Datasets:

KenLuo

/

qls

like 0

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nExercise has a number of health benefits and has been recommended as a treatment for primary dysmenorrhoea (period pain), but the evidence for its effectiveness on primary dysmenorrhoea is unclear. This review examined the available evidence supporting the use of exercise to treat primary dysmenorrhoea.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of exercise for women with primary dysmenorrhoea.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED and CINAHL (from inception to July 2019). We searched two clinical trial databases (inception to March 2019) and handsearched reference lists and previous systematic reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies if they randomised women with moderate-to-severe primary dysmenorrhoea to receive exercise versus no treatment, attention control, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or the oral contraceptive pill. Cross-over studies and cluster-randomised trials were not eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected the studies, assessed eligible studies for risk of bias, and extracted data from each study. We contacted study authors for missing information. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcomes were menstrual pain intensity and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included overall menstrual symptoms, usage of rescue analgesic medication, restriction of daily life activities, absence from work or school and quality of life.\nMain results\nWe included a total of 12 trials with 854 women in the review, with 10 trials and 754 women in the meta-analysis. Nine of the 10 studies compared exercise with no treatment, and one study compared exercise with NSAIDs. No studies compared exercise with attention control or with the oral contraceptive pill. Studies used low-intensity exercise (stretching, core strengthening or yoga) or high-intensity exercise (Zumba or aerobic training); none of the included studies used resistance training.\n\nExercise versus no treatment\nExercise may have a large effect on reducing menstrual pain intensity compared to no exercise (standard mean difference (SMD) -1.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.06 to -1.66; 9 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), n = 632; I2= 91%; low-quality evidence). This SMD corresponds to a 25 mm reduction on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) and is likely to be clinically significant. We are uncertain if there is any difference in adverse event rates between exercise and no treatment.\nWe are uncertain if exercise reduces overall menstrual symptoms (as measured by the Moos Menstrual Distress Questionnaire (MMDQ)), such as back pain or fatigue compared to no treatment (mean difference (MD) -33.16, 95% CI -40.45 to -25.87; 1 RCT, n = 120; very low-quality evidence), or improves mental quality of life (MD 4.40, 95% CI 1.59 to 7.21; 1 RCT, n = 55; very low-quality evidence) or physical quality of life (as measured by the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12)) compared to no exercise (MD 3.40, 95% CI -1.68 to 8.48; 1 RCT, n = 55; very low-quality evidence) when compared to no treatment. No studies reported on any changes in restriction of daily life activities or on absence from work or school.\nExercise versus NSAIDs\nWe are uncertain if exercise, when compared with mefenamic acid, reduced menstrual pain intensity (MD -7.40, 95% CI -8.36 to -6.44; 1 RCT, n = 122; very low-quality evidence), use of rescue analgesic medication (risk ratio (RR) 1.77, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.60; 1 RCT, n = 122; very low-quality evidence) or absence from work or school (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.03; 1 RCT, n = 122; very low-quality evidence). None of the included studies reported on adverse events, overall menstrual symptoms, restriction of daily life activities or quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe current low-quality evidence suggests that exercise, performed for about 45 to 60 minutes each time, three times per week or more, regardless of intensity, may provide a clinically significant reduction in menstrual pain intensity of around 25 mm on a 100 mm VAS. All studies used exercise regularly throughout the month, with some studies asking women not to exercise during menstruation. Given the overall health benefits of exercise, and the relatively low risk of side effects reported in the general population, women may consider using exercise, either alone or in conjunction with other modalities, such as NSAIDs, to manage menstrual pain. It is unclear if the benefits of exercise persist after regular exercise has stopped or if they are similar in women over the age of 25. Further research is required, using validated outcome measures, adequate blinding and suitable comparator groups reflecting current best practice or accounting for the extra attention given during exercise.\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": "Cochrane authors reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of exercise in women with primary dysmenorrhoea (period pain)." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nStenotrophomonas maltophilia is one of the most common emerging multi-drug resistant organisms found in the lungs of people with cystic fibrosis and its prevalence is increasing. Chronic infection with Stenotrophomonas maltophilia has recently been shown to be an independent predictor of pulmonary exacerbation requiring hospitalization and antibiotics. However, the role of antibiotic treatment of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infection in people with cystic fibrosis is still unclear. This is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nThe objective of our review is to assess the effectiveness of antibiotic treatment for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in people with cystic fibrosis. The primary objective is to assess this in relation to lung function and pulmonary exacerbations in the setting of acute pulmonary exacerbations. The secondary objective is to assess this in relation to the eradication of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched a registry of ongoing trials and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.\nDate of latest search: 03 March 2020.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia mono-infection or Stenotrophomonas maltophilia co-infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa in either the setting of an acute pulmonary exacerbation or a chronic infection treated with suppressive antibiotic therapy.\nData collection and analysis\nBoth authors independently assessed the trials identified by the search for potential inclusion in the review.\nMain results\nWe identified only one trial of antibiotic treatment of pulmonary exacerbations that included people with cystic fibrosis with Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. However, this trial had to be excluded because data was not available per pathogen.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review did not identify any evidence regarding the effectiveness of antibiotic treatment for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in people with cystic fibrosis. Until such evidence becomes available, clinicians need to use their clinical judgement as to whether or not to treat Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infection in people with cystic fibrosis. Randomized clinical trials are needed to address these unanswered clinical questions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Trial characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We did not find any randomized controlled trials (trials where the people taking part are put into different treatment groups completely at random) which we could include in the review. We did find one trial of antibiotic treatment for pulmonary exacerbations (flare up of disease in the airways) which included people infected with Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, but the people in the trial also had infections caused by other bacteria and we were not able to obtain separate data for the different causes of infection." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nWorldwide, there is an increasing incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Metformin is still the recommended first-line glucose-lowering drug for people with T2DM. Despite this, the effects of metformin on patient-important outcomes are still not clarified.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of metformin monotherapy in adults with T2DM.\nSearch methods\nWe based our search on a systematic report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and topped-up the search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Additionally, we searched the reference lists of included trials and systematic reviews, as well as health technology assessment reports and medical agencies. The date of the last search for all databases was 2 December 2019, except Embase (searched up 28 April 2017).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least one year's duration comparing metformin monotherapy with no intervention, behaviour changing interventions or other glucose-lowering drugs in adults with T2DM.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles/records, assessed risk of bias, and extracted outcome data independently. We resolved discrepancies by involvement of a third review author. For meta-analyses we used a random-effects model with investigation of risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence by using the GRADE instrument.\nMain results\nWe included 18 RCTs with multiple study arms (N = 10,680). The percentage of participants finishing the trials was approximately 58% in all groups. Treatment duration ranged from one to 10.7 years. We judged no trials to be at low risk of bias on all 'Risk of bias' domains. The main outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events (SAEs), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cardiovascular mortality (CVM), non-fatal myocardial infarction (NFMI), non-fatal stroke (NFS), and end-stage renal disease (ESRD).\nTwo trials compared metformin (N = 370) with insulin (N = 454). Neither trial reported on all-cause mortality, SAE, CVM, NFMI, NFS or ESRD. One trial provided information on HRQoL but did not show a substantial difference between the interventions.\nSeven trials compared metformin with sulphonylureas. Four trials reported on all-cause mortality: in three trials no participant died, and in the remaining trial 31/1454 participants (2.1%) in the metformin group died compared with 31/1441 participants (2.2%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported on SAE: in two trials no SAE occurred (186 participants); in the other trial 331/1454 participants (22.8%) in the metformin group experienced a SAE compared with 308/1441 participants (21.4%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). Two trials reported on CVM: in one trial no CVM was observed and in the other trial 4/1441 participants (0.3%) in the metformin group died of cardiovascular reasons compared with 8/1447 participants (0.6%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported on NFMI: in two trials no NFMI occurred, and in the other trial 21/1454 participants (1.4%) in the metformin group experienced a NFMI compared with 15/1441 participants (1.0%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). One trial reported no NFS occurred (very low-certainty evidence). No trial reported on HRQoL or ESRD.\nSeven trials compared metformin with thiazolidinediones (very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes). Five trials reported on all-cause mortality: in two trials no participant died; the overall RR was 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.39; P = 0.57; 5 trials; 4402 participants). Four trials reported on SAE, the RR was 0,95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.09; P = 0.49; 3208 participants. Four trials reported on CVM, the RR was 0.71, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.39; P = 0.58; 3211 participants. Three trial reported on NFMI: in two trials no NFMI occurred and in one trial 21/1454 participants (1.4%) in the metformin group experienced a NFMI compared with 25/1456 participants (1.7%) in the thiazolidinedione group. One trial reported no NFS occurred. No trial reported on HRQoL or ESRD.\nThree trials compared metformin with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (one trial each with saxagliptin, sitagliptin, vildagliptin with altogether 1977 participants). There was no substantial difference between the interventions for all-cause mortality, SAE, CVM, NFMI and NFS (very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes).\nOne trial compared metformin with a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue (very low-certainty evidence for all reported outcomes). There was no substantial difference between the interventions for all-cause mortality, CVM, NFMI and NFS. One or more SAEs were reported in 16/268 (6.0%) of the participants allocated to metformin compared with 35/539 (6.5%) of the participants allocated to a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue. HRQoL or ESRD were not reported.\nOne trial compared metformin with meglitinide and two trials compared metformin with no intervention. No deaths or SAEs occurred (very low-certainty evidence)\nno other patient-important outcomes were reported.\nNo trial compared metformin with placebo or a behaviour changing interventions.\nFour ongoing trials with 5824 participants are likely to report one or more of our outcomes of interest and are estimated to be completed between 2018 and 2024. Furthermore, 24 trials with 2369 participants are awaiting assessment.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no clear evidence whether metformin monotherapy compared with no intervention, behaviour changing interventions or other glucose-lowering drugs influences patient-important outcomes.\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": "Type 2 diabetes is a condition that causes high levels of sugar in the blood. Blood sugar levels are controlled by insulin, a hormone made by the pancreas. Insulin instructs the liver, muscles and fat cells to remove sugar from the blood and store it. When the pancreas does not make enough insulin, or the body does not respond to insulin, too much sugar stays in the blood. Many medicines for treating type 2 diabetes are available. These aim to lower the amount of sugar in the blood and reduce long-term complications of diabetes. The first medicine that is usually prescribed to people with type 2 diabetes is metformin. Metformin works by reducing the amount of sugar that the liver releases into the blood. It also improves the way the body responds to insulin.\nWe wanted to find out whether metformin is an effective treatment for type 2 diabetes, and whether it causes any unwanted effects. We also wanted to compare its effects with other antidiabetic medicines, and with diets, exercise or both. The outcomes we were specifically interested in were death, serious unwanted events, health-related quality of life, death from cardiovascular causes, and non-fatal complications of diabetes (for example heart attacks, strokes or kidney failure)." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEmbryo transfer (ET) was traditionally performed two days after oocyte retrieval; however, developments in culture media have allowed embryos to be maintained in culture for longer periods. Delaying transfer from Day two to Day three would allow for further development of the embryo and might have a positive effect on pregnancy outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo determine if there are any differences in live birth and pregnancy rates when embryo transfer is performed on day three after oocyte retrieval, compared with day two, in infertile couples undergoing treatment with in vitro fertilisation (IVF), including intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid) from the inception of the databases to 26th April 2016. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO portal for ongoing trials plus citation lists of relevant publications, review articles and included studies, as well as abstracts of appropriate scientific meetings.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials that compared Day 3 versus Day 2 embryo transfer after oocyte retrieval during an IVF or ICSI treatment cycle in infertile couples.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. The primary outcome measures were live birth rate and ongoing pregnancy rate.\nMain results\nWe included 15 studies. Fourteen studies reported data per woman (2894 women) and one study reported data per cycle (969 cycles). The quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach ranged from moderate quality to very low quality. The main reasons for downgrading evidence were poor methodological reporting, selective reporting, inconsistency and imprecision.\nLive birth per woman - Overall, there was no evidence of a difference in live birth rate between Day three and Day two embryo transfer (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.23; three studies, n = 1200 women; I2 = 63%; very low quality evidence). The data suggest that if 32% of women who underwent a Day two embryo transfer had a live birth, then between 28% to 39% of women undergoing a Day three embryo transfer would have a live birth.\nOngoing pregnancy per woman - There was no evidence of a difference between Day three and Day two embryo transfer for ongoing pregnancy (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.12; six studies, n = 1740 women; I2 = 52%; very low quality of evidence). The data suggest that if 33% of women undergoing a Day two embryo transfer had an ongoing pregnancy then between 28% to 37% of women undergoing a Day three embryo transfer would have an ongoing pregnancy.\nClinical pregnancy per woman - There was no evidence of a difference between Day three and Day two embryo transfer for the chance of a clinical pregnancy (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.19; 12 studies, n = 2461, I2 = 51%; very low quality evidence). The data suggest that if 39% of women undergoing Day two embryo transfer had a clinical pregnancy, then between 38% to 46% of women undergoing a Day three embryo transfer would have a clinical pregnancy.\nMultiple pregnancy per woman - There was no evidence of a difference between Day three and Day two embryo transfer for the risk of a multiple pregnancy (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.44; eight studies, n = 1837; I2 = 0%; moderate quality evidence). The data suggest that if 11% of women undergoing Day two embryo transfer had a multiple pregnancy, then between 9% to 15% of women undergoing a Day three embryo transfer would have a multiple pregnancy.\nMiscarriage rate per woman - There was no evidence of a difference between Day three and Day two embryo transfer for the risk of miscarriage (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.60; nine studies, n = 2153 women, I2 = 26%; moderate quality evidence). The data suggest that if 6% of women undergoing Day two embryo transfer had a miscarriage, then between 5% to 10% of women undergoing a Day three embryo transfer would have a miscarriage.\nEctopic pregnancy rate per woman - There was no evidence of a difference between Day three and Day two embryo transfer for the risk of ectopic pregnancy (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.29 to 3.40; six studies, n = 1531 women, I2 = 0%; low quality evidence). The data suggest that if 0.7% of women undergoing Day two embryo transfer have an ectopic pregnancy, then between 0.2% to 2% of women undergoing Day three embryo transfer would have an ectopic pregnancy.\nSubgroup analysis for pregnancy outcomes did not identify any differential effect between IVF and ICSI.\nNone of the included studies prespecified complication rate (e.g. OHSS), fetal abnormality or women's evaluation of the procedure as outcomes in their studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nTwelve of 15 studies contributed data that could be included in meta-analyses. The quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low. Only three of the 15 studies reported data for live birth, although the data for ongoing pregnancy and clinical pregnancy are consistent with the live birth data, suggesting no difference between Day three and Day two embryo transfer for these outcomes. There was no evidence of a difference identified between Day three and Day two embryo transfer for multiple pregnancy, miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy per woman randomised. No data were reported for complication rate, fetal abnormality or woman's evaluation of the procedure. The current evidence has not identified any evidence of differences in pregnancy outcomes between Day two and Day three embryo transfers. Any further studies comparing these timings of embryo transfer are unlikely to alter the findings and we suggest that this review no longer be updated.\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": "Embryo transfer has usually been performed two days after oocyte (egg) retrieval; however, developments in culture media and embryo culture methods have allowed embryos to be maintained in culture for longer periods. This means that more assessments can be undertaken to look at the implantation chances for each embryo. Delaying transfer from Day two to Day three would allow for further development of the embryo and might have a positive effect on pregnancy outcomes." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHypertension is an important risk factor for subsequent cardiovascular events, including ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, cognitive decline and premature death. Overall, the use of antihypertensive medications has led to reduction in cardiovascular disease, morbidity rates and mortality rates. However, the use of antihypertensive medications is also associated with harms, especially in older people, including the development of adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions and can contribute to increasing medication-related burden. As such, discontinuation of antihypertensives may be considered and appropriate in some older people.\nObjectives\nTo investigate whether withdrawal of antihypertensive medications is feasible, and evaluate the effects of withdrawal of antihypertensive medications on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, hypertension and quality of life in older people.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to April 2019: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2019, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also conducted reference checking, citation searches and, when appropriate, contacted study authors to identify any additional studies. The searches had no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of withdrawal versus continuation of antihypertensive medications used for hypertension or primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in older adults (defined as 50 years and over). Participants were eligible if they lived in the community, residential aged care facilities, or were based in hospital settings. We sought to include trials looking at the complete withdrawal of the antihypertensive medication, and those focusing on a dose reduction of the antihypertensive medicine.\nData collection and analysis\nWe compared the intervention of discontinuing or reducing antihypertensive medication to usual treatment using mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for continuous variables and we used Peto odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CI for binary variables. Our primary outcomes included: mortality, myocardial infarction, development of adverse drug reactions or adverse drug withdrawal reactions. Secondary outcomes included: blood pressure, hospitalisation, stroke, success of withdrawing from antihypertensives, quality of life, and falls. Two authors independently, and in duplicate, conducted all stages of study selection, data extraction and quality assessment.\nMain results\nSix RCTs met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review (1073 participants). Study duration and follow-up ranged from 4 weeks to 56 weeks. Meta-analysis of studies showed that, in the discontinuation group compared to continuation, the odds for all-cause mortality were 2.08 (95% CI 0.79 to 5.46; low certainty of evidence), for myocardial infarction 1.86 (95% CI 0.19 to 17.98; very low certainty of evidence) and for stroke 1.44 (95% CI 0.25 to 8.35; low certainty of evidence). Blood pressure was higher in the discontinuation group than the continuation group (systolic blood pressure: MD = 9.75 mmHg, 95% CI 7.33 to 12.18; and diastolic blood pressure: MD = 3.5 mmHg, 95% CI 1.82 to 5.18; low certainty of evidence). For the development of adverse events, meta-analysis was not possible; antihypertensive discontinuation did not appear to increase the risk of adverse events and may lead to resolution of adverse drug reactions, although eligible studies had limited reporting of adverse effects of drug withdrawal (very low certainty of evidence). One study reported hospitalisation with an odds ratio of 0.83 for discontinuation compared to continuation (95% CI 0.33 to 2.10; low certainty of evidence). No studies were identified which reported falls. Between 10.5% and 33.3% of participants in the discontinuation group compared to 9% to 15% in the continuation group experienced raised blood pressure or other clinical criteria (as pre-defined by the studies) that would require restarting of therapy/removal from the study. The sources of bias included selective reporting (reporting bias), lack of blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), and lack of blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no evidence of an effect of discontinuing compared with continuing antihypertensives used for hypertension or primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in older adults on all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction. The evidence was low to very low certainty mainly due to small studies and low event rates. These limitations mean that we cannot make any firm conclusions about the effect of deprescribing antihypertensives on these outcomes. Future research should focus on populations with the greatest uncertainty of the benefit:risk ratio for use of antihypertensive medications, such as those with frailty, older age groups and those taking polypharmacy, and measure clinically important outcomes such as falls, quality of life and adverse drug events.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusion\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "It may be safe to stop antihypertensive medications in older people who are taking the medication for high blood pressure or primary prevention of heart disease.\nOlder adults should not stop any of their medications without talking to a healthcare professional.\nFuture studies should include older adults who are taking multiple other medications and/or living with frailty." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSelf-harm (SH; intentional self-poisoning or self-injury) is common, often repeated, and strongly associated with suicide. This is an update of a broader Cochrane review on psychosocial and pharmacological treatments for deliberate SH, first published in 1998 and previously updated in 1999. We have now divided the review into three separate reviews. This review is focused on pharmacological interventions in adults who self harm.\nObjectives\nTo identify all randomised controlled trials of pharmacological agents or natural products for SH in adults, and to conduct meta-analyses (where possible) to compare the effects of specific treatments with comparison types of treatment (e.g., placebo/alternative pharmacological treatment) for SH patients.\nSearch methods\nFor this update the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group (CCDAN) Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the CCDAN Specialised Register (September 2014). Additional searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL were conducted to October 2013.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological treatments or natural products with placebo/alternative pharmacological treatment in individuals with a recent (within six months) episode of SH resulting in presentation to clinical services.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently selected trials, extracted data, and appraised trial quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. Meta-analysis was only possible for one intervention (i.e. newer generation antidepressants) on repetition of SH at last follow-up. For this analysis, we pooled data using a random-effects model. The overall quality of evidence for the primary outcome was appraised for each intervention using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included seven trials with a total of 546 patients. The largest trial included 167 participants. We found no significant treatment effect on repetition of SH for newer generation antidepressants (n = 243; k = 3; OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.36; GRADE: low quality of evidence), low-dose fluphenazine (n = 53; k = 1; OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.50 to 4.58; GRADE: very low quality of evidence), mood stabilisers (n = 167; k = 1; OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.95; GRADE: low quality of evidence), or natural products (n = 49; k = 1; OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.62; GRADE: low quality of evidence). A significant reduction in SH repetition was found in a single trial of the antipsychotic flupenthixol (n = 30; k = 1; OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.50), although the quality of evidence for this trial, according to the GRADE criteria, was very low. No data on adverse effects, other than the planned outcomes relating to suicidal behaviour, were reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nGiven the low or very low quality of the available evidence, and the small number of trials identified, it is not possible to make firm conclusions regarding pharmacological interventions in SH patients. More and larger trials of pharmacotherapy are required. In view of an indication of positive benefit for flupenthixol in an early small trial of low quality, these might include evaluation of newer atypical antipsychotics. Further work should include evaluation of adverse effects of pharmacological agents. Other research could include evaluation of combined pharmacotherapy and psychological treatment.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Which studies were included in the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "To be included in the review, studies had to be randomised controlled trials of drug treatments for adults who had recently engaged in SH." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nConventional treatment of X-linked hypophosphatemia with oral phosphate and calcitriol can heal rickets, but it does not always raise serum phosphate concentrations significantly, nor does it always normalize linear growth. Some clinical trials suggest that combining recombinant human growth hormone therapy with conventional treatment improves growth velocity, phosphate retention, and bone mineral density, but some clinical trials suggest that it appears to aggravate the pre-existent disproportionate stature of such children. This is an updated version of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether recombinant human growth hormone therapy for children with X-linked hypophosphatemia is associated with changes in longitudinal growth, mineral metabolism, endocrine function, renal function, bone mineral density, body proportions, and also with any adverse effects.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. In addition, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE and the reference lists of identified trials and other reviews. We also undertook some additional handsearching of relevant journals and conference proceedings.\nDate of the most recent search: 12 January 2021\nSelection criteria\nAll randomized controlled studies or quasi-randomized controlled studies comparing growth hormone (alone or combined with conventional treatment) with either placebo or conventional treatment alone in children with X-linked hypophosphatemia.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed studies for risk of bias and extracted data from eligible studies. GRADE criteria were used to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included two studies (20 participants) in the review. In one cross-over study, results showed that recombinant human growth hormone therapy may improve the height standard deviation (SDS) score (z score), but we are unsure whether the intervention was the reason behind a transient increase in serum phosphate and tubular maximum for phosphate reabsorption. In the second, parallel study, treatment may also have improved the height SDS from baseline in the rhGH group compared to the control group, although no significant difference was seen between groups after three years, MD 0.50 SDS (95 % CI -0.54 to 1.54) (low-certainty evidence). The treatment was possibly well-tolerated during both studies with only transient adverse effects seen in three participants (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether growth hormone improves serum phosphate levels or change in TmP/GFR (very low-certainty evidence). The treatment may make little or no difference to alkaline phosphatase levels (low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe do not have enough high-certainty evidence to recommend the use of recombinant human growth hormone therapy in children with X-linked hypophosphatemia.\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: 12 January 2021" } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nProstaglandins are naturally occurring lipids that are synthesised from arachidonic acid. Multiple studies have evaluated the benefits of prostaglandins in reducing ischaemia reperfusion injury after liver transplantation. New studies have been published since the previous review, and hence it was important to update the evidence for this intervention.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of prostaglandins in adults undergoing liver transplantation compared with placebo or standard care.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 27 December 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised clinical trials evaluating prostaglandins initiated in the perioperative period compared with placebo or standard care for adults undergoing liver transplantation. We included trials irrespective of reported outcomes.\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. liver retransplantation, 5. early allograft dysfunction, 6. primary non-function of the allograft, 7. acute kidney failure, 8. length of hospital stay, and 9. adverse events considered non-serious. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 11 randomised clinical trials with 771 adult liver transplant recipients (mean age 47.31 years, male 61.48%), of whom 378 people were randomised to receive prostaglandins and 393 people were randomised to either placebo (272 participants) or standard care (121 participants). All trials were published between 1993 and 2016. Ten trials were conducted in high- and upper-middle-income countries.\nProstaglandins may reduce all-cause mortality up to one month (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.23; risk difference (RD) 21 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 63 fewer to 36 more; 11 trials, 771 participants; low-certainty evidence). Prostaglandins may result in little to no difference in serious adverse events (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.40; RD 81 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 148 fewer to 18 more; 6 trials, 568 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the included trials reported health-related quality of life. Prostaglandins may result in little to no difference in liver retransplantation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.96; RD 1 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 33 fewer to 62 more; 6 trials, 468 participants; low-certainty evidence); early allograft dysfunction (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.18; RD 137 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 241 fewer to 47 more; 1 trial, 99 participants; low-certainty evidence); primary non-function of the allograft (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.32; RD 23 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 40 fewer to 16 more; 7 trials, 624 participants; low-certainty evidence); and length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) −1.15 days, 95% CI −5.44 to 3.14; 4 trials, 369 participants; low-certainty evidence). Prostaglandins may result in a large reduction in the development of acute kidney failure requiring dialysis (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.73; RD 100 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 132 fewer to 49 fewer; 5 trials, 477 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of prostaglandins on adverse events considered non-serious (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.36; RD 225 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 294 fewer to 65 fewer; 4 trials, 329 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nTwo trials reported receiving funding; one of these was with vested interests.\nWe found one registered ongoing trial.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEleven trials evaluated prostaglandins in adult liver transplanted recipients. Based on low-certainty evidence, prostaglandins may reduce all-cause mortality up to one month; may cause little to no difference in serious adverse events, liver retransplantation, early allograft dysfunction, primary non-function of the allograft, and length of hospital stay; and may have a large reduction in the development of acute kidney injury requiring dialysis. We do not know the effect of prostaglandins on adverse events considered non-serious. We lack adequately powered, high-quality trials evaluating the effects of prostaglandins for people undergoing liver transplantation.\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 found 11 studies with 771 participants. Of these, 378 participants were given prostaglandins. Apart from one study, all other studies took place in high- and upper-middle-income countries." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOver the counter (OTC) artificial tears historically have been the first line of treatment for dry eye syndrome and dry eye-related conditions like contact lens discomfort, yet currently we know little regarding the overall efficacy of individual, commercially available artificial tears. This review provides a much needed meta-analytical look at all randomized and quasi-randomized clinical trials that have analyzed head-to-head comparisons of OTC artificial tears.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and toxicity of OTC artificial tear applications in the treatment of dry eye syndrome compared with another class of OTC artificial tears, no treatment, or placebo.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2015, Issue 12), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to December 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to December 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en) and the US Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) website (www.fda.gov). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 4 December 2015. We searched reference lists of included trials for any additional trials not identified by the electronic searches.\nSelection criteria\nThis review includes randomized controlled trials with adult participants who were diagnosed with dry eye, regardless of race and gender. We included trials in which the age of participants was not reported, and clinical trials comparing OTC artificial tears with another class of OTC artificial tears, placebo, or no treatment. This review did not consider head-to-head comparisons of artificial tears with another type of dry-eye therapy.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently screened the search results, reviewed full-text copies for eligibility, examined risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed meta-analysis for trials that compared similar interventions and reported comparable outcomes with sufficient data. We summarized all other included trial results in the text.\nMain results\nWe included 43 randomized controlled trials (3497 participants with dry eye). Due to the heterogeneity of study characteristics among the included trials with respect to types of diagnostic criteria, interventions, comparisons, and measurements taken, our ability to perform meta-analyses was limited. The review found that, in general, there was uncertainty whether different OTC artificial tears provide similar relief of signs and symptoms when compared with each other or placebo. Nevertheless, we found that 0.2% polyacrylic acid-based artificial tears were consistently more effective at treating dry eye symptoms than 1.4% polyvinyl alcohol-based artificial tears in two trials assessing this comparison (175 participants). All other included artificial tears produced contradictory between-group results or found no between-group differences. Our review also found that OTC artificial tears may be generally safe, but not without adverse events. Overall, we assessed the quality of evidence as low due to high risks of bias among included trials and poor reporting of outcome measures which were insufficient for quantitative analysis. Furthermore, we identified an additional 18 potentially eligible trials that were reported only in clinical trial registers with no associated results or publications. These trials reportedly enrolled 2079 total participants for whom no data are available. Such lack of reporting of trial results represents a high risk of publication bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOTC artificial tears may be safe and effective means for treating dry eye syndrome; the literature indicates that the majority of OTC artificial tears may have similar efficacies. This conclusion could be greatly skewed by the inconsistencies in study designs and inconsistencies in reporting trial results. Additional research is therefore needed before we can draw robust conclusions about the effectiveness of individual OTC artificial tear formulations.\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": "Dry eye syndrome is a long-term condition that is known to cause eye discomfort and visual disturbances like blurred vision. This condition affects millions of people around the world, and the first-line treatment for dry eye is typically over the counter (OTC) artificial tears. OTC artificial tears are meant to replace or supplement the tears (fluid) that naturally cover the eye’s front surface (cornea and conjunctiva). There are a great number of commercially available artificial tears, yet there is currently no agreement about whether one formulation works better than another at treating dry eye. Our review attempts to bridge this knowledge gap." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIntradialytic hypotension (IDH) is a common complication of haemodialysis (HD), and a risk factor of cardiovascular morbidity and death. Several clinical studies suggested that reduction of dialysate temperature, such as fixed reduction of dialysate temperature or isothermal dialysate using a biofeedback system, might improve the IDH rate.\nObjectives\nThis review aimed to evaluate the benefits and harms of dialysate temperature reduction for IDH among patients with chronic kidney disease requiring HD, compared with standard dialysate temperature.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register up to 14 May 2019 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over RCTs, cluster RCTs and quasi-RCTs were included in the review.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently extracted information including participants, interventions, outcomes, methods of the study, and risks of bias. We used a random-effects model to perform quantitative synthesis of the evidence. We assessed the risks of bias for each study using the Cochrane ’Risk of bias’ tool. We assessed the certainty of evidence using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).\nMain results\nWe included 25 studies (712 participants). Three studies were parallel RCTs and the others were cross-over RCTs. Nineteen studies compared fixed reduction of dialysate temperature (below 36°C) and standard dialysate temperature (37°C to 37.5°C). Most studies were of unclear or high risk of bias. Compared with standard dialysate, it is uncertain whether fixed reduction of dialysate temperature improves IDH rate (8 studies, 153 participants: rate ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.80; very low certainty evidence); however, it might increase the discomfort rate compared with standard dialysate (4 studies, 161 participants: rate ratio 8.31, 95% CI 1.86 to 37.12; very low certainty evidence). There were no reported dropouts due to adverse events. No study reported death, acute coronary syndrome or stroke.\nThree studies compared isothermal dialysate and thermoneutral dialysate. Isothermal dialysate might improve the IDH rate compared with thermoneutral dialysate (2 studies, 133 participants: rate ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.76; I2 = 0%; very low certainty evidence). There were no reports of discomfort rate (1 study) or dropouts due to adverse events (2 studies). No study reported death, acute coronary syndrome or stroke.\nAuthors' conclusions\nReduction of dialysate temperature may prevent IDH, but the conclusion is uncertain. Larger studies that measure important outcomes for HD patients are required to assess the effect of reduction of dialysate temperature. Six ongoing studies may provide much-needed high quality evidence in the future.\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": "An increasing number of patients with chronic kidney disease need haemodialysis (HD). When the kidneys are not able to remove enough waste from the blood, HD is used to clean the blood and to remove the excess water via a dialysis machine. Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is a common complication of HD that is characterized by a sudden drop in blood pressure (BP) with hypotensive symptoms such as dizziness, weakness, nausea, and fatigue, and is a risk factor of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. In general, a decrease in body temperature is associated with contraction of vessels, and an increase in BP. However, the widely used dialysate temperature is 37°C, and the body temperature is likely to increase during standard dialysis. Removal of heat with cool dialysate might be beneficial to haemodynamic stability. Additionally, fixed empirical reduction of dialysate temperature is simple and easy to adopt in daily practice, however it can increase patient discomfort such as cold sensations, shivering, and related symptoms." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in substantial mortality. Some specialists proposed chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for treating or preventing the disease. The efficacy and safety of these drugs have been assessed in randomized controlled trials.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of chloroquine (CQ) or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for\n1) treating people with COVID-19 on death and time to clearance of the virus;\n2) preventing infection in people at risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure;\n3) preventing infection in people exposed to SARS-CoV-2.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com), and the COVID-19-specific resources www.covid-nma.com and covid-19.cochrane.org, for studies of any publication status and in any language. We performed all searches up to 15 September 2020. We contacted researchers to identify unpublished and ongoing studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine in people with COVID-19, people at risk of COVID-19 exposure, and people exposed to COVID-19.\nAdverse events (any, serious, and QT-interval prolongation on electrocardiogram) were also extracted.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed eligibility of search results, extracted data from the included studies, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane ‘Risk of bias’ tool. We contacted study authors for clarification and additional data for some studies. We used risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model for outcomes where pooling of effect estimates was appropriate.\nMain results\n1. Treatment of COVID-19 disease\nWe included 12 trials involving 8569 participants, all of whom were adults. Studies were from China (4); Brazil, Egypt, Iran, Spain, Taiwan, the UK, and North America (each 1 study); and a global study in 30 countries (1 study). Nine were in hospitalized patients, and three from ambulatory care. Disease severity, prevalence of comorbidities, and use of co-interventions varied substantially between trials. We found potential risks of bias across all domains for several trials.\nNine trials compared HCQ with standard care (7779 participants), and one compared HCQ with placebo (491 participants); dosing schedules varied. HCQ makes little or no difference to death due to any cause (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.19; 8208 participants; 9 trials; high-certainty evidence). A sensitivity analysis using modified intention-to-treat results from three trials did not influence the pooled effect estimate.\nHCQ may make little or no difference to the proportion of people having negative PCR for SARS-CoV-2 on respiratory samples at day 14 from enrolment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.10; 213 participants; 3 trials; low-certainty evidence). HCQ probably results in little to no difference in progression to mechanical ventilation (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.37; 4521 participants; 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). HCQ probably results in an almost three-fold increased risk of adverse events (RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.49 to 5.64; 1394 participants; 6 trials; moderate-certainty evidence), but may make little or no difference to the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.79; 1004 participants; 6 trials; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of HCQ on time to clinical improvement or risk of prolongation of QT-interval on electrocardiogram (very low-certainty evidence).\nOne trial (22 participants) randomized patients to CQ versus lopinavir/ritonavir, a drug with unknown efficacy against SARS-CoV-2, and did not report any difference for clinical recovery or adverse events.\nOne trial compared HCQ combined with azithromycin against standard care (444 participants). This trial did not detect a difference in death, requirement for mechanical ventilation, length of hospital admission, or serious adverse events. A higher risk of adverse events was reported in the HCQ-and-azithromycin arm; this included QT-interval prolongation, when measured.\nOne trial compared HCQ with febuxostat, another drug with unknown efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 (60 participants). There was no difference detected in risk of hospitalization or change in computed tomography (CT) scan appearance of the lungs; no deaths were reported.\n2. Preventing COVID-19 disease in people at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2\nOngoing trials are yet to report results for this objective.\n3. Preventing COVID-19 disease in people who have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2\nOne trial (821 participants) compared HCQ with placebo as a prophylactic agent in the USA (around 90% of participants) and Canada. Asymptomatic adults (66% healthcare workers; mean age 40 years; 73% without comorbidity) with a history of exposure to people with confirmed COVID-19 were recruited. We are very uncertain about the effect of HCQ on the primary outcomes, for which few events were reported: 20/821 (2.4%) developed confirmed COVID-19 at 14 days from enrolment, and 2/821 (0.2%) were hospitalized due to COVID-19 (very low-certainty evidence). HCQ probably increases the risk of adverse events compared with placebo (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.83 to 3.11; 700 participants; 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence). HCQ may result in little or no difference in serious adverse events (no RR: no participants experienced serious adverse events; low-certainty evidence).\nOne cluster-randomized trial (2525 participants) compared HCQ with standard care for the prevention of COVID-19 in people with a history of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in Spain. Most participants were working or residing in nursing homes; mean age was 49 years. There was no difference in the risk of symptomatic confirmed COVID-19 or production of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 between the two study arms.\nAuthors' conclusions\nHCQ for people infected with COVID-19 has little or no effect on the risk of death and probably no effect on progression to mechanical ventilation. Adverse events are tripled compared to placebo, but very few serious adverse events were found. No further trials of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for treatment should be carried out.\nThese results make it less likely that the drug is effective in protecting people from infection, although this is not excluded entirely. It is probably sensible to complete trials examining prevention of infection, and ensure these are carried out to a high standard to provide unambiguous results.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main results of our review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Treating COVID-19\nCompared with usual care or placebo, hydroxychloroquine:\n· clearly did not affect how many people died (of any cause; 9 studies in 8208 people);\n· probably did not affect how many people needed mechanical ventilation (3 studies; 4521 people);\n· may not affect how many people still tested positive for the virus after 14 days (3 studies; 213 people).\nWe are uncertain whether hydroxychloroquine affected the number of people whose symptoms improved after 28 days.\nCompared with other antiviral treatment (lopinavir plus ritonavir), chloroquine made little or no difference to the time taken for symptoms to improve (1 study; 22 people).\nCompared with usual care in one study in 444 people, hydroxychloroquine given with azithromycin (an antibiotic) made no difference to:\n· how many people died;\n· how many needed mechanical ventilation; or\n· time spent in hospital.\nCompared with febuxostat (a medicine to treat gout), hydroxychloroquine made no difference to how many people were admitted to hospital or to changes seen on scans of people's lungs; no deaths were reported (1 study; 60 people).\nPreventing COVID-19 in people exposed to it\nWe are uncertain whether hydroxychloroquine affected how many people developed COVID-19, or how many people were admitted to hospital with COVID-19, compared with those receiving a placebo treatment (1 study; 821 people).\nCompared with usual care, hydroxychloroquine made no difference to the risk of developing COVID-19, or antibodies to the virus, in people exposed to it (1 study; 2525 people).\nUnwanted effects\nWhen used for treating COVID-19, compared with usual care or placebo, hydroxychloroquine:\n· probably increases the risk of mild unwanted effects (6 studies; 1394 people);\n· may not increase the risk of serious harmful effects (6 studies; 1004 people).\nWhen given along with azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine increased the risk of any unwanted effects, but made no difference to the risk of serious unwanted effects (1 study; 444 people).\nCompared with lopinavir plus ritonavir, chloroquine made little or no difference to the risk of unwanted effects (1 study; 22 people).\nWhen used for preventing COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine probably causes more unwanted effects than placebo, but may not increase the risk of serious, harmful unwanted effects (1 study; 700 people)." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute myeloid leukaemia (AML) is a malignant cancer of hematopoietic stem cells. The treatment of AML consists of two treatment phases: the remission induction phase to achieve a rapid, complete remission (CR) and the consolidation phase to achieve a durable molecular remission. People in CR are at risk of AML relapse, and people with relapsed AML have poor survival prospects. Thus, there is a continuous need for treatments to further improve prognosis. Interleukin-2 (IL-2), an immune-stimulatory cytokine, is an alternative to standard treatment for people with AML to maintain the efficacy after consolidation therapy. Maintenance therapy is not an integral part of the standard treatment for AML. Studies have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of IL-2 as maintenance therapy for people with AML in first CR, but the effect of IL-2 is not yet fully established.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of IL-2 as maintenance therapy for children and adults with AML who have achieved first CR and have not relapsed.\nSearch methods\nWe systematically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1950 to August 2015), EMBASE (1950 to August 2015), LILACS (1982 to August 2015), CBM (1978 to August 2015), relevant conference proceedings (2000 to 2015), and metaRegister of Controlled Trials (since inception to August 2015) of ongoing and unpublished trials. In addition, we screened the reference lists of relevant trials and reviews.\nSelection criteria\nEligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IL-2 with no treatment in people with AML who had achieved first CR and had not relapsed. We did not identify studies comparing IL-2 versus best supportive care or maintenance chemotherapy or studies comparing IL-2 plus maintenance chemotherapy versus maintenance chemotherapy alone.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened studies, extracted data with a predefined extraction form, and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We extracted data on the following outcomes: disease-free survival, overall survival, event-free survival, treatment-related mortality, adverse events, and quality of life. We measured the treatment effect on time-to-event outcomes and dichotomous outcomes with hazard ratio (HR) and risk ratio, respectively. We used inverse-variance method to combine HRs with fixed-effect model unless there was significant between-study heterogeneity.\nMain results\nWe included nine RCTs with a total of 1665 participants, comparing IL-2 with no treatment. Six studies included adult participants, and three studies included both adults and children. However, the latter three studies did not report data for children, thus we were unable to conduct subgroup analysis of children. One Chinese study did not report any outcomes of interest for this review. We included six trials involving 1426 participants in the meta-analysis on disease-free survival, and included five trials involving 1355 participants in the meta-analysis on overall survival. There is no evidence for difference between IL-2 group and no-treatment group regarding disease-free survival (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.06, P = 0.37; quality of evidence: low) or overall survival (HR 1.05; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.16, P = 0.35; quality of evidence: moderate). Based on one trial of 161 participants, IL-2 exerted no effect on event-free survival (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.32, P = 0.88; quality of evidence: low). Adverse events (including thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, malaise/fatigue, and infection/fever) were more frequent in participants receiving IL-2, according to one trial of 308 participants. No mortality due to adverse events was reported. None of the included studies reported treatment-related mortality or quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no evidence for a difference between IL-2 maintenance therapy and no treatment with respect to disease-free survival or overall survival of people with AML in first CR; however, the quality of the evidence is moderate or low, and further research is likely or very likely to have an important impact on the estimate or our confidence in the estimate. Adverse events seem to be more frequent in participants treated with IL-2, but the quality of the evidence is very low and our confidence in the estimates is very uncertain. Thus, further prospective randomised trials are needed before definitive conclusions can be drawn on these issues.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We considered the quality of the evidence as low with respect to disease-free survival and event-free survival. The quality of evidence was moderate for overall survival and very low for adverse events." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis review replaces an earlier review, \"Methadone for chronic non-cancer pain in adults\". This review serves to update the original and includes only studies of neuropathic pain. Methadone belongs to a class of analgesics known as opioids, that are considered the cornerstone of therapy for moderate-to-severe postsurgical pain and pain due to life-threatening illnesses; however, their use in neuropathic pain is controversial. Methadone has many characteristics that differentiate it from other opioids, which suggests that it may have a different efficacy and safety profile.\nObjectives\nTo assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of methadone for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases: CENTRAL (CRSO), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid), and two clinical trial registries. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved articles. The date of the most recent search was 30 November 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks’ duration or longer, comparing methadone (in any dose, administered by any route, and in any formulation) with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. There were insufficient data to perform pooled analyses. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.\nMain results\nWe included three studies, involving 105 participants. All were cross-over studies, one involving 19 participants with diverse neuropathic pain syndromes, the other two involving 86 participants with postherpetic neuralgia. Study phases ranged from 20 days to approximately eight weeks. All administered methadone orally, in doses ranging from 10 mg to 80 mg daily. Comparators were primarily placebo, but one study also included morphine and tricyclic antidepressants.\nThe included studies had several limitations related to risk of bias, particularly incomplete reporting, selective outcome reporting, and small sample sizes.\nThere were very limited data for our primary outcomes of participants with at least 30% or at least 50% pain relief. Two studies reported that 11/29 participants receiving methadone achieved 30% pain relief versus 7/29 participants receiving placebo. Only one study presented data in a manner that allowed us to calculate the number of participants with at least 50% pain relief. None of the 19 participants achieved a 50% reduction in pain intensity, either when receiving methadone or when receiving placebo. No study provided data for our other primary outcomes of Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC) much or very much improved (equivalent to at least 30% pain relief) and PGIC very much improved (equivalent to at least 50% pain relief).\nFor secondary efficacy outcomes, one study reported maximum and mean pain intensity and pain relief, and reported statistically significant improvements versus placebo for all outcomes with 20 mg daily doses of methadone, but not with 10 mg daily doses. The second study reported differences in pain reduction between methadone (n = 26) and morphine (n = 38) and found morphine to be statistically superior. The third study reported the number of responders (variously defined) for several pain and functional outcomes and found methadone to be statistically superior to placebo for the outcomes of categorical pain intensity and evoked pain. In the two studies that reported data, 0/29 participants withdrew due to lack of efficacy, whereas 4/29 participants withdrew due to adverse events while taking methadone versus 3/29 while taking placebo.\nOne study reported incidences for several individual adverse events, but found a statistically significant increased incidence for methadone over placebo for only one event, dizziness. The other studies did not report data in a manner that enabled us to analyze adverse events. There were no serious adverse events or deaths reported.\nWe assessed the quality of the evidence as very low for all efficacy and safety outcomes using GRADE, primarily because of the heterogeneity of study designs and populations, short durations, cross-over methodology, and few participants and events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe three studies provide very limited, very low quality evidence of the efficacy and safety of methadone for chronic neuropathic pain, and there were too few data for pooled analysis of efficacy or harm, or to have confidence in the results of the individual studies. No conclusions can be made regarding differences in efficacy or safety between methadone and placebo, other opioids, or other treatments.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key findings\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Two studies looked at how many participants got at least 30% pain relief. Eleven of 29 participants receiving methadone achieved 30% pain relief versus seven of 29 receiving placebo. In one study, none of the 19 participants achieved a 50% reduction in pain intensity, either when receiving methadone or when receiving placebo (a sugar pill). These reductions in pain intensity have been shown to be important to patients. In addition, one study found improvements in average and maximum pain intensity and pain relief when comparing methadone with placebo.\nIn the two studies that reported dropouts from the study, none of 29 participants dropped out because they thought methadone or the placebo was not helping their pain; whereas four of 29 dropped out because of side effects while taking methadone and three of 29 while taking placebo.\nOne study reported how many participants had specific side effects, and found increased dizziness with methadone compared to placebo. There were no serious side effects or deaths reported. There was so little information from these studies that we concluded there was no convincing evidence to support or reject a meaningful benefit for methadone versus placebo or any other treatment." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSymptomatic vitreomacular adhesion (sVMA) is a recognised cause of visual loss and by tradition has been managed by pars plana vitrectomy (PPV). A less invasive alternative to surgery in some people is enzymatic vitreolysis, using an intravitreal injection of ocriplasmin.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of ocriplasmin compared to no treatment, sham or placebo for the treatment of sVMA.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 1), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 24 February 2017), Embase Ovid (1947 to 24 February 2017), PubMed (1946 to 24 February 2017), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch); searched 24 February 2017, ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 24 February 2017 and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 24 February 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with sVMA. The intervention was intravitreal ocriplasmin 125 μg injection, and this was compared to placebo or sham injection (control). Placebo was defined as a single intravitreal injection of 0.10 mL placebo with identical drug vehicle diluted with saline. A sham injection was defined as the syringe hub or blunt needle touching the conjunctiva to simulate an injection.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected relevant trials, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. We graded the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nThis review included four RCTs conducted in Europe and the USA with a total of 932 eyes of 932 participants. Participants were 18 to 97 years of age, with evidence of focal vitreomacular adhesion (VMA) on optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging, with a best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/25 or worse in the study eye and 20/400 or better in the fellow eye. The interventions compared were intravitreal ocriplasmin versus sham (two RCTs) or placebo (two RCTs) injection. Both sham and placebo injection were classified as the control group. The main outcome measures were assessed at 28 days and six months. Overall, we judged the studies to have a low or unclear risk of bias. All four RCTs were sponsored by the manufacturers of ocriplasmin.\nCompared with control, ocriplasmin treatment was more likely to result in VMA release within 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 3.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.00 to 6.00; 859 eyes, 4 RCTs, high-certainty evidence). Approximately 97/1000 eyes will have VMA release within 28 days without treatment. An additional 237 eyes will have VMA release within 28 days for every 1000 eyes treated with ocriplasmin (95% CI 96 more to 482 more).\nTreatment with ocriplasmin was also more likely to result in macular hole closure (RR 2.87, 95% CI 1.50 to 5.51; 229 eyes, 3 RCTs, high-certainty evidence). Approximately 123/1000 eyes with macular holes will have closure with no treatment. An additional 231 eyes will have macular hole closure for every 1000 eyes treated with ocriplasmin (95% CI 62 more to 556 more).\nEyes receiving ocriplasmin were also more likely to have complete posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) within 28 days (RR 2.94, 95% CI 1.39 to 6.24; 689 eyes, 3 RCTs, high-certainty evidence). Approximately 40/1000 eyes will have complete PVD within 28 days without treatment. An additional 78 eyes will have complete PVD within 28 days for every 1000 eyes treated with ocriplasmin (95% CI 16 more to 210 more).\nEyes receiving ocriplasmin were more likely to achieve 3-line or greater improvement in BCVA at six months (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.53; 674 eyes, 3 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence). Approximately 61/1000 eyes will have a 3-line or greater improvement in BCVA at six months without treatment. An additional 58 eyes will have 3-line or greater improvement in BCVA at six months for every 1000 eyes treated with ocriplasmin (95% CI 9 more to 154 more).\nReceiving ocriplasmin also reduced the requirement for vitrectomy at six months (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.91; 689 eyes, 3 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence). Approximately 265/1000 eyes will require vitrectomy at six months without treatment and 87 fewer eyes will require vitrectomy for every 1000 eyes treated with ocriplasmin (95% CI 24 fewer to 132 fewer).\nTreatment with ocriplasmin resulted in a greater improvement in validated Visual Function Questionnaire form score at six months (mean improvement difference 2.7 points, 95% CI 0.8 to 4.6; 652 eyes, 2 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence).\nEyes receiving ocriplasmin were more likely to have an adverse event (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.37, 909 eyes, 4 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence). Approximately 571/1000 eyes will have an adverse event with sham or placebo injection and 106 more eyes will have an adverse event for every 1000 eyes treated with ocriplasmin (95% CI 52 more to 212 more).\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence from a limited number of RCTs suggests that ocriplasmin is useful in the treatment of sVMA. However, up to 20% of eyes treated with ocriplasmin will still require additional treatment with PPV within six months. There were more ocular adverse events in eyes treated with ocriplasmin than control (sham or placebo injection) treatment. Many of these adverse events, particularly vitreous floaters and photopsia, are known to be associated with posterior vitreous detachment. At present however, there is minimal published long-term safety data on eyes treated with ocriplasmin. Further large RCTs comparing ocriplasmin with other management options for sVMA would be beneficial.\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": "With age, the gel-like substance (vitreous) that fills the eye begins to pull away from the back of the eye (retina). Sometimes the vitreous remains attached to the retina and causes damage to the retina as it pulls away, leading to visual loss. This is known as symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion or sVMA. sVMA includes two related conditions, vitreomacular traction and macular hole.\nThe standard treatment for sVMA is surgery. Ocriplasmin is an alternative, less invasive, treatment. This is an enzyme that can be injected directly into the eye to release the vitreous from the retina." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nFatigue is a common and debilitating symptom in people receiving dialysis that is associated with an increased risk of death, cardiovascular disease and depression. Fatigue can also impair quality of life (QoL) and the ability to participate in daily activities. Fatigue has been established by patients, caregivers and health professionals as a core outcome for haemodialysis (HD).\nObjectives\nWe aimed to evaluate the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on fatigue in people with kidney failure receiving dialysis, including HD and peritoneal dialysis (PD), including any setting and frequency of the dialysis treatment.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 18 October 2022 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nSelection criteria\nStudies evaluating pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions affecting levels of fatigue or fatigue-related outcomes in people receiving dialysis were included. Studies were eligible if fatigue or fatigue-related outcomes were reported as a primary or secondary outcome. Any mode, frequency, prescription, and duration of therapy were considered.\nData collection and analysis\nThree authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Treatment estimates were summarised using random effects meta-analysis and expressed as a risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) or standardised MD (SMD) if different scales were used. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.\nMain results\nNinety-four studies involving 8191 randomised participants were eligible. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions were compared either to placebo or control, or to another pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention. In the majority of domains, risks of bias in the included studies were unclear or high.\nIn low certainty evidence, when compared to control, exercise may improve fatigue (4 studies, 217 participants (Iowa Fatigue Scale, Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, Piper Fatigue Scale (PFS), or Haemodialysis-Related Fatigue scale score): SMD -1.18, 95% CI -2.04 to -0.31; I2 = 87%) in HD.\nIn low certainty evidence, when compared to placebo or standard care, aromatherapy may improve fatigue (7 studies, 542 participants (Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Rhoten Fatigue Scale (RFS), PFS or Brief Fatigue Inventory score): SMD -1.23, 95% CI -1.96 to -0.50; I2 = 93%) in HD.\nIn low certainty evidence, when compared to no intervention, massage may improve fatigue (7 studies, 657 participants (FSS, RFS, PFS or Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score): SMD -1.06, 95% CI -1.47, -0.65; I2 = 81%) and increase energy (2 studies, 152 participants (VAS score): MD 4.87, 95% CI 1.69 to 8.06, I2 = 59%) in HD.\nIn low certainty evidence, when compared to placebo or control, acupressure may reduce fatigue (6 studies, 459 participants (PFS score, revised PFS, or Fatigue Index): SMD -0.64, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.25; I2 = 75%) in HD.\nA wide range of heterogenous interventions and fatigue-related outcomes were reported for exercise, aromatherapy, massage and acupressure, preventing our capability to pool and analyse the data.\nDue to the paucity of studies, the effects of pharmacological and other non-pharmacological interventions on fatigue or fatigue-related outcomes, including non-physiological neutral amino acid, relaxation with or without music therapy, meditation, exercise with nandrolone, nutritional supplementation, cognitive-behavioural therapy, ESAs, frequent HD sections, home blood pressure monitoring, blood flow rate reduction, serotonin reuptake inhibitor, beta-blockers, anabolic steroids, glucose-enriched dialysate, or light therapy, were very uncertain.\nThe effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments on death, cardiovascular diseases, vascular access, QoL, depression, anxiety, hypertension or diabetes were sparse. No studies assessed tiredness, exhaustion or asthenia. Adverse events were rarely and inconsistently reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nExercise, aromatherapy, massage and acupressure may improve fatigue compared to placebo, standard care or no intervention. Pharmacological and other non-pharmacological interventions had uncertain effects on fatigue or fatigue-related outcomes in people receiving dialysis. Future adequately powered, high-quality studies are likely to change the estimated effects of interventions for fatigue and fatigue-related outcomes in people receiving dialysis.\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": "Ninety-four studies involving 8191 randomised participants were available. Patients in the studies were given a drug, non-pharmacological intervention, standard care or a sugar pill (placebo). The treatment they received was decided by random chance. The studies were generally short-term (over a few months). There were no studies in children. Exercise, aromatherapy, massage and acupressure improve fatigue compared to placebo or standard care. Drugs or other non-pharmacological interventions have uncertain effects on fatigue in people on dialysis." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThere is presently no certainty about the ideal feeding intervals for preterm infants. Shorter feeding intervals of, for example, two hours, have the theoretical advantage of allowing smaller volumes of milk. This may have the potential to reduce the incidence and severity of gastro-oesophageal reflux. Longer feeding intervals have the theoretical advantage of allowing more gastric emptying between two feeds. This potentially provides periods of rest (and thus less hyperaemia) for an immature digestive tract.\nObjectives\nTo determine the safety of shorter feeding intervals (two hours or shorter) versus longer feeding intervals (three hours or more) and to compare the effects in terms of days taken to regain birth weight and to achieve full feeding.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to run comprehensive searches in CENTRAL (2020, Issue 6) and Ovid MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions, and CINAHL on 25 June 2020. We searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs and quasi-RCTs comparing short (e.g. one or two hours) versus long (e.g. three or four hours) feeding intervals in preterm infants of any birth weight, all or most of whom were less than 32 weeks' gestation. Infants could be of any postnatal age at trial entry, but eligible infants should not have received feeds before study entry, with the exception of minimal enteral feeding. We included studies of nasogastric or orogastric bolus feeding, breast milk or formula, in which the feeding interval is the intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Our primary outcomes were days taken to achieve full enteral feeding and days to regain birth weight. Our other outcomes were duration of hospital stay, episodes of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) and growth during hospital stay (weight, length and head circumference).\nMain results\nWe included four RCTs, involving 417 infants in the review. One study involving 350 infants is awaiting classification. All studies compared two-hourly versus three-hourly feeding interval. The risk of bias of the included studies was generally low, but all studies had high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding of the intervention.\nThree studies were included in meta-analysis for the number of days taken to achieve full enteral feeding (351 participants). The mean days to achieve full feeds was between eight and 11 days. There was little or no difference in days taken to achieve full enteral feeding between two-hourly and three-hourly feeding, but this finding was of low certainty (mean difference (MD) ‒0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‒1.60 to 0.36).\nThere was low-certainty evidence that the days taken to regain birth weight may be slightly longer in infants receiving two-hourly feeding than in those receiving three-hourly feeding (MD 1.15, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.20; 3 studies, 350 participants).\nWe are uncertain whether shorter feeding intervals have any effect on any of our secondary outcomes including the duration of hospital stay (MD ‒3.36, 95% CI ‒9.18 to 2.46; 2 studies, 207 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and the risk of NEC (typical risk ratio 1.07, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.11; 4 studies, 417 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nNo study reported growth during hospital stay.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe low-certainty evidence we found in this review suggests that there may be no clinically important differences between two- and three-hourly feeding intervals. There is insufficient information about potential feeding complications and in particular NEC. No studies have looked at the effect of other feeding intervals and there is no long-term data on neurodevelopment or growth.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The quality of the evidence in this review was low. Therefore, there may be no clinically important differences between two- and three-hourly feeding intervals." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic health conditions in children and adolescents can have profound impacts on education, well-being and health. They are described as non-communicable illnesses that are prolonged in duration, do not resolve spontaneously, and rarely cured completely. Due to variations in the definition of chronic health conditions and how they are measured prevalence estimates vary considerably and have been reported to be as high as 44% in children and adolescents. Of young people with a chronic health condition, an estimated 5% are affected by severe conditions characterised by limitations to daily activities impacting their ability to attend school. School attendance is important for academic and social skill development as well as well-being. When children and adolescents are absent from school due to a chronic health condition, school engagement can be affected. Disengagement from school is associated with poorer academic achievement, social-emotional functioning and career choices. Education support services for children and adolescents with chronic health conditions aim to prevent disengagement from school, education and learning during periods where their illness caused them to miss school. However, there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of educational support interventions at improving school engagement and educational/learning outcomes for children and adolescents with chronic health conditions.\nObjectives\nTo describe the nature of educational support interventions for children and adolescents with a chronic health condition, and to examine the effectiveness of these interventions on school engagement and academic achievement.\nSearch methods\nWe searched eight electronic databases which span the health/medical, social sciences and education disciplines between 18 and 25 January 2021: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid). CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (EBSCO), ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts: ASSIA (ProQuest), and PubMed (from 2019). We also searched five grey literature trials registers and databases between 8 and 12 February 2021 to identify additional published and unpublished studies, theses and conference abstracts, as well as snowballing reference lists of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies that met the inclusion criteria were selected. Other inclusion criteria were: participants - must include children or adolescents (aged four to 18 years) with a chronic health condition, intervention - must include educational support, outcomes - must report the primary outcomes (i.e. school engagement or academic achievement) or secondary outcomes (i.e. quality of life, transition to school/school re-entry, mental health or adverse outcomes).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo people independently screened titles and abstracts, and full-text articles, to identify included studies. Where disagreements arose between reviewers, the two reviewers discussed the discrepancy. If resolution was unable to be achieved, the issues were discussed with a senior reviewer to resolve the matter. We extracted study characteristic data and risk of bias data from the full texts of included studies using a data extraction form before entering the information into Review Manager 5.4.1. Two people independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias of individual studies and undertook GRADE assessments of the quality of the evidence.\nMeta-analysis was not possible due to the small number of studies for each outcome. Our synthesis, therefore, used vote-counting based on the direction of the effect/impact of the intervention.\nMain results\nThe database searches identified 14,202 titles and abstracts. Grey literature and reference list searches did not identify any additional studies that met the inclusion criteria. One hundred and twelve full-text studies were assessed for eligibility, of which four studies met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the review. All studies were randomised controlled studies with a combined total of 359 participants. All included studies were disease-specific; three studies focused on children with cancer, and one study focused on children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).\nThere was evidence that education support improved school engagement with three of four studies favouring the intervention. Three studies measured academic achievement but only two studies provided effect estimates. Based on the vote-counting method, we found contradictory results from the studies: one study showed a positive direction of effect and the other study showed a negative direction of effect. One study measured transition back to school and found a positive impact of education support favouring the intervention (SMD 0.18, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.96, no P value reported). The result came from a single study with a small sample size (n = 30), and produced a confidence interval that indicated the possibility of a very small or no effect. The overall certainty of evidence for these three outcomes was judged to be 'very low'.\nTwo of four studies measured mental health (measured as self-esteem). Both studies reported a positive impact of education support interventions on mental health; this was the only outcome for which the overall certainty of evidence was judged to be 'low' rather than 'very low'.\nNo studies measured or reported quality of life or adverse effects.\nRisk of bias (selection, performance, detection, attrition, reporting and other bias) was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials (version 1). Overall risk of bias for all studies was assessed as 'high risk' because all studies had at least one domain at high risk of bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review has demonstrated the infancy of quality research on the effectiveness of education support interventions for children and adolescents with chronic health conditions. At best, we can say that we are uncertain whether education support interventions improve either academic achievement or school engagement. Of the secondary outcomes, we are also uncertain whether education support interventions improve transition back to school, or school re-entry. However, we suggest there is some evidence that education support may slightly improve mental health, measured as self-esteem. Given the current state of the evidence of the effectiveness of education support interventions for children and adolescents with chronic health conditions, we highlight some important implications for future research in this field to strengthen the evidence that can inform effective practice and policy.\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 health, education and social science databases, as well as other registries to find published and unpublished studies. We included studies that included children aged four to 18 years with a chronic health condition who were involved in an educational support programme. The study needed to have reported on school engagement, academic achievement, school re-entry, mental health, quality of life or adverse outcomes to be included in the summarised evidence." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nApnoea of prematurity (AoP) is defined as a pause in breathing for 20 seconds or longer, or for less than 20 seconds when accompanied by bradycardia and hypoxaemia, in a preterm infant. An association between the severity of apnoea and neurodevelopmental delay has been reported. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is a form of non-invasive ventilatory assistance that has been shown to be relatively safe and effective in preventing and treating respiratory distress among preterm infants. It is less clear whether CPAP treatment is safe and effective in the prevention and treatment of AoP.\nObjectives\n1. To assess the effects of CPAP on AoP in preterm infants (this may be compared to supportive care or mechanical ventilation).\n2. To assess the effects of different CPAP delivery systems on AoP in preterm infants.\nSearch methods\nSearches were conducted in September 2022 in the following databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. We also searched clinical trial registries and the reference lists of studies selected for inclusion.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which researchers determined that CPAP was necessary for AoP in preterm infants (born before 37 weeks). Cross-over studies were also included, provided sufficient data were available for analysis.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methods of Cochrane and Cochrane Neonatal, including independent assessment of risk of bias and extraction of data by at least two review authors. Discrepancies were resolved by involvement of a third author. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: 1) failed CPAP; 2) apnoea; 3) adverse effects of CPAP.\nMain results\nWe included four single-centre trials conducted in Malaysia, Spain, Germany, and North America, involving 138 infants with a mean/median gestation of 26 to 28 weeks. Two studies were parallel-group RCTs and two were cross-over trials. None of the studies compared CPAP with supportive care. All trials compared one form of CPAP with another. Two compared a variable flow device with ventilator CPAP, one compared two different variable flow devices, and one compared a variable flow device with bubble CPAP. Interventions were administered for periods ranging between six and 48 hours, with pressures between 4 and 6 cm H2O. We assessed all trials as having a high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel, and two studies for blinding of outcome assessors. We found a high risk of a carry-over effect in two studies where the washout period was not adequately described, and a high risk of bias in a study that appeared to use an analysis method not generally accepted for cross-over studies.\nComparison 1. CPAP and supportive care compared to supportive care alone\nWe did not identify any study for inclusion in this comparison.\nComparison 2. CPAP delivered by different types of devices\n2a. Variable flow compared to ventilator CPAP\nTwo studies were included in this comparison. We are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the incidence of failed CPAP, defined as the need for mechanical ventilation (risk ratio (RR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.90; 1 study, 26 participants; very low-certainty). We are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the frequency of apnoea events (mean difference (MD) per four-hour interval -0.10, 95% CI -1.30 to 1.10; 1 study, 26 participants; very low-certainty). We are uncertain whether there is any difference in adverse events. Neurodevelopmental outcomes were not reported.\n2b. Variable flow compared to bubble CPAP\nWe included one study in this comparison, but it did not report our pre-specified outcomes.\n2c. Infant Flow variable flow CPAP compared to Medijet variable flow CPAP\nWe are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the incidence of failed CPAP (RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.91 to 7.53; 1 study, 80 participants; very low-certainty). The frequency of apnoea was not reported, and we do not know whether there is any difference in adverse events. Neurodevelopmental outcomes were not reported.\nComparison 3. CPAP compared to mechanical ventilation\nWe did not identify any studies for inclusion in this comparison.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to the limited available evidence, we are very uncertain whether any CPAP device is more effective than other forms of supportive care, other CPAP devices, or mechanical ventilation for the prevention and treatment of AoP. The devices used in these studies included two types of variable flow CPAP device: bubble CPAP and ventilator CPAP. For each comparison, data were only available from a single study. There are theoretical reasons why these devices might have different effects on AoP, therefore further trials are indicated.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We wanted to find out whether using CPAP in preterm babies might reduce apnoea or the need for a more invasive form of treatment such as mechanical ventilation, i.e. using a machine to do the breathing for the baby. We also wanted to know whether any particular method of applying CPAP was more effective." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTransfer of more than one embryo during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) increases multiple pregnancy rates resulting in an increased risk of maternal and perinatal morbidity. Elective single embryo transfer offers a means of minimising this risk, but this potential gain needs to be balanced against the possibility of jeopardising the overall live birth rate (LBR).\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different policies for the number of embryos transferred in infertile couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology cycles.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group specialised register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to March 2020. We handsearched reference lists of articles and relevant conference proceedings. We also communicated with experts in the field regarding any additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different policies for the number of embryos transferred following IVF or ICSI in infertile women. Studies of fresh or frozen and thawed transfer of one to four embryos at cleavage or blastocyst stage were eligible.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias. The primary outcomes were LBR and multiple pregnancy rate. The secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy and miscarriage rates. We analysed data using risk ratios (RR), Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) and a fixed effect model.\nMain results\nWe included 17 RCTs in the review (2505 women). The main limitation was inadequate reporting of study methods and moderate to high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding. A majority of the studies had low numbers of participants.\nNone of the trials compared repeated single embryo transfer (SET) with multiple embryo transfer. Reported results of multiple embryo transfer below refer to double embryo transfer.\nRepeated single embryo transfer versus multiple embryo transfer in a single cycle\nRepeated SET was compared with double embryo transfer (DET) in four studies of cleavage-stage transfer. In these studies the SET group received either two cycles of fresh SET (one study) or one cycle of fresh SET followed by one frozen SET (three studies). The cumulative live birth rate after repeated SET may be little or no different from the rate after one cycle of DET (RR 0.95, 95% CI (confidence interval) 0.82 to 1.10; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 985 participants; low-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 42% chance of live birth following a single cycle of DET, the repeated SET would yield pregnancy rates between 34% and 46%. The multiple pregnancy rate associated with repeated SET is probably reduced compared to a single cycle of DET (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.21; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 985 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 13% risk of multiple pregnancy following a single cycle of DET, the risk following repeated SET would be between 0% and 3%. The clinical pregnancy rate (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; I² = 47%; 3 studies, 943 participants; low-quality evidence) after repeated SET may be little or no different from the rate after one cycle of DET. There may be little or no difference in the miscarriage rate between the two groups.\nSingle versus multiple embryo transfer in a single cycle\nA single cycle of SET was compared with a single cycle of DET in 13 studies, 11 comparing cleavage-stage transfers and three comparing blastocyst-stage transfers.One study reported both cleavage and blastocyst stage transfers.\nLow-quality evidence suggests that the live birth rate per woman may be reduced in women who have SET in comparison with those who have DET (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.75; I² = 0%; 12 studies, 1904 participants; low-quality evidence). Thus, for a woman with a 46% chance of live birth following a single cycle of DET, the chance following a single cycle of SET would be between 27% and 35%. The multiple pregnancy rate per woman is probably lower in those who have SET than those who have DET (Peto OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.22; I² = 0%; 13 studies, 1952 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 15% risk of multiple pregnancy following a single cycle of DET, the risk following a single cycle of SET would be between 2% and 4%. Low-quality evidence suggests that the clinical pregnancy rate may be lower in women who have SET than in those who have DET (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.77; I² = 0%; 10 studies, 1860 participants; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in the miscarriage rate between the two groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough DET achieves higher live birth and clinical pregnancy rates per fresh cycle, the evidence suggests that the difference in effectiveness may be substantially offset when elective SET is followed by a further transfer of a single embryo in fresh or frozen cycle, while simultaneously reducing multiple pregnancies, at least among women with a good prognosis.\nThe quality of evidence was low to moderate primarily due to inadequate reporting of study methods and absence of masking those delivering, as well as receiving the interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Multiple pregnancy causes serious health risks for mothers and babies. Single embryo transfer (SET) can reduce the chance of having twins, triplets or higher order multiples but this needs to be balanced against the risk of lowering the chance of pregnancy or live birth. We reviewed the evidence about the number of embryos transferred in women undergoing ART. The evidence is current to March 2020." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nType 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic disorder that is characterised by insulin resistance and hyperglycaemia, which over time may give rise to vascular complications. Resveratrol is a plant-derived nutritional supplement shown to have anti-diabetic properties in many animal models. Less evidence is available on its safety and efficacy in the management of T2DM in humans.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of resveratrol formulations for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, as well as the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search was December 2018 for all databases. No language restrictions were applied.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effects of oral resveratrol (any dose or formulation, duration, or frequency of administration) with placebo, no treatment, other anti-diabetic medications, or diet or exercise, in adults with a diagnosis of T2DM.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently identified and included RCTs, assessed risk of bias, and extracted study-level data. Study authors were contacted for any missing information or for clarification of reported data. We assessed studies for certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument.\nMain results\nWe identified three RCTs with a total of 50 participants. Oral resveratrol not combined with other plant polyphenols was administered at 10 mg, 150 mg, or 1000 mg daily for a period ranging from four weeks to five weeks. The comparator intervention was placebo. Overall, all three included studies had low risk of bias. None of the three included studies reported long-term, patient-relevant outcomes such as all-cause mortality, diabetes-related complications, diabetes-related mortality, health-related quality of life, or socioeconomic effects. All three included studies reported that no adverse events were observed, indicating that no deaths occurred (very low-quality evidence for adverse events, all-cause mortality, and diabetes-related mortality). Resveratrol versus placebo showed neutral effects for glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels (mean difference (MD) 0.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.02 to 0.2; P = 0.09; 2 studies; 31 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Due to the short follow-up period, HbA1c results have to be interpreted cautiously. Similarly, resveratrol versus placebo showed neutral effects for fasting blood glucose levels (MD 2 mg/dL, 95% CI -2 to 7; P = 0.29; 2 studies; 31 participants), and resveratrol versus placebo showed neutral effects for insulin resistance (MD -0.35, 95% CI -0.99 to 0.28; P = 0.27; 2 studies; 36 participants). We found eight ongoing RCTs with approximately 800 participants and two studies awaiting assessment, which, when published, could contribute to the findings of this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently, research is insufficient for review authors to evaluate the safety and efficacy of resveratrol supplementation for treatment of adults with T2DM. The limited available research does not provide sufficient evidence to support any effect, beneficial or adverse, of four to five weeks of 10 mg to 1000 mg of resveratrol in adults with T2DM. Adequately powered RCTs reporting patient-relevant outcomes with long-term follow-up periods are needed to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of resveratrol supplementation in the treatment of T2DM.\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 included studies reported on important long-term, patient-relevant outcomes such as death from any cause, diabetes-related death, diabetes-related complications, health-related quality of life, or impact on treatment costs. However, no side effects and no deaths were observed in these short-term studies. No clear changes were observed for indicators of glucose management. We found eight ongoing studies with approximately 800 participants and two studies awaiting assessment, which, when published, could contribute to our findings." } ]

[ { "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: \"Authors' conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Each of these trials contain small numbers of women, reducing the certainty of our conclusions. We are uncertain if pessaries improve pelvic organ prolapse symptoms for women compared with no treatment or when compared to another active treatment like PFMT, but pessaries in addition to PFMT probably improve women's symptoms and prolapse-specific quality of life. However, there may be an increased risk of adverse events with pessaries compared to no treatment or PFMT.\nThe review found two economic evaluation studies that compared pessary treatment to alternative interventions (PFMT, expectant management and surgical procedures).\nA visual summary of some of the results from this review can be found here." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe World Health Organization (WHO) recommends Artemisinin-based Combination Therapy (ACT) for treating uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. This review aims to assist the decision-making of malaria control programmes by providing an overview of the relative effects of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHA-P) versus other recommended ACTs.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of DHA-P compared to other ACTs for treating uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria in adults and children.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) published in The Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; EMBASE; LILACS, and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) up to July 2013.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials comparing a three-day course of DHA-P to a three-day course of an alternative WHO recommended ACT in uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We analysed primary outcomes in line with the WHO 'Protocol for assessing and monitoring antimalarial drug efficacy’ and compared drugs using risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Secondary outcomes were effects on gametocytes, haemoglobin, and adverse events. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 27 trials, enrolling 16,382 adults and children, and conducted between 2002 and 2010. Most trials excluded infants aged less than six months and pregnant women.\nDHA-P versus artemether-lumefantrine\nIn Africa, over 28 days follow-up, DHA-P is superior to artemether-lumefantrine at preventing further parasitaemia (PCR-unadjusted treatment failure: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.39, nine trials, 6200 participants, high quality evidence), and although PCR-adjusted treatment failure was below 5% for both ACTs, it was consistently lower with DHA-P (PCR-adjusted treatment failure: RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.62, nine trials, 5417 participants, high quality evidence). DHA-P has a longer prophylactic effect on new infections which may last for up to 63 days (PCR-unadjusted treatment failure: RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.78, two trials, 3200 participants, high quality evidence).\nIn Asia and Oceania, no differences have been shown at day 28 (four trials, 1143 participants, moderate quality evidence), or day 63 (one trial, 323 participants, low quality evidence).\nCompared to artemether-lumefantrine, no difference was seen in prolonged QTc (low quality evidence), and no cardiac arrhythmias were reported. The frequency of other adverse events is probably similar with both combinations (moderate quality evidence).\nDHA-P versus artesunate plus mefloquine\nIn Asia, over 28 days follow-up, DHA-P is as effective as artesunate plus mefloquine at preventing further parasitaemia (PCR-unadjusted treatment failure: eight trials, 3487 participants, high quality evidence). Once adjusted by PCR to exclude new infections, treatment failure at day 28 was below 5% for both ACTs in all eight trials, but lower with DHA-P in two trials (PCR-adjusted treatment failure: RR 0.41 95% CI 0.21 to 0.80, eight trials, 3482 participants, high quality evidence). Both combinations contain partner drugs with very long half-lives and no consistent benefit in preventing new infections has been seen over 63 days follow-up (PCR-unadjusted treatment failure: five trials, 2715 participants, moderate quality evidence).\nIn the only trial from South America, there were fewer recurrent parastaemias over 63 days with artesunate plus mefloquine (PCR-unadjusted treatment failure: RR 6.19, 95% CI 1.40 to 27.35, one trial, 445 participants, low quality evidence), but no differences were seen once adjusted for new infections (PCR-adjusted treatment failure: one trial, 435 participants, low quality evidence).\nDHA-P is associated with less nausea, vomiting, dizziness, sleeplessness, and palpitations compared to artesunate plus mefloquine (moderate quality evidence). DHA-P was associated with more frequent prolongation of the QTc interval (low quality evidence), but no cardiac arrhythmias were reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn Africa, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine reduces overall treatment failure compared to artemether-lumefantrine, although both drugs have PCR-adjusted failure rates of less than 5%. In Asia, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine is as effective as artesunate plus mefloquine, and is better tolerated.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What the research says\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "DHA-P versus artemether lumefantrine\nIn studies of people living in Africa, both DHA-P and artemether-lumefantrine are very effective at treating malaria (high quality evidence). However, DHA-P cures slightly more patients than artemether-lumefantrine, and it also prevents further malaria infections for longer after treatment (high quality evidence). DHA-P and artemether-lumefantrine probably have similar side effects (moderate quality evidence).\nDHA-P versus artesunate plus mefloquine\nIn studies of people living in Asia, DHA-P is as effective as artesunate plus mefloquine at treating malaria (moderate quality evidence). Artesunate plus mefloquine probably causes more nausea, vomiting, dizziness, sleeplessness, and palpitations than DHA-P (moderate quality evidence).\nOverall, in some people, DHA-P has been seen to cause short term changes in electrocardiographs tracing the conduction of the heart rhythm (low quality evidence), but these small changes on the electrocardiograph resolved within one week without serious consequences." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe success of elective colorectal surgery is mainly influenced by the surgical procedure and postoperative complications. The most serious complications include anastomotic leakages and surgical site infections (SSI)s, which can lead to prolonged recovery with impaired long-term health. \nCompared with other abdominal procedures, colorectal resections have an increased risk of adverse events due to the physiological bacterial colonisation of the large bowel. Preoperative bowel preparation is used to remove faeces from the bowel lumen and reduce bacterial colonisation. This bowel preparation can be performed mechanically and/or with oral antibiotics. While mechanical bowel preparation alone is not beneficial, the benefits and harms of combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation is still unclear.\nObjectives\nTo assess the evidence for the use of combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation for preventing complications in elective colorectal surgery.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and trial registries on 15 December 2021. \nIn addition, we searched reference lists and contacted colorectal surgery organisations.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adult participants undergoing elective colorectal surgery comparing combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (MBP+oAB) with either MBP alone, oAB alone, or no bowel preparation (nBP). We excluded studies in which no perioperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis was given.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. Pooled results were reported as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The certainty of the evidence was assessed with GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 21 RCTs analysing 5264 participants who underwent elective colorectal surgery.\nNone of the included studies had a high risk of bias, but two-thirds of the included studies raised some concerns. This was mainly due to the lack of a predefined analysis plan or missing information about the randomisation process.\nMost included studies investigated both colon and rectal resections due to malignant and benign surgical indications. For MBP as well as oAB, the included studies used different regimens in terms of agent(s), dosage and timing. \nData for all predefined outcomes could be extracted from the included studies. However, only four studies reported on side effects of bowel preparation, and none recorded the occurrence of adverse effects such as dehydration, electrolyte imbalances or the need to discontinue the intervention due to side effects.\nSeventeen trials compared MBP+oAB with sole MBP.\nThe incidence of SSI could be reduced through MBP+oAB by 44% (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.74; 3917 participants from 16 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and the risk of anastomotic leakage could be reduced by 40% (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.99; 2356 participants from 10 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). No difference between the two comparison groups was found with regard to mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.82; 639 participants from 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), the incidence of postoperative ileus (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.32; 2013 participants from 6 studies, low-certainty of evidence) and length of hospital stay (MD -0.19, 95% CI -1.81 to 1.44; 621 participants from 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence).\nThree trials compared MBP+oAB with sole oAB.\nNo difference was demonstrated between the two treatment alternatives in terms of SSI (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.21; 960 participants from 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence), anastomotic leakage (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.45; 960 participants from 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.50; 709 participants from 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), incidence of postoperative ileus (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.33; 709 participants from 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) or length of hospital stay (MD 0.1 respectively 0.2, 95% CI -0.68 to 1.08; data from 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence).\nOne trial (396 participants) compared MBP+oAB versus nBP. The evidence is uncertain about the effect of MBP+oAB on the incidence of SSI as well as mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.23 respectively RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.22; low-certainty evidence), while no effect on the risk of anastomotic leakages (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.42; low-certainty evidence), the incidence of postoperative ileus (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81; low-certainty evidence) or the length of hospital stay (MD 0.1, 95% CI -0.8 to 1; low-certainty evidence) could be demonstrated.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on moderate-certainty evidence, our results suggest that MBP+oAB is probably more effective than MBP alone in preventing postoperative complications. In particular, with respect to our primary outcomes, SSI and anastomotic leakage, a lower incidence was demonstrated using MBP+oAB. Whether oAB alone is actually equivalent to MBP+oAB, or leads to a reduction or increase in the risk of postoperative complications, cannot be clarified in light of the low- to very low-certainty evidence. Similarly, it remains unclear whether omitting preoperative bowel preparation leads to an increase in the risk of postoperative complications due to limited evidence.\nAdditional RCTs, particularly on the comparisons of MBP+oAB versus oAB alone or nBP, are needed to assess the impact of oAB alone or nBP compared with MBP+oAB on postoperative complications and to improve confidence in the estimated effect. In addition, RCTs focusing on subgroups (e.g. in relation to type and location of colon resections) or reporting side effects of the intervention are needed to determine the most effective approach of preoperative bowel preparation.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the purpose of preoperative bowel preparation?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Due to the naturally bacterial colonisation of the large bowel, infections of the surgical site are more frequent after operations in which the large bowel is opened. To prevent these infections, bowel preparation before surgery is intended to reduce faecal contamination of the bowel and minimise bacterial colonisation." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nA promising approach to the treatment of chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure is the use of stem cells. The last decade has seen a plethora of randomised controlled trials developed worldwide, which have generated conflicting results.\nObjectives\nThe critical evaluation of clinical evidence on the safety and efficacy of autologous adult bone marrow-derived stem/progenitor cells as a treatment for chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, and four ongoing trial databases for relevant trials up to 14 December 2015.\nSelection criteria\nEligible studies were randomised controlled trials comparing autologous adult stem/progenitor cells with no cells in people with chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure. We included co-interventions, such as primary angioplasty, surgery, or administration of stem cell mobilising agents, when administered to treatment and control arms equally.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened all references for eligibility, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We undertook a quantitative evaluation of data using random-effects meta-analyses. We evaluated heterogeneity using the I2 statistic and explored substantial heterogeneity (I2 greater than 50%) through subgroup analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADEprofiler (GRADEpro), excluding studies with a high or unclear risk of selection bias. We focused our summary of findings on long-term follow-up of mortality, morbidity outcomes, and left ventricular ejection fraction measured by magnetic resonance imaging.\nMain results\nWe included 38 randomised controlled trials involving 1907 participants (1114 cell therapy, 793 controls) in this review update. Twenty-three trials were at high or unclear risk of selection bias. Other sources of potential bias included lack of blinding of participants (12 trials) and full or partial commercial sponsorship (13 trials).\nCell therapy reduced the incidence of long-term mortality (≥ 12 months) (risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 0.87; participants = 491; studies = 9; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Periprocedural adverse events associated with the mapping or cell/placebo injection procedure were infrequent. Cell therapy was also associated with a long-term reduction in the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.97; participants = 345; studies = 5; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) and incidence of arrhythmias (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.99; participants = 82; studies = 1; low-quality evidence). However, we found no evidence that cell therapy affects the risk of rehospitalisation for heart failure (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.09; participants = 375; studies = 6; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) or composite incidence of mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and/or rehospitalisation for heart failure (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.08; participants = 141; studies = 3; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence), or long-term left ventricular ejection fraction when measured by magnetic resonance imaging (mean difference -1.60, 95% CI -8.70 to 5.50; participants = 25; studies = 1; low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis systematic review and meta-analysis found low-quality evidence that treatment with bone marrow-derived stem/progenitor cells reduces mortality and improves left ventricular ejection fraction over short- and long-term follow-up and may reduce the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction and improve New York Heart Association (NYHA) Functional Classification in people with chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure. These findings should be interpreted with caution, as event rates were generally low, leading to a lack of precision.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We included 38 randomised controlled trials involving more than 1900 participants in this review, with 14 trials of chronic ischaemic heart disease, 17 trials of ischaemic heart failure secondary to heart disease, and seven trials of refractory or intractable angina. The mean age of participants ranged from 55 to 70 years, and the proportion of male participants ranged from 51% to 100%." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCommunity-based primary-level workers (PWs) are an important strategy for addressing gaps in mental health service delivery in low- and middle-income countries.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of PW-led treatments for persons with mental health symptoms in LMICs, compared to usual care.\nSearch methods\nMEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP, reference lists (to 20 June 2019).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials of PW-led or collaborative-care interventions treating people with mental health symptoms or their carers in LMICs.\nPWs included: primary health professionals (PHPs), lay health workers (LHWs), community non-health professionals (CPs).\nData collection and analysis\nSeven conditions were identified apriori and analysed by disorder and PW examining recovery, prevalence, symptom change, quality-of-life (QOL), functioning, service use (SU), and adverse events (AEs).\nRisk ratios (RRs) were used for dichotomous outcomes; mean difference (MDs), standardised mean differences (SMDs), or mean change differences (MCDs) for continuous outcomes.\nFor SMDs, 0.20 to 0.49 represented small, 0.50 to 0.79 moderate, and ≥0.80 large clinical effects.\nAnalysis timepoints: T1 (<1 month), T2 (1-6 months), T3 ( >6 months) post-intervention.\nMain results\nDescription of studies\n95 trials (72 new since 2013) from 30 LMICs (25 trials from 13 LICs).\nRisk of bias\nMost common: detection bias, attrition bias (efficacy), insufficient protection against contamination.\nIntervention effects\n*Unless indicated, comparisons were usual care at T2.\n“Probably”, “may”, or “uncertain” indicates \"moderate\", \"low,\" or \"very low\" certainty evidence.\nAdults with common mental disorders (CMDs)\nLHW-led interventions\na. may increase recovery (2 trials, 308 participants; RR 1.29, 95%CI 1.06 to 1.56);\nb. may reduce prevalence (2 trials, 479 participants; RR 0.42, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.96);\nc. may reduce symptoms (4 trials, 798 participants; SMD -0.59, 95%CI -1.01 to -0.16);\nd. may improve QOL (1 trial, 521 participants; SMD 0.51, 95%CI 0.34 to 0.69);\ne. may slightly reduce functional impairment (3 trials, 1399 participants; SMD -0.47, 95%CI -0.8 to -0.15);\nf. may reduce AEs (risk of suicide ideation/attempts);\ng. may have uncertain effects on SU.\nCollaborative-care\na. may increase recovery (5 trials, 804 participants; RR 2.26, 95%CI 1.50 to 3.43);\nb. may reduce prevalence although the actual effect range indicates it may have little-or-no effect (2 trials, 2820 participants; RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.32 to 1.01);\nc. may slightly reduce symptoms (6 trials, 4419 participants; SMD -0.35, 95%CI -0.63 to -0.08);\nd. may slightly improve QOL (6 trials, 2199 participants; SMD 0.34, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.53);\ne. probably has little-to-no effect on functional impairment (5 trials, 4216 participants; SMD -0.13, 95%CI -0.28 to 0.03);\nf. may reduce SU (referral to MH specialists);\ng. may have uncertain effects on AEs (death).\nWomen with perinatal depression (PND)\nLHW-led interventions\na. may increase recovery (4 trials, 1243 participants; RR 1.29, 95%CI 1.08 to 1.54);\nb. probably slightly reduce symptoms (5 trials, 1989 participants; SMD -0.26, 95%CI -0.37 to -0.14);\nc. may slightly reduce functional impairment (4 trials, 1856 participants; SMD -0.23, 95%CI -0.41 to -0.04);\nd. may have little-to-no effect on AEs (death);\ne. may have uncertain effects on SU.\nCollaborative-care\na. has uncertain effects on symptoms/QOL/SU/AEs.\nAdults with post-traumatic stress (PTS) or CMDs in humanitarian settings\nLHW-led interventions\na. may slightly reduce depression symptoms (5 trials, 1986 participants; SMD -0.36, 95%CI -0.56 to -0.15);\nb. probably slightly improve QOL (4 trials, 1918 participants; SMD -0.27, 95%CI -0.39 to -0.15);\nc. may have uncertain effects on symptoms (PTS)/functioning/SU/AEs.\nPHP-led interventions\na. may reduce PTS symptom prevalence (1 trial, 313 participants; RR 5.50, 95%CI 2.50 to 12.10) and depression prevalence (1 trial, 313 participants; RR 4.60, 95%CI 2.10 to 10.08);\nb. may have uncertain effects on symptoms/functioning/SU/AEs.\nAdults with harmful/hazardous alcohol or substance use\nLHW-led interventions\na. may increase recovery from harmful/hazardous alcohol use although the actual effect range indicates it may have little-or-no effect (4 trials, 872 participants; RR 1.28, 95%CI 0.94 to 1.74);\nb. may have little-to-no effect on the prevalence of methamphetamine use (1 trial, 882 participants; RR 1.01, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.13) and  functional impairment (2 trials, 498 participants; SMD -0.14, 95%CI -0.32 to 0.03);\nc. probably slightly reduce risk of harmful/hazardous alcohol use (3 trials, 667 participants; SMD -0.22, 95%CI -0.32 to -0.11);\nd. may have uncertain effects on SU/AEs.\nPHP/CP-led interventions\na. probably have little-to-no effect on recovery from harmful/hazardous alcohol use (3 trials, 1075 participants; RR 0.93, 95%CI 0.77 to 1.12) or QOL (1 trial, 560 participants; MD 0.00, 95%CI -0.10 to 0.10);\nb. probably slightly reduce risk of harmful/hazardous alcohol and substance use (2 trials, 705 participants; SMD -0.20, 95%CI -0.35 to -0.05; moderate-certainty evidence);\nc. may have uncertain effects on prevalence (cannabis use)/SU/AEs.\nPW-led interventions for alcohol/substance dependence\na. may have uncertain effects.\nAdults with severe mental disorders\n*Comparisons were specialist-led care at T1.\nLHW-led interventions\na. may have little-to-no effect on caregiver burden (1 trial, 253 participants; MD -0.04, 95%CI -0.18 to 0.11);\nb. may have uncertain effects on symptoms/functioning/SU/AEs.\nPHP-led or collaborative-care\na. may reduce functional impairment (7 trials, 874 participants; SMD -1.13, 95%CI -1.78 to -0.47);\nb. may have uncertain effects on recovery/relapse/symptoms/QOL/SU.\nAdults with dementia and carers\nPHP/LHW-led carer interventions\na. may have little-to-no effect on the severity of behavioural symptoms in dementia patients (2 trials, 134 participants; SMD -0.26, 95%CI -0.60 to 0.08);\nb. may reduce carers' mental distress (2 trials, 134 participants; SMD -0.47, 95%CI -0.82 to -0.13);\nc. may have uncertain effects on QOL/functioning/SU/AEs.\nChildren with PTS or CMDs\nLHW-led interventions\na. may have little-to-no effect on PTS symptoms (3 trials, 1090 participants; MCD -1.34, 95%CI -2.83 to 0.14);\nb. probably have little-to-no effect on depression symptoms (3 trials, 1092 participants; MCD -0.61, 95%CI -1.23 to 0.02) or on functional impairment (3 trials, 1092 participants; MCD -0.81, 95%CI -1.48 to -0.13);\nc. may have little-or-no effect on AEs.\nCP-led interventions\na. may have little-to-no effect on depression symptoms (2 trials, 602 participants; SMD -0.19, 95%CI -0.57 to 0.19) or on AEs;\nb. may have uncertain effects on recovery/symptoms(PTS)/functioning.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPW-led interventions show promising benefits in improving outcomes for CMDs, PND, PTS, harmful alcohol/substance use, and dementia carers in LMICs.\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": "Primary health professionals, lay health workers, teachers, and other community workers may be able to help people with mental health issues if they are trained. However, more evidence is needed." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nInadequate pain management after surgery increases the risk of postoperative complications and may predispose for chronic postsurgical pain. Perioperative ketamine may enhance conventional analgesics in the acute postoperative setting.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of perioperative intravenous ketamine in adult patients when used for the treatment or prevention of acute pain following general anaesthesia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to July 2018 and three trials registers (metaRegister of controlled trials, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)) together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe sought randomised, double-blind, controlled trials of adults undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia and being treated with perioperative intravenous ketamine. Studies compared ketamine with placebo, or compared ketamine plus a basic analgesic, such as morphine or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), with a basic analgesic alone.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, examined issues of study quality and potential bias, and performed analyses. Primary outcomes were opioid consumption and pain intensity at rest and during movement at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were time to first analgesic request, assessment of postoperative hyperalgesia, central nervous system (CNS) adverse effects, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.\nMain results\nWe included 130 studies with 8341 participants. Ketamine was given to 4588 participants and 3753 participants served as controls. Types of surgery included ear, nose or throat surgery, wisdom tooth extraction, thoracotomy, lumbar fusion surgery, microdiscectomy, hip joint replacement surgery, knee joint replacement surgery, anterior cruciate ligament repair, knee arthroscopy, mastectomy, haemorrhoidectomy, abdominal surgery, radical prostatectomy, thyroid surgery, elective caesarean section, and laparoscopic surgery. Racemic ketamine bolus doses were predominantly 0.25 mg to 1 mg, and infusions 2 to 5 µg/kg/minute; 10 studies used only S-ketamine and one only R-ketamine. Risk of bias was generally low or uncertain, except for study size; most had fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm, resulting in high heterogeneity, as expected, for most analyses. We did not stratify the main analysis by type of surgery or any other factor, such as dose or timing of ketamine administration, and used a non-stratified analysis.\nPerioperative intravenous ketamine reduced postoperative opioid consumption over 24 hours by 8 mg morphine equivalents (95% CI 6 to 9; 19% from 42 mg consumed by participants given placebo, moderate-quality evidence; 65 studies, 4004 participants). Over 48 hours, opioid consumption was 13 mg lower (95% CI 10 to 15; 19% from 67 mg with placebo, moderate-quality evidence; 37 studies, 2449 participants).\nPerioperative intravenous ketamine reduced pain at rest at 24 hours by 5/100 mm on a visual analogue scale (95% CI 4 to 7; 19% lower from 26/100 mm with placebo, high-quality evidence; 82 studies, 5004 participants), and at 48 hours by 5/100 mm (95% CI 3 to 7; 22% lower from 23/100 mm, high-quality evidence; 49 studies, 2962 participants). Pain during movement was reduced at 24 hours (6/100 mm, 14% lower from 42/100 mm, moderate-quality evidence; 29 studies, 1806 participants), and 48 hours (6/100 mm, 16% lower from 37 mm, low-quality evidence; 23 studies, 1353 participants).\nResults for primary outcomes were consistent when analysed by pain at rest or on movement, operation type, and timing of administration, or sensitivity to study size and pain intensity. No analysis by dose was possible. There was no difference when nitrous oxide was used. We downgraded the quality of the evidence once if numbers of participants were large but small-study effects were present, or twice if numbers were small and small-study effects likely but testing not possible.\nKetamine increased the time for the first postoperative analgesic request by 54 minutes (95% CI 37 to 71 minutes), from a mean of 39 minutes with placebo (moderate-quality evidence; 31 studies, 1678 participants). Ketamine reduced the area of postoperative hyperalgesia by 7 cm² (95% CI −11.9 to −2.2), compared with placebo (very low-quality evidence; 7 studies 333 participants). We downgraded the quality of evidence because of small-study effects or because the number of participants was below 400.\nCNS adverse events occurred in 52 studies, while 53 studies reported of absence of CNS adverse events. Overall, 187/3614 (5%) participants receiving ketamine and 122/2924 (4%) receiving control treatment experienced an adverse event (RR 1.2, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.4; high-quality evidence; 105 studies, 6538 participants). Ketamine reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting from 27% with placebo to 23% with ketamine (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.96; the number needed to treat to prevent one episode of postoperative nausea and vomiting with perioperative intravenous ketamine administration was 24 (95% CI 16 to 54; high-quality evidence; 95 studies, 5965 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nPerioperative intravenous ketamine probably reduces postoperative analgesic consumption and pain intensity. Results were consistent in different operation types or timing of ketamine administration, with larger and smaller studies, and by higher and lower pain intensity. CNS adverse events were little different with ketamine or control. Perioperative intravenous ketamine probably reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting by a small extent, of arguable clinical relevance.\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": "Poor pain management after an operation increases the risk of complications, decreases quality of life, and increases the risk for chronic pain. Painkillers such as paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ibuprofen, diclofenac), alone may be insufficient. Opioids (strong painkillers), often cause side effects. Studies suggested that ketamine used by injection during an operation helps to relieve pain after the operation." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPatients with a low platelet count (thrombocytopenia) often require the insertion of central lines (central venous catheters (CVCs)). CVCs have a number of uses; these include: administration of chemotherapy; intensive monitoring and treatment of critically-ill patients; administration of total parenteral nutrition; and long-term intermittent intravenous access for patients requiring repeated treatments. Current practice in many countries is to correct thrombocytopenia with platelet transfusions prior to CVC insertion, in order to mitigate the risk of serious procedure-related bleeding. However, the platelet count threshold recommended prior to CVC insertion varies significantly from country to country. This indicates significant uncertainty among clinicians of the correct management of these patients. The risk of bleeding after a central line insertion appears to be low if an ultrasound-guided technique is used. Patients may therefore be exposed to the risks of a platelet transfusion without any obvious clinical benefit.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of different platelet transfusion thresholds prior to the insertion of a central line in patients with thrombocytopenia (low platelet count).\nSearch methods\nWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 2), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950) and ongoing trial databases to 23 February 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs involving transfusions of platelet concentrates, prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given to prevent bleeding in patients of any age with thrombocytopenia requiring insertion of a CVC.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nOne RCT was identified that compared different platelet transfusion thresholds prior to insertion of a CVC in people with chronic liver disease. This study is still recruiting participants (expected recruitment: up to 165 participants) and is due to be completed in December 2017. There were no completed studies. There were no studies that compared no platelet transfusions to a platelet transfusion threshold.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no evidence from RCTs to determine whether platelet transfusions are required prior to central line insertion in patients with thrombocytopenia, and, if a platelet transfusion is required, what is the correct platelet transfusion threshold. Further randomised trials with robust methodology are required to develop the optimal transfusion strategy for such patients. The one ongoing RCT involving people with cirrhosis will not be able to answer this review's questions, because it is a small study that assesses one patient group and does not address all of the comparisons included in this review. To detect an increase in the proportion of participants who had major bleeding from 1 in 100 to 2 in 100 would require a study containing at least 4634 participants (80% power, 5% significance).\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "There are no results from the one eligible study because it is still recruiting participants. This ongoing study (expected to recruit 165 participants) will be unable to provide sufficient data for this review's primary outcomes because major bleeding and mortality are uncommon. We would need to design a study with at least 4634 participants to be able to detect an increase in the number of people who had major bleeding from 1 in 100 to 2 in 100." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEpilepsy is a neurological disorder affecting both children and adults. Epileptic seizures are the result of excessive and abnormal cortical cell electrical activity in the brain. In response to criticism that epilepsy care for children has little impact on long-term outcomes, healthcare professionals and administrators have developed various service models and strategies to address perceived inadequacies.\nThis is an updated version of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2018.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of any specialised or dedicated intervention for epilepsy versus usual care in children and adolescents with epilepsy and their families.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases on 14 January 2020: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 13 January 2020), PsycINFO (1887 to 14 January 2020), CINAHL Plus (1937 to 14 January 2020), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). We also contacted experts in the field seeking information on unpublished and ongoing studies and checked the websites of epilepsy organisations and the reference lists of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials recruiting children and adolescents with epilepsy.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: 1. Seizure frequency and severity; 2. Appropriateness and volume of medication prescribed (including evidence of drug toxicity); 3. Participants' reported knowledge of information and advice received from professionals; 4. Participants' reports of health and quality of life; 5. Objective measures of general health status; 6. Objective measures of social or psychological functioning (including the number of days spent on sick leave/absence from school or work, and employment status); and 7. Costs of care or treatment. The results of the data extraction and quality assessment for each study were presented in structured tables and as a narrative summary. All summary statistics were extracted for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included nine studies of eight interventions in the review, reporting on seven distinct self-management programmes for educating or counselling children with epilepsy and their parents, and one new model of care. Based largely on self-reported outcomes, each programme showed some benefits for the well-being of children with epilepsy; however, all of the included studies had methodological flaws. No single programme was evaluated with different study samples, and in no instance was the same outcome measured and reported in the same way across studies, precluding any possible meta-analysis, even if the interventions were considered sufficiently similar to include in meta-analysis.\nWe chose the outcomes for which data might be important for decisions about the interventions as per guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We found moderate certainty evidence that one of the educational interventions reduced seizure frequency. There was low certainty evidence that two other educational interventions reduced seizure severity, seizure control, and seizure cure rates. The evidence for all other outcomes (drug adherence, knowledge, self-efficacy and self-perception of epilepsy on quality of life) was mixed.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhilst each of the programmes evaluated in this review showed some benefit to children with epilepsy, their impact was extremely variable. No programme showed benefits across the full range of outcomes, and all studies had methodological problems. There is currently insufficient evidence in favour of any single programme. Further evidence from randomised controlled trials using validated measures and considering clinical meaningfulness as well as statistical significance of results is required.\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 scientific databases for studies in children and adolescents with epilepsy that looked at the effects of self-management of epilepsy. We wanted to look at several outcomes to see how well people with epilepsy and their families generally cope with the condition." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nVitamin A deficiency is a significant public health problem in many low- and middle-income countries, especially affecting young children, women of reproductive age, and pregnant women. Fortification of staple foods with vitamin A has been used to increase vitamin A consumption among these groups.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of fortifying staple foods with vitamin A for reducing vitamin A deficiency and improving health-related outcomes in the general population older than two years of age.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following international databases with no language or date restrictions: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 6) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE and MEDLINE In Process OVID; Embase OVID; CINAHL Ebsco; Web of Science (ISI) SCI, SSCI, CPCI-exp and CPCI-SSH; BIOSIS (ISI); POPLINE; Bibliomap; TRoPHI; ASSIA (Proquest); IBECS; SCIELO; Global Index Medicus - AFRO and EMRO; LILACS; PAHO; WHOLIS; WPRO; IMSEAR; IndMED; and Native Health Research Database. We also searched clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to identify ongoing and unpublished studies. The date of the last search was 19 July 2018.\nSelection criteria\nWe included individually or cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this review. The intervention included fortification of staple foods (sugar, edible oils, edible fats, maize flour or corn meal, wheat flour, milk and dairy products, and condiments and seasonings) with vitamin A alone or in combination with other vitamins and minerals. We included the general population older than two years of age (including pregnant and lactating women) from any country.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened and assessed eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data from included studies and assessed their risk of bias. We used standard Cochrane methodology to carry out the review.\nMain results\nWe included 10 randomised controlled trials involving 4455 participants. All the studies were conducted in low- and upper-middle income countries where vitamin A deficiency was a public health issue. One of the included trials did not contribute data to the outcomes of interest.\nThree trials compared provision of staple foods fortified with vitamin A versus unfortified staple food, five trials compared provision of staple foods fortified with vitamin A plus other micronutrients versus unfortified staple foods, and two trials compared provision of staple foods fortified with vitamin A plus other micronutrients versus no intervention. No studies compared staple foods fortified with vitamin A alone versus no intervention.\nThe duration of interventions ranged from three to nine months. We assessed six studies at high risk of bias overall. Government organisations, non-governmental organisations, the private sector, and academic institutions funded the included studies; funding source does not appear to have distorted the results.\nStaple food fortified with vitamin A versus unfortified staple food\nWe are uncertain whether fortifying staple foods with vitamin A alone makes little or no difference for serum retinol concentration (mean difference (MD) 0.03 μmol/L, 95% CI −0.06 to 0.12; 3 studies, 1829 participants; I² = 90%, very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether vitamin A alone reduces the risk of subclinical vitamin A deficiency (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.05; 2 studies; 993 participants; I² = 33%, very low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was mainly affected by risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency.\nIt is uncertain whether vitamin A fortification reduces clinical vitamin A deficiency, defined as night blindness (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.98; 1 study, 581 participants, very low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was mainly affected by imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias.\nStaple foods fortified with vitamin A versus no intervention\nNo studies provided data for this comparison.\nStaple foods fortified with vitamin A plus other micronutrients versus same unfortified staple foods\nFortifying staple foods with vitamin A plus other micronutrients may not increase the serum retinol concentration (MD 0.08 μmol/L, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.22; 4 studies; 1009 participants; I² = 95%, low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was mainly affected by serious inconsistency and risk of bias.\nIn comparison to unfortified staple foods, fortification with vitamin A plus other micronutrients probably reduces the risk of subclinical vitamin A deficiency (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.49; 3 studies; 923 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was mainly affected by serious risk of bias.\nStaple foods fortified with vitamin A plus other micronutrients versus no intervention\nFortification of staple foods with vitamin A plus other micronutrients may increase serum retinol concentration (MD 0.22 μmol/L, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.30; 2 studies; 318 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). When compared to no intervention, it is uncertain whether the intervention reduces the risk of subclinical vitamin A deficiency (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.98; 2 studies; 318 participants; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence) . The certainty of the evidence was affected mainly by serious imprecision and risk of bias.\nNo trials reported on the outcomes of all-cause morbidity, all-cause mortality, adverse effects, food intake, congenital anomalies (for pregnant women), or breast milk concentration (for lactating women).\nAuthors' conclusions\nFortifying staple foods with vitamin A alone may make little or no difference to serum retinol concentrations or the risk of subclinical vitamin A deficiency. In comparison with provision of unfortified foods, provision of staple foods fortified with vitamin A plus other micronutrients may not increase serum retinol concentration but probably reduces the risk of subclinical vitamin A deficiency.\nCompared to no intervention, staple foods fortified with vitamin A plus other micronutrients may increase serum retinol concentration, although it is uncertain whether the intervention reduces the risk of subclinical vitamin A deficiency as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low.\nIt was not possible to estimate the effect of staple food fortification on outcomes such as mortality, morbidity, adverse effects, congenital anomalies, or breast milk vitamin A, as no trials included these outcomes.\nThe type of funding source for the studies did not appear to distort the results from the analysis.\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": "Fortifiying staple foods with vitamin A plus other micronutrients may increase the serum retinol concentrations (an indicator of vitamin A stores in the body) and reduce the risk of subclinical vitamin A deficiency (those without clinical eye signs for risk of blinding undernutrition, detected through a serum/plasma retinol 70 μmol/L or less). However, adding vitamin A alone to the staple foods may have little or no effect on vitamin A status or deficiency." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThyroid-associated ophthalmopathy (TAO) is the most frequent extrathyroidal manifestation of Graves' disease, affecting up to 50% of patients. It has a great impact on quality of life. Rituximab (RTX) is a human/murine chimeric monoclonal antibody that targets the CD20 receptor on B-lymphocytes. Preliminary work has shown that blocking this CD20 receptor with RTX may affect the clinical course of TAO by reducing inflammation and the degree of proptosis.\nObjectives\nThis review update, originally published in 2013, assesses the efficacy and safety of using RTX for the treatment of TAO.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2022, Issue 2), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS), the ISRCTN registry, clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). There were no language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 22 February 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of RTX administered by intravenous infusion using any dosage regimen for the treatment of active TAO in adults, compared to placebo or glucocorticoids treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently scanned titles and abstracts, and screened full-text reports of potentially relevant studies. The outcomes of interest in this review were: clinical activity score (CAS), NOSPECS severity scale, proptosis (mm), palpebral aperture (mm), extraocular motility (degrees or diplopia rating scale), quality of life and adverse effects.\nMain results\nWe identified two studies that met the inclusion criteria in this updated review. Across both studies, the mean age of participants was 55 years and 77% were women.\nRTX compared to intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP)\nOne study, conducted in Italy, compared RTX (n = 15 after one participant withdrew) with IVMP (n = 16) for active TAO (CAS ≥ 3 out of 7 or 4 out of 10). We judged this study to be at low risk of bias in most domains, but it was stopped early because of disease reactivation in the comparator group (5/16 participants). This study provided low-certainty evidence that RTX may result in CAS improvement at 24 weeks compared to IVMP (15/15 versus 12/16 improved by ≥ 2 points; risk ratio (RR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.78). Only very low-certainty evidence was available for the other outcomes: NOSPECS improvement by 2 or more classes (3/15 versus 3/16; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.25 to 4.49); proptosis improvement by 2 mm or more (0/15 versus 1/16; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.02 to 8.08); palpebral aperture improvement by 3 mm or more (2/15 versus 0/16; RR 5.31, 95% CI 0.28 to 102.38); motility improvement by 1 class or more (3/15 versus 3/16; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.25 to 4.49); and improvement on the Graves’ ophthalmopathy QoL scale by at least 6 points for \"functioning\" (5/14 versus 8/13; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.32), and “appearance” (9/14 versus 6/13; RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.82). Adverse events were more common in the RTX group (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.13; low-certainty evidence). Minor adverse effects (mild infusion reactions) were observed in most people receiving RTX at first infusion. Two participants experienced a major infusion reaction, likely cytokine release syndrome.\nRTX compared to placebo\nOne study, conducted in the USA, enrolled 25 participants with active TAO (CAS ≥ 4 out of 7), comparing RTX (13 participants) to placebo. We judged this study to be at low risk of bias in most domains, but it was stopped early due to recruitment issues. It provided very low-certainty evidence on the following outcomes at 24 weeks: CAS improvement by 2 or more points (4/13 RTX versus 3/12 placebo; RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.40); NOSPECS improvement by 2 or more classes (2/13 versus 2/12; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.15 to 5.56); proptosis improvement by 2 mm or more (2/13 versus 4/12; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.08); palpebral aperture median change (0 mm in RTX group, in both eyes separately, versus -0.5 mm and 0.5 mm in placebo group right and left eye, respectively); motility median diplopia score (3 versus 2.5); SF-12 physical component median score (45.9 versus 40.3) and mental component median score (52.8 versus 46.1). More participants in the RTX group experienced adverse effects (8/13 versus 3/12; RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.84 to 7.18).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of RTX in people with TAO. Future studies investigating RTX in people with active TAO may need to be multi-centre in order to recruit enough participants to make an adequate judgement on the efficacy and safety of this novel therapy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The evidence is current to February 2022." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic pain is defined as pain lasting beyond normal tissue healing time, generally taken to be 12 weeks. It contributes to disability, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, poor quality of life, and healthcare costs. Chronic pain has a weighted mean prevalence in adults of 20%.\nFor many years, the treatment choice for chronic pain included recommendations for rest and inactivity. However, exercise may have specific benefits in reducing the severity of chronic pain, as well as more general benefits associated with improved overall physical and mental health, and physical functioning.\nPhysical activity and exercise programmes are increasingly being promoted and offered in various healthcare systems, and for a variety of chronic pain conditions. It is therefore important at this stage to establish the efficacy and safety of these programmes, and furthermore to address the critical factors that determine their success or failure.\nObjectives\nTo provide an overview of Cochrane Reviews of adults with chronic pain to determine (1) the effectiveness of different physical activity and exercise interventions in reducing pain severity and its impact on function, quality of life, and healthcare use; and (2) the evidence for any adverse effects or harm associated with physical activity and exercise interventions.\nMethods\nWe searched theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) on the Cochrane Library (CDSR 2016, Issue 1) for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), after which we tracked any included reviews for updates, and tracked protocols in case of full review publication until an arbitrary cut-off date of 21 March 2016 (CDSR 2016, Issue 3). We assessed the methodological quality of the reviews using the AMSTAR tool, and also planned to analyse data for each painful condition based on quality of the evidence.\nWe extracted data for (1) self-reported pain severity, (2) physical function (objectively or subjectively measured), (3) psychological function, (4) quality of life, (5) adherence to the prescribed intervention, (6) healthcare use/attendance, (7) adverse events, and (8) death.\nDue to the limited data available, we were unable to directly compare and analyse interventions, and have instead reported the evidence qualitatively.\nMain results\nWe included 21 reviews with 381 included studies and 37,143 participants. Of these, 264 studies (19,642 participants) examined exercise versus no exercise/minimal intervention in adults with chronic pain and were used in the qualitative analysis.\nPain conditions included rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, low back pain, intermittent claudication, dysmenorrhoea, mechanical neck disorder, spinal cord injury, postpolio syndrome, and patellofemoral pain. None of the reviews assessed 'chronic pain' or 'chronic widespread pain' as a general term or specific condition. Interventions included aerobic, strength, flexibility, range of motion, and core or balance training programmes, as well as yoga, Pilates, and tai chi.\nReviews were well performed and reported (based on AMSTAR), and included studies had acceptable risk of bias (with inadequate reporting of attrition and reporting biases). However the quality of evidence was low due to participant numbers (most included studies had fewer than 50 participants in total), length of intervention and follow-up (rarely assessed beyond three to six months). We pooled the results from relevant reviews where appropriate, though results should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality evidence.\nPain severity: several reviews noted favourable results from exercise: only three reviews that reported pain severity found no statistically significant changes in usual or mean pain from any intervention. However, results were inconsistent across interventions and follow-up, as exercise did not consistently bring about a change (positive or negative) in self-reported pain scores at any single point.\nPhysical function: was the most commonly reported outcome measure. Physical function was significantly improved as a result of the intervention in 14 reviews, though even these statistically significant results had only small-to-moderate effect sizes (only one review reported large effect sizes).\nPsychological function and quality of life: had variable results: results were either favourable to exercise (generally small and moderate effect size, with two reviews reporting significant, large effect sizes for quality of life), or showed no difference between groups. There were no negative effects.\nAdherence to the prescribed intervention: could not be assessed in any review. However, risk of withdrawal/dropout was slightly higher in the exercising group (82.8/1000 participants versus 81/1000 participants), though the group difference was non-significant.\nHealthcare use/attendance: was not reported in any review.\nAdverse events, potential harm, and death: only 25% of included studies (across 18 reviews) actively reported adverse events. Based on the available evidence, most adverse events were increased soreness or muscle pain, which reportedly subsided after a few weeks of the intervention. Only one review reported death separately to other adverse events: the intervention was protective against death (based on the available evidence), though did not reach statistical significance.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe quality of the evidence examining physical activity and exercise for chronic pain is low. This is largely due to small sample sizes and potentially underpowered studies. A number of studies had adequately long interventions, but planned follow-up was limited to less than one year in all but six reviews.\nThere were some favourable effects in reduction in pain severity and improved physical function, though these were mostly of small-to-moderate effect, and were not consistent across the reviews. There were variable effects for psychological function and quality of life.\nThe available evidence suggests physical activity and exercise is an intervention with few adverse events that may improve pain severity and physical function, and consequent quality of life. However, further research is required and should focus on increasing participant numbers, including participants with a broader spectrum of pain severity, and lengthening both the intervention itself, and the follow-up period.\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": "In January 2016, we identified 21 Cochrane Reviews which covered 10 different diagnoses (osteoarthritis (a joint disease), rheumatoid arthritis (joint pain and swelling), fibromyalgia (widespread pain condition), low back pain, intermittent claudication (cramping pain in the legs), dysmenorrhoea (period pain), mechanical neck disorders (neck pain), spinal cord injury, postpolio syndrome (a condition occurring in people who have had polio), patellofemoral pain (pain at the front of the knee)). The physical activity or exercise programme used in the trials ranged in frequency, intensity, and type, including land- and water-based activities, those focusing on building strength, endurance, flexibility and range of motion, and muscle activation exercises.\nThe quality of the evidence was low. This was mostly due to the small numbers of people with chronic pain who participated in each reviewed study. Ideally, a study should have hundreds of people assigned to each group, whereas most of the studies included in the review process here had fewer than 50 people in total.\nThere was evidence that physical activity reduced the severity of pain, improved physical function, and had a variable effect on both psychological function and quality of life. However, these results were not found in all studies. The inconsistency could be due to the quality of the studies or because of the mix of different types of physical activity tested in the studies. Additionally, participants had predominantly mild-to-moderate pain, not moderate-to-severe pain." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTelerehabilitation, an emerging method, extends rehabilitative care beyond the hospital, and facilitates multifaceted, often psychotherapeutic approaches to modern management of patients using telecommunication technology at home or in the community. Although a wide range of telerehabilitation interventions are trialed in persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS), evidence for their effectiveness is unclear.\nObjectives\nTo investigate the effectiveness and safety of telerehabilitation intervention in pwMS for improved patient outcomes. Specifically, this review addresses the following questions: does telerehabilitation achieve better outcomes compared with traditional face-to-face intervention; and what types of telerehabilitation interventions are effective, in which setting and influence which specific outcomes (impairment, activity limitation and participation)?\nSearch methods\nWe performed a literature search using the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Review Group Specialised Register( 9 July, 2014.) We handsearched the relevant journals and screened the reference lists of identified studies, and contacted authors for additional data.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that reported telerehabilitation intervention/s in pwMS and compared them with some form of control intervention (such as lower level or different types of intervention, minimal intervention, waiting-list controls or no treatment (or usual care); interventions given in different settings) in adults with MS.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. Three review authors assessed the methodological quality of studies using the GRADEpro software (GRADEpro 2008) for best-evidence synthesis. A meta-analysis was not possible due to marked methodological, clinical and statistical heterogeneity between included trials and between measurement tools used. Hence, we performed a best-evidence synthesis using a qualitative analysis.\nMain results\nNine RCTs, one with two reports, (N = 531 participants, 469 included in analyses) investigated a variety of telerehabilitation interventions in adults with MS. The mean age of participants varied from 41 to 52 years (mean 46.5 years) and mean years since diagnosis from 7.7 to 19.0 years (mean 12.3 years). The majority of the participants were women (proportion ranging from 56% to 87%, mean 74%) and with a relapsing-remitting course of MS. These interventions were complex, with more than one rehabilitation component and included physical activity, educational, behavioural and symptom management programmes.\nAll studies scored 'low' on the methodological quality assessment. Overall, the review found 'low-level' evidence for telerehabilitation interventions in reducing short-term disability and symptoms such as fatigue. There was also 'low-level' evidence supporting telerehabilitation in the longer term for improved functional activities, impairments (such as fatigue, pain, insomnia); and participation measured by quality of life and psychological outcomes. There were limited data on process evaluation (participants'/therapists' satisfaction) and no data available for cost effectiveness. There were no adverse events reported as a result of telerehabilitation interventions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently limited evidence on the efficacy of telerehabilitation in improving functional activities, fatigue and quality of life in adults with MS. A range of telerehabilitation interventions might be an alternative method of delivering services in MS populations. There is insufficient evidence to support on what types of telerehabilitation interventions are effective, and in which setting. More robust trials are needed to build evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of these interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a common disease of the nervous system among young adults, with no cure and causing long-term disability. Rehabilitation provides treatments and therapies to lessen the impact of any disability and improve function. Despite recent advances in MS care including rehabilitation, many people with MS are unable to access these developments due to limited mobility, fatigue and related issues, and costs associated with travel.Telerehabilitation is a newer approach to delivering rehabilitation programmes at the patient’s home or in the community, using telecommunication technology such as phone lines, video technology, internet applications and others. A wide range of telerehabilitation interventions are trialed in persons with multiple sclerosis, however, evidence for their effectiveness is still unclear." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic back pain is an important health problem. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used to treat people with low back pain, especially people with acute back pain. Short term NSAID use is also recommended for pain relief in people with chronic back pain. Two types of NSAIDs are available and used to treat back pain: non-selective NSAIDs and selective COX-2 NSAIDs. In 2008, a Cochrane review identified a small but significant effect from NSAIDs compared to placebo in people with chronic back pain. This is an update of the Cochrane review published in 2008 and focuses on people with chronic low back pain.\nObjectives\nTo determine if NSAIDs are more efficacious than various comparison treatments for non-specific chronic low back pain and if so, which type of NSAID is most efficacious.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and two clinical trials registry databases up to 24 June 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English, German or Dutch. We also screened references cited in relevant reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs (double-blind and single-blind) of NSAIDs used to treat people with chronic low back pain.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened trials for inclusion in this Cochrane review according to the inclusion criteria. One review author extracted the data, and a second review author checked the data. Two review authors independently evaluated the risk of bias of all included trials. If data were clinically homogeneous, we performed a meta-analysis and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 13 trials in this Cochrane review. Ten studies were at 'low' risk of bias. Six studies compared NSAIDs with placebo, and included 1354 participants in total. There is low quality evidence that NSAIDs are more effective than placebo, with a mean difference in pain intensity score from baseline of -6.97 (95% CI −10.74 to −3.19) on a 0 to 100 visual analogue scale (VAS) with a median follow-up of 56 days (interquartile range (IQR) 13 to 91 days). Four studies measured disability using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. There is low quality evidence that NSAIDs are more effective than placebo on disability, with a mean difference from baseline of −0.85 (95% CI −1.30 to −0.40) on a scale from 0 to 24 with a median follow-up of 84 days (IQR 42 to 105 days). All six placebo controlled studies also reported adverse events, and suggested that adverse events are not statistically significant more frequent in participants using NSAIDs compared to placebo (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.17). Due to the relatively small sample size and relatively short follow-up in most included trials, it is likely that the proportion of patients experiencing an adverse event is underestimated.\nTwo studies compared different types of non-selective NSAIDs, namely ibuprofen versus diclofenac and piroxicam versus indomethacin. The trials did not find any differences between these NSAID types, but both trials had small sample sizes. One trial reported no differences in pain intensity between treatment groups that used selective or non-selective NSAIDs. One other trial compared diflunisal with paracetamol and showed no difference in improvement from baseline on pain intensity score. One trial showed a better global improvement in favour of celecoxib versus tramadol.\nOne included trial compared NSAIDs with 'home-based exercise'. Disability improved more in participants who did exercises versus participants receiving NSAIDs, but pain scores were similar.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSix of the 13 included RCTs showed that NSAIDs are more effective than placebo regarding pain intensity. NSAIDs are slightly more effective than placebo regarding disability. However, the magnitude of the effects is small, and the level of evidence was low. When we only included RCTs at low risk of bias, differences in effect between NSAIDs and placebo were reduced. We identified no difference in efficacy between different NSAID types, including selective versus non-selective NSAIDs. Due to inclusion of RCTs only, the relatively small sample sizes and relatively short follow-up in most included trials, we cannot make firm statements about the occurrence of adverse events or whether NSAIDs are safe for long-term use.\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 assessed the evidence regarding the effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) among people with chronic low back pain. NSAIDs were compared to placebo, other NSAIDs, other drugs or other kinds of treatment." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAntiplatelet agents may be useful for the treatment of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) when used in addition to best medical practice (BMP), which includes anticoagulation, compression stockings, and clinical care such as physical exercise, skin hydration, etc. Antiplatelet agents could minimise complications such as post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) and pulmonary embolism (PE). They may also reduce the recurrence of the disease (recurrent venous thromboembolism (recurrent VTE)). However, antiplatelet agents may increase the likelihood of bleeding events.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of antiplatelet agents in addition to current BMP compared to current BMP (with or without placebo) for the treatment of DVT.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 7 December 2021. The review authors searched LILACS and IBECS databases (15 December 2021) and also checked the bibliographies of included trials for further references to relevant trials, and contacted specialists in the field, manufacturers and authors of the included trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining antiplatelet agents compared to BMP following initial standard anticoagulation treatment for DVT. We included studies where antiplatelet agents were given in addition to current BMP compared to current BMP (with or without placebo) for the treatment of DVT (acute: treatment started within 21 days of symptom onset; chronic: treatment started after 21 days of symptom onset). We evaluated only RCTs where the antiplatelet agents were the unique difference between the groups (intervention and control).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the trials. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third review author. We calculated outcome effects using risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and the number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB).\nMain results\nWe included six studies with 1625 eligible participants, with data up to 37.2 months of follow-up. For one preplanned comparison (i.e. antiplatelet agents plus BMP versus BMP plus placebo) for acute DVT we identified no eligible studies for inclusion.\nIn acute DVT, antiplatelet agents plus BMP versus BMP alone was assessed by one study (500 participants), which reported on four outcomes until 6 months of follow-up. There were no deaths and no cases of major bleeding reported. The participants who received antiplatelet agents showed a lower risk of PTS (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.91; 1 study, 500 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The control group presented a lower risk of adverse events compared to the intervention group (RR 2.88, 95% CI 1.06 to 7.80; 1 study, 500 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This study did not provide information for recurrent VTE or PE.\nIn chronic DVT, antiplatelet agents plus BMP versus BMP alone was assessed by one study (224 participants). The study authors reported four relevant outcomes, three of which (major bleeding, mortality and adverse events) showed no events during the 3 years of follow-up. Therefore, an effect estimate could only be reported for recurrent VTE, favouring antiplatelet agents plus BMP versus BMP alone (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34; 1 study, 224 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For the outcomes PE and PTS, this study did not present information which could be used for analysis.\nIn chronic DVT, antiplatelet agents plus BMP versus BMP plus placebo was assessed by four studies (901 participants). The meta-analysis of this pooled data showed a lower risk of recurrent VTE for the antiplatelet agents group (RR 0.65, 95%, CI 0.43 to 0.96; NNTB = 14; low-certainty evidence). For major bleeding, we found no clear difference between placebo and intervention groups until 37.2 months of follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.29 to 3.34; 1 study, 583 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In PE fatal/non-fatal outcome, we found no clear difference with the use of antiplatelet agents (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.14; 1 study, 583 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For all-cause mortality, the overall effect of antiplatelet agents did not differ from the placebo group (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.06; 3 studies, 649 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The adverse events outcome did not show a clear difference (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.34 to 7.19; 2 studies, 621 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is no assessment of PTS in these studies.\nWe downgraded the certainty of evidence for risk of bias, indirectness, imprecision and publication bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn chronic DVT settings, following the initial standard treatment with anticoagulants, there is low-certainty evidence that antiplatelet agents in addition to BMP may reduce recurrent VTE, (NNTB = 14) when compared to BMP plus placebo. Moderate-certainty evidence shows no clear difference in adverse events, major bleeding and PE when antiplatelet agents are used in addition to BMP compared to BMP plus placebo.\nIn acute and chronic DVT settings, following the initial standard treatment with anticoagulants, we can draw no conclusions for antiplatelet agents in addition to BMP compared to BMP alone due to very low-certainty evidence.\nTrials of high methodological quality, that are large and of sufficient duration to detect significant clinical outcomes are needed. Trials should ideally last more than 4 years in order to estimate the long-term effect of antiplatelet agents. Trials should include people with acute and chronic DVT and provide relevant individual data, such as the outcome for each index event (DVT or PE), the use of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter, whether the DVT is provoked or unprovoked, and the age of participants.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Our confidence in the evidence was limited or very limited because few people experienced the outcomes, and some studies' limitations could introduce errors, for example randomisation and selective reporting concerns, poorly-defined outcomes and duplicate publication.\nFuture high-quality studies may produce important data, especially for results such as death and side effects, as well as the treatment of acute DVT." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHeavy alcohol consumption causes alcoholic liver disease and is a causal factor of many types of liver injuries and concomitant diseases. It is a true systemic disease that may damage the digestive tract, the nervous system, the heart and vascular system, the bone and skeletal muscle system, and the endocrine and immune system, and can lead to cancer. Liver damage in turn, can present as multiple alcoholic liver diseases, including fatty liver, steatohepatitis, fibrosis, alcoholic cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma, with presence or absence of hepatitis B or C virus infection. There are three scarring types (fibrosis) that are most commonly found in alcoholic liver disease: centrilobular scarring, pericellular fibrosis, and periportal fibrosis. When liver fibrosis progresses, alcoholic cirrhosis occurs. Hepatocellular carcinoma occurs in 5% to 15% of people with alcoholic cirrhosis, but people in whom hepatocellular carcinoma has developed are often co-infected with hepatitis B or C virus.\nAbstinence from alcohol may help people with alcoholic disease in improving their prognosis of survival at any stage of their disease; however, the more advanced the stage, the higher the risk of complications, co-morbidities, and mortality, and lesser the effect of abstinence. Being abstinent one month after diagnosis of early cirrhosis will improve the chance of a seven-year life expectancy by 1.6 times. Liver transplantation is the only radical method that may change the prognosis of a person with alcoholic liver disease; however, besides the difficulties of finding a suitable liver transplant organ, there are many other factors that may influence a person's survival.\nUltrasound is an inexpensive method that has been used for years in clinical practice to diagnose alcoholic cirrhosis. Ultrasound parameters for assessing cirrhosis in people with alcoholic liver disease encompass among others liver size, bluntness of the liver edge, coarseness of the liver parenchyma, nodularity of the liver surface, size of the lymph nodes around the hepatic artery, irregularity and narrowness of the inferior vena cava, portal vein velocity, and spleen size.\nDiagnosis of cirrhosis by ultrasound, especially in people who are asymptomatic, may have its advantages for the prognosis, motivation, and treatment of these people to decrease their alcohol consumption or become abstinent.\nTimely diagnosis of alcoholic cirrhosis in people with alcoholic liver disease is the cornerstone for evaluation of prognosis or choosing treatment strategies.\nObjectives\nTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography for detecting the presence or absence of cirrhosis in people with alcoholic liver disease compared with liver biopsy as reference standard.\nTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of any of the ultrasonography tests, B-mode or echo-colour Doppler ultrasonography, used singly or combined, or plus ultrasonography signs, or a combination of these, for detecting hepatic cirrhosis in people with alcoholic liver disease compared with liver biopsy as a reference standard, irrespective of sequence.\nSearch methods\nWe performed searches in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies Register, The Cochrane Library (Wiley), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), and the Science Citation Index Expanded to 8 January 2015. We applied no language limitations.\nWe screened study references of the retrieved studies to identify other potentially relevant studies for inclusion in the review and read abstract and poster publications.\nSelection criteria\nThree review authors independently identified studies for possible inclusion in the review. We excluded references not fulfilling the inclusion criteria of the review protocol. We sent e-mails to study authors.\nThe included studies had to evaluate ultrasound in the diagnosis of hepatic cirrhosis using only liver biopsy as the reference standard.\nThe maximum time interval of investigation with liver biopsy and ultrasonography should not have exceeded six months. In addition, ultrasonography could have been performed before or after liver biopsy.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy.\nMain results\nThe review included two studies that provided numerical data regarding alcoholic cirrhosis in 205 men and women with alcoholic liver disease. Although there were no applicability concerns in terms of participant selection, index text, and reference standard, we judged the two studies at high risk of bias. Participants in both studies had undergone both liver biopsy and ultrasonography investigations. The studies shared only a few comparable clinical signs and symptoms (index tests).\nWe decided to not perform a meta-analysis due to the high risk of bias and the high degree of heterogeneity of the included studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAs the accuracy of ultrasonography in the two included studies was not informative enough, we could not recommend the use of ultrasonography as a diagnostic tool for liver cirrhosis in people with alcoholic liver disease. In order to be able to answer the review questions, we need diagnostic ultrasonography prospective studies of adequate sample size, enrolling only participants with alcoholic liver disease.\nThe design and report of the studies should follow the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. The sonographic features, with validated cut-offs, which may help identify clinical signs used for diagnosis of fibrosis in alcoholic liver disease, should be carefully selected to achieve maximum diagnostic accuracy on ultrasonography.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Methods\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched the medical literature to retrieve studies for the review to 8 January 2015." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThalassaemia is a quantitative abnormality of haemoglobin caused by mutations in genes controlling production of alpha or beta globins. Abnormally unpaired globin chains cause membrane damage and cell death within organ systems and destruction of erythroid precursors in the bone marrow, leading to haemolytic anaemia. The life-long management of the general health effects of thalassaemia is highly challenging, and failure to deal with dental and orthodontic complications exacerbates the public health, financial and personal burden of the condition. There is a lack of evidence-based guidelines to help care seekers and providers manage such dental and orthodontic complications. This review aimed to evaluate the available evidence on methods for treating dental and orthodontic complications in people with thalassaemia to inform future recommendations. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2019.\nObjectives\nTo assess different methods for treating dental and orthodontic complications in people with thalassaemia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register in September 2022, and we searched nine online databases and trials registries in January 2022. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews and contacted haematologists, experts in fields of dentistry, organisations, pharmaceutical companies and researchers working in this field.\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated treatment of dental and orthodontic complications in individuals diagnosed with thalassaemia, irrespective of phenotype, severity, age, sex and ethnic origin.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the 37,242 titles retrieved by the search. After deduplication, we identified two potentially relevant RCTs. On assessing their eligibility against our inclusion and exclusion criteria, we excluded one and included the other.\nMain results\nWe included one parallel-design RCT conducted in Saudi Arabia and involving 29 participants (19 males, 10 females) with thalassaemia. It aimed to assess the effectiveness of photodynamic therapy as an adjuvant to conventional full-mouth ultrasonic scaling for the treatment of gingivitis. The average age of participants was around 23 years.\nThere is very low-certainty evidence from this trial that full-mouth ultrasonic scaling plus photodynamic therapy compared to full-mouth ultrasonic scaling alone may improve gingival index score and bleeding on probing after 12 weeks in people with thalassaemia.\nWe found no studies that assessed other interventions for the various dental or orthodontic complications of thalassaemia.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough the included study showed greater reduction in gingivitis in the group treated with full-mouth ultrasonic scaling plus photodynamic therapy, the evidence is of very low certainty. The study had unclear risk of bias, a short follow-up period and no data on safety or adverse effects. We cannot make definitive recommendations for clinical practice based on the limited evidence of a single trial. Future studies will very likely affect the conclusions of this review.\nThis review highlights the need for high-quality RCTs that investigate the effectiveness of various treatment modalities for dental and orthodontic complications in people with thalassaemia. It is crucial that future trials assess adverse effects of interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is thalassaemia?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Red blood cells make a pigment known as haemoglobin which carries oxygen around the body. In people with thalassaemia, the haemoglobin is not normal, due to defects (mutations) in two specific types of genes. This leads to the condition being classified as either alpha or beta thalassaemia. About 5% of the world population carry the mutation that causes the alpha globin gene to function only partially or not at all; the carrier rate for the beta globin gene is about 1.5%. Both forms of thalassaemia are mainly found in the belt of countries stretching from Sub-Saharan Africa, through the Mediterranean region and the Middle East, to South and South-East Asia. These disorders are increasingly found in many other parts of the world due to people moving from country to country." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPotential benefits and harms of different lighting in neonatal units have not been quantified.\nObjectives\n• To determine effectiveness and safety of cycled light (CL) (approximately 12 hours of light on and 12 hours of light off) for growth in preterm infants at three and six months' corrected age (CA).\n• In separate analyses, to compare effects of CL with those of irregularly dimmed light (DL) or near darkness (ND), and effects of CL with those of continuous bright light (CBL), on growth in preterm infants at three and six months' CA.\n• To assess, in subgroup analyses, the effectiveness and safety of CL (vs control interventions (DL, ND and CBL)) introduced at different postmenstrual ages (PMAs) - before 32 weeks', at 32 weeks' and from 36 weeks' PMA - and to compare effectiveness and safety of CL for small for gestational age (GA) infants versus appropriately grown infants.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 12), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to January 2016), Embase (1980 to January 2016) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to January 2016). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised or quasi-randomised trials of CL versus ND or CBL in preterm and low birth weight infants.\nData collection and analysis\nWe performed data collection and analyses according to the methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of evidence.\nMain results\nWe identified one additional study enrolling 38 participants for inclusion in this update, for a total of nine studies reporting on 544 infants. In general, the quality of the studies was low, mainly owing to lack of blinding and small sample sizes.\nSix studies enrolling 424 infants compared CL versus ND. No study reported on weight at three or six months. One study (n = 40) found no statistically significant difference in weight at four months between CL and ND groups. In another study (n = 62), the ratio of day-night activity before discharge favoured the CL group (mean difference (MD) 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.19), indicating 18% more activity during the day than during the night in the CL group compared with the ND group. Two studies (n = 189) reported on retinopathy of prematurity (stage ≥ 3) and reported no statistically significant differences between CL and ND groups (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.11, I2 = 0%; typical risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01, I2 = 0%). Two studies (n = 77) reported length of hospital stay (days) and noted a significant reduction in length of stay between CL and ND groups favouring the CL group (weighted mean difference (WMD) -13 days, 95% CI -23 to -2, I2 = 0%; no heterogeneity). The quality of the evidence according to GRADE was low for this outcome. One study (n = 37) reported less crying at 11 weeks' corrected age (CA) in the CL group compared with the ND group (MD -0.57 hours/24 h, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.05). Tests for heterogeneity were not applicable.\nThree studies enrolling 120 infants compared CL versus CBL. Two studies (n = 79) reported significantly shorter length of stay in the CL group compared with the CBL group (WMD -16.5 days, 95% CI -26.2 to -6.8, I2 = 0%; no heterogeneity). The quality of the evidence according to GRADE was low for this outcome. One study (n = 41) reported higher mean weight at three months' CA among infants cared for in the CL nursery (P value < 0.02) and a lower mean number of hours spent awake in 24 hours at three months of age (P value < 0.005). Data could not be entered into RevMan or GRADE. One study (n = 41) reported shorter time on the ventilator in the CL compared with the CBL group (MD -18.2 days, 95% CI -31.40 to -5.0). One study (n = 41) reported a shorter time to first oral feeding in the CL group (MD -6.8 days, 95% CI -13.29 to -0.31). We identified no safety issues.\nAuthors' conclusions\nTrials assessing the effects of CL have enrolled 544 infants. No study reported on our primary outcome of weight at three or six months. Results from one additional study strengthen our findings that CL versus CBL shortens length of stay, as does CL versus ND. The quality of the evidence on both comparisons for this outcome according to GRADE was low. Future research should focus on comparing CL versus ND.\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": "Describe the effectiveness and safety of cycled light (approximately 12 hours of light on and 12 hours of light off) for growth in preterm infants at three and six months' corrected age. By exploring separate questions, we compared the effectiveness of cycled light with that of irregularly dimmed light or near darkness, and we compared cycled light with continuous bright light, for growth in preterm infants at three and six months' corrected age." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nFeeding preterm infants in response to their hunger and satiation cues (responsive, cue-based, or infant-led feeding) rather than at scheduled intervals might enhance infants' and parents' experience and satisfaction, help in the establishment of independent oral feeding, increase nutrient intake and growth rates, and allow earlier hospital discharge.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of a policy of feeding preterm infants on a responsive basis versus feeding prescribed volumes at scheduled intervals on growth rates, levels of parent satisfaction, and time to hospital discharge.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 17 February 2016), Embase (1980 to 17 February 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 17 February 2016). We also searched clinical trials' databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared a policy of feeding preterm infants on a responsive basis versus feeding at scheduled intervals.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and undertook data extraction independently. We analysed the treatment effects in the individual trials and reported the risk ratio and risk difference for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored the potential causes of heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence at the outcome level using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.\nMain results\nWe found nine eligible RCTs including 593 infants in total. These trials compared responsive with scheduled interval regimens in preterm infants in the transition phase from intragastric tube to oral feeding. The trials were generally small and contained various methodological weaknesses including lack of blinding and incomplete assessment of all randomised participants. Meta-analyses, although limited by data quality and availability, suggest that responsive feeding results in slightly slower rates of weight gain (MD −1.36, 95% CI −2.44 to −0.29 g/kg/day), and provide some evidence that responsive feeding reduces the time taken for infants to transition from enteral tube to oral feeding (MD −5.53, 95% CI −6.80 to −4.25 days). GRADE assessments indicated low quality of evidence. The importance of this finding is uncertain as the trials did not find a strong or consistent effect on the duration of hospitalisation. None of the included trials reported any parent, caregiver, or staff views.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, the data do not provide strong or consistent evidence that responsive feeding affects important outcomes for preterm infants or their families. Some (low quality) evidence exists that preterm infants fed in response to feeding and satiation cues achieve full oral feeding earlier than infants fed prescribed volumes at scheduled intervals. This finding should be interpreted cautiously because of methodological weaknesses in the included trials. A large RCT would be needed to confirm this finding and to determine if responsive feeding of preterm infants affects other important outcomes.\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 for all available evidence up to January 2016. We found nine eligible randomised controlled trials (including a total of 593 infants) that examined whether feeding preterm infants in response to their own feeding and satiation cues (sometimes called 'demand' feeding) is better than feeding set volumes of milk at predefined intervals. These trials compared responsive with scheduled interval regimens in preterm infants in the transition phase from intragastric tube to oral feeding." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAntipsychotic-induced weight gain is an extremely common problem in people with schizophrenia and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Adjunctive pharmacological interventions may be necessary to help manage antipsychotic-induced weight gain. This review splits and updates a previous Cochrane Review that focused on both pharmacological and behavioural approaches to this problem.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for preventing antipsychotic-induced weight gain in people with schizophrenia.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Schizophrenia Information Specialist searched Cochrane Schizophrenia's Register of Trials on 10 February 2021. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined any adjunctive pharmacological intervention for preventing weight gain in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses who use antipsychotic medications.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies. For continuous outcomes, we combined mean differences (MD) in endpoint and change data in the analysis. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR). We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to judge certainty of evidence and create summary of findings tables. The primary outcomes for this review were clinically important change in weight, clinically important change in body mass index (BMI), leaving the study early, compliance with treatment, and frequency of nausea. The included studies rarely reported these outcomes, so, post hoc, we added two new outcomes, average endpoint/change in weight and average endpoint/change in BMI.\nMain results\nSeventeen RCTs, with a total of 1388 participants, met the inclusion criteria for the review. Five studies investigated metformin, three topiramate, three H2 antagonists, three monoamine modulators, and one each investigated monoamine modulators plus betahistine, melatonin and samidorphan. The comparator in all studies was placebo or no treatment (i.e. standard care alone). We synthesised all studies in a quantitative meta-analysis. Most studies inadequately reported their methods of allocation concealment and blinding of participants and personnel. The resulting risk of bias and often small sample sizes limited the overall certainty of the evidence. Only one reboxetine study reported the primary outcome, number of participants with clinically important change in weight. Fewer people in the treatment condition experienced weight gains of more than 5% and more than 7% of their bodyweight than those in the placebo group (> 5% weight gain RR 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.65; 1 study, 43 participants; > 7% weight gain RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.83; 1 study, 43 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported the primary outcomes, 'clinically important change in BMI', or 'compliance with treatment'. However, several studies reported 'average endpoint/change in body weight' or 'average endpoint/change in BMI'.\nMetformin may be effective in preventing weight gain (MD −4.03 kg, 95% CI −5.78 to −2.28; 4 studies, 131 participants; low-certainty evidence); and BMI increase (MD −1.63 kg/m2, 95% CI −2.96 to −0.29; 5 studies, 227 participants; low-certainty evidence). Other agents that may be slightly effective in preventing weight gain include H2 antagonists such as nizatidine, famotidine and ranitidine (MD −1.32 kg, 95% CI −2.09 to −0.56; 3 studies, 248 participants; low-certainty evidence) and monoamine modulators such as reboxetine and fluoxetine (weight: MD −1.89 kg, 95% CI −3.31 to −0.47; 3 studies, 103 participants; low-certainty evidence; BMI: MD −0.66 kg/m2, 95% CI −1.05 to −0.26; 3 studies, 103 participants; low-certainty evidence). Topiramate did not appear effective in preventing weight gain (MD −4.82 kg, 95% CI −9.99 to 0.35; 3 studies, 168 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For all agents, there was no difference between groups in terms of individuals leaving the study or reports of nausea. However, the results of these outcomes are uncertain given the very low-certainty evidence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is low-certainty evidence to suggest that metformin may be effective in preventing weight gain. Interpretation of this result and those for other agents, is limited by the small number of studies, small sample size, and short study duration. In future, we need studies that are adequately powered and with longer treatment durations to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of interventions for managing weight gain.\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 found 17 studies with 1388 people that examined the effects of add-on medications to prevent weight gain caused by antipsychotics. The add-on medications were metformin, topiramate, H2 antagonists, monoamine modulators, monoamine modulators plus betahistine, melatonin, and samidorphan. Studies were short, lasting between 6 and 24 weeks. And they were small, with only 63 people on average - the smallest included only 14 people, the largest 561 people.\nStudies done to date suggest that:\n- metformin may be effective in preventing weight gain and is well-tolerated compared to standard treatment (5 studies, 232 participants);\n- H2 antagonists, such as nizatidine, famotidine and ranitidine, or monoamine modulators, such as reboxetine and fluoxetine may be potentially effective in preventing weight gain caused by antipsychotics;\n- topiramate is probably not effective in preventing weight gain caused by antipsychotics." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIntramedullary nails may be used for the surgical fixation of extracapsular hip fractures in adults. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005 and last updated in 2008.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects (benefits and harms) of different designs of intramedullary nails for treating extracapsular hip fractures in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (6 January 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 12, 2013), MEDLINE (1966 to November Week 3, 2013), MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (3 January 2014), EMBASE (1988 to 2014, Week 1) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (accessed January 2014).\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing different types, or design modifications, of intramedullary nails in the treatment of extracapsular hip fractures in adults.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We performed limited meta-analysis using the fixed-effect model.\nMain results\nWe included eight new trials, testing seven new comparisons in this update. Overall, we included 17 trials, testing 12 comparisons of different cephalocondylic nail designs. The trials involved a total of 2130 adults (predominantly female and older people) with mainly unstable trochanteric fractures.\nAll trials were at unclear risk of bias for most domains, with the majority at high risk of detection bias for subjective outcomes. The three quasi-randomised trials were at high risk for selection bias.\nFour trials (910 participants) compared the proximal femoral nail (PFN) with the Gamma nail. There was no significant difference between the two implants in functional outcome (the very low quality evidence being limited to results from single trials), mortality (low quality evidence: 86/415 versus 80/415; risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.41), serious fixation complications (operative fracture of the femur, cut-out, non-union and later fracture of the femur) nor re-operations (low quality evidence: 45/455 versus 36/455; RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.90).\nTwo trials (185 participants) provided very low quality evidence of a lack of clinically significant difference in outcome (functional score, mortality, fracture fixation complications and re-operation) between the ACE trochanteric nail and the Gamma nail.\nTwo trials (200 participants) provided very low quality evidence of a lack of significant difference in outcome (mobility score, pain, fracture fixation complications or re-operations) between the proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) nail and the Gamma 3 nail.\nSeven of the nine trials evaluating different comparisons provided very low quality evidence of a lack of significant between-group differences in all of the reported main outcomes for the following comparisons: ACE trochanteric nail versus Gamma 3 nail (112 participants); gliding nail versus Gamma nail (80 participants); Russell-Taylor Recon nail versus long Gamma nail (34 participants, all under 50 years); proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) nail versus Targon PF nail (80 participants); dynamically versus statically locked intramedullary hip screw (IMHS) nail (81 participants); sliding versus non-sliding Gamma 3 nail (80 participants, all under 60 years); and long versus standard PFNA nails (40 participants with reverse oblique fractures).\nThe other two single comparison trials also provided very low quality evidence of a lack of significant between-group differences in all of the main outcomes with single exceptions. The trial (215 participants) comparing the ENDOVIS nail versus the IMHS nail found low quality evidence of poorer mobility in the ENDOVIS nail group, where more participants in this group were bedridden after their operation (29/105 versus 18/110; RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.85; P = 0.05). The trial (113 participants) comparing the InterTan nail versus the PFNA II nail found very low quality evidence that more PFNA II group participants experienced thigh pain (3/47 versus 12/46; RR: 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.81).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe limited evidence from the randomised trials undertaken to date is insufficient to determine whether there are important differences in outcome between different designs of intramedullary nails used in treating extracapsular hip fractures. Given the evidence of superiority of the sliding hip screw compared with intramedullary nails for extracapsular hip fractures, further studies comparing different designs of intramedullary nails are not a priority. Any new design should be evaluated in a randomised comparison with the sliding hip screw.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the medical problem?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Fractures of the upper part of the thigh bone (femur) are termed hip or proximal femoral fractures. These fractures are most common in women aged over 65 years. Roughly two out of five hip fractures are 'extracapsular' in that they lie outside the hip joint capsule." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPregnant women with sickle cell disease (HbSS, HbSC and HbSβThal) may require blood transfusion to prevent severe anaemia or to manage potential medical complications. Preventive blood transfusion in the absence of complications starting from the early weeks of pregnancy or blood transfusion only for medical or obstetric indications have been used as management policies. There is currently no consensus on the blood transfusion policy that guarantees optimal clinical benefits with minimal risks for such women and their babies. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was published in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of a policy of prophylactic versus selective blood transfusion in pregnant women with sickle cell disease.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. We did not apply any language or date restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials evaluating the effects of prophylactic versus selective (emergency) blood transfusion in pregnant women with sickle cell disease (SCD). Quasi-randomised trials and trials using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Two review authors independently assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nOut of six relevant reports identified by the search strategy, one trial involving 72 women with sickle cell anaemia (HbSS) met our inclusion criteria. The trial was at unclear risk of bias. Overall, there were few events for most of the reported outcomes and the results were generally imprecise. The included trial reported no maternal mortality occurring in women who received either prophylactic or selective blood transfusion. Very low-quality evidence indicated no clear differences in maternal mortality, perinatal mortality (risk ratio (RR) 2.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 13.22; very low-quality evidence) or markers of severe maternal morbidity (pulmonary embolism (no events); congestive cardiac failure (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.38; very low-quality evidence); acute chest syndrome (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.75)) between the treatment groups (prophylactic blood transfusion versus selective blood transfusion). Low-quality evidence indicated that prophylactic blood transfusion reduced the risk of pain crisis compared with selective blood transfusion (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.67, one trial, 72 women; low-quality evidence), and no differences in the occurrence of acute splenic sequestration (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.92; low-quality evidence), haemolytic crises (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.06) or delayed blood transfusion reaction (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.54 to 7.39; very low-quality evidence) between the comparison groups.\nOther relevant maternal outcomes pre-specified for this review such as cumulative duration of hospital stay, postpartum haemorrhage and iron overload, and infant outcomes, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and haemolytic disease of the newborn, were not reported by the trial.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence from one small trial of very low quality suggests that prophylactic blood transfusion to pregnant women with sickle cell anaemia (HbSS) confers no clear clinical benefits when compared with selective transfusion. Currently, there is no evidence from randomised or quasi-randomised trials to provide reliable advice on the optimal blood transfusion policy for women with other variants of sickle cell disease (i.e. HbSC and HbSβThal). The available data and quality of evidence on this subject are insufficient to advocate for a change in existing clinical practice and policy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is this important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "When oxygen tension is low, haemoglobin S crystallises and makes the red blood cells sickle-shaped. Sickling reduces red blood cell capacity to manoeuvre through very small blood vessels causing vascular blockage and early destruction of red cells. The breakdown of red blood cells and massive pooling of damaged red blood cells in the liver and spleen cause anaemia. Acute illnesses include painful crises, pulmonary embolism, acute chest syndrome and congestive cardiac failure. Therefore, pregnant women with sickle cell disease require careful management.\nDepending on the institutional policy, blood transfusion can be given at intervals to a pregnant woman with HbSS with relatively few or no symptoms to improve the oxygen carrying capacity of blood by increasing haemoglobin blood concentration and lowering haemoglobin S levels; or only when indicated by the development of medical or pregnancy complications. Giving blood at frequent intervals carries the risks of blood-borne infections and excessive levels of iron.\nThis review set out to determine whether giving blood at intervals before serious complications occur compared with giving blood only when medically indicated makes a difference to the health of the mother and her baby." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIn most Western countries, obstetricians and midwives induce labour in about 25% of pregnant women. Oxytocin is an effective drug for this purpose, but associated with serious adverse effects of which uterine tachysystole, fetal distress and the need for immediate delivery are the most common. Various administration regimens such as reduced or pulsatile dosing have been suggested to minimise these. Discontinuation in the active phase of labour, i.e. when contractions are well-established and the cervix is dilated at least 5 cm is another method which may reduce adverse effects.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether birth outcomes can be improved by discontinuation of intravenous (IV) oxytocin, initiated in the latent phase of induced labour, once active phase of labour is established.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (31 January 2018), Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (23 January 2018) together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing discontinued IV with continuous IV oxytocin in the active phase of induced labour.\nNo exclusion criteria were applied in terms of parity, maternal age, ethnicity, co-morbidity status, labour setting, gestational age, and prior caesarean delivery.\nStudies comparing different dosage regimens are outside the scope of this review.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods.\nMain results\nWe found 10 completed RCTs involving 1888 women. One additional trial is ongoing. The included trials were conducted in hospital settings between February 1998 and January 2016, two in Europe (Denmark, and Greece), two in Turkey, and one each in Israel, Iran, USA, Bangladesh, India, and Thailand. Most trials included full-term singleton pregnancies with a fetus in vertex presentation. Some excluded women with cervical priming prior to induction and some excluded women with a history of prior caesarean delivery. When reported, the average age of the women ranged from 22 to 31 years, nulliparity from 45% to 68%, and pre-pregnancy body mass index from 22 to 32.\nMany of the included trials had design limitations and were judged to be at either high or unclear risk of bias across a number of 'Risk of bias' domains.\nFour trials included a Consort flow diagram. In three, this gave details of participants delivered before the active phase of labour, and treatment compliance for those who reached that stage. One Consort diagram only provided the latter information. The data in many of the trials without such a flow diagram were implausibly compliant with treatment allocation, suggesting that there had been silent post randomisation exclusions of women delivered before the active phase of labour. We therefore conducted a secondary analysis (not in our protocol) of caesarean section among women who reached the active phase of labour and were therefore eligible for the intervention.\nOur analysis by 'intention-to-treat' found that, compared with continuation of IV oxytocin stimulation, discontinuation of IV oxytocin may reduce the caesarean delivery rate, risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.86, 9 trials, 1784 women, low-level certainty. However, restricting our analysis to women who reached the active phase of labour (using 'reached active phase' as our denominator) suggests there is probably little or no difference between groups (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.29, 4 trials, 787 women, moderate-certainty evidence).\nDiscontinuation of IV oxytocin probably reduces the risk ofuterine tachysystole combined with abnormal fetal heart rate (FHR) compared with continued IV oxytocin (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.46, 3 trials, 486 women, moderate-level certainty). We are uncertain about whether or not discontinuation increases the risk of chorioamnionitis (average RR 2.32, 95% CI 0.99 to 5.45, 1 trial, 252 women, very low-level certainty). Discontinuation of IV oxytocin may have little or no impact on the use of analgesia and epidural during labour compared to the use of continued IV oxytocin (RR 1.04 95% CI 0.95 to 1.14, 3 trials, 556 women, low-level certainty). Intrapartum cardiotocography (CTG) abnormalities (suspicious/pathological CTGs) are probably reduced by discontinuing IV oxytocin (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.83, 7 trials, 1390 women, moderate-level certainty). Compared to continuing IV oxytocin, discontinuing IV oxytocin probably has little or no impact on the incidence of Apgar < 7 at five minutes (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.21, 4 trials, 893 women, low-level certainty), or and acidotic cord gasses at birth (arterial umbilical pH < 7.10), (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.13, 4 trials, 873 women, low-level certainty).\nMany of this review's maternal and infant secondary outcomes (including maternal and neonatal mortality) were not reported in the included trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDiscontinuing IV oxytocin stimulation after the active phase of labour has been established may reduce caesarean delivery but the evidence for this was low certainty. When restricting our analysis to those trials that separately reported participants who reached the active phase of labour, our results showed there is probably little or no difference between groups. Discontinuing IV oxytocin may reduce uterine tachysystole combined with abnormal FHR.\nMost of the trials had 'Risk of bias' concerns which means that these results should be interpreted with caution. Our GRADE assessments ranged from very low certainty to moderate certainty. Downgrading decisions were based on study limitations, imprecision and indirectness.\nFuture research could account for all women randomised and, in particular, note those who delivered before the point at which they would be eligible for the intervention (i.e. those who had caesareans in the latent phase), or because labour was so rapid that the infusion could not be stopped in time.\nFuture trials could adopt the outcomes listed in this review including maternal and neonatal mortality, maternal satisfaction, and breastfeeding.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is this important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Stopping oxytocin infusion once active labour has started could result in a more natural childbirth, particularly if the risk of uterine overstimulation and need for immediate caesarean section is reduced. Also, the overall total dose of oxytocin the mother received would be reduced, which could lead to fewer adverse effects (e.g. maternal nausea, vomiting and headache, or changes to the baby's heart rate)." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2017. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons.\nEpilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.\nWorldwide, carbamazepine and phenytoin are commonly-used broad spectrum antiepileptic drugs, suitable for most epileptic seizure types. Carbamazepine is a current first-line treatment for focal onset seizures in the USA and Europe. Phenytoin is no longer considered a first-line treatment, due to concerns over adverse events associated with its use, but the drug is still commonly used in low- to middle-income countries because of its low cost. No consistent differences in efficacy have been found between carbamazepine and phenytoin in individual trials; however, the confidence intervals generated by these trials are wide, and therefore, synthesising the data of the individual trials may show differences in efficacy.\nObjectives\nTo review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with carbamazepine compared with phenytoin when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures (simple or complex focal and secondarily generalised), or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).\nSearch methods\nFor the latest update, we searched the following databases on 13 August 2018: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialised Register and CENTRAL; MEDLINE; the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing monotherapy with either carbamazepine or phenytoin in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset (tonic-clonic) seizures.\nData collection and analysis\nThis was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure. Our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month remission, time to 12-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.\nMain results\nIPD were available for 595 participants out of 1102 eligible individuals, from four out of 11 trials (i.e. 54% of the potential data). For remission outcomes, a HR greater than 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin; and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, a HR greater than 1 indicates an advantage for carbamazepine. Most participants included in analysis (78%) were classified as experiencing focal onset seizures at baseline and only 22% were classified as experiencing generalised onset seizures; the results of this review are therefore mainly applicable to individuals with focal onset seizures.\nResults for the primary outcome of the review were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 546 participants: 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.26, moderate-certainty evidence); time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 546 participants: 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.41, moderate-certainty evidence); both showing no clear difference between the drugs and time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 546 participants: 1.27, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.86, moderate-certainty evidence), showing that treatment failure due to adverse events may occur earlier on carbamazepine than phenytoin, but we cannot rule out a slight advantage to carbamazepine or no difference between the drugs.\nFor our secondary outcomes (pooled HRs adjusted for seizure type), we did not find any clear differences between carbamazepine and phenytoin: time to first seizure post-randomisation (582 participants): 1.15, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.40, moderate-certainty evidence); time to 12-month remission (551 participants): 1.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.26, moderate-certainty evidence); and time to six-month remission (551 participants): 0.90, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.12, moderate-certainty evidence).\nFor all outcomes, results for individuals with focal onset seizures were similar to overall results (moderate-certainty evidence), and results for the small subgroup of individuals with generalised onset seizures were imprecise, so we cannot rule out an advantage to either drug, or no difference between drugs (low-certainty evidence). There was also evidence that misclassification of seizure type may have confounded the results of this review, particularly for the outcome 'time to treatment failure'. Heterogeneity was present in analysis of 'time to first seizure' for individuals with generalised onset seizures, which could not be explained by subgroup analysis or sensitivity analyses.\nLimited information was available about adverse events in the trials and we could not compare the rates of adverse events between carbamazepine and phenytoin. Some adverse events reported on both drugs were abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting, drowsiness, motor and cognitive disturbances, dysmorphic side effects (such as rash).\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate-certainty evidence provided by this systematic review does not show any differences between carbamazepine and phenytoin in terms of effectiveness (retention) or efficacy (seizure recurrence and seizure remission) for individuals with focal onset or generalised onset seizures.\nHowever, some of the trials contributing to the analyses had methodological inadequacies and inconsistencies, which may have had an impact on the results of this review. We therefore do not suggest that results of this review alone should form the basis of a treatment choice for a person with newly-onset seizures. We did not find any evidence to support or refute current treatment policies. We implore that future trials be designed to the highest quality possible, with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "This review of trials found no difference between these two drugs for the seizure types studied for the outcomes of treatment failure (withdrawal from treatment for any reason and also withdrawal from treatment due to continuing seizures or due to side effects) and controlling seizures (recurrence of seizures or achievement of a seizure-free period (remission) of six months or 12 months). Three-quarters of the people recruited in the four trials had focal onset seizures and only one quarter of the people recruited in the four trials had generalised onset seizures, so the results of this review mainly apply to people with focal onset seizures and the results are very limited for people with generalised onset seizures. More information is needed for people with generalised onset seizures.\nSome side effects reported by people taking carbamazepine and people taking phenytoin were abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, tiredness, motor problems (such as poor co-ordination), cognitive problems (poor memory), rashes and other skin problems." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEpilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders. Approximately 30% of people with epilepsy are considered to be drug-resistant, and usually need treatment with a combination of other antiepileptic drugs. Perampanel is a newer antiepileptic drug that has been investigated as add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of perampanel as add-on therapy for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 20 October 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing add-on perampanel with placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was 1. 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. Our secondary outcomes were 2. seizure freedom, 3. treatment withdrawal due to any reason, 4. treatment withdrawal due to adverse effects, and 5. adverse effects. We used an intention-to-treat population for all primary analyses. We presented the results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), except for individual adverse effects, which we reported with 99% CIs to compensate for multiple testing. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included seven trials involving 2524 participants, all aged over 12 years. The trials were double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials with treatment duration of 12 to 19 weeks. We assessed four trials at overall low risk of bias, and three trials at overall unclear risk of bias, due to risk of detection, reporting, and other biases.\nCompared with placebo, participants receiving perampanel were more likely to achieve a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.95; 7 trials, 2524 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, perampanel increased seizure freedom (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.38 to 4.54; 5 trials, 2323 participants; low-certainty evidence) and treatment withdrawal (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.63; 7 trials, 2524 participants; low-certainty evidence). Participants treated with perampanel were more likely to withdraw from treatment due to adverse effects compared to those receiving placebo (RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.59 to 3.51; 7 trials, 2524 participants; low-certainty evidence). A higher proportion of participants receiving perampanel reported one or more adverse effects when compared to participants who received placebo (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.24; 7 trials, 2524 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared with placebo, participants receiving perampanel were more likely to experience ataxia (RR 14.32, 99% CI 1.09 to 188.31; 2 trials, 1098 participants; low-certainty evidence), dizziness (RR 2.87, 99% CI 1.45 to 5.70; 7 trials, 2524 participants; low-certainty evidence), and somnolence (RR 1.76, 99% CI 1.02 to 3.04; 7 trials, 2524 participants).\nSubgroup analysis indicated that a larger proportion of participants who received perampanel at a dose of 4 mg/day (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.83; 2 trials, 710 participants), 8 mg/day (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.22; 4 trials, 1227 participants), or 12 mg/day (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.86 to 3.04; 3 trials, 869 participants) achieved a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo; however, treatment with perampanel 12 mg/day also increased treatment withdrawal (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.40; 3 trials, 869 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nAdd-on perampanel is effective at reducing seizure frequency and may be effective at maintaining seizure freedom for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Although perampanel was well-tolerated, there was a higher proportion of treatment withdrawals with perampanel compared with placebo. Subgroup analysis suggested that 8 mg/day and 12 mg/day are the most efficacious perampanel doses; however, the use of 12 mg/day would likely increase the number of treatment withdrawals.\nFuture research should focus on investigating the efficacy and tolerability of perampanel with longer-term follow-up, as well as exploring an optimal dose.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is epilepsy?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Epilepsy is one of the most common brain disorders. Approximately 30% of people with epilepsy continue to have seizures (sudden bursts of electrical activity in the brain that change how it works for a short time) despite adequate therapy with antiepileptic medicines. These people are regarded as having drug-resistant epilepsy and usually need treatment with a combination of antiepileptic medicines. Perampanel is a newer antiepileptic medicine that has been investigated as an add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy (when seizures originate from one area of the brain)." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIn primary care, general practitioners (GPs) unavoidably reach a clinical judgement about a patient as part of their encounter with patients, and so clinical judgement can be an important part of the diagnostic evaluation. Typically clinical decision making about what to do next for a patient incorporates clinical judgement about the diagnosis with severity of symptoms and patient factors, such as their ideas and expectations for treatment. When evaluating patients for dementia, many GPs report using their own judgement to evaluate cognition, using information that is immediately available at the point of care, to decide whether someone has or does not have dementia, rather than more formal tests.\nObjectives\nTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of GPs’ clinical judgement for diagnosing cognitive impairment and dementia in symptomatic people presenting to primary care. To investigate the heterogeneity of test accuracy in the included studies.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), and LILACs (BIREME) on 16 September 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected cross-sectional and cohort studies from primary care where clinical judgement was determined by a GP either prospectively (after consulting with a patient who has presented to a specific encounter with the doctor) or retrospectively (based on knowledge of the patient and review of the medical notes, but not relating to a specific encounter with the patient). The target conditions were dementia and cognitive impairment (mild cognitive impairment and dementia) and we included studies with any appropriate reference standard such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), International Classification of Diseases (ICD), aetiological definitions, or expert clinical diagnosis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors screened titles and abstracts for relevant articles and extracted data separately with differences resolved by consensus discussion. We used QUADAS-2 to evaluate the risk of bias and concerns about applicability in each study using anchoring statements. We performed meta-analysis using the bivariate method.\nMain results\nWe identified 18,202 potentially relevant articles, of which 12,427 remained after de-duplication. We assessed 57 full-text articles and extracted data on 11 studies (17 papers), of which 10 studies had quantitative data. We included eight studies in the meta-analysis for the target condition dementia and four studies for the target condition cognitive impairment. Most studies were at low risk of bias as assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool, except for the flow and timing domain where four studies were at high risk of bias, and the reference standard domain where two studies were at high risk of bias. Most studies had low concern about applicability to the review question in all QUADAS-2 domains.\nAverage age ranged from 73 years to 83 years (weighted average 77 years). The percentage of female participants in studies ranged from 47% to 100%. The percentage of people with a final diagnosis of dementia was between 2% and 56% across studies (a weighted average of 21%). For the target condition dementia, in individual studies sensitivity ranged from 34% to 91% and specificity ranged from 58% to 99%. In the meta-analysis for dementia as the target condition, in eight studies in which a total of 826 of 2790 participants had dementia, the summary diagnostic accuracy of clinical judgement of general practitioners was sensitivity 58% (95% confidence interval (CI) 43% to 72%), specificity 89% (95% CI 79% to 95%), positive likelihood ratio 5.3 (95% CI 2.4 to 8.2), and negative likelihood ratio 0.47 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.61).\nFor the target condition cognitive impairment, in individual studies sensitivity ranged from 58% to 97% and specificity ranged from 40% to 88%. The summary diagnostic accuracy of clinical judgement of general practitioners in four studies in which a total of 594 of 1497 participants had cognitive impairment was sensitivity 84% (95% CI 60% to 95%), specificity 73% (95% CI 50% to 88%), positive likelihood ratio 3.1 (95% CI 1.4 to 4.7), and negative likelihood ratio 0.23 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.40).\nIt was impossible to draw firm conclusions in the analysis of heterogeneity because there were small numbers of studies. For specificity we found the data were compatible with studies that used ICD-10, or applied retrospective judgement, had higher reported specificity compared to studies with DSM definitions or using prospective judgement. In contrast for sensitivity, we found studies that used a prospective index test may have had higher sensitivity than studies that used a retrospective index test.\nAuthors' conclusions\nClinical judgement of GPs is more specific than sensitive for the diagnosis of dementia. It would be necessary to use additional tests to confirm the diagnosis for either target condition, or to confirm the absence of the target conditions, but clinical judgement may inform the choice of further testing. Many people who a GP judges as having dementia will have the condition. People with false negative diagnoses are likely to have less severe disease and some could be identified by using more formal testing in people who GPs judge as not having dementia. Some false positives may require similar practical support to those with dementia, but some - such as some people with depression - may suffer delayed intervention for an alternative treatable pathology.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The authors included extracted data from 11 studies, including 10 with complete data on diagnostic accuracy. The authors included eight studies in the statistical summary with a total of 2790 people, of whom 826 (30%) had dementia. The authors included four studies that investigated cognitive impairment as the condition to diagnose, with a total of 1497 people of whom 594 had cognitive impairment (40%)." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAchilles tendinopathy is a common condition, often with significant functional consequences. As a wide range of injection treatments are available, a review of randomised trials evaluating injection therapies to help inform treatment decisions is warranted.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects (benefits and harms) of injection therapies for people with Achilles tendinopathy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to 20 April 2015: the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus. We also searched trial registers (29 May 2014) and reference lists of articles to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating injection therapies in adults with an investigator-reported diagnosis of Achilles tendinopathy. We accepted comparison arms of placebo (sham) or no injection control, or other active treatment (such as physiotherapy, pharmaceuticals or surgery). Our primary outcomes were function, using measures such as the VISA-A (Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Achilles questionnaire), and adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. We assessed treatment effects using mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous variables and risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs for dichotomous variables. For follow-up data, we defined short-term as up to six weeks, medium-term as up to three months and longer-term as data beyond three months. We performed meta-analysis where appropriate.\nMain results\nWe included 18 studies (732 participants). Seven trials exclusively studied athletic populations. The mean ages of the participants in the individual trials ranged from 20 years to 50 years. Fifteen trials compared an injection therapy with a placebo injection or no injection control, four trials compared an injection therapy with active treatment, and one compared two different concentrations of the same injection. Thus no trials compared different injection therapies. Two studies had three trial arms and we included them twice in two different categories. Within these categories, we further subdivided injection therapies by mode of action (injury-causing versus direct repair agents).\nThe risk of bias was unclear (due to poor reporting) or high in six trials published between 1987 and 1994. Improved methodology and reporting for the subsequent trials published between 2004 and 2013 meant that these were at less risk of bias.\nGiven the very low quality evidence available from each of four small trials comparing different combinations of injection therapy versus active treatment and the single trial comparing two doses of one injection therapy, only the results of the first comparison (injection therapy versus control) are presented.\nThere is low quality evidence of a lack of significant or clinically important differences in VISA-A scores (0 to 100: best function) between injection therapy and control groups at six weeks (MD 0.79, 95% CI -4.56 to 6.14; 200 participants, five trials), three months (MD -0.94, 95% CI -6.34 to 4.46; 189 participants, five trials) or between six and 12 months (MD 0.14, 95% CI -6.54 to 6.82; 132 participants, three trials). Very low quality evidence from 13 trials showed little difference between the two groups in adverse events (14/243 versus 12/206; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.89), most of which were minor and short-lasting. The only major adverse event in the injection therapy group was an Achilles tendon rupture, which happened in a trial testing corticosteroid injections. There was very low quality evidence in favour of the injection therapy group in short-term (under three months) pain (219 participants, seven trials) and in the return to sports (335 participants, seven trials). There was very low quality evidence indicating little difference between groups in patient satisfaction with treatment (152 participants, four trials). There was insufficient evidence to conclude on subgroup differences based on mode of action given that only two trials tested injury-causing agents and the clear heterogeneity of the other 13 trials, which tested seven different therapies that act directly on the repair pathway.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to draw conclusions on the use, or to support the routine use, of injection therapies for treating Achilles tendinopathy. This review has highlighted a need for definitive research in the area of injection therapies for Achilles tendinopathy, including in older non-athletic populations. This review has shown that there is a consensus in the literature that placebo-controlled trials are considered the most appropriate trial design.\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 15 studies, patients had been assigned randomly to receive an injection therapy (such as a steroid), a placebo injection, or no injection at all. There were several different types of injection agents used and so we separated them into those agents that acted by causing damage to the tendon and those that acted to repair the tendon directly. However, there were not enough data to distinguish between these two types of injection therapies and so we only report the overall results for all injection therapies.\nThe review of the evidence from these studies found no clinically important difference between the injection therapy or placebo or no injection groups in patient function scores at six weeks, three months or subsequently. Similar numbers of minor adverse events, such as pain during the injection, occurred in both groups. The only serious adverse event in the injection therapy group was an Achilles tendon rupture, which happened in a study testing steroid injections. There was some evidence that injection therapy may help get patients back to sporting activities and decrease pain in the short term, but there was no evidence indicating a difference between groups in patient satisfaction with treatment.\nThe evidence for the other comparisons, such as injection therapy versus exercises, made by single studies was too limited to report here." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nKinesio Taping (KT) is one of the conservative treatments proposed for rotator cuff disease. KT is an elastic, adhesive, latex-free taping made from cotton, without active pharmacological agents. Clinicians have adopted it in the rehabilitation treatment of painful conditions, however, there is no firm evidence on its benefits.\nObjectives\nTo determine the benefits and harms of KT in adults with rotator cuff disease.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro, CINAHL, Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICRTP registry to July 27 2020, unrestricted by date and language.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including adults with rotator cuff disease. Major outcomes were overall pain, function, pain on motion, active range of motion, global assessment of treatment success, quality of life, and adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 23 trials with 1054 participants. Nine studies (312 participants) assessed the effectiveness of KT versus sham therapy and fourteen studies (742 participants) assessed the effectiveness of KT versus conservative treatment. Most participants were aged between 18 and 50 years. Females comprised 52% of the sample. For the meta-analysis, we considered the last available measurement within 30 days from the end of the intervention.\nAll trials were at risk of performance, selection, reporting, attrition, and other biases.\nComparison with sham taping\nDue to very low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain whether KT improves overall pain, function, pain on motion and active range of motion compared with sham taping.\nMean overall pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 no pain) was 2.96 points with sham taping and 3.03 points with KT (3 RCTs,106 participants), with an absolute difference of 0.7% worse, (95% CI 7.7% better to 9% worse) and a relative difference of 2% worse (95% CI 21% better to 24% worse) at four weeks. Mean function (0 to 100 scale, 0 better function) was 47.1 points with sham taping and 39.05 points with KT (6 RCTs, 214 participants), with an absolute improvement of 8% (95% CI 21% better to 5% worse)and a relative improvement of 15% (95% CI 40% better to 9% worse) at four weeks. Mean pain on motion (0 to 10 scale, 0 no pain) was 4.39 points with sham taping and 2.91 points with KT even though not clinically important (4 RCTs, 153 participants), with an absolute improvement of 14.8% (95% CI 22.5% better to 7.1% better) and a relative improvement of 30% (95% CI 45% better to 14% better) at four weeks. Mean active range of motion (shoulder abduction) without pain was 174.2 degrees with sham taping and 184.43 degrees with KT (2 RCTs, 68 participants), with an absolute improvement of 5.7% (95% CI 8.9% worse to 20.3% better) and a relative improvement of 6% (95% CI 10% worse to 22% better) at two weeks.\nNo studies reported global assessment of treatment success. Quality of life was reported by one study but data were disaggregated in subscales. No reliable estimates for adverse events (4 studies; very low-certainty) could be provided due to the heterogeneous description of events in the sample.\nComparison with conservative treatments\nDue to very low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain if KT improves overall pain, function, pain on motion and active range of motion compared with conservative treatments. However, KT may improve quality of life (low certainty of evidence).\nMean overall pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 no pain) was 0.9 points with conservative treatment and 0.46 points with KT (5 RCTs, 266 participants), with an absolute improvement of 4.4% (95% CI 13% better to 4.6% worse) and a relative improvement of 15% (95% CI 46% better to 16% worse) at six weeks. Mean function (0 to 100 scale, 0 better function) was 46.6 points with conservative treatment and 33.47 points with KT (14 RCTs, 499 participants), with an absolute improvement of 13% (95% CI 24% better to 2% better) and a relative improvement of 18% (95% CI 32% better to 3% better) at four weeks. Mean pain on motion (0 to 10 scale, 0 no pain) was 4 points with conservative treatment and 3.94 points with KT (6 RCTs, 225 participants), with an absolute improvement of 0.6% (95% CI 7% better to 8% worse) and a relative improvement of 1% (95% CI 12% better to 10% worse) at four weeks. Mean active range of motion (shoulder abduction) without pain was 156.6 degrees with conservative treatment and 159.64 degrees with KT (3 RCTs, 143 participants), with an absolute improvement of 3% (95% CI 11% worse to 17 % better) and a relative improvement of 3% (95% CI 9% worse to 14% better) at six weeks.\nMean of quality of life (0 to 100, 100 better quality of life) was 37.94 points with conservative treatment and 56.64 points with KT (1 RCTs, 30 participants), with an absolute improvement of 18.7% (95% CI 14.48% better to 22.92% better) and a relative improvement of 53% (95% CI 41% better to 65% better) at four weeks.\nNo studies were found for global assessment of treatment success. No reliable estimates for adverse events (7 studies, very low certainty of evidence) could be provided due to the heterogeneous description of events in the whole sample.\nAuthors' conclusions\nKinesio taping for rotator cuff disease has uncertain effects in terms of self-reported pain, function, pain on motion and active range of motion when compared to sham taping or other conservative treatments as the certainty of evidence was very low. Low-certainty evidence shows that kinesio taping may improve quality of life when compared to conservative treatment. We downgraded the evidence for indirectness due to differences among co-interventions, imprecision due to small number of participants across trials as well as selection bias, performance and detection bias. Evidence on adverse events was scarce and uncertain. Based upon the data in this review, the evidence for the efficacy of KT seems to demonstrate little or no benefit.\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": "" } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists can be used to prevent a luteinizing hormone (LH) surge during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) without the hypo-oestrogenic side-effects, flare-up, or long down-regulation period associated with agonists. The antagonists directly and rapidly inhibit gonadotrophin release within several hours through competitive binding to pituitary GnRH receptors. This property allows their use at any time during the follicular phase. Several different regimens have been described including multiple-dose fixed (0.25 mg daily from day six to seven of stimulation), multiple-dose flexible (0.25 mg daily when leading follicle is 14 to 15 mm), and single-dose (single administration of 3 mg on day 7 to 8 of stimulation) protocols, with or without the addition of an oral contraceptive pill. Further, women receiving antagonists have been shown to have a lower incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Assuming comparable clinical outcomes for the antagonist and agonist protocols, these benefits would justify a change from the standard long agonist protocol to antagonist regimens. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2001, and previously updated in 2006 and 2011.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists compared with the standard long protocol of GnRH agonists for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in assisted conception cycles.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (searched from inception to May 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, inception to 28 April 2015), Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to 28 April 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 28 April 2015), PsycINFO (1806 to 28 April 2015), CINAHL (to 28 April 2015) and trial registers to 28 April 2015, and handsearched bibliographies of relevant publications and reviews, and abstracts of major scientific meetings, for example the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). We contacted the authors of eligible studies for missing or unpublished data. The evidence is current to 28 April 2015.\nSelection criteria\nTwo review authors independently screened the relevant citations for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist protocols in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted the data. The primary review outcomes were live birth and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Other adverse effects (miscarriage and cycle cancellation) were secondary outcomes. We combined data to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using GRADE methods.\nMain results\nWe included 73 RCTs, with 12,212 participants, comparing GnRH antagonist to long-course GnRH agonist protocols. The quality of the evidence was moderate: limitations were poor reporting of study methods.\nLive birth\nThere was no evidence of a difference in live birth rate between GnRH antagonist and long course GnRH agonist (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.23; 12 RCTs, n = 2303, I2= 27%, moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of live birth following GnRH agonist is assumed to be 29%, the chance following GnRH antagonist would be between 25% and 33%.\nOHSS\nGnRH antagonist was associated with lower incidence of any grade of OHSS than GnRH agonist (OR 0.61, 95% C 0.51 to 0.72; 36 RCTs, n = 7944, I2 = 31%, moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the risk of OHSS following GnRH agonist is assumed to be 11%, the risk following GnRH antagonist would be between 6% and 9%.\nOther adverse effects\nThere was no evidence of a difference in miscarriage rate per woman randomised between GnRH antagonist group and GnRH agonist group (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.29; 34 RCTs, n = 7082, I2 = 0%, moderate quality evidence).\nWith respect to cycle cancellation, GnRH antagonist was associated with a lower incidence of cycle cancellation due to high risk of OHSS (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.69; 19 RCTs, n = 4256, I2 = 0%). However cycle cancellation due to poor ovarian response was higher in women who received GnRH antagonist than those who were treated with GnRH agonist (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.65; 25 RCTs, n = 5230, I2 = 68%; moderate quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate quality evidence that the use of GnRH antagonist compared with long-course GnRH agonist protocols is associated with a substantial reduction in OHSS without reducing the likelihood of achieving live birth.\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 73 randomised controlled trials comparing GnRH antagonist with GnRH agonist in a total of 12,212 women undergoing ART. The evidence is current to May 2015" } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAge-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the most common cause of uncorrectable severe vision loss in people aged 55 years and older in the developed world. Choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to AMD accounts for most cases of AMD-related severe vision loss. Intravitreous injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents aims to block the growth of abnormal blood vessels in the eye to prevent vision loss and, in some instances, to improve vision.\nObjectives\n• To investigate ocular and systemic effects of, and quality of life associated with, intravitreous injection of three anti-VEGF agents (pegaptanib, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab) versus no anti-VEGF treatment for patients with neovascular AMD\n• To compare the relative effects of one of these anti-VEGF agents versus another when administered in comparable dosages and regimens\nSearch methods\nTo identify eligible studies for this review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register (searched January 31, 2018); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to January 31, 2018); Embase Ovid (1947 to January 31, 2018); the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to January 31, 2018); the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) Registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch - searched January 31, 2018); ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov - searched November 28, 2018); and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en - searched January 31, 2018). We did not impose any date or language restrictions in electronic searches for trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated pegaptanib, ranibizumab, or bevacizumab versus each other or versus a control treatment (e.g. sham treatment, photodynamic therapy), in which participants were followed for at least one year.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We contacted trial authors for additional data. We compared outcomes using risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs). We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 16 RCTs that had enrolled a total of 6347 participants with neovascular AMD (the number of participants per trial ranged from 23 to 1208) and identified one potentially relevant ongoing trial. Six trials compared anti-VEGF treatment (pegaptanib, ranibizumab, or bevacizumab) versus control, and 10 trials compared bevacizumab versus ranibizumab. Pharmaceutical companies conducted or sponsored four trials but funded none of the studies that evaluated bevacizumab. Researchers conducted these trials at various centers across five continents (North and South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia). The overall certainty of the evidence was moderate to high, and most trials had an overall low risk of bias. All but one trial had been registered prospectively.\nWhen compared with those who received control treatment, more participants who received intravitreous injection of any of the three anti-VEGF agents had gained 15 letters or more of visual acuity (risk ratio [RR] 4.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.32 to 7.55; moderate-certainty evidence), had lost fewer than 15 letters of visual acuity (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.55; high-certainty evidence), and showed mean improvement in visual acuity (mean difference 6.7 letters, 95% CI 4.4 to 9.0 in one pegaptanib trial; mean difference 17.8 letters, 95% CI 16.0 to 19.7 in three ranibizumab trials; moderate-certainty evidence) after one year of follow-up. Participants treated with anti-VEGF agents showed improvement in morphologic outcomes (e.g. size of CNV, central retinal thickness) compared with participants not treated with anti-VEGF agents (moderate-certainty evidence). No trial directly compared pegaptanib versus another anti-VEGF agent and followed participants for one year; however, when compared with control treatments, ranibizumab and bevacizumab each yielded larger improvements in visual acuity outcomes than pegaptanib.\nVisual acuity outcomes after bevacizumab and ranibizumab were similar when the same RCTs compared the same regimens with respect to gain of 15 or more letters of visual acuity (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.12; high-certainty evidence) and loss of fewer than 15 letters of visual acuity (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02; high-certainty evidence); results showed similar mean improvement in visual acuity (mean difference [MD] -0.5 letters, 95% CI -1.5 to 0.5; high-certainty evidence) after one year of follow-up, despite the substantially lower cost of bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab. Reduction in central retinal thickness was less among bevacizumab-treated participants than among ranibizumab-treated participants after one year (MD -11.6 μm, 95% CI -21.6 to -1.7; high-certainty evidence); however, this difference is within the range of measurement error, and we did not interpret it to be clinically meaningful.\nOcular inflammation and increased intraocular pressure (IOP) after intravitreal injection were the most frequently reported serious ocular adverse events. Researchers reported endophthalmitis in less than 1% of anti-VEGF-treated participants and in no cases among control groups. The occurrence of serious systemic adverse events was comparable across anti-VEGF-treated groups and control groups; however, the numbers of events and trial participants may have been insufficient to show a meaningful difference between groups (evidence of low- to moderate-certainty). Investigators rarely measured and reported data on visual function, quality of life, or economic outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nResults of this review show the effectiveness of anti-VEGF agents (pegaptanib, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab) in terms of maintaining visual acuity; studies show that ranibizumab and bevacizumab improved visual acuity in some eyes that received these agents and were equally effective. Available information on the adverse effects of each medication does not suggest a higher incidence of potentially vision-threatening complications with intravitreous injection of anti-VEGF agents compared with control interventions; however, clinical trial sample sizes were not sufficient to estimate differences in rare safety outcomes. Future Cochrane Reviews should incorporate research evaluating variable dosing regimens of anti-VEGF agents, effects of long-term use, use of combination therapies (e.g. anti-VEGF treatment plus photodynamic therapy), and other methods of delivering these agents.\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": "Anti-VEGF agents were better than no anti-VEGF agents or other types of treatment for patients with wet AMD. When studies compared anti-VEGF agents, researchers found that ranibizumab and bevacizumab were similar in terms of vision-related outcomes and numbers of adverse events among participants followed for at least one year. The major difference was cost, as bevacizumab was cheaper." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute urinary retention is a urological emergency in men and requires urgent catheterisation. Any intervention which aims at improving urinary symptoms following an acute urinary retention episode could be potentially beneficial. Alpha blockers relax prostatic smooth muscle cells thereby decreasing the resistance to urinary flow and by doing so could improve urinary symptoms.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of alpha blockers on successful resumption of micturition following removal of a urethral urinary catheter after an episode of acute urinary retention in men. In the absence of internationally agreed outcome measures for the success of a trial without catheter, success was defined as the return to satisfactory voiding without need for re-catheterisation within 24 hours.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 9 October 2013), CENTRAL (2013, Issue 5) (searched 5 June 2013), MEDLINE 1946 to May Week 4 2013, MEDLINE in Process (covering to 3 June 2013), EMBASE Classic and EMBASE 1947 to 2013 Week 22 (all searched 4 June 2013) and the reference lists of relevant articles. No language or other restrictions were imposed on the searches.\nSelection criteria\nOnly randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials of alpha blockers for trial without a urethral catheter following an episode of acute urinary retention in men were included.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently examined all the citations and abstracts derived from the search strategy. Any disagreement about trial selection and inclusion was resolved by discussion. A third independent judgement was sought where disagreement persisted. Two review authors extracted independently, cross-checked and processed the data as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention. Quality of evidence of the critical outcomes was assessed by adopting the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nNine randomised clinical trials were included in this review. Eight trials compared alpha blockers versus placebo (five trials tested alfuzosin and two trials tested tamsulosin, one trial tested both alfuzosin and tamsulosin, one trial tested silodosin) and one trial compared an alpha blocker (doxazosin) versus no treatment. Trial without catheter was performed after treatment with the drug for one to three days in seven trials and for eight and 32 days in two other trials respectively. There was moderate quality evidence to suggest that the rate of successful trial without catheter favoured alpha blockers over placebo ( 366/608, 60.2%, of men using an alpha blocker were able to void spontaneously after catheter removal compared with 185/486, 38.1%, using placebo, risk ratio (RR) 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 1.76). The incidence of recurrent acute urinary retention was lower in groups treated with an alpha blocker (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.79). This evidence was of moderate quality and was statistically significant for alfuzosin, tamsulosin and silodosin, though not for doxazosin. Of the trials mentioning adverse effects (for example, postural hypotension, dizziness), there was not enough information to detect statistically significant differences between the groups (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.89) and the evidence was of low quality. Overall, adverse effect rates were low for both placebo and alpha blockers and, for example, vasodilatation-related adverse effects did not often result in discontinuation. However, the data in this review are limited due to the large amount of unpublished data that was not available to us.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was some evidence to suggest that alpha blockers increase the success rates of trial without catheter, and the incidence of adverse effects was low. There was some evidence of a decreased incidence of acute urinary retention. The need for further surgery, cost effectiveness and recommended duration of alpha blocker treatment after successful trial without catheter remain unknown as these were not reported by any trial. There is a lack of internationally agreed outcome measures for what constitutes successful trial without catheter. This makes meta-analysis difficult. Large, well-designed controlled trials, which use the recommendations set out in the CONSORT statement, and include clinically important outcome measures, are required.\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": "There was some evidence to say that alpha blockers also reduce the risk of suffering another (recurrent) episode of urinary retention after successful catheter removal, though it remains unclear whether they reduce the need for future surgery on the prostate. It is therefore unclear whether, or for how long, alpha blocker treatment should be continued after successful catheter removal and whether the costs of alpha blocker treatment in such situations are justified. Further research is needed to answer these questions." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThere is a common perception that smoking generally helps people to manage stress, and may be a form of 'self-medication' in people with mental health conditions. However, there are biologically plausible reasons why smoking may worsen mental health through neuroadaptations arising from chronic smoking, leading to frequent nicotine withdrawal symptoms (e.g. anxiety, depression, irritability), in which case smoking cessation may help to improve rather than worsen mental health.\nObjectives\nTo examine the association between tobacco smoking cessation and change in mental health.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the trial registries clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, from 14 April 2012 to 07 January 2020. These were updated searches of a previously-conducted non-Cochrane review where searches were conducted from database inception to 13 April 2012.\nSelection criteria\nWe included controlled before-after studies, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) analysed by smoking status at follow-up, and longitudinal cohort studies. In order to be eligible for inclusion studies had to recruit adults who smoked tobacco, and assess whether they quit or continued smoking during the study. They also had to measure a mental health outcome at baseline and at least six weeks later.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcomes were change in depression symptoms, anxiety symptoms or mixed anxiety and depression symptoms between baseline and follow-up. Secondary outcomes  included change in symptoms of stress, psychological quality of life, positive affect, and social impact or social quality of life, as well as new incidence of depression, anxiety, or mixed anxiety and depression disorders.\nWe assessed the risk of bias for the primary outcomes using a modified ROBINS-I tool.  For change in mental health outcomes, we calculated the pooled standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the difference in change in mental health from baseline to follow-up between those who had quit smoking and those who had continued to smoke. For the incidence of psychological disorders, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. For all meta-analyses we used a generic inverse variance random-effects model and quantified statistical heterogeneity using I2. We conducted subgroup analyses to investigate any differences in associations between sub-populations, i.e. unselected people with mental illness, people with physical chronic diseases.\nWe assessed the certainty of evidence for our primary outcomes (depression, anxiety, and mixed depression and anxiety) and our secondary social impact outcome using the eight GRADE considerations relevant to non-randomised studies (risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, publication bias, magnitude of the effect, the influence of all plausible residual confounding, the presence of a dose-response gradient).\nMain results\nWe included 102 studies representing over 169,500 participants. Sixty-two of these were identified in the updated search for this review and 40 were included in the original version of the review.  Sixty-three studies provided data on change in mental health, 10 were included in meta-analyses of incidence of mental health disorders, and 31 were synthesised narratively.\nFor all primary outcomes, smoking cessation was associated with an improvement in mental health symptoms compared with continuing to smoke: anxiety symptoms (SMD −0.28, 95% CI −0.43 to −0.13; 15 studies, 3141 participants; I2 = 69%; low-certainty evidence); depression symptoms: (SMD −0.30, 95% CI −0.39 to −0.21; 34 studies, 7156 participants; I2 = 69%' very low-certainty evidence);  mixed anxiety and depression symptoms (SMD −0.31, 95% CI −0.40 to −0.22; 8 studies, 2829 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence).  These findings were robust to preplanned sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analysis generally did not produce evidence of differences in the effect size among subpopulations or based on methodological characteristics. All studies were deemed to be at serious risk of bias due to possible time-varying confounding, and three studies measuring depression symptoms were judged to be at critical risk of bias overall. There was also some evidence of funnel plot asymmetry. For these reasons, we rated our certainty in the estimates for anxiety as low, for depression as very low, and for mixed anxiety and depression as moderate.\nFor the secondary outcomes, smoking cessation was associated with an improvement in symptoms of stress (SMD −0.19, 95% CI −0.34 to −0.04; 4 studies, 1792 participants; I2 = 50%), positive affect (SMD 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.33; 13 studies, 4880 participants; I2 = 75%), and psychological quality of life (SMD 0.11, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.16; 19 studies, 18,034 participants; I2 = 42%). There was also evidence that smoking cessation was not associated with a reduction in social quality of life, with the confidence interval incorporating the possibility of a small improvement (SMD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.06; 9 studies, 14,673 participants; I2 = 0%). The incidence of new mixed anxiety and depression was lower in people who stopped smoking compared with those who continued (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86; 3 studies, 8685 participants; I2 = 57%), as was the incidence of anxiety disorder (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.12; 2 studies, 2293 participants; I2 = 46%). We deemed it inappropriate to present a pooled estimate for the incidence of new cases of clinical depression, as there was high statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 87%).\nAuthors' conclusions\nTaken together, these data provide evidence that mental health does not worsen as a result of quitting smoking, and very low- to moderate-certainty evidence that smoking cessation is associated with small to moderate improvements in mental health.  These improvements are seen in both unselected samples and in subpopulations, including people diagnosed with mental health conditions. Additional studies that use more advanced methods to overcome time-varying confounding would strengthen the evidence in this area.\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 lasted for at least six weeks that included people who were smoking at the start of the studies. To be included, studies also had to measure whether people did or did not stop smoking and any changes in mental health during the study.\nWe were interested in how stopping smoking affected:\n- symptoms of anxiety;\n- symptoms of depression;\n- symptoms of anxiety and depression together;\n- symptoms of stress;\n- overall well-being;\n- mental health problems;\n- social well-being, personal relationships, isolation and loneliness." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nVarious rehabilitation treatments may be offered following surgery for flexor tendon injuries of the hand. Rehabilitation often includes a combination of an exercise regimen and an orthosis, plus other rehabilitation treatments, usually delivered together. The effectiveness of these interventions remains unclear.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects (benefits and harms) of different rehabilitation interventions after surgery for flexor tendon injuries of the hand.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase, two additional databases and two international trials registries, unrestricted by language. The last date of searches was 11 August 2020. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared any postoperative rehabilitation intervention with no intervention, control, placebo, or another postoperative rehabilitation intervention in individuals who have had surgery for flexor tendon injuries of the hand. Trials comparing different mobilisation regimens either with another mobilisation regimen or with a control were the main comparisons of interest. Our main outcomes of interest were patient-reported function, active range of motion of the fingers, and number of participants experiencing an adverse event.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for primary outcomes using the GRADE approach, according to standard Cochrane methodology.\nMain results\nWe included 16 RCTs and one quasi-RCT, with a total of 1108 participants, mainly adults. Overall, the participants were aged between 7 and 72 years, and 74% were male. Studies mainly focused on flexor tendon injuries in zone II.\nThe 17 studies were heterogeneous with respect to the types of rehabilitation treatments provided, intensity, duration of treatment and the treatment setting. Each trial tested one of 14 comparisons, eight of which were of different exercise regimens. The other trials examined the timing of return to unrestricted functional activities after surgery (one study); the use of external devices applied to the participant to facilitate mobilisation, such as an exoskeleton (one study) or continuous passive motion device (one study); modalities such as laser therapy (two studies) or ultrasound therapy (one study); and a motor imagery treatment (one study). No trials tested different types of orthoses; different orthosis wearing regimens, including duration; different timings for commencing mobilisation; different types of scar management; or different timings for commencing strengthening.\nTrials were generally at high risk of bias for one or more domains, including lack of blinding, incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting. Data pooling was limited to tendon rupture data in a three trial comparison. We rated the evidence available for all reported outcomes of all comparisons as very low-certainty evidence, which means that we have very little confidence in the estimates of effect.\nWe present the findings from three exercise regimen comparisons, as these are commonly used in clinical current practice.\nEarly active flexion plus controlled passive exercise regimen versus early controlled passive exercise regimen (modified Kleinert protocol) was compared in one trial of 53 participants with mainly zone II flexor tendon repairs. There is very low-certainty evidence of no clinically important difference between the two groups in patient-rated function or active finger range of motion at 6 or 12 months follow-up. There is very low-certainty evidence of little between-group difference in adverse events: there were 15 overall. All three tendon ruptures underwent secondary surgery.\nAn active exercise regimen versus an immobilisation regimen for three weeks was compared in one trial reporting data for 84 participants with zone II flexor tendon repairs. The trial did not report on self-rated function, on range of movement during three to six months or numbers of participants experiencing adverse events. The very low-certainty evidence for poor (under one-quarter that of normal) range of finger movement at one to three years follow-up means we are uncertain of the finding of zero cases in the active group versus seven cases in the immobilisation regimen. The same uncertainty applies to the finding of little difference between the two groups in adverse events (5 tendon ruptures in the active group versus 10 probable scar adhesion in the immobilisation group) indicated for surgery.\nPlace and hold exercise regimen performed within an orthosis versus a controlled passive regimen using rubber band traction was compared in three heterogeneous trials, which reported data for a maximum of 194 participants, with mainly zone II flexor tendon repairs. The trials did not report on range of movement during three to six months, or numbers of participants experiencing adverse events. There was very low-certainty evidence of no difference in self-rated function using the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) functional assessment between the two groups at six months (one trial) or at 12 months (one trial). There is very low-certainty evidence from one trial of greater active finger range of motion at 12 months after place and hold. Secondary surgery data were not available; however, all seven recorded tendon ruptures would have required surgery.\nAll the evidence for the other five exercise comparisons as well as those of the other six comparisons made by the included studies was incomplete and, where available, of very low-certainty.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is a lack of evidence from RCTs on most of the rehabilitation interventions used following surgery for flexor tendon injuries of the hand. The limited and very low-certainty evidence for all 14 comparisons examined in the 17 included studies means that we have very little confidence in the estimates of effect for all outcomes for which data were available for these comparisons.\nThe dearth of evidence identified in this review points to the urgent need for sufficiently powered RCTs that examine key questions relating to the rehabilitation of these injuries. A consensus approach identifying these and establishing minimum study conduct and reporting criteria will be valuable. Our suggestions for future research are detailed in the review.\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 found 17 studies that involved a total of 1108 people who had received surgery to repair torn flexor tendons. The people were aged between 7 and 72 years, and three-quarters of them were male.\nTen studies evaluated one each of eight different hand exercise programmes. The other seven studies evaluated a variety of other rehabilitation approaches, such as:\n- laser therapy, in which light is directed at the tendons to encourage healing;\n- ultrasound, in which sound waves are directed at the tendons to encourage healing; and\n- a wearable machine (exoskeleton), designed to assist people in their movements.\nWe found very little evidence about the benefits and risks of different rehabilitation approaches. The evidence we did find was not robust. For example, for the three most relevant exercise comparisons we identified only:\n- one study (84 people) that compared finger exercises against immobilisation;\n- one study (53 people) that evaluated the effects of adding regular finger exercises (20 to 30 times every waking hour for four weeks from the first day after surgery) to ‘passive’ exercises (in which people regularly folded the fingers in the injured hand using the uninjured hand); and\n- three studies (190 people) that evaluated the effects of adding ‘place and hold’ exercises (during which people use their uninjured hand to fold the fingers of the injured hand, and then have to hold the folded fingers in place for a few seconds without any support) to passive exercises.\nThe studies were too small, or reported too little robust or usable information, for us to determine which approach is best." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nLand-based exercise training improves exercise capacity and quality of life in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Water-based exercise training is an alternative mode of physical exercise training that may appeal to the older population attending pulmonary rehabilitation programmes, those who are unable to complete land-based exercise programmes and people with COPD with comorbid physical and medical conditions.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of water-based exercise training in people with COPD.\nSearch methods\nA search of the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, which is derived from systematic searches of bibliographic databases, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO, was conducted (from inception to August 2013). Handsearching was done to identify further qualifying studies from reference lists of relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nReview authors included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in which water-based exercise training of at least four weeks' duration was compared with no exercise training or any other form of exercise training in people with COPD. Swimming was excluded.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nFive studies were included with a total of 176 participants (71 people participated in water-based exercise training and 54 in land-based exercise training; 51 completed no exercise training). All studies compared supervised water-based exercise training versus land-based exercise training and/or no exercise training in people with COPD (with average forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) %predicted ranging from 39% to 62%). Sample sizes ranged from 11 to 53 participants. The exercise training programmes lasted from four to 12 weeks, and the mean age of participants ranged from 57 to 73 years. A moderate risk of bias was due to lack of reporting of randomisation, allocation and blinding procedures in some studies, as well as small sample sizes.\nCompared with no exercise, water-based exercise training improved the six-minute walk distance (mean difference (MD) 62 metres; 95% confidence interval (CI) 44 to 80 metres; three studies; 99 participants; moderate quality evidence), the incremental shuttle walk distance (MD 50 metres; 95% CI 20 to 80 metres; one study; 30 participants; high quality evidence) and the endurance shuttle walk distance (MD 371 metres; 95% CI 121 to 621 metres; one study; 30 participants; high quality evidence). Quality of life was also improved after water-based exercise training compared with no exercise (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.97, 95% CI -0.37 to -1.57; two studies; 49 participants; low quality evidence). Compared with land-based exercise training, water-based exercise training did not significantly change the six-minute walk distance (MD 11 metres; 95% CI -11 to 33 metres; three studies; 62 participants; moderate quality evidence) or the incremental shuttle walk distance (MD 9 metres; 95% CI -15 to 34 metres; two studies; 59 participants; low quality evidence). However, the endurance shuttle walk distance improved following water-based exercise training compared with land-based exercise training (MD 313 metres; 95% CI 232 to 394 metres; two studies; 59 participants; moderate quality evidence). No significant differences were found between water-based exercise training and land-based exercise training for quality of life, as measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire or by three of four domains of the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRDQ); however, the fatigue domain of the CRDQ showed a statistically significant difference in favour of water-based exercise (MD -3.00; 95% CI -5.26 to -0.74; one study; 30 participants). Only one study reported long-term outcomes after water-based exercise training for quality of life and body composition, and no significant change was observed between baseline results and six-month follow-up results. One minor adverse event was reported for water-based exercise training (based on reporting from two studies; 20 participants). Impact of disease severity could not be examined because data were insufficient.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is limited quality evidence that water-based exercise training is safe and improves exercise capacity and quality of life in people with COPD immediately after training. There is limited quality evidence that water-based exercise training offers advantages over land-based exercise training in improving endurance exercise capacity, but we remain uncertain as to whether it leads to better quality of life. Little evidence exists examining the long-term effect of water-based exercise training.\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": "Five studies were identified up to August 2013. These studies included a total of 176 participants, with 71 people participating in water-based exercise training, 54 people participating in land-based exercise training and 51 people completing no exercise training. The average age of participants ranged from 57 to 73 years. The water-based exercise training programmes varied from four to 12 weeks in duration with attendance two to three times a week for between 35 and 90 minutes. The water-based exercises were designed to be as similar as possible to the exercises conducted in the land-based exercise sessions. The most common types of exercises were walking and cycling-type movements in the water, as well as strength training, most often using floats to increase the intensity." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nInfantile-onset Pompe disease is a rare and progressive autosomal-recessive disorder caused by a deficiency of the lysosomal enzyme acid alpha-glucosidase (GAA). Current treatment involves enzyme replacement therapy (with recombinant human alglucosidase alfa) and symptomatic therapies (e.g. to control secretions). Children who are cross-reactive immunological material (CRIM)-negative require immunomodulation prior to commencing enzyme replacement therapy.\nEnzyme replacement therapy was developed as the most promising therapeutic approach for Pompe disease; however, the evidence is lacking, especially regarding the optimal dose and dose frequency.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness, safety and appropriate dose regimen of enzyme replacement therapy for treating infantile-onset Pompe disease.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Inborn Errors of Metabolism Trials Register, which is compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase (Ovid), PubMed and LILACS, and CBM, CNKI, VIP, and WANFANG for literature published in Chinese. In addition, we searched three online registers: WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ClinicalTrials.gov, and www.genzymeclinicalresearch.com. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.\nDate of last search of the Group's Inborn Errors of Metabolism Trials Register: 24 November 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of enzyme replacement therapy in children with infantile-onset Pompe disease.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected relevant trials, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted investigators to obtain important missing information.\nMain results\nWe found no trials comparing the effectiveness and safety of enzyme replacement therapy to another intervention, no intervention or placebo.\nWe found one trial (18 participants) that fulfilled the selection criteria, comparing different doses of alglucosidase alfa. The trial provided low-quality evidence (this was a small trial, there were no numerical results available by dose group, random sequence generation and allocation concealment were unclear, and there was a lack of blinding). The duration of alglucosidase alfa treatment ranged from 52 weeks (the length of the original study) to up to three years (including the extended phase of the trial), with a median duration of treatment being 2.3 years.\nThe trial only reported that clinical responses including cardiac function and motor development, as well as the proportion of children that were free of invasive ventilation, were similar in the 20 mg/kg every two weeks and the 40 mg/kg every two weeks groups (low-quality evidence). Long-term alglucosidase alfa treatment markedly extended survival as well as ventilation-free survival and improved cardiomyopathy (low-quality evidence). In relation to the number of children experiencing one or more infusion-related events, there was no significant difference between dose groups, risk ratio 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.40 to 1.76) (low-quality of evidence). However, of note, at 52 weeks, five children in the 20 mg/kg every two weeks dose group experienced a total of 41 mild or moderate (none severe) infusion-related events and the six children in the 40 mg/kg every two weeks dose group experienced a total of 123 infusion-related events. By the end of the extended phase of the trial, five children in the 20 mg/kg every two weeks dose group experienced a total of 47 infusion-related events and the six children in the 40 mg/kg every two weeks dose group experienced a total of 177 infusion-related events. The trial was supported by the Genzyme Corporation.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe search found no trials comparing the effectiveness and safety of enzyme replacement therapy to another intervention, no intervention or placebo. One small randomized controlled trial provided no robust evidence for which dosing schedule of alglucosidase alfa was more effective to treat infantile-onset Pompe disease. It is not deemed ethical to proceed with new placebo-controlled trials, therefore a randomized controlled trial with a large sample size comparing different dosing schedules of enzyme replacement therapy is needed. The main clinical outcomes (i.e. cardiac function, invasive ventilation, survival, motor development, adverse events (e.g. the development of antibodies)) should be standardized when evaluated and reported.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched medical databases for clinical trials of enzyme replacement therapy in children with Pompe disease. We found no randomised trials (where people taking part in the trial have equal chances of being in the treatment or the control group) comparing the effectiveness and safety of enzyme replacement therapy to another intervention, no intervention or placebo (a 'dummy' drug). We found one trial (18 children) that compared two doses of recombinant human alglucosidase alfa (an enzyme replacement therapy): 20 mg/kg every two weeks (low dose) and 40 mg/kg every two weeks (high dose). The duration of treatment ranged from 52 weeks (the length of the original study) to up to three years (including the extension phase of the study), with a median (the middle number) duration of treatment being 2.3 years." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHip fractures are a major healthcare problem, presenting a huge challenge and burden to patients, healthcare systems and society. The increased proportion of older adults in the world population means that the absolute number of hip fractures is rising rapidly across the globe. The majority of hip fractures are treated surgically. This review evaluates evidence for types of internal fixation implants used in joint-preserving surgery for intracapsular hip fractures.\nObjectives\nTo determine the relative effects (benefits and harms) of different implants for the internal fixation of intracapsular hip fractures in older adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos, Proquest Dissertations and Theses, and National Technical Information Service in July 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, reference lists of retrieved articles and conducted backward-citation searches.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing implants used for internal fixation of fragility intracapsular proximal femoral fractures in older adults. Types of implants were smooth pins (these include pins with fold-out hooks), screws, or fixed angle plates. We excluded studies in which all or most fractures were caused by specific pathologies other than osteoporosis or were the result of a high energy trauma.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias which was checked by a second review author. We collected data for seven outcomes: activities of daily living (ADL), delirium, functional status, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), mobility, mortality (reported within four months of surgery as early mortality, and at 12 months since surgery), and unplanned return to theatre for treating a complication resulting directly or indirectly from the primary procedure (such as deep infection or non-union). We assessed the certainty of the evidence for these outcomes using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 38 studies (32 RCTs, six quasi-RCTs) with 8585 participants with 8590 intracapsular fractures. The mean ages of participants in the studies ranged from 60 to 84 years; 73% were women, and 38% of fractures were undisplaced.\nWe report here the findings of the four main comparisons, which were between different categories of implants.\nWe downgraded the certainty of the outcomes for imprecision (when data were available from insufficient numbers of participants or the confidence interval (CI) was wide), study limitations (e.g. high or unclear risks of bias), and inconsistency (when we noted substantial levels of statistical heterogeneity).\nSmooth pins versus fixed angle plate (four studies, 1313 participants)\nWe found very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between the two implant types in independent mobility with no more than one walking stick (1 study, 112 participants), early mortality (1 study, 383 participants), mortality at 12 months (2 studies, 661 participants), and unplanned return to theatre (3 studies, 736 participants). No studies reported on ADL, delirium, functional status, or HRQoL.\nScrews versus fixed angle plates (11 studies, 2471 participants)\nWe found low-certainty evidence of no clinically important differences between the two implant types in functional status using WOMAC (MD -3.18, 95% CI -6.35 to -0.01; 2 studies, 498 participants; range of scores from 0 to 96, lower values indicate better function), and HRQoL using EQ-5D (MD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.06; 2 studies, 521 participants; range -0.654 (worst), 0 (dead), 1 (best)). We also found low-certainty evidence showing little or no difference between the two implant types in mortality at 12 months (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.31; 7 studies, 1690 participants), and unplanned return to theatre (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.26; 11 studies, 2321 participants). We found very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between the two implant types in independent mobility (1 study, 70 participants), and early mortality (3 studies, 467 participants). No studies reported on ADL or delirium.\nScrews versus smooth pins (seven studies, 1119 participants)\nWe found low-certainty evidence of no or little difference between the two implant types in mortality at 12 months (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.35; 6 studies, 1005 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between the two implant types in early mortality (3 studies, 584 participants) and unplanned return to theatre (5 studies, 862 participants). No studies reported on ADL, delirium, functional status, HRQoL, or mobility.\nScrews or smooth pins versus fixed angle plates (15 studies, 3784 participants)\nIn this comparison, we combined data from the first two comparison groups. We found low-certainty evidence of no or little difference between the two groups of implants in mortality at 12 months (RR 1.04, 95% CI.083 to 1.31; 7 studies, 1690 participants) and unplanned return to theatre (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.18; 14 studies, 3057 participants). We found very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between the two groups of implants in independent mobility (2 studies, 182 participants), and early mortality (4 studies, 850 participants). We found no additional evidence to support the findings for functional status or HRQoL as reported in 'Screws versus fixed angle plates'. No studies reported ADL or delirium.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is low-certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference between screws and fixed angle plates in functional status, HRQoL, mortality at 12 months, or unplanned return to theatre; and between screws and pins in mortality at 12 months. The limited and very low-certainty evidence for the outcomes for which data were available for the smooth pins versus fixed angle plates comparison, as well as the other outcomes for which data were available for the screws and fixed angle plates, and screws and pins comparisons means we have very little confidence in the estimates of effect for these outcomes. Additional RCTs would increase the certainty of the evidence. We encourage such studies to report outcomes consistent with the core outcome set for hip fracture, including long-term quality of life indicators such as ADL and mobility.\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": "Although there were some large studies, most of the evidence for each outcome came from only a few participants. Many older studies were not well reported. It was not possible to hide from the surgeons what type of fixing was used, which might affect a surgeon's decision on whether someone needed additional surgery. Sometimes, we found differences between the findings of individual studies that we could not explain.\nFor these reasons, we assessed the evidence for the outcomes as either low- or very low-certainty evidence. This means we had limited confidence or very little confidence in the results." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOesophageal cancer is the seventh leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Traditional Chinese herbal medicine is sometimes used as an adjunct to radiotherapy or chemotherapy for this type of cancer. This review was first published in 2007 and updated in 2009; this 2016 update is the latest version of the review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and possible adverse effects of the addition of Chinese herbal medicine to treatment with radiotherapy or chemotherapy for oesophageal cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP database, Wanfang database and the Chinese Cochrane Centre Controlled Trials Register up to 1 October, 2015. We also searched databases of ongoing trials, the Internet and reference lists.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of radiotherapy or chemotherapy with and without the addition of Chinese herbal medicine.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality.\nMain results\nWe tried to contact the 142 study authors by telephone, and finally included nine studies with 490 participants. All included studies were conducted in China, and allocated advanced oesophageal cancer patients to radiotherapy or chemotherapy groups, with and without additional Chinese herbal medicine. Quality of life, short-term therapeutic effects, TCM symptoms and adverse events caused by radiotherapy or chemotherapy were reported in these studies. Overall, we considered the trials to be at unclear or high risk of bias.\nThe quality of life measure was conducted before and after the intervention; our analysis showed a beneficial effect, both in number of participants experiencing an improvement (risk ratio (RR) 2.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 3.39; 5 RCTs, 233 participants, change of performance status score ≥ 10) and number of participants experiencing a deterioration (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.62; 6 RCTs, 287 participants, change of performance status score ≤ 10). We judged this to have low quality evidence, downgrading quality of evidence for risk of bias and imprecision, and upgrading quality of evidence for the large effect.\nFor short-term therapeutic effects, the results suggest that traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has a positive impact on improvement (complete response + partial response) (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.35; 8 RCTs, 450 participants), moderate quality evidence and downgrading for risk of bias. There was no significant difference for progressive disease (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.01; 8 RCTs, 450 participants), low quality evidence and downgrading for risk of bias and imprecision. Three studies assessed this outcome after four weeks or three months' follow-up, the remaining studies gave no detailed information for this outcome. TCM symptoms, which was similar to short-term therapeutic effects evaluated with TCM clinical criteria, was diagnosed in two studies of 88 people at the end of the intervention. The results suggest that TCM has a positive impact on both total effectiveness (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.81) and ineffectiveness (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.93); we judged the studies to have very low quality evidence, downgrading for risk of bias and imprecision.\nNine studies reported a series of adverse events caused by radiotherapy or chemotherapy at the end of the intervention, including mucositis, radiation oesophagitis, arrest of bone marrow, gastrointestinal reactions, renal and hepatic impairment, white blood cell descent, neurotoxicity, cardiac toxicity and anaemia. For those containing multiple studies, we conducted a pooled analysis. As a result, TCM showed a significant effect on radiation oesophagitis (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.94; 2 RCTs, 90 participants), gastrointestinal reactions (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.81; 4 RCTs, 268 participants) and white blood cell descent (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.83; 4 RCTs, 224 participants). The quality of evidence was low or very low, downgrading for risk of bias and imprecision.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe currently find no evidence to determine whether TCM is an effective treatment for oesophageal cancer. The effect of TCM on short-term therapeutic effects is uncertain. TCM probably has positive effects on quality of life and on some adverse events caused by radiotherapy or chemotherapy in advanced oesophageal cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy or chemotherapy. The results of the review need to be interpreted cautiously owing to overall low quality evidence. Future trials should be large and correctly designed to detect important clinical effects and minimise risk of bias.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "This updated review included nine trials involving 490 participants. When Chinese herbal medicine was used as adjunct therapy to chemo- or radiotherapy for oesophageal cancer, the results showed a positive effect on quality of life, increased tolerance of patients for adverse effects caused by radiotherapy or chemotherapy (e.g. radiation oesophagitis, gastrointestinal reactions and blood cell descent), but no effects on all-cause mortality, median survival times or time to progression." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nRecurrent high-grade glioma (HGG) carries an extremely poor prognosis. There is no current standard of care or guideline-based recommendations. Nitrosourea-based multidrug chemotherapy or PCV — procarbazine, lomustine (CCNU) and vincristine — is one of the treatment options at recurrence. There has been no meta-analysis which looks at the benefits and harms of PCV chemotherapy in adults with recurrent HGG.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine (PCV) chemotherapy with other interventions in adults with recurrent high-grade glioma. To investigate whether predefined subgroups of people benefit more or less from chemotherapy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL Issue 4, 2017), MEDLINE (1946 to 22 May 2017), and Embase (1980 to 22 May 2017). We searched trial registries including the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; apps.who.int/trialsearch) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH; ClinicalTrials.gov). We searched the reference lists of all identified studies; the electronic table of contents of the Journal of Neuro-Oncology (1983 to 2016) and Neuro-Oncology (1999 to 2016); and conference abstracts from the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO 2004 to 2016). We also searched unpublished grey literature and other regional databases. There were no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised trials (QRCTs), or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) where PCV was used to treat adults with recurrent HGG. Comparison arm included no chemotherapy, other second line chemotherapy or best supportive care.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors extracted the data and undertook a 'Risk of bias' assessment and critical appraisal of the studies.\nMain results\nWe identified two RCTs meeting our inclusion criteria. The two trials tested different comparisons.\nOne RCT included 35 participants and compared PCV with 'eight drugs in one day' multidrug chemotherapy, which is a combination of drugs with different mechanisms of action. Median survival was 6 months for the PCV group and 6.5 months for the 'eight drugs in one day' group. Adverse event outcomes were not graded or quantified. Progression-free survival (PFS) and quality of life (QoL) were not described in the methods and were not an outcome of interest. The sample size in this study was small, which lead to insufficient statistical power to detect clinical differences. According to the GRADE approach we judged the quality of evidence to be low for survival outcome and very low for chemotherapy toxicity\nThe second multi-institutional RCT included 447 participants and compared PCV with Temozolomide (TMZ). Participants were randomised into three arms to receive PCV, and two different regimens of TMZ in a 2:1:1 ratio at first recurrence. The trial reported a median overall survival of 6.7 months and 7.2 months for the PCV and TMZ group respectively. It reported a PFS of 3.6 months for the PCV group and 4.7 months for the TMZ group. There was no observed difference of effect on overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.11; P = 0.35) or PFS (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.08; P = 0.23) in participants receiving PCV or TMZ chemotherapy. The proportion of people with at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event was not clinically important at 9.2% versus 12.2% in PCV and TMZ arms respectively. Mean QoL scores calculated at baseline, 12 weeks and 24 weeks was 51.9 versus 59.8 favouring TMZ (P = 0.04) which is statistically but not clinically significant and was less than the pre-defined 10 point change for moderate improvement. We judged the GRADE quality of evidence to be moderate for overall survival, PFS, and chemotherapy toxicity and low for QoL.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence is based on a single large trial analysis as the other trial was small, with inadequate power to detect survival difference. Chemotherapy-naive patients with HGG at first recurrence when treated with PCV or TMZ have similar survival and time-to-progression outcomes. Adverse events are similar and QoL scores are statistically but not clinically significant between TMZ and PCV. Further RCTs should be conducted with adequate power following CONSORT guidelines with emphasis on QoL outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the conclusions?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Chemotherapy-naive patients with HGG at first recurrence when treated with PCV or TMZ have similar survival and time-to-progression outcomes. Adverse events are similar and QoL scores are statistically but not clinically important between TMZ and PCV. The results do not apply to our contemporary patients with recurrent HGG as most of them would receive chemotherapy after original diagnosis as standard care. Participants in this trial received only radiotherapy prior to recurrence. Molecular markers were not used in decision making, which is the standard of care now." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTNF (tumor necrosis factor)-alpha inhibitors block a key protein in the inflammatory chain reaction responsible for joint inflammation, pain, and damage in ankylosing spondylitis.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefit and harms of adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab, and infliximab (TNF-alpha inhibitors) in people with ankylosing spondylitis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases to January 26, 2009: MEDLINE (from 1966); EMBASE (from 1980); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2008, Issue 4); ACP Journal Club; CINAHL (from 1982); and ISI Web of Knowledge (from 1900). We ran updated searches in May 2012, October 2013, and in June 2014 for McMaster PLUS. We searched major regulatory agencies for safety warnings and clinicaltrials.gov for registered trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab and infliximab to placebo, other drugs or usual care in patients with ankylosing spondylitis, reported in abstract or full-text.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed search results, risk of bias, and extracted data. We conducted Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analyses using WinBUGS software. To investigate a class-effect of harms across biologics, we pooled harms data using Review Manager 5.\nMain results\nWe included twenty-one, short-term (24 weeks or less) RCTs with a total of 3308 participants; 18 contributed data to the MTC analysis: adalimumab (4 studies), etanercept (8 studies), golimumab (2 studies), infliximab (3 studies), and one head-to-head study (etanercept versus infliximab) which was unblinded and considered at a higher risk of bias. The risk of selection and detection bias was low or unclear for most of the studies. The risk of selective outcome reporting was low for most studies as they reported on outcomes recommended by the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society. We found little heterogeneity and no significant inconsistency in the MTC analyses. The majority of the studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Most studies permitted concomitant therapy of stable doses of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or corticosteroids, but allowances varied across studies.\nCompared with placebo, there was high quality evidence that patients on an anti-TNF agent were three to four times more likely to achieve an ASAS40 response (assessing spinal pain, function, and inflammation, as measured by the mean of intensity and duration of morning stiffness, and patient global assessment) by six months (adalimumab: risk ratio (RR) 3.53, 95% credible interval (Crl) 2.49 to 4.91; etanercept: RR 3.31, 95% Crl 2.38 to 4.53; golimumab: RR 2.90, 95% Crl 1.90 to 4.23; infliximab: RR 4.07, 95% Crl 2.80 to 5.74, with a 25% to 40% absolute difference between treatment and placebo groups. The number needed to treat (NNT) to achieve an ASAS 40 response ranged from 3 to 5.\nThere was high quality evidence of improvement in physical function on a 0 to 10 scale (adalimumab: mean difference (MD) -1.6, 95% Crl -2.2 to -0.9; etanercept: MD -1.1, 95% CrI -1.6 to -0.6; golimumab: MD -1.5, 95% Crl -2.3 to -0.7; infliximab: MD -2.1, 95% Crl -2.7 to -1.4, with an 11% to 21% absolute difference between treatment and placebo groups. The NNT to achieve the minimally clinically important difference of 0.7 points ranged from 2 to 4.\nCompared with placebo, there was moderate quality evidence (downgraded for imprecision) that patients on an anti-TNF agent were more likely to achieve an ASAS partial remission by six months (adalimumab: RR 6.28, 95% Crl 3.13 to 12.78; etanercept: RR 4.24, 95% Crl 2.31 to 8.09; golimumab: RR 5.18, 95% Crl 1.90 to 14.79; infliximab: RR 15.41, 95% Crl 5.09 to 47.98 with a 10% to 44% absolute difference between treatment and placebo groups. The NNT to achieve an ASAS partial remission response ranged from 3 to 11.\nThere was low to moderate level evidence of a greater reduction in spinal inflammation as measured by magnetic resonance imaging though the absolute differences were small and the clinical relevance of the difference was unclear: adalimumab (1 trial; -6% (95% confidence interval (CI) -12% to 0.05%); 1 trial: 53.6% mean decrease from baseline versus 9.4% mean increase in the placebo group), golimumab (1 trial; -2.5%, (95% CI -5.6% to -0.7%)), and infliximab (1 trial; -3% (95% CI -4% to -2.4%)).\nRadiographic progression was measured in one trial (N = 60) of etanercept versus placebo and it found that radiologic changes were similar in both groups (detailed data not provided).\nThere were few events of withdrawals due to adverse events leading to imprecision around the estimates. When all the anti-TNF agents were combined against placebo, there was moderate quality evidence from 16 studies of an increased risk of withdrawals due to adverse events in the anti-TNF group (Peto odds ratio (OR) 2.44, 95% CI 1.26 to 4.72; total events: 38/1637 in biologic group; 7/986 in placebo) though the absolute increase in harm was small (1%; 95% CI 0% to 2%).\nDue to low event rates, evidence of the effect of individual TNF-inhibitors against placebo or for all four biologics pooled together versus placebo on serious adverse events is inconclusive (moderate quality; downgraded for imprecision). For all anti-TNF pooled versus placebo based on 16 studies: Peto OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.48; 51/1530 in biologic group; 18/878 in placebo; absolute difference: 1% (95% CI 0% to 2%).\nUsing indirect comparison methodology, and one head-to-head study of etanercept versus infliximab, wide confidence intervals meant that results were inconclusive for evidence of differences in the major outcomes between different anti-TNF agents. Regulatory agencies have published warnings about rare adverse events of serious infections, including tuberculosis, malignancies and lymphoma.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate to high quality evidence that anti-TNF agents improve clinical symptoms in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis. More participants withdrew due to adverse events when on an anti-TNF agent but we did not find evidence of an increase in serious adverse events, though event rates were low and trials had a short duration. The short-term toxicity profile appears acceptable. Based on indirect comparison methodology, we are uncertain whether there are differences between anti-TNF agents in terms of the key benefit or harm outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Side effects\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "When all the anti-TNF drugs were combined, 16 people out of 1000 dropped out of the study because of side effects compared to 7 people out of 1000 who took placebo (absolute increase 1%).\nThere may be little or no difference in the number of people who have a serious side effect with an anti-TNF drug compared to people who take a fake pill." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDeep vein thrombosis (DVT) occurs when a blood clot blocks blood flow through a vein, which can occur after surgery, after trauma, or when a person has been immobile for a long time. Clots can dislodge and block blood flow to the lungs (pulmonary embolism (PE)), causing death. DVT and PE are known by the term venous thromboembolism (VTE). Heparin (in the form of unfractionated heparin (UFH)) is a blood-thinning drug used during the first three to five days of DVT treatment. Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) allow people with DVT to receive their initial treatment at home instead of in hospital. This is an update of a review first published in 2001 and updated in 2007.\nObjectives\nTo compare the incidence and complications of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients treated at home versus patients treated with standard in-patient hospital regimens. Secondary objectives included assessment of patient satisfaction and cost-effectiveness of treatment.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (last searched 16 March 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2), and trials registries. We also checked the reference lists of relevant publications.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining home versus hospital treatment for DVT, in which DVT was clinically confirmed and was treated with LMWHs or UFH.\nData collection and analysis\nOne review author selected material for inclusion, and another reviewed the selection of trials. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed included studies for risk of bias. Primary outcomes included combined VTE events (PE and recurrent DVT), gangrene, heparin complications, and death. Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction and cost implications. We performed meta-analysis using fixed-effect models with risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data.\nMain results\nWe included in this review seven RCTs involving 1839 randomised participants with comparable treatment arms. All seven had fundamental problems including high exclusion rates, partial hospital treatment of many in the home treatment arms, and comparison of UFH in hospital versus LMWH at home. These trials showed that patients treated at home with LMWH were less likely to have recurrence of VTE events than those given hospital treatment with UFH or LMWH (fixed-effect risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.86; 6 studies; 1708 participants; P = 0.007; low-quality evidence). No clear difference was seen between groups for major bleeding (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.36; 6 studies; 1708 participants; P = 0.27; low-quality evidence), minor bleeding (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.78; 6 studies; 1708 participants; P = 0.11; low-quality evidence), or mortality (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09; 6 studies; 1708 participants; P = 0.11; low-quality evidence). The included studies reported no cases of venous gangrene. We could not combine patient satisfaction and quality of life outcomes in meta-analysis owing to heterogeneity of reporting, but two of three studies found evidence that home treatment led to greater improvement in quality of life compared with in-patient treatment at some point during follow-up, and the third study reported that a large number of participants chose to switch from in-patient care to home-based care for social and personal reasons, suggesting it is the patient's preferred option (very low-quality evidence). None of the studies included in this review carried out a full cost-effectiveness analysis. However, a small randomised economic evaluation of the two alternative treatment settings involving 131 participants found that direct costs were higher for those in the in-patient group. These findings were supported by three other studies that reported on their costs (very low-quality evidence).\nQuality of evidence for data from meta-analyses was low to very low. This was due to risk of bias, as many of the included studies used unclear randomisation techniques, and blinding was a concern for many. Also, indirectness was a concern, as most studies included a large number of participants randomised to the home (LMWH) treatment group who were treated in hospital for some or all of the treatment period. A further issue for some outcomes was heterogeneity that was evident in measurement and reporting of outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow-quality evidence suggests that patients treated at home with LMWH are less likely to have recurrence of VTE than those treated in hospital. However, data show no clear differences in major or minor bleeding, nor in mortality (low-quality evidence), indicating that home treatment is no worse than in-patient treatment for these outcomes. Because most healthcare systems are moving towards more LMWH usage in the home setting it is unlikely that additional large trials will be undertaken to compare these treatments. Therefore, home treatment is likely to become the norm, and further research will be directed towards resolving practical issues by devising local guidelines that include clinical prediction rules, developing biomarkers and imaging that can be used to tailor therapy to disease severity, and providing training for community healthcare workers who administer treatment and monitor treatment progress.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics and key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Seven randomised controlled trials involving 1839 patients with clinically confirmed DVT compared home (LMWH) versus hospital (unfractionated heparin, or LMWH in one trial) treatment. Trials had limitations, including high exclusion rates and designs that did not take into account short hospital stays for any of the people treated at home to allow fair comparison of heparin in hospital with LMWH at home.\nTrials showed that patients treated at home with LMWH had less recurrence of VTE than hospital-treated patients. The review showed no clear differences between treatment groups for major bleeding, minor bleeding, or death. No study reported venous gangrene. We could not pool information on patient satisfaction and quality of life, as studies had different ways of reporting these, but two of the three studies reporting on quality of life provided evidence that home treatment led to greater improvement in quality of life compared with in-patient treatment, at some point during follow-up. The third study reported that a large number of participants chose to switch from in-patient care to home-based care for social and personal reasons, indicating that home treatment was better accepted than in-patient treatment. Studies that looked at cost found that cost of home management was lower per incident of treatment." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDementia is a chronic, progressive and ultimately fatal neurodegenerative disease. Advanced dementia is characterised by profound cognitive impairment, inability to communicate verbally and complete functional dependence. Usual care of people with advanced dementia is not underpinned universally by a palliative approach. Palliative care has focused traditionally on care of people with cancer, but for more than a decade, there have been calls worldwide to extend palliative care services to include all people with life-limiting illnesses in need of specialist care, including people with dementia.\nThis review is an updated version of a review first published in 2016.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of palliative care interventions in advanced dementia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register on 7 October 2020. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of several major healthcare databases, trial registries and grey literature sources. We ran additional searches across MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), four other databases and two trial registries on 7 October 2020 to ensure that the searches were as comprehensive and as up-to-date as possible.\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for randomised (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled trials (nRCTs), controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating the impact of palliative care interventions for adults with advanced dementia of any type. Participants could be people with advanced dementia, their family members, clinicians or paid care staff. We included clinical interventions and non-clinical interventions. Comparators were usual care or another palliative care intervention. We did not exclude studies based on outcomes measured.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors (SW, EM, PC) independently assessed all potential studies identified in the search against the review inclusion criteria. Two authors independently extracted data from eligible studies. Where appropriate, we estimated pooled treatment effects in a fixed-effect meta-analysis. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE.\nMain results\nNine studies (2122 participants) met the review inclusion criteria. Two studies were individually-randomised RCTs, six were cluster-randomised RCTs and one was a controlled before-and-after study. We conducted two separate comparisons: organisation and delivery of care interventions versus usual care (six studies, 1162 participants) and advance care planning interventions versus usual care (three studies, 960 participants). Two studies were carried out in acute hospitals and seven in nursing homes or long-term care facilities. For both comparisons, we found the included studies to be sufficiently similar to conduct meta-analyses.\nChanges to the organisation and delivery of care for people with advanced dementia may increase comfort in dying (MD 1.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.64; 5 studies, 335 participants; very low certainty evidence). However, the evidence is very uncertain and unlikely to be clinically significant. These changes may also increase the likelihood of having a palliative care plan in place (RR 5.84, 95% CI 1.37 to 25.02; 1 study, 99 participants; I2 = 0%; very low certainty evidence), but again the evidence is very uncertain. Such interventions probably have little effect on the use of non-palliative interventions (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.72; 2 studies, 292 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). They may also have little or no effect on documentation of advance directives (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.50 to 4.25; 2 studies, 112 participants; I2 = 52%; very low certainty evidence), or whether discussions take place about advance care planning (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.18; 1 study, 193 participants; I2 = 0%; very low certainty evidence) and goals of care (RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.54; 1 study, 13 participants; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). No included studies assessed adverse effects.\nAdvance care planning interventions for people with advanced dementia probably increase the documentation of advance directives (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.41; 2 studies, 384; moderate certainty evidence) and the number of discussions about goals of care (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.59; 2 studies, 384 participants; moderate certainty evidence). They may also slightly increase concordance with goals of care (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.79; 1 study, 63 participants; low certainty evidence). On the other hand, they may have little or no effect on perceived symptom management (MD -1.80, 95% CI -6.49 to 2.89; 1 study, 67 participants; very low certainty evidence) or whether advance care planning discussions occur (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.24; 1 study, 67 participants; low certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence on palliative care interventions in advanced dementia is limited in quantity and certainty. When compared to usual care, changes to the organisation and delivery of care for people with advanced dementia may lead to improvements in comfort in dying, but the evidence for this was of very low certainty. Advance care planning interventions, compared to usual care, probably increase the documentation of advance directives and the occurrence of discussions about goals of care, and may also increase concordance with goals of care. We did not detect other effects. The uncertainty in the evidence across all outcomes in both comparisons is mainly driven by imprecision of effect estimates and risk of bias in the included studies.\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": "Overall, the research done so far does not give a clear picture about how palliative care can best be used to help either the person with advanced dementia or their family. Little research has been done about people with advanced dementia, often because of ethical concerns. However, although it is hard to do research with people with dementia, more well-designed studies are required to work out how palliative care can be used best in this special population." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nBonding of orthodontic brackets to teeth is important to enable effective and efficient treatment with fixed appliances. The problem is bracket failure during treatment which increases operator chairside time and lengthens treatment time. A prolonged treatment is likely to increase the oral health risks of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances one of which is irreversible enamel decalcification. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2003. A new full search was conducted on 26 September 2017 but no new studies were identified. We have only updated the search methods section in this new version. The conclusions of this Cochrane Review remain the same.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of different orthodontic adhesives for bonding.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 26 September 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library (searched 26 September 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 26 September 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 26 September 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nTrials were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing two different adhesive groups. Participants were patients with fixed orthodontic appliances. The interventions were adhesives that bonded stainless steel brackets to all teeth except the molars. The primary outcome was debond or bracket failure.\nData collection and analysis\nData were recorded on decalcification as a secondary outcome, if present. Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were extracted in duplicate by pairs of review authors. Since the data were not presented in a form that was amenable to meta-analysis, the results of the review are presented in narrative form only.\nMain results\nThree trials satisfied the inclusion criteria. A chemical cured composite was compared with a light cured composite (one trial), a conventional glass ionomer cement (one trial) and a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) (one trial). The quality of the trial reports was generally poor.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no clear evidence on which to make a clinical decision of the type of orthodontic adhesive to use.\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 in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 26 September 2017. We included three studies: a chemical cured composite was compared with a light cured composite (one trial), a conventional glass ionomer cement (one trial), and a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) (one trial). The quality of the trial reports was generally poor." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDiarrhoea and soil-transmitted helminth (STH) infections represent a large disease burden worldwide, particularly in low-income countries. As the aetiological agents associated with diarrhoea and STHs are transmitted through faeces, the safe containment and management of human excreta has the potential to reduce exposure and disease. Child faeces may be an important source of exposure even among households with improved sanitation.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of interventions to improve the disposal of child faeces for preventing diarrhoea and STH infections.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and 10 other databases. We also searched relevant conference proceedings, contacted researchers, searched websites for organizations, and checked references from identified studies. The date of last search was 27 September 2018.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled studies (NRS) that compared interventions aiming to improve the disposal of faeces of children aged below five years in order to decrease direct or indirect human contact with such faeces with no intervention or a different intervention in children and adults.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors selected eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We used meta-analyses to estimate pooled measures of effect where appropriate, or described the study results narratively. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nSixty-three studies covering more than 222,800 participants met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-two studies were cluster RCTs, four were controlled before-and-after studies (CBA), and 37 were NRS (27 case-control studies (one that included seven study sites), three controlled cohort studies, and seven controlled cross-sectional studies). Most study sites (56/69) were in low- or lower middle-income settings. Among studies using experimental study designs, most interventions included child faeces disposal messages along with other health education messages or other water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) hardware and software components. Among observational studies, the main risk factors relevant to this review were safe disposal of faeces in the latrine or defecation of children under five years of age in a latrine.\nEducation and hygiene promotion interventions, including child faeces disposal messages (no hardware provision)\nFour RCTs found that diarrhoea incidence was lower, reducing the risk by an estimated 30% in children under six years old (rate ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.86; 2 trials, low-certainty evidence). Diarrhoea prevalence measured in two other RCTs in children under five years of age was lower, but evidence was low-certainty (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.04; low-certainty evidence).\nTwo controlled cohort studies that evaluated such an intervention in Bangladesh did not detect a difference on diarrhoea prevalence (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.28; very low-certainty evidence). Two controlled cross-sectional studies that evaluated the Health Extension Package in Ethiopia were associated with a lower two-week diarrhoea prevalence in 'model' households than in 'non-model households' (odds ratio (OR) 0.26, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.42; very low-certainty evidence).\nProgrammes to end open defecation by all (termed community-led total sanitation (CLTS) interventions plus adaptations)\nFour RCTs measured diarrhoea prevalence and did not detect an effect in children under five years of age (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.07; moderate-certainty evidence). The analysis of two trials did not demonstrate an effect of the interventions on STH infection prevalence in children (pooled RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.65; low-certainty evidence).\nOne controlled cross-sectional study compared the prevalence of STH infection in open defecation-free (ODF) villages that had received a CLTS intervention with control villages and reported a higher level of STH infection in the intervention villages (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.74 to 3.62; very low-certainty evidence).\nSanitation hardware and behaviour change interventions, that included child faeces disposal hardware and messaging\nTwo RCTs had mixed results, with no overall effect on diarrhoea prevalence demonstrated in the pooled analysis (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.26; very low-certainty evidence).\nWASH hardware and education/behaviour change interventions\nOne RCT did not demonstrate an effect on diarrhoea prevalence (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.41; very low-certainty evidence).\nTwo CBAs reported that the intervention reduced diarrhoea incidence by about a quarter in children under five years of age, but evidence was very low-certainty (rate ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.84). Another CBA reported that the intervention reduced the prevalence of STH in an intervention village compared to a control village, again with GRADE assessed at very low-certainty (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.73).\nCase-control studies\nPooled results from case-control studies that presented data for child faeces disposal indicated that disposal of faeces in the latrine was associated with lower odds of diarrhoea among all ages (OR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.85; 23 comparisons; very low-certainty evidence). Pooled results from case-control studies that presented data for children defecating in the latrine indicated that children using the latrine was associated with lower odds of diarrhoea in all ages (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.90; 7 studies; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence suggests that the safe disposal of child faeces may be effective in preventing diarrhoea. However, the evidence is limited and of low certainty. The limited research on STH infections provides only low and very-low certainty evidence around effects, which means there is currently no reliable evidence that interventions to improve safe disposal of child faeces are effective in preventing such STH infections.\nWhile child faeces may represent a source of exposure to young children, interventions generally only address it as part of a broader sanitation initiative. There is a need for RCTs and other rigorous studies to assess the effectiveness and sustainability of different hardware and software interventions to improve the safe disposal of faeces of children of different age groups.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Diarrhoea and STH infections affect millions of people worldwide, particularly in low-income countries. Diarrhoea and STHs are transmitted through human faeces so the safe containment and management of human excreta has the potential to significantly reduce exposure and disease. An often-neglected source of exposure is from the unsafe disposal of child faeces. Research has shown that even in settings with improved sanitation, child faeces are thrown into refuse piles or elsewhere and not disposed of in latrines as considered safe by the World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF).\nWe included 26 studies with experimental designs and 37 observational studies in this review. Most included studies were conducted in low- and middle-income countries." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSeveral anticonvulsant drugs are used in the management of neuropathic pain. Oxcarbazepine is an anticonvulsant drug closely related to carbamazepine. Oxcarbazepine has been reported to be efficacious in the treatment of neuropathic pain, but evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is conflicting. Oxcarbazepine is reportedly better tolerated than carbamazepine. This is the first update of a review published in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of oxcarbazepine for different types of neuropathic pain.\nSearch methods\nOn 21 November 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase. We searched the Chinese Biomedical Retrieval System (January 1978 to November 2016). We searched the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) databases and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials in January 2017, and we wrote to the companies who make oxcarbazepine and to pain experts requesting additional information.\nSelection criteria\nAll RCTs and randomised cross-over studies of oxcarbazepine for the treatment of people of any age or sex with any neuropathic pain were eligible. We planned to include trials of oxcarbazepine compared with placebo or any other intervention with a treatment duration of at least six weeks, regardless of administration route and dose.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nFive multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials with a total of 862 participants were eligible for inclusion in this updated review. Three trials involved participants with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) (n = 634), one included people with neuropathic pain due to radiculopathy (n = 145), and one, which was newly identified at this update, involved participants with peripheral neuropathic pain of mixed origin (polyneuropathy, peripheral nerve injury or postherpetic neuralgia) (n = 83). Some studies did not report all outcomes of interest. For painful DPN, compared to the baseline, the proportion of participants who reported at least a 50% or 30% reduction of pain scores after 16 weeks of treatment in the oxcarbazepine group versus the placebo group were: at least 50% reduction: 34.8% with oxcarbazepine versus 18.2% with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 3.39, number of people needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 6, 95% CI 3 to 41); and at least 30% reduction: 44.9% with oxcarbazepine versus 28.6% with placebo (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.44; NNTB 6, 95% CI 3 to 114; n = 146). Both results were based on data from a single trial, since two trials that found little or no benefit did not provide data that could be included in a meta-analysis. Although these trials were well designed, incomplete outcome data and possible unblinding of participants due to obvious adverse effects placed the results at a high risk of bias. There was also serious imprecision and a high risk of publication bias. The radiculopathy trial reported no benefit for the outcome 'at least 50% pain relief' from oxcarbazepine. In mixed neuropathies, 19.3% of people receiving oxcarbazepine versus 4.8% receiving placebo had at least 50% pain relief. These small trials had low event rates and provided, at best, low-quality evidence for any outcome. The proportion of people with 'improved' or 'very much improved' pain was 45.9% with oxcarbazepine versus 30.1% with placebo in DPN (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.88; n = 493; 2 trials; very-low-quality evidence) and 23.9% with oxcarbazepine versus 14.9% with placebo in radiculopathy (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.20; n = 145).\nWe found no trials in other types of neuropathic pain such as trigeminal neuralgia.\nTrial reports stated that most adverse effects were mild to moderate in severity. Based on moderate-quality evidence from the three DPN trials, serious adverse effects occurred in 8.3% with oxcarbazepine and 2.5% with placebo (RR 3.65, 95% CI 1.45 to 9.20; n = 634; moderate-quality evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful (serious adverse effect) outcome (NNTH) was 17 (95% CI 11 to 42). The RR for serious adverse effects in the radiculopathy trial was 3.13 (95% CI 0.65 to 14.98, n = 145). The fifth trial did not provide data.\nMore people withdrew because of adverse effects with oxcarbazepine than with placebo (DPN: 25.6% with oxcarbazepine versus 6.8% with placebo; RR 3.83, 95% CI 2.29 to 6.40; radiculopathy: 42.3% with oxcarbazepine versus 14.9% with placebo; RR 2.84, 95% CI 1.55 to 5.23; mixed neuropathic pain: 13.5% with oxcarbazepine versus 1.2% with placebo; RR 11.51, 95% CI 1.54 to 86.15).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review found little evidence to support the effectiveness of oxcarbazepine in painful diabetic neuropathy, neuropathic pain from radiculopathy and a mixture of neuropathies. Some very-low-quality evidence suggests efficacy but small trials, low event rates, heterogeneity in some measures and a high risk of publication bias means that we have very low confidence in the measures of effect. Adverse effects, serious adverse effects and adverse effects leading to discontinuation are probably more common with oxcarbazepine than placebo; however, the numbers of participants and event rates are low. More well-designed, multicentre RCTs investigating oxcarbazepine for various types of neuropathic pain are needed, and selective publication of studies or data should be avoided.\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": "This review found little evidence to support the effectiveness of oxcarbazepine in painful diabetic neuropathy, neuropathic pain from radiculopathy and mixed neuropathies of various causes. Oxcarbazepine may have some effect, but we cannot be confident that the results would be the same with further studies. Side effects, including those that were serious or made people stop taking the medicine were probably more common with oxcarbazepine than placebo. We know of trials that have not reported results, for example in a form of facial pain called trigeminal neuralgia, and some of the trials we found did not report data in a form that we could analyse. We need more well-designed studies of oxcarbazepine for various types of neuropathic pain, with large numbers of participants spread over different centres (e.g. difference hospitals and clinics), and all relevant data need to be published or presented.\nThis is the first update of a review published in 2013. Evidence is up to date to November 2016." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe impact of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) following heart valve surgery is uncertain. We conducted an update of this systematic review and a meta-analysis to assess randomised controlled trial evidence for the use of exercise-based CR following heart valve surgery.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of exercise-based CR compared with no exercise training in adults following heart valve surgery or repair, including both percutaneous and surgical procedures. We considered CR programmes consisting of exercise training with or without another intervention (such as an intervention with a psycho-educational component).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase (Ovid); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; EBSCO); PsycINFO (Ovid); Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS; Bireme); and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) on the Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics) on 10 January 2020. We searched for ongoing trials from ClinicalTrials.gov, Clinical-trials.com, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 15 May 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials that compared exercise-based CR interventions with no exercise training. Trial participants comprised adults aged 18 years or older who had undergone heart valve surgery for heart valve disease (from any cause) and had received heart valve replacement or heart valve repair. Both percutaneous and surgical procedures were included.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data. We assessed the risk of systematic errors (‘bias’) by evaluating risk domains using the 'Risk of bias' (RoB2) tool. We assessed clinical and statistical heterogeneity. We performed meta-analyses using both fixed-effect and random-effects models. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence for primary outcomes (all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalisation, and health-related quality of life).\nMain results\nWe included six trials with a total of 364 participants who have had open or percutaneous heart valve surgery. For this updated review, we identified four additional trials (216 participants). One trial had an overall low risk of bias, and we classified the remaining five trials as having some concerns.\nFollow-up ranged across included trials from 3 to 24 months. Based on data at longest follow-up, a total of nine participants died: 4 CR versus 5 control (relative risk (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 2.68; 2 trials, 131 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low). No trials reported on cardiovascular mortality. One trial reported one cardiac-related hospitalisation in the CR group and none in the control group (RR 2.72, 95% CI 0.11 to 65.56; 1 trial, 122 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low). We are uncertain about health-related quality of life at completion of the intervention in CR compared to control (Short Form (SF)-12/36 mental component: mean difference (MD) 1.28, 95% CI -1.60 to 4.16; 2 trials, 150 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low; and SF-12/36 physical component: MD 2.99, 95% CI -5.24 to 11.21; 2 trials, 150 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low), or at longest follow-up (SF-12/36 mental component: MD -1.45, 95% CI -4.70 to 1.80; 2 trials, 139 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low; and SF-12/36 physical component: MD -0.87, 95% CI -3.57 to 1.83; 2 trials, 139 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low).\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to lack of evidence and the very low quality of available evidence, this updated review is uncertain about the impact of exercise-CR in this population in terms of mortality, hospitalisation, and health-related quality of life. High-quality (low risk of bias) evidence on the impact of CR is needed to inform clinical guidelines and routine practice.\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 six trials with a total of 364 participants. In this update, we added four new trials (216 participants) to those included in the previously published review. We are uncertain about the effects of exercise-based CR compared to control on the outcomes of all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, and all-cause hospitalisation." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPost-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a distressing condition, which is often treated with psychological therapies. Earlier versions of this review, and other meta-analyses, have found these to be effective, with trauma-focused treatments being more effective than non-trauma-focused treatments. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005 and updated in 2007.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of psychological therapies for the treatment of adults with chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) all years to 12th April 2013. This register contains relevant randomised controlled trials from: The Cochrane Library (all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), and PsycINFO (1967 to date). In addition, we handsearched the Journal of Traumatic Stress, contacted experts in the field, searched bibliographies of included studies, and performed citation searches of identified articles.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of individual trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy (TFCBT), eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR), non-trauma-focused CBT (non-TFCBT), other therapies (supportive therapy, non-directive counselling, psychodynamic therapy and present-centred therapy), group TFCBT, or group non-TFCBT, compared to one another or to a waitlist or usual care group for the treatment of chronic PTSD. The primary outcome measure was the severity of clinician-rated traumatic-stress symptoms.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data and entered them into Review Manager 5 software. We contacted authors to obtain missing data. Two review authors independently performed 'Risk of bias' assessments. We pooled the data where appropriate, and analysed for summary effects.\nMain results\nWe include 70 studies involving a total of 4761 participants in the review. The first primary outcome for this review was reduction in the severity of PTSD symptoms, using a standardised measure rated by a clinician. For this outcome, individual TFCBT and EMDR were more effective than waitlist/usual care (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.62; 95% CI -2.03 to -1.21; 28 studies; n = 1256 and SMD -1.17; 95% CI -2.04 to -0.30; 6 studies; n = 183 respectively). There was no statistically significant difference between individual TFCBT, EMDR and Stress Management (SM) immediately post-treatment although there was some evidence that individual TFCBT and EMDR were superior to non-TFCBT at follow-up, and that individual TFCBT, EMDR and non-TFCBT were more effective than other therapies. Non-TFCBT was more effective than waitlist/usual care and other therapies. Other therapies were superior to waitlist/usual care control as was group TFCBT. There was some evidence of greater drop-out (the second primary outcome for this review) in active treatment groups. Many of the studies were rated as being at 'high' or 'unclear' risk of bias in multiple domains, and there was considerable unexplained heterogeneity; in addition, we assessed the quality of the evidence for each comparison as very low. As such, the findings of this review should be interpreted with caution.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence for each of the comparisons made in this review was assessed as very low quality. This evidence showed that individual TFCBT and EMDR did better than waitlist/usual care in reducing clinician-assessed PTSD symptoms. There was evidence that individual TFCBT, EMDR and non-TFCBT are equally effective immediately post-treatment in the treatment of PTSD. There was some evidence that TFCBT and EMDR are superior to non-TFCBT between one to four months following treatment, and also that individual TFCBT, EMDR and non-TFCBT are more effective than other therapies. There was evidence of greater drop-out in active treatment groups. Although a substantial number of studies were included in the review, the conclusions are compromised by methodological issues evident in some. Sample sizes were small, and it is apparent that many of the studies were underpowered. There were limited follow-up data, which compromises conclusions regarding the long-term effects of psychological treatment.\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": "Although we included a substantial number of studies in this review, each only included small numbers of people and some were poorly designed. We assessed the overall quality of the studies as very low and so the findings of this review should be interpreted with caution. There is insufficient evidence to show whether or not psychological therapy is harmful." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGastrectomy remains the primary therapeutic method for resectable gastric cancer. Thought of as an important measure to reduce post-operative complications and mortality, abdominal drainage has been used widely after gastrectomy for gastric cancer in previous decades. The benefits of abdominal drainage have been questioned by researchers in recent years.\nObjectives\nThe objectives of this review were to assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage post-gastrectomy for gastric cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases (UGPD) Group Specialised Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2014, Issue 11); MEDLINE (via PubMed) (1950 to November 2014); EMBASE (1980 to November 2014); and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) Database (1979 to November 2014).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing an abdominal drain versus no drain in patients who had undergone gastrectomy (not considering the scale of gastrectomy and the extent of lymphadenectomy); irrespective of language, publication status, and the type of drain. We excluded RCTs comparing one drain with another.\nData collection and analysis\nWe adhered to the standard methodological procedures of The Cochrane Collaboration. From each included trial, we extracted the data on the methodological quality and characteristics of the participants, mortality (30-day mortality), re-operations, post-operative complications (pneumonia, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, anastomotic leak, drain-related complications), operation time, length of post-operative hospital stay, and initiation of a soft diet. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous data, we calculated mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. We tested heterogeneity using the Chi2 test. We used a fixed-effect model for data analysis with RevMan software, but we used a random-effects model if the P value of the Chi2 test was less than 0.1.\nMain results\nWe included four RCTs involving 438 patients (220 patients in the drain group and 218 in the no-drain group). There was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in mortality (RR 1.73, 95% CI 0.38 to 7.84); re-operations (RR 2.49, 95% CI 0.71 to 8.74); post-operative complications (pneumonia: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.54; wound infection: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.23; intra-abdominal abscess: RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.29 to 5.51; anastomotic leak: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.47); or initiation of soft diet (MD 0.15 days, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.37). However, the addition of a drain prolonged the operation time (MD 9.07 min, 95% CI 2.56 to 15.57) and post-operative hospital stay (MD 0.69 day, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.21) and led to drain-related complications. Additionally, we should note that 30-day mortality and re-operations are very rare events and, as a result, very large numbers of patients would be required to make any sensible conclusions about whether the two groups were similar. The overall quality of the evidence according to the GRADE approach was 'very low' for mortality and re-operations, and 'low' for post-operative complications, operation time, and post-operative length of stay.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no convincing evidence to support routine drain use after gastrectomy for gastric cancer.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The overall quality of the evidence according to the GRADE approach was 'very low' for deaths and re-operations, and 'low' for post-operative complications, operation time, and post-operative length of stay. This review included only four RCTs, and not all of the included studies reported all outcomes that we were assessing. Therefore, the quality was mainly limited by insufficient data." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nVascular closure devices (VCDs) are widely used to achieve haemostasis after procedures requiring percutaneous common femoral artery (CFA) puncture. There is no consensus regarding the benefits of VCDs, including potential reduction in procedure time, length of hospital stay or time to patient ambulation. No robust evidence exists that VCDs reduce the incidence of puncture site complications compared with haemostasis achieved through extrinsic (manual or mechanical) compression.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy and safety of VCDs versus traditional methods of extrinsic compression in achieving haemostasis after retrograde and antegrade percutaneous arterial puncture of the CFA.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (April 2015) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 3). Clinical trials databases were searched for details of ongoing or unpublished studies. References of articles retrieved by electronic searches were searched for additional citations.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in which people undergoing a diagnostic or interventional procedure via percutaneous CFA puncture were randomised to one type of VCD versus extrinsic compression or another type of VCD.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of trials. We resolved disagreements by discussion with the third author. We performed meta-analyses when heterogeneity (I2) was < 90%. The primary efficacy outcomes were time to haemostasis and time to mobilisation (mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI)). The primary safety outcome was a major adverse event (mortality and vascular injury requiring repair) (odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI). Secondary outcomes included adverse events.\nMain results\nWe included 52 studies (19,192 participants) in the review. We found studies comparing VCDs with extrinsic compression (sheath size ≤ 9 Fr), different VCDs with each other after endovascular (EVAR) and percutaneous EVAR procedures and VCDs with surgical closure after open exposure of the artery (sheath size ≥ 10 Fr). For primary outcomes, we assigned the quality of evidence according to GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria as low because of serious imprecision and for secondary outcomes as moderate for precision, consistency and directness.\nFor time to haemostasis, studies comparing collagen-based VCDs and extrinsic compression were too heterogenous to be combined. However, both metal clip-based (MD -14.81 minutes, 95% CI -16.98 to -12.63 minutes; five studies; 1665 participants) and suture-based VCDs (MD -14.58 minutes, 95% CI -16.85 to -12.32 minutes; seven studies; 1664 participants) were associated with reduced time to haemostasis when compared with extrinsic compression.\nFor time to mobilisation, studies comparing collagen-, metal clip- and suture-based devices with extrinsic compression were too heterogeneous to be combined. No deaths were reported in the studies comparing collagen-based, metal clip-based or suture-based VCDs with extrinsic compression. For vascular injury requiring repair, meta-analyses demonstrated that neither collagen (OR 2.81, 95% CI 0.47 to 16.79; six studies; 5731 participants) nor metal clip-based VCDs (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.03 to 7.95; three studies; 783 participants) were more effective than extrinsic compression. No cases of vascular injury required repair in the study testing suture-based VCD with extrinsic compression.\nInvestigators reported no differences in the incidence of infection between collagen-based (OR 2.14, 95% CI 0.88 to 5.22; nine studies; 7616 participants) or suture-based VCDs (OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.22 to 12.71; three studies; 750 participants) and extrinsic compression. No cases of infection were observed in studies testing suture-based VCD versus extrinsic compression. The incidence of groin haematoma was lower with collagen-based VCDs than with extrinsic compression (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.54; 25 studies; 10,247 participants), but no difference was evident when metal clip-based (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.34; four studies; 1523 participants) or suture-based VCDs (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.02; six studies; 1350 participants) were compared with extrinsic compression. The incidence of pseudoaneurysm was lower with collagen-based devices than with extrinsic compression (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.99; 21 studies; 9342 participants), but no difference was noted when metal clip-based (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.89; six studies; 1966 participants) or suture-based VCDs (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.53; six studies; 1527 participants) were compared with extrinsic compression. For other adverse events, researchers reported no differences between collagen-based, clip-based or suture-based VCDs and extrinsic compression.\nLimited data were obtained when VCDs were compared with each other. Results of one study showed that metal clip-based VCDs were associated with shorter time to haemostasis (MD -2.24 minutes, 95% CI -2.54 to -1.94 minutes; 469 participants) and shorter time to mobilisation (MD -0.30 hours, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.01 hours; 469 participants) than suture-based devices. Few studies measured (major) adverse events, and those that did found no cases or no differences between VCDs.\nPercutaneous EVAR procedures revealed no differences in time to haemostasis (MD -3.20 minutes, 95% CI -10.23 to 3.83 minutes; one study; 101 participants), time to mobilisation (MD 1.00 hours, 95% CI -2.20 to 4.20 hours; one study; 101 participants) or major adverse events between PerClose and ProGlide. When compared with sutures after open exposure, VCD was associated with shorter time to haemostasis (MD -11.58 minutes, 95% CI -18.85 to -4.31 minutes; one study; 151 participants) but no difference in time to mobilisation (MD -2.50 hours, 95% CI -7.21 to 2.21 hours; one study; 151 participants) or incidence of major adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor time to haemostasis, studies comparing collagen-based VCDs and extrinsic compression were too heterogeneous to be combined. However, both metal clip-based and suture-based VCDs were associated with reduced time to haemostasis when compared with extrinsic compression. For time to mobilisation, studies comparing VCDs with extrinsic compression were too heterogeneous to be combined. No difference was demonstrated in the incidence of vascular injury or mortality when VCDs were compared with extrinsic compression. No difference was demonstrated in the efficacy or safety of VCDs with different mechanisms of action. Further work is necessary to evaluate the efficacy of devices currently in use and to compare these with one other and extrinsic compression with respect to clearly defined outcome measures.\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": "For time to haemostasis and time to mobilisation, the studies were too different to be combined and therefore were judged to provide low-quality evidence. The quality of the evidence for the other outcomes was judged as moderate for precision, consistency and directness." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHyperemesis gravidarum is a severe form of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy affecting 0.3% to 1.0% of pregnancies, and is one of the most common indications for hospitalization during pregnancy. While a previous Cochrane review examined interventions for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy, there has not yet been a review examining the interventions for the more severe condition of hyperemesis gravidarum.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety, of all interventions for hyperemesis gravidarum in pregnancy up to 20 weeks' gestation.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register and the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field's Trials Register (20 December 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials of any intervention for hyperemesis gravidarum. Quasi-randomized trials and trials using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion.\nWe excluded trials on nausea and vomiting of pregnancy that were not specifically studying the more severe condition of hyperemesis gravidarum.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently reviewed the eligibility of trials, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias. Data were checked for accuracy.\nMain results\nTwenty-five trials (involving 2052 women) met the inclusion criteria but the majority of 18 different comparisons described in the review include data from single studies with small numbers of participants. The comparisons covered a range of interventions including acupressure/acupuncture, outpatient care, intravenous fluids, and various pharmaceutical interventions. The methodological quality of included studies was mixed. For selected important comparisons and outcomes, we graded the quality of the evidence and created 'Summary of findings' tables. For most outcomes the evidence was graded as low or very low quality mainly due to the imprecision of effect estimates. Comparisons included in the 'Summary of findings' tables are described below, the remaining comparisons are described in detail in the main text.\nNo primary outcome data were available when acupuncture was compared with placebo, There was no clear evidence of differences between groups for anxiodepressive symptoms (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.40; one study, 36 women, very low-quality evidence), spontaneous abortion (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.03; one study, 57 women, low-quality evidence), preterm birth (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.26; one study, 36 women, low-quality evidence), or perinatal death (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.04 to 8.30; one study, 36 women, low-quality evidence).\nThere was insufficient evidence to identify clear differences between acupuncture and metoclopramide in a study with 81 participants regarding reduction/cessation in nausea or vomiting (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.49 and RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.48, respectively; very low-quality evidence).\nIn a study with 92 participants, women taking vitamin B6 had a slightly longer hospital stay compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) 0.80 days, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.52, moderate-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a difference in other outcomes including mean number of episodes of emesis (MD 0.50, 95% CI -0.40 to 1.40, low-quality evidence) or side effects.\nA comparison between metoclopramide and ondansetron identified no clear difference in the severity of nausea or vomiting (MD 1.70, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.55, and MD -0.10, 95% CI -1.63 to 1.43; one study, 83 women, respectively, very low-quality evidence). However, more women taking metoclopramide complained of drowsiness and dry mouth (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.23 to 4.69, and RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.10 to 5.11, respectively; moderate-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for other side effects.\nIn a single study with 146 participants comparing metoclopramide with promethazine, more women taking promethazine reported drowsiness, dizziness, and dystonia (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.87, RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.69, and RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.90, respectively, moderate-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for other important outcomes including quality of life and other side effects.\nIn a single trial with 30 women, those receiving ondansetron had no difference in duration of hospital admission compared to those receiving promethazine (MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.39 to 1.39, very low-quality evidence), although there was increased sedation with promethazine (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.94, low-quality evidence) .\nRegarding corticosteroids, in a study with 110 participants there was no difference in days of hospital admission compared to placebo (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.70 to 0.10; very low-quality evidence), but there was a decreased readmission rate (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.94; four studies, 269 women). For other important outcomes including pregnancy complications, spontaneous abortion, stillbirth and congenital abnormalities, there was insufficient evidence to identify differences between groups (very low-quality evidence for all outcomes). In other single studies there were no clear differences between groups for preterm birth or side effects (very low-quality evidence).\nFor hydrocortisone compared with metoclopramide, no data were available for primary outcomes and there was no difference in the readmission rate (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.28;one study, 40 women).\nIn a study with 80 women, compared to promethazine, those receiving prednisolone had increased nausea at 48 hours (RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.72; low-quality evidence), but not at 17 days (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.15, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the number of episodes of emesis or subjective improvement in nausea/vomiting. There was insufficient evidence to identify differences between groups for stillbirth and neonatal death and preterm birth.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOn the basis of this review, there is little high-quality and consistent evidence supporting any one intervention, which should be taken into account when making management decisions. There was also very limited reporting on the economic impact of hyperemesis gravidarum and the impact that interventions may have.\nThe limitations in interpreting the results of the included studies highlights the importance of consistency in the definition of hyperemesis gravidarum, the use of validated outcome measures, and the need for larger placebo-controlled trials.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What evidence did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Twenty-five trials (involving 2052 women) were included examining 18 different comparisons covering a range of interventions including acupressure/acupuncture, outpatient care, intravenous fluids, and various commonly used anti-sickness drugs. The quality of included studies was mixed and for most outcomes findings were from single studies with low numbers of women taking part and the evidence was assessed as being of low or very low quality. We have described findings for selected important comparisons below, the remaining comparisons are described in detail in the main text.\nThere was no clear evidence of differences between acupuncture and placebo for symptoms of anxiety or depression, spontaneous abortion, preterm birth or perinatal death.\nThere was insufficient evidence to identify clear differences between acupuncture and metoclopramide (an anti-nausea medication) for reduction or cessation in nausea or vomiting.\nWomen taking vitamin B6 had a slightly longer hospital stay compared with placebo but there was no clear evidence of differences in other outcomes including the average number of episodes of vomiting, hospital readmission rate, or side effects.\nA comparison between two anti-nausea medications, metoclopramide and ondansetron, identified no clear difference in the severity of nausea or vomiting, but more women taking metoclopramide complained of drowsiness and dry mouth. In a study comparing metoclopramide with promethazine, more women taking promethazine reported drowsiness and dizziness but there were no clear differences between groups for other important outcomes including quality of life and other side effects. In a study looking at ondansetron versus promethazine women spent similar lengths of time in hospital but there was increased sedation with promethazine.\nRegarding corticosteroids, there was no difference in days of hospital admission compared to placebo, but there was a decreased readmission rate. For other important outcomes including pregnancy complications, spontaneous abortion, stillbirth and congenital abnormalities, preterm birth and side effects, there was insufficient evidence to identify differences between groups.\nIn a study comparing hydrocortisone (a corticosteroid) with metoclopramide, no data were available for primary outcomes, but there was no difference in hospital readmission rate.\nIn a study comparing promethazine and prednisolone (a corticosteroid) those receiving prednisolone had increased nausea at 48 hours but not at 17 days. There was no clear difference in the number of episodes of vomiting. There was insufficient evidence to identify differences between groups for stillbirth and neonatal death and preterm birth" } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIrritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common, chronic disorder that leads to decreased health-related quality of life and work productivity. A previous version of this review was not able to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment for IBS and recommended that further high quality RCTs were conducted to explore the clinical and cost effectiveness of homeopathic treatment for IBS. Two types of homeopathic treatment were evaluated in this systematic review: 1. Clinical homeopathy where a specific remedy is prescribed for a specific condition; 2. Individualised homeopathic treatment, where a homeopathic remedy based on a person's individual symptoms is prescribed after a detailed consultation.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of homeopathic treatment for IBS.\nSearch methods\nFor this update we searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), the Cochrane IBD Group Specialised Register and trials registers from inception to 31 August 2018.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort and case-control studies that compared homeopathic treatment with placebo, other control treatments, or usual care, in adults with IBS were considered for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcome was global improvement in IBS as measured by an IBS symptom severity score. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, abdominal pain, stool frequency, stool consistency, and adverse events. The overall certainty of the evidence supporting the primary and secondary outcomes was assessed using the GRADE criteria. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess risk of bias. We calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous outcomes and the risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes.\nMain results\nFour RCTs (307 participants) were included. Two studies compared clinical homeopathy (homeopathic remedy, asafoetida or asafoetida plus nux vomica) to placebo for IBS with constipation (IBS-C). One study compared individualised homeopathic treatment (consultation plus remedy) to usual care for the treatment of IBS in female patients. One study was a three armed RCT comparing individualised homeopathic treatment to supportive listening or usual care. The risk of bias in three studies (the two studies assessing clinical homeopathy and the study comparing individualised homeopathic treatment to usual care) was unclear on most criteria and high for selective reporting in one of the clinical homeopathy studies. The three armed study comparing individualised homeopathic treatment to usual care and supportive listening was at low risk of bias in four of the domains and high risk of bias in two (performance bias and detection bias).\nA meta-analysis of the studies assessing clinical homeopathy, (171 participants with IBS-C) was conducted. At short-term follow-up of two weeks, global improvement in symptoms was experienced by 73% (46/63) of asafoetida participants compared to 45% (30/66) of placebo participants (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.18; 2 studies, very low certainty evidence). In the other clinical homeopathy study at two weeks, 68% (13/19) of those in the asafoetida plus nux vomica arm and 52% (12/23) of those in the placebo arm experienced a global improvement in symptoms (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.15; very low certainty evidence). In the study comparing individualised homeopathic treatment to usual care (N = 20), the mean global improvement score (feeling unwell) at 12 weeks was 1.44 + 4.55 (n = 9) in the individualised homeopathic treatment arm compared to 1.41 + 1.97 (n=11) in the usual care arm (MD 0.03; 95% CI -3.16 to 3.22; very low certainty evidence).\nIn the study comparing individualised homeopathic treatment to usual care, the mean IBS symptom severity score at 6 months was 210.44 + 112.4 (n = 16) in the individualised homeopathic treatment arm compared to 237.3 + 110.22 (n = 60) in the usual care arm (MD -26.86, 95% CI -88.59 to 34.87; low certainty evidence). The mean quality of life score (EQ-5D) at 6 months in homeopathy participants was 69.07 (SD 17.35) compared to 63.41 (SD 23.31) in usual care participants (MD 5.66, 95% CI -4.69 to 16.01; low certainty evidence).\nFor In the study comparing individualised homeopathic treatment to supportive listening, the mean IBS symptom severity score at 6 months was 210.44 + 112.4 (n = 16) in the individualised homeopathic treatment arm compared to 262 + 120.72 (n = 18) in the supportive listening arm (MD -51.56, 95% CI -129.94 to 26.82; very low certainty evidence). The mean quality of life score at 6 months in homeopathy participants was 69.07 (SD 17.35) compared to 63.09 (SD 24.38) in supportive listening participants (MD 5.98, 95% CI -8.13 to 20.09; very low certainty evidence).\nNone of the included studies reported on abdominal pain, stool frequency, stool consistency, or adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results for the outcomes assessed in this review are uncertain. Thus no firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness and safety of homeopathy for the treatment of IBS can be drawn. Further high quality, adequately powered RCTs are required to assess the efficacy and safety of clinical and individualised homeopathy for IBS compared to placebo or usual care.\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 results for the outcomes assessed in this review are uncertain. Thus no firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness and safety of homeopathy for the treatment of IBS can be drawn. Further high quality RCTs enrolling larger numbers of patients are required to assess the effectiveness and safety of clinical and individualised homeopathy for IBS." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSurgical excision by removal of the head of the pancreas to decompress the obstructed ducts is one of the treatment options for people with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis. Surgical excision of the head of the pancreas can be performed by excision of the duodenum along with the head of the pancreas (pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD)) or without excision of the duodenum (duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR)). There is currently no consensus on the method of pancreatic head resection in people with chronic pancreatitis.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection versus pancreaticoduodenectomy in people with chronic pancreatitis for whom pancreatic resection is considered the main treatment option.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers to June 2015 to identify randomised trials. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered only randomised controlled trials (RCT) performed in people with chronic pancreatitis undergoing pancreatic head resection, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status, for inclusion in the review.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), rate ratio (RaR), or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on an available-case analysis.\nMain results\nFive trials including 292 participants met the inclusion criteria for the review. After exclusion of 23 participants mainly due to pancreatic cancer or because participants did not receive the planned treatment, a total of 269 participants (with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis involving the head of pancreas and requiring surgery) were randomly assigned to receive DPPHR (135 participants) or PD (134 participants). The trials did not report the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status of the participants. All the trials were single-centre trials and included people with and without obstructive jaundice and people with and without duodenal stenosis but did not report data separately for those with and without jaundice or those with and without duodenal stenosis. The surgical procedures compared in the five trials included DPPHR (Beger or Frey procedures, or wide local excision of the head of the pancreas) and PD (pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy or Whipple procedure). The participants were followed up for various periods of time ranging from one to 15 years. The trials were at unclear or high risk of bias. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low.\nThe differences in short-term mortality (up to 90 days after surgery) (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.31 to 26.87; 369 participants; 5 studies; DPPHR: 2/135 (1.5%) versus PD: 0/134 (0%); very low quality evidence) or long-term mortality (maximal follow-up) (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.34; 229 participants; 4 studies; very low quality evidence), medium-term (three months to five years) (only a narrative summary was possible; 229 participants; 4 studies; very low quality evidence), or long-term quality of life (more than five years) (MD 8.45, 95% CI -0.27 to 17.18; 101 participants; 2 studies; low quality evidence), proportion of people with adverse events (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.35; 226 participants; 4 studies; DPPHR: 23/113 (adjusted proportion 20%) versus PD: 41/113 (36.3%); very low quality evidence), number of people with adverse events (RaR 0.95, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.12; 43 participants; 1 study; DPPHR: 12/22 (54.3 events per 100 participants) versus PD: 12/21 (57.1 events per 100 participants); very low quality evidence), proportion of people employed (maximal follow-up) (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.37; 189 participants; 4 studies; DPPHR: 65/98 (adjusted proportion 69.4%) versus PD: 41/91 (45.1%); low quality evidence), incidence proportion of diabetes mellitus (maximum follow-up) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.22; 269 participants; 5 studies; DPPHR: 25/135 (adjusted proportion 18.6%) versus PD: 32/134 (23.9%); very low quality evidence), and prevalence proportion of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (maximum follow-up) (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.02; 189 participants; 4 studies; DPPHR: 62/98 (adjusted proportion 62.0%) versus PD: 68/91 (74.7%); very low quality evidence) were imprecise. The length of hospital stay appeared to be lower with DPPHR compared to PD and ranged between a reduction of one day and five days in the trials (208 participants; 4 studies; low quality evidence). None of the trials reported short-term quality of life (four weeks to three months), clinically significant pancreatic fistulas, serious adverse events, time to return to normal activity, time to return to work, and pain scores using a visual analogue scale.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow quality evidence suggested that DPPHR may result in shorter hospital stay than PD. Based on low or very low quality evidence, there is currently no evidence of any difference in the mortality, adverse events, or quality of life between DPPHR and PD. However, the results were imprecise and further RCTs are required on this topic. Future RCTs comparing DPPHR with PD should report the severity as well as the incidence of postoperative complications and their impact on patient recovery. In such trials, participant and observer blinding should be performed and the analysis should be performed on an intention-to-treat basis to decrease the bias. In addition to the short-term benefits and harms such as mortality, surgery-related complications, quality of life, length of hospital stay, return to normal activity, and return to work, future trials should consider linkage of trial participants to health databases, social databases, and mortality registers to obtain the long-term benefits and harms of the different 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": "Five trials including 292 participants met the inclusion criteria for the review. After exclusion of 23 participants due to various reasons, 269 participants (with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis involving the head of pancreas and undergoing surgery) received duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) (head of pancreas is removed without removing the duodenum) (135 participants) or pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) (head of pancreas is removed along with the duodenum encircling it) (134 participants) in these trials. The trials did not report anaesthetic risk (likelihood of complications due to anaesthesia) of the participants. All the trials were single-centre (occurred in only one clinical or medical centre). The participants were observed (followed up) for various periods of time ranging from one to 15 years. All the trials were at high risk of bias." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCharcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT) comprises a large group of different forms of hereditary motor and sensory neuropathy. The molecular basis of several CMT subtypes has been clarified during the last 20 years. Since slowly progressive muscle weakness and sensory disturbances are the main features of these syndromes, treatments aim to improve motor impairment and sensory disturbances to improve abilities. Pharmacological treatment trials in CMT are rare. This review was derived from a Cochrane review, Treatment for Charcot Marie Tooth disease, which will be updated via this review and a forthcoming title, Treatments other than ascorbic acid for Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) treatment for CMT.\nSearch methods\nOn 21 September 2015, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of treatment for CMT. We also checked clinical trials registries for ongoing studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs and quasi-RCTs of any ascorbic acid treatment for people with CMT. Where a study aimed to evaluate the treatment of general neuromuscular symptoms of people with peripheral neuropathy including CMT, we included the study if we were able to identify the effect of treatment in the CMT group. We did not include observational studies or case reports of ascorbic acid treatment in people with CMT.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors (BG and JB) independently extracted the data and assessed study quality.\nMain results\nSix RCTs compared the effect of oral ascorbic acid (1 to 4 grams) and placebo treatment in CMT1A. In five trials involving adults with CMT1A, a total of 622 participants received ascorbic acid or placebo. Trials were largely at low risk of bias. There is high-quality evidence that ascorbic acid does not improve the course of CMT1A in adults as measured by the CMT neuropathy score (0 to 36 scale) at 12 months (mean difference (MD) -0.37; 95% confidence intervals (CI) -0.83 to 0.09; five studies; N = 533), or at 24 months (MD -0.21; 95% CI -0.81 to 0.39; three studies; N = 388). Ascorbic acid treatment showed a positive effect on the nine-hole peg test versus placebo (MD -1.16 seconds; 95% CI -1.96 to -0.37), but the clinical significance of this result is probably small. Meta-analyses of other secondary outcome parameters showed no relevant benefit of ascorbic acid. In one trial, 80 children with CMT1A received ascorbic acid or placebo. The trial showed no clinical benefit of ascorbic acid treatment. Adverse effects did not differ in their nature or abundance between ascorbic acid and placebo.\nAuthors' conclusions\nHigh-quality evidence indicates that ascorbic acid does not improve the course of CMT1A in adults in terms of the outcome parameters used. According to low-quality evidence, ascorbic acid does not improve the course of CMT1A in children. However, CMT1A is slowly progressive and the outcome parameters show only small change over time. Longer study durations should be considered, and outcome parameters more sensitive to change over time should be designed and validated for future studies.\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": "CMT disease represents a broad spectrum of inherited peripheral neuropathies (conditions in which the nerves outside the brain and spinal cord are damaged), which in general progress slowly, and cause muscle wasting and loss of sensation. Muscle wasting and loss of sensation are caused by destruction of nerve fibres that go to the muscles or skin. Vitamin C has been proposed as a treatment for CMT, because vitamin C is necessary for myelination (development of the myelin, or insulation around the nerve fibres) in laboratory cultures of nerve cells and the peripheral nerves of mice." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe treatment of people with acute abdominal pain differs if they have acute pancreatitis. It is important to know the diagnostic accuracy of serum amylase, serum lipase, urinary trypsinogen-2, and urinary amylase for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis, so that an informed decision can be made as to whether the person with abdominal pain has acute pancreatitis. There is currently no Cochrane review of the diagnostic test accuracy of serum amylase, serum lipase, urinary trypsinogen-2, and urinary amylase for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis.\nObjectives\nTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of serum amylase, serum lipase, urinary trypsinogen-2, and urinary amylase, either alone or in combination, in the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis in people with acute onset of a persistent, severe epigastric pain or diffuse abdominal pain.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR HTA and DARE), and other databases until March 2017. We searched the references of the included studies to identify additional studies. We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively. We also performed a 'related search' and 'citing reference' search in MEDLINE and Embase.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all studies that evaluated the diagnostic test accuracy of serum amylase, serum lipase, urinary trypsinogen-2, and urinary amylase for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis. We excluded case-control studies because these studies are prone to bias. We accepted any of the following reference standards: biopsy, consensus conference definition, radiological features of acute pancreatitis, diagnosis of acute pancreatitis during laparotomy or autopsy, and organ failure. At least two review authors independently searched and screened the references located by the search to identify relevant studies.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. The thresholds used for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis varied in the trials, resulting in sparse data for each index test. Because of sparse data, we used -2 log likelihood values to determine which model to use for meta-analysis. We calculated and reported the sensitivity, specificity, post-test probability of a positive and negative index test along with 95% confidence interval (CI) for each cutoff, but have reported only the results of the recommended cutoff of three times normal for serum amylase and serum lipase, and the manufacturer-recommended cutoff of 50 mg/mL for urinary trypsinogen-2 in the abstract.\nMain results\nTen studies including 5056 participants met the inclusion criteria for this review and assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the index tests in people presenting to the emergency department with acute abdominal pain. The risk of bias was unclear or high for all of the included studies. The study that contributed approximately two-thirds of the participants included in this review was excluded from the results of the analysis presented below due to major concerns about the participants included in the study. We have presented only the results where at least two studies were included in the analysis.\nSerum amylase, serum lipase, and urinary trypsinogen-2 at the standard threshold levels of more than three times normal for serum amylase and serum lipase, and a threshold of 50 ng/mL for urinary trypsinogen-2 appear to have similar sensitivities (0.72 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.82); 0.79 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.92); and 0.72 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.84), respectively) and specificities (0.93 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.99); 0.89 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.99); and 0.90 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.93), respectively). At the median prevalence of 22.6% of acute pancreatitis in the studies, out of 100 people with positive test, serum amylase (more than three times normal), serum lipase (more than three times normal), and urinary trypsinogen (more than 50 ng/mL), 74 (95% CI 33 to 94); 68 (95% CI 21 to 94); and 67 (95% CI 57 to 76) people have acute pancreatitis, respectively; out of 100 people with negative test, serum amylase (more than three times normal), serum lipase (more than three times normal), and urinary trypsinogen (more than 50 ng/mL), 8 (95% CI 5 to 12); 7 (95% CI 3 to 15); and 8 (95% CI 5 to 13) people have acute pancreatitis, respectively. We were not able to compare these tests formally because of sparse data.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAs about a quarter of people with acute pancreatitis fail to be diagnosed as having acute pancreatitis with the evaluated tests, one should have a low threshold to admit the patient and treat them for acute pancreatitis if the symptoms are suggestive of acute pancreatitis, even if these tests are normal. About 1 in 10 patients without acute pancreatitis may be wrongly diagnosed as having acute pancreatitis with these tests, therefore it is important to consider other conditions that require urgent surgical intervention, such as perforated viscus, even if these tests are abnormal.\nThe diagnostic performance of these tests decreases even further with the progression of time, and one should have an even lower threshold to perform additional investigations if the symptoms are suggestive of acute pancreatitis.\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": "All of the studies were of unclear or low methodological quality, which may result in arriving at false conclusions. We excluded the study that contributed approximately two-thirds of the participants included in this review from the results of the analysis presented below due to concerns about whether the participants included in the study are typical of those seen in the emergency department." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nContinual improvement in adjuvant therapies has resulted in a better prognosis for women diagnosed with breast cancer. A surrogate marker used to detect the spread of disease after treatment of breast cancer is local and regional recurrence. The risk of local and regional recurrence after mastectomy increases with the number of axillary lymph nodes affected by cancer. There is a consensus to use radiotherapy as an adjuvant treatment after mastectomy (postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT)) in women diagnosed with breast cancer and found to have disease in four or more positive axillary lymph nodes. Despite data showing almost double the risk of local and regional recurrence in women treated with mastectomy and found to have one to three positive lymph nodes, there is a lack of international consensus on the use of PMRT in this group.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of PMRT in women diagnosed with early breast cancer and found to have one to three positive axillary lymph nodes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 24 September 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The inclusion criteria included women diagnosed with breast cancer treated with simple or modified radical mastectomy and axillary surgery (sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) alone or those undergoing axillary lymph node clearance with or without prior SLNB). We included only women receiving PMRT using X-rays (electron and photon radiation), and we defined the radiotherapy dose to reflect what is currently being recommended (i.e. 40 Gray (Gy) to 50 Gy in 15 to 25/28 fractions in 3 to 5 weeks. The included studies did not administer any boost to the tumour bed. In this review, we excluded studies using neoadjuvant chemotherapy as a supportive treatment before surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used Covidence to screen records. We collected data on tumour characteristics, adjuvant treatments and the outcomes of local and regional recurrence, overall survival, disease-free survival, time to progression, short- and long-term adverse events and quality of life. We reported on time-to-event outcome measures using the hazard ratio (HR) and subdistribution HR. We used Cochrane's risk of bias tool (RoB 1), and we presented overall certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nThe RCTs included in this review were subgroup analyses of original RCTs conducted in the 1980s to assess the effectiveness of PMRT. Hence, the type and duration of adjuvant systemic treatments used in the studies included in this review were suboptimal compared to the current standard of care.\nThe review involved three RCTs with a total of 829 women diagnosed with breast cancer and low-volume axillary disease. Amongst the included studies, only a single study pertained to the modern-day radiotherapy practice. The results from this one study showed a reduction of local and regional recurrence (HR 0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.33, 1 study, 522 women; low-certainty evidence) and improvement in overall survival with PMRT (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.97, 1 study, 522 women; moderate-certainty evidence). One of the other studies using radiotherapy techniques that do not reflect modern-day practice reported on disease-free survival in women with low-volume axillary disease (subdistribution HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.96, 1 study, 173 women). None of the included studies reported on PMRT side effects or quality-of-life outcome measures.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on one study, the use of PMRT in women diagnosed with breast cancer and low-volume axillary disease indicated a reduction in locoregional recurrence and an improvement in survival. There is a need for more research to be conducted using modern-day radiotherapy equipment and methods to support and supplement the review findings.\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 found 3 studies with 725 women; 355 women received radiotherapy, and 370 did not. The largest study was conducted in Denmark and involved 552 women. The remaining two studies were conducted in Sweden and involved 104 premenopausal and 173 postmenopausal women. Only the Danish study administered radiotherapy using methods that are comparable to modern-day practice. All the studies followed the women for 15 years or more. The studies were funded by independent charitable organisations with no funding from private or pharmaceutical companies." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPoorly controlled asthma often leads to preventable exacerbations that require additional medications, as well as unscheduled hospital and clinic visits.\nLong-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are commonly given to adults with asthma whose symptoms are not well controlled by inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). US and UK regulators have issued warnings for LABA in asthma, and now recommend they be used \"for the shortest duration of time required to achieve control of asthma symptoms and discontinued, if possible, once asthma control is achieved\".\nObjectives\nTo compare cessation of long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) versus continued use of LABA/inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS) for adults whose asthma is well controlled, and to determine whether stopping LABA:\n1. results in loss of asthma control or deterioration in quality of life;\n2. increases the likelihood of asthma attacks or 'exacerbations'; or\n3. increases or decreases the likelihood of serious adverse events of any cause.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), www.ClinicalTrials.gov, www.who.int/ictrp/en/, reference lists of primary studies and existing reviews and manufacturers' trial registries (GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and AstraZeneca). We searched all databases from their inception to April 2015, and we imposed no restriction on language of publication.\nSelection criteria\nWe looked for parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least eight weeks' duration, in which adults whose asthma was well controlled by any dose of ICS+LABA combination therapy were randomly assigned to (1) step-down therapy to ICS alone versus (2) continuation of ICS and LABA.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened all records identified by the search strategy. We used an Excel extraction tool to manage searches, document reasons for inclusion and exclusion and extract descriptive and numerical data from trials meeting inclusion criteria.\nPrespecified primary outcomes were (1) exacerbations requiring oral steroids, (2) asthma control and (3) all-cause serious adverse events.\nMain results\nSix randomised, double-blind studies between 12 and 24 weeks' long met the inclusion criteria. Five studies contributed data to the meta-analysis, assigning 2781 people with stable asthma to the comparison of interest. The definition of stable asthma and inclusion criteria varied across studies, and Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) criteria were not used. Risk of bias across studies was generally low, and most evidence was rated as moderate quality.\nStopping LABA might increase the number of people having exacerbations and requiring oral corticosteroids (odds ratio (OR) 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 3.65; participants = 1257; studies = 4), although the confidence intervals did not exclude the possibility that stopping LABA was beneficial; over 17 weeks, 19 people per 1000 who continued their LABA had an exacerbation, compared with 32 per 1000 when LABA were stopped (13 more per 1000, 95% CI 3 fewer to 46 more).\nPeople who stopped LABA had worse scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire (mean difference (MD) 0.24, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.35; participants = 645; studies = 3) and on measures of asthma-related quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.57; participants = 359; studies = 2) than those who continued LABA, but the effects were not clinically relevant.\nToo few events occurred for investigators to tell whether stopping LABA has a greater effect on serious adverse events compared with continuing LABA+ICS (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.42; participants = 1342; studies = 5), and no study reported exacerbations requiring an emergency department visit or hospitalisation as a separate outcome. Stopping LABA may result in fewer adverse events of any kind compared with continuing, although the effect was not statistically significant (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05; participants = 1339; studies = 5), and stopping LABA made people more likely to withdraw from participation in research studies (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.58; participants = 1352; studies = 5).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review suggests that stopping LABA in adults who have stable asthma while they are taking a combination of LABA and ICS inhalers may increase the likelihood of asthma exacerbations that require treatment with oral corticosteroids, but this is not certain. Stopping LABA may slightly reduce asthma control and quality of life, but evidence was insufficient to show whether this had an effect on important outcomes such as serious adverse events and exacerbations requiring hospital admission, and longer trials are warranted. Trialists should include patient-important outcomes such as asthma control and quality of life and should use validated measurement tools. Definitions of exacerbations should be provided.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is the question important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Poorly controlled asthma often leads to attacks that require additional medications, hospital stays or treatment in the emergency department. Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are inhaled drugs that can be added to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to improve symptoms and reduce asthma attacks for adults whose asthma is not well controlled by ICS alone. However, some drug authorities have issued warnings for LABA in asthma because of safety concerns and now recommend that they be used for the shortest duration possible, then stopped once control of asthma symptoms is achieved. We believed it was important to assess evidence provided by high-quality studies." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nA promising approach to the treatment of chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure is the use of stem cells. The last decade has seen a plethora of randomised controlled trials developed worldwide, which have generated conflicting results.\nObjectives\nThe critical evaluation of clinical evidence on the safety and efficacy of autologous adult bone marrow-derived stem/progenitor cells as a treatment for chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, and four ongoing trial databases for relevant trials up to 14 December 2015.\nSelection criteria\nEligible studies were randomised controlled trials comparing autologous adult stem/progenitor cells with no cells in people with chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure. We included co-interventions, such as primary angioplasty, surgery, or administration of stem cell mobilising agents, when administered to treatment and control arms equally.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened all references for eligibility, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We undertook a quantitative evaluation of data using random-effects meta-analyses. We evaluated heterogeneity using the I2 statistic and explored substantial heterogeneity (I2 greater than 50%) through subgroup analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADEprofiler (GRADEpro), excluding studies with a high or unclear risk of selection bias. We focused our summary of findings on long-term follow-up of mortality, morbidity outcomes, and left ventricular ejection fraction measured by magnetic resonance imaging.\nMain results\nWe included 38 randomised controlled trials involving 1907 participants (1114 cell therapy, 793 controls) in this review update. Twenty-three trials were at high or unclear risk of selection bias. Other sources of potential bias included lack of blinding of participants (12 trials) and full or partial commercial sponsorship (13 trials).\nCell therapy reduced the incidence of long-term mortality (≥ 12 months) (risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 0.87; participants = 491; studies = 9; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Periprocedural adverse events associated with the mapping or cell/placebo injection procedure were infrequent. Cell therapy was also associated with a long-term reduction in the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.97; participants = 345; studies = 5; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) and incidence of arrhythmias (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.99; participants = 82; studies = 1; low-quality evidence). However, we found no evidence that cell therapy affects the risk of rehospitalisation for heart failure (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.09; participants = 375; studies = 6; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) or composite incidence of mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and/or rehospitalisation for heart failure (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.08; participants = 141; studies = 3; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence), or long-term left ventricular ejection fraction when measured by magnetic resonance imaging (mean difference -1.60, 95% CI -8.70 to 5.50; participants = 25; studies = 1; low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis systematic review and meta-analysis found low-quality evidence that treatment with bone marrow-derived stem/progenitor cells reduces mortality and improves left ventricular ejection fraction over short- and long-term follow-up and may reduce the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction and improve New York Heart Association (NYHA) Functional Classification in people with chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure. These findings should be interpreted with caution, as event rates were generally low, leading to a lack of precision.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Search date\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched electronic databases for relevant randomised controlled trials to December 2015." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an updated version of a Cochrane Review published in 2017.\nPaediatric neurodiagnostic investigations, including brain neuroimaging and electroencephalography (EEG), play an important role in the assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders. The use of an appropriate sedative agent is important to ensure the successful completion of the neurodiagnostic procedures, particularly in children, who are usually unable to remain still throughout the procedure.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of chloral hydrate as a sedative agent for non-invasive neurodiagnostic procedures in children.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases on 14 May 2020, with no language restrictions: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 12 May 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials that assessed chloral hydrate agent against other sedative agent(s), non-drug agent(s), or placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently evaluated studies identified by the search for their eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Results were expressed in terms of risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).\nMain results\nWe included 16 studies with a total of 2922 children. The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed. Blinding of the participants and personnel was not achieved in most of the included studies, and three of the 16 studies were at high risk of bias for selective reporting. Evaluation of the efficacy of the sedative agents was also underpowered, with all the comparisons performed in small studies.\nFewer children who received oral chloral hydrate had sedation failure compared with oral promethazine (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). More children who received oral chloral hydrate had sedation failure after one dose compared to intravenous pentobarbital (RR 4.33, 95% CI 1.35 to 13.89; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), but there was no clear difference after two doses (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.46; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Children with oral chloral hydrate had more sedation failure compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.96; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence) and music therapy (RR 17.00, 95% CI 2.37 to 122.14; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Sedation failure rates were similar between groups for comparisons with oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, oral midazolam and oral clonidine.\nChildren who received oral chloral hydrate had a shorter time to adequate sedation compared with those who received oral dexmedetomidine (MD −3.86, 95% CI −5.12 to −2.6; 1 study), oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride (MD −7.5, 95% CI −7.85 to −7.15; 1 study), oral promethazine (MD −12.11, 95% CI −18.48 to −5.74; 1 study) (moderate-certainty evidence for three aforementioned outcomes), rectal midazolam (MD −95.70, 95% CI −114.51 to −76.89; 1 study), and oral clonidine (MD −37.48, 95% CI −55.97 to −18.99; 1 study) (low-certainty evidence for two aforementioned outcomes). However, children with oral chloral hydrate took longer to achieve adequate sedation when compared with intravenous pentobarbital (MD 19, 95% CI 16.61 to 21.39; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), intranasal midazolam (MD 12.83, 95% CI 7.22 to 18.44; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), and intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 2.80, 95% CI 0.77 to 4.83; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence).\nChildren who received oral chloral hydrate appeared significantly less likely to complete neurodiagnostic procedure with child awakening when compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.09; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence).\nChloral hydrate was associated with a higher risk of the following adverse events: desaturation versus rectal sodium thiopental (RR 5.00, 95% 0.24 to 102.30; 1 study), unsteadiness versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 10.21, 95% CI 0.58 to 178.52; 1 study), vomiting versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 10.59, 95% CI 0.61 to 185.45; 1 study) (low-certainty evidence for aforementioned three outcomes), and crying during administration of sedation versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 1.39, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.80; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence). Chloral hydrate was associated with a lower risk of the following: diarrhoea compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.72; 1 study), lower mean diastolic blood pressure compared with sodium thiopental (MD 7.40, 95% CI 5.11 to 9.69; 1 study), drowsiness compared with oral clonidine (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.64; 1 study), vertigo compared with oral clonidine (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.79; 1 study) (moderate-certainty evidence for aforementioned four outcomes), and bradycardia compared with intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.59; 1 study; high-certainty evidence). No other adverse events were significantly associated with chloral hydrate, although there was an increased risk of combined adverse events overall (RR 7.66, 95% CI 1.78 to 32.91; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe certainty of evidence for the comparisons of oral chloral hydrate against several other methods of sedation was variable. Oral chloral hydrate appears to have a lower sedation failure rate when compared with oral promethazine. Sedation failure was similar between groups for other comparisons such as oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, and oral midazolam. Oral chloral hydrate had a higher sedation failure rate when compared with intravenous pentobarbital, rectal sodium thiopental, and music therapy. Chloral hydrate appeared to be associated with higher rates of adverse events than intranasal dexmedetomidine. However, the evidence for the outcomes for oral chloral hydrate versus intravenous pentobarbital, rectal sodium thiopental, intranasal dexmedetomidine, and music therapy was mostly of low certainty, therefore the findings should be interpreted with caution.\nFurther research should determine the effects of oral chloral hydrate on major clinical outcomes such as successful completion of procedures, requirements for an additional sedative agent, and degree of sedation measured using validated scales, which were rarely assessed in the studies included in this review. The safety profile of chloral hydrate should be studied further, especially for major adverse effects such as oxygen desaturation.\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 summarised the evidence of effectiveness and harms of oral chloral hydrate sedation when compared with other sedative agents. Our review suggests that oral chloral hydrate is just as effective a sedative agent with similar sedation failure rate when compared with oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, oral midazolam, and oral clonidine; and probably a more effective sedative agent with a lower sedation failure rate when compared with oral promethazine. Whilst most of the included studies showed that chloral hydrate was safe with no increase in side effects when compared to other sedative agents, one study reported an increased risk of side effects with oral chloral hydrate when compared with intranasal dexmedetomidine." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMultiple sclerosis (MS) is the most common neurological cause of disability in young adults. Off-label rituximab for MS is used in most countries surveyed by the International Federation of MS, including high-income countries where on-label disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) are available.\nObjectives\nTo assess beneficial and adverse effects of rituximab as 'first choice' and as 'switching' for adults with MS.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and trial registers for completed and ongoing studies on 31 January 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) comparing rituximab with placebo or another DMT for adults with MS.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methodology. We used the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias. We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE for: disability worsening, relapse, serious adverse events (SAEs), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), common infections, cancer, and mortality. We conducted separate analyses for rituximab as 'first choice' or as 'switching', relapsing or progressive MS, comparison versus placebo or another DMT, and RCTs or NRSIs.\nMain results\nWe included 15 studies (5 RCTs, 10 NRSIs) with 16,429 participants of whom 13,143 were relapsing MS and 3286 progressive MS. The studies were one to two years long and compared rituximab as 'first choice' with placebo (1 RCT) or other DMTs (1 NRSI), rituximab as 'switching' against placebo (2 RCTs) or other DMTs (2 RCTs, 9 NRSIs). The studies were conducted worldwide; most originated from high-income countries, six from the Swedish MS register. Pharmaceutical companies funded two studies. We identified 14 ongoing studies.\nRituximab as 'first choice' for relapsing MS\nRituximab versus placebo: no studies met eligibility criteria for this comparison.\nRituximab versus other DMTs: one NRSI compared rituximab with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate, dimethyl fumarate, natalizumab, or fingolimod in active relapsing MS at 24 months' follow-up. Rituximab likely results in a large reduction in relapses compared with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate (hazard ratio (HR) 0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.39; 335 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Rituximab may reduce relapses compared with dimethyl fumarate (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.00; 206 participants; low-certainty evidence) and natalizumab (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.00; 170 participants; low-certainty evidence). It may make little or no difference on relapse compared with fingolimod (HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.69; 137 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported no deaths over 24 months. The study did not measure disability worsening, SAEs, HRQoL, and common infections.\nRituximab as 'first choice' for progressive MS\nOne RCT compared rituximab with placebo in primary progressive MS at 24 months' follow-up. Rituximab likely results in little to no difference in the number of participants who have disability worsening compared with placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.11; 439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Rituximab may result in little to no difference in recurrence of relapses (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.99; 439 participants; low-certainty evidence), SAEs (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.20; 439 participants; low-certainty evidence), common infections (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.73; 439 participants; low-certainty evidence), cancer (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.59; 439 participants; low-certainty evidence), and mortality (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.77; 439 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure HRQoL.\nRituximab versus other DMTs: no studies met eligibility criteria for this comparison.\nRituximab as 'switching' for relapsing MS\nOne RCT compared rituximab with placebo in relapsing MS at 12 months' follow-up. Rituximab may decrease recurrence of relapses compared with placebo (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.93; 104 participants; low-certainty evidence). The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of rituximab relative to placebo on SAEs (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.92; 104 participants; very low-certainty evidence), common infections (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.24; 104 participants; very low-certainty evidence), cancer (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.06 to 39.15; 104 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and mortality (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.06 to 39.15; 104 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure disability worsening and HRQoL.\nFive NRSIs compared rituximab with other DMTs in relapsing MS at 24 months' follow-up. The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of rituximab relative to interferon beta or glatiramer acetate on disability worsening (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.42; 1 NRSI, 853 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Rituximab likely results in a large reduction in relapses compared with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate (HR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 NRSI, 1383 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and fingolimod (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.32; 1 NRSI, 256 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of rituximab relative to natalizumab on relapses (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.2 to 5.0; 1 NRSI, 153 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Rituximab likely increases slightly common infections compared with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.62; 1 NRSI, 5477 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and compared with natalizumab (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.32; 2 NRSIs, 5001 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Rituximab may increase slightly common infections compared with fingolimod (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.77; 3 NRSIs, 5187 participants; low-certainty evidence). It may make little or no difference compared with ocrelizumab (OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.40; 1 NRSI, 472 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of rituximab on mortality compared with fingolimod (OR 5.59, 95% CI 0.22 to 139.89; 1 NRSI, 136 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and natalizumab (OR 6.66, 95% CI 0.27 to 166.58; 1 NRSI, 153 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The included studies did not measure SAEs, HRQoL, and cancer.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor preventing relapses in relapsing MS, rituximab as 'first choice' and as 'switching' may compare favourably with a wide range of approved DMTs. A protective effect of rituximab against disability worsening is uncertain. There is limited information to determine the effect of rituximab for progressive MS.\nThe evidence is uncertain about the effect of rituximab on SAEs. They are relatively rare in people with MS, thus difficult to study, and they were not well reported in studies. There is an increased risk of common infections with rituximab, but absolute risk is small.\nRituximab is widely used as off-label treatment in people with MS; however, randomised evidence is weak. In the absence of randomised evidence, remaining uncertainties on beneficial and adverse effects of rituximab for MS might be clarified by making real-world data available.\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 investigated rituximab compared with all other approved medicines for MS. We searched the literature up to January 2021. We compared and summarised the results of the studies and rated our confidence in the evidence, based on factors such as study methods and quality." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAmyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), which is also known as motor neuron disease (MND), is a fatal disease associated with rapidly progressive disability, for which no definitive treatment exists. Current treatment approaches largely focus on relieving symptoms to improve the quality of life of those affected. The therapeutic potential of cell-based therapies in ALS/MND has not been fully evaluated, given the paucity of high-quality clinical trials. Based on data from preclinical studies, cell-based therapy is a promising treatment for ALS/MND. This review was first published in 2015 when the first clinical trials of cell-based therapies were still in progress. We undertook this update to incorporate evidence now available from randomised controlled trials (RCTs).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of cell-based therapy for people with ALS/MND, compared with placebo or no treatment.\nSearch methods\nOn 31 July 2019, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched two clinical trials registries for ongoing or unpublished studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs that assigned people with ALS/MND to receive cell-based therapy versus a placebo or no additional treatment. Co-interventions were allowed, provided that they were given to each group equally.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methodology.\nMain results\nTwo RCTs involving 112 participants were eligible for inclusion in this review. One study compared autologous bone marrow-mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSC) plus riluzole versus control (riluzole only), while the other study compared combined intramuscular and intrathecal administration of autologous mesenchymal stem cells secreting neurotrophic factors (MSC-NTF) to placebo. The latter study was reported as an abstract and provided no numerical data. Both studies were funded by biotechnology companies.\nThe only study that contributed to the outcome data in the review involved 64 participants, comparing BM-MSC plus riluzole versus control (riluzole only). It reported outcomes after four to six months. It had a low risk of selection bias, detection bias and reporting bias, but a high risk of performance bias and attrition bias. The certainty of evidence was low for all major efficacy outcomes, with imprecision as the main downgrading factor, because the range of plausible estimates, as shown by the 95% confidence intervals (CIs), encompassed a range that would likely result in different clinical decisions.\nFunctional impairment, expressed as the mean change in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) score from baseline to six months after cell injection was slightly reduced (better) in the BM-MSC group compared to the control group (mean difference (MD) 3.38, 95% CI 1.22 to 5.54; 1 RCT, 56 participants; low-certainty evidence). ALSFRS-R has a range from 48 (normal) to 0 (maximally impaired); a change of 4 or more points is considered clinically important. The trial did not report outcomes at 12 months. There was no clear difference between the BM-MSC and the no treatment group in change in respiratory function (per cent predicted forced vital capacity; FVC%; MD –0.53, 95% CI –5.37 to 4.31; 1 RCT, 56 participants; low-certainty evidence); overall survival at six months (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 64 participants; low-certainty evidence); risk of total adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.19; 1 RCT, 64 participants; low-certainty evidence) or serious adverse events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.72; 1 RCT, 64 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure muscle strength.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently, there is a lack of high-certainty evidence to guide practice on the use of cell-based therapy to treat ALS/MND. Uncertainties remain as to whether this mode of therapy is capable of restoring muscle function, slowing disease progression, and improving survival in people with ALS/MND. Although one RCT provided low-certainty evidence that BM-MSC may slightly reduce functional impairment measured on the ALSFRS-R after four to six months, this was a small phase II trial that cannot be used to establish efficacy.\nWe need large, prospective RCTs with long-term follow-up to establish the efficacy and safety of cellular therapy and to determine patient-, disease- and cell treatment-related factors that may influence the outcome of cell-based therapy. The major goals of future research are to determine the appropriate cell source, phenotype, dose and method of delivery, as these will be key elements in designing an optimal cell-based therapy programme for people with ALS/MND. Future research should also explore novel treatment strategies, including combinations of cellular therapy and standard or novel neuroprotective agents, to find the best possible approach to prevent or reverse the neurological deficit in ALS/MND, and to prolong survival in this debilitating and fatal condition.\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": "How effective and safe is cell-based therapy in people with ALS/MND, when we compare it with an inactive treatment or no treatment?" } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nBisphosphonates are considered to be the treatment of choice for people with Paget's disease of bone. However, the effects of bisphosphonates on patient-centred outcomes have not been extensively studied. There are insufficient data to determine whether reducing and maintaining biochemical markers of bone turnover to within the normal range improves quality of life and reduces the risk of complications.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of bisphosphonates for adult patients with Paget's disease of bone.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge and trials registers up to March 2017. We searched regulatory agency published information for rare adverse events.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of bisphosphonates as treatment for Paget's disease in adults.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed studies for risk of bias. We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nWe included 20 trials (25 reports, 3168 participants). Of these, 10 trials (801 participants) compared bisphosphonates (etidronate, tiludronate, ibandronate, pamidronate, olpadronate, alendronate, risedronate, zoledronate) versus placebo, seven compared two bisphosphonates (992 participants), one trial compared a bisphosphonates with a bisphosphonate plus calcitonin (44 participants), and two studies, the largest trial (1331 participants) and its interventional extension study (502 participants), compared symptomatic treatment and intensive treatment where the goal was to normalise alkaline phosphatase.\nMost studies were assessed at low or unclear risk of bias. Six of 10 studies comparing bisphosphonates versus placebo were assessed at high risk of bias, mainly around incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting.\nParticipant populations were reasonably homogeneous in terms of age (mean age 66 to 74 years) and sex (51% to 74% male). Most studies included participants who had elevated alkaline phosphatase levels whether or not bone pain was present. Mean follow-up was six months.\nBisphosphonates versus placebo\nBisphosphonates tripled the proportion (31% versus 9%) of participants whose bone pain disappeared (RR 3.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31 to 8.90; 2 studies, 205 participants; NNT 5, 95% CI 1 to 31; moderate-quality evidence). This result is clinically important. Data were consistent when pain change was measured as any reduction (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.29 to 3.01; 7 studies, 481 participants).\nThere was uncertainty about differences in incident fractures: 1.4% fractures occurred in the bisphosphonates group and none in the placebo group (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.18 to 4.31; 4 studies, 356 participants; very low-quality evidence).\nNone of the studies reported data on orthopaedic surgery, quality of life or hearing thresholds.\nResults regarding adverse effects and treatment discontinuation were uncertain. There was a 64% risk of mild gastrointestinal adverse events in intervention group participants and 48% in the control group (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.92; 6 studies, 376 participants; low-quality evidence). The likelihood of study participants discontinuing due to adverse effects was slightly higher in intervention group participants (4.4%) than the control group (4.1%) (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.52; 6 studies, 517 participants; low-quality evidence). Zoledronate was associated with an increased risk of transient fever or fatigue (RR 2.57, 95% CI 1.21 to 5.44; 1 study, 176 participants; moderate-quality evidence).\nBisphosphonates versus active comparator\nMore participants reported pain relief with zoledronate than pamidronate (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.53; 1 study, 89 participants; NNT 5, 95% CI 3 to 11) or risedronate (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.74; 1 study, 347 participants; NNT 7, 95% CI 4 to 24; very low quality evidence). This result is clinically important.\nThere was insufficient evidence to confirm or exclude differences in adverse effects of bisphosphonates (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.76; 2 studies, 437 participants; low-quality evidence) and treatment discontinuation (2 studies, 437 participants) (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.43 to 9.59; 2 studies, 437 participants; very low-quality evidence).\nIntensive versus symptomatic treatment\nThere was no consistent evidence of difference to response in bone pain, bodily pain or quality of life in participants who received intensive versus symptomatic treatment.\nInconclusive results were observed regarding fractures and orthopaedic procedures for intensive versus symptomatic treatment (intensive treatment for fracture: RR 1.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 4.44; absolute risk 8.1% versus 5.2%; orthopaedic procedures: RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.11; absolute risk 5.6% versus 3.0%; 1 study, 502 participants; low-quality evidence).\nThere was insufficient evidence to confirm or exclude an important difference in adverse effects between intensive and symptomatic treatment (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.41; low-quality evidence).\nThere was insufficient evidence to confirm or exclude an important difference of risk of rare adverse events (including osteonecrosis of the jaw) from the regulatory agencies databases.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found moderate-quality evidence that bisphosphonates improved pain in people with Paget's disease of bone when compared with placebo. We are uncertain about the results of head-to-head studies investigating bisphosphonates. We found insufficient evidence of benefit in terms of pain or quality of life from intensive treatment. Information about adverse effects was limited, but serious side effects were rare, and rate of withdrawals due to side effects was low.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Pain\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We found that of 100 adults with Paget's disease of bone, 31 would experience complete pain relief if they took bisphosphonates for six months compared with 9 people not taking bisphosphonates." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPelvic organ prolapse (POP) is common in women and is frequently associated with stress urinary incontinence (SUI). In many cases however, SUI is present only with the prolapse reduced (occult SUI) or may develop after surgical treatment for prolapse (de novo SUI).\nObjectives\nTo determine the impact on postoperative bladder function of surgery for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse with or without concomitant or delayed two-stage continence procedures to treat or prevent stress urinary incontinence.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE-In-Process, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, handsearching journals and conference proceedings (searched 11 November 2017) and reference lists of relevant articles. We also contacted researchers in the field.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) including surgical operations for POP with or without continence procedures in continent or incontinent women. Our primary outcome was subjective postoperative SUI. Secondary outcomes included recurrent POP on examination, overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms, and voiding dysfunction.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 19 RCTs (2717 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from low to moderate. The main limitations were risk of bias (especially blinding of outcome assessors), indirectness and imprecision associated with low event rates and small samples.\nPOP surgery in women with SUI\nVaginal repair with vs without concomitant mid-urethral sling (MUS)\nA concomitant MUS probably improves postoperative rates of subjective SUI, as the evaluated clinical effect appears large (risk ratio (RR) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.48; 319 participants, two studies; I² = 28%; moderate-quality evidence), and probably decreases the need for further continence surgery (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.74; 134 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if the risk of SUI with POP surgery alone is 39%, the risk with an MUS is between 8% and 19%.\nRates of recurrent POP on examination, OAB, and voiding dysfunction were not reported.\nVaginal repair with concomitant vs delayed MUS\nEvidence suggested little or no difference between groups in reporting postoperative SUI (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.37; 140 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence).\nRates of recurrent POP on examination, OAB, and voiding dysfunction and the need for further surgery were not reported.\nAbdominal sacrocolpopexy with vs without Burch colposuspension\nAn additional Burch colposuspension probably has little or no effect on postoperative SUI at one year (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.60; 47 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence), OAB symptoms (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.18; 33 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence), or voiding dysfunction (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.43; 47 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence). Rates of recurrent POP and the need for further surgery were not reported.\nPOP surgery in women with occult SUI\nVaginal repair with vs without concomitant MUS\nMUS probably improves rates of subjective postoperative SUI (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.55; 369 participants, five studies; I² = 44%; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if the risk with surgery alone is 34%, the risk with a concomitant MUS is between 10% and 22%. Evidence suggests little or no difference between groups in rates of recurrent POP (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.19; 50 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence), OAB symptoms (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.07; 43 participants, one study; low-quality evidence), or voiding dysfunction (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.15 to 6.55; 50 participants, one study; low-quality evidence). The need for further surgery was not reported.\nPOP surgery in continent women\nVaginal repair with vs without concomitant MUS\nResearchers provided no conclusive evidence of a difference between groups in rates of subjective postoperative SUI (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.00; 220 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if the risk with surgery alone is 40%, the risk with a concomitant MUS is between 19% and 40%. Rates of recurrent POP, OAB, and voiding dysfunction and the need for further surgery were not reported.\nAbdominal sacrocolpopexy with vs without Burch colposuspension\nWe are uncertain whether there is a difference between groups in rates of subjective postoperative SUI (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.19 to 9.01; 379 participants, two studies; I² = 90%; low-quality evidence), as RCTs produced results in different directions with a very wide confidence interval. We are also uncertain whether there is a difference between groups in rates of voiding dysfunction (RR 8.49, 95% CI 0.48 to 151.59; 66 participants, one study; low-quality evidence) or recurrent POP (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.30; 250 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence. No study reported OAB symptoms and need for further surgery.\nVaginal repair with armed anterior vaginal mesh repair vs anterior native tissue\nAnterior armed mesh repair may slightly increase postoperative de novo SUI (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.37; 905 participants, seven studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence) but may decrease recurrent POP (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.38; 848 participants, five studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in rates of voiding dysfunction (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.22 to 12.10; 125 participants, two studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). Rates of OAB and the need for further surgery were not reported.\nAdverse events were infrequently reported in all studies; cost was not studied in any trial.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn women with POP and SUI (symptomatic or occult), a concurrent MUS probably reduces postoperative SUI and should be discussed in counselling. It might be feasible to postpone the MUS and perform a delayed (two-stage) continence procedure, if required.\nAlthough an abdominal continence procedure (Burch colposuspension) during abdominal POP surgery in continent women reduced de novo SUI rates in one underpowered trial, another RCT reported conflicting results. Adding an MUS during vaginal POP repair might reduce postoperative development of SUI.\nAn anterior native tissue repair might be better than use of transobturator mesh for preventing postoperative SUI; however, prolapse recurrence is more common with native tissue repair.\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": "Background\nPelvic organ prolapse is a common condition, especially among women who have given birth and who are postmenopausal. It involves the descent of pelvic organs such as the womb (uterus), bladder, bowel, and vagina within and outside of the vaginal opening. It is often associated with urinary leakage on coughing or physical exertion as in sports (termed 'stress urinary incontinence'). However, in some women, the prolapse prevents leakage from the urethra and stress urinary incontinence might be present only with re-placement of the prolapsed organs in the vagina during vaginal examination (termed 'occult SUI'). Stress urinary incontinence may also develop only after surgical treatment of prolapse (termed 'de novo SUI'). To date, the best treatment for women undergoing surgery for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse with and without incontinence conditions is not known." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHand eczema is an inflammation of the skin of the hands that tends to run a chronic, relapsing course. This common condition is often associated with itch, social stigma, and impairment in employment. Many different interventions of unknown effectiveness are used to treat hand eczema.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of topical and systemic interventions for hand eczema in adults and children.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following up to April 2018: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, LILACS, GREAT, and four trials registries. We checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared interventions for hand eczema, regardless of hand eczema type and other affected sites, versus no treatment, placebo, vehicle, or active treatments.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were participant- and investigator-rated good/excellent control of symptoms, and adverse events.\nMain results\nWe included 60 RCTs, conducted in secondary care (5469 participants with mild to severe chronic hand eczema). Most participants were over 18 years old. The duration of treatment was short, generally up to four months. Only 24 studies included a follow-up period. Clinical heterogeneity in treatments and outcome measures was evident. Few studies performed head-to-head comparisons of different interventions. Risk of bias varied considerably, with only five studies at low risk in all domains. Twenty-two studies were industry-funded.\nEighteen trials studied topical corticosteroids or calcineurin inhibitors; 10 studies, phototherapy; three studies, systemic immunosuppressives; and five studies, oral retinoids. Most studies compared an active intervention against no treatment, variants of the same medication, or placebo (or vehicle). Below, we present results from the main comparisons.\nCorticosteroid creams/ointments: when assessed 15 days after the start of treatment, clobetasol propionate 0.05% foam probably improves participant-rated control of symptoms compared to vehicle (risk ratio (RR) 2.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.38 to 3.91; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 2 to 8; 1 study, 125 participants); the effect of clobetasol compared to vehicle for investigator-rated improvement is less clear (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.40). More participants had at least one adverse event with clobetasol (11/62 versus 5/63; RR 2.24, 95% CI 0.82 to 6.06), including application site burning/pruritus. This evidence was rated as moderate certainty.\nWhen assessed 36 weeks after the start of treatment, mometasone furoate cream used thrice weekly may slightly improve investigator-rated symptom control compared to twice weekly (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.61; 1 study, 72 participants) after remission is reached. Participant-rated symptoms were not measured. Some mild atrophy was reported in both groups (RR 1.76, 95% CI 0.45 to 6.83; 5/35 versus 3/37). This evidence was rated as low certainty.\nIrradiation with ultraviolet (UV) light: local combination ultraviolet light therapy (PUVA) may lead to improvement in investigator-rated symptom control when compared to local narrow-band UVB after 12 weeks of treatment (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.16; 1 study, 60 participants). However, the 95% CI indicates that PUVA might make little or no difference. Participant-rated symptoms were not measured. Adverse events (mainly erythema) were reported by 9/30 participants in the narrow-band UVB group versus none in the PUVA group. This evidence was rated as moderate certainty.\nTopical calcineurin inhibitors: tacrolimus 0.1% over two weeks probably improves investigator-rated symptom control measured after three weeks compared to vehicle (14/14 tacrolimus versus 0/14 vehicle; 1 study). Participant-rated symptoms were not measured. Four of 14 people in the tacrolimus group versus zero in the vehicle group had well-tolerated application site burning/itching.\nA within-participant study in 16 participants compared 0.1% tacrolimus to 0.1% mometasone furoate but did not measure investigator- or participant-rated symptoms. Both treatments were well tolerated when assessed at two weeks during four weeks of treatment.\nEvidence from these studies was rated as moderate certainty.\nOral interventions: oral cyclosporin 3 mg/kg/d probably slightly improves investigator-rated (RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.88 to 3.99; 1 study, 34 participants) or participant-rated (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.27) control of symptoms compared to topical betamethasone dipropionate 0.05% after six weeks of treatment. The risk of adverse events such as dizziness was similar between groups (up to 36 weeks; RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.86, n = 55; 15/27 betamethasone versus 19/28 cyclosporin). The evidence was rated as moderate certainty.\nAlitretinoin 10 mg improves investigator-rated symptom control compared with placebo (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.07; NNTB 11, 95% CI 6.3 to 26.5; 2 studies, n = 781) and alitretinoin 30 mg also improves this outcome compared with placebo (RR 2.75, 95% CI 2.20 to 3.43; NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 5; 2 studies, n = 1210). Similar results were found for participant-rated symptom control: alitretinoin 10 mg RR 1.73 (95% CI 1.25 to 2.40) and 30 mg RR 2.75 (95% CI 2.18 to 3.48). Evidence was rated as high certainty. The number of adverse events (including headache) probably did not differ between alitretinoin 10 mg and placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.55; 1 study, n = 158; moderate-certainty evidence), but the risk of headache increased with alitretinoin 30 mg (RR 3.43, 95% CI 2.45 to 4.81; 2 studies, n = 1210; high-certainty evidence). Outcomes were assessed between 48 and 72 weeks.\nAuthors' conclusions\nMost findings were from single studies with low precision, so they should be interpreted with caution. Topical corticosteroids and UV phototherapy were two of the major standard treatments, but evidence is insufficient to support one specific treatment over another. The effect of topical calcineurin inhibitors is not certain. Alitretinoin is more effective than placebo in controlling symptoms, but advantages over other treatments need evaluating.\nWell-designed and well-reported, long-term (more than three months), head-to-head studies comparing different treatments are needed. Consensus is required regarding the definition of hand eczema and its subtypes, and a standard severity scale should be established.\nThe main limitation was heterogeneity between studies. Small sample size impacted our ability to detect differences between treatments.\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": "Limited data are available to support the best way of managing hand eczema due to varying study quality and inability to pool data from studies with similar interventions. Corticosteroid creams/ointments and phototherapy (irradiation with UV light) are the major treatment options, although comparisons between these options are lacking. Below, we present results for the main comparisons of interest." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAllergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA) is an allergic reaction to colonisation of the lungs with the fungus Aspergillus fumigatus, and affects around 10% of people with cystic fibrosis. ABPA is associated with an accelerated decline in lung function. High doses of corticosteroids are the main treatment for ABPA; although the long-term benefits are not clear, and their many side effects are well-documented. A group of compounds, the azoles, have activity against A fumigatus, and have been proposed as an alternative treatment for ABPA. Of this group, itraconazole is the most active. A separate antifungal compound, amphotericin B, has been used in aerosolised form to treat invasive infection with A fumigatus, and may have potential for the treatment of ABPA. Antifungal therapy for ABPA in cystic fibrosis needs to be evaluated. This is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nThe review aimed to test the hypotheses that antifungal interventions for the treatment of ABPA in cystic fibrosis:\n1. improve clinical status compared to placebo or standard therapy (no placebo); and\n2. do not have unacceptable adverse effects.\nIf benefit was demonstrated, we planned to assess the optimal type, duration, and dose of antifungal therapy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register, which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals, and abstract books of conference proceedings. Date of the most recent search of the Group's Trials Register was 28 September 2021.\nWe searched ongoing trials registries, most recently on 11 March 2022.\nEarlier, we also approached pharmaceutical companies regarding possible unpublished trials.\nSelection criteria\nPublished or unpublished randomised controlled trials, in which antifungal treatments were compared to either placebo or no treatment, or where different doses of the same treatment were used in the treatment of ABPA in people with cystic fibrosis.\nData collection and analysis\nThe searches identified six trials; none of which met the inclusion criteria for the review.\nMain results\nWe included no completed randomised controlled trials. There is currently one ongoing trial, which we may find eligible for a future update.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAt present, there are no randomised controlled trials that evaluate the use of antifungal therapies for the treatment of ABPA in people with cystic fibrosis, although one trial is currently ongoing.\nTrials with clear outcome measures are needed to properly evaluate the use of corticosteroids in people with ABPA and cystic fibrosis.\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": "ABPA is an allergic lung reaction to a type of fungus (usually Aspergillus fumigatus) in some people with cystic fibrosis. It causes a cough and wheezing, and sometimes fever. If left untreated, ABPA can lead to long-term lung damage. It is usually treated with a high dose of corticosteroids (also known as steroids). However, it has not been proven that corticosteroids can prevent lung function from deteriorating in the long term. Also, long-term use of corticosteroids is linked to some serious side effects. Treating the fungus that causes ABPA may be an alternative to using high doses of corticosteroids to combat the allergic reaction. This is an update of a previously published review." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of a review published in 2012. A related review \"Inhaled versus systemic corticosteroids for preventing bronchopulmonary dysplasia in ventilated very low birth weight preterm neonates\" has been updated as well. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) is a serious and common problem among very low birth weight infants, despite the use of antenatal steroids and postnatal surfactant therapy to decrease the incidence and severity of respiratory distress syndrome. Due to their anti-inflammatory properties, corticosteroids have been widely used to treat or prevent BPD. However, the use of systemic steroids has been associated with serious short- and long-term adverse effects. Administration of corticosteroids topically through the respiratory tract may result in beneficial effects on the pulmonary system with fewer undesirable systemic side effects.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effectiveness of inhaled versus systemic corticosteroids administered to ventilator-dependent preterm neonates with birth weight ≤ 1500 g or gestational age ≤ 32 weeks after 7 days of life on the incidence of death or BPD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 1), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 23 February 2017), Embase (1980 to 23 February 2017), and CINAHL (1982 to 23 February 2017). We also searched clinical trials registers, conference proceedings and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing inhaled versus systemic corticosteroid therapy (irrespective of dose and duration) starting after the first week of life in ventilator-dependent very low birth weight infants.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nWe included three trials that involved a total of 431 participants which compared inhaled versus systemic corticosteroids to treat BPD. No new trials were included for the 2017 update.\nAlthough one study randomised infants at < 72 hours (N = 292), treatment started when infants were aged > 15 days. In this larger study, deaths were included from the point of randomisation and before treatment started. Two studies (N = 139) randomised and started treatment at 12 to 21 days.\nTwo trials reported non-significant differences between groups for the primary outcome: incidence of death or BPD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age among all randomised infants. Estimates for the largest trial were Relative risk (RR) 1.04 (95% Confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.26), Risk difference (RD) 0.03 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.15); (moderate-quality evidence). Estimates for the other trial reporting the primary outcome were RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.05), RD -0.06 (95% CI -0.17 to 0.05); (low-quality evidence).\nSecondary outcomes that included data from all three trials showed no significant differences in the duration of mechanical ventilation or supplemental oxygen, length of hospital stay, or the incidence of hyperglycaemia, hypertension, necrotising enterocolitis, gastrointestinal bleed, retinopathy of prematurity or culture-proven sepsis moderate- to low-quality evidence).\nIn a subset of 75 surviving infants who were enrolled from the United Kingdom and Ireland, there were no significant differences in developmental outcomes at seven years of age between groups (moderate-quality evidence). One study received grant support and the industry provided aerochambers and metered dose inhalers of budesonide and placebo for the same study. No conflict of interest was identified.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no evidence that inhaled corticosteroids confer net advantages over systemic corticosteroids in the management of ventilator-dependent preterm infants. There was no evidence of difference in effectiveness or adverse event profiles for inhaled versus systemic steroids.\nA better delivery system guaranteeing selective delivery of inhaled steroids to the alveoli might result in beneficial clinical effects without increasing adverse events.\nTo resolve this issue, studies are needed to identify the risk/benefit ratio of different delivery techniques and dosing schedules for administration of these medications. The long-term effects of inhaled steroids, with particular attention to neurodevelopmental outcomes, should be addressed in future studies.\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": "Evidence from two studies in 370 infants, who were randomised between 12 and 21 days of age and who contributed data to the primary outcome of this review, showed that inhaled steroids administered after 7 days of age compared with systemic steroids did not decrease the incidence of death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age. Evidence from the single study in which infants were randomised at less than 72 hours of age did not show difference the incidence of death or BPD.\nEvidence from three studies in 431 infants contributing to secondary outcomes showed that inhaled steroids administered after seven days of age compared with systemic steroids did not significantly alter the incidence of BPD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age, hyperglycaemia, hypertension, duration of ventilation, duration of oxygen supplementation, length of hospital stay, intraventricular haemorrhage grade III-IV, periventricular leukomalacia, necrotising enterocolitis, gastrointestinal bleed, retinopathy of prematurity stage > 3, culture-proven sepsis or the incidence of adverse effects.\nAdverse event profiles did not differ for inhaled versus systemic steroids but some potential complications of steroid treatment have not been reported. More research is needed to show whether any form of routine use of steroids results in overall health improvements for babies at risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nBranch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) is the second most common cause of retinal vascular abnormality after diabetic retinopathy. Persistent macular oedema develops in 60% of eyes with a BRVO. Untreated, only 14% of eyes with chronic macular oedema will have a visual acuity (VA) of 20/40 or better. Macular grid laser photocoagulation is used for chronic non-ischaemic macular oedema following BRVO and has been the mainstay of treatment for over 20 years. New treatments are available and a systematic review is necessary to ensure that the most up-to-date evidence is considered objectively.\nObjectives\nTo examine the effects of macular grid laser photocoagulation in the treatment of macular oedema following BRVO.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 21 August 2014.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing macular grid laser photocoagulation treatment to another treatment, sham treatment or no treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included five studies conducted in Europe and North America. Four separate trials compared grid laser to no treatment, sham treatment, intravitreal bevacizumab and intravitreal triamcinolone. One further trial compared subthreshold to threshold laser. Two of these trials were judged to be at high risk of bias in one or more domains.\nIn one trial of grid laser versus observation, people receiving grid laser were more likely to gain visual acuity (VA) (10 or more ETDRS letters) at 36 months (RR 1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 2.84, 78 participants, moderate-quality evidence). The effect of grid laser on loss of VA (10 or more letters) was uncertain as the results were imprecise (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.04, 78 participants, moderate-quality evidence). On average, people receiving grid laser had better improvement in VA (mean difference (MD) 0.11 logMAR, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.17, high-quality evidence). In a trial of early and delayed grid laser treatment versus sham laser (n = 108, data available for 99 participants), no participant gained or lost VA (15 or more ETDRS letters). At 12 months, there was no evidence for a difference in change in VA (from baseline) between early grid laser and sham laser (MD -0.03 logMAR, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.07 to 0.01, 68 participants, low-quality evidence) or between delayed grid laser and sham laser (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.04, 66 participants, low-quality evidence).\nThe relative effects of subthreshold and threshold laser were uncertain. In one trial, the RR for gain of VA (15 or more letters) at 12 months was 1.68 (95% CI 0.57 to 4.95, 36 participants, moderate-quality evidence); the RR for loss of VA (15 or more letters) was 0.56 (95% CI 0.06 to 5.63, moderate-quality evidence); and at 24 months the change in VA from baseline was MD 0.07 (95% CI -0.10 to 0.24, moderate-quality evidence).\nThe relative effects of macular grid laser and intravitreal bevacizumab were uncertain. In one trial, the RR for gain of 15 or more letters at 12 months was 0.67 (95% CI 0.39 to 1.14, 30 participants, low-quality evidence). Loss of 15 or more letters was not reported. Change in VA at 12 months was MD 0.11 logMAR (95% CI -0.36 to 0.14, low-quality evidence).\nThe relative effects of grid laser and 1mg triamcinolone were uncertain at 12 months. RR for gain of VA (15 or more letters) was 1.13 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.71, 1 RCT, 242 participants, moderate-quality evidence); RR for loss of VA (15 or more letters) was 1.20 (95% CI 0.63 to 2.27, moderate-quality evidence); MD for change in VA was -0.03 letters (95% CI -0.12 to 0.06, moderate-quality evidence). Similar results were seen for the comparison with 4mg triamcinolone. Beyond 12 months, the visual outcomes were in favour of grid laser at 24 months and 36 months with people in the macular grid group gaining more VA.\nFour studies reported on adverse effects. Laser photocoagulation appeared to be well tolerated in the studies. One participant (out of 71) suffered a perforation of Bruch's membrane, but this did not affect visual acuity.\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate-quality evidence from one RCT supports the use of grid laser photocoagulation to treat macular oedema following BRVO. There was insufficient evidence to support the use of early grid laser or subthreshold laser. There was insufficient evidence to show a benefit of intravitreal triamcinolone or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) over macular grid laser photocoagulation in BRVO. With recent interest in the use of intravitreal anti-VEGF or steroid therapy, assessment of treatment efficacy (change in visual acuity and foveal or central macular thickness using optical coherence tomography (OCT)) and the number of treatments needed for maintenance and long-term safety will be important for future studies.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We include five studies with a total of 715 participants. Three studies were from Italy and two were from the USA." } ]

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

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\n30% of people with anogenital warts (AGW) have spontaneous regression of lesions but there is no way to determine whether a specific lesion will remain. There are a wide range of options available for treating people with AGW and selection is based on clinician's experience, patient preferences and adverse effects. The imiquimod could offer the advantages of patient-applied therapies without incurring the limitations of provider-administered treatments.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of imiquimod for the treatment of AGW in non-immunocompromised adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Infections Group Specialized Register (15 April 2014), CENTRAL (1991 to 15 April 2014), MEDLINE (1946 to 15 April 2014), EMBASE (1947 to 15 April 2014), LILACS (1982 to 15 April 2014), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry (ICTRP) (15 April 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (15 April 2014), Web of Science (2001 to 15 April 2014) and OpenGrey (15 April 2014). We also handsearched conference proceedings, contacted trial authors and reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of imiquimod with placebo, any other patient-applied or any other provider-administered treatment (excluding interferon and 5-fluorouracil which are assessed in other Cochrane Reviews) for the treatment of AGW in non-immunocompromised adults.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved any disagreements through consensus. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nTen RCTs (1734 participants) met our inclusion criteria of which six were funded by industry. We judged the risk of bias of the included trials as high. Six trials (1294 participants) compared the use of imiquimod versus placebo. There was very low quality evidence that imiquimod was superior to placebo in achieving complete and partial regression (RR 4.03, 95% CI 2.03 to 7.99; RR 2.56, 95% CI 2.05 to 3.20, respectively). When compared with placebo, the effects of imiquimod on recurrence (RR 2.76, 95% CI 0.70 to 10.91), appearance of new warts (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.00) and frequency of systemic adverse reactions (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.32) were imprecise. We downgraded the quality of evidence to low or very low. There was low quality evidence that imiquimod led to more local adverse reactions (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.53) and pain (RR 11.84, 95% CI 3.36 to 41.63).\nTwo trials (105 participants) compared the use of imiquimod versus any other patient-applied treatment (podophyllotoxin and podophyllin). The estimated effects of imiquimod on complete regression (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.48), partial regression (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.47), recurrence (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11) or the presence of local adverse reactions (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.54) were imprecise (very low quality evidence). There was low quality evidence that systemic adverse reactions were less frequent with imiquimod (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.98).\nFinally, two trials (335 participants) compared imiquimod with any other provider-administered treatment (ablative methods and cryotherapy). There was very low quality of evidence that imiquimod did not have a lower frequency of complete regression (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28). There was very low quality evidence that imiquimod led to a lower rate of recurrence during six-month follow-up (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.56) but this did not translate in to a lower recurrence from six to 12 months (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.25; very low quality evidence). There was very low quality evidence that imiquimod was associated with less pain (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.54) and fewer local reactions (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.74).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe benefits and harms of imiquimod compared with placebo should be regarded with caution due to the risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency for many of the outcomes we assessed in this Cochrane Review. The evidence for many of the outcomes that show imiquimod and patient-applied treatment (podophyllotoxin or podophyllin) confer similar benefits but fewer systematic reactions with the Imiquimod, is of low or very low quality. The quality of evidence for the outcomes assessing imiquimod and other provider-administered treatment were of very low quality.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The quality of evidence was very low for the outcomes reported in this systematic review due to some limitations on risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency in the included trials. We have very little confidence in the effect estimate." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTraumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of death and disability, with an estimated 5.5 million people experiencing severe TBI worldwide every year. Observational clinical studies of people with TBI suggest an association between raised body temperature and unfavourable outcome, although this relationship is inconsistent. Additionally, preclinical models suggest that reducing temperature to 35 °C to 37.5 °C improves biochemical and histopathological outcomes compared to reducing temperature to a lower threshold of 33 °C to 35 °C. It is unknown whether reducing body temperature to 35 °C to 37.5 °C in people admitted to hospital with TBI is beneficial, has no effect, or causes harm. This is an update of a review last published in 2014.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of pharmacological interventions or physical interventions given with the intention of reducing body temperature to 35 °C to 37.5 °C in adults and children admitted to hospital after TBI.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed on 28 November 2019. We searched clinical trials registers, grey literature and references lists of reviews, and we carried out forward citation searches of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with participants of any age admitted to hospital following TBI. We included interventions that aimed to reduce body temperature to 35 °C to 37.5 °C: these included pharmacological interventions (such as paracetamol, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), or physical interventions (such as surface cooling devices, bedside fans, or cooled intravenous fluids). Eligible comparators were placebo or usual care.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We assessed the certainty of the evidence with GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included one RCT with 41 participants. This study recruited adult participants admitted to two intensive care units in Australia, and evaluated a pharmacological intervention. Researchers gave participants 1 g paracetamol or a placebo intravenously at four-hourly intervals for 72 hours.\nWe could not be certain whether intravenous paracetamol influenced mortality at 28 days (risk ratio 2.86, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 25.24). We judged the evidence for this outcome to be very low certainty, meaning we have very little confidence in this effect estimate, and the true result may be substantially different to this effect. We downgraded the certainty for imprecision (because the evidence was from a single study with very few participants), and study limitations (because we noted a high risk of selective reporting bias). This study was otherwise at low risk of bias.\nThe included study did not report the primary outcome for this review, which was the number of people with a poor outcome at the end of follow-up (defined as death or dependency, as measured on a scale such as the Glasgow Outcome Score), or any of our secondary outcomes, which included the number of people with further intracranial haemorrhage, extracranial haemorrhage, abnormal intracranial pressure, or pneumonia or other serious infections.\nThe only other completed trial that we found was of a physical intervention that compared advanced fever control (using a surface cooling device) versus conventional fever control in 12 participants. The trial was published as an abstract only, with insufficient details to allow inclusion, so we have added this to the 'studies awaiting classification' section, pending further information from the study authors or publication of the full study report.\nWe identified four ongoing studies that will contribute evidence to future updates of the review if they measure relevant outcomes and, in studies with a mixed population, report data separately for participants with TBI.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOne small study contributed very low-certainty evidence for mortality to this review. The uncertainty is largely driven by limited research into reduction of body temperature to 35 °C to 37.5 °C in people with TBI. Further research that evaluates pharmacological or physical interventions, or both, may increase certainty in this field. We propose that future updates of the review, and ongoing and future research in this field, incorporate outcomes that are important to the people receiving the interventions, including side effects of any pharmacological agent (e.g. nausea or vomiting), and discomfort caused by physical therapies.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Search date\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up to 28 November 2019. RCTs assign participants to treatment group by chance, and provide the most reliable type of evidence." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nFor persons with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) the physical, personal, familial, social and vocational consequences are extensive. Occupational therapy (OT), with the aim to facilitate task performance and to decrease the consequences of rheumatoid arthritis for daily life activities, is considered to be a cornerstone in the management of rheumatoid arthritis. Till now the efficacy of occupational therapy for patients with rheumatoid arthritis on functional performance and social participation has not been systematically reviewed.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether OT interventions (classified as comprehensive therapy, training of motor function, training of skills, instruction on joint protection and energy conservation, counseling, instruction about assistive devices and provision of splints) for rheumatoid arthritis patients improve outcome on functional ability, social participation and/or health related quality of life.\nSearch methods\nRelevant full length articles were identified by electronic searches in Medline, Cinahl, Embase, Amed, Scisearch and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal group Specialised Register. The reference list of identified studies and reviews were examined for additional references. Date of last search: December 2002.\nSelection criteria\nControlled (randomized and non-randomized) and other than controlled studies (OD) addressing OT for RA patients were eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nThe methodological quality of the included trials was independently assessed by two reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. A list proposed by Van Tulder et al. () was used to assess the methodological quality. For outcome measures, standardized mean differences were calculated. The results were analysed using a best evidence synthesis based on type of design, methodological quality and the significant findings of outcome and/or process measures.\nMain results\nThirty-eight out of 58 identified occupational therapy studies fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Six controlled studies had a high methodological quality. Given the methodological constraints of uncontrolled studies, nine of these studies were judged to be of sufficient methodological quality. The results of the best evidence synthesis shows that there is strong evidence for the efficacy of \"instruction on joint protection\" (an absolute benefit of 17.5 to 22.5, relative benefit of 100%) and that limited evidence exists for comprehensive occupational therapy in improving functional ability (an absolute benefit of 8.7, relative benefit of 20%). Indicative findings for evidence that \"provision of splints\" decreases pain are found (absolute benefit of 1.0, relative benefit of 19%).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is evidence that occupational therapy has a positive effect on functional ability in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How well does it work?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "A high quality study showed that people could do daily chores better after having occupational therapy with training, advice and counseling. Two high quality studies showed that people given advice about how to protect their joints could do daily chores better than people with no advice or another type of occupational therapy. But both therapies did not help overall well-being or pain.\nAnother high quality study showed that people trained to move or do daily activities could move just as well as and with the same amount of pain as people who did not have occupational therapy. The strength of their grip was also improved immediately after wearing a splint. But hand movement was less after wearing a splint\nThere was not enough information to say whether advice about using assistive devices is helpful." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPsychosis is an illness characterised by alterations in thoughts and perceptions resulting in delusions and hallucinations. Psychosis is rare in adolescents but can have serious consequences. Antipsychotic medications are the mainstay treatment, and have been shown to be effective. However, there is emerging evidence on psychological interventions such as cognitive remediation therapy, psycho-education, family therapy and group psychotherapy that may be useful for adolescents with psychosis.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of various psychological interventions for adolescents with psychosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's study-based Register of Trials including clinical trials registries (latest, 8 March 2019).\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials comparing various psychological interventions with treatment-as-usual or other psychological treatments for adolescents with psychosis. For analyses, we included trials meeting our inclusion criteria and reporting useable data.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently and reliably screened studies and we assessed risk of bias of the included studies. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we used mean differences (MDs) and the 95% CIs. We used a random-effects model for analyses. We created a ‘Summary of findings' table using GRADE.\nMain results\nThe current review includes 7 studies (n = 319) assessing a heterogenous group of psychological interventions with variable risk of bias. Adverse events were not reported by any of the studies. None of the studies was sponsored by industry. Below, we summarise the main results from four of six comparisons, and the certainty of these results (based on GRADE). All scale scores are average endpoint scores.\nCognitive Remediation Therapy (CRT) + Treatment-as-Usual (TAU) versus TAU\nTwo studies compared adding CRT to participants' TAU with TAU alone. Global state (CGAS, high = good) was reported by one study. There was no clear difference between treatment groups (MD -4.90, 95% CI -11.05 to 1.25; participants = 50; studies = 1, very low-certainty). Mental state (PANSS, high = poor) was reported by one study. Scores were clearly lower in the TAU group (MD 8.30, 95% CI 0.46 to 16.14; participants = 50; studies = 1; very low-certainty). Clearly more participants in the CRT group showed improvement in cognitive functioning (Memory digit span test) compared to numbers showing improvement in the TAU group (1 study, n = 31, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.89; very low-certainty). For global functioning (VABS, high = good), our analysis of reported scores showed no clear difference between treatment groups (MD 5.90, 95% CI -3.03 to 14.83; participants = 50; studies = 1; very low-certainty). The number of participants leaving the study early from each group was similar (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.71; participants = 91; studies = 2; low-certainty).\nGroup Psychosocial Therapy (GPT) + TAU versus TAU\nOne study assessed the effects of adding GPT to participants' usual medication. Global state scores (CGAS, high = good) were clearly higher in the GPT group (MD 5.10, 95% CI 1.35 to 8.85; participants = 56; studies = 1; very low-certainty) but there was little or no clear difference between groups for mental state scores (PANSS, high = poor, MD -4.10, 95% CI -8.28 to 0.08; participants = 56; studies = 1, very low-certainty) and no clear difference between groups for numbers of participants leaving the study early (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.28; participants = 56; studies = 1; very low-certainty).\nCognitive Remediation Programme (CRP) + Psychoeducational Treatment Programme (PTP) versus PTP\nOne study assessed the effects of combining two types psychological interventions (CRP + PTP) with PTP alone. Global state scores (GAS, high = good) were not clearly different (MD 1.60, 95% CI -6.48 to 9.68; participants = 25; studies = 1; very low-certainty), as were mental state scores (BPRS total, high = poor, MD -5.40, 95% CI -16.42 to 5.62; participants = 24; studies = 1; very low-certainty), and cognitive functioning scores (SPAN-12, high = good, MD 2.40, 95% CI -2.67 to 7.47; participants = 25; studies = 1; very low-certainty).\nPsychoeducational (PE) + Multifamily Treatment (MFT) Versus Nonstructured Group Therapy (NSGT, all long-term)\nOne study compared (PE + MFT) with NSGT. Analysis of reported global state scores (CGAS, high = good, MD 3.38, 95% CI -4.87 to 11.63; participants = 49; studies = 1; very low-certainty) and mental state scores (PANSS total, high = poor, MD -8.23, 95% CI -17.51 to 1.05; participants = 49; studies = 1; very low-certainty) showed no clear differences. The number of participants needing hospital admission (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.96; participants = 49; studies = 1) and the number of participants leaving the study early from each group were also similar (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.60; participants = 55; studies = 1; low-certainty).\nAuthors' conclusions\nMost of our estimates of effect for our main outcomes are equivocal. An effect is suggested for only four outcomes in the SOF tables presented. Compared to TAU, CRT may have a positive effect on cognitive functioning, however the same study reports data suggesting TAU may have positive effect on mental state. Another study comparing GPT with TAU reports data suggesting GPT may have a positive effect on global state. However, the estimate of effects for all the main outcomes in our review should be viewed with considerable caution as they are based on data from a small number of studies with variable risk of bias. Further data could change these results and larger and better quality studies are needed before any firm conclusions regarding the effects of psychological interventions for adolescents with psychosis can be made.\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": "Psychosis is a mental illnesses characterised by alterations in thoughts and perceptions as delusions (false beliefs), hallucinations (seeing or hearing things that others do not see or hear) and can happen during adolescence. When this happens, the young person needs to see a mental health professional who will often prescribe medications. However, along with medications, adolescents with psychosis are likely to benefit from age-appropriate psychological treatments (talking treatments) such as cognitive remediation therapy, psychoeducation, family therapy and group psychotherapy. These interventions can address social and psychological needs such as integration with peers and deal with the stigma and exclusion. We have reviewed the effects of these interventions for young people with psychosis using data from randomised controlled trials." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIncreasing numbers of incidental pancreatic lesions are being detected each year. Accurate characterisation of pancreatic lesions into benign, precancerous, and cancer masses is crucial in deciding whether to use treatment or surveillance. Distinguishing benign lesions from precancerous and cancerous lesions can prevent patients from undergoing unnecessary major surgery. Despite the importance of accurately classifying pancreatic lesions, there is no clear algorithm for management of focal pancreatic lesions.\nObjectives\nTo determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of various imaging modalities in detecting cancerous and precancerous lesions in people with focal pancreatic lesions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index until 19 July 2016. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies. We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include studies reporting cross-sectional information on the index test (CT (computed tomography), MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), PET (positron emission tomography), EUS (endoscopic ultrasound), EUS elastography, and EUS-guided biopsy or FNA (fine-needle aspiration)) and reference standard (confirmation of the nature of the lesion was obtained by histopathological examination of the entire lesion by surgical excision, or histopathological examination for confirmation of precancer or cancer by biopsy and clinical follow-up of at least six months in people with negative index tests) in people with pancreatic lesions irrespective of language or publication status or whether the data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently searched the references to identify relevant studies and extracted the data. We planned to use the bivariate analysis to calculate the summary sensitivity and specificity with their 95% confidence intervals and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) to compare the tests and assess heterogeneity, but used simpler models (such as univariate random-effects model and univariate fixed-effect model) for combining studies when appropriate because of the sparse data. We were unable to compare the diagnostic performance of the tests using formal statistical methods because of sparse data.\nMain results\nWe included 54 studies involving a total of 3,196 participants evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of various index tests. In these 54 studies, eight different target conditions were identified with different final diagnoses constituting benign, precancerous, and cancerous lesions. None of the studies was of high methodological quality. None of the comparisons in which single studies were included was of sufficiently high methodological quality to warrant highlighting of the results. For differentiation of cancerous lesions from benign or precancerous lesions, we identified only one study per index test. The second analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous versus benign lesions, provided three tests in which meta-analysis could be performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer were: EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 1.00), specificity 1.00 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.95 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.99), specificity 0.53 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.74); PET: sensitivity 0.92 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.97), specificity 0.65 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.84). The third analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous lesions from benign lesions, only provided one test (EUS-FNA) in which meta-analysis was performed. EUS-FNA had moderate sensitivity for diagnosing precancerous or cancerous lesions (sensitivity 0.73 (95% CI 0.01 to 1.00) and high specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.00), the extremely wide confidence intervals reflecting the heterogeneity between the studies). The fourth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (dysplasia) provided three tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing invasive carcinoma were: CT: sensitivity 0.72 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.87), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97); EUS: sensitivity 0.78 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.94), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.98); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.66 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.99), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.98). The fifth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) versus precancerous (low- or intermediate-grade dysplasia) provided six tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) were: CT: sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00), specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.86 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.96); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.47 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.70), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.00); EUS-FNA carcinoembryonic antigen 200 ng/mL: sensitivity 0.58 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.83), specificity 0.51 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.81); MRI: sensitivity 0.69 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.86), specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.00); PET: sensitivity 0.90 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.96), specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.99). The sixth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided no tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The seventh analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided two tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing cancer were: CT: sensitivity 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.92), specificity 0.83 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.93) and MRI: sensitivity 0.80 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.92), specificity 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.95), respectively. The eighth analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) or benign lesions provided no test in which meta-analysis was performed.\nThere were no major alterations in the subgroup analysis of cystic pancreatic focal lesions (42 studies; 2086 participants). None of the included studies evaluated EUS elastography or sequential testing.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe were unable to arrive at any firm conclusions because of the differences in the way that study authors classified focal pancreatic lesions into cancerous, precancerous, and benign lesions; the inclusion of few studies with wide confidence intervals for each comparison; poor methodological quality in the studies; and heterogeneity in the estimates within comparisons.\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": "Variations in how studies defined precancerous and cancerous lesions meant that we were not able to combine the data to provide the overall results for many tests. We were unable to arrive at any firm conclusions for the following reasons.\n• The way that study authors classified focal pancreatic lesions into cancerous, precancerous, and benign lesions was not consistent in different studies.\n• The studies included few participants, leading to significant uncertainty in the results.\n• The studies were of poor methodological quality, which introduced additional uncertainty in the results.\n• Even among the studies that classified focal pancreatic lesions into cancerous, precancerous, and benign lesions in a similar manner, the results were not consistent." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nInduction of labour involves stimulating uterine contractions artificially to promote the onset of labour. There are several pharmacological, surgical and mechanical methods used to induce labour. Membrane sweeping is a mechanical technique whereby a clinician inserts one or two fingers into the cervix and using a continuous circular sweeping motion detaches the inferior pole of the membranes from the lower uterine segment. This produces hormones that encourage effacement and dilatation potentially promoting labour. This review is an update to a review first published in 2005.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects and safety of membrane sweeping for induction of labour in women at or near term (≥ 36 weeks' gestation).\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register (25 February 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (25 February 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing membrane sweeping used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with placebo/no treatment or other methods listed on a predefined list of labour induction methods. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible, but none were identified.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, risk of bias and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. Disagreements were resolved by discussion, or by including a third review author. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 44 studies (20 new to this update), reporting data for 6940 women and their infants. We used random-effects throughout.\nOverall, the risk of bias was assessed as low or unclear risk in most domains across studies. Evidence certainty, assessed using GRADE, was found to be generally low, mainly due to study design, inconsistency and imprecision. Six studies (n = 1284) compared membrane sweeping with more than one intervention and were thus included in more than one comparison.\nNo trials reported on the outcomes uterine hyperstimulation with/without fetal heart rate (FHR) change, uterine rupture or neonatal encephalopathy.\nForty studies (6548 participants) compared membrane sweeping with no treatment/sham\nWomen randomised to membrane sweeping may be more likely to experience:\n· spontaneous onset of labour (average risk ratio (aRR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.34, 17 studies, 3170 participants, low-certainty evidence).\nbut less likely to experience:\n· induction (aRR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.94, 16 studies, 3224 participants, low-certainty evidence);\nThere may be little to no difference between groups for:\n· caesareans (aRR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04, 32 studies, 5499 participants, moderate-certainty evidence);\n· spontaneous vaginal birth (aRR 1.03, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.07, 26 studies, 4538 participants, moderate-certainty evidence);\n· maternal death or serious morbidity (aRR 0.83, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.20, 17 studies, 2749 participants, low-certainty evidence);\n· neonatal perinatal death or serious morbidity (aRR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.17, 18 studies, 3696 participants, low-certainty evidence).\nFour studies reported data for 480 women comparing membrane sweeping with vaginal/intracervical prostaglandins\nThere may be little to no difference between groups for the outcomes:\n· spontaneous onset of labour (aRR, 1.24, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.57, 3 studies, 339 participants, low-certainty evidence);\n· induction (aRR 0.90, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.45, 2 studies, 157 participants, low-certainty evidence);\n· caesarean (aRR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09, 3 studies, 339 participants, low-certainty evidence);\n· spontaneous vaginal birth (aRR 1.12, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.32, 2 studies, 252 participants, low-certainty evidence);\n· maternal death or serious morbidity (aRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.21, 1 study, 87 participants, low-certainty evidence);\n· neonatal perinatal death or serious morbidity (aRR 0.40, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.33, 2 studies, 269 participants, low-certainty evidence).\nOne study, reported data for 104 women, comparing membrane sweeping with intravenous oxytocin +/- amniotomy\nThere may be little to no difference between groups for:\n· spontaneous onset of labour (aRR 1.32, 95% CI 88 to 1.96, 1 study, 69 participants, low-certainty evidence);\n· induction (aRR 0.51, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.42, 1 study, 69 participants, low-certainty evidence);\n· caesarean (aRR 0.69, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.85, 1 study, 69 participants, low-certainty evidence);\n· maternal death or serious morbidity was reported on, but there were no events.\nTwo studies providing data for 160 women compared membrane sweeping with vaginal/oral misoprostol\nThere may be little to no difference between groups for:\n· caesareans (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.17, 1 study, 96 participants, low-certainty evidence).\nOne study providing data for 355 women which compared once weekly membrane sweep with twice-weekly membrane sweep and a sham procedure\nThere may be little to no difference between groups for:\n· induction (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.85, 1 study, 234 participants, low-certainty);\n· caesareans (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.46, 1 study, 234 participants, low-certainty evidence);\n· spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.17, 1 study, 234 participants, moderate-certainty evidence);\n· maternal death or serious maternal morbidity (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.02, 1 study, 234 participants, low-certainty evidence);\n· neonatal death or serious neonatal perinatal morbidity (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.18 to 21.76, 1 study, 234 participants, low-certainty evidence);\nWe found no studies that compared membrane sweeping with amniotomy only or mechanical methods.\nThree studies, providing data for 675 women, reported that women indicated favourably on their experience of membrane sweeping with one study reporting that 88% (n = 312) of women questioned in the postnatal period would choose membrane sweeping in the next pregnancy.\nTwo studies reporting data for 290 women reported that membrane sweeping is more cost-effective than using prostaglandins, although more research should be undertaken in this area.\nAuthors' conclusions\nMembrane sweeping may be effective in achieving a spontaneous onset of labour, but the evidence for this was of low certainty. When compared to expectant management, it potentially reduces the incidence of formal induction of labour. Questions remain as to whether there is an optimal number of membrane sweeps and timings and gestation of these to facilitate induction of labour.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the question?\". 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 membrane sweeping is a safe and effective way of inducing labour at or near term and if it is more effective than the formal methods of induction." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDiabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a complication of diabetic retinopathy and one of the most common causes of visual impairment in people with diabetes. Clinically significant macular oedema (CSMO) is the most severe form of DMO. Intravitreal antiangiogenic therapy is now the standard treatment for DMO involving the centre of the macula, but laser photocoagulation is still used in milder or non-central DMO.\nObjectives\nTo access the efficacy and safety of laser photocoagulation as monotherapy in the treatment of diabetic macular oedema.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; MEDLINE; Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 24 July 2018.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any type of focal/grid macular laser photocoagulation versus another type or technique of laser treatment and no intervention. We did not compare laser versus other interventions as these are covered by other Cochrane Reviews.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were gain or loss of 3 lines (0.3 logMAR or 15 ETDRS letters) of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at one year of follow-up (plus or minus six months) after treatment initiation. Secondary outcomes included final or mean change in BCVA, resolution of macular oedema, central retinal thickness, quality of life and adverse events, all at one year. We graded the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe identified 24 studies (4422 eyes). The trials were conducted in Europe (nine studies), USA (seven), Asia (four) and, Africa (one), Latin America (one), Europe-Asian (one) and Oceania (one). The methodological quality of the studies was difficult to assess as they were poorly reported, so the predominant classification of bias was unclear.\nAt one year, people with DMO receiving laser were less likely to lose BCVA compared with no intervention (risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.90; 3703 eyes; 4 studies; I2 = 71%; moderate-certainty evidence). There were also favourable effects observed at two and three years. One study (350 eyes) reported on partial or complete resolution of clinically significant DMO and found moderate-certainty evidence of a benefit at three years with photocoagulation (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.86). Data on visual improvement, final BCVA, central macular thickness and quality of life were not available. One study related minor adverse effects on the central visual field and another reported one case of iatrogenic premacular fibrosis.\nNine studies compared subthreshold versus standard macular photocoagulation (517 eyes). Subthreshold treatment was achieved with different methods of photocoagulation: non-visible conventional (two studies), micropulse (four) or nanopulse (one).\nOnly one small study (29 eyes) reported on improvement or worsening of BCVA and estimates were very imprecise (improvement: RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.09; worsening: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.15 to 5.76; very low-certainty evidence). All studies reported on continuous BCVA at one year; there was low-certainty evidence of no important difference between subthreshold and standard photocoagulation (mean difference (MD) in logMAR BCVA –0.02, 95% CI –0.07 to 0.03; 385 eyes; 7 studies; I2 = 42%), and were possibly different for different techniques (P = 0.07 and I2 = 61.5% for subgroup heterogeneity), with better results achieved with micropulse photocoagulation (MD –0.08 logMAR, 95% CI –0.16 to 0.0) as compared to the results achieved with nanopulse (MD 0.0 logMAR, 95% CI –0.06 to 0.06) and non-visible conventional (MD 0.04 logMAR, 95% CI –0.03 to 0.11), all of them compared to the standard lasers. One study reported partial to complete resolution of macular oedema at one year. There was low-certainty evidence of some benefit with standard photocoagulation, but estimates of effect were imprecise (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.03; 29 eyes; 1 study). Studies also reported on the change in central macular thickness at one year and found moderate-certainty evidence of no important difference between subthreshold and standard photocoagulation (MD –9.1 μm, 95% CI –26.2 to 8.0; 385 eyes; 7 studies; I2 = 0%). There were no important adverse effects recorded in the studies.\nNine studies compared argon laser versus another type of laser (997 eyes). There was moderate-certainty evidence of a small reduction or no difference between the interventions, with respect to improvement (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.22; 773 eyes; 6 studies) and worsening of BCVA (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.21; 773 eyes; 6 studies). Three studies reported few cases of subretinal fibrosis and neovascularization with argon laser and one study found subretinal fibrosis in the krypton group.\nOne study (323 eyes) compared the modified ETDRS (mETDRS) grid technique with the mild macular grid (MMG), which uses mild, widely spaced burns throughout the macula. There was low-certainty evidence of an increased chance of visual improvement with MMG, but the estimate was imprecisely measured and the CIs include an increased risk or decreased risk of visual improvement at one year (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.65; visual worsening: RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.05; change of logMAR visual acuity: MD –0.04 logMAR, 95% CI –0.01 to 0.09). There was a more significant reduction of central macular thickness with the mETDRS compared to the MMG technique (MD –34.0 µm, –59.8 to –8.3) in the MMG group. The study did not record important adverse effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLaser photocoagulation reduces the chances of visual loss and increases those of partial to complete resolution of DMO compared to no intervention at one to three years. Subthreshold photocoagulation, particularly the micropulse technique, may be as effective as standard photocoagulation and RCTs are ongoing to assess whether this minimally invasive technique is preferable to treat milder or non-central cases of DMO.\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": "Cochrane researchers searched for studies that had been published up to 24 July 2018." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with dementia in nursing homes often experience pain, but often do not receive adequate pain therapy. The experience of pain has a significant impact on quality of life in people with dementia, and is associated with negative health outcomes. Untreated pain is also considered to be one of the causes of challenging behaviour, such as agitation or aggression, in this population. One approach to reducing pain in people with dementia in nursing homes is an algorithm-based pain management strategy, i.e. the use of a structured protocol that involves pain assessment and a series of predefined treatment steps consisting of various non-pharmacological and pharmacological pain management interventions.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of algorithm-based pain management interventions to reduce pain and challenging behaviour in people with dementia living in nursing homes.\nTo describe the components of the interventions and the content of the algorithms.\nSearch methods\nWe searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's meta-register the International Clinical Trials Registry Portal on 30 June 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials investigating the effects of algorithm-based pain management interventions for people with dementia living in nursing homes. All interventions had to include an initial pain assessment, a treatment algorithm (a treatment plan consisting of at least two different non-pharmacological or pharmacological treatment steps to reduce pain), and criteria to assess the success of each treatment step. The control groups could receive usual care or an active control intervention. Primary outcomes for this review were pain-related outcomes, e.g. the number of participants with pain (self- or proxy-rated), challenging behaviour (we used a broad definition that could also include agitation or behavioural and psychological symptoms assessed with any validated instrument), and serious adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected the articles for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of all included studies. We reported results narratively as there were too few studies for a meta-analysis. We used GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the results.\nMain results\nWe included three cluster-randomised controlled trials with a total of 808 participants (mean age 82 to 89 years). In two studies, participants had severe cognitive impairment and in one study mild to moderate impairment. The algorithms used in the studies varied in the number of treatment steps. The comparator was pain education for nursing staff in two studies and usual care in one study.\nWe judged the risk of detection bias to be high in one study. The risk of selection bias and performance bias was unclear in all studies.\nSelf-rated pain (i.e. pain rated by participants themselves) was reported in two studies. In one study, all residents in the nursing homes were included, but fewer than half of the participants experienced pain at baseline, and the mean values of self-rated and proxy-rated pain at baseline and follow-up in both study groups were below the threshold of pain that may require treatment. We considered the evidence from this study to be very low-certainty and therefore are uncertain whether the algorithm-based pain management intervention had an effect on self-rated pain intensity compared with pain education (MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.05, 170 participants; Verbal Descriptor Scale, range 0 to 3). In the other study, all participants had mild to moderate pain at baseline. Here, we found low-certainty evidence that an algorithm-based pain management intervention may have little to no effect on self-rated pain intensity compared with pain education (MD 0.4, 95% CI -0.58 to 1.38, 246 participants; Iowa Pain Thermometer, range 0 to 12).\nPain was rated by proxy in all three studies. Again, we considered the evidence from the study in which mean pain scores indicated no pain, or almost no pain, at baseline to be very low-certainty and were uncertain whether the algorithm-based pain management intervention had an effect on proxy-rated pain intensity compared with pain education. For participants with mild to moderate pain at baseline, we found low-certainty evidence that an algorithm-based pain management intervention may reduce proxy-rated pain intensity in comparison with usual care (MD -1.49, 95% CI -2.11 to -0.87, 1 study, 128 participants; Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia Scale-Chinese version, range 0 to 10), but may not be more effective than pain education (MD -0.2, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.39, 1 study, 383 participants; Iowa Pain Thermometer, range 0 to 12).\nFor challenging behaviour, we found very low-certainty evidence from one study in which mean pain scores indicated no pain, or almost no pain, at baseline. We were uncertain whether the algorithm-based pain management intervention had any more effect than education for nursing staff on challenging behaviour of participants (MD -0.21, 95% CI -1.88 to 1.46, 1 study, 170 participants; Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory-Chinese version, range 7 to 203).\nNone of the studies systematically assessed adverse effects or serious adverse effects and no study reported information about the occurrence of any adverse effect. None of the studies assessed any of the other outcomes of this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no clear evidence for a benefit of an algorithm-based pain management intervention in comparison with pain education for reducing pain intensity or challenging behaviour in people with dementia in nursing homes. We found that the intervention may reduce proxy-rated pain compared with usual care. However, the certainty of evidence is low because of the small number of studies, small sample sizes, methodological limitations, and the clinical heterogeneity of the study populations (e.g. pain level and cognitive status). The results should be interpreted with caution. Future studies should also focus on the implementation of algorithms and their impact in clinical practice.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the key findings?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "When we looked at the study in which people started out on average with no pain, or almost no pain, we could not be certain whether algorithm-based pain management had an effect on the intensity of pain they experienced during the study. This was true whether the study participants reported on their own pain or whether nurses judged pain intensity. We also could not tell from this study whether algorithm-based pain management reduced challenging behaviour.\nFor people who started out with mild to moderate pain, we found that, compared to education for nursing staff, algorithm-based pain management may have little or no effect on pain intensity reported by the people themselves (based on the results from one study). When the pain was rated by somebody else (a 'proxy', who was a nurse or research assistant), we found that algorithm-based pain management may be better than usual care, although it may not be more effective than pain education. However, it is difficult to be sure about the accuracy of pain ratings made by other people.\nOur confidence in the results was limited because of the small number of included studies, the variation in the intensity of pain and in the severity of the participants' dementia at the start of the trials, and the quality of the studies.\nNo study looked for harmful effects, and no study described that any harmful effects occurred." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHepatocellular carcinoma occurs mostly in people with chronic liver disease and ranks sixth in terms of global incidence of cancer, and third in terms of cancer deaths. In clinical practice, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is used as a second-line diagnostic imaging modality to confirm the presence of focal liver lesions suspected as hepatocellular carcinoma on prior diagnostic test such as abdominal ultrasound or alpha-fetoprotein, or both, either in surveillance programmes or in clinical settings. According to current guidelines, a single contrast-enhanced imaging study (computed tomography (CT) or MRI) showing typical hallmarks of hepatocellular carcinoma in people with cirrhosis is considered valid to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma. The detection of hepatocellular carcinoma amenable to surgical resection could improve the prognosis. However, a significant number of hepatocellular carcinomas do not show typical hallmarks on imaging modalities, and hepatocellular carcinoma may, therefore, be missed. There is no clear evidence of the benefit of surveillance programmes in terms of overall survival: the conflicting results can be a consequence of inaccurate detection, ineffective treatment, or both. Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of MRI may clarify whether the absence of benefit could be related to underdiagnosis. Furthermore, an assessment of the accuracy of MRI in people with chronic liver disease who are not included in surveillance programmes is needed for either ruling out or diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma.\nObjectives\nPrimary: to assess the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and at any stage in adults with chronic liver disease.\nSecondary: to assess the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for the diagnosis of resectable hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease, and to identify potential sources of heterogeneity in the results.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Diagnostic Test of Accuracy Studies Register, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases to 9 November 2021. We manually searched articles retrieved, contacted experts, handsearched abstract books from meetings held during the last 10 years, and searched for literature in OpenGrey (9 November 2021). Further information was requested by e-mails, but no additional information was provided. No data was obtained through correspondence with investigators. We applied no language or document-type restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nStudies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease, with cross-sectional designs, using one of the acceptable reference standards, such as pathology of the explanted liver and histology of resected or biopsied focal liver lesion with at least a six-month follow-up.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns, using the QUADAS-2 checklist. We presented the results of sensitivity and specificity, using paired forest plots, and we tabulated the results. We used a hierarchical meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented uncertainty of the accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We double-checked all data extractions and analyses.\nMain results\nWe included 34 studies, with 4841 participants. We judged all studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain because most studies used different reference standards, often inappropriate to exclude the presence of the target condition, and the time interval between the index test and the reference standard was rarely defined. Regarding applicability, we judged 15% (5/34) of studies to be at low concern and 85% (29/34) of studies to be at high concern mostly owing to characteristics of the participants, most of whom were on waiting lists for orthotopic liver transplantation, and due to pathology of the explanted liver being the only reference standard.\nMRI for hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage: sensitivity 84.4% (95% CI 80.1% to 87.9%) and specificity 93.8% (95% CI 90.1% to 96.1%) (34 studies, 4841 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nMRI for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma: sensitivity 84.3% (95% CI 77.6% to 89.3%) and specificity 92.9% (95% CI 88.3% to 95.9%) (16 studies, 2150 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nThe observed heterogeneity in the results remains mostly unexplained. The sensitivity analyses, which included only studies with clearly prespecified positivity criteria and only studies in which the reference standard results were interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test, showed no variation in the results.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found that using MRI as a second-line imaging modality to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage, 16% of people with hepatocellular carcinoma would be missed, and 6% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would be unnecessarily treated. For resectable hepatocellular carcinoma, we found that 16% of people with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma would improperly not be resected, while 7% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would undergo inappropriate surgery. The uncertainty resulting from the high risk of bias in the included studies and concerns regarding their applicability limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We wanted to find out if MRI is accurate enough to diagnose liver cancer in adults with chronic liver disease. We were interested first, in liver cancers of any size and stage and second, in liver cancers that were suitable for resection." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nLong-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are increasingly prescribed for children with asthma.\nObjectives\nTo assess the safety and efficacy of adding a LABA to an ICS in children and adolescents with asthma. To determine whether the benefit of LABA was influenced by baseline severity of airway obstruction, the dose of ICS to which it was added or with which it was compared, the type of LABA used, the number of devices used to deliver combination therapy and trial duration.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Asthma Trials Register until January 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials testing the combination of LABA and ICS versus the same, or an increased, dose of ICS for at least four weeks in children and adolescents with asthma. The main outcome was the rate of exacerbations requiring rescue oral steroids. Secondary outcomes included markers of exacerbation, pulmonary function, symptoms, quality of life, adverse events and withdrawals.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors assessed studies independently for methodological quality and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from trialists when possible.\nMain results\nWe included in this review a total of 33 trials representing 39 control-intervention comparisons and randomly assigning 6381 children. Most participants were inadequately controlled on their current ICS dose. We assessed the addition of LABA to ICS (1) versus the same dose of ICS, and (2) versus an increased dose of ICS.\nLABA added to ICS was compared with the same dose of ICS in 28 studies. Mean age of participants was 11 years, and males accounted for 59% of the study population. Mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) at baseline was ≥ 80% of predicted in 18 studies, 61% to 79% of predicted in six studies and unreported in the remaining studies. Participants were inadequately controlled before randomisation in all but four studies.\nThere was no significant group difference in exacerbations requiring oral steroids (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.28, 12 studies, 1669 children; moderate-quality evidence) with addition of LABA to ICS compared with ICS alone. There was no statistically significant group difference in hospital admissions (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.36, seven studies, 1292 children; moderate-quality evidence)nor in serious adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.85, 17 studies, N = 4021; moderate-quality evidence). Withdrawals occurred significantly less frequently with the addition of LABA (23 studies, 471 children, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.94; low-quality evidence). Compared with ICS alone, addition of LABA led to significantly greater improvement in FEV1 (nine studies, 1942 children, inverse variance (IV) 0.08 L, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.10; mean difference (MD) 2.99%, 95% CI 0.86 to 5.11, seven studies, 534 children; low-quality evidence), morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) (16 studies, 3934 children, IV 10.20 L/min, 95% CI 8.14 to 12.26), reduction in use of daytime rescue inhalations (MD -0.07 puffs/d, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.02, seven studies; 1798 children) and reduction in use of nighttime rescue inhalations (MD -0.08 puffs/d, 95% CI -0.13 to -0.03, three studies, 672 children). No significant group difference was noted in exercise-induced % fall in FEV1, symptom-free days, asthma symptom score, quality of life, use of reliever medication and adverse events.\nA total of 11 studies assessed the addition of LABA to ICS therapy versus an increased dose of ICS with random assignment of 1628 children. Mean age of participants was 10 years, and 64% were male. Baseline mean FEV1 was ≥ 80% of predicted. All trials enrolled participants who were inadequately controlled on a baseline inhaled steroid dose equivalent to 400 µg/d of beclomethasone equivalent or less.\nThere was no significant group differences in risk of exacerbation requiring oral steroids with the combination of LABA and ICS versus a double dose of ICS (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.32, three studies, 581 children; moderate-quality evidence) nor in risk of hospital admission (RR 1.90, 95% CI 0.65 to 5.54, four studies, 1008 children; moderate-quality evidence).\nNo statistical significant group difference was noted in serious adverse events (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.94, seven studies, N = 1343; moderate-quality evidence) and no statistically significant differences in overall risk of all-cause withdrawals (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.37, eight studies, 1491 children; moderate-quality evidence). Compared with double the dose of ICS, use of LABA was associated with significantly greater improvement in morning PEF (MD 8.73 L/min, 95% CI 5.15 to 12.31, five studies, 1283 children; moderate-quality evidence), but data were insufficient to aggregate on other markers of asthma symptoms, rescue medication use and nighttime awakening. There was no group difference in risk of overall adverse effects, A significant group difference was observed in linear growth over 12 months, clearly indicating lower growth velocity in the higher ICS dose group (two studies: MD 1.21 cm/y, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.70).\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn children with persistent asthma, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, but it was superior for improving lung function compared with the same or higher doses of ICS. No differences in adverse effects were apparent, with the exception of greater growth with the use of ICS and LABA compared with a higher ICS dose. The trend towards increased risk of hospital admission with LABA, irrespective of the dose of ICS, is a matter of concern and requires further monitoring.\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": "Most consensus statements recommend use of long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) as adjunct therapy to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for poorly controlled asthma, despite the use of low-dose ICS." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTransient tachypnea of the newborn (TTN) is characterized by tachypnea and signs of respiratory distress. Transient tachypnea typically appears within the first two hours of life in term and late preterm newborns. Supportive management might be sufficient. Non-invasive (i.e. without endotracheal intubation) respiratory support may, however, be administered to reduce respiratory distress during TTN. In addition, non-invasive respiratory support might improve clearance of lung liquid thus reducing the effort required to breathe, improving respiratory distress and potentially reducing the duration of tachypnea.\nObjectives\nTo assess benefits and harms of non-invasive respiratory support for the management of transient tachypnea of the newborn.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1996 to 19 February 2019), Embase (1980 to 19 February 2019) and CINAHL (1982 to 19 February 2019). We applied no language restrictions. We searched clinical trial registries for ongoing studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials and cluster trials on non-invasive respiratory support provided to infants born at 34 weeks' gestational age or more and less than three days of age with transient tachypnea of the newborn.\nData collection and analysis\nFor each of the included trials, two review authors independently extracted data (e.g. number of participants, birth weight, gestational age, duration of oxygen therapy, need for continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP] and need for mechanical ventilation, duration of mechanical ventilation, etc.) and assessed the risk of bias (e.g. adequacy of randomization, blinding, completeness of follow-up). The primary outcomes considered in this review were need for mechanical ventilation and pneumothorax. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included three trials (150 infants) comparing either CPAP to free-flow oxygen, nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation to nasal CPAP, or nasal high-frequency percussive ventilation versus nasal CPAP. Due to these different comparisons and to high clinical heterogeneity in the baseline clinical characteristics, we did not pool the three studies. The use of CPAP versus free oxygen did not improve the primary outcomes of this review: need for mechanical ventilation (risk ratio [RR] 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01 to 6.99; 1 study, 64 participants); and pneumothorax (not estimable, no cases occurred). Among secondary outcomes, CPAP reduced the duration of tachypnea as compared to free oxygen (mean difference [MD] −21.10 hours, 95% CI −22.92 to −19.28; 1 study, 64 participants). Nasal intermittent ventilation did not reduce the need for mechanical ventilation as compared with CPAP (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.49 to 32.72; 1 study, 40 participants) or the incidence of pneumothorax (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; 1 study, 40 participants); duration of tachypnea did not differ (MD 4.30, 95% CI −19.14 to 27.74; 1 study, 40 participants). In the study comparing nasal high-frequency ventilation to CPAP, no cases of mechanical ventilation of pneumothorax occurred (not estimable; 1 study, 46 participants); duration of tachypnea was reduced in the nasal high-frequency ventilation group (MD −4.53, 95% CI −5.64 to −3.42; 1 study, 46 participants). The quality of the evidence was very low due to the imprecision of the estimates and unclear risk of bias for detection bias and high risk of bias for reporting bias. Tests for heterogeneity were not applicable for any of the analyses as no studies were pooled. Two trials are ongoing.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to establish the benefit and harms of non-invasive respiratory support in the management of transient tachypnea of the newborn. Though two of the included trials showed a shorter duration of tachypnea, clinically relevant outcomes did not differ amongst the groups. Given the limited and low quality of the evidence available, it was impossible to determine whether non-invasive respiratory support was safe or effective for the treatment of transient tachypnea of the newborn.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The very limited available evidence cannot answer our review question. Non-invasive respiratory support did not improve lung function or reduce the need for respiratory support." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMost people who are newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have advanced disease. For these people, survival is determined by various patient- and tumor-related factors, of which the performance status (PS) is the most important prognostic factor. People with PS 0 or 1 are usually treated with systemic therapies, whereas people with PS 3 or 4 most often receive supportive care. However, treatment for people with PS 2 without a targetable mutation remains unclear. Historically, people with a PS 2 cancer are frequently excluded from (important) clinical trials because of poorer outcomes and increased toxicity. We aim to address this knowledge gap, as this group of people represents a significant proportion (20% to 30%) of the total population with newly diagnosed lung cancer.\nObjectives\nTo identify the best first-line therapy for advanced lung cancer in people with performance status 2 without a targetable mutation or with an unknown mutation status.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 17 June 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different chemotherapy (with or without angiogenesis inhibitor) or immunotherapy regimens, specifically designed for people with PS 2 only or studies including a subgroup of these people.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. overall survival (OS), 2. health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and 3. toxicity/adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 4. tumor response rate, 5. progression-free survival, and 6. survival rates at six and 12 months' treatment. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 22 trials in this review and identified one ongoing trial. Twenty studies compared chemotherapy with different regimens, of which 11 compared non-platinum therapy (monotherapy or doublet) versus platinum doublet. We found no studies comparing best supportive care with chemotherapy and only two abstracts analyzing chemotherapy versus immunotherapy.\nWe found that platinum doublet therapy showed superior OS compared to non-platinum therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 0.78; 7 trials, 697 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no differences in six-month survival rates (risk ratio [RR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.41; 6 trials, 632 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), whereas 12-month survival rates were improved for treatment with platinum doublet therapy (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.97; 11 trials, 1567 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). PFS and tumor response rate were also better for people treated with platinum doublet therapy, with moderate-certainty evidence (PFS: HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.77; 5 trials, 487 participants; tumor response rate: RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.05; 9 trials, 964 participants).\nWhen analyzing toxicity rates, we found that platinum doublet therapy increased grade 3 to 5 hematologic toxicities, all with low-certainty evidence (anemia: RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.00 to 3.92; neutropenia: RR 2.75, 95% CI 1.30 to 5.82; thrombocytopenia: RR 3.96, 95% CI 1.73 to 9.06; all 8 trials, 935 participants).\nOnly four trials reported HRQoL data; however, the methodology was different per trial and we were unable to perform a meta-analysis.\nAlthough evidence is limited, there were no differences in 12-month survival rates or tumor response rates between carboplatin and cisplatin regimens. With an indirect comparison, carboplatin seemed to have better 12-month survival rates than cisplatin compared to non-platinum therapy.\nThe assessment of the efficacy of immunotherapy in people with PS 2 was limited. There might be a place for single-agent immunotherapy, but the data provided by the included studies did not encourage the use of double-agent immunotherapy.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review showed that as a first-line treatment for people with PS 2 with advanced NSCLC, platinum doublet therapy seems to be preferred over non-platinum therapy, with a higher response rate, PFS, and OS. Although the risk for grade 3 to 5 hematologic toxicity is higher, these events are often relatively mild and easy to treat. Since trials using checkpoint inhibitors in people with PS 2 are scarce, we identified an important knowledge gap regarding their role in people with advanced NSCLC and PS 2.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up to date is this evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The evidence is up to date to 17 June 2022." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIvermectin, an antiparasitic agent, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and HTA database weekly to identify completed and ongoing trials without language restrictions to 16 December 2021. Additionally, we included trials with > 1000 participants up to April 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms.\nFor this review update, we reappraised eligible trials for research integrity: only RCTs prospectively registered in a trial registry according to WHO guidelines for clinical trial registration were eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nWe assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for outcomes in the following settings and populations: 1) to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, 2) to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19 (outcomes: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, (serious) adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance), and 3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection (outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital, mortality, adverse events and quality of life).\nMain results\nWe excluded seven of the 14 trials included in the previous review version; six were not prospectively registered and one was non-randomized. This updated review includes 11 trials with 3409 participants investigating ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo. No trial investigated ivermectin for prevention of infection or compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. Five trials treated participants with moderate COVID-19 (inpatient settings); six treated mild COVID-19 (outpatient settings). Eight trials were double-blind and placebo-controlled, and three were open-label. We assessed around 50% of the trial results as low risk of bias.\nWe identified 31 ongoing trials. In addition, there are 28 potentially eligible trials without publication of results, or with disparities in the reporting of the methods and results, held in ‘awaiting classification’ until the trial authors clarify questions upon request.\nIvermectin for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate-to-severe disease\nWe are uncertain whether ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo reduces or increases all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 3 trials, 230 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or clinical worsening, assessed by participants with new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.04; 2 trials, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or serious adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.89; 2 trials, 197 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may have little or no effect on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants discharged alive at day 28 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 trial, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.79; 3 trials, 228 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at 7 days (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.58; 3 trials, 231 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trial investigated quality of life at any time point.\nIvermectin for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease\nIvermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.25; 6 trials, 2860 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and little or no effect on quality of life, measured with the PROMIS Global-10 scale (physical component mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.98; and mental component MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.08 to 1.08; 1358 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect on clinical worsening, assessed by admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.20 to 6.02; 2 trials, 590 participants; low-certainty evidence); on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants with all initial symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.36; 2 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence); on serious adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.62 to 8.31; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.76; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at day 7 compared to placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48; 2 trials, 331 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for meta-analysis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor outpatients, there is currently low- to high-certainty evidence that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19. Based on the very low-certainty evidence for inpatients, we are still uncertain whether ivermectin prevents death or clinical worsening or increases serious adverse events, while there is low-certainty evidence that it has no beneficial effect regarding clinical improvement, viral clearance and adverse events. No evidence is available on ivermectin to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this update, certainty of evidence increased through higher quality trials including more participants. According to this review's living approach, we will continually update our search.\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 to support the use of ivermectin for treating COVID-19 or preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. The evidence base improved slightly in this update, but is still limited.\nEvaluation of ivermectin is continuing in 31 ongoing trials, and we will update this review again when their results become available." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nApnoea of prematurity (AoP) is defined as a pause in breathing for 20 seconds or longer, or for less than 20 seconds when accompanied by bradycardia and hypoxaemia, in a preterm infant. An association between the severity of apnoea and neurodevelopmental delay has been reported. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is a form of non-invasive ventilatory assistance that has been shown to be relatively safe and effective in preventing and treating respiratory distress among preterm infants. It is less clear whether CPAP treatment is safe and effective in the prevention and treatment of AoP.\nObjectives\n1. To assess the effects of CPAP on AoP in preterm infants (this may be compared to supportive care or mechanical ventilation).\n2. To assess the effects of different CPAP delivery systems on AoP in preterm infants.\nSearch methods\nSearches were conducted in September 2022 in the following databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. We also searched clinical trial registries and the reference lists of studies selected for inclusion.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which researchers determined that CPAP was necessary for AoP in preterm infants (born before 37 weeks). Cross-over studies were also included, provided sufficient data were available for analysis.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methods of Cochrane and Cochrane Neonatal, including independent assessment of risk of bias and extraction of data by at least two review authors. Discrepancies were resolved by involvement of a third author. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: 1) failed CPAP; 2) apnoea; 3) adverse effects of CPAP.\nMain results\nWe included four single-centre trials conducted in Malaysia, Spain, Germany, and North America, involving 138 infants with a mean/median gestation of 26 to 28 weeks. Two studies were parallel-group RCTs and two were cross-over trials. None of the studies compared CPAP with supportive care. All trials compared one form of CPAP with another. Two compared a variable flow device with ventilator CPAP, one compared two different variable flow devices, and one compared a variable flow device with bubble CPAP. Interventions were administered for periods ranging between six and 48 hours, with pressures between 4 and 6 cm H2O. We assessed all trials as having a high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel, and two studies for blinding of outcome assessors. We found a high risk of a carry-over effect in two studies where the washout period was not adequately described, and a high risk of bias in a study that appeared to use an analysis method not generally accepted for cross-over studies.\nComparison 1. CPAP and supportive care compared to supportive care alone\nWe did not identify any study for inclusion in this comparison.\nComparison 2. CPAP delivered by different types of devices\n2a. Variable flow compared to ventilator CPAP\nTwo studies were included in this comparison. We are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the incidence of failed CPAP, defined as the need for mechanical ventilation (risk ratio (RR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.90; 1 study, 26 participants; very low-certainty). We are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the frequency of apnoea events (mean difference (MD) per four-hour interval -0.10, 95% CI -1.30 to 1.10; 1 study, 26 participants; very low-certainty). We are uncertain whether there is any difference in adverse events. Neurodevelopmental outcomes were not reported.\n2b. Variable flow compared to bubble CPAP\nWe included one study in this comparison, but it did not report our pre-specified outcomes.\n2c. Infant Flow variable flow CPAP compared to Medijet variable flow CPAP\nWe are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the incidence of failed CPAP (RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.91 to 7.53; 1 study, 80 participants; very low-certainty). The frequency of apnoea was not reported, and we do not know whether there is any difference in adverse events. Neurodevelopmental outcomes were not reported.\nComparison 3. CPAP compared to mechanical ventilation\nWe did not identify any studies for inclusion in this comparison.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to the limited available evidence, we are very uncertain whether any CPAP device is more effective than other forms of supportive care, other CPAP devices, or mechanical ventilation for the prevention and treatment of AoP. The devices used in these studies included two types of variable flow CPAP device: bubble CPAP and ventilator CPAP. For each comparison, data were only available from a single study. There are theoretical reasons why these devices might have different effects on AoP, therefore further trials are indicated.\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 did not find any studies that compared CPAP with supportive care. We found four small studies, involving 138 babies. They compared two different forms of CPAP. There were three comparisons with only one study in each comparison and one study did not provide any useful data. The duration of CPAP in the four studies was between 4 and 48 hours. From these four studies, we do not know whether there is any difference between different forms of CPAP. This is because each comparison had only one study, the results were very imprecise because the studies were small, and the care given by the healthcare workers might have been influenced by their awareness of which treatment the baby was receiving." } ]

[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic rhinosinusitis, with or without nasal polyps, can have a major impact on a person's quality of life. Treatment is usually conservative and may include nasal saline, intranasal corticosteroids, antibiotics or systemic corticosteroids. If these treatments fail endoscopic sinus surgery can be considered. During surgery, visibility of the surgical field is important for the identification of important anatomic landmarks and structures that contribute to safety. Impaired visualisation can lead to complications during surgery, inability to complete the operation or a longer duration of surgery. Different methods are used to decrease intraoperative bleeding, including induced hypotension, topical or systemic vasoconstrictors or total intravenous anaesthesia. Another option is tranexamic acid, an antifibrinolytic agent, which can be administered topically or intravenously.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of peri-operative tranexamic acid versus no therapy or placebo on operative parameters in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (with or without nasal polyps) who are undergoing functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS).\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 10 February 2022.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intravenous, oral or topical tranexamic acid with no therapy or placebo in the treatment of patients (adults and children) with chronic rhinosinusitis, with or without nasal polyps, undergoing FESS.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcome measures were surgical field bleeding score (e.g. Wormald or Boezaart grading system), intraoperative blood loss and significant adverse effects (seizures or thromboembolism within 12 weeks of surgery). Secondary outcomes were duration of surgery, incomplete surgery, surgical complications and postoperative bleeding (placing of packing or revision surgery) in the first two weeks after surgery. We performed subgroup analyses for methods of administration, different dosages, different forms of anaesthesia, use of thromboembolic prophylaxis and children versus adults. We evaluated each included study for risk of bias and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 14 studies in the review, with a total of 942 participants. Sample sizes in the included studies ranged from 10 to 170. All but two studies included adult patients (≥ 18 years). Two studies included children. Most studies had more male patients (range 46.6% to 80%). All studies were placebo-controlled and four studies had three treatment arms. Three studies investigated topical tranexamic acid; the other studies reported the use of intravenous tranexamic acid.\nFor our primary outcome, surgical field bleeding score measured with the Boezaart or Wormald grading score, we pooled data from 13 studies. The pooled result demonstrated that tranexamic acid probably reduces the surgical field bleeding score, with a standardised mean difference (SMD) of -0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.23 to -0.51; 13 studies, 772 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A SMD below -0.70 represents a large effect (in either direction).\nTranexamic acid may result in a slight reduction in blood loss during surgery compared to placebo with a mean difference (MD) of -70.32 mL (95% CI -92.28 to -48.35 mL; 12 studies, 802 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nTranexamic acid probably has little to no effect on the development of significant adverse events (seizures or thromboembolism) within 24 hours of surgery, with no events in either group and a risk difference (RD) of 0.00 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 8 studies, 664 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, there were no studies reporting significant adverse event data with a longer duration of follow-up.\nTranexamic acid probably results in little difference in the duration of surgery with a MD of -13.04 minutes (95% CI -19.27 to -6.81; 10 studies, 666 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Tranexamic acid probably results in little to no difference in the incidence of incomplete surgery, with no events in either group and a RD of 0.00 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.09; 2 studies, 58 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and likely results in little to no difference in surgical complications, again with no events in either group and a RD of 0.00 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.09; 2 studies, 58 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), although these numbers are too small to draw robust conclusions. Tranexamic acid may result in little to no difference in the likelihood of postoperative bleeding (placement of packing or revision surgery within three days of surgery) (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.02; 6 studies, 404 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no studies with longer follow-up.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate-certainty evidence to support the beneficial value of topical or intravenous tranexamic acid during endoscopic sinus surgery with respect to surgical field bleeding score. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests a slight decrease in total blood loss during surgery and duration of surgery. Whilst there is moderate-certainty evidence that tranexamic acid does not lead to more immediate significant adverse events compared to placebo, there is no evidence regarding the risk of serious adverse events more than 24 hours after surgery. There is low-certainty evidence that tranexamic acid may not change postoperative bleeding. There is not enough evidence available to draw robust conclusions about incomplete surgery or surgical complications.\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 found 14 studies, with a total of 942 participants, which compared tranexamic acid to normal saline (placebo - dummy treatment) in patients having endoscopic sinus surgery. In 10 studies the treatment was given in a vein and in three it was applied in the nose. All studies used different amounts of the drug.\nWe found that tranexamic acid probably greatly improves the view of the surgeon (based on 13 studies), may slightly reduce total blood loss during surgery (12 studies) and likely does not cause any serious side effects within 24 hours of surgery (i.e. blood clot formation in the brain or seizures - there were no such events in either the treatment or placebo groups) (eight studies). Unfortunately, there is no evidence with respect to serious side effects at a longer duration of follow-up.\nThe duration of the surgery was investigated in 10 studies. The duration of surgery is probably slightly lower with tranexamic acid.\nOnly two studies investigated complications related to surgery and difficulty completing the surgery as planned. In these studies no difference was seen between the tranexamic acid and placebo groups. However, because these complications are rare no conclusions can be drawn based on these studies. \nNosebleeds after surgery that required intervention (placing of nasal tampons or further surgery) were investigated in six studies. Only two studies reported a patient treated with saline solution (placebo) who experienced a nosebleed after surgery. Tranexamic acid may not make a difference to the likelihood of postoperative bleeding.\nBased on the evidence in the studies we cannot conclude whether tranexamic acid given either in a vein or applied in the nose is better. We also cannot conclude whether a particular dose of tranexamic acid is better." } ]