Datasets:

clinicalnlplab

/

CochranePLS_1shot_test

like 1

CochranePLS0

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: A total of 38 studies involving 7843 children were included. Following educational intervention delivered to children, their parents or both, there was a significantly reduced risk of subsequent emergency department visits (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.81, N = 3008) and hospital admissions (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.92, N = 4019) compared with control. There were also fewer unscheduled doctor visits (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.81, N = 1009). Very few data were available for other outcomes (FEV1, PEF, rescue medication use, quality of life or symptoms) and there was no statistically significant difference between education and control. Asthma education aimed at children and their carers who present to the emergency department for acute exacerbations can result in lower risk of future emergency department presentation and hospital admission. There remains uncertainty as to the long-term effect of education on other markers of asthma morbidity such as quality of life, symptoms and lung function. It remains unclear as to what type, duration and intensity of educational packages are the most effective in reducing acute care utilisation. Output:

This review looked at studies which compared usual care for asthma to more intensive educational programmes and the results showed a statistically significant reduction in the treatment groups needing subsequent emergency department visits or hospital admissions. We were not able to determine the most effective type, duration or intensity of education that should be offered to children to offer the best asthma outcomes.

CochranePLS1

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We 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. Perioperative 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). Perioperative 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). Results 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. Ketamine 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. CNS 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). Perioperative 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. Output:

In July 2018 we searched for randomised clinical trials where ketamine was injected before, during, or after operation in adults having an operation under general anaesthesia. Important outcomes were opioid use and pain at 24 and 48 hours after the operation, time to first request for a painkiller, and ketamine-related side effects. We found 130 eligible studies with 8341 participants. Compared to people given control treatment, those given intravenous ketamine used less opioid painkiller (by about 1 part in 10), and had less pain (by about 2 parts in 10; moderate- or high-quality evidence). Ketamine may be more effective in operations that are likely to cause more intense pain. People given ketamine requested painkillers 54 minutes later than those who did not receive ketamine (moderate-quality evidence). Ketamine reduced the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting by a small amount (high-quality evidence). Ketamine produced no increased risk of central nervous system side effects (hallucination, nightmares or double vision) (high-quality evidence). Future research should assess ketamine's effect after operations that are accompanied by intense pain such as thoracotomy, back surgery, or amputations. Additionally, assessing ketamine's effects among particular patient groups, for example, the elderly or individuals with a history of substance abuse would be of interest. We rated the quality of the evidence from studies using four levels: very low, low, moderate, or high. Very low-quality evidence means that we are very uncertain about the results. High-quality evidence means that we are very confident in the results. We found the quality of evidence for most outcomes to be moderate. Many of the studies were small, which was the main reason for downgrading the evidence from high to moderate. We tested the results by operation type, timing of ketamine injection, and by looking at larger studies, and those with more pain were consistent, and provided confidence in the results. There was sufficient evidence to allow conclusions about ketamine's effect on pain, painkiller consumption and side effects after operation.

CochranePLS2

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Five trials of MSP/RESA vaccine with 217 participants were included; all five reported on safety, and two on efficacy. No severe or systemic adverse effects were reported at doses of 13 to 15 µg of each antigen (39 to 45 µg total). One small efficacy trial with 17 non-immune participants with blood-stage parasites showed no reduction or delay in parasite growth rates after artificial challenge. In the second efficacy trial in 120 children aged five to nine years in Papua New Guinea, episodes of clinical malaria were not reduced, but MSP/RESA significantly reduced parasite density only in children who had not been pretreated with an antimalarial drug (sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine). Infections with the 3D7 parasite subtype of MSP2 (the variant included in the vaccine) were reduced (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.57; 719 participants) while those with the other main subtype, FC27, were not (720 participants). The MSP/RESA (Combination B) vaccine shows promise as a way to reduce the severity of malaria episodes, but the effect of the vaccine is MSP2 variant-specific. Pretreatment for malaria during a vaccine trial makes the results difficult to interpret, particularly with the relatively small sample sizes of early trials. The results show that blood-stage vaccines may play a role and merit further development. Output:

This review looked at vaccinations targeted at the asexual (blood) phase of the parasite's life, when the parasites are in red blood cells. One vaccine for this phase, MSP/RESA (also known as Combination B), has been tested in field trials in Papua New Guinea. It reduced the density of parasites in the blood, but it did not prevent malaria attacks. Blood-stage vaccines are being actively pursued in further research.

CochranePLS3

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Four studies, involving 125 participants, were included. Three studies evaluated the effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields and one study, capacitive coupled electric fields. Participants with delayed union and non-union of the long bones were included, but most data related to non-union of the tibia. Although all studies were blinded randomised placebo-controlled trials, each study had limitations. The primary measure of the clinical effectiveness of electromagnetic field stimulation was the proportion of participants whose fractures had united at a fixed time point. The overall pooled effect size was small and not statistically significant (risk ratio 1.96; 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 4.48; 4 trials). There was substantial clinical and statistical heterogeneity in this pooled analysis (I2 = 58%). A sensitivity analysis conducted to determine the effect of multiple follow-up time-points on the heterogeneity amongst the studies showed that the effect size remained non-significant at 24 weeks (risk ratio 1.61; 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 3.54; 3 trials), with similar heterogeneity (I2 = 57%). There was no reduction in pain found in two trials. No study reported functional outcome measures. One trial reported two minor complications resulting from treatment. Though the available evidence suggests that electromagnetic field stimulation may offer some benefit in the treatment of delayed union and non-union of long bone fractures, it is inconclusive and insufficient to inform current practice. More definitive conclusions on treatment effect await further well-conducted randomised controlled trials. Output:

Four studies, which involved 125 participants, were included in this review. The majority of participants had suffered a broken tibia that had not healed as quickly as expected or at all. The results of this review suggest that there may be a benefit on bone healing from electromagnetic field stimulation. However, the available evidence was not good enough to be certain of this and it may not apply to current practice. Electromagnetic field stimulation appears to be safe. The two complications reported were minor involving irritation of the skin.

CochranePLS4

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: A total of 1831 participants were randomised to drain (915 participants) versus 'no drain' (916 participants) in 12 trials included in this review. Only two trials including 199 participants were of low risk of bias. Nine trials included patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy exclusively. One trial included patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis exclusively. One trial included patients undergoing elective and emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and one trial did not provide this information. The average age of participants in the trials ranged between 48 years and 63 years in the 10 trials that provided this information. The proportion of females ranged between 55.0% and 79.0% in the 11 trials that provided this information. There was no significant difference between the drain group (1/840) (adjusted proportion: 0.1%) and the 'no drain' group (2/841) (0.2%) (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.04 to 4.37) in short-term mortality in the ten trials with 1681 participants reporting on this outcome. There was no significant difference between the drain group (7/567) (adjusted proportion: 1.1%) and the 'no drain' group (3/576) (0.5%) in the proportion of patients who developed serious adverse events in the seven trials with 1143 participants reporting on this outcome (RR 2.12; 95% CI 0.67 to 7.40) or in the number of serious adverse events in each group reported by eight trials with 1286 participants; drain group (12/646) (adjusted rate: 1.5 events per 100 participants) versus 'no drain' group (6/640) (0.9 events per 100 participants); rate ratio 1.60; 95% CI 0.66 to 3.87). There was no significant difference in the quality of life between the two groups (one trial; 93 participants; SMD 0.22; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.63). The proportion of patients who were discharged as day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy seemed significantly lower in the drain group than the 'no drain' group (one trial; 68 participants; drain group (0/33) (adjusted proportion: 0.2%) versus 'no drain' group (11/35) (31.4%); RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.75). There was no significant difference in the length of hospital stay between the two groups (five trials; 449 participants; MD 0.22 days; 95% CI -0.06 days to 0.51 days). The operating time was significantly longer in the drain group than the 'no drain' group (seven trials; 775 participants; MD 5.00 minutes; 95% CI 2.69 minutes to 7.30 minutes). There was no significant difference in the return to normal activity and return to work between the groups in one trial involving 100 participants. This trial did not provide any information from which the standard deviation could be imputed and so the confidence intervals could not be calculated for these outcomes. There is currently no evidence to support the routine use of drain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Further well designed randomised clinical trials are necessary. Output:

A total of 1831 participants received drain (915 patients) versus 'no drain' (916 patients) in 12 trials included in this review. The decision of whether the patients received drain or not was determined by a method similar to toss of a coin. Only two trials including 199 patients were of low risk of bias (free from errors in study design that can result in wrong conclusions, leading to overestimation of benefits and to underestimation of harms of the drainage or no drainage). Nine of the 12 trials included patients who underwent planned operations. The average age of participants in the trials ranged between 48 years and 63 years in the 10 trials that provided this information. The proportion of females ranged between 55.0% and 79.0% in the 11 trials that provided this information. There was no significant or clinically important differences in the short-term mortality, serious complications, quality of life, length of hospital stay, operating time, return to normal activity, or return to work in the trials that reported these outcomes. The proportion of patients who were discharged as day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy seemed significantly lower in the drain group than in the 'no drain' group in one trial of high risk of bias involving 68 participants. Currently, there is no evidence to support the use of drain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Further well-designed randomised clinical trials are necessary.

CochranePLS5

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Forty-nine randomised trials involving 3639 participants were included. All trials were conducted and published in China. Thirty-eight different herbal medicines were tested in these trials, including four single herbs (extracts from a single herb), eight traditional Chinese patent medicines, and 26 self concocted Chinese herbal compound prescriptions. The trials reported on global symptom improvement (including improvement in numbness or pain) and changes in nerve conduction velocity. The positive results described from the 49 studies of low quality are of questionable significance. There was inadequate reporting on adverse events in the included trials. Eighteen trials found no adverse events. Two trials reported adverse events: adverse events occurred in the control group in one trial, and in the other it was unclear in which group the adverse events occurred. 29 trials did not mention whether they monitored adverse events. Conclusions cannot be drawn from this review about the safety of herbal medicines, due to inadequate reporting. Most of the trials were of very low methodological quality and therefore the interpretation of any positive findings for the efficacy of the included Chinese herbal medicines for treating diabetic peripheral neuropathy should be made with caution. Based on this systematic review, there is no evidence to support the objective effectiveness and safety of Chinese herbal medicines for diabetic peripheral neuropathy. No well-designed, randomised, placebo controlled trial with objective outcome measures has been conducted. Output:

This systematic review identified a total of 49 trials that included 3639 participants with DPN. Ten of the trials were new at this first update of the review. We evaluated the effects of various herbal formulations (including single herbs, Chinese proprietary medicines and mixtures of different herbs) for treating people with DPN. All the identified clinical trials were performed and published in China. The trials reported on global symptom improvement (including improvement in numbness or pain) and changes in nerve conduction velocity. The positive results described from the 49 studies of low quality are of questionable significance. There was inadequate reporting on adverse events in the included trials. Most of the trials did not mention whether they monitored for adverse effects. Only two trials reported adverse events but an adverse event occurred in the control group in one trial and it was unclear in which group they occurred in the other trial. Conclusions about the safety of herbal medicines cannot therefore be drawn from this review due to inadequate reporting. Most of the trials were of very low methodological quality and the interpretation of any positive findings for the efficacy of the included Chinese herbal medicines for treating DPN should be made with caution. Based on this systematic review, there is no evidence to support the objective effectiveness and safety of Chinese herbal medicines for DPN. No well-designed, randomised placebo controlled trial with objective outcome measures has been conducted.

CochranePLS6

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Five randomized studies involving 1382 patients were included in this review. All the included studies involved advanced (T3 or T4) prostate cancer, had relatively small populations, and were of short duration. Few events were reported and did not assess disease-specific survival or metastatic disease. Only one study (N = 77) evaluated biochemical outcomes. A subgroup analysis found no significant differences in biochemical progression (defined by the authors as PSA ≥ 10 ng/mL) between IAS and CAS for Gleason scores 4 - 6, 7, and 8 - 10. For patients with a Gleason score > 6, reduction in biochemical progression favoured the IAS group (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.67, P = 0.02). Studies primarily reported on adverse events. One trial (N = 43) found no difference in adverse effects (gastrointestinal, gynecomastia and asthenia) between IAS ( two events) and CAS (five events), with the exception of impotence, which was significantly lower in the IAS group (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.92, P = 0.008). Data from RCTs comparing IAS to CAS are limited by small sample size and short duration. There are no data for the relative effectiveness of IAS versus CAS for overall survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, or disease progression. Limited information suggests IAS may have slightly reduced adverse events. Overall, IAS was also as effective as CAS for potency, but was superior during the interval of cycles (96%). Output:

Five studies involving 1382 patients were included in this review. All the included studies involved advanced (T3 or T4) prostate cancer. No study was of adequate size and duration. Few events were reported and they did not assess disease-specific survival or metastatic disease. Only one study evaluated biochemical outcomes. Studies primarily reported on adverse events. There are no data for the relative effectiveness of IAS versus CAS for overall survival, prostate cancer specific survival, disease progression, or quality of life. Limited information suggests IAS may have slightly reduced adverse events. In Hering 2000, IAS (18/25 versus 18/18) appears to be slightly more favorable than CAS in controlling impotence. Overall, IAS was also as effective as CAS for potency, but was superior during the interval of cycles (96%). More research is needed.

CochranePLS7

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We identified 12 trials most of which are of moderate risk of bias involving 7,119 participants which described random assignment. Five trials randomised to either immediate or delayed insertion of IUD. One of them randomised to immediate versus delayed insertion of Copper 7 showed immediate insertion of the Copper 7 was associated with a higher risk of expulsion than was delayed insertion (RR 11.98, 95% CI 1.61 to 89.35,1 study, 259 participants); the quality of evidence was moderate. Moderate quality of evidence also suggests that use and expulsion of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or CuT380A was more likely for immediate compared to delayed insertion risk ratio (RR) 1.40 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.58; 3 studies; 878 participants) and RR 2.64 ( 95% CI 1.16 to 6.00; 3 studies; 878 participants) respectively. Another trial randomised to the levonorgestrel IUD or Nova T showed discontinuation rates due to pregnancy were likely to be higher for women in the Nova T group. (MD 8.70, 95% CI 3.92 to 13.48;1 study; 438 participants); moderate quality evidence. Seven trials examined immediate insertion of IUD only. From meta-analysis of two multicentre trials, pregnancy was less likely for the TCu 220C versus the Lippes Loop (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.75; 2 studies; 2257 participants ) as was expulsion (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.81; 2 studies; 2257 participants). Estimates for the TCu 220 versus the Copper 7 were RR 0.42 ( 95% CI 0.23 to 0.77; 2 studies, 2,274 participants) and RR 0.68, (95% CI 0.51 to 0.91); 2 studies, 2,274 participants), respectively. In other work, adding copper sleeves to the Lippes Loop improved efficacy (RR 3.40, 95% CI 1.28 to 9.04, 1 study, 400 participants) and reduced expulsion (RR 3.00, 95% CI 1.51 to 5.97; 1 study, 400 participants). Moderate quality evidence shows that insertion of an IUD immediately after abortion is safe and practical. IUD expulsion rates appear higher immediately after abortions compared to delayed insertions. However, at six months postabortion, IUD use is higher following immediate insertion compared to delayed insertion. Output:

We did computer searches for randomised trials of IUDs inserted right after abortion or miscarriage. We also wrote to researchers to find more studies. Trials could compare types of IUDs or times for insertion. We found 12 studies to include. Four trials randomised women to an IUD inserted right away or at a later time. One had no major difference. Three recent trials (of levonorgestrel intrauterine system or CuT380A) showed use was greater at six months for an IUD inserted right away compared to one inserted later. Another trial assigned women to the levonorgestrel IUD or Nova T; more women with the Nova T stopped use due to pregnancy. A subanalysis showed more IUDs came out when inserted right after abortion or miscarriage rather than later. Seven trials looked at inserting the IUD right away. From two large trials, the TCu 220C was better than the Lippes Loop and the Copper 7 for preventing pregnancy and staying in. The IUD was more likely to come out on its own when inserted after a mid-pregnancy abortion than after an earlier one. In other work, when the Lippes Loop had copper arms added, fewer women got pregnant and the IUD stayed in more often. Moderate level evidence shows that inserting an IUD right after an abortion or miscarriage is safe and practical. However, the IUD is more likely to come out when inserted right away rather than at a later time. Women are more likely to use an IUD at six months if they had it inserted right away compared to some weeks after the abortion or miscarriage.

CochranePLS8

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included only one small trial published as an abstract article. The included study investigated the effects of meditation practice on patients newly hospitalised with acute leukaemia. Ninety-one participants enrolled in the study, but only 42 participants remained in the trial throughout the six-month follow-up period and were eligible for analysis. There was no information provided about the average age and sex of the study population. We found a high risk for attrition bias and unclear risk for reporting bias, performance and detection bias because of missing data due to abstract publication only, thus we judged the overall risk of bias as high. According to the GRADE criteria, we judged the overall quality of the body of evidence for all predefined outcomes as 'very low', due to the extent of missing data on the study population, and the small sample size. As the abstract publication did not provide numbers and results except P values, we are not able to give more details. Meditation practice might be beneficial for the quality of life of haematologically-diseased patients, with higher scores for participants in the mediation arms compared to the participants in the usual care control group (low quality of evidence). Levels of depression decreased for those practising meditation in both the spiritually-framed meditation group and the secularly-focused meditation group in comparison to the usual care control group, whose levels of depression remained constant (low quality of evidence). The influence of meditation practice on overall survival, fatigue, anxiety, quality of sleep and adverse events remained unclear, as these outcomes were not evaluated in the included trial. To estimate the effects of meditation practice for patients suffering from haematological malignancies, more high quality randomised controlled trials are needed. At present there is not enough information available on the effects of meditation in haematologically-diseased patients to draw any conclusion. Output:

We included one trial with 91 adult patients, of whom only 42 were analysed. The trial involved five one-hour meditation intervention sessions between admission and discharge of participants newly diagnosed with acute myeloid or lymphoid leukaemia. There was no information about the age of the participants included in the study. All participants in the trial were hospitalised for initial induction chemotherapy. As the abstract of the publication did not provide numbers, it is not possible to describe the results in more detail. Participants practising meditation reported better physical health and levels of depression could be decreased. Most of our pre-defined outcomes (overall survival, anxiety, fatigue, quality of sleep, and adverse events) were not reported at all. We judge the quality of the evidence for the outcomes quality of life and depression as 'very low', due to high risk of bias (only 42 out 91 participants were evaluated) and very imprecise results. There were not enough data available to determine the effectiveness of meditation practice on haematologically-diseased patients, thus the role of meditation in the treatment of haematological malignancies remains unclear. More high-quality and larger randomised controlled trials are needed to validate possible positive effects of meditation practice for haematologically-diseased patients. The evidence is up-to-date as of August, 2015.

CochranePLS9

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We identified three trials involving 110 healthy children who were siblings of household contacts. The included trials varied in study quality, vaccine used, length of follow-up and outcomes measured and, as such, were not suitable for meta-analysis. We identified high or unclear risk of bias in two of the three included studies. Overall, 13 out of 56 vaccine recipients (23%) developed varicella compared with 42 out of 54 placebo (or no vaccine) recipients (78%). Of the vaccine recipients who developed varicella, the majority only had mild disease (with fewer than 50 skin lesions). In the three trials, most participants received PEP within three days following exposure; too few participants were vaccinated four to five days post-exposure to ascertain the efficacy of vaccine given more than three days after exposure. No included trial reported on adverse events following immunisation. These small trials suggest varicella vaccine administered within three days to children following household contact with a varicella case reduces infection rates and severity of cases. We identified no RCTs for adolescents or adults. Safety was not adequately addressed. Output:

The number of participants in these three trials was small and is a limitation of this review. The quality of the included studies varied, which also limits confidence in the results. There have been no trials of this type undertaken in adults, and none of the trials commented on adverse events following immunisation, such as fever or injection site reactions.

CochranePLS10

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included 12 RCTs, with 4704 participants, in this review. Eleven trials performed a total of 16 head-to-head comparisons of different prophylactic antibiotic regimens. Antibiotic prophylaxis was compared with no antibiotic prophylaxis in one trial. All the trials were at high risk of bias. With the exception of one trial in which all the participants were positive for nasal carriage of MRSA or had had previous MRSA infections, it does not appear that MRSA was tested or eradicated prior to surgery; nor does it appear that there was high prevalence of MRSA carrier status in the people undergoing surgery. There was no sufficient clinical similarity between the trials to perform a meta-analysis. The overall all-cause mortality in four trials that reported mortality was 14/1401 (1.0%) and there were no significant differences in mortality between the intervention and control groups in each of the individual comparisons. There were no antibiotic-related serious adverse events in any of the 561 people randomised to the seven different antibiotic regimens in four trials (three trials that reported mortality and one other trial). None of the trials reported quality of life, total length of hospital stay or the use of healthcare resources. Overall, 221/4032 (5.5%) people developed SSIs due to all organisms, and 46/4704 (1.0%) people developed SSIs due to MRSA. In the 15 comparisons that compared one antibiotic regimen with another, there were no significant differences in the proportion of people who developed SSIs. In the single trial that compared an antibiotic regimen with placebo, the proportion of people who developed SSIs was significantly lower in the group that received antibiotic prophylaxis with co-amoxiclav (or cefotaxime if allergic to penicillin) compared with placebo (all SSI: RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.65; MRSA SSI RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.83). In two trials that reported MRSA infections other than SSI, 19/478 (4.5%) people developed MRSA infections including SSI, chest infection and bacteraemia. There were no significant differences in the proportion of people who developed MRSA infections at any body site in these two comparisons. Prophylaxis with co-amoxiclav decreases the proportion of people developing MRSA infections compared with placebo in people without malignant disease undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion, although this may be due to decreasing overall infection thereby preventing wounds from becoming secondarily infected with MRSA. There is currently no other evidence to suggest that using a combination of multiple prophylactic antibiotics or administering prophylactic antibiotics for an increased duration is of benefit to people undergoing surgery in terms of reducing MRSA infections. Well designed RCTs assessing the clinical effectiveness of different antibiotic regimens are necessary on this topic. Output:

Antibiotics can be used individually, or combined, and administered for different durations. To identify the best antibiotic(s), or dose pattern, for preventing development of MRSA infection after surgery, we investigated studies that compared different antibiotics with each other, or with no treatment, to prevent MRSA SSIs. We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and set no limits regarding language, or date, of publication, or trial size. Two review authors identified studies and extracted data independently. We identified 12 RCTs, with 4704 participants. Eleven trials compared 16 preventative (prophylactic) antibiotic treatments, and one compared antibiotic prophylaxis with no prophylaxis. Generally, MRSA status of the participants prior to surgery was not known. Four studies reported deaths (14/1401 participants): approximately 1% of participants died from any cause after surgery, but there were no significant differences between treatment groups. Four trials reported on serious antibiotic-related adverse events - there were none in 561 participants. None of the trials reported quality of life, length of hospital stay or use of healthcare resources. Overall, 221 SSIs due to any bacterium developed in 4032 people (6%), and 46 MRSA SSIs developed in 4704 people (1%). There were no significant differences in development of SSIs between the 15 comparisons of one antibiotic treatment against another. When antibiotic prophylaxis with co-amoxiclav was compared with no antibiotic prophylaxis, a significantly lower proportion of people developed SSIs after receiving co-amoxiclav (74% reduction in all SSIs, and 95% reduction in MRSA SSIs). Two trials reported that 19 participants developed MRSA infection in wounds (SSIs), chest, or bloodstream, but there were no significant differences in the proportion of people who developed them between the two comparisons. Prophylaxis with co-amoxiclav decreases the proportion of people developing MRSA infections compared with no antibiotic prophylaxis in people without cancer undergoing surgery for feeding tube insertion into the stomach using endoscopy, although this may be due to decreasing overall infection thereby preventing wounds from becoming secondarily infected with MRSA. There is currently no other evidence that either a combination of prophylactic antibiotics, or increased duration of antibiotic treatment, benefits people undergoing surgery in terms of reducing MRSA infections. Well-designed RCTs are necessary to assess different antibiotic treatments for preventing MRSA infections after surgery.

CochranePLS11

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included two trials (116 women) comparing planned home versus hospital management for PPROM. Overall, the number of included women in each trial was too small to allow adequate assessment of pre-specified outcomes. Investigators used strict inclusion criteria and in both studies relatively few of the women presenting with PPROM were eligible for inclusion. Women were monitored for 48 to 72 hours before randomisation. Perinatal mortality was reported in one trial and there was insufficient evidence to determine whether it differed between the two groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 20.05).  There was no evidence of differences between groups for serious neonatal morbidity, chorioamnionitis, gestational age at delivery, birthweight and admission to neonatal intensive care. There was no information on serious maternal morbidity or mortality. There was some evidence that women managed in hospital were more likely to be delivered by caesarean section (RR (random-effects) 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.15). However, results should be interpreted cautiously as there is moderate heterogeneity for this outcome (I² = 35%). Mothers randomised to care at home spent approximately 10 fewer days as inpatients (mean difference -9.60, 95% CI -14.59 to -4.61) and were more satisfied with their care. Furthermore, home care was associated with reduced costs. The review included two relatively small studies that did not have sufficient statistical power to detect meaningful differences between groups. Future large and adequately powered randomised controlled trials are required to measure differences between groups for relevant pre-specified outcomes. Special attention should be given to the assessment of maternal satisfaction with care and cost analysis as they will have social and economic implications in both developed and developing countries. Output:

We included two randomised controlled studies with 116 women in the review. These studies compared planned home versus hospital management for women with preterm, prelabour rupture of the membranes (PPROM). In both studies there were strict criteria for deciding whether women could be included; for example, women had to live within a certain distance of emergency facilities, and there had to be no signs that mothers and babies had infection or other problems. There was a period of monitoring in hospital for women in both groups. Results suggested that there were few differences in mothers' and babies' health for women cared for at home or in hospital including infant death, serious illness, or admission to intensive care baby units. There was some evidence that women managed in hospital were more likely to be delivered by caesarean section. Women cared for at home were likely to spend less time in hospital (spending approximately 10 fewer days as inpatients) and were more satisfied with their care. In addition, home care was associated with reduced costs. Overall, the number of women included in the two studies was too small to allow adequate assessment of outcomes.

CochranePLS12

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: The two methods of skin closure for caesarean that have been most often compared are non-absorbable staples and absorbable subcutaneous sutures. Compared with absorbable subcutaneous sutures, non-absorbable staples are associated with similar incidences of wound infection. Other important secondary outcomes, such as wound complications, were also similar between the groups in women with Pfannenstiel incisions. However, it is important to note, that for both of these outcomes (wound infection and wound complication), staples may have a differential effect depending on the type of skin incision, i.e., Pfannenstiel or vertical. Compared with absorbable subcutaneous sutures, non-absorbable staples are associated with an increased risk of skin separation, and therefore, reclosure. However, skin separation was variably defined across trials, and most staples were removed before four days postpartum. There is currently no conclusive evidence about how the skin should be closed after caesarean section. Staples are associated with similar outcomes in terms of wound infection, pain and cosmesis compared with sutures, and these two are the most commonly studied methods for skin closure after caesarean section. If staples are removed on day three, there is an increased incidence of skin separation and the need for reclosure compared with absorbable sutures. Output:

We identified 19 randomized controlled trials and included 11, but only eight contributed data. The most commonly studied methods of skin closure were non-absorbable staples compared with absorbable subcutaneous sutures. Staples were associated with similar outcomes in terms of wound infection, pain and appearance compared with sutures. Non-absorbable staples had an increased risk of skin separation and, therefore, reclosure. Skin separation was defined differently across trials and removal of staples varied from about day three to day seven postoperatively. There is not enough evidence from the included studies to say which method of closing the caesarean skin incision is superior. Too few trials compared different kinds of sutures. The use of prophylactic antibiotics to reduce infection was not reported in most trials.

CochranePLS13

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We identified 11 RCTs with a total of 821 participants, two trials awaiting classification and one ongoing trial. Seven trials examined a green tea intervention and four examined a black tea intervention. Dosage and form of both green and black tea differed between trials. The ongoing trial is examining the effects of green tea powder capsules. No studies reported cardiovascular events. Black tea was found to produce statistically significant reductions in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (mean difference (MD) -0.43 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.56 to -0.31) and blood pressure (systolic blood pressure (SBP): MD -1.85 mmHg, 95% CI -3.21 to -0.48. Diastolic blood pressure (DBP): MD -1.27 mmHg, 95% CI -3.06 to 0.53) over six months, stable to sensitivity analysis, but only a small number of trials contributed to each analysis and studies were at risk of bias. Green tea was also found to produce statistically significant reductions in total cholesterol (MD -0.62 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.46), LDL cholesterol (MD -0.64 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.52) and blood pressure (SBP: MD -3.18 mmHg, 95% CI -5.25 to -1.11; DBP: MD -3.42, 95% CI -4.54 to -2.30), but only a small number of studies contributed to each analysis, and results were not stable to sensitivity analysis. When both tea types were analysed together they showed favourable effects on LDL cholesterol (MD -0.48 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.35) and blood pressure (SBP: MD -2.25 mmHg, 95% CI -3.39 to -1.11; DBP: MD -2.81 mmHg, 95% CI -3.77 to -1.86). Adverse events were measured in five trials and included a diagnosis of prostate cancer, hospitalisation for influenza, appendicitis and retinal detachment but these are unlikely to be directly attributable to the intervention. There are very few long-term studies to date examining green or black tea for the primary prevention of CVD. The limited evidence suggests that tea has favourable effects on CVD risk factors, but due to the small number of trials contributing to each analysis the results should be treated with some caution and further high quality trials with longer-term follow-up are needed to confirm this. Output:

This review assessed the effectiveness of green tea, black tea or black/green tea extracts in healthy adults and those at high risk of CVD. We found 11 randomised controlled trials, four of which examined black tea interventions and seven examined green tea interventions. There were variations in the dosage and form (drink, tablets or capsules) of the black and green tea interventions, and the duration of the interventions ranged from three months to six months. Adverse events were reported in five of the included trials. These included a diagnosis of prostate cancer, hospitalisation for influenza, appendicitis and retinal detachment; these are unlikely to be associated with the intervention. The results showed black and green tea to have a beneficial effect on lipid levels and blood pressure, but these results were based on only a small number of trials that were at risk of bias. Analysis conducted over both tea types showed beneficial effects of tea on LDL-cholesterol and blood pressure but again this was based on only a few trials that were at risk of bias. To date the small number of studies included suggest some benefits of green and black tea on blood pressure and lipid levels but more longer-term trials at low risk of bias are needed to confirm this.

CochranePLS14

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Two small trials recruiting 23 participants met the inclusion criteria for the review. Participants may have been suffering from comorbid lung disease. No data on oral steroid consumption were reported. No significant differences were observed in the studies for FEV1, FVC, PaO2 and symptoms. One study reported a statistically significant difference in SGaw, but the clinical importance of this is uncertain. Due to concerns over the small sample sizes and methodological shortcomings in terms of inadequate washout in one study, and methods used in outcome assessment for both studies, the findings of the studies are not generalisable to the issue of steroid tapering. An update search conducted in August 2010 did not identify any new studies for consideration in the review. Currently there is a clear lack of evidence to support the use of azathioprine in the treatment of chronic asthma as a steroid sparing-agent. Large, long-term studies with pre-defined steroid reducing protocols are required before recommendations for clinical practice can be made. Output:

The review found two small studies which did not provide adequate evidence as to whether azathioprine could be offered to reduce oral steroid treatment. There is a need for well-designed trials addressing this question before recommendations can be made.

CochranePLS15

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: For this update we identified a total of 56 studies (4068 participants) for inclusion (28 from the original search and 28 from the updated search), with the majority carried out in participants with breast cancer (28 studies). A meta-analysis of all fatigue data, incorporating 38 comparisons, provided data for 1461 participants who received an exercise intervention and 1187 control participants. At the end of the intervention period exercise was seen to be statistically more effective than the control intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.37 to -0.17). Benefits of exercise on fatigue were observed for interventions delivered during or post-adjuvant cancer therapy. In relation to diagnosis, we identified benefits of exercise on fatigue for breast and prostate cancer but not for those with haematological malignancies. Finally, aerobic exercise significantly reduced fatigue but resistance training and alternative forms of exercise failed to reach significance. The findings of the updated review have enabled a more precise conclusion to be made in that aerobic exercise can be regarded as beneficial for individuals with cancer-related fatigue during and post-cancer therapy, specifically those with solid tumours. Further research is required to determine the optimal type, intensity and timing of an exercise intervention. Output:

A number of studies have been carried out to investigate the effects of exercise both during and after treatment. The current review was carried out to evaluate the effect of physical exercise on fatigue related to cancer. Fifty-six studies, involving a total of 4068 participants, were included in this review. Results suggest that physical exercise such as aerobic walking and aerobic cycling can help to reduce fatigue both during and after treatment for cancer. The benefits of exercise on fatigue were observed specifically for people with breast cancer and prostate cancer.

CochranePLS16

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We screened 1796 records and identified five eligible trials in total i.e. one trial could be added on the previous review. These trials included only adults (16 to 65 years of age). We included all five trials with 3427 people in the meta-analyses: the HD9 and HD14 trials were co-ordinated in Germany, the HD2000 and GSM-HD trials were performed in Italy and the EORTC 20012 was conducted in Belgium. The overall risk of performance and detection bias was low for overall survival (OS), but was high for other outcomes, as therapy blinding was not feasible. The remaining 'Risk of bias' domains were low and unclear. All trials reported results for OS and progression-free survival (PFS). In contrast to the our first published review (2011) the addition of results from the EORTC 20012 BEACOPP escalated increases OS (3142 participants; HR 0.74 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.97; high-quality evidence). This means that only 90 (70 to 117) patients will die after five years in the BEACOPP escalated arm compared to 120 in the ABVD arm. This survival advantage is also reflected in an increased PFS with BEACOPP escalated (3142 participants; HR 0.54 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.64); moderate-quality evidence), meaning that after five years only 144 (121 to 168) patients will experience a progress, relapse or death in the BEACOPP escalated arm compared to 250 in the ABVD arm. There is no evidence for a difference for treatment-related mortality (2700 participants, RR 2.15 (95% CI = 0.93 to 4.95), low-quality evidence). Although the occurrence of MDS or AML may increase with BEACOPP escalated (3332 participants, RR 3.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 11.21); low-quality evidence)), there is no evidence for a difference between both regimens for overall secondary malignancies (3332 participants, RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.48), low-quality evidence). However, the observation time of the studies included in the review is too short to be expected to demonstrate differences with respect to second solid tumours which would not be expected to show significance until around 15 years after treatment. We are very uncertain how many female patients will be infertile due to chemotherapy and which arm might be favoured (106 participants, RR 1.37 (95% CI 0.83 to 2.26), very low-quality evidence). This is a very small sample, and the age of the patients was not detailed. No analysis of male fertility was provided. Five trials reported adverse events and the analysis shows that the escalated BEACOPP regimens probably causes more haematological toxicities WHO grade III or IV ((anaemia: 2425 participants, RR 10.67 (95% CI 7.14 to 15.93); neutropenia: 519 participants, RR 1.80 (95% CI 1.52 to 2.13); thrombocytopenia: 2425 participants, RR 18.12 (95% CI 11.77 to 27.92); infections: 2425 participants, RR 3.73 (95% CI 2.58 to 5.38), all low-quality evidence). Only one trial (EORTC 20012) planned to assess quality of life, however, no results were reported. This meta-analysis provides moderate- to high-quality evidence that adult patients between 16 and 60 years of age with early unfavourable and advanced stage HL benefit regarding OS and PFS from first-line chemotherapy including escalated BEACOPP. The proven benefit in OS for patients with advanced HL is a new finding of this updated review due to the inclusion of the results from the EORTC 20012 trial. Furthermore, there is only low-quality evidence of a difference in the total number of secondary malignancies, as the follow-up period might be too short to detect meaningful differences. Low-quality evidence also suggests that people treated with escalated BEACOPP may have a higher risk to develop secondary AML or MDS. Due to the availability of only very low-quality evidence available, we are unable to come to a conclusion in terms of infertility. This review does for the first time suggest a survival benefit. However, it is clear from this review that BEACOPP escalated may be more toxic that ABVD, and very important long-term side effects of second malignancies and infertility have not been sufficiently analysed yet. Output:

We found five eligible trials by the date of this updated review (search date March 2017). These trials included 3427 patients adult patients (16 to 65 years of age). For this updated review there are new data available resulting in a benefit in terms of overall survival (OS) for people with early unfavourable and advanced HL receiving BEACOPP escalated for first-line treatment. Furthermore, the analysis shows a better chance of avoiding recurrence of the tumour in patients who received chemotherapy including BEACOPP escalated. We analysed the following harms potentially caused by both regimens. There is no evidence for a difference for treatment-related mortality. There is evidence for a higher risk of secondary acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) in patients receiving BEACOPP escalated, but the total number of secondary malignancies does not show evidence for a difference between both treatment groups. However, the observation time of the studies included in the review is too short to be expected to demonstrate differences with respect to second solid tumours. We are very uncertain how many female patients will be infertile due to chemotherapy and which arm might be favoured, as the evaluated sample is very small. No data for male patients and risk for infertility was provided. Treatment with BEACOPP escalated caused a higher risk of adverse events such as anaemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and infections. Quality of life was not reported by any of the included trials. One trial stated it would assess quality of life, however, there were no results reported. We assessed the quality of the evidence as high relating to overall survival, as moderate for progression-free survival and as low for secondary AML or MDS, secondary malignancies and treatment-related mortality and adverse events. The quality of evidence is very low for infertility.

CochranePLS17

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Fifteen RCTs including 1835 cancer patients met the inclusion criteria and because of multiple arms studies we included 19 evaluations. We judged six studies to have a high risk of bias and nine to have a low risk of bias. All included studies were conducted in high income countries and most studies were aimed at breast cancer patients (seven trials) or prostate cancer patients (two trials). Two studies involved psycho-educational interventions including patient education and teaching self-care behaviours. Results indicated low quality evidence of similar RTW rates for psycho-educational interventions compared to care as usual (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.35, n = 260 patients) and low quality evidence that there is no difference in the effect of psycho-educational interventions compared to care as usual on quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.05, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.3, n = 260 patients). We did not find any studies on vocational interventions. In one study breast cancer patients were offered a physical training programme. Low quality evidence suggested that physical training was not more effective than care as usual in improving RTW (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.32 to 4.54, n = 28 patients) or quality of life (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.99 to 0.25, n = 41 patients). Seven RCTs assessed the effects of a medical intervention on RTW. In all studies a less radical or functioning conserving medical intervention was compared with a more radical treatment. We found low quality evidence that less radical, functioning conserving approaches had similar RTW rates as more radical treatments (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09, n = 1097 patients) and moderate quality evidence of no differences in quality of life outcomes (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.23, n = 1028 patients). Five RCTs involved multidisciplinary interventions in which vocational counselling, patient education, patient counselling, biofeedback-assisted behavioral training and/or physical exercises were combined. Moderate quality evidence showed that multidisciplinary interventions involving physical, psycho-educational and/or vocational components led to higher RTW rates than care as usual (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.16, n = 450 patients). We found no differences in the effect of multidisciplinary interventions compared to care as usual on quality of life outcomes (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.25, n = 316 patients). We found moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary interventions enhance the RTW of patients with cancer. Output:

The search date was 25 March 2014. Fifteen randomised controlled trials including 1835 cancer patients met the inclusion criteria. We found four types of interventions. In the first, psycho-educational interventions, participants learned about physical side effects, stress and coping and they took part in group discussions. In the second type of physical intervention participants took part in exercises such as walking. In the third type of intervention, participants received medical interventions ranging from cancer drugs to surgery. The fourth kind concerned multidisciplinary interventions in which vocational counselling, patient education, patient counselling, biofeedback-assisted behavioral training and/or physical exercises were combined.We did not find any studies on vocational interventions aimed at work-related issues. Key results Results suggest that multidisciplinary interventions involving physical, psycho-educational and/or vocational components led to more cancer patients returning to work than when they received care as usual. Quality of life was similar. When studies compared psycho-educational, physical and medical interventions with care as usual they found that similar numbers of people returned to work in all groups. Quality of the evidence We found low quality evidence of similar return-to-work rates for psycho-educational interventions compared to care as usual. We also found low quality evidence showing that physical training was not more effective than care as usual in improving return-to-work. We also found low quality evidence that less radical cancer treatments had similar return-to-work rates as more radical treatments. Moderate quality evidence showed multidisciplinary interventions involving physical, psycho-educational and/or vocational components led to higher return-to-work rates than care as usual.

CochranePLS18

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included no new trials in this update. We included four trials involving more than 13,000 women which were conducted in the UK and Ireland and included women in labour. Three trials were funded by the hospitals where the trials took place and one trial was funded by the Scottish government. No declarations of interest were made in two trials; the remaining two trials did not mention declarations of interest. Overall, the studies were assessed as low risk of bias. Results reported in the 2012 review remain unchanged. Although not statistically significant using a strict P < 0.05 criterion, data were consistent with women allocated to admission CTG having, on average, a higher probability of an increase in incidence of caesarean section than women allocated to intermittent auscultation (risk ratio (RR) 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.44, 4 trials, 11,338 women, I² = 0%, moderate quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the average treatment effect across included trials between women allocated to admission CTG and women allocated to intermittent auscultation in instrumental vaginal birth (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.27, 4 trials, 11,338 women, I² = 38%, low quality evidence) and perinatal mortality rate (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.47, 4 trials, 11,339 infants, I² = 0%, moderate quality evidence). Women allocated to admission CTG had, on average, higher rates of continuous electronic fetal monitoring during labour (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.48, 3 trials, 10,753 women, I² = 79%, low quality evidence) and fetal blood sampling (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.45, 3 trials, 10,757 women, I² = 0%) than women allocated to intermittent auscultation. There were no differences between groups in other secondary outcome measures including incidence and severity of hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy (incidence only reported) (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.90; 2367 infants; 1 trial; very low quality evidence) and incidence of seizures in the neonatal period (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.61; 8056 infants; 1 trial; low quality evidence). There were no data reported for severe neurodevelopmental disability assessed at greater than, or equal to, 12 months of age. Contrary to continued use in some clinical areas, we found no evidence of benefit for the use of the admission CTG for low-risk women on admission in labour. Furthermore, the probability is that admission CTG increases the caesarean section rate by approximately 20%. The data lacked power to detect possible important differences in perinatal mortality. However, it is unlikely that any trial, or meta-analysis, will be adequately powered to detect such differences. The findings of this review support recommendations that the admission CTG not be used for women who are low risk on admission in labour. Women should be informed that admission CTG is likely associated with an increase in the incidence of caesarean section without evidence of benefit. Evidence quality ranged from moderate to very low, with downgrading decisions based on imprecision, inconsistency and a lack of blinding for participants and personnel. All four included trials were conducted in developed Western European countries. One additional study is ongoing. The usefulness of the findings of this review for developing countries will depend on FHR monitoring practices. However, an absence of benefit and likely harm associated with admission CTG will have relevance for countries where questions are being asked about the role of the admission CTG. Future studies evaluating the effects of the admission CTG should consider including women admitted with signs of labour and before a formal diagnosis of labour. This would include a cohort of women currently having admission CTGs and not included in current trials. Output:

We compared the admission CTG with intermittent auscultation of the FHR performed on the woman's admission to the labour ward. We searched for evidence to 30 November 2016 but found no new studies for this updated review (previously published in 2012). This review includes four studies and there is one study that is not yet complete. The included studies (carried out in the UK and Ireland) involved more than 13,000 women with low-risk pregnancies. Three trials were funded by the hospitals were the trials took place and one trial was funded by the Scottish government. Women allocated to admission CTG were probably more likely to have a caesarean section than women allocated to intermittent auscultation (moderate quality evidence). There was no difference in the number of instrumental vaginal births (low quality evidence) or in numbers of babies who died during or shortly after labour (moderate quality evidence) between women in the two groups. Admission CTG was associated with an increase in the use of continuous EFM (with an electrode placed on the baby’s scalp) (low quality evidence) and fetal blood sampling (a small blood sample taken from a baby's scalp) during labour. There were no differences in other outcomes measured such as artificial rupture of the membranes, augmentation of labour, use of an epidural, damage to the baby's brain due to lack of oxygen (very low quality evidence), or the baby having fits or seizures just after birth (low quality evidence). No studies reported if the babies developed any severe problems in brain or central nervous system growth and development after one year of age. Although many hospitals carry out CTGs on women when they are admitted to hospital in labour, we found no evidence that this benefits women with low-risk pregnancies. We found that admission CTGs may increase numbers of women having a caesarean section by about 20%. The included studies did not include enough women to show if admission CTGs or intermittent auscultation were better at keeping babies safe. However, studies to show which is better at keeping babies safe would have to be very large. Based on this review, low-risk pregnant women who have an admission CTG could be more likely to have a caesarean section. The benefits to these women of having an admission CTG are not certain. All of the included studies took place in developed Western European countries. The review findings might not be useful to people in very different countries or where different ways of FHR monitoring are used. However, countries that use admission CTGs should start to question why, because there are not clear benefits to using admission CTGs, and they could be causing women harm by making them more likely to have a caesarean section.

CochranePLS19

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included 32 studies in this review. Seventeen studies randomised women (total 3666), three randomised cycles (total 1018) and twelve randomised oocytes (over 15,230). It was not possible to pool any of the data because each study compared different culture media. Only seven studies reported live birth or ongoing pregnancy. Four of these studies found no evidence of a difference between the media compared, for either day three or day five embryo transfer. The data from the fifth study did not appear reliable. Six studies reported clinical pregnancy rate. One of these found a difference between the media compared, suggesting that for cleavage-stage embryo transfer, Quinn's Advantage was associated with higher clinical pregnancy rates than G5 (odds ratio (OR) 1.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 2.16; 692 women). This study was available only as an abstract and the quality of the evidence was low. With regards to adverse effects, three studies reported multiple pregnancies and six studies reported miscarriage. None of them found any evidence of a difference between the culture media used. None of the studies reported on the health of offspring. Most studies (22/32) failed to report their source of funding and none described their methodology in adequate detail. The overall quality of the evidence was rated as very low for nearly all comparisons, the main limitations being imprecision and poor reporting of study methods. An optimal embryo culture medium is important for embryonic development and subsequently the success of IVF or ICSI treatment. There has been much controversy about the most appropriate embryo culture medium. Numerous studies have been performed, but no two studies compared the same culture media and none of them found any evidence of a difference between the culture media used. We conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of any specific culture medium. Properly designed and executed randomised trials are necessary. Output:

The evidence is current to March 2015. We included 32 randomised controlled trials of a wide variety of different commercially available culture media in women undergoing IVF or ICSI. Sixteen studies randomised women (total 3666), three randomised cycles (total 1018) and twelve randomised oocytes (over 15,230). Most studies (22/32) failed to report their source of funding. No two studies compared the same culture media. Only seven studies reported our primary outcome of live birth or ongoing pregnancy, and they found no good evidence of a difference between the media compared. A single study found low-quality evidence that for day three embryo transfer, Quinn's Advantage may be associated with higher rates than G5, but this study was available only as an abstract and the methods used were not clearly reported. With regard to adverse effects, three studies reported multiple pregnancies and six studies reported miscarriage. None of them found any evidence of a difference between the culture media used. None of the studies reported on the health of offspring. We conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of any specific culture medium. Properly designed and executed randomised trials are necessary. There was very low-quality evidence for nearly all comparisons, the main limitations being imprecision and poor reporting of study methods.

CochranePLS20

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: The search strategies identified 2847 citations overall. A total of 30 citations appeared relevant however there were three duplicates which left 27 articles for further review. Articles reporting the same primary data accounted for 6 of the publications Brown 1997; Brown 1998; Brown 1999; Brown 2000; Hack 2000; Hack 2003 which left 23 original papers to be reviewed for inclusion. Of these, none met the inclusion criteria. Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality was therefore not possible. The review question remains unanswered as there were no randomised trials of methods of communicating a diagnosis of breast cancer to women. The authors have considered the possible reasons for the lack of research studies in this area and have considered that it is perhaps unethical to randomise women at such a vulnerable time such as waiting for a diagnosis. The design of ethically sensitive research to examine this topic needs to be explored to inform future practice. As some papers reviewed by the authors related to the first consultation visit, where treatment options are discussed, perhaps a review which focused on the methods of communication at the first consultation visit would provide more reliable evidence for the effectiveness of methods of communication and overcome the ethical dilemmas previously mentioned. Output:

The present systematic review set out to assess the effectiveness of various methods of communicating a first diagnosis of confirmed breast cancer. The review was particularly interested in how this would impact on what the patient remembered, the satisfaction with the information received, the coping strategies used as a result of the information given and the impact of receiving the information on the patient's quality of life. The review authors made a thorough search of the medical literature looking for controlled trials in which women receiving a first diagnosis of breast cancer were randomised to the intervention group. They retrieved 23 original reports of trials for further review but ultimately no trial could be included. A number of the trials focused on communication at the first treatment consultation rather than the method of delivering the diagnosis. In an area that is ethically sensitive, the authors suggest that a review which focuses on the various methods of communication at the first consultation visit may provide useful information as to which methods are more effective and beneficial for this patient group.

CochranePLS21

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included two new papers, one of which was an update of a previously included study. Therefore, a total of 17 RCTs with 1006 randomised participants met the inclusion criteria, with the one new study contributing an additional 113 participants. There was a significant reduction in reports of chest pain in the first three months following the intervention: random-effects relative risk = 0.70 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.92). This was maintained from three to nine months afterwards: relative risk 0.59 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.76). There was also a significant increase in the number of chest pain-free days up to three months following the intervention: mean difference (MD) 3.00 (95% CI 0.23 to 5.77). This was associated with reduced chest pain frequency (random-effects MD -2.26, 95% CI -4.41 to -0.12) but there was no evidence of effect of treatment on chest pain frequency from three to twelve months (random-effects MD -0.81, 95% CI -2.35 to 0.74). There was no effect on severity (random-effects MD -4.64 (95% CI -12.18 to 2.89) up to three months after the intervention. Due to the nature of the main interventions of interest, it was impossible to blind the therapists as to whether the participant was in the intervention or control arm. In addition, in three studies the blinding of participants was expressly forbidden by the local ethics committee because of issues in obtaining fully informed consent . For this reason, all studies had a high risk of performance bias. In addition, three studies were thought to have a high risk of outcome bias. In general, there was a low risk of bias in the other domains. However, there was high heterogeneity and caution is required in interpreting these results. The wide variability in secondary outcome measures made it difficult to integrate findings from studies. This Cochrane review suggests a modest to moderate benefit for psychological interventions, particularly those using a cognitive-behavioural framework, which was largely restricted to the first three months after the intervention. Hypnotherapy is also a possible alternative. However, these conclusions are limited by high heterogeneity in many of the results and low numbers of participants in individual studies. The evidence for other brief interventions was less clear. Further RCTs of psychological interventions for NSCP with follow-up periods of at least 12 months are needed. Output:

This Cochrane review included all studies of psychotherapy for non-cardiac chest pain. Seventeen trials met the inclusion criteria, and included a total of 1006 participants. The review found that cognitive-behavioural treatments are probably effective (in terms of reduced chest pain frequency) in the short term, for the treatment of non-cardiac related chest pain. No adverse effects of the psychotherapy were found. Hypnotherapy is also a possible alternative. A limitation of this review is the high variability of the studies included, reflected in a wide range of outcome measures, although there was an overall fairly low risk of bias.

CochranePLS22

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We identified 30 trials with a total of 4344 participants randomised, with 17 different drugs or treatment comparisons. The following antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers were evaluated in at least one RCT: nedocromil sodium or sodium cromoglycate, olopatadine, ketotifen, azelastine, emedastine, levocabastine (or levocabastine), mequitazine, bepotastine besilate, combination of antazoline and tetryzoline, combination of levocabastine and pemirolast potassium. The most common comparison was azelastine versus placebo (nine studies). We observed a large variability in reporting outcomes. The quality of the studies and reporting was variable, but overall the risk of bias was low. Trials evaluated only short-term effects, with a range of treatment of one to eight weeks. Meta-analysis was only possible in one comparison (olopatadine versus ketotifen). There was some evidence to support that topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers reduce symptoms and signs of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis when compared with placebo. There were no reported serious adverse events related to the use of topical antihistamine and mast cell stabilisers treatment. It seems that all reported topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers reduce symptoms and signs of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis when compared with placebo in the short term. However, there is no long-term data on their efficacy. Direct comparisons of different antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers need to be interpreted with caution. Overall, topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers appear to be safe and well tolerated. We observed a large variability in outcomes reported. Poor quality of reporting challenged the synthesis of evidence. Output:

The evidence is current to July 2014. Among the 30 studies reviewed there were 17 different comparisons, including 4344 participants ranging in age between 4 and 85 years. The duration of treatment ranged from one to eight weeks. Ten out of 30 studies were funded by the drug manufacturer (8 totally and 2 partially funded); 20 studies did not report any source of funding. There was inconsistency in the way the effect of treatment was measured and reported. Overall risk of bias was low. Topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers, alone or in combination, are safe and effective for reducing symptoms of seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis. We found insufficient evidence to discern which topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers are the most effective.

CochranePLS23

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Two studies met all of the eligibility criteria for inclusion within the review and a third was identified as ongoing. The two included studies employed multi-component community-based interventions tailored to the specific cultural aspects of the population and were based in Native American populations (1505 subjects in total). No difference was observed in weekly smoking at 42 months follow-up in the one study assessing this outcome (skills-community group versus control: risk ratio [RR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.14; skills-only group versus control: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.05). For smokeless tobacco use, no difference was found between the skills-community arm and the control group at 42 weeks (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.30), though a significant difference was observed between the skills-only arm and the control group (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.85). Whilst the second study found positive changes for tobacco use in the intervention arm at post test (p < 0.05), this was not maintained at six month follow-up (change score -0.11 for intervention and 0.07 for control). Both studies were rated as high or unclear risk of bias in seven or more domains (out of a total of 10). Based on the available evidence, a conclusion cannot be drawn as to the efficacy of tobacco prevention initiatives tailored for Indigenous youth. This review highlights the paucity of data and the need for more research in this area. Smoking prevalence in Indigenous youth is twice that of the non-Indigenous population, with tobacco experimentation commencing at an early age. As such, a significant health disparity exists where Indigenous populations, a minority, are over-represented in the burden of smoking-related morbidity and mortality. Methodologically rigorous trials are needed to investigate interventions aimed at preventing the uptake of tobacco use amongst Indigenous youth and to assist in bridging the gap between tobacco-related health disparities in Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations. Output:

This review found that there is not enough published research evaluating programmes aiming to prevent Indigenous youth from starting to use tobacco. Information from the two included studies in this review (1505 participants in total, in Native American communities) does not allow a conclusion to be drawn as to whether tobacco prevention programmes in Indigenous populations prevent Indigenous youth from smoking or using smokeless tobacco. The review highlights the absence of data and need for more research.

CochranePLS24

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Out 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. Other 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. Evidence 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. Output:

We searched for evidence on 30 May 2016 and identified one controlled trial, with an unclear risk of bias, that randomised 72 women with sickle cell anaemia (haemoglobin SS) before 28 weeks of gestation to one of the two blood transfusion policies. The trial indicated no difference in severe ill health and death of the mother or newborn. There was no difference in the risk of delayed blood transfusion reaction. The trial suggested giving blood at frequent intervals reduced the risk of pain crisis, with a large degree of uncertainty about the size of the effect, compared with giving blood only when medically indicated. Blood transfusion was delivered at a ratio of four to one for prophylactic versus selective blood transfusion, respectively. Overall, the quality of evidence for outcomes that are important to the woman is very low. The available evidence on this subject is insufficient to advocate for a change in clinical practice and policy. More research needs to be conducted.

CochranePLS25

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We identified 67 randomised clinical trials involving a total of 6197 participants. All the trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 5771 participants from 64 trials provided data for one or more outcomes included in this review. There was no evidence of differences in most of the comparisons, and where there was, these differences were in single trials, mostly of small sample size. We summarise only the evidence that was available in more than one trial below. Of the primary outcomes, the only one with evidence of a difference from more than one trial under the pair-wise comparison was in the number of adverse events (complications), which was higher with radiofrequency dissecting sealer than with the clamp-crush method (rate ratio 1.85, 95% CrI 1.07 to 3.26; 250 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence). Among the secondary outcomes, the only differences we found from more than one trial under the pair-wise comparison were the following: blood transfusion (proportion) was higher in the low central venous pressure group than in the acute normovolemic haemodilution plus low central venous pressure group (OR 3.19, 95% CrI 1.56 to 6.95; 208 participants; 2 studies; low-quality evidence); blood transfusion quantity (red blood cells) was lower in the fibrin sealant group than in the control (MD −0.53 units, 95% CrI −1.00 to −0.07; 122 participants; 2; very low-quality evidence); blood transfusion quantity (fresh frozen plasma) was higher in the oxidised cellulose group than in the fibrin sealant group (MD 0.53 units, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.71; 80 participants; 2 studies; very low-quality evidence); blood loss (MD −0.34 L, 95% CrI −0.46 to −0.22; 237 participants; 4 studies; very low-quality evidence), total hospital stay (MD −2.42 days, 95% CrI −3.91 to −0.94; 197 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence), and operating time (MD −15.32 minutes, 95% CrI −29.03 to −1.69; 192 participants; 4 studies; very low-quality evidence) were lower with low central venous pressure than with control. For the other comparisons, the evidence for difference was either based on single small trials or there was no evidence of differences. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life or time needed to return to work. Paucity of data meant that we could not assess transitivity assumptions and inconsistency for most analyses. When direct and indirect comparisons were available, network meta-analysis provided additional effect estimates for comparisons where there were no direct comparisons. However, the paucity of data decreases the confidence in the results of the network meta-analysis. Low-quality evidence suggests that liver resection using a radiofrequency dissecting sealer may be associated with more adverse events than with the clamp-crush method. Low-quality evidence also suggests that the proportion of people requiring a blood transfusion is higher with low central venous pressure than with acute normovolemic haemodilution plus low central venous pressure; very low-quality evidence suggests that blood transfusion quantity (red blood cells) was lower with fibrin sealant than control; blood transfusion quantity (fresh frozen plasma) was higher with oxidised cellulose than with fibrin sealant; and blood loss, total hospital stay, and operating time were lower with low central venous pressure than with control. There is no evidence to suggest that using special equipment for liver resection is of any benefit in decreasing the mortality, morbidity, or blood transfusion requirements (very low-quality evidence). Radiofrequency dissecting sealer should not be used outside the clinical trial setting since there is low-quality evidence for increased harm without any evidence of benefits. In addition, it should be noted that the sample size was small and the credible intervals were wide, and we cannot rule out considerable benefit or harm with a specific method of liver resection. Output:

We identified 67 randomised clinical trials involving a total of 6197 participants that met our inclusion criteria. However, we were only able to include 5771 participants from 64 trials since investigators either did not include the remaining participants in the analysis or did not report any outcomes of interest. Source of funding: 24 trials (35.8%) were funded by parties with no financial interest in obtaining positive results for the treatment being evaluated. The remaining trials received funding from either parties who would gain financially from the results of the study or did not report the funding. All the trials were at high risk of bias, that is, investigators may have overestimated the benefits or underestimated the harms of one method or the other because of the way that the studies were conducted. Many trials included few participants, and there was a good chance of arriving at the wrong conclusions because of this. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low. There was no evidence of differences in most of the comparisons, and where there was, these differences were in single trials, mostly of small sample size. Such evidence is unreliable. So, we mention only the evidence that was available in more than one trial. Of the primary outcomes, the only one where there was evidence of difference was in the number of adverse events, which was higher with radiofrequency dissecting sealer than with clamp-crush method. Among the secondary outcomes, the only evidence of difference was in the following: Blood transfusion (percentage): higher in the low central venous pressure group than in the acute normovolemic haemodilution (diluting the blood by giving fluids during operation) plus low central venous pressure group. Blood transfusion amount: lower in the fibrin sealant group (a type of glue applied to the cut surface of the liver) than in the control. Blood transfusion (fresh frozen plasma − a component of blood): higher in the oxidised cellulose (another type of glue applied to the cut surface of the liver) group than in the fibrin sealant group. Blood loss, total hospital stay, and operating time: lower with the low central venous pressure group than control. For other comparisons, the evidence for difference was based on single small trials, or there was no evidence of differences. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life or time needed to return to work. There is no evidence to suggest that using special equipment for liver resection is of any benefit.

CochranePLS26

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Twenty-three trials involving 724 people were included. There is evidence supporting the use of systemic retinoids (improvement rate difference 44%, 95 CI 28 to 59%), oral PUVA (improvement rate difference 44%, 95 CI 26 to 62%). However, a combination of PUVA and retinoids is better than the individual treatments. The use of topical steroid under hydrocolloid occlusion is beneficial. It would also appear that low dose ciclosporin, tetracycline antibiotics and Grenz Ray Therapy may be useful in treating PPP. Colchicine has a lot of side effects and it is unclear if it is effective and neither was topical PUVA (rate difference of 0.00, 95% CI -0.04 to +0.04). There is no evidence to suggest that short-term treatment with hydroxycarbamide (hydroxyurea) is effective. Many different interventions were reported to produce "improvement" in PPP. There is, however, no standardised method for assessing response to treatment, and reductions in pustule counts or other empirical semi-quantitative scoring systems may be of little relevance to the patient. This review has shown that the ideal treatment for PPP remains elusive and that the standards of study design and reporting need to be improved to inform patients and those treating them of the relative merits of the many treatments available to them. Output:

The review of trials found that several treatments improve the symptoms of chronic palmoplantar pustulosis, although no treatment was shown to suppress the condition completely. Oral retinoid therapy (acitretin) appears to be helpful at relieving symptoms, particularly if combined with PUVA. Ciclosporin and tetracycline antibiotics can also provide some relief. Topical treatments were generally less helpful. As yet there is no ideal treatment for chronic palmoplantar pustulosis, though oral retinoids, particularly when combined with psoralens and ultraviolet radiation (PUVA), may help

CochranePLS27

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Nine trials evaluated the dose-related blood pressure-lowering efficacy of five drugs within the loop diuretics class (furosemide 40 mg to 60 mg, cicletanine 100 mg to 150 mg, piretanide 3 mg to 6 mg, indacrinone enantiomer -2.5 mg to -10.0/+80 mg, and etozolin 200 mg) in 460 people with baseline blood pressure of 162/103 mmHg for a mean duration of 8.8 weeks. The best estimate of systolic/diastolic blood pressure-lowering efficacy of loop diuretics was -7.9 (-10.4 to -5.4) mmHg/ -4.4 (-5.9 to -2.8) mmHg. Withdrawals due to adverse effects and serum biochemical changes did not show a significant difference. We performed additional searches in 2012 and 2014, which found no additional trials meeting the minimum inclusion criteria. Based on the limited number of published RCTs, the systolic/diastolic blood pressure-lowering effect of loop diuretics is -8/-4 mmHg, which is likely an overestimate. We graded the quality of evidence for both systolic and diastolic blood pressure estimates as "low" due to the high risk of bias of included studies and the high likelihood of publication bias. We found no clinically meaningful blood pressure-lowering differences between different drugs within the loop diuretic class. The dose-ranging effects of loop diuretics could not be evaluated. The review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with loop diuretics because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in many of the trials. Output:

We searched the available scientific literature to find all the trials that had addressed these questions. We found 9 trials studying the blood pressure-lowering ability of 5 different loop diuretics (furosemide, cicletanine, piretanide, indacrinone and etozolin) in 460 participants. The blood pressure-lowering effect was modest, with systolic pressure lowered by 8 mmHg and diastolic pressure by 4 mmHg. No loop diuretic drug appears to be any better or worse than others in terms of blood pressure-lowering ability. Due to lack of reporting and the short duration of included trials, this review could not provide an estimate of the harms associated with loop diuretics.

CochranePLS28

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included 58 trials, of which 48 trials with 2849 participants randomised to intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation (1558 participants) versus control (1291 participants) contributed data to one or more of the outcomes. All the trials except one trial with 30 participants were at high risk of bias. Most trials included only low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Various intraperitoneal local anaesthetic agents were used but bupivacaine in the liquid form was the most common local anaesthetic used. There were considerable differences in the methods of local anaesthetic instillation including the location (subdiaphragmatic, gallbladder bed, or both locations) and timing (before or after the removal of gallbladder) between the trials. There was no mortality in either group in the eight trials that reported mortality (0/236 (0%) in local anaesthetic instillation versus 0/210 (0%) in control group; very low quality evidence). One participant experienced the outcome of serious morbidity (eight trials; 446 participants; 1/236 (0.4%) in local anaesthetic instillation group versus 0/210 (0%) in the control group; RR 3.00; 95% CI 0.13 to 67.06; very low quality evidence). Although the remaining trials did not report the overall morbidity, three trials (190 participants) reported that there were no intra-operative complications. Twenty trials reported that there were no serious adverse events in any of the 715 participants who received local anaesthetic instillation. None of the trials reported participant quality of life, return to normal activity, or return to work. The effect of local anaesthetic instillation on the proportion of participants discharged as day surgery between the two groups was imprecise and compatible with benefit and no difference of intervention (three trials; 242 participants; 89/160 (adjusted proportion 61.0%) in local anaesthetic instillation group versus 40/82 (48.8%) in control group; RR 1.25; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.58; very low quality evidence). The MD in length of hospital stay was 0.04 days (95% CI -0.23 to 0.32; five trials; 335 participants; low quality evidence). The pain scores as measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS) were significantly lower in the local anaesthetic instillation group than the control group at four to eight hours (32 trials; 2020 participants; MD -0.99 cm; 95% CI -1.10 to -0.88 on a VAS scale of 0 to 10 cm; very low quality evidence) and at nine to 24 hours (29 trials; 1787 participants; MD -0.53 cm; 95% CI -0.62 to -0.44; very low quality evidence). Various subgroup analyses and meta-regressions to investigate the influence of the different local anaesthetic agents, different methods of local anaesthetic instillation, and different controls on the effectiveness of local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation were inconsistent. Serious adverse events were rare in studies evaluating local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation (very low quality evidence). There is very low quality evidence that it reduces pain in low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, the clinical importance of this reduction in pain is unknown and likely to be small. Further randomised clinical trials of low risk of systematic and random errors are necessary. Such trials should include important clinical outcomes such as quality of life and time to return to work in their assessment. Output:

We identified 58 trials, of which 48 randomised clinical trials involving 2849 people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy contributed data to one or more of the outcomes. Most participants in the trials were low anaesthetic risk people undergoing planned laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The choice of whether the participants received local anaesthetic agents (or not) was determined by a method similar to the toss of a coin so that the treatments compared were conducted in people who were as similar as possible. There were no deaths in either group in eight trials (446 participants) that reported deaths. The studies reported very few or no serious complications in the groups. There were no local anaesthetic-related complications in nearly 1000 participants who received intra-abdominal local anaesthetic administration in the different trials that reported complications. None of the trials reported quality of life, the time taken to return to normal activity, or the time taken to return to work. The small differences in hospital stay between the two groups were imprecise. Pain scores were lower in the participants who received intra-abdominal local anaesthetic administration compared with those who received controls at four to eight hours and at nine to 24 hours as measured by the visual analogue scale (a chart that rates the amount of pain on a scale of 1 to 10). Most of the trials were of high risk of bias, that means that there is possibility of arriving at wrong conclusions overestimating benefits or underestimating harms of one method or the other because of the way that the study was conducted. Overall, the quality of evidence was very low. Serious adverse event rates were low in studies evaluating local anaesthetic intra-abdominal administration (very low quality evidence). There is very low quality evidence that local anaesthetic intra-abdominal administration reduces pain in low anaesthetic risk people undergoing planned laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, the clinical importance of this reduction in pain is likely to be small. Further trials are necessary. Such trials should include outcomes such as quality of life, the time taken to return to normal activity, and the time taken to return to work, which are important for the person undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the people who provide funds for the treatment.

CochranePLS29

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We identified 74 unique studies as eligible for this review and categorized them according to the antigens they detected. Types 1 to 3 include HRP-2 (fromP. falciparum) either by itself or with other antigens. Types 4 and 5 included pLDH (from P. falciparum) either by itself or with other antigens. In comparisons with microscopy, we identified 71 evaluations of Type 1 tests, eight evaluations of Type 2 tests and five evaluations of Type 3 tests. In meta-analyses, average sensitivities and specificities (95% CI) were 94.8% (93.1% to 96.1%) and 95.2% (93.2% to 96.7%) for Type 1 tests, 96.0% (94.0% to 97.3%) and 95.3% (87.3% to 98.3%) for Type 2 tests, and 99.5% (71.0% to 100.0%) and 90.6% (80.5% to 95.7%) for Type 3 tests, respectively. Overall for HRP-2, the meta-analytical average sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) were 95.0% (93.5% to 96.2%) and 95.2% (93.4% to 99.4%), respectively. For pLDH antibody-based RDTs verified with microscopy, we identified 17 evaluations of Type 4 RDTs and three evaluations of Type 5 RDTs. In meta-analyses, average sensitivity for Type 4 tests was 91.5% (84.7% to 95.3%) and average specificity was 98.7% (96.9% to 99.5%). For Type 5 tests, average sensitivity was 98.4% (95.1% to 99.5%) and average specificity was 97.5% (93.5% to 99.1%). Overall for pLDH, the meta-analytical average sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) were 93.2% (88.0% to 96.2%) and 98.5% (96.7% to 99.4%), respectively. For both categories of test, there was substantial heterogeneity in study results. Quality of the microscopy reference standard could only be assessed in 40% of studies due to inadequate reporting, but results did not seem to be influenced by the reporting quality. Overall, HRP-2 antibody-based tests (such as the Type 1 tests) tended to be more sensitive and were significantly less specific than pLDH-based tests (such as the Type 4 tests). If the point estimates for Type 1 and Type 4 tests are applied to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients where 30% of those presenting with symptoms have P. falciparum, Type 1 tests will miss 16 cases, and Type 4 tests will miss 26 cases. The number of people wrongly diagnosed with P. falciparum would be 34 with Type 1 tests, and nine with Type 4 tests. The sensitivity and specificity of all RDTs is such that they can replace or extend the access of diagnostic services for uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria. HRP-2 antibody types may be more sensitive but are less specific than pLDH antibody-based tests, but the differences are small. The HRP-2 antigen persists even after effective treatment and so is not useful for detecting treatment failures. Output:

Standard diagnosis of malaria in the past has depended on blood microscopy, but this requires a technician and a laboratory, and is often not feasible for basic health services in many areas. Sometimes in research studies, another technique called polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is used, but again this requires equipment and trained staff, and cannot be used routinely. Technological advances have led to rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for malaria. These detect parasite-specific antigens in the blood, are simple to use, and can give results as a simple positive or negative result, within 15 minutes. This review evaluates the accuracy of RDTs compared with microscopy and PCR for detecting Plasmodium falciparum parasites in the blood. It includes 74 studies, giving a total of 111 RDT evaluations (of which 104 compared RDTs with microscopy), reporting a total of 60,396 RDT results. Results are presented by type of test, classified by the malaria antigen that they are designed to detect (either histidine-rich protein-2 (HRP-2), or plasmodium lactate dehydrogenase (pLDH)). The results indicate that RDTs can be very accurate compared to microscopy and PCR. The performance of RDT types varied but the differences were not large. HRP-2-based tests tended to be more sensitive (ie they identified more true cases of malaria) and less specific (ie they wrongly identified more malaria that was not present) than pLDH-based tests. Choice will depend on prevalence of malaria, and we provide data in this review to assist these decisions, although policy makers will also take into account other factors relating to cost and test stability.

CochranePLS30

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Five studies met the inclusion criteria. All were conducted in the UK, and tested short-term changes in the consultation time allocated to each patient. Overall, our confidence in the results was very low; most studies had a high risk of bias, particularly due to non-random allocation of participants and the absence of data on participants' characteristics and small sample sizes. We are uncertain whether altering appointment length increases primary care consultation length, number of referrals and investigations, prescriptions, or patient satisfaction based on very low-certainty evidence. None of the studies reported on the effects of altering the length of consultation on resources used. We did not find sufficient evidence to support or refute a policy of altering the lengths of primary care physicians' consultations. It is possible that these findings may change if high-quality trials are reported in the future. Further trials are needed that focus on health outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Output:

We identified five studies conducted in the UK that tested whether methods to change consultation length for family doctors provides any benefit. The studies were conducted in single or multiple practices, and the number of appointments ranged from 200 to 2957 consultations. Four studies compared a change in appointment times from 5 to 15 minutes, and one study compared short versus long consultations with or without treatment for patients with no diagnosis. All studies tested short-term changes in the consultation time allocated to each patient. Our confidence in the results of these studies is very low. Consequently, we are not certain whether changing appointment slots leads to an actual increase of the length of the consultation, number of referrals and investigations requested by the doctor, and number of medications prescribed. Likewise, it is unclear whether patients are more satisfied with the health care they receive when appointments are longer. None of the studies reported on the resources associated with lengthening appointments. There is currently not enough evidence to say whether altering the amount of time that doctors consult with patients provides benefits or not.

CochranePLS31

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: The search identified 3952 abstracts which were scanned for relevance. Three trials met the inclusion criteria (Milinkovic 2007; McComsey 2008; Sanchez-Conde 2005). All three trials were conducted in developed countries, participants were ART experienced and all had sustained virologic suppression at baseline. A total of 157 participants were recruited to the trials. Sample sizes ranged from 24 to 92 and more than 79% of participants were male.The studies were at a high risk of selection, performance/detection and selective outcome reporting biases. Some baseline characteristics differed among the groups, including triglyceride levels in two studies and body mass index in one study. In light of variation in the design and follow-up of the study results, no meta-analysis was performed and the results of single studies are presented. There was no significant difference in virologic suppression in the included studies (Milinkovic 2007; McComsey 2008; Sanchez-Conde 2005); Risk Ratio (RR) 1.09 (95% CI: 0.93 to 1.28), 0.94 (95% CI:0.59 to 1.50) and 1.03 (95% CI: 0.90 to 1.18) respectively. Symptomatic hyperlactatemia was seen in the high dose arm of the Milinkovic 2007 study; RR 0.21 (95% CI: 0.01 to 4.66), in no participants in the McComsey 2008 trial and not reported on in the Sanchez-Conde 2005 trial. McComsey 2008 and Milinkovic 2007 demonstrated a reduction in bone mineral density (BMD), reduction in limb fat and an increase in triglycerides in the high dose arms. The studies did not indicate that any participants discontinued treatment due to adverse events. This systematic review identified only three small trials that evaluated virologic efficacy and safety of high dose versus low dose stavudine. All three trials were conducted in developed countries and none reported from developing countries yet stavudine remains a component of ART combination therapy in many developing countries. It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis on these trails. Individual results from the trials were imprecise and have not identified a clear advantage in virologic efficacy or safety between low and high dose stavudine. Furthermore, enrolled participants were treatment experienced with sustained virologic suppression and so existing data cannot be generalized to settings where stavudine is currently used in ART naive patients with high viral loads. Stavudine dose reduction trials in ART naive patients, in developing countries where stavudine is still being used are warranted as the phasing out of stavudine that is recommended by WHO may not be immediately universally feasible. Output:

The comprehensive search strategy developed by the Cochrane HIV/AIDS Review Group was used to identify trials that compared the safety and efficacy in suppressing the viral load of low dose versus high dose stavudine in the context of treating HIV-1 with combination antiretroviral therapy. The searches covered the period 1996 to 2014.The search identified 3952 trials and only three met the inclusion criteria, all the included trials were conducted in developed countries, the number of participants ranged from 24 to 92 and the majority were male. The efficacy of suppressing the viral load was found to be the same in all the trials whether high dose or low dose of stavudine was used. McComsey 2008 and Milinkovic 2007 demonstrated a reduction in bone mineral density (BMD), reduction in limb fat and an increase in triglycerides in the high dose arms. While there was no demonstration of a difference in efficacy of viral load suppression between high dose and low dose stavudine in the included trials, participants included in these trials were already treated with antiretroviral therapy and had suppressed viral load. The fact that participants already had suppression of the viral load and the studies were small, meant it would be difficult to demonstrate the differences in viral load suppression between the two groups. The studies did not indicate that any participants discontinued treatment due to adverse events. This review identified only trials that tested the safety and efficacy in suppressing the viral load of low dose compared to high dose stavudine. These trials were small, conducted in developed countries and included participants with suppressed viral loads that had been on antiretroviral treatment for a long time. Individual results from the trials have not identified a clear advantage in viral load suppression or safety between low and high dose stavudine.Studies that evaluate the safety and efficacy in viral load suppression need to be conducted particularly in developing countries where stavudine is still being used and probably needed to either sustain treatment programs or where alternatives are limited.

CochranePLS32

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Ten trials met the inclusion criteria for this review (n = 1658 participants). We found five trials to be at low risk of bias and five to be at moderate risk of bias. Six of the trials included recruitment manoeuvres as part of an open lung ventilation strategy that was different from control ventilation in aspects other than the recruitment manoeuvre (such as mode of ventilation, higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration and lower tidal volume or plateau pressure). Six studies reported mortality outcomes. Pooled data from five trials (1370 participants) showed a reduction in intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.97, P = 0.02, low-quality evidence), pooled data from five trials (1450 participants) showed no difference in 28-day mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.01, P = 0.06, low-quality evidence) and pooled data from four trials (1313 participants) showed no difference in in-hospital mortality (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.01, P = 0.07, low-quality evidence). Data revealed no differences in risk of barotrauma (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.53, P = 0.60, seven studies, 1508 participants, moderate-quality evidence). We identified significant clinical heterogeneity in the 10 included trials. Results are based upon the findings of several (five) trials that included an "open lung ventilation strategy", whereby the intervention group differed from the control group in aspects other than the recruitment manoeuvre (including co-interventions such as higher PEEP, different modes of ventilation and higher plateau pressure), making interpretation of the results difficult. A ventilation strategy that included recruitment manoeuvres in participants with ARDS reduced intensive care unit mortality without increasing the risk of barotrauma but had no effect on 28-day and hospital mortality. We downgraded the quality of the evidence to low, as most of the included trials provided co-interventions as part of an open lung ventilation strategy, and this might have influenced results of the outcome. Output:

We included 10 trials in this review, which included a total of 1658 participants with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Low-quality evidence suggests that recruitment manoeuvres improve ICU survival but not 28-day or hospital survival. Recruitment manoeuvres have no effect on the risk of air leakage from the lungs. We found the evidence for most outcomes to be of low to moderate quality, primarily because of the design of included trials. Many trials used the recruitment manoeuvre in conjunction with other ventilation techniques or strategies, and this might have influenced outcomes. Caution should be applied when conclusions are drawn about the effectiveness of the recruitment manoeuvre alone.

CochranePLS33

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Fifteen studies, involving 687 participants, were included in the review. Study quality was poor and sample sizes were frequently small. However, some pooled effects were analysed. Three studies measured our primary outcome but individually did not report significant differences between treatment and control. The use of 'as needed' medications was reduced in two studies, (47 patients), by relaxation therapy (OR 4.47, CI 1.22 to 16.44). There was no significant difference in FEV1 for relaxation therapy in four studies of 150 patients, (SMD -0.01, CI -0.41 to 0.40). Quality of life, measured using the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire in two studies, (48 patients), showed a positive effect following CBT (WMD 0.71, CI 0.23 to 1.19). Peak Expiratory Flow outcome data in two studies, (51 patients), indicated a significant difference in favour of bio-feedback therapy (SMD 0.66, CI 0.09 to 1.23) but no significant difference following relaxation therapy (WMD 43 L/min, CI -5 to 92 L/min). There was no statistically significant improvement in depression levels following relaxation therapy (SMD 0.17, CI -0.25 to 0.59). The remainder of the findings between studies were conflicting. This may have been due to the different types of interventions used and the deficiencies in trial design. This review was unable to draw firm conclusions for the role of psychological interventions in asthma due to the absence of an adequate evidence base. Larger, well-conducted and reported randomised trials are required in this area, in order to determine the effects of these techniques in the treatment of asthma in adults. Output:

Systematically, we searched the literature on psychological interventions to find valid studies that looked at the effects of providing mainly psychological interventions for adults with asthma. The studies found examined many different therapies and measured different physical and psychological outcomes; for these reasons, their results could not be easily combined. However, meta-analyses could be performed to determine the effect of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) on quality of life, bio-feedback on PEF, and relaxation therapy on PEF and FEV1 and medication use. The available studies were completed with small numbers of people and the way the studies were conducted could be improved. More research with larger numbers of people and improved design needs to be done before it is known whether psychological interventions are effective in improving health outcomes for adults with asthma.

CochranePLS34

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Thirty-five studies, including 6785 participants overall (of which 5365 in the arms of interest (antidepressant and benzodiazepines as monotherapy)) were included in this review; however, since studies addressed many different comparisons, only a few trials provided data for primary outcomes. We found low-quality evidence suggesting no difference between antidepressants and benzodiazepines in terms of response rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.47; participants = 215; studies = 2). Very low-quality evidence suggested a benefit for benzodiazepines compared to antidepressants in terms of dropouts due to any cause, even if confidence interval (CI) ranges from almost no difference to benefit with benzodiazepines (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.63; participants = 1449; studies = 7). We found some evidence suggesting that serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are better tolerated than TCAs (when looking at the number of patients experiencing adverse effects). We failed to find clinically significant differences between individual benzodiazepines. The majority of studies did not report details on random sequence generation and allocation concealment; similarly, no details were provided about strategies to ensure blinding. The study protocol was not available for almost all studies so it is difficult to make a judgment on the possibility of outcome reporting bias. Information on adverse effects was very limited. The identified studies are not sufficient to comprehensively address the objectives of the present review. The majority of studies enrolled a small number of participants and did not provide data for all the outcomes specified in the protocol. For these reasons most of the analyses were underpowered and this limits the overall completeness of evidence. In general, based on the results of the current review, the possible role of antidepressants and benzodiazepines should be assessed by the clinician on an individual basis. The choice of which antidepressant and/or benzodiazepine is prescribed can not be made on the basis of this review only, and should be based on evidence of antidepressants and benzodiazepines efficacy and tolerability, including data from placebo-controlled studies, as a whole. Data on long-term tolerability issues associated with antidepressants and benzodiazepines exposure should also be carefully considered. The present review highlights the need for further higher-quality studies comparing antidepressants with benzodiazepines, which should be conducted with high-methodological standards and including pragmatic outcome measures to provide clinicians with useful and practical data. Data from the present review will be included in a network meta-analysis of psychopharmacological treatment in panic disorder, which will hopefully provide further useful information on this issue. Output:

We did not find substantial differences between antidepressants and benzodiazepines in terms of efficacy and tolerability. There was not enough information to compare any differences in adverse effects. However, our findings are limited in the following ways: few studies contributed to each analysis, some studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies, and only short-term outcomes were assessed. The quality of the available evidence was mainly low, meaning that further research would be very likely to have an important impact on these results. Studies with larger sample sizes and fewer risks of bias should be carried out, with head-to-head comparisons. Longer-term outcomes need to be addressed to establish whether the effect is transient or durable. Trials should better report any harms experienced by participants during the trial. In addition, a network meta-analysis of psychopharmacological treatment in panic disorder will likely shed further light on this compelling issue, also being able to provide more information with regard to comparative efficacy.

CochranePLS35

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Twenty-nine trials, that enrolled over 1,700 participants with pancreatic carcinoma, were included. Three eligible studies compared plastic stents to surgery. Endoscopic stenting with plastic stents was associated with a reduced risk of complications (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45 - 0.81), but with higher risk of recurrent biliary obstruction prior to death (RR 18.59, 95% CI 5.33 - 64.86) when compared with surgery. There was a trend towards lower risk of 30-day mortality with plastic stents (p=0.07, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.32, 1.04). One published study compared metal stents to surgery and reported lower costs and better quality-of-life with metal stents. Nine studies compared metal to plastic stents. Metal stents were associated with a lower risk of recurrent biliary obstruction than plastic stents (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.38 - 0.62). There was no significant difference in risk of technical failure, therapeutic failure, complications or 30-day mortality by meta-analysis. When different types of plastic stents were compared to polyethylene stents, only perflouro alkoxy plastic stents had superior outcomes in one trial. The addition of an anti-reflux valve improved the patency of Teflon stents. Endoscopic metal stents are the intervention of choice at present in patients with malignant distal obstructive jaundice due to pancreatic carcinoma. In patients with short predicted survival, their patency benefits over plastic stents may not be realised. Further RCTs are needed to determine the optimal stent type for these patients. Output:

This review compares 29 randomised controlled trials that used surgical by-pass, endoscopic metal stents or endoscopic plastic stents in patients with malignant bile duct obstruction. All included studies contained groups where cancer of the pancreas was the most common cause of bile duct obstruction. This review shows that endoscopic stents are preferable to surgery in palliation of malignant distal bile duct obstruction due to pancreatic cancer. The choice of metal or plastic stents depends on the expected survival of the patient; metal stents only differ from plastic stents in the risk of recurrent bile duct obstruction. Polyethylene stents and stainless-steel alloy stents (Wallstent) are the most studied stents.

CochranePLS36

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included five RCTs reporting 444 arterial cannulations in paediatric participants. Four RCTs compared ultrasound with palpation, and one compared ultrasound with Doppler auditory assistance. Risk of bias varied across studies, with some studies lacking details of allocation concealment. It was not possible to blind practitioners in all of the included studies; this adds a performance bias that is inherent to the type of intervention studied in our review. Only two studies reported the rate of complications. Meta-analysis showed that ultrasound guidance produces superior success rates at first attempt (risk ratio (RR) 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.85, 404 catheters, four RCTs, moderate-quality evidence) and fewer complications, such as haematoma formation (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.60, 222 catheters, two RCTs, moderate-quality evidence). Our results suggest, but do not confirm, that a possible advantage of ultrasound guidance for the first attempt success rate over other techniques is more pronounced in infants and small children than in older children. Similarly, our results suggest, but do not confirm, the possibility of a positive influence of expertise in the use of ultrasound on the first attempt success rate. We also found improved success rates within two attempts (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.51, 134 catheters, two RCTs, moderate-quality evidence) with ultrasound guidance compared with other types of guidance. No studies reported data about ischaemic damage. We rated the quality of evidence for all outcomes as moderate owing to imprecision due to wide confidence intervals, modest sample sizes and limited numbers of events. We identified moderate-quality evidence suggesting that ultrasound guidance for radial artery cannulation improves first and second attempt success rates and decreases the rate of complications as compared with palpation or Doppler auditory assistance. The improved success rate at the first attempt may be more pronounced in infants and small children, in whom arterial line cannulation is more challenging than in older children. Output:

The evidence is current to January 2016. We found five eligible studies - four comparing ultrasound with palpation and one comparing ultrasound with Doppler auditory assistance. We included in the review children aged one month to 18 years. We found that ultrasound increased the rate of successful cannulation at the first attempt and reduced the formation of haematomas. Ultrasound also increased the success rate within two attempts. It is likely that ultrasound is more useful for infants and small children than for older children. It is also likely that ultrasound is more useful if the practitioner is experienced in its use. We noted variation in the risk of bias of included studies. We rated the quality of evidence as moderate mainly because the number of studies was limited. For the same reason, we could not confirm the effect of age and expertise in ultrasound usage. Our evidence suggests that ultrasound is superior to other techniques for arterial catheter insertion, particularly in babies and young children.

CochranePLS37

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included one small RCT (80 male student participants conducted in the Netherlands and published in 2009) and three ITS studies (general population studies in Canadian provinces conducted in the 1970s and 80s). The RCT found that young men exposed to movies with a low-alcohol content drank less than men exposed to movies with a high-alcohol content (mean difference (MD) -0.65 drinks; 95% CI -1.2, -0.07; p value = 0.03, very-low-quality evidence). Young men exposed to commercials with a neutral content compared with those exposed to commercials for alcohol drank less (MD -0.73 drinks; 95% CI -1.30, -0.16; p value = 0.01, very-low-quality evidence). Outcomes were assessed immediately after the end of the intervention (lasting 1.5 hours), so no follow-up data were available. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, the quality of the evidence was rated as very low due to a serious risk of bias, serious indirectness of the included population and serious level of imprecision. Two of the ITS studies evaluated the implementation of an advertising ban and one study evaluated the lifting of such a ban. Each of the three ITS studies evaluated a different type of ban (partial or full) compared with different degrees of restrictions or no restrictions during the control period. The results from the three ITS studies were inconsistent. A meta-analysis of the two studies that evaluated the implementation of a ban showed an overall mean non-significant increase in beer consumption in the general population of 1.10% following the ban (95% CI -5.26, 7.47; p value = 0.43; I2 = 83%, very-low-quality evidence). This finding is consistent with an increase, no difference, or a decrease in alcohol consumption. In the study evaluating the lifting of a total ban on all forms of alcohol advertising to a partial ban on spirits advertising only, which utilised an Abrupt Auto-regressive Integrated Moving Average model, the volume of all forms of alcohol sales decreased by 11.11 kilolitres (95% CI -27.56, 5.34; p value = 0.19) per month after the ban was lifted. In this model, beer and wine sales increased per month by 14.89 kilolitres (95% CI 0.39, 29.39; p value = 0.04) and 1.15 kilolitres (95% CI -0.91, 3.21; p value = 0.27), respectively, and spirits sales decreased statistically significantly by 22.49 kilolitres (95% CI -36.83, -8.15; p value = 0.002). Using the GRADE approach, the evidence from the ITS studies was rated as very low due to a high risk of bias arising from a lack of randomisation and imprecision in the results. No other prespecified outcomes (including economic loss or hardship due to decreased alcohol sales) were addressed in the included studies and no adverse effects were reported in any of the studies. None of the studies were funded by the alcohol or advertising industries. There is a lack of robust evidence for or against recommending the implementation of alcohol advertising restrictions. Advertising restrictions should be implemented within a high-quality, well-monitored research programme to ensure the evaluation over time of all relevant outcomes in order to build the evidence base. Output:

The evidence we present is current to May 2014. We found four studies that evaluated the restriction or banning of alcohol advertising via any format. One was a small randomised controlled trial (RCT) that evaluated drinking behaviour in 80 young men in the Netherlands exposed to movies with either a high or low alcohol content combined with a commercial with either a neutral content (interpreted as a ban on alcohol advertising) or a high alcohol content. The other three studies were interrupted time series (ITS) studies. ITS studies are studies in which changes, usually in the general public, are measured at various points before, during and after an intervention such as a change in policy. Two of the three ITS studies evaluated what happened after an advertising ban was introduced by two different Canadian provincial governments. The third ITS study evaluated what happened after a ban was lifted after being in place for 50 years in another Canadian province. Each study evaluated a different category of ban (either partial or full). None of the above studies were funded by the alcohol or advertising industries. The data arising from the included studies did not show a clear effect either for or against the banning or restriction of alcohol advertising. In the RCT, young men who watched movies with a low-alcohol content drank less than men who watched movies with a high-alcohol content. Young men exposed to commercials with a neutral content compared with those exposed to commercials for alcohol drank less. The trial was one and a half hours, so we do not know how long beyond the trial these effects lasted. The trial did not report on any harmful outcomes. The results from the three ITS studies were inconsistent. We statistically combined the results of the two studies that assessed what happened after a ban was introduced. This showed an overall increase in beer consumption in the general population following the introduction of the ban, but the results were uncertain and could also be consistent with no difference or an overall decrease in alcohol consumption. The third ITS study, which evaluated the lifting of a total ban on all forms of alcohol advertising to a ban on spirits advertising only, also found uncertain results. None of the studies reported on any harms arising from the bans. Overall we judged the quality of evidence to be very low in the RCT. This was based on the fact that there were problems with the study methodology, the population included men only and the results were not very accurate. In the ITS studies, the quality was also judged to be very low due to problems with the study methodology and the results not being precise. The review cannot recommend for or against banning alcohol advertising. Governments that are considering implementing alcohol advertising bans would be advised to implement the ban in a research environment and monitor the effects over time to build the evidence base.

CochranePLS38

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Eight randomized trials studying a total of 182 infants were included. There was no evidence of difference in short-term growth parameters when high and low MCT formulas were compared. The meta-analysis of weight gain based on five studies yielded a WMD of -0.35 g/kg/d (95% CI -1.44, 0.74). Similarly, meta-analysis of weight gain in g/d based on two studies showed no evidence of difference (WMD 2.09 g/d, 95% CI -1.46, 5.64). Length gain, based on five studies, showed a non-significant WMD of 0.14 cm/wk (95% CI -0.04, 0.31). Head circumference gain, based on data from five studies, showed a non-significant WMD -0.03 cm/wk (95% CI -0.15, 0.08). Only one study reported a statistically non-significant skin fold thickness gain, with a mean difference -0.15 mm/wk (95% CI -0.41, 0.11). Subgroup analyses according to % MCT in the high MCT formula, by 10% intervals showed no evidence of effect of high MCT on short-term weight gain within any subgroup. There are conflicting data (two studies) as to formula tolerance. There is no evidence of effect on incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), based on small numbers in two trials. No studies were located addressing long-term growth parameters or neurodevelopmental outcomes. There is no evidence of difference between MCT and LCT on short-term growth, gastrointestinal intolerance, or necrotizing enterocolitis. Therefore, neither formula type could be concluded to improve short-term growth or have less adverse effects. Further studies are necessary because the results from the included eight studies are imprecise due to small numbers and do not address important long-term outcomes. Additional research should aim to clarify effects on formula tolerance and on long-term growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes, and include larger study populations to better evaluate effect on NEC incidence. Output:

The review authors searched the medical literature. They found eight small controlled randomized studies looking at short-term growth (weight, length, and head circumference gain) in preterm infants fed with varying amounts of medium chain fats. The pattern of growth in infants fed exclusively with high MCT or low MCT formula for at least one week did not differ (five studies with 182 infants). These infants had a mean gestational age between 29 and 32 weeks, mean birth weights between 1 kg and 1.5 kg, and were aged one to six weeks. One study found a high degree of gastrointestinal intolerance with high MCT content and another did not. Development of necrotizing enterocolitis was not different. No studies addressed long-term growth or neurodevelopmental outcomes.

CochranePLS39

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included one small trial (with data from 34 participants) comparing transcervical amnioinfusion with no amnioinfusion. The trial was considered to be at a high risk of bias overall, due to small numbers, inconsistency in the reporting and lack of information on blinding. Meta-analysis was not possible. Transcervical amnioinfusion was with room temperature saline at 10 mL per minute for 60 minutes, then 3 mL per minute until delivery versus no amnioinfusion. All women received intrauterine pressure catheter, acetaminophen and antibiotics (ampicillin or, if receiving Group B beta streptococcal prophylaxis, penicillin and gentamycin). We did not identify any trials that used transabdominal amnioinfusion. Compared to no amnioinfusion, transcervical amnioinfusion had no clear effect on the incidence of postpartum endometritis (risk ratio (RR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 7.87; absolute risk 176/1000 (95% CI 34 to 96) versus 118/1000;low-quality evidence). Nor was there a clear effect in the incidence of neonatal infection (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 68.84; absolute risk 0/1000 (95% CI 0 to 0) versus 0/1000; low-quality evidence). The outcome of perinatal death or severe morbidity (such as neonatal encephalopathy, intraventricular haemorrhage, admission to intensive/high care) was not reported in the included trial. In terms of this review's secondary outcomes, the rate of caesarean section was the same in both groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.83; absolute risk 294/1000 (95% CI 103 to 832) versus 294/1000; low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the duration of maternal antibiotic treatment between the amnioinfusion and no amnioinfusion control group (mean difference (MD) 16 hours, 95% CI -1.75 to 33.75); nor in the duration of hospitalisation (MD 3.00 hours, 95% CI -15.49 to 21.49). The study did not report any information about how many babies had a low Apgar score at five minutes after birth. Women in the amnioinfusion group had a lower temperature at delivery compared to women in the control group (MD -0.38°C, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.02) but this outcome was not pre-specified in the protocol for this review. The majority of this review's secondary outcomes were not reported in the included study. There is insufficient evidence to fully evaluate the effectiveness of using transcervical amnioinfusion for chorioamnionitis and to assess the safety of this intervention or women’s satisfaction. We did not identify any trials that used transabdominal amnioinfusion. The evidence in this review can neither support nor refute the use of transcervical amnioinfusion outside of clinical trials. We included one small study that reported on a limited number of outcomes of interest in this review. The numbers included in this review are too small for meaningful assessment of substantive outcomes, where reported. For those outcomes we assessed using GRADE (postpartum endometritis, neonatal infection, and caesarean section), we downgraded the quality of the evidence to low - with downgrading decisions based on small numbers and a lack of information on blinding. The included study did not report on this review's other primary outcome (perinatal death or severe morbidity). The reduction in pyrexia, though not a pre-specified outcome of this review, may be of relevance in terms of benefits to the fetus of reduced exposure to heat. We postulate that the temperature reduction found may be a direct cooling effect of amnioinfusion with room temperature fluid, rather than reduction of infection. Larger trials are needed to confirm and extend the findings of the trial reviewed here. These should be randomised controlled trials; participants, women with chorioamnionitis; interventions, amnioinfusion; comparisons, no amnioinfusion; outcomes, maternal and perinatal outcomes including neurodevelopmental measures. Further research is justified to determine possible benefits or risks of amnioinfusion for chorioamnionitis, and to investigate possible benefits of reducing temperature in fetuses considered at risk of neurological damage. Research should include randomised trials to examine transcervical or transabdominal amnioinfusion compared with no infusion for chorioamnionitis and examine outcomes listed in the methods of this review. Output:

We searched for evidence on 6 July 2016 and only found one randomised controlled trial (which reported data from a total of 34 women). Data were available for 17 women who received transcervical amnioinfusion and 17 women who did not. All of the women received paracetamol and antibiotics and they also had a special type of catheter inserted into the cervix to measure information about their contractions (i.e. how often the contractions occur, how long they lasted and how strong they were). infection of the mother's womb after the birth(low-quality evidence);infection of the baby(low-quality evidence);caesarean section(low-quality evidence);duration of antibiotic treatment; norduration of hospital stay. Themother's temperature at delivery, which was not a pre-defined outcome for our review, was lower in the women who received amnioinfusion, by 0.38 °C (with a likely range of 0.74 lower to 0.02 lower). The outcomedeath or severe illness in the babywas not reported, nor did the study report on the number of babies with alow Apgar scoreafter they were born (a low Apgar score could indicate that the baby is in need of medical attention). Similarly, the majority of other outcomes listed in this review were not reported in the included study. We did not identify any studies that looked at introducing the solution through the mother's abdomen (transabdominal route). There is not enough evidence to support the use of amnioinfusion for chorioamnionitis in clinical practice. We suggest that the reduction in temperature may have been in part due to a direct cooling effect of the infused fluid, and that further research is justified to determine whether such a cooling effect may be beneficial for the baby. Further randomised controlled trials are needed in this area. Future trials should compare transabdominal or transcervical amnioinfusion with no amnioinfusion for women with pregnancy fluid and sac infection (chorioamnionitis) and report on important outcomes listed in this review.

CochranePLS40

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Three studies met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 1620 participants. The sensitivities of the Mini-Cog in the individual studies were reported as 0.99, 0.76 and 0.99. The specificity of the Mini-Cog varied in the individual studies and was 0.93, 0.89 and 0.83. There was clinical and methodological heterogeneity between the studies which precluded a pooled meta-analysis of the results. Methodological limitations were present in all the studies introducing potential sources of bias, specifically with respect to the methods for participant selection. There are currently few studies assessing the diagnostic test accuracy of the Mini-Cog in community settings. The limited number of studies and the methodological limitations that are present in the current studies make it difficult to provide recommendations for or against the use of the Mini-Cog as a cognitive screening test in community settings. Additional well-designed studies comparing the Mini-Cog to other brief cognitive screening tests are required in order to determine the accuracy and utility of the Mini-Cog in community based settings. Output:

In this review, we searched medical literature databases to identify studies which evaluated how well the Mini-Cog is able to distinguish between individuals who have dementia and those who do not have dementia when compared to in-depth evaluation by dementia specialists. Our review focussed on those studies that were conducted in community based settings. We identified three unique randomised controlled studies that evaluated the Mini-Cog. In these studies the accuracy of the Mini-Cog varied and importantly there were some potential limitations within the studies which may have led to an overestimation of the accuracy of the Mini-Cog. Based on the information that we obtained from our review, we felt that further research into the accuracy of the Mini-Cog was required before it could be recommended for routine use for identifying dementia in community settings.

CochranePLS41

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included 19 studies that investigated three types of amphetamines: dexamphetamine (10.2 mg/d to 21.8 mg/d), lisdexamfetamine (30 mg/d to 70 mg/d), and mixed amphetamine salts (MAS; 12.5 mg/d to 80 mg/d). These studies enrolled 2521 participants; most were middle-aged (35.3 years), Caucasian males (57.2%), with a combined type of ADHD (78.8%). Eighteen studies were conducted in the USA, and one study was conducted in both Canada and the USA. Ten were multi-site studies. All studies were placebo-controlled, and three also included an active comparator: guanfacine, modafinil, or paroxetine. Most studies had short-term follow-up and a mean study length of 5.3 weeks. We found no studies that had low risk of bias in all domains of the Cochrane 'Risk of bias’ tool, mainly because amphetamines have powerful subjective effects that may reveal the assigned treatment, but also because we noted attrition bias, and because we could not rule out the possibility of a carry-over effect in studies that used a cross-over design. Sixteen studies were funded by the pharmaceutical industry, one study was publicly funded, and two studies did not report their funding sources. Amphetamines versus placebo Severity of ADHD symptoms: we found low- to very low-quality evidence suggesting that amphetamines reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by clinicians (SMD −0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) −1.04 to −0.75; 13 studies, 2028 participants) and patients (SMD −0.51, 95% CI −0.75 to −0.28; six studies, 120 participants). Retention: overall, we found low-quality evidence suggesting that amphetamines did not improve retention in treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.13; 17 studies, 2323 participants). Adverse events: we found that amphetamines were associated with an increased proportion of patients who withdrew because of adverse events (RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.63 to 4.45; 17 studies, 2409 participants). Type of amphetamine: we found differences between amphetamines for the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by clinicians. Both lisdexamfetamine (SMD −1.06, 95% CI −1.26 to −0.85; seven studies, 896 participants; low-quality evidence) and MAS (SMD −0.80, 95% CI −0.93 to −0.66; five studies, 1083 participants; low-quality evidence) reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms. In contrast, we found no evidence to suggest that dexamphetamine reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms (SMD −0.24, 95% CI −0.80 to 0.32; one study, 49 participants; very low-quality evidence). In addition, all amphetamines were efficacious in reducing the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by patients (dexamphetamine: SMD −0.77, 95% CI −1.14 to −0.40; two studies, 35 participants; low-quality evidence; lisdexamfetamine: SMD −0.33, 95% CI −0.65 to −0.01; three studies, 67 participants; low-quality evidence; MAS: SMD −0.45, 95% CI −1.02 to 0.12; one study, 18 participants; very low-quality evidence). Dose at study completion: different doses of amphetamines did not appear to be associated with differences in efficacy. Type of drug-release formulation: we investigated immediate- and sustained-release formulations but found no differences between them for any outcome. Amphetamines versus other drugs We found no evidence that amphetamines improved ADHD symptom severity compared to other drug interventions. Amphetamines improved the severity of ADHD symptoms, as assessed by clinicians or patients, in the short term but did not improve retention to treatment. Amphetamines were associated with higher attrition due to adverse events. The short duration of studies coupled with their restrictive inclusion criteria limits the external validity of these findings. Furthermore, none of the included studies had an overall low risk of bias. Overall, the evidence generated by this review is of low or very low quality. Output:

Reviewers found 19 studies, which enrolled 2521 patients. Most patients were male (57.2%), middle-aged (mean age 35.3 years) Caucasians (84.5%). These studies compared amphetamines to placebo (something that looks like an amphetamine but with no active ingredient), and three studies also compared amphetamines with other drugs such as guanfacine, modafinil, and paroxetine. In this review, we assessed the effects of three different kinds of amphetamines: dexamphetamine (from 10.2 to 21.8 mg/d), lisdexamfetamine (from 30 to 70 mg/d), and mixed amphetamine salts (MAS) (from 12.5 to 80 mg/d). Treatment length ranged from one to 20 weeks. Eighteen studies were conducted in the USA and one study in Canada and the USA. Ten studies were conducted at multiple sites. Study funding was reported in all but two studies. Sixteen studies were funded by the manufacturer, and one was funded by government agencies. All amphetamines reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by patients. Lisdexamfetamine and MAS also reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by clinicians, but dexamphetamine did not. Overall, amphetamines did not make people more likely to stay in treatment and were associated with higher risk of treatment ending early as the result of adverse events. We found no evidence suggesting that higher doses worked better than lower ones. We did not find any difference in effectiveness between amphetamines that act for longer periods of time versus those that act for shorter periods of time. Therefore, it appears that short-term treatment with amphetamines reduces the severity of ADHD symptoms, but studies assessing the effects of amphetamines for longer periods of time are needed. We found no differences in effectiveness between amphetamines and guanfacine, modafinil, or paroxetine. The quality of the evidence was low to very low for all outcomes for several reasons, namely, it was possible for patients to know the treatment they were taking; the number of studies and included patients was low, leading to imprecise results for many outcomes; the studies had problems in their design; and, for some outcomes, results varied across trials.

CochranePLS42

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included six new studies (517 participants) in this review update, bringing the total of included studies to 10 (811 participants). The studies were heterogeneous with regard to study quality, the chronic painful conditions that were investigated, the dose of vitamin D given, co-interventions, and the outcome measures reported. Only two studies reported responder pain outcomes; the other studies reported treatment group average outcomes only. Overall, there was no consistent pattern that vitamin D treatment was associated with greater efficacy than placebo in any chronic painful condition (low quality evidence). Adverse events and withdrawals were comparatively infrequent, with no consistent difference between vitamin D and placebo (good quality evidence). The evidence addressing the use of vitamin D for chronic pain now contains more than twice as many studies and participants than were included in the original version of this review. Based on this evidence, a large beneficial effect of vitamin D across different chronic painful conditions is unlikely. Whether vitamin D can have beneficial effects in specific chronic painful conditions needs further investigation. Output:

We searched scientific databases for studies comparing vitamin D supplementation with placebo (a dummy treatment) or active medicines for the treatment of chronic painful conditions in adults. The evidence is current to February 2015. There is a small amount of evidence supporting this link but it is not of high quality and may not be reliable. This update of a review sought high quality evidence from randomised controlled trials (studies where participants are randomly allocated to receive one of several treatments) on vitamin D for chronic painful conditions. We found no consistent pattern that vitamin D treatment was better than placebo for any chronic painful condition, but the studies had methodological shortcomings (low quality evidence). More research is needed to determine if vitamin D is a useful pain treatment in any particular chronic painful condition. That research should examine whether any effect is restricted to people who are vitamin D deficient. It should also examine how much vitamin D is required, and for how long, before beneficial effects occur.

CochranePLS43

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Forty-one studies were included involving more than 200 practices and 48,000 patients. Twenty-seven studies were RCTs, 12 were CBAs, and two were ITS. The studies were heterogeneous in terms of interventions, participants, settings and outcomes. The methodological quality of the studies was often poor. In all studies the intervention strategy was multifaceted. In 12 studies the interventions were targeted at health professionals, in nine they were targeted at the organisation of care, and 20 studies targeted both. In 15 studies patient education was added to the professional and organisational interventions. A combination of professional interventions improved process outcomes. The effect on patient outcomes remained less clear as these were rarely assessed. Arrangements for follow-up (organisational intervention) also showed a favourable effect on process outcomes. Multiple interventions in which patient education was added or in which the role of the nurse was enhanced also reported favourable effects on patients' health outcomes. Multifaceted professional interventions can enhance the performance of health professionals in managing patients with diabetes. Organisational interventions that improve regular prompted recall and review of patients (central computerised tracking systems or nurses who regularly contact the patient) can also improve diabetes management. The addition of patient-oriented interventions can lead to improved patient health outcomes. Nurses can play an important role in patient-oriented interventions, through patient education or facilitating adherence to treatment. Output:

This review examined the effects of interventions targeting health professionals or the way care is organised, with the aim of improving the management of people with diabetes in primary care, outpatient and community settings. The review found that multifaceted professional interventions (for example combinations of postgraduate education, reminders, audit and feedback, local consensus processes, and peer review) could enhance the performance of care providers. Organisational interventions that increased structured recall, such as central computerised tracking systems or nurses who regularly contacted patients, could also lead to improved care for patients with diabetes. The effectiveness of these interventions on patient outcomes (glycaemic control, cardiovascular risk factors, wellbeing) is less clear.

CochranePLS44

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Five trials met the inclusion criteria. The studies included a total of 1503 women, with a mean of 301 participants. The trials compared the following contraceptives: combined oral contraceptive (COC) versus transdermal contraceptive patch, vaginal contraceptive ring, or levonorgestrel intrauterine system 20 µg/day (LNG-IUS 20); LNG-IUS 12 µg/day (LNG-IUS 12) versus LNG-IUS 16 µg/day (LNG-IUS 16); and LNG-IUS 20 versus the copper T380A intrauterine device (IUD). In the trials comparing two different types of methods, the study arms did not differ significantly for contraceptive efficacy or continuation. The sample sizes were small for two of those studies. The only significant outcome was that a COC group had a higher proportion of women who discontinued for 'other personal reasons' compared with the group assigned to the LNG-IUS 20 (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.85), which may have little clinic relevance. The trial comparing LNG-IUS 12 versus LNG-IUS 16 showed similar efficacy over one and three years. In three trials that examined different LNG-IUS, continuation was at least 75% at 6 to 36 months. We considered the overall quality of evidence to be moderate to low. Limitations were due to trial design or limited reporting. Different doses in the LNG-IUS did not appear to influence efficacy over three years. In another study, continuation of the LNG-IUS appeared at least as high as that for the COC. The current evidence was insufficient to compare efficacy and continuation rates for hormonal and intrauterine contraceptive methods in women aged 25 years and younger. Output:

We searched for randomized trials of birth control methods until August 2015. Randomized trials are clinical studies in which people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups. Women in these studies were 25 years old or younger. The birth control methods could be either hormonal or a non-hormonal device placed in the uterus. The hormonal methods included pills, vaginal rings, or implants. The methods that are placed in the uterus include the intrauterine device (IUD) without hormones and the intrauterine system that has the hormone levonorgestrel (LNG-IUS). IUDs and the LNG-IUS are sometimes called intrauterine contraception (IUC). We found five trials that enrolled had a total of 1503 women. Some studies looked at different types of IUC, while others compared pills versus a vaginal ring, skin patch, or IUC. No study showed any major difference between the groups in pregnancy or continued use. Some of the trials were too small to find a difference. Women kept using IUC at least as long as pills in one study. IUC may be useful for women in this age group. Studies of different birth control with more women would help determine which methods work the best for young women. Overall, the quality of the results was moderate to low.

CochranePLS45

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Eighty-eight trials were included (13 new trials). There were 42 trials of immunotherapy for house mite allergy; 27 pollen allergy trials; 10 animal dander allergy trials; two Cladosporium mould allergy, two latex and six trials looking at multiple allergens. Concealment of allocation was assessed as clearly adequate in only 16 of these trials. Significant heterogeneity was present in a number of comparisons. Overall, there was a significant reduction in asthma symptoms and medication, and improvement in bronchial hyper-reactivity following immunotherapy. There was a significant improvement in asthma symptom scores (standardised mean difference -0.59, 95% confidence interval -0.83 to -0.35) and it would have been necessary to treat three patients (95% CI 3 to 5) with immunotherapy to avoid one deterioration in asthma symptoms. Overall it would have been necessary to treat four patients (95% CI 3 to 6) with immunotherapy to avoid one requiring increased medication. Allergen immunotherapy significantly reduced allergen specific bronchial hyper-reactivity, with some reduction in non-specific bronchial hyper-reactivity as well. There was no consistent effect on lung function. If 16 patients were treated with immunotherapy, one would be expected to develop a local adverse reaction. If nine patients were treated with immunotherapy, one would be expected to develop a systemic reaction (of any severity). Immunotherapy reduces asthma symptoms and use of asthma medications and improves bronchial hyper-reactivity.  One trial found that the size of the benefit is possibly comparable to inhaled steroids. The possibility of local or systemic adverse effects (such as anaphylaxis) must be considered. Output:

The review of trials found that immunotherapy can reduce asthma symptoms, the need for medications and the risk of severe asthma attacks after future exposure to the allergen. It is possibly as effective as inhaled steroids. However, there is an increased risk of a lump at the injection site, rash, wheezing, breathlessness and very rarely a fatal allergic reaction.

CochranePLS46

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We did not find any new study which were eligible for inclusion in this update. The total number of studies remained unchanged, six trials involving 1297 patients. Five trials had a low risk of bias. One trial had an unclear risk of bias. Mortality at day 28 was significantly reduced by lung-protective ventilation with a relative risk (RR) of 0.74 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 0.88); hospital mortality was reduced with a RR of 0.80 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.92). Overall mortality was not significantly different if a plateau pressure less than or equal to 31 cm H2O in the control group was used (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.45). There was insufficient evidence for morbidity and long-term outcomes. Clinical heterogeneity, such as different lengths of follow up and higher plateau pressure in control arms in two trials, makes the interpretation of the combined results difficult. Mortality was significantly reduced at day 28 and at the end of the hospital stay. The effects on long-term mortality are unknown, although the possibility of a clinically relevant benefit cannot be excluded. Ventilation with lower tidal volumes is becoming a routine strategy of treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome and acute lung injury, stopping investigators from carrying out additional trials. Output:

Several studies have suggested that mechanical breathing can also cause lung damage and bleeding. A new lung protective way of mechanical ventilation was tested in large studies. In this third update of the Cochrane review we searched the databases until September 2012 but we did not find any new study which was eligible for inclusion. The total number of studies remained unchanged, six trials involving 1297 people. This systematic review shows that a gentler form of mechanical breathing (so-called protective ventilation) can decrease deaths in the short term, by 26% on average, but the effects in the long term are uncertain or unknown.

CochranePLS47

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included 15 RCTs with 1833 participants. We determined that none of the RCTs were of high methodological quality. For our primary outcomes, pooled results from two trials suggest that time to emergence from anaesthesia, that is, time needed to follow verbal commands, was longer with isoflurane than with propofol (mean difference (MD) -3.29 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.41 to -1.18, low-quality evidence), and time to emergence from anaesthesia was not different with sevoflurane compared with propofol (MD 0.28 minutes slower with sevoflurane, 95% CI -0.56 to 1.12, four studies, low-quality evidence). Pooled analyses for adverse events suggest lower risk of nausea and vomiting with propofol than with sevoflurane (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.91, low-quality evidence) or isoflurane (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78) and greater risk of haemodynamic changes with propofol than with sevoflurane (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.17), but no differences in the risk of shivering or pain. Pooled analyses for brain relaxation suggest lower risk of tense brain with propofol than with isoflurane (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.17, low-quality evidence), but no difference when propofol is compared with sevoflurane. The finding of our review is that the intravenous technique is comparable with the inhalational technique of using sevoflurane to provide early emergence from anaesthesia. Adverse events with both techniques are also comparable. However, we derived evidence of low quality from a limited number of studies. Use of isoflurane delays emergence from anaesthesia. These results should be interpreted with caution. Randomized controlled trials based on uniform and standard methods are needed. Researchers should follow proper methods of randomization and blinding, and trials should be adequately powered. Output:

The evidence is current to June 2014. We included studies with participants from all age groups except neonates (infants less than 28 days old) who received injectable or gas techniques of anaesthesia during surgery for brain tumour. We reran the searches for all databases in March 2016 and found two studies that are awaiting classification. We will deal with them when we update this review. We found 15 eligible studies with 1833 participants. These studies compared one injectable drug (propofol) with two gaseous drugs (sevoflurane and isoflurane). Although isoflurane was associated with slower awakening (about three and a half minutes) compared with propofol, researchers found no important differences between propofol and sevoflurane. In terms of adverse effects, propofol was less likely to cause nausea and vomiting than either gas anaesthetic (about half as likely) but was more likely to be associated with changes in blood pressure. Overall, we found that isoflurane is associated with slower awakening, but we have found no evidence of important differences between sevoflurane and propofol. We found evidence of low quality for our main outcome of quick wakefulness, and the effect of injectable anaesthetic technique in people undergoing brain tumour surgery is uncertain. Further research and well-designed studies are needed.

CochranePLS48

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Four trials including 15,936 hypertensive subjects were identified. Average age was 75.4 years. Mean blood pressure at entry across the studies was 171/86 mmHg. The combined result of the four trials reporting incidence of dementia indicated no significant difference between treatment and placebo (236/7767 versus 259/7660, Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.89, 95% CI 0.74, 1.07) and there was considerable heterogeneity between the trials. The combined results from the three trials reporting change in Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) did not indicate a benefit from treatment (Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) = 0.42, 95% CI 0.30, 0.53). Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels were reduced significantly in the three trials assessing this outcome (WMD = -10.22, 95% CI -10.78, -9.66 for systolic blood pressure, WMD = -4.28, 95% CI -4.58, -3.98 for diastolic blood pressure). Three trials reported adverse effects requiring discontinuation of treatment and the combined results indicated no significant difference (OR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.92, 1.11). When analysed separately, however, more patients on placebo in Syst Eur 1997 were likely to discontinue treatment due to side effects; the converse was true in SHEP 1991. Quality of life data could not be analysed in the four studies. Analysis of the included studies in this review was problematic as many of the control subjects received antihypertensive treatment because their blood pressures exceeded pre-set values. In most cases the study became a comparison between the study drug against a usual antihypertensive regimen. There is no convincing evidence from the trials identified that blood pressure lowering in late-life prevents the development of dementia or cognitive impairment in hypertensive patients with no apparent prior cerebrovascular disease. There were significant problems identified with analysing the data, however, due to the number of patients lost to follow-up and the number of placebo patients who received active treatment. This introduced bias. More robust results may be obtained by conducting a meta-analysis using individual patient data. Output:

We found four trials suitable for analysing the effectiveness of blood pressure lowering for preventing development of cognitive impairment and dementia. However, for several reasons, including the differing methodologies of the trials, the number of drop-outs from the trials, and active treatment of subjects in the control groups, we were unable to assess definitively the effectiveness of antihypertensive treatments for preventing cognitive impairment and dementia in people with no evidence of previous cerebrovascular disease.

CochranePLS49

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included 12 trials enrolling 3474 patients. The overall risk of bias was unclear for the majority of articles due to a lack of reported data; however, the authors determined that this would be unlikely to impact negatively as most data outcomes were objective (e.g. death vs. no death). There was no evidence of the effectiveness in improving patient outcomes of PTCRA in non-complex lesions. In complex lesions, there were no statistically significant differences in re-stenosis rates at six months (RR 1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.33) and at one year (RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55) in those receiving PTCRA with adjunctive balloon angioplasty (PTCA) (PTCRA/PTCA) compared to those receiving PTCA alone. Morphological characteristics distinguishing complex lesions have not been examined in parallel-arm randomised controlled trials. The evidence for the effectiveness of PTCRA in in-stent re-stenosis is unclear Compared to angioplasty alone, PTCRA/PTCA did not result in a statistically significant increase in the risk of major adverse cardiac events (myocardial infarction (MI), emergency cardiac surgery or death) during the in-hospital period (RR 1.27; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.90). Compared to angioplasty, PTCRA was associated with nine times the risk of an angiographically detectable vascular spasm (RR 9.23; 95% CI 4.61 to 18.47), four times the risk of perforation (RR 4.28; 95% CI 0.92 to 19.83) and about twice the risk of transient vessel occlusions (RR 2.49; 95% CI 1.25 to 4.99) while angiographic dissections (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.68) and stents used as a bailout procedure (RR 0.29; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.87) were less common. When conventional PTCA is feasible, PTCRA appears to confer no additional benefits. There is limited published evidence and no long-term data to support the routine use of PTCRA in in-stent re-stenosis. Compared to angioplasty alone, PTCRA/PTCA did not result in a higher incidence of major adverse cardiac events, but patients were more likely to experience vascular spasm, perforation and transient vessel occlusion. In certain circumstances (e.g. patients ineligible for cardiac surgery, those with architecturally complex lesions, or those with lesions that fail PTCA), PTCRA may achieve satisfactory re-vascularisation in subsequent procedures. Output:

This review sought to determine whether PTCRA leads to improved patient outcomes compared to balloon angioplasty. It was important to do this review as it is not known whether or not PTCRA provides greater benefits to patients compared to balloon angioplasty. The review analysed data from 12 studies, which showed that there is limited evidence to support the routine use of PTCRA for in-stent re-stenosis; however, only for those people who were not suitable for surgery. For those with complex lesions, PTCRA may provide some benefit in comparison to balloon angioplasty. The review also showed that patients receiving PTCRA were more likely to have perforations during the procedure compared to patients receiving balloon angioplasty. This review was limited by the small number of studies and deficiency of data reported in some of the studies.

CochranePLS50

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Three RCTs (333 participants) were identified, two of which were multicentre trials comprising only participants positive for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). The other trial enrolled participants clinically diagnosed with bronchiolitis from a hospital in Italy. All studies used 2.5 mL (1 mg/mL) of nebulised rhDNase compared with placebo either as a daily or a twice daily dose. Adjunctive therapy included nebulised salbutamol, steroids, supplemental oxygen, intravenous fluids or tube feeding, nasal washing, nasal decongestants and antibiotics. Overall, nebulised rhDNase showed no benefit in clinically meaningful outcomes. Meta-analysis favoured the control group with a shorter duration of hospital stay (MD 0.50; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.90, P = 0.01) and better clinical score improvement (SMD -0.24; 95% CI -0.50 to 0.01, P = 0.06). The largest trial showed no difference in supplemental oxygen use or intensive care unit (ICU) admission. In one RCT, four out of 11 patients in the treatment group had atelectasis. Two of these patients showed distinctive clinical improvement after nebulised rhDNase. There was no significant difference in adverse events. These included temporary desaturation, temporary coughing, increased coughing, facial rash, hoarseness, dyspnoea and bad taste, reported in a total of 11 patients from both treatment groups. The results based on the three included studies in this review did not support the use of nebulised rhDNase in children under 24 months of age hospitalised with acute bronchiolitis. In these patients, treatment did not shorten the length of hospitalisation or improve clinical outcomes. It might have a role in severe bronchiolitis complicated by atelectasis, but further clinical studies would need to be performed. Output:

We identified three randomised controlled trials involving 333 children up to 24 months of age hospitalised with bronchiolitis. All three studies compared nebulised rhDNase with placebo. Any additional treatments were given to both groups. Overall, the studies did not show that nebulised rhDNase shortened the duration of hospital admission, or improved the severity of symptoms. No serious side effects were reported by any of the studies. One study showed that in patients suffering from atelectasis, a severe complication of bronchiolitis wherein the lung does not expand completely, nebulised rhDNase treatment resulted in a distinct improvement within two days. To confirm this beneficial effect, further clinical studies in patients with severe bronchiolitis are needed. Currently, the use of this treatment in young children hospitalised with bronchiolitis is not recommended.

CochranePLS51

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Two studies with a total of 181 participants met the inclusion criteria, 116 undergoing the percutaneous technique and 65 treated by cut-down femoral artery access. One study had a small sample size and did not adequately report method of randomisation, allocation concealment or pre-selected outcomes. The second study was a larger study with few sources of bias and good methodology. We observed no significant difference in mortality between groups, with only one mortality occurring overall, in the totally percutaneous group (risk ratio (RR) 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 36.18; 181 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Only one study reported aneurysm exclusion. In this study we observed only one failure of aneurysm exclusion in the surgical cut-down femoral artery access group (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.02; 151 participants; moderate-quality evidence). No wound infections occurred in the cut-down femoral artery access group or the percutaneous group across either study (moderate-quality evidence). There was no difference in major complication rate between cut-down femoral artery access and percutaneous groups (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.68; 181 participants; moderate-quality evidence); or in bleeding complications and haematoma (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.82; 181 participants; high-quality evidence). Only one study reported long-term complication rates at six months, with no differences between the percutaneous and cut-down femoral artery access group (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.34 to 3.15; 134 participants; moderate-quality evidence). We detected differences in surgery time, with percutaneous approach being significantly faster than cut-down femoral artery access (mean difference (MD) -31.46 minutes; 95% CI -47.51 minutes to -15.42 minutes; 181 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Only one study reported duration of ITU (intensive treatment unit) and hospital stay, with no difference found between groups. This review shows moderate-quality evidence of no difference between the percutaneous approach compared with cut-down femoral artery access group for short-term mortality, aneurysm exclusion, major complications, wound infection and long-term (six month) complications, and high-quality evidence for no difference in bleeding complications and haematoma. There was a difference in operating time, with moderate-quality evidence showing that the percutaneous approach was faster than the cut-down femoral artery access technique. We downgraded the quality of the evidence to moderate as a result of the limited number of studies, low event numbers and imprecision. As the number of included studies were limited, further research into this technique would be beneficial. The search identified one ongoing study, which may provide an improved evidence base in the future. Output:

This update found two studies comparing the cut-down artery access with the percutaneous technique (current to October 2016). One was a small study with 30 participants, the other a larger more robust study with 151 participants. The large study was found to be of high quality with little risk of bias. The smaller study did not report on the methods of randomisation, how the randomisation was concealed and the pre-selected outcomes of interest. Combined, the studies had 181 participants; 116 underwent the cut-down technique and 65 the percutaneous technique. Both studies compared rates of death, major complications, wound infections, bleeding complications, and length of the operation. Overall, we did not find any difference in the rates of death (moderate-quality evidence), major complications (moderate-quality evidence); or bleeding complications between the percutaneous and cut-down techniques (high-quality evidence). No one developed a wound infection (moderate-quality evidence). The surgery took less time (moderate-quality evidence) in the percutaneous group compared with the cut-down group. Only one study reported if the aneurysm wall was successfully reinforced (checked by a CT scan, moderate-quality evidence), on complications at six months, (moderate-quality evidence); and on how long participants spent in an intensive treatment unit (ITU). We did not find any difference between the cut-down and percutaneous groups. This review shows moderate-quality evidence of no difference between the percutaneous approach compared with cut-down femoral artery access group for short-term mortality, aneurysm exclusion (sealing of the aneurysms), major complications, wound infection and long-term (six months) complications; and high-quality evidence for no difference in bleeding complications. There was a difference in operating time, with moderate-quality evidence showing that the percutaneous approach was faster than the cut-down femoral artery access technique. We downgraded the quality of the evidence to moderate due to the small number of studies, overall event rates and imprecision (differences around the level of effect).

CochranePLS52

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Two trials met the inclusion criteria. The sponge was significantly less effective in both trials in preventing overall pregnancy than was the diaphragm. In the larger USA trial, the 12-month cumulative life-table termination rates per 100 women for overall pregnancy were 17.4 for the sponge and 12.8 for the diaphragm. The rates were 24.5 for the sponge and 10.9 for the diaphragm in the UK trial. Similarly, discontinuation rates at 12 months were higher with the sponge than with the diaphragm (Odds ratio 1.31; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.59). Allergic-type reactions were more common with the sponge, although discontinuation for discomfort differed in the two trials. No new trials have been identified since the initial review. The sponge was less effective than the diaphragm in preventing pregnancy. Discontinuation rates were higher at 12 months as well. Other randomized controlled trials will be needed to resolve the potential role of spermicides in preventing sexually transmitted infections or in causing adverse effects. Output:

In April 2013, we did computer searches for randomized trials that compared the sponge with the diaphragm. For the original review, we looked at reference lists and book chapters to find trials. We also wrote to researchers to look for more trials. We found two trials. In a large USA trial, the sponge did not work as well as the diaphragm in preventing pregnancy. For every 100 women who used the sponge for a year, about 17 got pregnant. Of those who used the diaphragm, 13 became pregnant. A U.K. trial found similar results. For each 100 women who used the sponge for a year, about 25 got pregnant. Of the diaphragm users, 11 became pregnant. We have not found any new trials since the initial review. About 30% more women stopped using the sponge than the diaphragm. Allergy to the sponge was a problem for some women. However, discomfort caused about the same numbers of women to stop using their birth control method.

CochranePLS53

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Sixteen studies were identified for possible inclusion in the review, six of which were included. Three studies investigated prevention and three studies investigated amelioration. Due to differences between studies in the interventions being evaluated, a meta-analysis was not possible. Two studies investigated a pharmacological intervention for the prevention of cognitive deficits; memantine compared with placebo, and d-threo-methylphenidate HCL compared with placebo. In the first study the primary cognitive outcome of memory at six months did not reach significance, but there was significant improvement in overall cognitive function compared to placebo, with similar adverse events across groups. The second study found no statistically significant difference between arms, with few adverse events. The third study investigated a rehabilitation program for the prevention of cognitive deficits but did not carry out a statistical comparison of cognitive performance between groups. Three studies investigated the use of a pharmacological intervention for the treatment of cognitive deficits; methylphenidate compared with modafinil, two different doses of modafinil, and donepezil compared with placebo. The first study found improvements in cognitive function in both the methylphenidate and modafinil arms; few adverse events were reported. The second study combined treatment arms and found improvements across all cognitive tests, however, a number of adverse events were reported. Both studies were limited by a small sample size. The third study did not find an improvement in the primary cognitive outcome of overall performance, but did find improvement in an individual test of memory, compared to placebo; adverse events were not reported. No non-pharmacological studies for the amelioration of cognitive deficits were eligible. There were a number of limitations across studies but few without high risks of bias. There is supportive evidence that memantine may help prevent cognitive deficits for adults with brain metastases receiving cranial irradiation. There is supportive evidence that donepezil may have a role in treating cognitive deficits in adults with primary or metastatic brain tumours who have been treated with cranial irradiation. Patient withdrawal affected the statistical power of both studies. Further research that tries to minimise the withdrawal of consent, and subsequently reduce the requirement for imputation procedures, may offer a higher quality of evidence. There is no strong evidence to support any non-pharmacological interventions (medical or cognitive/behavioural) in the prevention or amelioration of cognitive deficits. Non-randomised studies appear promising but are as yet to be conclusive via translation into high quality evidence. Further research is required. Output:

In August 2014 we searched four literature databases. Six randomised controlled trials (RCTs), in which patients were randomly assigned to the intervention or a comparison group (control group), were eligible for inclusion. Each trial assessed different interventions, so results were not combined. The largest trial investigated the medical drug memantine in 508 patients with a metastatic brain tumour. Another trial investigated donepezil in 198 patients with a primary or secondary brain tumour. The other trials were smaller and investigated modafinil and methylphenidate. We found one psychological intervention for preventing cognitive deficits during brain radiation. There is one ongoing medical drug trial recruiting participants. There were many non-randomised and non-controlled trials that offer promising results for further exploration using an RCT method. Findings into the efficacy of memantine offer supportive evidence for preventing cognitive deficits in patients with a secondary brain tumour receiving brain irradiation. Findings into the efficacy of donepezil offer some support for its use in the amelioration of cognitive deficits in patients with a primary or secondary tumour previously treated with radiation. The remaining studies did not have a sufficient number of participants to provide reliable results. The drugs used had few side effects (adverse events), although these were not reported well. Recruitment and retention of trial participants for these medical drug studies is difficult. We found limitations in the evidence across studies, most medical drug randomised controlled trials had a low risk of bias, whereas the psychological interventions were at a high risk of bias.

CochranePLS54

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Two studies assessed as at high risk of bias, reporting data from 26 analysed participants were included in this review. The age range of participants was from 17 to 55 years. Both trials investigated the effectiveness of low-level laser treatment compared to placebo laser therapy on inferior alveolar sensory deficit as a result of iatrogenic injury. Patient-reported altered sensation was partially reported in one study and fully reported in another. Following treatment with laser therapy, there was some evidence of an improvement in the subjective assessment of neurosensory deficit in the lip and chin areas compared to placebo, though the estimates were imprecise: a difference in mean change in neurosensory deficit of the chin of 8.40 cm (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.67 to 13.13) and a difference in mean change in neurosensory deficit of the lip of 21.79 cm (95% CI 5.29 to 38.29). The overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was very low; the outcome data were fully reported in one small study of 13 patients, with differential drop-out in the control group, and patients suffered only partial loss of sensation. No studies reported on the effects of the intervention on the remaining primary outcomes of pain, difficulty eating or speaking or taste. No studies reported on quality of life or adverse events. The overall quality of the evidence was very low as a result of limitations in the conduct and reporting of the studies, indirectness of the evidence and the imprecision of the results. There is clearly a need for randomised controlled clinical trials to investigate the effectiveness of surgical, medical and psychological interventions for iatrogenic inferior alveolar and lingual nerve injuries. Primary outcomes of this research should include: patient-focused morbidity measures including altered sensation and pain, pain, quantitative sensory testing and the effects of delayed treatment. Output:

The Cochrane Oral Health Group carried out this review, and the evidence is current as of 9 October 2013. There are two studies included, both published in 1996, which compared low-level laser treatment to placebo or fake treatment for partial loss of sensation following surgery to the lower jaw. There were 15 participants in one study and 16 in the other, their ages ranging from 17 to 55 years. All had suffered accidental damage to nerves of the lower jaw and tongue causing some loss of sensation following surgery. Low-level laser therapy was the only treatment to be evaluated in the included studies and this was compared to fake or placebo laser therapy. No studies were found that evaluated other surgical, medical or counselling treatments. There was some evidence of an improvement when participants reported whether or not sensation was better in the lip and chin areas with low-level laser therapy. This is based on the results of a single, small study, so the results should be interpreted with caution. No studies reported on the effects of the treatment on other outcomes such as pain, difficulty eating or speaking or taste. No studies reported on quality of life or harm. The overall quality of the evidence is very low as a result of limitations in the conduct and reporting of the two included studies and the low number of participants, and evidence from participants with only partial sensory loss.

CochranePLS55

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Two trials (281 pregnancies and 282 fetuses) met our inclusion criteria. However, the two trials had significant clinical and methodological heterogeneity such that a meta-analysis combining trial data was considered inappropriate. One trial (involving 161 pregnancies) was based on women with a history of diabetes. It showed no statistically significant difference between using combined oestrogen and progestogen and using placebo for all our proposed primary outcomes, namely, miscarriage (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32 to 2.80), perinatal death (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.69) and preterm birth (less than 34 weeks of gestation) (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.04). In terms of this review's secondary outcomes, use of combined oestrogen and progestogen was associated with an increased risk of maternal cancer in the reproductive system (RR 6.65, 95% CI 1.56 to 28.29). However, for the outcome of cancer other than that of the reproductive system in mothers, there was no difference between groups. Similarly, there were no differences between the combined oestrogen and progestogen group versus placebo for other secondary outcomes reported: low birthweight of less than 2500 g, genital abnormalities in the offspring, abnormalities other than genital tract in the offspring, cancer in the reproductive system in the offspring, or cancer other than of the reproductive system in the offspring. The second study was based on pregnant women who had undergone in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). This study showed no difference in the rate of miscarriage between the combined oestrogen and progesterone group and the no treatment group (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.85). The study did not report on this review's other primary outcomes (perinatal death or rates of preterm birth), nor on any of our proposed secondary outcomes. There is an insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to assess the use of combined oestrogen and progesterone for preventing miscarriages. We strongly recommend further research in this area. Output:

The hormones oestrogen and progesterone have established physiological roles in maintaining pregnancy. It has been suggested that supplementation of these hormones could help prevent miscarriage before 24 weeks of pregnancy, particularly in women who have low levels of the hormones, in assisted reproductive technology programs, or who have a history of repeated miscarriages. In our review of randomised controlled trials published in major scientific databases, we only identified two trials that met our inclusion criteria. The two trials involved small numbers of women. One involved 161 women with diabetes who took oral placebo or oral diethylstilboestrol and ethisterone in increasing doses from before the end of the 16th week until birth. The other trial involved 120 women with pregnancy assisted by in vitro fertilisation and embryo transfer who continued treatment until the completed 12th week of gestation. From the little evidence available, the two trials found no evidence that combined oestrogen and progestogen can prevent miscarriage (progestogen is a major class of hormones which includes progesterone) when compared with placebo or usual care. The first of the two studies indicated an increased risk for the mothers who used hormonal therapy during pregnancy of developing cancer later in life. Diethylstilboestrol is no longer in use and poses serious adverse effects while ethisterone contains androgenic properties thought to be responsible for genital abnormalities and has been replaced by progesterone. Overall, we acknowledge the lack of trials, especially large-scale trials, and therefore suggest further research is needed in this area before supporting or disproving the use of combined oestrogen and progesterone for the prevention of miscarriages.

CochranePLS56

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: There were fourteen studies (16 comparisons) with extractable data included in the review, of which ten studies examined TCAs, two examined SSRIs and two included both classes, all compared with placebo. The number of participants in the intervention groups was 1364 and in the placebo groups 919. Nearly all studies were of short duration, typically 6-8 weeks. Pooled estimates of efficacy data showed an RR of 1.24, 95% CI 1.11-1.38 in favour of TCAs against placebo. For SSRIs this was 1.28, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.43.. The numbers needed to treat (NNT) for TCAs ranged from 7 to 16 {median NNT 9} patient expected event rate ranged from 63% to 26% respectively) and for SSRIs from 7 to 8 {median NNT 7} (patient expected event rate ranged from 48% to 42% respectively) . The numbers needed to harm (NNH for withdrawal due to side effects) ranged from 4 to 30 for TCAs (excluding three studies with no harmful events leading to withdrawal) and 20 to 90 for SSRIs. Both TCAs and SSRIs are effective for depression treated in primary care. Output:

However, most systematic reviews of antidepressant treatment have included trials conducted in secondary care settings. There has been doubt about the effectiveness of antidepressants in primary care, and hence the impetus to do this review. Through extensive searches of the literature we found 14 studies conducted in adults (not the elderly) in primary care setting, in which tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) were compared against a placebo control group in the treatment of depression. The results showed that both TCAs and SSRIs were effective for depression. Most of the studies were supported by funds from pharmaceutical companies and were of short duration. There appeared to be more adverse effects with TCAs than with SSRIs, however rates of withdrawal from study medication due to adverse effects were very similar between the two antidepressant classes. Adverse effects not leading to medication cessation seemed to be more common with TCAs than SSRIs.

CochranePLS57

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: No new studies were found for this update. Nine included studies (4373 participants, 5223 attacks) compared ibuprofen with placebo or other active comparators; none combined ibuprofen with a self-administered antiemetic. All studies treated attacks with single doses of medication. For ibuprofen 400 mg versus placebo, NNTs for 2-hour pain-free (26% versus 12% with placebo), 2-hour headache relief (57% versus 25%) and 24-hour sustained headache relief (45% versus 19%) were 7.2, 3.2 and 4.0, respectively. For ibuprofen 200 mg versus placebo, NNTs for 2-hour pain-free (20% versus 10%) and 2-hour headache relief (52% versus 37%) were 9.7 and 6.3, respectively. The higher dose was significantly better than the lower dose for 2-hour headache relief. Soluble formulations of ibuprofen 400 mg were better than standard tablets for 1-hour, but not 2-hour headache relief. Similar numbers of participants experienced adverse events, which were mostly mild and transient, with ibuprofen and placebo. Ibuprofen 400 mg did not differ from rofecoxib 25 mg for 2-hour headache relief or 24-hour headache relief. We found no new studies since the last version of this review. Ibuprofen is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, providing pain relief in about half of sufferers, but complete relief from pain and associated symptoms for only a minority. NNTs for all efficacy outcomes were better with 400 mg than 200 mg in comparisons with placebo, and soluble formulations provided more rapid relief. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring at the same rate as with placebo. Output:

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 10, 2010 (Rabbie 2010); no new studies were found. A single oral dose of ibuprofen 200 mg or 400 mg is effective in relieving pain in migraine headaches. Pain will be reduced from moderate or severe to no pain by two hours in just over 1 in 4 people (26%) taking ibuprofen 400 mg, compared with about 1 in 10 (12%) taking placebo. It will be reduced from moderate or severe to no worse than mild pain by two hours in roughly 1 in 2 people (57%) taking ibuprofen compared with approximately 1 in 4 (25%) taking placebo. Of those who experience effective headache relief at two hours, more have that relief sustained over 24 hours with ibuprofen than with placebo. A 200-mg dose is slightly less effective, while soluble formulations give more rapid responses. A single 400-mg dose of ibuprofen has efficacy similar to that shown for a single dose of 1000 mg aspirin in a separate Cochrane review (Kirthi 2013). Adverse events are mostly mild and transient, occurring in the same proportion of participants treated with ibuprofen and placebo. Very few individuals had serious adverse events or needed to withdraw from these studies because of adverse events. There is no information for ibuprofen combined with a self-administered antiemetic, and little information comparing ibuprofen with other medications. There were no significant differences between ibuprofen 400 mg and rofecoxib 25 mg (now withdrawn) for 2-hour headache relief, 24-hour sustained headache relief, or use of rescue medication.

CochranePLS58

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We 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. OTC 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. Output:

This review included 43 randomized controlled trials (3497 people with dry eye) that compared OTC artificial tears with other OTC artificial tears, with no treatment, or with placebo. We considered participant symptoms to be the primary outcome for this review. We recorded other commonly performed dry eye tests as secondary outcomes (e.g. vision, tear stability). We measured primary and secondary outcomes at two and four weeks, although we also considered other time points in this review. We searched for trials up to December 2015. This review analyzed many OTC artificial tear formulations, and most of the literature indicates uncertainty as to which OTC artificial tear works best. The literature also shows that OTC artificial tears may be effective at treating dry eye symptoms and that OTC artificial tears are generally safe, although not without side effects. We also identified an additional 18 potentially eligible trials that were registered, but did not provide any results or publications. These trials may have enrolled 2079 total participants for whom no data are available. Without the results of these trials, the effects of the OTC artificial tears that they evaluated are unknown. The overall quality of the evidence was low for the various OTC artificial tear formulations compared in this review. This finding indicates that future published research may have an important impact on the conclusions currently provided in this review.

CochranePLS59

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: One randomised trial in 136 patients studied maintaining lamivudine in second-line regimens or not. There was no difference in virological outcomes in the group who maintained lamivudine and those who did not in their subsequent regimens. Two other small observational studies reported in abstract form also did not report a difference in the proportion of those with viral suppression after six months and time to HIV-1 RNA suppression among those on a lamivudine (3TC) or emtricitabine (FTC) regimen compared to those on a 3TC/FTC-sparing second-line regimen. There were no trials identified comparing boosted protease inhibitors (PIs) or nucleoside backbone combinations after first-line failure on non-thymidine analog combinations. Observational studies of populations starting ART in resource-limited settings suggest that short-term response on boosted PI-based regimens is encouraging. There is limited evidence to evaluate second-line therapies in patients with HIV who fail first-line treatment with a WHO-recommended regimen. One randomised trial in 136 patients and two observational studies (both of low quality) suggest no difference in virological suppression whether or not lamivudine is maintained in a second-line regimen. While outcomes of second-line regimens with boosted PIs are favourable in general, there are no studies comparing boosted PIs directly in populations starting second-line regimens. Current recommendations are based on available resources and patient- and public-health-level considerations. Output:

This review attempted to assess the best ART regimen for HIV-infected people in low- and middle-income countries following treatment failure; however, the review found limited studies addressing this topic. One randomised trial and one abstract of an observational study evaluated whether or not to maintain lamivudine in second-line regimens; both suggested no difference in outcomes. There were no studies comparing boosted PI-containing second-line regimens in patients failing an NNRTI-based first-line regimen, nor any evaluating NRTI combinations after first-line with non-thymidine analog combinations. While such trials are difficult to conduct for a variety of reasons, randomised controlled trails comparing second-line therapies are needed, especially in resource-limited settings.

CochranePLS60

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included 133 (127 cohort type and 6 case-control) studies involving 844,206 participants. We evaluated a total of seven different prespecified index tests in the 133 studies, as well as 69 non-prespecified, and 32 combinations. For the prespecified index tests, we found six studies for the Mallampati test, 105 for the modified Mallampati test, six for the Wilson risk score, 52 for thyromental distance, 18 for sternomental distance, 34 for the mouth opening test, and 30 for the upper lip bite test. Difficult face mask ventilation was the reference standard in seven studies, difficult laryngoscopy in 92 studies, difficult tracheal intubation in 50 studies, and failed intubation in two studies. Across all studies, we judged the risk of bias to be variable for the different domains; we mostly observed low risk of bias for patient selection, flow and timing, and unclear risk of bias for reference standard and index test. Applicability concerns were generally low for all domains. For difficult laryngoscopy, the summary sensitivity ranged from 0.22 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.33; mouth opening test) to 0.67 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.83; upper lip bite test) and the summary specificity ranged from 0.80 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.85; modified Mallampati test) to 0.95 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.98; Wilson risk score). The upper lip bite test for diagnosing difficult laryngoscopy provided the highest sensitivity compared to the other tests (P < 0.001). For difficult tracheal intubation, summary sensitivity ranged from 0.24 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.43; thyromental distance) to 0.51 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.61; modified Mallampati test) and the summary specificity ranged from 0.87 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.91; modified Mallampati test) to 0.93 (0.87 to 0.96; mouth opening test). The modified Mallampati test had the highest sensitivity for diagnosing difficult tracheal intubation compared to the other tests (P < 0.001). For difficult face mask ventilation, we could only estimate summary sensitivity (0.17, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.39) and specificity (0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.95) for the modified Mallampati test. Bedside airway examination tests, for assessing the physical status of the airway in adults with no apparent anatomical airway abnormalities, are designed as screening tests. Screening tests are expected to have high sensitivities. We found that all investigated index tests had relatively low sensitivities with high variability. In contrast, specificities were consistently and markedly higher than sensitivities across all tests. The standard bedside airway examination tests should be interpreted with caution, as they do not appear to be good screening tests. Among the tests we examined, the upper lip bite test showed the most favourable diagnostic test accuracy properties. Given the paucity of available data, future research is needed to develop tests with high sensitivities to make them useful, and to consider their use for screening difficult face mask ventilation and failed intubation. The 27 studies in 'Studies awaiting classification' may alter the conclusions of the review, once we have assessed them. Output:

We included 133 studies (844,206 participants) which investigated the accuracy of the seven tests above, plus 69 other common tests and 32 test combinations, in detection of difficult airways. For difficult laryngoscopy, the average sensitivity (percentage of correctly identified difficult airways) ranged from 22% (mouth opening test) to 63% (upper lip bite test). The average specificity (percentage of correctly classified patients without difficult airways) ranged from 80% (modified Mallampati test) to 95% (Wilson risk score). The upper lip bite test had the highest sensitivity of all tests considered. For difficult tube insertion, the average sensitivity ranged from 24% (thyromental distance) to 51% (modified Mallampati test) and the average specificity ranged from 87% (modified Mallampati test) to 93% (mouth opening test). The modified Mallampati test had the highest sensitivity of all tests considered. For difficult face mask ventilation (another indication of a difficult airway), there were only enough data to calculate average sensitivity of 17% and specificity 90% for the modified Mallampati test. Overall, the evidence from the studies was of moderate to high quality. The likelihood of the studies providing reliable results was generally high, although in half of them, the intubating physician knew the result of the preceding test, which may have influenced results, but this is the normal situation in routine clinical care. The characteristics of patients, tests, and conditions were comparable to those seen in a wide range of everyday clinical settings. The results of this review should apply to standard preoperative airway assessments in apparently normal hospital patients worldwide. The bedside screening tests examined in this review are not well suited for the purpose of detecting unanticipated difficult airways because they missed a large number of people who had a difficult airway.

CochranePLS61

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Sixty-three studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 8014 participants. Of these, 56 trials recruited infants and young children. The trials varied in the definition used for acute diarrhoea and the end of the diarrhoeal illness, as well as in the risk of bias. The trials were undertaken in a wide range of different settings and also varied greatly in organisms tested, dosage, and participants' characteristics. No adverse events were attributed to the probiotic intervention. Probiotics reduced the duration of diarrhoea, although the size of the effect varied considerably between studies. The average of the effect was significant for mean duration of diarrhoea (mean difference 24.76 hours; 95% confidence interval 15.9 to 33.6 hours; n=4555, trials=35) diarrhoea lasting ≥4 days (risk ratio 0.41; 0.32 to 0.53; n=2853, trials=29) and stool frequency on day 2 (mean difference 0.80; 0.45 to 1.14; n=2751, trials=20). The differences in effect size between studies was not explained by study quality, probiotic strain, the number of different strains, the viability of the organisms, dosage of organisms, the causes of diarrhoea, or the severity of the diarrhoea, or whether the studies were done in developed or developing countries. Used alongside rehydration therapy, probiotics appear to be safe and have clear beneficial effects in shortening the duration and reducing stool frequency in acute infectious diarrhoea. However, more research is needed to guide the use of particular probiotic regimens in specific patient groups. Output:

A number of randomized controlled trials have been done to see whether probiotics are beneficial in acute infectious diarrhoea. We have searched for as many of these trials as possible and collected together the data in a systematic way to try to discover whether or not probiotics are beneficial in acute diarrhoea. We identified 63 trials, which included a total of 8014 people - mainly infants and children. Probiotics were not associated with any adverse effects. Nearly all studies reported a shortened duration of diarrhoea and reduced stool frequency in people who received probiotics compared to the controls. Overall, probiotics reduced the duration of diarrhoea by around 25 hours, the risk of diarrhoea lasting four or more days by 59% and resulted in about one fewer diarrhoeal stool on day 2 after the intervention. However, there was very marked variability in the study findings and so these estimates are approximate. We concluded that these results were very encouraging but more research is needed to identify exactly which probiotics should be used for which groups of people, and also to assess the cost effectiveness of this treatment.

CochranePLS62

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included only one study that compared nidotherapy-enhanced standard care with standard care alone (total 52 participants); this study was classified by its authors as a 'pilot study'. The duration of the included study was 18 months in total. The single study examined the short-term (up to six months) and medium-term (between six and 12 months) effects of nidotherapy-enhanced standard care versus standard care. Nidotherapy-enhanced standard care was favoured over standard care for social functioning in both the short term (n = 50, 1 RCT, MD -2.10, 95% CI -4.66 to 0.46) and medium term (n = 37, 1 RCT, MD -1.70, 95% CI -4.60 to 1.20, Very low quality); however, these results did not reach statistical significance. Results concerning engagement with non-inpatient services favoured the intervention group in both the short term (n = 50, 1 RCT, MD 2.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.87) and medium term (n = 37, 1 RCT, MD 1.70, 95% CI -0.09 to 3.49), with statistical significance evident in the short term, but not in the medium term. Results of people leaving the study early favoured the intervention in the short term (n = 52, 1 RCT, RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.98), with slight favour of the control group at medium term (n = 50, 1 RCT, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.54); again, these results did not reach statistical significance. Results for the adverse effects/events of death (measured by 12 months) favoured the intervention (n = 52, 1 RCT, RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.74, Very low quality) but with no statistical significance. Skewed results were available for mental state, service use, and economic outcomes, and present a mixed picture of the benefits of nidotherapy. Further research is needed into the possible benefits or harms of this newly-formulated therapy. Until such research is available, patients, clinicians, managers and policymakers should consider it an experimental approach. Output:

This review includes one small pilot study with 52 participants. The study compared nidotherapy with standard care versus standard care alone and lasted 18 months. Findings suggest some limited evidence that those who received nidotherapy might experience a slight improvement in social functioning or personal relationships, mental state and may spend less time as inpatients in hospital over the course of 12 months, but there is no information concerning the appropriateness of this for the individual. However, these limited findings need to be treated with considerable caution. The degree of any possible improvements that come from taking part in nidotherapy remain unclear due to the single study’s small sample size, incomplete evidence and risk of bias. No evidence is available on the effect of nidotherapy on general functioning, quality of life, taking medication, satisfaction with treatment, employment status or adverse effects. Further research is required to fill this gap in knowledge about the effectiveness, benefits and possible hazards of nidotherapy. Until such a time, people with mental health problems, health professionals, managers and policymakers should consider this new therapy an experimental one. This summary has been written by a consumer Ben Gray (Benjamin Gray, Service User and Service User Expert, Rethink Mental Illness. Email: [email protected]).

CochranePLS63

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Our searches identified two new published studies with classic design, and one new published study with an enriched enrolment randomised withdrawal (EERW) design. We included eight studies. Five (3283 participants) had a classic design in which participants were randomised at the start of the study to pregabalin (150, 300, 450, or 600 mg daily) or placebo, with assessment after 8 to 13 weeks of stable treatment. No studies included active comparators. Studies had low risk of bias, except that the last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation method used in analyses of the primary outcomes could overestimate treatment effect. Pregabalin increased the number of participants experiencing substantial benefit (at least 50% pain intensity reduction after 12 or 13 weeks' stable treatment (450 mg: RR 1.8, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.1, 1874 participants, 5 studies, high quality evidence)). Substantial benefit with pregabalin 300 to 600 mg was experienced by about 14% of participants with placebo, but about 9% more with pregabalin 300 to 600 mg (22% to 24%) (high quality evidence). Pregabalin increased the number of participants experiencing moderate benefit (at least 30% pain intensity reduction after 12 or 13 weeks' stable treatment) (450 mg: RR 1.5, 95% CI (1.3 to 1.7), 1874 participants, 5 studies, high quality evidence). Moderate benefit with pregabalin 300 to 600 mg was experienced by about 28% of participants with placebo, but about 11% more with pregabalin 300 to 600 mg (39% to 43%) (high quality evidence). A similar magnitude of effect was found using PGIC of 'very much improved' and 'much or very much improved'. NNTs for these outcomes ranged between 7 and 14 (high quality evidence). A small study (177 participants) compared nightly with twice-daily pregabalin, and concluded there was no difference in effect. Two studies (1492 participants began initial dose titration, 687 participants randomised) had an EERW design in which those with good pain relief after titration were randomised, double blind, to continuing the effective dose (300 to 600 mg pregabalin daily) or a short down-titration to placebo for 13 or 26 weeks. We calculated the outcome of maintained therapeutic response (MTR) without withdrawal, equivalent to a moderate benefit. Of those randomised, 40% had MTR with pregabalin and 20% with placebo (high quality evidence). The NNT was 5, but normalised to the starting population tested it was 12. About 10% of the initial population would have achieved the MTR outcome, similar to the result from studies of classic design. MTR had no imputation concerns. The majority (70% to 90%) of participants in all treatment groups experienced adverse events. Specific adverse events were more common with pregabalin than placebo, in particular dizziness, somnolence, weight gain, and peripheral oedema, with number needed to harm of 3.7, 7.4, 18, and 19 respectively for all doses combined (high quality evidence). Serious adverse events did not differ between active treatment groups and placebo (very low quality evidence). Withdrawals for any reason were more common with pregabalin than placebo only with the 600 mg dose in studies of classic design. Withdrawals due to adverse events were about 10% higher with pregabalin than placebo, but withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were about 6% lower (high quality evidence). Pregabalin 300 to 600 mg produces a major reduction in pain intensity over 12 to 26 weeks with tolerable adverse events for a small proportion of people (about 10% more than placebo) with moderate or severe pain due to fibromyalgia. The degree of pain relief is known to be accompanied by improvements in other symptoms, quality of life, and function. These results are similar to other effective medicines in fibromyalgia (milnacipran, duloxetine). Output:

We searched scientific databases for studies that looked at the effects of pregabalin in adults with fibromyalgia who had moderate or severe pain. The treatment had to last at least eight weeks. The evidence is current to March 2016. Eight studies satisfied the inclusion criteria, including three new studies for this update. Five studies randomised 3283 participants to immediate treatment with pregabalin or placebo. Two studies identified 687 out of 1492 participants who had a good pain response and could take the medicine, and then randomised them to continued treatment with pregabalin or placebo. Study quality was good. One other had no useful data. High quality evidence showed that 1 in 10 people with moderate or severe fibromyalgia pain reported a large fall in pain by a third to a half over 12 to 26 weeks. This is an outcome that people with fibromyalgia consider to be useful. The dose of pregabalin was 300 to 600 mg daily. Side effects occurred in 8 or 9 people in 10, often while adjusting to the medicine. Particular side effects were dizziness (affecting 1 in 4 participants), drowsiness (1 in 7), weight gain (1 in 18), and peripheral oedema (1 in 19) (high quality evidence). Serious side effects were no more common with pregabalin than with placebo, affecting 1 or 2 in 100. About 1 in 10 more participants taking pregabalin withdrew from the study because of side effects, and 1 in 17 fewer withdrew because the medicine was not working. The evidence was mostly of high quality, which means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect in this review. Concern about how information was handled when people left the studies was offset by other information showing that results were not impacted by this to any important degree.

CochranePLS64

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included one trial (involving 135 women with mild pre-eclampsia at term). An additional six studies are awaiting further assessment. The included trial compared magnesium sulphate with a placebo and was at a low risk of bias. The trial did not report any of this review's prespecified primary outcomes. There was no significant difference between magnesium sulphate and placebo in Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (risk ratio (RR) 0.51; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 5.46; 135 infants), nor gestational age at birth (mean difference (MD) -0.20 weeks; 95% CI -0.62 to 0.22; 135 infants). There were significantly more maternal side effects (feeling warm and flushed) in the magnesium sulphate group than in the placebo group (RR 3.81; 95% CI 2.22 to 6.53; 135 women). However, no significant difference in adverse effects severe enough to cease treatment was observed (RR 3.04; 95% CI 0.13 to 73.42; 135 women). There were no significant differences seen between groups in the rates of postpartum haemorrhage (RR 4.06; 95% CI 0.47 to 35.38; 135 women) and caesarean section (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.63; 135 women). There is currently insufficient evidence to assess the efficacy and safety of magnesium sulphate when administered to women for neuroprotection of the term fetus. As there has been recent evidence for the use of magnesium sulphate for neuroprotection of the preterm fetus, high-quality randomised controlled trials are needed to determine the safety profile and neurological outcomes for the term fetus. Strategies to reduce maternal side effects during treatment also require evaluation. Output:

This review included one randomised controlled study involving 135 women with mild pre-eclampsia (high blood pressure and/or protein in the urine). There was not enough evidence from this study to determine the effects of magnesium sulphate on babies born at term. Women receiving magnesium sulphate were more likely to feel warm and flushed in this study than women who received a placebo, but they were not more likely to stop treatment due to side effects. The rates of haemorrhage after birth and rates of caesarean birth were similar for women who received magnesium sulphate and those who received a placebo. More studies are needed to establish whether magnesium sulphate given to the mother at term is protective for the baby's brain. The babies in these trials should be followed up over a long period so that we can monitor the effects of magnesium on child development. We are awaiting further information from another six studies so that they can be assessed.

CochranePLS65

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Four studies met all of the eligibility criteria for inclusion within the review. Two used combination therapies consisting of a pharmacotherapy combined with cognitive and behavioural therapies, whilst the remaining two used cognitive and behavioural therapy through counselling, one via text message support and the other delivered via clinic doctors trained in smoking cessation techniques. Smoking cessation data were pooled across all studies producing a statistically and clinically significant effect in favour of the intervention (risk ratio 1.43, 95%CI 1.03 to 1.98, p=0.032), however following sensitivity analysis a statistically non-significant but clinically significant effect was observed in favour of the intervention (risk ratio 1.33, 95%CI 0.95 to 1.85, p=NS) . A significant health disparity exists, whereby Indigenous populations, a minority, are over-represented in the burden of smoking-related morbidity and mortality. This review highlights the paucity of evidence available to evaluate the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions, despite the known success of these interventions in non-Indigenous populations. Due to this lack of published investigations, the external validity of this review is limited, as is the ability to draw reliable conclusions from the results. The limited but available evidence reported does indicate that smoking cessation interventions specifically targeted at Indigenous populations can produce smoking abstinence. However this evidence base is not strong with a small number of methodologically sound trials investigating these interventions. More rigorous trials are now required to assist in bridging the gap between tobacco related health disparities in Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations. Output:

This review of four studies found that published studies evaluating smoking cessation interventions specifically aiming to reduce and/or stop the use of tobacco in Indigenous people are significantly lacking. The limited evidence reported in this review does indicate some benefit in these interventions to help Indigenous people stop smoking. However, the change in attitudes after one study was negative with fewer people 'ready to quit' after the smoking cessation intervention was completed. Consideration needs to be given to cultural differences and traditions when tailoring interventions for Indigenous people. Modified or innovative interventions and careful outcomes research are needed to improve the usefulness of smoking cessation interventions aimed at Indigenous populations.

CochranePLS66

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included 13 studies (5686 patients). We judged blinding of participants and personnel and blinding of outcome assessment to be at high risk in about 50% of the included studies and at low risk in 25% to 30% of the studies. Regardless of the high risk of performance bias these studies were included based on the low weight the studies had in the meta-analysis. We rated 75% of the studies as low risk for selection, attrition and reporting bias. All 13 studies reported some type of hospital mortality (28-day, 30-day, 60-day or ICU mortality). We considered studies of high-risk surgery patients (eight studies) and general intensive care patients (five studies) separately as subgroups for meta-analysis. The pooled risk ratio (RR) for mortality for the studies of general intensive care patients was 1.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.09) and for the studies of high-risk surgery patients the RR was 0.98 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.29). Of the eight studies of high-risk surgery patients, five evaluated the effectiveness of pre-operative optimization but there was no difference in mortality when these studies were examined separately. PAC did not affect general ICU LOS (reported by four studies) or hospital LOS (reported by nine studies). Four studies, conducted in the United States (US), reported costs based on hospital charges billed, which on average were higher in the PAC groups. Two of these studies qualified for analysis and did not show a statistically significant hospital cost difference (mean difference USD 900, 95% CI -2620 to 4420, P = 0.62). PAC is a diagnostic and haemodynamic monitoring tool but not a therapeutic intervention. Our review concluded that use of a PAC did not alter the mortality, general ICU or hospital LOS, or cost for adult patients in intensive care. The quality of evidence was high for mortality and LOS but low for cost analysis. Efficacy studies are needed to determine if there are optimal PAC-guided management protocols, which when applied to specific patient groups in ICUs could result in benefits such as shock reversal, improved organ function and less vasopressor use. Newer, less-invasive haemodynamic monitoring tools need to be validated against PAC prior to clinical use in critically ill patients. Output:

We identified 13 studies comparing patients treated with and without the use of a PAC that studied a total of 5686 patients. These were studies of patients undergoing routine major surgery (eight) and studies of patients who were critically ill and admitted to ICUs (five). We analysed the studies for any trial related risks and performed appropriate statistical analysis to minimize any risk of bias or errors. The quality of evidence is high from this review and further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect except for cost analysis. Our review found that there were no differences in the number of deaths during hospital stay, days spent in general ICUs, and days spent in hospital between patients who did and did not have a PAC inserted. Two US studies were analysed for hospital cost associated with or without a PAC and showed no difference in the cost. Neither group of patients studied showed any evidence of benefit or harm from using a PAC. The catheter is a monitoring tool that helps in diagnosis and is not a treatment modality. Insertion of PACs to help make treatment decisions in ICU patients should be individualized and should be done by experts in the field after adequate training in the interpretation of data. Studies need to be conducted to identify subgroups of ICU patients who can benefit, when the device is used in combination with standardized treatment plans, in reversing shock states and improving organ function.

CochranePLS67

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Six studies (n = 478) of variable quality were included. A composite outcome of Infant Pain Scale (NIPS), Neonatal Facial Action Coding System (NFCS) and/or Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) score was reported in 288 infants, who did not receive a sweet tasting solution. Meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in the venepuncture versus the heel lance group (SMD -0.76, 95% CI -1.00 to -0.52; I2 = 0%). When a sweet tasting solution was provided the SMD remained significant favouring the venepuncture group (SMD - 0.38, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.07). The typical RD for requiring more than one skin puncture for venepuncture versus heel lance (reported in 4 studies; n = 254) was -0.34 (95% CI -0.43 to -0.25; I2 = 97%). The NNT to avoid one repeat skin puncture was 3 (95% CI 2 to 4). Cry characteristics favoured the venepuncture group but the differences were reduced by the provision of sweet tasting solutions prior to either procedure. Venepuncture, when performed by a skilled phlebotomist, appears to be the method of choice for blood sampling in term neonates. The use of a sweet tasting solution further reduces the pain. Further well designed randomised controlled trials should be conducted in settings where several individuals perform the procedures. Output:

This review of trials found evidence that venepuncture, when done by a trained practitioner, caused less pain than heel lance. The use of a sweet tasting solution given to the baby prior to the event reduced pain further. The evidence included outcome measures using pain scales, how long the baby cried and how the mother rated their baby's pain.

CochranePLS68

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Two small studies of poor methodological quality including 52 women with a dehisced and/or infected episiotomy wound at point of entry have been included. Only one small study presented data in relation to wound healing at less than four weeks, (the primary outcome measure for this review), although no reference was made to demonstrate how healing was measured. There was a trend to favour this outcome in the resuturing group, however, this difference was not statistically significant (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 3.88, one study, 17 women). Similarly, only one trial reported on rates of dyspareunia (a secondary outcome measure for this review) at two months and six months with no statistically significant difference between both groups; two months, (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.11, one study, 26 women) and six months, (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.87, one study 32 women). This trial also included data on the numbers of women who resumed sexual intercourse by two months and six months. Significantly more women in the secondary suturing group had resumed intercourse by two months (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.89, one study, 35 women), although by six months there was no significant difference between the two groups (RR 1.08, 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.28). Neither of the trials included data in relation to the following prespecified secondary outcome measures: pain at any time interval; the woman's satisfaction with the aesthetic results of the perineal wound; exclusive breastfeeding; maternal anxiety or depression. Based on this review, there is currently insufficient evidence available to either support or refute secondary suturing for the management of broken down perineal wounds following childbirth. There is an urgent need for a robust randomised controlled trial to evaluate fully the comparative effects of both treatment options. Output:

This review looked at randomised controlled trials of re-stitching broken down wounds compared with non-stitching. Two small studies were identified. One study, involving 17 women, showed a marginal tendency to improved healing in the women who were re-stitched, however, this evidence was not conclusive. In the other study involving 35 women, more women had resumed intercourse in the re-suturing group at two months. As the studies were small and of poor quality, it is not possible to draw conclusions about the best way to manage wound breakdown after childbirth. Therefore, there is an urgent need to conduct further studies to compare fully the benefits and risks of both treatments.

CochranePLS69

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included 18 studies involving 2521 participants. The methodological quality of 17 included studies was poor. Included RCTs separately compared medicinal herbs with different antiviral drugs, precluding any pooling of results. Only three indicated that compared with antiviral drugs, Chinese medicinal herbs may be effective in preventing influenza and alleviating influenza symptoms. 'Ganmao' capsules were found to be more effective than amantadine in decreasing influenza symptoms and speeding recovery in one study (in which adverse reactions were mentioned in the amantadine group although no data were reported). There were no significant differences between 'E Shu You' and ribavirin in treating influenza, nor in the occurrence of adverse reactions. Ten studies reported mild adverse reactions. Most Chinese medical herbs in the included studies showed similar effects to antiviral drugs in preventing or treating influenza. Few were shown to be superior to antiviral drugs. No obvious adverse events were reported in the included studies. However, current evidence remains weak due to methodological limitations of the trials. More high-quality RCTs with larger numbers of participants and clear reporting are needed. Output:

This updated review assessed the therapeutic effects and safety of Chinese medicinal herbs as an alternative and adjunctive therapy to other commonly used drugs for influenza. Eighteen studies involving 2521 participants were included in the review. 'Ganmao' capsules were found to be more effective than amantadine in decreasing influenza symptoms and aiding recovery in one study (in which adverse reactions were mentioned in the amantadine group although no data were reported). There were no significant differences between 'E Shu You' and ribavirin in treating influenza, nor in the occurrence of adverse reactions. The remaining 17 Chinese herbal trials showed a similar effect to antiviral drugs in preventing or treating influenza. However, since these included studies were of poor quality, the evidence does not support or reject the use of any Chinese herbal preparations for influenza. High-quality trials are required.

CochranePLS70

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Our search strategy identified 8 studies (580 participants) as eligible for inclusion in this review. Interventions included: thrombolytic therapy versus placebo (1 study); low versus high dose thrombolytic therapy (1); alteplase versus urokinase (1); short versus long thrombolytic dwell (1); thrombolytic therapy versus percutaneous fibrin sheath stripping (1); fibrin sheath stripping versus over-the-wire catheter exchange (1); and over-the-wire catheter exchange versus exchange with and without angioplasty sheath disruption (1). No two studies compared the same interventions. Most studies had a high risk of bias due to poor study design, broad inclusion criteria, low patient numbers and industry involvement. Based on low certainty evidence, thrombolytic therapy may restore catheter function when compared to placebo (149 participants: RR 4.05, 95% CI 1.42 to 11.56) but there is no data available to suggest an optimal dose or administration method. The certainty of this evidence is reduced due to the fact that it is based on only a single study with wide confidence limits, high risk of bias and imprecision in the estimates of adverse events (149 participants: RR 2.03, 95% CI 0.38 to 10.73). Based on the available evidence, physical disruption of a fibrin sheath using interventional radiology techniques appears to be equally efficacious as the use of a pharmaceutical thrombolytic agent for the immediate management of dysfunctional catheters (57 participants: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07). Catheter patency is poor following use of thrombolytic agents with studies reporting median catheter survival rates of 14 to 42 days and was reported to improve significantly by fibrin sheath stripping or catheter exchange (37 participants: MD -27.70 days, 95% CI -51.00 to -4.40). Catheter exchange was reported to be superior to sheath disruption with respect to catheter survival (30 participants: MD 213.00 days, 95% CI 205.70 to 220.30). There is insufficient evidence to suggest any specific intervention is superior in terms of ensuring either dialysis adequacy or reduced risk of adverse events. Thrombolysis, fibrin sheath disruption and over-the-wire catheter exchange are effective and appropriate therapies for immediately restoring catheter patency in dysfunctional cuffed and tunnelled HD catheters. On current data there is no evidence to support physical intervention over the use of pharmaceutical agents in the acute setting. Pharmacological interventions appear to have a bridging role and long-term catheter survival may be improved by fibrin sheath disruption and is probably superior following catheter exchange. There is no evidence favouring any of these approaches with respect to dialysis adequacy or risk of adverse events. The current review is limited by the small number of available studies with limited numbers of patients enrolled. Most of the studies included in this review were judged to have a high risk of bias and were potentially influenced by pharmaceutical industry involvement. Further research is required to adequately address the question of the most efficacious and clinically appropriate technique for HD catheter dysfunction. Output:

We found eight studies involving 580 participants that tested the three different treatments. Studies also compared drug dosages and methods of administration. The quality of evidence is limited by small study size and high risk of bias. Thrombolytic therapy was probably better than placebo at restoring catheter function but there was no optimal dose or administration method. Physical disruption of a fibrin sheath may be equally effective as pharmaceutical thrombolytic agent for immediate management of catheter dysfunction. Catheter patency at two weeks is probably better following fibrin sheath stripping or catheter exchange compared to thrombolytic agent. Catheter exchange may be better than sheath disruption for long-term catheter survival and the use of both techniques together is probably best. There is currently insufficient evidence favouring any technique in terms of either dialysis adequacy or reduced risk of adverse events. Further research is required to adequately address the question of the most effective technique for haemodialysis catheter dysfunction.

CochranePLS71

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We identified 17 trials reporting on 22 treatment comparisons (2674 patients randomised). Fifteen trials (20 treatment comparisons) reported results for tumour response and 11 trials (14 treatment comparisons) published time-to-event data for overall survival. There were 1532 deaths in 2116 women randomised to trials of the addition of a drug to the regimen and control (the regimen alone). There was no detectable difference in overall survival between these patients, with an overall HR of 0.96 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.07, P = 0.47) and no significant heterogeneity. We found no difference in time to progression between these regimens, with an overall HR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.07, P = 0.31) and no significant heterogeneity. Addition of a drug to the regimen was favourably associated with overall tumour response rates (odds ratio 1.21, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.44, P = 0.04) although we observed significant heterogeneity for this outcome across the trials. Where measured, acute toxicities such as alopecia, nausea and vomiting and leucopenia were more common with the addition of a drug. The addition of one or more drugs to the regimen shows a statistically significant advantage for tumour response in women with metastatic breast cancer but the results suggest no difference in survival time or time to progression. The positive effect on tumour response was also associated with increased toxicity. Output:

This review investigated the value of adding one or more chemotherapy drugs to a chemotherapy regimen. We found that the addition of chemotherapy drug/s to a regimen caused greater shrinkage of the tumour seen with imaging but increased toxicity. There is insufficient evidence to determine if there is an impact on time to disease progression and overall survival.

CochranePLS72

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Ten random or quasi-random controlled trials reported on a total of 1896 patients. There was no statistically significant effect on inpatient mortality (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.16) or mortality to longest follow up (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.29) but higher quality studies showed a larger non-significant increase in inpatient mortality (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.68). Discharge to institutional care was reduced for the NLU (OR 0.44 95% CI 0.22 to 0.89) and functional status at discharge increased (SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.54) but there was a near significant increase in inpatient stay (WMD 5.13 days 95% CI -0.5 days to 10.76 days). Early readmissions were reduced (OR 0.52 95% CI 0.34 to 0.80). One study compared a NLU for the chronically critically ill with ICU care. Mortality (OR 0.62 95% CI 0.35 to 1.10) and length of inpatient stay differ did not differ (WMD 2 days, 95% CI 10.96 to -6.96 days). Early readmissions were reduced (OR 0.33 95% CI 0.12 to 0.94). Costs of care on the NLU were higher for UK studies but lower for US based studies. There is some evidence that patients discharged from a NLU are better prepared for discharge but it is unclear if this is simply a product of an increased length of inpatient stay. No statistically significant adverse effects were noted but the possibility of increased early mortality cannot be discounted. More research is needed. Output:

Ten studies, including over 1800 patients, were analysed to determine if patients sent to a nursing led inpatient unit benefited or at least fared no worse than patients in a unit providing usual care. Compared to usual care, patients in nursing led inpatients units functioned better and experienced greater well-being; more patients were discharged home and not to an institution after about 3 months (but not after 6 months); fewer were readmitted back into hospital soon after discharge; but they stayed in hospital longer. The number of deaths during stay in hospital and 3 to 6 months after discharge was similar between the units (but there was a trend for more deaths early while in nursing led inpatients units that needs to be researched further). It is still not known whether nursing led inpatient units save money - studies in the United Kingdom found them more expensive than usual care units but studies in the United States found them cheaper.

CochranePLS73

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included 11 studies including 414 participants in the review. Two trials compared therapeutic ultrasound with placebo, two compared one ultrasound regimen with another, two compared ultrasound with another non-surgical intervention, and six compared ultrasound as part of a multi-component intervention with another non-surgical intervention (for example, exercises and splint). The risk of bias was low in some studies and unclear or high in other studies, with only two reporting that the allocation sequence was concealed and six reporting that participants were blinded. Overall, there is insufficient evidence that one therapeutic ultrasound regimen is more efficacious than another. Only two studies reported the primary outcome of interest, short-term overall improvement (any measure in which patients indicate the intensity of their complaints compared with baseline, for example, global rating of improvement, satisfaction with treatment, within three months post-treatment). One low quality trial with 68 participants found that when compared with placebo, therapeutic ultrasound may increase the chance of experiencing short-term overall improvement at the end of seven weeks treatment (RR 2.36; 95% CI 1.40 to 3.98), although losses to follow-up and failure to adjust for the correlation between wrists in participants with bilateral CTS in this study suggest that this data should be interpreted with caution. Another low quality trial with 60 participants found that at three months post-treatment therapeutic ultrasound plus splint increased the chance of short-term overall improvement (patient satisfaction) when compared with splint alone (RR 3.02; 95% CI 1.36 to 6.72), but decreased the chance of short-term overall improvement when compared with low-level laser therapy plus splint (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.33), though participants were not blinded to treatment, it was unclear if the random allocation sequence was adequately concealed, and there was a potential unit of analysis error. Differences between groups receiving different frequencies and intensities of ultrasound, and between ultrasound as part of a multi-component intervention versus other non-surgical interventions, were generally small and not statistically significant for symptoms, function, and neurophysiologic parameters. No studies reported any adverse effects of therapeutic ultrasound, but this outcome was only measured in three studies. More adverse effects data are required before any firm conclusions on the safety of therapeutic ultrasound can be made. There is only poor quality evidence from very limited data to suggest that therapeutic ultrasound may be more effective than placebo for either short- or long-term symptom improvement in people with CTS. There is insufficient evidence to support the greater benefit of one type of therapeutic ultrasound regimen over another or to support the use of therapeutic ultrasound as a treatment with greater efficacy compared to other non-surgical interventions for CTS, such as splinting, exercises, and oral drugs. More methodologically rigorous studies are needed to determine the effectiveness and safety of therapeutic ultrasound for CTS. Output:

We searched for study reports and found 11 randomised controlled trials including 443 participants overall that assessed the safety and benefit of therapeutic ultrasound for people with carpal tunnel syndrome. The risk of bias of studies was low in some studies and unclear or high in others. There is only poor quality evidence from very limited data to suggest that therapeutic ultrasound may be more effective than placebo for either short- or long-term symptom improvement in people with carpal tunnel syndrome. There is insufficient evidence to support the greater benefit of one type of therapeutic ultrasound regimen over another or to support the use of therapeutic ultrasound as a treatment with greater efficacy compared with other non-surgical interventions for carpal tunnel syndrome, such as splinting, exercises, and oral drugs. Few studies measured adverse effects to therapeutic ultrasound. More research is needed to find out how effective and safe therapeutic ultrasound is for people with carpal tunnel syndrome, particularly in the long term.

CochranePLS74

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included eight studies involving approximately 10,000 participants. The active interventions were pravastatin, atorvastatin, simvastatin, clofibrate, and conjugated oestrogen. Fixed-effect analysis showed no overall effect on stroke recurrence but statin therapy alone had a marginal benefit in reducing subsequent cerebrovascular events in those with a previous history of stroke or TIA (odds ratio (OR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.00). There was no evidence that such intervention reduced all-cause mortality or sudden death (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.20). Three statin trials showed a reduction in subsequent serious vascular events (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.82). There is evidence that statin therapy in patients with a history of ischaemic stroke or TIA significantly reduces subsequent major coronary events but only marginally reduces the risk of stroke recurrence. There is no clear evidence of beneficial effect from statins in those with previous haemorrhagic stroke and it is unclear whether statins should be started immediately post stroke or later. In view of this and the evidence of the benefit of statin therapy in those with a history of CHD, patients with ischaemic stroke or TIA, with or without a history of established CHD, should receive statins. Output:

Studies have shown that interventions for reducing either total serum cholesterol or low density lipoprotein cholesterol levels reduce the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke events in people with a history of CHD. However, for stroke patients the relation between the level of serum cholesterol and cholesterol subfractions with the risk of future stroke or cardiovascular events is unclear. This review, which includes eight studies involving approximately 10,000 participants, shows statin therapy, but not other lipid-lowering measures, reduces the risk of subsequent major vascular events and a marginal benefit in decreasing stroke events, but not all-cause mortality in those with a history of ischaemic cerebrovascular disease.

CochranePLS75

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Eleven campaigns met the inclusion criteria for this review. Studies differed in design, settings, duration, content and intensity of intervention, length of follow-up, methods of evaluation and also in definitions and measures of smoking behaviour used. Among seven campaigns reporting smoking prevalence, significant decreases were observed in the California and Massachusetts statewide tobacco control campaigns compared with the rest of the USA. Some positive effects on prevalence in the whole population or in the subgroups were observed in three of the remaining seven studies. Three large-scale campaigns of the seven presenting results for tobacco consumption found statistically significant decreases. Among the eight studies presenting abstinence or quit rates, four showed some positive effect, although in one of them the effect was measured for quitting and cutting down combined. Among the three that did not show significant decreases, one demonstrated a significant intervention effect on smokers and ex-smokers combined. There is evidence that comprehensive tobacco control programmes which include mass media campaigns can be effective in changing smoking behaviour in adults, but the evidence comes from a heterogeneous group of studies of variable methodological quality. One state-wide tobacco control programme (Massachusetts) showed positive results up to eight years after the campaign. Another (California) showed positive results during the period of adequate funding and implementation and in final evaluation since the beginning of the programme. Six of nine studies carried out in communities or regions showed some positive effects on smoking behaviour and at least one significant change in smoking prevalence (Sydney). The intensity and duration of mass media campaigns may influence effectiveness, but length of follow-up and concurrent secular trends and events can make this difficult to quantify. No consistent relationship was observed between campaign effectiveness and age, education, ethnicity or gender. Output:

We searched up until 30th November 2016, and found 11 relevant studies for this review. The numbers of participants varied between the included studies. All of the studies involved adults, although some studies also included younger people (14+ or 15+). Campaigns involved TV, radio, print media and billboard advertising. Studies differed in setting, duration, content of the intervention, length of observation, measures of smoking behaviour and the way of showing results. Two campaigns reported definite decreases in smoking prevalence, and some positive effects were observed in another three. Three large-scale campaigns reported lower tobacco consumption. Three studies showed some positive effect in abstinence or quit rates. One study did not show significant decreases but did demonstrate an effect of the intervention on smokers and ex-smokers combined. Tobacco control programmes that include mass media campaigns may change smoking behaviour in adults, but the evidence comes from studies of variable quality and scale and often occur in an environment where there are other influences on smoking, making it hard to isolate the effects of the media campaign itself. No consistent patterns by age, education, ethnicity or gender were found. There were problems with the design and conduct of all of the studies, which clouded the evidence. It would help if future studies could include comparator communities where there are no mass media interventions taking place to get a better estimate of the effect of the mass media campaign.

CochranePLS76

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included 24 studies with a total of 2166 participants, 23 of which provided data for meta-analysis. Thirteen studies had low risk of selection bias, five studies reported adequate blinding of outcome assessment and 15 studies had low risk of attrition bias. Seventeen studies that compared yoga versus no therapy provided moderate-quality evidence showing that yoga improved health-related quality of life (pooled SMD 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.40; 10 studies, 675 participants), reduced fatigue (pooled SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.20; 11 studies, 883 participants) and reduced sleep disturbances in the short term (pooled SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.09; six studies, 657 participants). The funnel plot for health-related quality of life was asymmetrical, favouring no therapy, and the funnel plot for fatigue was roughly symmetrical. This hints at overall low risk of publication bias. Yoga did not appear to reduce depression (pooled SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.05; seven studies, 496 participants; low-quality evidence) or anxiety (pooled SMD -0.53, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.04; six studies, 346 participants; very low-quality evidence) in the short term and had no medium-term effects on health-related quality of life (pooled SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.42; two studies, 146 participants; low-quality evidence) or fatigue (pooled SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.29; two studies, 146 participants; low-quality evidence). Investigators reported no serious adverse events. Four studies that compared yoga versus psychosocial/educational interventions provided moderate-quality evidence indicating that yoga can reduce depression (pooled SMD -2.29, 95% CI -3.97 to -0.61; four studies, 226 participants), anxiety (pooled SMD -2.21, 95% CI -3.90 to -0.52; three studies, 195 participants) and fatigue (pooled SMD -0.90, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.50; two studies, 106 participants) in the short term. Very low-quality evidence showed no short-term effects on health-related quality of life (pooled SMD 0.81, 95% CI -0.50 to 2.12; two studies, 153 participants) or sleep disturbances (pooled SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.76 to 0.34; two studies, 119 participants). No trial adequately reported safety-related data. Three studies that compared yoga versus exercise presented very low-quality evidence showing no short-term effects on health-related quality of life (pooled SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.23; three studies, 233 participants) or fatigue (pooled SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.66 to 0.25; three studies, 233 participants); no trial provided safety-related data. Moderate-quality evidence supports the recommendation of yoga as a supportive intervention for improving health-related quality of life and reducing fatigue and sleep disturbances when compared with no therapy, as well as for reducing depression, anxiety and fatigue, when compared with psychosocial/educational interventions. Very low-quality evidence suggests that yoga might be as effective as other exercise interventions and might be used as an alternative to other exercise programmes. Output:

We found 24 studies that involved 2166 women. Our evidence is current to January 2016. We found that women in 11 studies had completed surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy; women in three studies were currently undergoing chemotherapy; and women in five studies were currently undergoing radiotherapy. Women in the remaining five studies were either undergoing treatment or were not. Studies used a variety of questionnaires to assess quality of life, depression, fatigue and/or sleep disturbances. We found that yoga was more effective than no therapy in improving quality of life and reducing fatigue and sleep disturbances. We also found that yoga was better for reducing depression, anxiety and fatigue in women when compared with psychosocial or educational interventions such as counselling. We are fairly certain that these observed results are probably true. Yoga might be as effective as exercise in improving quality of life and reducing fatigue; we do not have enough data to be sure. Studies have poorly reported risks of yoga. However, we found no evidence of serious risks of yoga among women with a diagnosis of breast cancer. No studies have assessed effects of yoga in women given a diagnosis of breast cancer more than five years ago. Our findings indicate that women with a diagnosis of breast cancer can use yoga as supportive therapy for improving their quality of life and mental health, in addition to standard cancer treatments.

CochranePLS77

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included one retrospective, single-institution study that compared post-operative imaging within 48 hours (early post-operative imaging) with no early post-operative imaging among 125 people who had surgery for glioblastoma (GBM: World Health Organization (WHO) grade 4 glioma). Most patients in the study underwent maximal surgical resection followed by combined radiotherapy and temozolomide treatment. Although patient characteristics in the study arms were comparable, the study was at high risk of bias overall. Evidence from this study suggested little or no difference between early and no early post-operative imaging with respect to overall survival (deaths) at one year after diagnosis of GBM (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.21; 48% vs 55% died, respectively; very low certainty evidence) and little or no difference in overall survival (deaths) at two years after diagnosis of GBM (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.25; 86% vs 81% died, respectively; very low certainty evidence). No other review outcomes were reported. We found no evidence on the effectiveness of other imaging schedules. In addition, we identified no relevant economic evaluations assessing the efficiency of the different imaging strategies. The effect of different imaging strategies on survival and other health outcomes remains largely unknown. Existing imaging schedules in glioma seem to be pragmatic rather than evidence-based. The limited evidence suggesting that early post-operative brain imaging among GBM patients who will receive combined chemoradiation treatment may make little or no difference to survival needs to be further researched, particularly as early post-operative imaging also serves as a quality control measure that may lead to early re-operation if residual tumour is identified. Mathematical modelling of a large glioma patient database could help to distinguish the optimal timing of surveillance imaging for different types of glioma, with stratification of patients facilitated by assessment of individual tumour growth rates, molecular biomarkers and other prognostic factors. In addition, paediatric glioma study designs could be used to inform future research of imaging strategies among adults with glioma. Output:

We looked for studies involving adults with gliomas that compared current practice of doing scans at specific time points with other approaches. We found only one study meeting our criteria. This was from a cancer centre in the USA, looking at glioblastoma patients (those with the most aggressive gliomas) who had been treated between 2006 and 2016. The study involved 125 people and split them into those scanned within two days of surgery (early scan) with those who were not. They showed that doing the early scan made no change to the chance of being alive at one and two years after diagnosis. This might have been because the early scans were not used to change treatments, which mainly were to receive standard radiotherapy and temozolomide, and we could not tell if the patients' surgeon(s) were different or had different approaches to care. We judged this suggestion of little change in survival time with or without early scanning to be very uncertain. The number of people included over 10 years was small, and the decision whether or not to have a scan after surgery was based on surgeon's choice. It was not clear whether the surgeon(s) involved or their approaches to care differed, nor whether a person's care might have been changed in light of early imaging. The other search did not find any studies looking at the value of different imaging approaches. We still do not know whether doing scans regularly at specific times after glioma diagnosis changes how well patients do. The limited evidence, suggesting early scans after operations do not affect survival, is unreliable and more research is needed, especially as early scans may also help surgeons improve their practice, and decide whether to repeat the operation earlier than they might otherwise have chosen to do. The best timings and reasons for scanning brain gliomas in adults are not known. Lessons might be learned from studies involving children, and by looking at large collections of clinical trials. It is also important to study the potential costs and benefits of different strategies.

CochranePLS78

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included three studies randomising 161 people with schizophrenia. Data were available for only two of our seven prestated main outcomes. Clinically important improvement in global state was measured using the Clinical Global Impression (CGI). There was no clear difference between chlorpromazine and metiapine groups (2 RCTs, n = 120, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.47, very low quality evidence) and numbers of participants with parkinsonism at eight weeks were similar (2 RCTs, n = 70, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.03, very low quality evidence). There were no useable data available for the other key outcomes of clinically important improvement in mental state, readmission due to relapse, satisfaction with treatment, aggressive or violent behaviour, or cost of care. Chlorpromazine has been the mainstay treatment for schizophrenia for decades, yet available evidence comparing this drug to metiapine fails to provide high-quality trial based data. However, the need to determine whether metiapine is more or less effective than chlorpromazine seems to be lacking in clinical relevance and future research on this comparison seems unlikely. Output:

In November 2015, the Information Specialist of the Cochrane Schizophrenia group searched their specialised register for relevant clinical trials. The search identified four reports. We inspected these reports and found they referred to three trials, randomising people with schizophrenia to receive chlorpromazine or metiapine. Main results Our review now includes three studies with 161 participants. The studies revealed no real differences between chlorpromazine and metiapine for improvement in global state or incidence of parkinsonism (an umbrella term for symptoms such as tremor (shaking), bradykinesia (slow movement), rigidity (stiffness), and postural instability (difficulty in balancing). No data were reported for our other main areas of interest: mental state, service use, satisfaction with treatment, behaviour or cost of care. Conclusions We cannot draw firm conclusions from the data provided. The number of studies and number of participants in each study is small, all studies are also short term. Therefore, we rated the reported evidence as very low quality. However, metiapine is not a highly prescribed or used antipsychotic medicine, so although our evidence is poor, it probably will remain the best available evidence as it is unlikely new trials comparing metiapine with chlorpromazine will be conducted in the future.

CochranePLS79

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Twenty-three studies were identified for inclusion. Probiotics were not superior to placebo for any outcome measured. The use of nitroimidazole antibiotics appeared to reduce the risk of clinical (RR 0.23; 95%CI 0.09 to 0.57, NNT=4) and endoscopic (RR 0.44; 95%CI 0.26 to 0.74, NNT = 4) recurrence relative to placebo. However, these agents were associated with higher risk of serious adverse events (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.5 to 3.7). Mesalamine therapy was associated with a significantly reduced risk of clinical recurrence (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.94, NNT = 12), and severe endoscopic recurrence (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.84, NNT = 8) when compared to placebo. Azathioprine/6MP was also associated with a significantly reduced risk of clinical recurrence (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.92, NNT = 7), and severe endoscopic recurrence (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.92, NNT = 4), when compared to placebo. Neither agent had a higher risk than placebo of serious adverse events. When compared to azathioprine/6MP, mesalamine was associated with a higher risk of any endoscopic recurrence (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.06), but a lower risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.89). There was no significant difference between mesalamine and azathioprine/6MP for any other outcome. There are insufficient randomised controlled trials of infliximab, budesonide, tenovil and interleukin-10 to draw conclusions. Nitro-imidazole antibiotics, mesalamine and immunosuppressive therapy with azathioprine/6-MP or infliximab all appear to be superior to placebo for the prevention of post-operative recurrence of Crohn's disease. The cost, toxicity and tolerability of these approaches require careful consideration to determine the optimal approach for post-operative prophylaxis. Output:

This review examines the results of published studies which have looked at the effect of using medication following surgery for Crohn's disease as a mean of preventing the return (recurrence) of inflammation. Where possible, the results of studies were combined to compare the results of different treatments. A number of medications appeared to reduce the recurrence of inflammation, including metronidazole, mesalamine, azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine and infliximab. Given that some of these medications have significant side-effects, the decision to use them requires a careful balancing of the risks and benefits for each individual patient

CochranePLS80

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included seven trials (825 participants). We judged the majority of the trials to have a high or unclear risk of bias. The psychosocial interventions considered in the studies were: cognitive-behavioural coping skills training (one study), twelve-step programme (one study), brief intervention (three studies), motivational interviewing (two studies), and brief motivational interviewing (one study). Two studies were considered in two comparisons. There were no data for the secondary outcome, alcohol-related harm. The results were as follows. Comparison 1: cognitive-behavioural coping skills training versus twelve-step programme (one study, 41 participants) There was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol abstinence assessed with Substance Abuse Calendar and breathalyser at one year: risk ratio (RR) 2.38 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10 to 55.06); and retention in treatment, measured at end of treatment: RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.29), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was very low. Comparison 2: brief intervention versus treatment as usual (three studies, 197 participants) There was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol use, measured as scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) or Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) at three months: standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.07 (95% CI -0.24 to 0.37); and retention in treatment, measured at three months: RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.13), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was low. Comparison 3: motivational interviewing versus treatment as usual or educational intervention only (three studies, 462 participants) There was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol use, measured as scores on the AUDIT or ASSIST at three months: SMD 0.04 (95% CI -0.29 to 0.37); and retention in treatment, measured at three months: RR 0.93 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.43), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was low. Comparison 4: brief motivational intervention (BMI) versus assessment only (one study, 187 participants) More people reduced alcohol use (by seven or more days in the past month, measured at six months) in the BMI group than in the control group (RR 1.67; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.60). There was no difference between groups for the other primary outcome, retention in treatment, measured at end of treatment: RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.02), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was moderate. Comparison 5: motivational interviewing (intensive) versus motivational interviewing (one study, 163 participants) There was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol use, measured using the Addiction Severity Index-alcohol score (ASI) at two months: MD 0.03 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.08); and retention in treatment, measured at end of treatment: RR 17.63 (95% CI 1.03 to 300.48), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was low. We found low to very low-quality evidence to suggest that there is no difference in effectiveness between different types of psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption among people who use illicit drugs, and that brief interventions are not superior to assessment-only or to treatment as usual. No firm conclusions can be made because of the paucity of the data and the low quality of the retrieved studies. Output:

We found seven studies that examined five talking therapies among 825 people with drug problems. Cognitive-behavioural coping skills training (CBCST) is a talking therapy that focuses on changing the way people think and act. The twelve-step programme is based on theories from Alcoholics Anonymous and aims to motivate the person to develop a desire to stop using drugs or alcohol. Motivational interviewing (MI) helps people to explore and resolve doubts about changing their behaviour. It can be delivered in group, individual and intensive formats. Brief motivational interviewing (BMI) is a shorter MI that takes 45 minutes to three hours. Brief interventions are based on MI but they take only five to 30 minutes and are often delivered by a non-specialist. Six of the studies were funded by the National Institutes for Health or by the Health Research Board; one study did not report its funding source. We found that the talking therapies led to no differences, or only small differences, for the outcomes assessed. These included abstinence, reduced drinking, and substance use. One study found that there may be no difference between CBCST and the twelve-step programme. Three studies found that there may be no difference between brief intervention and usual treatment. Three studies found that there may be no difference between MI and usual treatment or education only. One study found that BMI is probably better at reducing alcohol use than usual treatment (needle exchange), but found no differences in other outcomes. One study found that intensive MI may be somewhat better than standard MI at reducing severity of alcohol use disorder among women, but not among men and found no differences in other outcomes. It remains uncertain whether talking therapies reduce alcohol and drug use in people who also have problems with other drugs. High-quality studies are missing and are needed. The quality of the evidence was moderate for brief and intensive motivational interviewing, but low for brief interventions and standard motivational interviewing, and very low for CBCST versus twelve-step programme.

CochranePLS81

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We identified 23 trials with a total of 1586 participants. Fifty-eight per cent of these participants were from five unpublished studies. Quinine was compared to placebo (20 trials, n = 1140), vitamin E (four trials, n = 543), a quinine-vitamin E combination (three trials, n = 510), a quinine-theophylline combination (one trial, n = 77), and xylocaine injections into the gastrocnemius muscle (one trial, n = 24). The most commonly used quinine dosage was 300 mg/day (range 200 to 500 mg). We found no new trials for inclusion when searches were updated in 2014. The risk of bias in the trials varied considerably. All 23 trials claimed to be randomised, but only a minority described randomisation and allocation concealment adequately. Compared to placebo, quinine significantly reduced cramp number over two weeks by 28%, cramp intensity by 10%, and cramp days by 20%. Cramp duration was not significantly affected. A significantly greater number of people suffered minor adverse events on quinine than placebo (risk difference (RD) 3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0% to 6%), mainly gastrointestinal symptoms. Overdoses of quinine have been reported elsewhere to cause potentially fatal adverse effects, but in the included trials there was no significant difference in major adverse events compared with placebo (RD 0%, 95% CI -1% to 2%). One participant suffered from thrombocytopenia (0.12% risk) on quinine. A quinine-vitamin E combination, vitamin E alone, and xylocaine injections into gastrocnemius were not significantly different to quinine across all outcomes, including adverse effects. Based on a single trial comparison, quinine alone was significantly less effective than a quinine-theophylline combination but with no significant differences in adverse events. There is low quality evidence that quinine (200 mg to 500 mg daily) significantly reduces cramp number and cramp days and moderate quality evidence that quinine reduces cramp intensity. There is moderate quality evidence that with use up to 60 days, the incidence of serious adverse events is not significantly greater than for placebo in the identified trials, but because serious adverse events can be rarely fatal, in some countries prescription of quinine is severely restricted. Evidence from single trials suggests that theophylline combined with quinine improves cramps more than quinine alone, and the effects of xylocaine injections into gastrocnemius are not significantly different to quinine across all outcomes. Low or moderate quality evidence shows no significant difference between quinine and vitamin E or quinine and quinine-vitamin E mixture. Further research into these alternatives, as well other pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments, is thus warranted. There is no evidence to judge optimal dosage or duration of quinine treatment. Further studies using different dosages and measurement of serum quinine levels will allow a therapeutic range to be defined for muscle cramp. Because serious adverse events are not common, large population studies are required to more accurately inform incidence. Longer lengths of follow-up in future trials will help determine the duration of action following cessation of quinine as well as long-term adverse events. The search for new therapies, pharmacological and nonpharmacological, should continue and further trials should compare vitamin E, quinine-vitamin E combination, and quinine-theophylline mixture with quinine. Output:

This review includes 23 trials, with 1586 participants. The trials compared quinine or quinine-based medicines against inactive treatment (placebo) or other active treatments. We found no new studies when we searched the medical literature again and updated the review in 2014. The risk of bias in the included trials varied considerably. All 23 trials claimed to be randomised, but many failed to clearly describe how participants were assigned to treatments. There is low quality evidence that quinine (200 mg to 500 mg daily) significantly reduces cramp number and cramp days and moderate quality evidence that quinine reduces cramp intensity. There is moderate quality evidence that there are more minor adverse events with quinine compared to placebo but no increase in major adverse events. However, there are reliable reports from other sources that an overdose of quinine can cause serious harm including death. Low or moderate quality evidence shows there is no significant difference when comparing quinine to vitamin E or to a quinine-vitamin E mixture. There is evidence from one trial that theophylline combined with quinine improves cramps more than quinine alone. In a single trial there was no significant difference when comparing quinine to xylocaine injections. More research is needed to clarify the best dose and duration of treatment, as well as alternatives to quinine for cramps. The evidence is current to October 2014.

CochranePLS82

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We identified seven trials (five parallel, two cross-over) enrolling a total of 406 individuals amongst whom 118 cross-over participants additionally served as their own controls. Three trials enrolled women with pregnancy-associated leg cramps (N = 202) and four trials enrolled idiopathic cramp sufferers (N = 322 including cross-over controls). Magnesium was compared to placebo in six trials and to no treatment in one trial. For idiopathic cramps (largely older adults presumed to have nocturnal leg cramps), differences in measures of cramp frequency, magnesium versus placebo, were small, not statistically significant, and without heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). This includes the primary endpoint, percentage change from baseline in the number of cramps per week at four weeks (-3.93%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -21.12% to 13.26%, moderate quality evidence) and the difference in the number of cramps per week at four weeks (0.01 cramps/week, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.55, moderate quality evidence). The percentage of individuals experiencing a 25% or better reduction in cramp rate from baseline was also no different, being 8% lower in the magnesium group (95% CI -28% to 12%, moderate quality evidence). Similarly, no statistically significant difference was found at four weeks in measures of cramp intensity (moderate quality evidence) or cramp duration (low quality evidence). Meta-analysis was not possible for trials of pregnancy-associated leg cramps. The single study comparing magnesium to no treatment failed to find statistically significant benefit on a three-point ordinal scale of overall treatment efficacy. The two trials comparing magnesium to placebo differed in that one trial found no benefit on frequency or intensity measures while the other found benefit for both. Withdrawals due to adverse events were not significantly different than placebo. While we could not determine the number of subjects with minor adverse events, studies of oral magnesium generally described potential side effects as similar in frequency to placebo. It is unlikely that magnesium supplementation provides clinically meaningful cramp prophylaxis to older adults experiencing skeletal muscle cramps. In contrast, for those experiencing pregnancy-associated rest cramps the literature is conflicting and further research in this patient population is needed. We found no randomized controlled trials evaluating magnesium for exercise-associated muscle cramps or disease state-associated muscle cramps (for example amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease). Output:

We searched for all high quality published studies evaluating the effectiveness of magnesium to prevent muscle cramps and found four studies in older adults and three studies in pregnant women. There were no studies of people who cramp while exercising and no studies on people who cramp because of underlying medical problems. The four studies in older adults (a total of 322 participants including controls in cross-over studies) collectively suggest that magnesium is unlikely to provide a meaningful benefit in reducing the frequency or severity of cramps in that population. We consider this evidence to be of moderate quality. In contrast, the three studies in pregnant women (202 participants) are collectively inconclusive since one study found benefit in reducing both cramp frequency and cramp pain while the other two found no benefit. More research on magnesium in pregnant women is needed; however, older adult cramp sufferers appear unlikely to benefit from this therapy. While we could not determine the rate of unwanted side effects, the study withdrawal rates and adverse event discussions suggest the treatment is well tolerated.

CochranePLS83

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included one RCT that studied the effects of a six-month, home-based, combined muscle strength and recumbent cycle ergometry training program versus usual care in 14 ambulatory people with SMA. The age range of the participants was between 10 years and 48 years. The study was evaluator-blinded, but personnel and participants could not be blinded to the intervention, which placed the results at a high risk of bias. Participants performed strength training as prescribed, but 50% of the participants did not achieve the intended aerobic exercise training regimen. The trial used change in walking distance on the six-minute walk test as a measure of function; a minimal detectable change is 24.0 m. The change from baseline to six months' follow-up in the training group (9.4 m) was not detectably different from the change in the usual care group (-0.14 m) (mean difference (MD) 9.54 m, 95% confidence interval (CI) -83.04 to 102.12; N = 12). Cardiopulmonary exercise capacity, assessed by the change from baseline to six months' follow-up in peak oxygen uptake (VO2max) was similar in the training group (-0.12 mL/kg/min) and the usual care group (-1.34 mL/kg/min) (MD 1.22 mL/kg/min, 95% CI -2.16 to 4.6; N = 12). A clinically meaningful increase in VO2max is 3.5 mL/kg/min. The trial assessed function on the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale - Expanded (HFMSE), which has a range of possible scores from 0 to 66, with an increase of 3 or more points indicating clinically meaningful improvement. The HFMSE score in the training group increased by 2 points from baseline to six months' follow-up, with no change in the usual care group (MD 2.00, 95% CI -2.06 to 6.06; N = 12). The training group showed a slight improvement in muscle strength, expressed as the manual muscle testing (MMT) total score, which ranges from 28 (weakest) to 280 (strongest). The change from baseline in MMT total score was 6.8 in the training group compared to -5.14 in the usual care group (MD 11.94, 95% CI -3.44 to 27.32; N = 12). The trial stated that training had no statistically significant effects on fatigue and quality of life. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes was very low because of study limitations and imprecision. The study did not assess the effects of physical exercise training on physical activity levels. No study-related serious adverse events or adverse events leading to withdrawal occurred, but we cannot draw wider conclusions from this very low-certainty evidence. It is uncertain whether combined strength and aerobic exercise training is beneficial or harmful in people with SMA type 3, as the quality of evidence is very low. We need well-designed and adequately powered studies using protocols that meet international standards for the development of training interventions, in order to improve our understanding of the exercise response in people with SMA type 3 and eventually develop exercise guidelines for this condition. Output:

We included one trial that studied the effects of a six-month, home-based training program that combined exercises to increase muscle strength with aerobic exercise training (exercise that increases breathing and heart rate). The aerobic exercise training used in the trial was recumbent cycling training (seated cycling, with back support). The study included 14 people with SMA type 3, all of whom were able to walk. The participants were between 10 years and 48 years old and had SMA type 3 of mild-to-moderate severity. The nature of the intervention made it impossible to hide the treatment group from participants or personnel, which is an important limitation when measurements rely on participant assessments or effort. The included study was supported by the United States Department of Defense and the SMA Foundation. Participants performed strength training as prescribed, but only half of them completed the full aerobic exercise program. The effects of physical exercise training in people with SMA type 3 remain unclear, as the evidence is very uncertain.

CochranePLS84

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Two trials (N = 149) were included. In both trials, allocation concealment was inadequate and arrangements for blinding of outcome assessment were unclear. One trial (81 patients with cervical radiculopathy) found that surgical decompression was superior to physiotherapy or cervical collar immobilization in the short-term for pain, weakness or sensory loss; at one year, there were no significant differences between groups. One trial (68 patients with mild functional deficit associated with cervical myelopathy) found no significant differences between surgery and conservative treatment in three years following treatment. A substantial proportion of cases were lost to follow-up. Both small trials had significant risks of bias and do not provide reliable evidence on the effects of surgery for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy or myelopathy. It is unclear whether the short-term risks of surgery are offset by long-term benefits. Further research is very likely to have an impact on the estimate of effect and our confidence in it. There is low quality evidence that surgery may provide pain relief faster than physiotherapy or hard collar immobilization in patients with cervical radiculopathy; but there is little or no difference in the long-term. There is very low quality evidence that patients with mild myelopathy feel subjectively better shortly after surgery, but there is little or no difference in the long-term. Output:

This review of two trials with 149 patients found no conclusive evidence to support surgical treatment for people with degeneration, radiculopathy or myelopathy. Possible limitations of this review include the the lack of large trials and the risk of bias associated with these studies. Further research is very likely to change the estimate of effects and our confidence in the results. Future large-scale randomised trials with better methods are needed to provide clear evidence on the balance between risk and benefit from surgery for individuals with cervical degeneration with radiculopathy or myelopathy.

CochranePLS85

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Nine studies met our inclusion criteria, five RCTs, one CCT and three ITSs. Six studies compared telephone consultation versus normal care; four by a doctor, one by a nurse and one by a clinic clerk. Three studies compared telephone consultation by different types of health care workers; two compared nurses with doctors and one compared health assistants with doctors or nurses. Three of five studies found a decrease in visits to GP's but two found a significant increase in return consultations. In general at least 50% of calls were handled by telephone advice alone. Seven studies looked at accident and emergency department visits, six showed no difference between the groups and one, of nurse telephone consultation, found an increase in visits. Two studies reported deaths and found no difference between nurse telephone triage and normal care. Telephone consultation appears to reduce the number of surgery contacts and out-of-hours visits by general practitioners. However, questions remain about its affect on service use and further rigorous evaluation is needed with emphasis on service use, safety, cost and patient satisfaction. Output:

Nine studies were found and analysed to determine whether telephone consultation was safe and effective. In general, at least half of the calls were handled by telephone only (without the need for face-to-face visits). It was found that telephone consultation appears to decrease the number of immediate visits to doctors and does not appear to increase visits to emergency departments. It is still unclear though, whether it is just delaying visits to a later time. Telephone consultation also appears to be safe and people were just as satisfied using the telephone as going to see someone face-to-face. There are still questions about its effectiveness and more research into the use, cost, safety and satisfaction of telephone consultation is needed.

CochranePLS86

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included a total of 84 trials (22,872 participants), with 70/84 studies reporting interventions in higher risk individuals or settings. Studies with follow-up periods of at least four months were of more interest in assessing the sustainability of intervention effects and were also less susceptible to short-term reporting or publication bias. Overall, the risk of bias assessment showed that these studies provided moderate or low quality evidence. At four or more months follow-up, we found effects in favour of MI for the quantity of alcohol consumed (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.15 to −0.06 or a reduction from 13.7 drinks/week to 12.5 drinks/week; moderate quality evidence); frequency of alcohol consumption (SMD −0.14, 95% CI −0.21 to −0.07 or a reduction in the number of days/week alcohol was consumed from 2.74 days to 2.52 days; moderate quality evidence); and peak blood alcohol concentration, or BAC (SMD −0.12, 95% CI −0.20 to 0.05, or a reduction from 0.144% to 0.131%; moderate quality evidence). We found a marginal effect in favour of MI for alcohol problems (SMD −0.08, 95% CI −0.17 to 0.00 or a reduction in an alcohol problems scale score from 8.91 to 8.18; low quality evidence) and no effects for binge drinking (SMD −0.04, 95% CI −0.09 to 0.02, moderate quality evidence) or for average BAC (SMD −0.05, 95% CI −0.18 to 0.08; moderate quality evidence). We also considered other alcohol-related behavioural outcomes, and at four or more months follow-up, we found no effects on drink-driving (SMD −0.13, 95% CI −0.36 to 0.10; moderate quality of evidence) or other alcohol-related risky behaviour (SMD −0.15, 95% CI −0.31 to 0.01; moderate quality evidence). Further analyses showed that there was no clear relationship between the duration of the MI intervention (in minutes) and effect size. Subgroup analyses revealed no clear subgroup effects for longer-term outcomes (four or more months) for assessment only versus alternative intervention controls; for university/college vs other settings; or for higher risk vs all/low risk participants. None of the studies reported harms related to MI. The results of this review indicate that there are no substantive, meaningful benefits of MI interventions for preventing alcohol use, misuse or alcohol-related problems. Although we found some statistically significant effects, the effect sizes were too small, given the measurement scales used in the included studies, to be of relevance to policy or practice. Moreover, the statistically significant effects are not consistent for all misuse measures, and the quality of evidence is not strong, implying that any effects could be inflated by risk of bias. Output:

We found a total of 84 randomised controlled trials (studies where participants were randomly divided into one of two or more treatment or control groups) that compared MI with either no intervention or with a different approach. Seventy of these trials focused on higher risk individuals or settings. We were mainly interested in trials with a follow-up period of 4 or more months, and the typical follow-up period was 12 months. We also evaluated the quality of the studies' designs and their applicability to our research, finding that these studies provided moderate to low quality evidence. In 66 trials, the MI consisted of a single, individual session. In 12 studies, young people attended multiple individual sessions or mixtures of both individual sessions and group sessions. Six trials used group MI sessions only. The length of MI sessions varied, but in 57 studies it was one hour or less. The shortest MI intervention was 10 to 15 minutes, and the longest had five dedicated MI sessions over a 19-hour period. Settings for the trials varied: 58 of the 84 studies took place in college (mainly university but also four vocational) settings. The remaining trials took place in healthcare locations, a youth centre, local companies, a job-related training centre, an army recruitment setting, UK drug agencies and youth prisons. The total number of young adults was 22,872, aged on average from 15 to 24 years old. The proportion of males in the trials with both males and females ranged from 22% to 90%. The ethnicity of the young adults was typically mixed, but 52 of the 67 studies that reported ethnicity involved mostly white people. At four or more months follow-up, we found only small or borderline effects showing that MI reduced the quantity of alcohol consumed, frequency of alcohol consumption, alcohol problems and peak blood alcohol concentration (BAC). We didn't find any effects for binge drinking, average BAC, drink-driving or other alcohol-related risky behaviour. We found no relationship between the length of MI and its effectiveness. Also, there were no clear subgroup differences in effects when we examined the type of comparison group (assessment only control or alternative intervention, the setting (college/university vs other settings), or risk status (higher risk students vs all/low-risk students). None of the studies reported harms related to MI. Although we found some significant effects for MI, our reading of these results is that the strength of the effects was slight and therefore unlikely to confer any advantage in practice. Overall, there is only low or moderate quality evidence for the effects found in this review. Many of the studies did not adequately describe how young people were allocated to the study groups or how they concealed the group allocation to participants and personnel. Study drop-outs were also an issue in many studies. These problems with study quality could result in inflated estimates of MI effects, so we cannot rule out the possibility that any slight effects observed in this review are overstated. The US National Institutes of Health provided funding for half (42/84) of the studies included in this review. Twenty-nine studies provided no information about funding, and only eight papers had a clear conflict of interest statement.

CochranePLS87

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: This review includes 29 parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 2210), although not all reported relevant or useable data. All participants had asthma, and follow-up ranged from 2 to 26 weeks. Most studies were at low or unclear risk of selection and attrition biases and at high risk for biases associated with blinding. We considered most of the evidence to be of low quality owing to these biases and to imprecision in the estimates of effect. We classified studies into three comparisons: enhanced face-to-face training session(s), multi-media-delivered inhaler training (e.g. DVD, computer app or game) and technique feedback devices. Differences between interventions, populations and outcome measures limited quantitative analyses, particularly for exacerbations, adverse events, unscheduled visits to a healthcare provider and absenteeism from work or school. Enhanced inhaler technique education and multi-media training improved technique in most studies immediately after the intervention and at follow-up, although the variety of checklists used meant that this was difficult to assess reliably. For both adults and children, how and when inhaler technique was assessed appeared to affect whether inhaler technique improved and by how much. Analyses of the numbers of people who demonstrated correct or 'good enough' technique were generally more useful than checklist scores. Adult studies of enhanced education showed benefit when this metric was used at 2 to 26 weeks' follow-up (odds ratio (OR) 5.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.83 to 13.65; 258 participants; three studies; 31 per 100 with correct technique in the control group compared with 69 (95% CI 45 to 86) in the education group; moderate-quality evidence). A similar result was seen in studies looking at feedback devices at four weeks' follow-up (OR 4.80, 95% CI 1.87 to 12.33; 97 participants; one study; 51 per 100 with correct technique in the control group compared with 83 (95% CI 66 to 93) in the feedback group; low-quality evidence). However, the benefit of multi-media training for adults even immediately after the intervention was uncertain (OR 2.15, 95% CI 0.84 to 5.50; 164 participants; two studies; I² = 49%; 30 per 100 in the control group with correct technique compared with 47 (95% CI 26 to 70) in the multi-media group; moderate-quality evidence). Evidence tended to be less clear for children, usually because results were based on fewer and smaller studies. Some studies did not report exacerbations in a way that allowed meta-analysis; others provided inconclusive results. Inhaler technique interventions provided some benefit for asthma control and quality of life but generally did not lead to consistent or important clinical benefits for adults or children. Confidence intervals included no difference or did not reach a threshold that could be considered clinically important. Responder analyses sometimes showed improvement among more people in the intervention groups, even though the mean difference between groups was small. We found no evidence about harms. Although interventions to improve inhaler technique may work in some circumstances, the variety of interventions and measurement methods used hampered our ability to perform meta-analyses and led to low to moderate confidence in our findings. Most included studies did not report important improvement in clinical outcomes. Guidelines consistently recommend that clinicians check regularly the inhaler technique of their patients; what is not clear is how clinicians can most effectively intervene if they find a patient's technique to be inadequate, and whether such interventions will have a discernible impact on clinical outcomes. Output:

We found 29 studies involving 2210 people with asthma. Studies lasted between 2 and 26 weeks. Studies reported inhaler technique on a range of different checklists. We grouped studies into three types: studies testing enhanced face-to-face training session(s), studies using multi-media to deliver inhaler training (e.g. a video, computer app or game) and studies testing devices that give people visual or audio feedback about technique. Studies tested different types of training and used different measures to gauge success, meaning that we could not bring data together. This was particularly true when we tried to assess effects on asthma attacks, adverse events, visits to a healthcare provider and absences from work or school. Both face-to-face and multi-media inhaler training improved inhaler technique in most studies, although results varied depending on how and when each technique was assessed. Some studies reported the number of people who had correct or 'good enough' technique. More people had correct or 'good enough' technique after face-to-face training and with feedback devices. But the benefit of multi-media training for adults was uncertain. Interventions that provide inhaler training may bring some benefit for quality of life and asthma control among adults and children, but results were varied and studies were small. Children may receive some benefit but results tended to be less clear for children because fewer and smaller studies have included children as participants. For studies like these, it is not possible to blind people to their assigned group. This may bias how people behave or respond to questionnaires, which reduced our confidence in the findings. We were uncertain about other results because studies did not provide enough data to show clear benefit. We cannot say for sure what is the best way to help people learn how to use their inhaler properly. It is important that patients understand how their inhaler works, so they should ask their doctor or nurse for help. We also use Cochrane Reviews to make suggestions for future research. We suggest that trials should last longer than six months and should report adherence information. The most useful information reported was the number of people who had 'good enough' inhaler technique, so we urge future trials to report this as well.

CochranePLS88

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Three small trials, involving 226 participants, were included. One trial included patients with presumed ischaemic stroke without computerised tomography (CT) verification, and the other two trials included patients with CT-verified ICH. Data on the primary outcome measure (death and dependency) were not available in any of the trials. Death and disability could be calculated in the larger ICH trial without differences between the mannitol and control groups. Case fatality was not reported in the trial of ischaemic stroke. Case fatality did not differ between the mannitol and control groups in the ICH trials. Adverse events were either not found or not reported. The change in clinical condition was reported in two trials, and the proportion of those with worsening or not improving condition did not differ significantly between mannitol-treated patients and controls. Based on these three trials neither beneficial nor harmful effects of mannitol could be proved. Although no statistically significant differences were found between the mannitol-treated and control groups, the confidence intervals for the treatment effect estimates were wide and included both clinically significant benefits and clinically significant harms as possibilities. There is currently not enough evidence to support the routine use of mannitol in acute stroke patients. Further trials are needed to confirm or refute whether mannitol is beneficial in acute stroke. Output:

This review of three small trials, involving 226 participants, found that there was not enough evidence to decide if mannitol improves survival or prevents disability after stroke. The treatment can cause a number of adverse effects, but no serious adverse events were reported in the trials included in this review. More research is needed.

CochranePLS89

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Six trials were identified, with 425 patients randomized to D-penicillamine and 258 to placebo. A statistically significant benefit was observed for D-penicillamine when compared to placebo for all three-dose ranges and for most outcome measures including: tender joint counts, pain, physician's global assessments and ESR. The standardized weighted mean differences between treatment and placebo in moderate doses were -0.51 [95% CI -0.88, -0.14] for tender joint counts, -0.56 (95% CI -0.87, -0.26) for pain and -0.97 (95% CI -1.25, -0.70) for global assessment. The difference for ESR was -10.6 mm/hr. Similar results were observed for the higher dose group. Total withdrawals were significantly higher in the moderate and high dosage D-penicillamine groups (OR=1.63 and 2.13 respectively), mostly due to increased adverse reactions (OR = 2.60 and 4.95 respectively), including renal and hematological abnormalities. D-penicillamine appears to have a clinically and statistically significant benefit on the disease activity of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Its efficacy appears to be similar to that of other disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but with a significantly higher toxicity. Its effects on long-term functional status and radiological progression are not clear from this review. Output:

Penicillamine is a penicillin derived compound. Studies showed that this could be used to treat rheumatoid arthritis originally in 1950. It was frequently used in the past, but its use has declined with the increasing use of other disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), such as methotrexate. The purpose of this summary was to find out if penicillamine is helpful in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Penicillamine was seen to be beneficial for all ranges of dosages for disease activity on tender joint pain, physician global assessment and sed rate. No major differences were observed between placebo and low dose penicillamine (<500 mg/day). For higher dosages, patients on penicillamine were twice as likely to withdraw than those receiving placebo 500 to <1000 mg/day. D-penicillamine appears be have a clinical and statistical benefit on the disease activity of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Its benefit is similar to that of other such drugs, such as disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). More adverse reactions are seen in patients being treated with D-penicillamine.

CochranePLS90

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included four relevant trials. All of them were of low quality. All of studies used a decoction containing Huangqi compounds as the intervention with chemotherapy. The intervention groups of three studies were compared to a chemotherapy alone control group, the fourth study compared the decoction of Huangqi compounds with two other Chinese herbal interventions. None of the studies reported on primary outcome using Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC). There was a significant reduction in the proportion of patients who experienced nausea & vomiting when decoctions of Huangqi compounds were given in addition to chemotherapy. There was also a decrease in the rate of leucopenia (WBC <3 x 10^9 per L). Huangqi compounds were also associated with increases in the proportions of T-lymphocyte subsets: CD3; CD4 and CD8. Huangqi decoctions had no significant effects on Immunoglobulins G, A or M. Despite the included studies being of low quality, the results suggest that decoctions of Huangqi compounds may stimulate immunocompetent cells and decrease side effects in patients treated with chemotherapy. Due to the methodological limitations of the studies, there is no robust demonstration of benefit. We found no evidence of harm arising from the use of Chinese herbs. We need high quality randomised controlled studies investigating the effects of decoctions of Chinese herbs, particularly Astragalus spp.(as in Huangqi), upon chemotherapy-related side effects. Output:

We have performed a systematic review of the potential benefits of Chinese herbal medicines in patients being treated with chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. We identified four relevant studies, which included a total of 342 patients, with adequately reported data. We conclude that, from the limited information available, there is some evidence of benefit from decoctions of Huangqi compounds. Compared with patients treated by chemotherapy alone, patients treated with chemotherapy and Huangqi decoctions were less likely to experience nausea and vomiting or low white cell counts. There was some evidence to suggest that the decoctions also stimulated cells of the immune system, but did not affect the levels of antibodies in the blood. We could find no evidence of harm arising from the use of Huangqi decoctions. Our results suggest that further, larger-scale, trials of the use of Huangqi decoctions in the prevention of chemotherapy-related side-effects are needed.

CochranePLS91

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We reviewed 394 titles and abstracts and nine ClinicalTrials.gov records and included three RCTs that met our eligibility criteria. The three trials included a total of 866 participants aged four to 55 years with RP of all forms of genetic predisposition. One trial evaluated the effect of vitamin A alone, one trial evaluated DHA alone, and a third trial evaluated DHA and vitamin A versus vitamin A alone. None of the RCTs had protocols available, so selective reporting bias was unclear for all. In addition, one trial did not specify the method for random sequence generation, so there was an unclear risk of bias. All three trials were graded as low risk of bias for all other domains. We did not perform meta-analysis due to clinical heterogeneity of participants and interventions across the included trials. The primary outcome, mean change of visual field from baseline at one year, was not reported in any of the studies. No toxicity or adverse events were reported in these three trials. No trial reported a statistically significant benefit of vitamin supplementation on the progression of visual field loss or visual acuity loss. Two of the three trials reported statistically significant differences in ERG amplitudes among some subgroups of participants, but these results have not been replicated or substantiated by findings in any of the other trials. Based on the results of three RCTs, there is no clear evidence for benefit of treatment with vitamin A and/or DHA for people with RP, in terms of the mean change in visual field and ERG amplitudes at one year and the mean change in visual acuity at five years follow-up. In future RCTs, since some of the studies in this review included unplanned subgroup analysis that suggested differential effects based on previous vitamin A exposure, investigators should consider examining this issue. Future trials should take into account the changes observed in ERG amplitudes and other outcome measures from trials included in this review, in addition to previous cohort studies, when calculating sample sizes to assure adequate power to detect clinically and statistically meaningful difference between treatment arms. Output:

We identified three clinical studies conducted in the USA and Canada. These studies included 866 participants with RP aged between four and 55 years, who were followed for an average of four years after administration of treatment. One study compared a fish oil extract (docosahexaenoic acid (DHA, 400 mg per day)), to placebo (pretend medicine); the second study compared vitamin A (15000 IU per day) to vitamin E (400 IU per day) and to very low levels of vitamins (vitamin A trace + vitamin E trace); and the third study compared DHA (1200 mg per day) + vitamin A (15000 IU per day) to vitamin A alone (15000 IU per day). The evidence is current to August 2013. All these studies measured the following outcomes: worsening in visual field, worsening in visual acuity (sharpness), and worsening in electroretinography results. Generally, comparison of participants who received vitamin A with or without fish oils (DHA) with participants who received placebo, did not show any difference for these outcomes, which means that the use of high-dose vitamin A or fish oils does not significantly slow progressive visual loss in people with RP. None of the studies reported any systemic adverse events from vitamin A or fish oil. However, the long-term adverse effects of high-dose vitamin A and fish oil are not known. The trials appear to have been well designed and well conducted, so we determined the quality was good for all included studies.

CochranePLS92

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We included three RCTs with a total of 414 participants at risk of job loss. The majority of participants had IA, most with RA and to a lesser degree AS. The interventions aimed to prevent job loss and improve work functioning in several ways: firstly by evaluating work changes or adaptations and secondly by providing any person-directed interventions including vocational counselling, advice or education. Interventions directly targeted at the work environment were minimal and included workplace visits (one trial) or any actions by an occupational physician (one trial). The duration or dose of the interventions varied from two 1.5-hour sessions (one RCT) over five months, two consultation and multidisciplinary treatments during three months (one RCT), to six to eight individual or group sessions over six months (also one RCT). All participants were recruited through rheumatology clinics, both in or outside hospitals. Included trials investigated job loss (n = two RCTs; 382 participants), work absenteeism and work functioning (n = one RCT; 32 participants). Overall, we evaluated the two smaller trials as having a high risk of bias and the large trial as having a low risk of bias. Trials showed marked differences in how they performed on risk of bias items, particularly on performance bias. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach and judged there to be very low quality evidence across the three reported outcomes. Of the two RCTs investigating job loss, the larger one (n = 242 participants) reported a large statistically significant reduction in job loss (relative risk (RR) = 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.68) and the other RCT (n = 140) reported similar effects in both groups, although the CI was very wide (RR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.06). The latter one probably suffered from performance bias and we judged it to have a high risk of bias. The one small trial investigating sickness absenteeism found uncertain results at six months' follow-up (MD = -2.42 days, 95% CI -5.03 to 0.19). Finally, in the same small trial investigating work functioning using the Rheumatoid Arthritis-Work Instability Scale (RA-WIS), there was a moderate improvement of intermediate term work functioning (six months; scale range 0 to 23; mean improvement -4.67 points, 95% CI -8.43 to -0.91). We identified no adverse effects in the publications of the three trials. This Cochrane review of three RCTs found very low quality evidence overall for job loss prevention interventions having an effect on job loss, work absenteeism and work functioning in workers with inflammatory arthritis. While this review highlights that further high quality RCTs are required, the results suggest that these strategies have potential to be effective. Output:

We searched the available literature up to 30 April 2014. We included three randomised controlled trials with 414 participants who had IA and who were at risk of losing their jobs. These trials first evaluated how the work environment could be adapted and then provided counselling, advice or education for work problems. One trial gave two 1.5-hour sessions over five months. Another trial gave two consultation and multidisciplinary treatments during three months. The third trial gave six to eight individual or group sessions over six months. The included trials compared the effects of interventions to usual care (two trials) or to written information only (one trial). Two of the included trials measured the effect of the intervention on job loss (382 participants) when the third measured effect on work absenteeism and work functioning (32 participants). When considered together, the evidence from the three trials was of very low quality. Two trials found different results on job loss measured at two years' follow-up: one trial on job counselling found a large reduction in people who lost their job and the other trial found similar effects in both groups. Another trial did not find a considerable effect on absenteeism at six months' follow-up but found a moderate improvement in work functioning. Because of positive results from one RCT with long term follow-up, we see potential for job loss prevention interventions in helping workers with inflammatory arthritis to stay at work. The certainty of these results is limited by the very low quality evidence of the three RCTs overall.

CochranePLS93

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: We identified three eligible studies that included a total of 285 neonates (140 received arginine) from three countries. We assessed the overall methodological quality of the included studies as good. We noted a statistically significant reduction in risk of development of NEC (any stage) among preterm neonates in the arginine group compared with the placebo group (RR 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.64; I2 = 27%) (RD -0.19, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.10; I2 = 0%) and rated the quality of evidence as moderate. The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) as required to prevent the development of NEC (any stage) was 6 (95% CI 4 to 10). Study results showed a statistically significant reduction in risk of development of NEC stage 1 (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.90; I2 = 52%) (RD -0.07, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.01; I2 = 0%) and NEC stage 3 (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.03; I2 = 0%) (RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.01; I2 = 89%) in the arginine group compared with the control group; the quality of evidence was moderate. Arginine supplementation was associated with a significant reduction in death related to NEC (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.00; I2 = 0%) (RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.01; I2 = 87%). Results showed clinical heterogeneity in mortality rates. Mortality due to any cause was not significantly different between arginine and control or no treatment groups (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.45; I2 = 42%) (RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.04; I2 = 79%). Investigators noted no significant side effects directly attributable to arginine, including hypotension or alterations in glucose homeostasis. Follow-up data from one trial revealed no statistically significant differences in adverse outcomes (cerebral palsy, cognitive delay, bilateral blindness or hearing loss requiring hearing aids) at 36 months. Limitations of the present findings include a relatively small overall sample size. Administration of arginine to preterm infants may prevent development of NEC. Because information was provided by three small trials that included 285 participants, the data are insufficient at present to support a practice recommendation. A multi-centre randomised controlled study that is focused on the incidence of NEC, particularly at more severe stages (2 and 3), is needed. Output:

Review authors searched the literature for controlled studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of arginine supplementation. Adding extra arginine to a preterm infant's feed reduced the risk of NEC in three good quality studies that included 285 infants born at less than 34 weeks' gestation. Six infants had to be treated, for one to benefit from treatment. Researchers reported no significant side effects directly attributable to too much arginine in the first 28 days, and one study reported no long-term (36 months) developmental delays. Possible effects of supplementing arginine include lower blood pressure and changes in blood glucose control. Arginine supplementation may reduce the incidence and severity of NEC in preterm infants. Results are limited, as studies included only a few patients. A large study that includes infants from multiple centres is needed to verify these findings.

CochranePLS94

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: No new trials were found for inclusion in this update. Four studies involving 1943 participants with acute sinusitis met our inclusion criteria. The trials were well-designed and double-blind and studied INCS versus placebo or no intervention for 15 or 21 days. The rates of loss to follow-up were 7%, 11%, 41% and 10%. When we combined the results from the three trials included in the meta-analysis, participants receiving INCS were more likely to experience resolution or improvement in symptoms than those receiving placebo (73% versus 66.4%; risk ratio (RR) 1.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.18). Higher doses of INCS had a stronger effect on improvement of symptoms or complete relief: for mometasone furoate 400 µg versus 200 µg (RR 1.10; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.18 versus RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.11). No significant adverse events were reported and there was no significant difference in the drop-out and recurrence rates for the two treatment groups and for groups receiving higher doses of INCS. Current evidence is limited for acute sinusitis confirmed by radiology or nasal endoscopy but supports the use of INCS as a monotherapy or as an adjuvant therapy to antibiotics. Clinicians should weigh the modest but clinically important benefits against possible minor adverse events when prescribing therapy. Output:

A critical systematic review of the literature found four well-conducted, randomised, placebo-controlled intervention studies, involving 1943 participants treated for 15 or 21 days. The results suggest that there may be a modest effect with INCS in the resolution or improvement of symptoms. Only minor adverse events such as epistaxis, headache and nasal itching were reported. Given the small number of studies included in this review, it is recommended that further randomised controlled trials be conducted. The evidence is up to date as of May 2013.

CochranePLS95

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: The administration of prophylactic vancomycin reduced the incidence of both total neonatal nosocomial sepsis and coagulase negative staphylococcal sepsis in eligible preterm infants. Mortality, length of stay, and evidence of vancomycin toxicity were not significantly different between the two groups. There was insufficient evidence to ascertain the risks of development of vancomycin resistant organisms in the nurseries involved in these trials. The use of prophylactic vancomycin in low doses reduces the incidence of nosocomial sepsis in the neonate. The methodologies of these studies may have contributed to the low rate of sepsis in the treated groups, as the blood cultures drawn from central lines may have failed to grow due to the low levels of vancomycin in the infusate. Although there is a theoretical concern regarding the development of resistant organisms with the administration of prophylactic antibiotic, there is insufficient evidence to ascertain the risks of development of vancomycin resistant organisms. Few clinically important benefits have been demonstrated for very low birth weight infants treated with prophylactic vancomycin. It therefore appears that routine prophylaxis with vancomycin should not be undertaken at present. Output:

The review of trials found that low dose continuous infusions, or low dose intermittent administration, of vancomycin reduce the risk of a baby getting sepsis in the neonatal intensive care unit. There is not enough evidence to show if this approach increases antibiotic resistance in nurseries.

CochranePLS96

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Fourteen reports of 13 RCTs on dressings or topical agents for postoperative wounds healing by secondary intention were identified. WOUND HEALING: Whilst a single small trial of aloe vera supplementation vs gauze suggests delayed healing with aloe vera, the results of this trial are un interpretable since there was a large differential loss to follow up. A plaster cast applied to an amputation stump accelerated wound healing compared with elastic compression, WMD -25.60 days, 95% CI -49.08 to -2.12 days (1 trial). There were no statistically significant differences in healing for other dressing comparisons (e.g. gauze, foam, alginate; 11 trials). PAIN: Gauze was associated with significantly more pain for patients than other dressings (4 trials). PATIENT SATISFACTION: Patients treated with gauze were less satisfied compared with those receiving alternative dressings (3 trials). COSTS: Gauze is inexpensive but its use is associated with the use of significantly more nursing time than foam (2 trials). LENGTH OF HOSPITAL STAY: Four trials showed no difference in length of hospital stay. One trial found shorter hospital stay in people after amputation when plaster casts were applied compared with elastic compression (WMD -30.10 days; 95% CI -49.82 to -10.38). We found only small, poor quality trials; the evidence is therefore insufficient to determine whether the choice of dressing or topical agent affects the healing of surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. Foam is best studied as an alternative for gauze and appears to be preferable as to pain reduction, patient satisfaction and nursing time. Output:

There are many kinds of dressings and topical agents available but few have been evaluated in trials. This review did not find any evidence that any one dressing or topical agent speeds up the healing of surgical wounds healing by secondary intention more than another, although gauze may be associated with greater pain or discomfort for the patient.

CochranePLS97

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: In 2014, we added seven trials for a new total of 11. Five reports were published before 1985 and six from 2005 to 2014. They included 1482 women. Four trials examined combined oral contraceptives (COCs), and three studied a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS). We found two trials of progestin-only pills (POPs) and two of the etonogestrel-releasing implant. Older studies often lacked quantified results. Most trials did not report significant differences between the study arms in breastfeeding duration, breast milk composition, or infant growth. Exceptions were seen mainly in older studies with limited information. For breastfeeding duration, two of eight trials indicated a negative effect on lactation. A COC study reported a negative effect on lactation duration compared to placebo but did not quantify results. Another trial showed a lower percentage of the LNG-IUS group breastfeeding at 75 days versus the nonhormonal IUD group (reported P < 0.05) but no significant difference at one year. For breast milk volume, two older studies indicated lower volume for the COC group versus the placebo group. One trial did not quantify results. The other showed lower means (mL) for the COC group, e.g. at 16 weeks (MD -24.00, 95% CI -34.53 to -13.47) and at 24 weeks (MD -24.90, 95% CI -36.01 to -13.79). Another four trials did not report any significant difference between the study groups in milk volume or composition with two POPs, a COC, or the etonogestrel implant. Seven trials studied infant growth; one showed greater weight gain (grams) for the etonogestrel implant versus no method for six weeks (MD 426.00, 95% CI 58.94 to 793.06) but less compared with depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) from 6 to 12 weeks (MD -271.00, 95% CI -355.10 to -186.90). The others studied POPs, COCs versus POPs, or an LNG-IUS. Results were not consistent across the 11 trials. The evidence was limited for any particular hormonal method. The quality of evidence was moderate overall and low for three of four placebo-controlled trials of COCs or POPs. The sensitivity analysis included six trials with moderate quality evidence and sufficient outcome data. Five trials indicated no significant difference between groups in breastfeeding duration (etonogestrel implant insertion times, COC versus POP, and LNG-IUS). For breast milk volume or composition, a COC study showed a negative effect, while an implant trial showed no significant difference. Of four trials that assessed infant growth, three indicated no significant difference between groups. One showed greater weight gain in the etonogestrel implant group versus no method but less versus DMPA. Output:

We included 11 studies with a total of 1482 women. These trials looked at many methods: pills, an implant, the injectable 'Depo,' and a hormonal intrauterine device (IUD). Some older reports did not have much data. Most trials showed no major difference due to hormonal birth control use. Two of eight trials noted less breastfeeding among women using hormonal birth control. One was a combined pill with few results and the other a hormonal IUD. In one study, the implant group infants gained more weight than those in the no-method group but less weight than infants in the 'Depo' group. Two trials noted that a combined pill had a negative effect on breast milk volume or content. One report did not have much data. The other showed lower volume for combined pill users than for women taking pills with only progestin. We found little information on any specific birth control method, with usually two studies per method. Results were not consistent across all trials. The data were of moderate quality overall. The results of better quality showed little effect on breastfeeding or infant growth.

CochranePLS98

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: No randomised controlled trials were identified but 10 controlled before-after studies from Australia, Singapore and the USA met our inclusion criteria. We grouped them according to the extent to which they adjusted for regression to the mean (RTM) and spillover effects. Total casualty crashes: the only study that adjusted for both reported a rate ratio of 0.71 (95% CI to 0.55, 0.93); for three that partially adjusted for RTM but failed to consider spillover, rate ratio was 0.87 (95% CI to 0.77, 0.98); one that made no adjustments had a rate ratio of 0.80 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.12). Right-angle casualty crashes: rate ratio for two studies that partially addressed RTM was 0.76 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.07). Total crashes: the study addressing both RTM and spillover reported a rate ratio of 0.93 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.05); one study that partially addressed RTM had a rate ratio of 0.92 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.15); the pooled rate ratio from the five studies with no adjustments was 0.74 (95% CI 0.53 to 1.03). Red-light violations: one study found a rate ratio of 0.53 (95% CI 0.17 to 1.66). Red-light cameras are effective in reducing total casualty crashes. The evidence is less conclusive on total collisions, specific casualty collision types and violations, where reductions achieved could be explained by the play of chance. Most evaluations did not adjust for RTM or spillover, affecting their accuracy. Larger and better controlled studies are needed. Output:

This review looked for studies of their effectiveness in reducing the number of times that drivers drive through red lights and the number of crashes. Very little research has been done and much of it has not allowed for the statistical problems that occur when recording this kind of information. However, five studies in Australia, Singapore and the USA all found that use of red-light cameras cut the number of crashes in which there were injuries. In the best conducted of these studies, the reduction was nearly 30%. More research is needed to determine best practice for red-light camera programmes, including how camera sites are selected, signing policies, publicity programmes and penalties.

CochranePLS99

***TASK*** the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***INPUT*** the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature ***OUTPUT*** the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Output: ***EXAMPLES*** Input: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%). One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions. Output: The evidence in this review, which was carried out together with Cochrane Oral Health, is up-to-date as of 15 February 2017. We included two studies that evaluated 190 participants. Both trials were conducted in the UK and both compared bonded molar tubes with molar bands. From the limited data of two studies at low risk of bias, it would appear that bonded molar tubes are associated with a higher failure rate than with molar bands. Input: Four trials involving 494 participants were included. Three studies involving 383 participants provided data on the proportion of participants who had achieved a therapeutic INR by day five. Significant benefit of a 10-mg warfarin nomogram was observed (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.54; moderate quality evidence), although with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 90%). The review authors analyzed each study separately because it was not possible to perform a subgroup analysis by inpatient or outpatient status. One study showed significant benefit of a 10-mg warfarin nomogram for the proportion of outpatients with VTE who had achieved a therapeutic INR by day five (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.25), with the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB = 3, 95% CI 2 to 4); another study showed significant benefit of a 5-mg warfarin nomogram in outpatients with VTE (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.93) with NNTB = 5 (95% CI 3 to 28); a third study, consisting of both inpatients and outpatients, showed no difference (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.80). No difference was observed in recurrent venous thromboembolism at 90 days when the warfarin nomogram of 10 mg was compared with the warfarin nomogram of 5 mg (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.39 to 5.56; 3 studies, 362 participants, low quality evidence); no difference was observed in major bleeding at 14 to 90 days (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.51; 4 studies, 494 participants, moderate quality evidence). No difference was observed in minor bleeding at 14 to 90 days (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.83; 2 studies, 243 participants, very low quality evidence) or in length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) -2.3 days, 95% CI -7.96 to 3.36; 1 study, 111 participants, low quality evidence). In patients with acute thromboembolism (DVT or PE) aged 18 years or older, considerable uncertainty surrounds the use of a 10-mg or a 5-mg loading dose for initiation of warfarin to achieve an INR of 2.0 to 3.0 on the fifth day of therapy. Heterogeneity among analyzed studies, mainly caused by differences in types of study participants and length of follow-up, limits certainty surrounding optimal warfarin initiation nomograms. Output:

This review of four studies with a total of 494 participants (current until June 2015) found that in patients with acute thromboembolism aged 18 years or older, considerable uncertainty surrounds the use of a 10-mg or a 5-mg loading dose for initiation of warfarin to achieve an INR of 2.0 to 3.0 on the fifth day of therapy. A benefit of 10-mg warfarin compared with 5-mg warfarin was observed for the proportion of patients with VTE who had achieved a therapeutic INR by day five but the quality of the evidence was moderate due to the differences among analyzed studies. In addition, no differences were observed between 5-mg and 10-mg nomograms for recurrent venous thromboembolism, major and minor bleeding, and length of hospital stay. Studies with high-quality evidence regarding the efficacy of 5-mg and 10-mg warfarin nomograms are needed. Quality of the evidence The quality of the evidence was moderate for therapeutic INR and major bleeding, low for recurrent VTE and length of hospital stay, and very low for minor bleeding. The main reason for downgrading the quality of the evidence was differences between the studies in types of study participants and length of follow-up.