022." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe presence of deleterious mutations in breast cancer 1 gene (BRCA1) or breast cancer 2 gene (BRCA2) significantly increases the risk of developing some cancers, such as breast and high-grade serous cancer (HGSC) of ovarian, tubal and peritoneal origin. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) is usually recommended to BRCA1 or BRCA2 carriers after completion of childbearing. Despite prior systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the role of RRSO in reducing the mortality and incidence of breast, HGSC and other cancers, RRSO is still an area of debate and it is unclear whether RRSO differs in effectiveness by type of mutation carried.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of RRSO in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 7) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid and trial registries, with no language restrictions up to July 2017. We handsearched abstracts of scientific meetings and other relevant publications.\nSelection criteria\nWe included non-randomised trials (NRS), prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and case series that used statistical adjustment for baseline case mix using multivariable analyses comparing RRSO versus no RRSO in women without a previous or coexisting breast, ovarian or fallopian tube malignancy, in women with or without hysterectomy, and in women with a risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) before, with or after RRSO.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data and performed meta-analyses of hazard ratios (HR) for time-to-event variables and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). To assess bias in the studies, we used the ROBINS-I 'Risk of bias' assessment tool. We quantified inconsistency between studies by estimating the I2 statistic. We used random-effects models to calculate pooled effect estimates.\nMain results\nWe included 10 cohort studies, comprising 8087 participants (2936 (36%) surgical participants and 5151 (64%) control participants who were BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. All the studies compared RRSO with or without RRM versus no RRSO (surveillance). The certainty of evidence by GRADE assessment was very low due to serious risk of bias. Nine studies, including 7927 women, were included in the meta-analyses. The median follow-up period ranged from 0.5 to 27.4 years.\nMain outcomes: overall survival was longer with RRSO compared with no RRSO (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.54; P < 0.001; 3 studies, 2548 women; very low-certainty evidence). HGSC cancer mortality (HR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.17; I² = 69%; P < 0.0001; 3 studies, 2534 women; very low-certainty evidence) and breast cancer mortality (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.88; I² = 65%; P = 0.009; 7 studies, 7198 women; very low-certainty evidence) were lower with RRSO compared with no RRSO. None of the studies reported bone fracture incidence. There was a difference in favour of RRSO compared with no RRSO in terms of ovarian cancer risk perception quality of life (MD 15.40, 95% CI 8.76 to 22.04; P < 0.00001; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported adverse events.\nSubgroup analyses for main outcomes: meta-analysis showed an increase in overall survival among women who had RRSO versus women without RRSO who were BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.52; P < 0001; I² = 23%; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.85; P = 0.01; I² = 0%; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The meta-analysis showed a decrease in HGSC cancer mortality among women with RRSO versus no RRSO who were BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.41; I² = 54%; P = 0.001; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), but uncertain for BRCA2 mutation carriers due to low frequency of HGSC cancer deaths in BRCA2 mutation carriers. There was a decrease in breast cancer mortality among women with RRSO versus no RRSO who were BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.67; I² = 0%; P < 0.0001; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence), but not for BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.87; I² = 63%; P = 0.75; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). One study showed a difference in favour of RRSO versus no RRSO in improving quality of life for ovarian cancer risk perception in women who were BRCA1 mutation carriers (MD 10.70, 95% CI 2.45 to 18.95; P = 0.01; 98 women; very low-certainty evidence) and BRCA2 mutation carriers (MD 13.00, 95% CI 3.59 to 22.41; P = 0.007; very low-certainty evidence). Data from one study showed a difference in favour of RRSO and RRM versus no RRSO in increasing overall survival (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98; P = 0.0001; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence), but no difference for breast cancer mortality (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.19; P = 0.25; very low-certainty evidence). The risk estimates for breast cancer mortality according to age at RRSO (50 years of age or less versus more than 50 years) was not protective and did not differ for BRCA1 (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.11; I² = 16%; P = 0.23; very low-certainty evidence) and BRCA2 carriers (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.87; I² = 63%; P = 0.75; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is very low-certainty evidence that RRSO may increase overall survival and lower HGSC and breast cancer mortality for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that RRSO reduces the risk of death from HGSC and breast cancer in women with BRCA1 mutations. Evidence for the effect of RRSO on HGSC and breast cancer in BRCA2 carriers was very uncertain due to low numbers. These results should be interpreted with caution due to questionable study designs, risk of bias profiles, and very low-certainty evidence. We cannot draw any conclusions regarding bone fracture incidence, quality of life, or severe adverse events for RRSO, or for effects of RRSO based on type and age at risk-reducing surgery. Further research on these outcomes is warranted to explore differential effects for BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.\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": "In this review, we analysed data from 10 non-randomised (cohort; a study in which a defined group of people (the cohort) is followed over time, to examine associations between different treatments received and subsequent outcomes) studies. All the studies compared RRSO with or without risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM; surgical removal of breasts) versus no RRSO (surveillance). The evidence is current to July 2017." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPreterm infants who are fed breast milk in comparison to infant formula have decreased morbidity such as necrotizing enterocolitis. Multi-nutrient fortifiers used to increase the nutritional content of the breast milk are commonly derived from bovine milk. Human milk-derived multi-nutrient fortifier is now available, but it is not clear if it improves outcomes in preterm infants fed with breast milk.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether the fortification of breast milk feeds with human milk-derived fortifier in preterm infants reduces mortality, morbidity, and promotes growth and development compared to bovine milk-derived fortifier.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases for relevant trials in September 2018.\nCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, Issue 9), electronic journal reference databases including MEDLINE (1980 to 20 September 2018), PREMEDLINE, Embase (1974 to 20 September 2018), CINAHL (1982 to 20 September 2018), biological abstracts in the database BIOSIS and conference abstracts from 'Proceedings First' (from 1992 to 2011). We also included the following clinical trials registries for ongoing or recently completed trials: ClinicalTrials.gov (ClinicalTrials.gov), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP; www.whoint/ictrp/search/en/) and the ISRCTN Registry (www.isrctn.com/), and abstracts of conferences: proceedings of Pediatric Academic Societies (American Pediatric Society, Society for Pediatric Research and European Society for Paediatric Research) from 1990 in the 'Pediatric Research' journal and 'Abstracts online' (2000 to 2017).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared preterm infants fed breast milk fortified with human milk-derived fortifier versus those fed with breast milk fortified with bovine milk-derived fortifier.\nData collection and analysis\nThe data were collected using the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two authors evaluated trial quality of the studies and extracted data. We reported dichotomous data using risk ratios (RRs), risk differences (RDs), number needed to treat (NNT) where applicable, and continuous data using mean differences (MDs). We assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.\nMain results\nOne randomized trial with 127 infants met the eligibility criteria and had low risk of bias. Human milk-based fortifier did not decrease the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis in exclusively breast milk-fed preterm infants (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.2 to 4.54; 1 study, 125 infants, low certainty of evidence). Human milk-derived fortifiers did not improve growth, decrease feeding intolerance, late-onset sepsis, or death.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence evaluating human milk-derived fortifier with bovine milk-derived fortifier in exclusively breast milk-fed preterm infants. Low-certainty evidence from one study suggests that in exclusively breast milk-fed preterm infants human milk-derived fortifiers in comparison with bovine milk-derived fortifier may not change the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis, mortality, feeding intolerance, infection, or improve growth. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate short-term and long-term outcomes.\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 preterm infants fed only breast milk, does the use of extra nutrients (to provide extra protein and energy) made from human milk compared to nutrients from cow's milk decrease the chances of illnesses, death or improve growth?" } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDementia is a progressive syndrome characterised by deterioration in memory, thinking and behaviour, and by impaired ability to perform daily activities. Two classes of drug - cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine) and memantine - are widely licensed for dementia due to Alzheimer's disease, and rivastigmine is also licensed for Parkinson's disease dementia. These drugs are prescribed to alleviate symptoms and delay disease progression in these and sometimes in other forms of dementia. There are uncertainties about the benefits and adverse effects of these drugs in the long term and in severe dementia, about effects of withdrawal, and about the most appropriate time to discontinue treatment.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of withdrawal or continuation of cholinesterase inhibitors or memantine, or both, in people with dementia on: cognitive, neuropsychiatric and functional outcomes, rates of institutionalisation, adverse events, dropout from trials, mortality, quality of life and carer-related outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group’s Specialised Register up to 17 October 2020 using terms appropriate for the retrieval of studies of cholinesterase inhibitors or memantine. The Specialised Register contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of a number of major healthcare databases, numerous trial registries and grey literature sources.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) which compared withdrawal of cholinesterase inhibitors or memantine, or both, with continuation of the same drug or drugs.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed citations and full-text articles for inclusion, extracted data from included trials and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Where trials were sufficiently similar, we pooled data for outcomes in the short term (up to 2 months after randomisation), medium term (3-11 months) and long term (12 months or more).  We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods.\nMain results\nWe included six trials investigating cholinesterase inhibitor withdrawal, and one trial investigating withdrawal of either donepezil or memantine. No trials assessed withdrawal of memantine only. Drugs were withdrawn abruptly in five trials and stepwise in two trials. All participants had dementia due to Alzheimer's disease, with severities ranging from mild to very severe, and were taking cholinesterase inhibitors without known adverse effects at baseline. The included trials randomised 759 participants to treatment groups relevant to this review. Study duration ranged from 6 weeks to 12 months.  There were too few included studies to allow planned subgroup analyses. We considered some studies to be at unclear or high risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition or reporting bias.\nCompared to continuing cholinesterase inhibitors, discontinuing treatment may be associated with worse cognitive function in the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.64 to -0.21; 4 studies; low certainty), but the effect in the medium term is very uncertain (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.07; 3 studies; very low certainty). In a sensitivity analysis omitting data from a study which only included participants who had shown a relatively poor prior response to donepezil, inconsistency was reduced and we found that cognitive function may be worse in the discontinuation group in the medium term (SMD -0.62; 95% CI -0.94 to -0.31). Data from one longer-term study suggest that discontinuing a cholinesterase inhibitor is probably associated with worse cognitive function at 12 months (mean difference (MD) -2.09 Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE) points, 95% CI -3.43 to -0.75; moderate certainty).\nDiscontinuation may make little or no difference to functional status in the short term (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.04; 2 studies; low certainty), and its effect in the medium term is uncertain (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.01; 2 studies; very low certainty). After 12 months, discontinuing a cholinesterase inhibitor probably results in greater functional impairment than continuing treatment (MD -3.38 Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale (BADLS) points, 95% CI -6.67 to -0.10; one study; moderate certainty). Discontinuation may be associated with a worsening of neuropsychiatric symptoms over the short term and medium term, although we cannot exclude a minimal effect (SMD - 0.48, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.13; 2 studies; low certainty; and SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.08; 3 studies; low certainty, respectively). Data from one study suggest that discontinuing a cholinesterase inhibitor may result in little to no change in neuropsychiatric status at 12 months (MD -0.87 Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) points; 95% CI -8.42 to 6.68; moderate certainty).\nWe found no clear evidence of an effect of discontinuation on dropout due to lack of medication efficacy or deterioration in overall medical condition (odds ratio (OR) 1.53, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.76; 4 studies; low certainty), on number of adverse events (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.27; 4 studies; low certainty) or serious adverse events (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.39; 4 studies; low certainty), and on mortality (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.55; 5 studies; low certainty). Institutionalisation was reported in one trial, but it was not possible to extract data for the groups relevant to this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review suggests that  discontinuing cholinesterase inhibitors may result in worse cognitive, neuropsychiatric and functional status than continuing treatment, although this is supported by limited evidence, almost all of low or very low certainty. As all participants had dementia due to Alzheimer's disease, our findings are not transferable to other dementia types. We were unable to determine whether the effects of discontinuing cholinesterase inhibitors differed with baseline dementia severity. There is currently no evidence to guide decisions about discontinuing memantine. There is a need for further well-designed RCTs, across a range of dementia severities and settings. We are aware of two ongoing registered trials. In making decisions about discontinuing these drugs, clinicians should exercise caution, considering the evidence from existing trials along with other factors important to patients and their carers.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Our conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Although there was uncertainty about the results, most of the evidence pointed to benefits of continuing treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors. There was no evidence about types of dementia other than Alzheimer’s disease, and we were unable to draw specific conclusions about continuing or stopping treatment at different stages of the illness. We found no trials that just investigated stopping memantine.\nThese results may help patients and their doctors to make decisions about whether or not to continue treatment, although other factors, such as side effects in an individual patient and the patient’s preferences, are also important." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nRemoving dental plaque may play a key role maintaining oral health. There is conflicting evidence for the relative merits of manual and powered toothbrushing in achieving this. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2005.\nObjectives\nTo compare manual and powered toothbrushes in everyday use, by people of any age, in relation to the removal of plaque, the health of the gingivae, staining and calculus, dependability, adverse effects and cost.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 23 January 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 23 January 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 23 January 2014) and CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 23 January 2014). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register 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\nRandomised controlled trials of at least four weeks of unsupervised powered toothbrushing versus manual toothbrushing for oral health in children and adults.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Random-effects models were used provided there were four or more studies included in the meta-analysis, otherwise fixed-effect models were used. Data were classed as short term (one to three months) and long term (greater than three months).\nMain results\nFifty-six trials met the inclusion criteria; 51 trials involving 4624 participants provided data for meta-analysis. Five trials were at low risk of bias, five at high and 46 at unclear risk of bias.\nThere is moderate quality evidence that powered toothbrushes provide a statistically significant benefit compared with manual toothbrushes with regard to the reduction of plaque in both the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to -0.31); 40 trials, n = 2871) and long term (SMD -0.47 (95% CI -0.82 to -0.11; 14 trials, n = 978). These results correspond to an 11% reduction in plaque for the Quigley Hein index (Turesky) in the short term and 21% reduction long term. Both meta-analyses showed high levels of heterogeneity (I2 = 83% and 86% respectively) that was not explained by the different powered toothbrush type subgroups.\nWith regard to gingivitis, there is moderate quality evidence that powered toothbrushes again provide a statistically significant benefit when compared with manual toothbrushes both in the short term (SMD -0.43 (95% CI -0.60 to -0.25); 44 trials, n = 3345) and long term (SMD -0.21 (95% CI -0.31 to -0.12); 16 trials, n = 1645). This corresponds to a 6% and 11% reduction in gingivitis for the Löe and Silness index respectively. Both meta-analyses showed high levels of heterogeneity (I2 = 82% and 51% respectively) that was not explained by the different powered toothbrush type subgroups.\nThe number of trials for each type of powered toothbrush varied: side to side (10 trials), counter oscillation (five trials), rotation oscillation (27 trials), circular (two trials), ultrasonic (seven trials), ionic (four trials) and unknown (five trials). The greatest body of evidence was for rotation oscillation brushes which demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in plaque and gingivitis at both time points.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPowered toothbrushes reduce plaque and gingivitis more than manual toothbrushing in the short and long term. The clinical importance of these findings remains unclear. Observation of methodological guidelines and greater standardisation of design would benefit both future trials and meta-analyses.\nCost, reliability and side effects were inconsistently reported. Any reported side effects were localised and only temporary.\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": "Authors from the Cochrane Oral Health Group carried out this review of existing studies and the evidence is current up to 23 January 2014. It includes 56 studies published from 1964 to 2011 in which 5068 participants were randomised to receive either a powered toothbrush or a manual toothbrush. Majority of the studies included adults, and over 50% of the studies used a type of powered toothbrush that had a rotation oscillation mode of action (where the brush head rotates in one direction and then the other)." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDuchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is the most common X-linked neuromuscular disorder. When boys with DMD reach the second decade of life, they lose their ability to walk and become wheelchair dependent. Standing devices and orthoses are considered to be an essential component in the therapy management of DMD. Clinical opinion and research from other neurological conditions highlight the proposed benefits of standing device use, however, its effect within this population is currently unknown. A review of the evidence for the use of standing devices and orthoses is necessary to inform all stakeholders, including people with DMD, clinicians, decision makers and funders, and to guide future research.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of standing devices and orthoses on musculoskeletal impairments (such as pain, contracture, scoliosis development and bone density) in boys and men with DMD, and secondarily to determine their effect on quality of life, participation in activities, and patient experience (satisfaction). We also considered any adverse events associated with their use.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, PEDro, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global up to 5 September 2019. We checked references in identified trials, handsearched journal abstracts, and searched trials registries.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of any model of standing device for use in DMD. The control interventions would have been any other comparison group, including no standing device, a different model of standing device, usual care, or an alternative form of assistive weight bearing.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.\nMain results\nAlthough we identified 13 potentially relevant studies, none met the inclusion criteria for this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSince there were no RCTs or quasi-RCTs available to evaluate the effectiveness of standing devices in people with DMD, studies are needed to investigate the effectiveness of standing devices in this population.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusion\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We found no relevant trials eligible for this review to determine the effectiveness of standing devices for boys with DMD. We need further studies to determine whether standing devices have an impact on specific health problems, participation in activities, and quality of life. Future research studies should also focus on the 'dose' of standing (i.e. the duration, frequency and amount of weight bearing) and the use of different orthoses.\nThe evidence is current to September 2019." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPlasmodium vivax (P vivax) is a focus of malaria elimination. It is important because P vivax and Plasmodium falciparum infection are co-endemic in some areas. There are asymptomatic carriers of P vivax, and the treatment for P vivax and Plasmodium ovale malaria differs from that used in other types of malaria. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) will help distinguish P vivax from other malaria species to help treatment and elimination. There are RDTs available that detect P vivax parasitaemia through the detection of P vivax-specific lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) antigens.\nObjectives\nTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of RDTs for detecting P vivax malaria infection in people living in malaria-endemic areas who present to ambulatory healthcare facilities with symptoms suggestive of malaria; and to identify which types and brands of commercial tests best detect P vivax malaria.\nSearch methods\nWe undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases up to 30 July 2019: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (PubMed); Embase (OVID); Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S), both in the Web of Science.\nSelection criteria\nStudies comparing RDTs with a reference standard (microscopy or polymerase chain reaction (PCR)) in blood samples from patients attending ambulatory health facilities with symptoms suggestive of malaria in P vivax-endemic areas.\nData collection and analysis\nFor each included study, two review authors independently extracted data using a pre-piloted data extraction form. The methodological quality of the studies were assessed using a tailored Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. We grouped studies according to commercial brand of the RDT and performed meta-analysis when appropriate. The results given by the index tests were based on the antibody affinity (referred to as the strength of the bond between an antibody and an antigen) and avidity (referred to as the strength of the overall bond between a multivalent antibody and multiple antigens). All analyses were stratified by the type of reference standard. The bivariate model was used to estimate the pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), this model was simplified when studies were few. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 10 studies that assessed the accuracy of six different RDT brands (CareStart Malaria Pf/Pv Combo test, Falcivax Device Rapid test, Immuno-Rapid Malaria Pf/Pv test, SD Bioline Malaria Ag Pf/Pv test, OnSite Pf/Pv test and Test Malaria Pf/Pv rapid test) for detecting P vivax malaria. One study directly compared the accuracy of two RDT brands. Of the 10 studies, six used microscopy, one used PCR, two used both microscopy and PCR separately and one used microscopy corrected by PCR as the reference standard. Four of the studies were conducted in Ethiopia, two in India, and one each in Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia and Sudan.\nThe studies often did not report how patients were selected. In the patient selection domain, we judged the risk of bias as unclear for nine studies. We judged all studies to be of unclear applicability concern. In the index test domain, we judged most studies to be at low risk of bias, but we judged nine studies to be of unclear applicability concern. There was poor reporting on lot testing, how the RDTs were stored, and background parasitaemia density (a key variable determining diagnostic accuracy of RDTs). Only half of the included studies were judged to be at low risk of bias in the reference standard domain, Studies often did not report whether the results of the reference standard could classify the target condition or whether investigators knew the results of the RDT when interpreting the results of the reference standard. All 10 studies were judged to be at low risk of bias in the flow and timing domain.\nOnly two brands were evaluated by more than one study. Four studies evaluated the CareStart Malaria Pf/Pv Combo test against microscopy and two studies evaluated the Falcivax Device Rapid test against microscopy. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 99% (95% CI 94% to 100%; 251 patients, moderate-certainty evidence) and 99% (95% CI 99% to 100%; 2147 patients, moderate-certainty evidence) for CareStart Malaria Pf/Pv Combo test.\nFor a prevalence of 20%, about 206 people will have a positive CareStart Malaria Pf/Pv Combo test result and the remaining 794 people will have a negative result. Of the 206 people with positive results, eight will be incorrect (false positives), and of the 794 people with a negative result, two would be incorrect (false negative).\nFor the Falcivax Device Rapid test, the pooled sensitivity was 77% (95% CI: 53% to 91%, 89 patients, low-certainty evidence) and the pooled specificity was 99% (95% CI: 98% to 100%, 621 patients, moderate-certainty evidence), respectively. For a prevalence of 20%, about 162 people will have a positive Falcivax Device Rapid test result and the remaining 838 people will have a negative result. Of the 162 people with positive results, eight will be incorrect (false positives), and of the 838 people with a negative result, 46 would be incorrect (false negative).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe CareStart Malaria Pf/Pv Combo test was found to be highly sensitive and specific in comparison to microscopy for detecting P vivax in ambulatory healthcare in endemic settings, with moderate-certainty evidence. The number of studies included in this review was limited to 10 studies and we were able to estimate the accuracy of 2 out of 6 RDT brands included, the CareStart Malaria Pf/Pv Combo test and the Falcivax Device Rapid test. Thus, the differences in sensitivity and specificity between all the RDT brands could not be assessed. More high-quality studies in endemic field settings are needed to assess and compare the accuracy of RDTs designed to detect P vivax.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why are rapid tests for P vivax malaria important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "P vivaxmalaria important?\nFor clinical management, knowing which parasite species is causing the malaria is important as the drug treatments differ. For P vivax infection, an additional drug is required to eliminate the infection from the liver. For public health control of malaria, we know that P falciparum is declining over the previous 15 years, and infections from P vivax have therefore increased in importance." } ]

[ { "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 are the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Many of the included trials had design flaws, did not recruit enough people, or did not report enough information about their results. This means our confidence in the evidence is limited." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nLow back pain is costly and disabling. Prognostic factor evidence can help healthcare providers and patients understand likely prognosis, inform the development of prediction models to identify subgroups, and may inform new treatment strategies. Recent studies have suggested that people who have poor expectations for recovery experience more back pain disability, but study results have differed.\nObjectives\nTo synthesise evidence on the association between recovery expectations and disability outcomes in adults with low back pain, and explore sources of heterogeneity.\nSearch methods\nThe search strategy included broad and focused electronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO to 12 March 2019, reference list searches of relevant reviews and included studies, and citation searches of relevant expectation measurement tools.\nSelection criteria\nWe included low back pain prognosis studies from any setting assessing general, self-efficacy, and treatment expectations (measured dichotomously and continuously on a 0 - 10 scale), and their association with work participation, clinically important recovery, functional limitations, or pain intensity outcomes at short (3 months), medium (6 months), long (12 months), and very long (> 16 months) follow-up.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted study characteristics and all reported estimates of unadjusted and adjusted associations between expectations and related outcomes. Two review authors independently assessed risks of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. We conducted narrative syntheses and meta-analyses when appropriate unadjusted or adjusted estimates were available. Two review authors independently graded and reported the overall quality of evidence.\nMain results\nWe screened 4635 unique citations to include 60 studies (30,530 participants). Thirty-five studies were conducted in Europe, 21 in North America, and four in Australia. Study populations were mostly chronic (37%), from healthcare (62%) or occupational settings (26%). General expectation was the most common type of recovery expectation measured (70%); 16 studies measured more than one type of expectation.\nUsable data for syntheses were available for 52 studies (87% of studies; 28,885 participants). We found moderate-quality evidence that positive recovery expectations are strongly associated with better work participation (narrative synthesis: 21 studies; meta-analysis: 12 studies, 4777 participants: odds ratio (OR) 2.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.64 to 3.62), and low-quality evidence for clinically important recovery outcomes (narrative synthesis: 12 studies; meta-analysis: 5 studies, 1820 participants: OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.41), both at follow-up times closest to 12 months, using adjusted data. The association of recovery expectations with other outcomes of interest, including functional limitations (narrative synthesis: 10 studies; meta-analysis: 3 studies, 1435 participants: OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.31) and pain intensity (narrative synthesis: 9 studies; meta-analysis: 3 studies, 1555 participants: OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.23) outcomes at follow-up times closest to 12 months using adjusted data, is less certain, achieving very low- and low-quality evidence, respectively. No studies reported statistically significant or clinically important negative associations between recovery expectations and any low back pain outcome.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found that individual recovery expectations are probably strongly associated with future work participation (moderate-quality evidence) and may be associated with clinically important recovery outcomes (low-quality evidence). The association of recovery expectations with other outcomes of interest is less certain. Our findings suggest that recovery expectations should be considered in future studies, to improve prognosis and management of low back pain.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main results of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We reviewed 4635 references and included 60 relevant studies. These studies included information about 30,530 people with low back pain. They looked at people's expectations of their own recovery and how that was related to their pain, limitations in activities and return to work one year after their back pain episode.\nOverall, we found good evidence that positive expectations of recovery are related to a higher likelihood of returning to work. The evidence about positive recovery expectations with other recovery, limitations in activities and pain intensity outcomes is not as strong. We did not find any studies that showed that positive expectations of recovery were related to worse low back pain outcomes." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTraumatic hyphema is the entry of blood into the anterior chamber, the space between the cornea and iris, following significant injury to the eye. Hyphema may be associated with significant complications that uncommonly cause permanent vision loss. Complications include elevated intraocular pressure, corneal blood staining, anterior and posterior synechiae, and optic nerve atrophy. People with sickle cell trait or disease may be particularly susceptible to increases in intraocular pressure and optic atrophy. Rebleeding is associated with an increase in the rate and severity of complications.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of various medical interventions in the management of traumatic hyphema.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2022, Issue 3); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase.com; PubMed (1948 to March 2022); the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The last date of the search was 22 March 2022.\nSelection criteria\nTwo review authors independently assessed the titles and abstracts of all reports identified by the electronic and manual searches. We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials that compared various medical (non-surgical) interventions versus other medical interventions or control groups for the treatment of traumatic hyphema following closed-globe trauma. We applied no restrictions on age, gender, severity of the closed-globe trauma, or level of visual acuity at time of enrollment.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 23 randomized and seven quasi-randomized studies with a total of 2969 participants. Interventions included antifibrinolytic agents (systemic and topical aminocaproic acid, tranexamic acid, and aminomethylbenzoic acid), corticosteroids (systemic and topical), cycloplegics, miotics, aspirin, conjugated estrogens, traditional Chinese medicine, monocular versus bilateral patching, elevation of the head, and bed rest.\nWe found no evidence of an effect on visual acuity for any intervention, whether measured within two weeks (short term) or for longer periods. In a meta-analysis of two trials, we found no evidence of an effect of aminocaproic acid on long-term visual acuity (RR 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.29) or final visual acuity measured up to three years after the hyphema (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18). Oral tranexamic acid appeared to provide little to no benefit on visual acuity in four trials (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.25). The remaining trials evaluated the effects of various interventions on short-term visual acuity; none of these interventions was measured in more than one trial. No intervention showed a statistically significant effect (RRs ranged from 0.75 to 1.10). Similarly, visual acuity measured for longer periods in four trials evaluating different interventions was also not statistically significant (RRs ranged from 0.82 to 1.02). The evidence supporting these findings was of low or very low certainty.\nSystemic aminocaproic acid reduced the rate of recurrent hemorrhage (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.60), as assessed in six trials with 330 participants. A sensitivity analysis omitting two studies not using an intention-to-treat analysis reduced the strength of the evidence (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.08). We obtained similar results for topical aminocaproic acid (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.10) in two trials with 131 participants. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as low. Systemic tranexamic acid had a significant effect in reducing the rate of secondary hemorrhage (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.53) in seven trials with 754 participants, as did aminomethylbenzoic acid (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.41), as reported in one study. Evidence to support an associated reduction in risk of complications from secondary hemorrhage (i.e. corneal blood staining, peripheral anterior synechiae, elevated intraocular pressure, and development of optic atrophy) by antifibrinolytics was limited by the small number of these events. Use of aminocaproic acid was associated with increased nausea, vomiting, and other adverse events compared with placebo. We found no evidence of an effect on the number of adverse events with the use of systemic versus topical aminocaproic acid or with standard versus lower drug dose.\nThe number of days for the primary hyphema to resolve appeared to be longer with the use of systemic aminocaproic acid compared with no use, but this outcome was not altered by any other intervention.\nThe available evidence on usage of systemic or topical corticosteroids, cycloplegics, or aspirin in traumatic hyphema was limited due to the small numbers of participants and events in the trials.\nWe found no evidence of an effect between a single versus binocular patch on the risk of secondary hemorrhage or time to rebleed. We also found no evidence of an effect on the risk of secondary hemorrhage between ambulation and complete bed rest.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no evidence of an effect on visual acuity of any of the interventions evaluated in this review. Although the evidence was limited, people with traumatic hyphema who receive aminocaproic acid or tranexamic acid are less likely to experience secondary hemorrhage. However, hyphema took longer to clear in people treated with systemic aminocaproic acid.\nThere is no good evidence to support the use of antifibrinolytic agents in the management of traumatic hyphema, other than possibly to reduce the rate of secondary hemorrhage. The potentially long-term deleterious effects of secondary hemorrhage are unknown. Similarly, there is no evidence to support the use of corticosteroids, cycloplegics, or non-drug interventions (such as patching, bed rest, or head elevation) in the management of traumatic hyphema. As these multiple interventions are rarely used in isolation, further research to assess the additive effect of these interventions might be of value.\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": "We found no evidence that any medical treatment affected visual acuity (sharpness of vision), whether measured within a few weeks or longer. We also found that no medical treatment resulted in fewer complications from the hyphema itself, although this evidence is weak because few events occurred. We found limited evidence that antifibrinolytics (drugs that affect blood clotting) reduced the risk of new bleeding in the eye." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSickle cell disease is a group of disorders characterized by deformation of erythrocytes. Renal damage is a frequent complication in sickle cell disease as a result of long-standing anemia and disturbed circulation through the renal medullary capillaries. Due to the improvement in life expectancy of people with sickle cell disease, there has been a corresponding significant increase in the incidence of renal complications. Microalbuminuria and proteinuria are noted to be a strong predictor of subsequent renal failure. There is extensive experience and evidence with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors over many years in a variety of clinical situations for patients who do not have sickle cell disease, but their effect in people with this disease is unknown. It is common practice to administer ACE inhibitors for sickle nephropathy due to their renoprotective properties; however, little is known about their effectiveness and safety in this setting. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013 and 2015.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness of ACE inhibitor administration in people with sickle cell disease for decreasing intraglomerular pressure, microalbuminuria and proteinuria and to to assess the safety of ACE inhibitors as pertains to their adverse effects.\nSearch methods\nThe authors searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Hameoglobinopathies Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Date of the most recent search: 18 October 2021.\nWe also searched clinical trial registries. Date of the most recent search: 22 August 2021.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of ACE inhibitors designed to reduce microalbuminuria and proteinuria in people with sickle cell disease compared to either placebo or standard treatment regimen.\nData collection and analysis\nThree authors independently applied the inclusion criteria in order to select studies for inclusion in the review. Two authors assessed the risk of bias of studies and extracted data and the third author verified these assessments.\nMain results\nSeven studies were identified through the searches. Six studies were excluded. The included study randomized 22 participants (7 males and 15 females) having proteinuria or microalbuminuria with sickle cell disease and treated the participants for six months (median length of follow up of three months) with captopril or placebo. Overall, the certainty of the evidence provided in this review was very low, since most risk of bias domains were judged to have either an unclear or a high risk of bias. Because of this, we are uncertain whether captopril makes any difference, in total urinary albumin excretion (at six months) as compared to the placebo group, although it yielded a mean difference of -49.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) -124.10 to 26.10) or in the absolute change score, although it yielded a mean difference of -63.00 (95% CI -93.78 to -32.22). At six months albumin excretion in the captopril group was noted to decrease from baseline by a mean (standard deviation) of 45 (23) mg/day and the placebo group was noted to increase by 18 (45) mg/day. Serum creatinine and potassium levels were reported constant throughout the study (very low-certainty evidence). The potential for inducing hypotension should be highlighted; the study reported a decrease of 8 mmHg in systolic pressure and 5 mmHg in diastolic and mean blood pressure (very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, we judged the certainty of the evidence to be very low. The included study selectively reported its results, was not powered to detect a group difference, should it exist, and otherwise did not offer enough information to allow us to judge the bias inherent in the study. Indirectness (in relation to the limited age and type of population included) and imprecision (wide confidence intervals around the effect estimate) were observed. More long-term studies involving multiple centers and larger cohorts using a randomized-controlled design are warranted, especially among the pediatric age group. Detailed reporting of each outcome measure is necessary to allow a clear cut interpretation in a systematic review. One of the difficulties encountered in this review was the lack of detailed data reported in the included study.\nOverall, we judged the certainty of this evidence to be very low.\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": "Overall certainty of the evidence was very low, since  we thought there was either a high or unclear risk of bias from all aspects that may contribute to biasing the results (e.g. randomisation, the way treatment allocations were concealed, whether all participants recruited were analysed, whether all planned outcomes were reported, as well as blinding of participants, research personnel and outcome assessment). We also noted that the study did not include children, which limits the evidence for this treatment in children. Our statistical calculations on the effect found a high degree of imprecision. There may be selective reporting on sodium levels, but other electrolyte levels were reported. Nevertheless, the amount of data with detailed descriptions has allowed only limited analysis in this review." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAs many as one in six couples will encounter problems with fertility, defined as failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after regular intercourse for 12 months. Increasingly, couples are turning to assisted reproductive technology (ART) for help with conceiving and ultimately giving birth to a healthy live baby of their own. Fertility treatments are complex, and each ART cycle consists of several steps. If one of these steps is incorrectly applied, the stakes are high as conception may not occur. With this in mind, it is important that each step of the ART cycle is supported by good evidence from well-designed studies.\nObjectives\nTo summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on procedures and treatment options available to couples with subfertility undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedures.\nMethods\nPublished Cochrane systematic reviews of couples undergoing ART procedures (in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection) were eligible for inclusion in the overview. We also identified Cochrane reviews in preparation, for future inclusion.\nThe primary outcome of the overview was live birth or the composite outcome live birth or ongoing pregnancy, as reported by the included reviews. Our secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. We excluded studies of intrauterine insemination and ovulation induction.\nWe undertook selection of systematic reviews, data extraction, and quality assessment in duplicate. We assessed review quality by using the AMSTAR tool. We organised reviews by their relevance to specific stages in the ART cycle. We summarised their findings in the text and reported data for each outcome in 'Additional tables'.\nMain results\nWe included 68 systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library up to May 2018. All were of high quality. These reviews identified 38 interventions that were effective (n = 23) or promising (n = 15), and they identified 19 interventions that were ineffective (n = 2) or possibly ineffective (n = 17). For 15 interventions, review authors were unable to draw conclusions owing to lack of evidence.\nWe identified an additional 11 protocols and four titles for future inclusion in this overview.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis overview provides the most up-to-date evidence on ART cycles from systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials. Fertility treatments are costly, and the stakes are high. Using the best available evidence to optimise outcomes is best practice. Evidence from this overview could be used to develop clinical practice guidelines and protocols that can be applied in daily clinical practice to improve live birth rates and reduce rates of multiple pregnancy, cycle cancellation, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.\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 reviews identified 38 interventions that were effective (n = 23) or promising (n = 15), and they identified 19 interventions that were ineffective (n = 2) or possibly ineffective (n = 17). For 15 interventions, the reviews were unable to draw conclusions owing to lack of evidence. Use of evidence from this overview to guide clinical practice should help to improve live birth rates and reduce rates of multiple pregnancy, cycle cancellation, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe presence of deleterious mutations in breast cancer 1 gene (BRCA1) or breast cancer 2 gene (BRCA2) significantly increases the risk of developing some cancers, such as breast and high-grade serous cancer (HGSC) of ovarian, tubal and peritoneal origin. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) is usually recommended to BRCA1 or BRCA2 carriers after completion of childbearing. Despite prior systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the role of RRSO in reducing the mortality and incidence of breast, HGSC and other cancers, RRSO is still an area of debate and it is unclear whether RRSO differs in effectiveness by type of mutation carried.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of RRSO in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 7) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid and trial registries, with no language restrictions up to July 2017. We handsearched abstracts of scientific meetings and other relevant publications.\nSelection criteria\nWe included non-randomised trials (NRS), prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and case series that used statistical adjustment for baseline case mix using multivariable analyses comparing RRSO versus no RRSO in women without a previous or coexisting breast, ovarian or fallopian tube malignancy, in women with or without hysterectomy, and in women with a risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) before, with or after RRSO.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data and performed meta-analyses of hazard ratios (HR) for time-to-event variables and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). To assess bias in the studies, we used the ROBINS-I 'Risk of bias' assessment tool. We quantified inconsistency between studies by estimating the I2 statistic. We used random-effects models to calculate pooled effect estimates.\nMain results\nWe included 10 cohort studies, comprising 8087 participants (2936 (36%) surgical participants and 5151 (64%) control participants who were BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. All the studies compared RRSO with or without RRM versus no RRSO (surveillance). The certainty of evidence by GRADE assessment was very low due to serious risk of bias. Nine studies, including 7927 women, were included in the meta-analyses. The median follow-up period ranged from 0.5 to 27.4 years.\nMain outcomes: overall survival was longer with RRSO compared with no RRSO (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.54; P < 0.001; 3 studies, 2548 women; very low-certainty evidence). HGSC cancer mortality (HR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.17; I² = 69%; P < 0.0001; 3 studies, 2534 women; very low-certainty evidence) and breast cancer mortality (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.88; I² = 65%; P = 0.009; 7 studies, 7198 women; very low-certainty evidence) were lower with RRSO compared with no RRSO. None of the studies reported bone fracture incidence. There was a difference in favour of RRSO compared with no RRSO in terms of ovarian cancer risk perception quality of life (MD 15.40, 95% CI 8.76 to 22.04; P < 0.00001; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported adverse events.\nSubgroup analyses for main outcomes: meta-analysis showed an increase in overall survival among women who had RRSO versus women without RRSO who were BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.52; P < 0001; I² = 23%; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.85; P = 0.01; I² = 0%; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The meta-analysis showed a decrease in HGSC cancer mortality among women with RRSO versus no RRSO who were BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.41; I² = 54%; P = 0.001; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), but uncertain for BRCA2 mutation carriers due to low frequency of HGSC cancer deaths in BRCA2 mutation carriers. There was a decrease in breast cancer mortality among women with RRSO versus no RRSO who were BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.67; I² = 0%; P < 0.0001; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence), but not for BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.87; I² = 63%; P = 0.75; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). One study showed a difference in favour of RRSO versus no RRSO in improving quality of life for ovarian cancer risk perception in women who were BRCA1 mutation carriers (MD 10.70, 95% CI 2.45 to 18.95; P = 0.01; 98 women; very low-certainty evidence) and BRCA2 mutation carriers (MD 13.00, 95% CI 3.59 to 22.41; P = 0.007; very low-certainty evidence). Data from one study showed a difference in favour of RRSO and RRM versus no RRSO in increasing overall survival (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98; P = 0.0001; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence), but no difference for breast cancer mortality (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.19; P = 0.25; very low-certainty evidence). The risk estimates for breast cancer mortality according to age at RRSO (50 years of age or less versus more than 50 years) was not protective and did not differ for BRCA1 (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.11; I² = 16%; P = 0.23; very low-certainty evidence) and BRCA2 carriers (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.87; I² = 63%; P = 0.75; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is very low-certainty evidence that RRSO may increase overall survival and lower HGSC and breast cancer mortality for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that RRSO reduces the risk of death from HGSC and breast cancer in women with BRCA1 mutations. Evidence for the effect of RRSO on HGSC and breast cancer in BRCA2 carriers was very uncertain due to low numbers. These results should be interpreted with caution due to questionable study designs, risk of bias profiles, and very low-certainty evidence. We cannot draw any conclusions regarding bone fracture incidence, quality of life, or severe adverse events for RRSO, or for effects of RRSO based on type and age at risk-reducing surgery. Further research on these outcomes is warranted to explore differential effects for BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.\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": "Including data from both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, this analysis found that RRSO may improve overall survival, and reduce deaths from HGSC and breast cancer. When analysed by mutated gene, there was evidence for a reduction in risk of HGSC and breast cancer for women with BRCA1 mutations, but may or may not have been an effect on women with BRCA2 mutations due to low numbers of women with these mutations in the studies. None of the studies reported on bone fracture or severe side effects. Both RRSO and RRM may have improved overall survival, but did not reduce deaths from breast cancer. There was no protection and differences for breast cancer mortality according to age at RRSO (50 years of age or less versus more than 50 years) in BRCA1 or BRCA2 carriers. RRSO may have improved quality of life with regard to ovarian cancer risk perception." } ]