pinecone/core-2020-05-10-deduplication huggingface dataset:
Open versus laparoscopic (assisted) ileo pouch anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis.

Contains fulltext :
                  81527-OA.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Restorative proctocolectomy with ileo pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) is the main surgical treatment for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). With the advancements of minimal-invasive surgery this demanding operation is increasingly being performed laparoscopically. Therefore, the presumed benefits of the laparoscopic approach need to be systematically evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of laparoscopic versus open IPAA for patients with UC and FAP. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane IBD/FBD Group Specialized Trial Register (April 2007), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2007), MEDLINE (1990 to April 2007), EMBASE (1990 to April 2007), ISI Web of Knowledge (1990 to April 2007) and the web casts of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) (up to 2006) for all trials comparing open versus laparoscopic IPAA. SELECTION CRITERIA: All trials in patients with UC or FAP comparing any kind of laparoscopic IPAA versus open IPAA. No language limitations were applied. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed selection of trials and data extraction. The methodological quality of all included trials was evaluated to assess bias risk. Analysis of RCTs and non-RCTs was performed separately. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. Authors were requested additional information in case of missing data. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed if appropriate. MAIN Results : Eleven trials included 607 patients of whom 253 (41%) in the laparoscopic IPAA group. Only one of the included trials was a randomised controlled trial. There were no significant differences in mortality or complications between the two groups. Reoperation and readmission rates were not significantly different. Operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group both in the RCT and meta-analysis of non-RCTs (weighted mean difference (WMD) 91 minutes; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 53 to 130). There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding postoperative recovery parameters. Total incision length was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group, while two trials evaluating cosmesis found significantly higher cosmesis scores in the laparoscopic group. Other long-term outcomes were poorly reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The laparoscopic IPAA is a feasible and safe procedure. Short-term advantages of the laparoscopic approach seem to be limited and their clinical significance is arguable. Large high-quality trials focusing on differences regarding specific postoperative complications, cosmesis, quality of life and costs are needed
Use of plastic adhesive drapes during surgery for preventing surgical site infection (Review)

Background\ud
Surgical site infection has been estimated to occur in about 15% of clean surgery and 30% of contaminated surgery. Using plastic adhesive drapes to protect the wound from organisms that may be present on the surrounding skin during surgery is one strategy used to prevent surgical site infection. Results from non-randomised studies have produced conflicting results about the efficacy of this approach but no systematic review has been conducted to date to guide clinical practice.\ud
\ud
Objectives\ud
To assess the effect of adhesive drapes used during surgery on surgical site infection, cost, mortality and morbidity.\ud
\ud
Search strategy\ud
We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (last searched 24/4/07), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2,2007), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to April Week 2, 2007), Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2007 Week 16), and Ovid CINAHL (1982 to 1980 to April Week 2 2007).\ud
\ud
Selection criteria\ud
Randomised controlled trials comparing any plastic adhesive drape with no adhesive drape, used alone or in combination with woven (material) drapes or disposable (paper) drapes in patients undergoing any type of surgery.\ud
\ud
Data collection & analysis\ud
Two authors independently selected and assessed studies for trial quality and both independently extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.\ud
\ud
Main results\ud
This review includes five studies involving 3,082 participants comparing adhesive drapes with no drape and two studies involving 1,113 participants comparing iodine-impregnated adhesive drapes with no drape. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the adhesive drape group developed a surgical site infection when compared with no drape. (Relative Risk (RR) 1.23, 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) 1.02 to 1.48, p=0.03). Iodine-impregnated adhesive drapes had no effect on the surgical site infection rate (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.064 to 1.66, p=0.89). Length of hospital stay was similar in adhesive drape and non-adhesive drape groups.\ud
\ud
Reviewers' conclusions\ud
There was no evidence from the seven trials that plastic adhesive drapes reduces surgical site infection rate and some evidence that they increase infection rates. \ud
\ud
Further trials may be justified using blinded outcome assessment to examine the effect of adhesive drapes on surgical site infection based on different wound classifications
Use of plastic adhesive drapes during surgery for preventing surgical site infection (Review)

Background: Surgical site infection has been estimated to occur in about 15% of clean surgery and 30% of contaminated surgery cases. Using plastic adhesive drapes to protect the wound from organisms that may be present on the surrounding skin during surgery is one strategy used to prevent surgical site infection. Results from non-randomised studies have produced conflicting results about the efficacy of this approach. A systematic review was required to guide clinical practice. Objectives: To assess the effect of adhesive drapes used during surgery on surgical site infection, cost, mortality and morbidity. Search methods: For this fourth update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 4th March 2015); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE (2012 to 3rd March 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, 2012 to 3rd March 2015); Ovid EMBASE (2012 to 3rd March 2015); and EBSCO CINAHL (2012 to 4th March 2015). Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing any plastic adhesive drape with no plastic adhesive drape, used alone or in combination with woven (material) drapes or disposable (paper) drapes, in patients undergoing any type of surgery. Ring drapes were excluded. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently selected and assessed studies for trial quality and both independently extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. Main results: We identified no new studies for this fourth update. The review includes five studies involving 3082 participants comparing plastic adhesive drapes with no drapes and two studies involving 1113 participants comparing iodine-impregnated adhesive drapes with no drapes. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the adhesive drape group developed a surgical site infection when compared with no drapes (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.48, P = 0.03). Iodine-impregnated adhesive drapes had no effect on the surgical site infection rate (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.66, P = 0.89). Length of hospital stay was similar in the adhesive drape and non-adhesive drape groups. Authors\u27 conclusions: There was no evidence from the seven trials that plastic adhesive drapes reduce surgical site infection rates, and some evidence that they increase infection rates. Further trials may be justified, using blinded outcome assessment to examine the effect of adhesive drapes on surgical site infection, based on different wound classifications
Vaccines for prophylaxis of viral infections in patients with hematological malignancies.

Viral infections cause significant morbidity and mortality in patients with hematological malignancies. It remains uncertain whether viral vaccinations in these patients are supported by good evidence. We aimed to determine the effectiveness and safety of viral vaccines in patients with hematological malignancies. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL (June 2010), reference lists of relevant papers, abstracts from scientific meetings and contacted vaccine manufacturers. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating viral vaccines in patients with hematological malignancies were included. Relative risk (RR) was used for binary data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. Primary outcome was incidence of infection. Secondary outcomes were mortality, incidence of complications and severe viral infection, hospitalization, immune response and adverse effects. Fixed-effect model was used in meta-analyses. Eight RCTs were included, with 305 patients in the intervention groups and 288 in the control groups. They evaluated heat-inactivated varicella zoster virus (VZV) vaccine (two trials), influenza vaccines (five trials) and inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) (one trial). Seven trials had high and one trial had moderate risk of bias.VZV vaccine might reduce herpes zoster compared to no vaccine (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.3 to 1.0, P=0.05), but not statistically significant. Vaccination also demonstrated efficacy in immune response but frequently caused local adverse effects. One trial reported severity score of zoster, which favored vaccination (MD 2.6, 95% CI 0.94 to 4.26, P=0.002).Two RCTs compared inactivated influenza vaccine with no vaccine and reported lower risk of lower respiratory infections (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.78, P=0.008) and hospitalization (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.31, P<0.00001) in vaccine recipients. However, vaccine recipients more frequently experienced irritability and local adverse effects. There was no significant difference in seroconversion between one and two doses of influenza vaccine (one trial), or between recombinant and standard influenza vaccine (one trial), or influenza vaccine given with or without re-induction chemotherapy (one trial).The IPV trial comparing vaccination starting at 6 versus 18 months after stem cell transplant (SCT) found no significant difference in seroconversion. Inactivated VZV vaccine might reduce zoster severity in adult SCT recipients. Inactivated influenza vaccine might reduce respiratory infections and hospitalization in adults with multiple myeloma or children with leukemia or lymphoma. However, the quality of evidence is low. Local adverse effects occur frequently. Further high-quality RCTs are needed.link_to_subscribed_fulltex
Different methods of external fixation for treating distal radial fractures in adults

Background: Fracture of the distal radius is a common injury. A surgical treatment is external fixation, where metal pins inserted into bone on either side of the fracture are then fixed to an external frame.\ud
Objectives: To evaluate the evidence from randomised controlled trials comparing different methods of external fixation for distal radial fractures in adults.\ud
Search strategy: The authors searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (June 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and other databases, conference proceedings and reference lists of articles. No language restrictions were applied.\ud
Selection criteria: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials which compared different methods of external fixation in adults with a distal radial fracture.\ud
Data collection and analysis: All review authors independently performed study selection. Two authors independently assessed the included trials and performed data extraction.\ud
Main results: Nine small trials involving 510 adults with potentially or evidently unstable fractures, were grouped into five comparisons. The interventional, clinical and methodological heterogeneity of trials precluded data pooling. Only one trial had secure allocation concealment.\ud
Two trials comparing a bridging (of the wrist) external fixator versus pins and plaster external fixation found no significant differences in function or deformity. One trial found tendencies for more serious complications but less subsequent discomfort and deformity in the fixator group.\ud
Three trials compared non-bridging versus bridging fixation. Of the two trials testing uni-planar non-bridging fixation, one found no significant differences in functional or clinical outcomes; the other found non-bridging fixation significantly improved grip strength, wrist flexion and anatomical outcome. The third trial found no significant findings in favour of multi-planar non-bridging fixation of complex intra-articular fractures.\ud
One trial using a bridging external fixator found that deploying an extra external fixator pin to fix the 'floating' distal fragment gave superior functional and anatomical results.\ud
One trial found no evidence of differences in clinical outcomes for hydroxyapatite coated pins compared with standard uncoated pins.\ud
Two trials compared dynamic versus static external fixation. One trial found no significant effects from early dynamism of an external fixator. The poor quality of the other trial undermines its findings of poorer functional and anatomical outcomes for dynamic fixation.\ud
Authors' conclusions: There is insufficient robust evidence to determine the relative effects of different methods of external fixation. Adequately powered studies could provide better evidence
Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems

This review is published as a Cochrane Review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 10. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to comments and criticisms, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the Review.Common mental health problems, such as depression and anxiety, are estimated to affect up to 15% of the UK population at any one time, and health care systems worldwide need to implement interventions to reduce the impact and burden of these conditions. Collaborative care is a complex intervention based on chronic disease management models that may be effective in the management of these common mental health problems
Home-based therapy programmes for upper limb functional recovery following stroke

Background: With an increased focus on home-based stroke services and the undertaking of programmes, targeted at upper limb recovery within clinical practice, a systematic review of home-based therapy programmes for individuals with upper limb impairment following stroke was required. Objectives: To determine the effects of home-based therapy programmes for upper limb recovery in patients with upper limb impairment following stroke. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group's Specialised Trials Register (May 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1950 to May 2011), EMBASE (1980 to May 2011), AMED (1985 to May 2011) and six additional databases. We also searched reference lists and trials registers. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults after stroke, where the intervention was a home-based therapy programme targeted at the upper limb, compared with placebo, or no intervention or usual care. Primary outcomes were performance in activities of daily living (ADL) and functional movement of the upper limb. Secondary outcomes were performance in extended ADL and motor impairment of the arm. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened abstracts, extracted data and appraised trials. We undertook assessment of risk of bias in terms of method of randomisation and allocation concealment (selection bias), blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias), whether all the randomised patients were accounted for in the analysis (attrition bias) and the presence of selective outcome reporting. Main results: We included four studies with 166 participants. No studies compared the effects of home-based upper limb therapy programmes with placebo or no intervention. Three studies compared the effects of home-based upper limb therapy programmes with usual care. Primary outcomes: we found no statistically significant result for performance of ADL (mean difference (MD) 2.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.43 to 7.14) or functional movement of the upper limb (MD 2.25; 95% CI -0.24 to 4.73)). Secondary outcomes: no statistically significant results for extended ADL (MD 0.83; 95% CI -0.51 to 2.17)) or upper limb motor impairment (MD 1.46; 95% CI -0.58 to 3.51). One study compared the effects of a home-based upper limb programme with the same upper limb programme based in hospital, measuring upper limb motor impairment only; we found no statistically significant difference between groups (MD 0.60; 95% CI -8.94 to 10.14). Authors' conclusions: There is insufficient good quality evidence to make recommendations about the relative effect of home-based therapy programmes compared with placebo, no intervention or usual care
Saline nasal irrigation for acute upper respiratory tract infections (Review)

BACKGROUND: Acute upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), including the common cold and rhinosinusitis, are common afflictions that cause discomfort and debilitation and contribute significantly to workplace absenteeism. Treatment is generally by antipyretic and decongestant drugs and sometimes antibiotics, even though most infections are viral. Nasal irrigation with saline is often employed as an adjunct treatment for URTI symptoms despite a relative lack of evidence for benefit in this clinical setting. This review is an update of the Cochrane review by Kassel et al, which found that saline was probably effective in reducing the severity of some symptoms associated with acute URTIs
Bone grafts and bone substitutes for treating distal radial fractures in adults

Background: Surgical treatment of fractures of the distal radius can involve the implantation of bone scaffolding materials (bone grafts and substitutes) into bony defects that frequently arise after fracture reduction.\ud
Objectives: To review the evidence from randomised controlled trials evaluating the implanting of bone scaffolding materials for treating distal radial fractures in adults.\ud
Search strategy: The authors searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (June 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and other databases, conference proceedings and reference lists. No language restrictions were applied.\ud
Selection criteria: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials evaluating the use of bone scaffolding for treating distal radial fracture in adults.\ud
Data collection and analysis: Two people independently selected studies and undertook assessment and data collection.\ud
Main results: Ten heterogenous trials involving 874 adults with generally unstable fractures were grouped into six comparisons. No trial had proven allocation concealment.\ud
Four trials (239 participants) found implantation of bone scaffolding (autogenous bone graft (one trial); Norian SRS - a bone substitute (two trials); methylmethacrylate cement (one trial)) improved anatomical outcomes compared with plaster cast alone; and two found it improved function. Reported complications of bone scaffolding were transient discomfort resulting from extraosseous deposits of Norian SRS; with surgical removal of one intra-articular deposit.\ud
One trial (323 participants) comparing bone substitute (Norian SRS) versus plaster cast or external fixation found no difference in functional or anatomical outcomes at one year. Statistically significant complications in the respective groups were extraosseous Norian SRS deposits and pin track infection. \ud
One trial (48 participants with external fixation) found that autogenous bone graft did not significantly change outcome. There was one serious donor-site complication.\ud
One trial (21 participants) found some indication of worse outcomes for hydroxyapatite bone cement compared with Kapandji's intrafocal pinning.\ud
Three trials (180 participants) found bone scaffolding (autogenous bone graft (one trial); Norian SRS (one trial); methylmethacrylate cement (one trial)) gave no significant difference in functional outcomes but some indication of better anatomical outcomes compared with external fixation. Most reported complications were associated with external fixation; extraosseous deposits of Norian SRS occurred in one trial.\ud
One trial (93 participants with dorsal plate fixation) found autografts slightly improved wrist function compared with allogenic bone material but with an excess of donor site complications.\ud
Authors' conclusions: Bone scaffolding may improve anatomical outcome compared with plaster cast alone but there is insufficient evidence to conclude on functional outcome and safety; or for other comparisons