pinecone/core-2020-05-10-deduplication huggingface dataset:
Hydrogel dressings for treating pressure ulcers (Review)

Background: 

Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and pressure injuries, are localised areas of injury to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both. Dressings are widely used to treat pressure ulcers and there are many different dressing options including hydrogel dressings. A clear and current overview of the current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use for the treatment of pressure ulcers.
Objectives: 

To assess the effects of hydrogel dressings on the healing of pressure ulcers in any care setting.
Search methods: 

We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 19 June 2014); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to June Week 2 2014); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, 23 June 2014); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 20 June 2014); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 18 June 2014). There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication.
Selection criteria: 

Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of hydrogel dressings with alternative wound dressings or no dressing in the treatment of pressure ulcers (stage II or above).
Data collection and analysis

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.
Main results: 

We included eleven studies (523 participants) in this review. Ten studies had two arms and one had three arms that were all relevant to this review. Three studies compared a hydrogel dressing with a basic wound contact dressing; three studies compared a hydrogel dressing with a hydrocolloid dressing; three studies compared a hydrogel dressing with another hydrogel dressing; one study compared a hydrogel dressing with a foam dressing; one study compared a hydrogel dressing with a dextranomer paste dressing and one study compared a hydrogel dressing with a topical treatment (collagenase). Limited data were available for analyses in this review: we conducted no meta-analyses. Where data were available there was no evidence of a difference between hydrogel and alternative treatments in terms of complete wound healing or adverse events. One small study reported that using hydrogel dressings was, on average, less costly than hydrocolloid dressings, but this estimate was imprecise and its methodology was not clear. All included studies were small, had short follow-up times and were at unclear risk of bias.
Authors' conclusions: 

It is not clear if hydrogel dressings are more or less effective than other treatments in healing pressure ulcers or if different hydrogels have different effects, Most trials in this field are very small and poorly reported so that risk of bias is unclear.Full Tex
Alginate dressings for treating pressure ulcers (Review)

Background: 

Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and pressure injuries, are localised areas of injury to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both. Dressings are widely used to treat pressure ulcers and there are many options to choose from including alginate dressings. A clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use for the treatment of pressure ulcers. This review is part of a suite of Cochrane reviews investigating the use of dressings in the treatment of pressure ulcers. Each review will focus on a particular dressing type.
Objectives: 

To assess the effects of alginate dressings for treating pressure ulcers in any care setting.
Search methods: 

For this review, in April 2015 we searched the following databases the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication.
Selection criteria: 

Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of alginate with alternative wound dressings or no dressing in the treatment of pressure ulcers (stage II or above).
Data collection and analysis

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.
Main results: 

We included six studies (336 participants) in this review; all studies had two arms. The included studies compared alginate dressings with six other interventions that included: hydrocolloid dressings, silver containing alginate dressings, and radiant heat therapy. Each of the six comparisons included just one study and these had limited participant numbers and short follow-up times. All the evidence was of low or very low quality. Where data were available there was no evidence of a difference between alginate dressings and alternative treatments in terms of complete wound healing or adverse events.
Authors' conclusions: 

The relative effects of alginate dressings compared with alternative treatments are unclear. The existing trials are small, of short duration and at risk of bias. Decision makers may wish to consider aspects such as cost of dressings and the wound management properties offered by each dressing type, for example, exudate management.Full Tex
Ethanol for preventing preterm birth in threatened preterm labor

Background

Preterm birth is the leading cause of death and disability in newborns worldwide. A wide variety of tocolytic agents have been utilized to delay birth for women in preterm labor. One of the earliest tocolytics utilized for this purpose was ethanol infusion, although this is not generally used in current practice due to safety concerns for both the mother and her baby.
Objectives

To determine the efficacy of ethanol in stopping preterm labor, preventing preterm birth, and the impact of ethanol on neonatal outcomes.
Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
Selection criteria

We included randomized and quasi-randomized studies. Cluster-randomized trials and cross-over design trials were not eligible for inclusion. We only included studies published in abstract form if there was enough information on methods and relevant outcomes. Trials were included if they compared ethanol infusion to stop preterm labor versus placebo/control or versus other tocolytic drugs.
Data collection and analysis

At least two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias. At least two review authors independently extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy.
Main results

Twelve trials involving 1586 women met inclusion criteria for this review. One trial did not report on the outcomes of interest in this review.

Risk of bias of included studies: The included studies generally were of low quality based on inadequate reporting of methodology. Only three trials had low risk of bias for random sequence generation and one had low risk of bias for allocation concealment and participant blinding. Most studies were either high risk of bias or uncertain in these key areas
Public health interventions for increasing physical activity in children, adolescents and adults : an overview of systematic reviews

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows:\ud
\ud
This overview intends to: a) summarise the existing evidence on interventions that aim to increase PA; b) explore whether any effects of the intervention are different within and between populations, and whether these differences form an equity gradient such as an effect that differs according the advantage/disadvantage (e.g. low income and ethnic minorities); c) highlight gaps in the present evidence base that may warrant a Cochrane systematic review to be completed; and c) identify 'up to date' Cochrane reviews.
Liposomal bupivacaine peripheral nerve block for the management of postoperative pain.

statement The mission of the Cochrane Nursing Care Field (CNCF) is to improve health outcomes by increasing the use of the Cochrane Library and supporting Cochrane's role by providing an evidence base for nurses and healthcare professionals who deliver, lead or research nursing care. The CNCF produces Cochrane Corner columns, summaries of recent nursing-care-relevant Cochrane Reviews that are regularly published in collaborating nursing-related journals. Information on the processes CNCF has developed can be accessed at: nursingcare.cochrane.org/evidence-transfer-program-review-summaries. This is a Cochrane review summary of: Hamilton TW, Athanassoglou V, Trivella M et al ( 2016 ) Liposomal bupivacaine peripheral nerve block for the management of postoperative pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Issue 8. CD011476. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011476.pub2
Orotracheal intubation in infants performed with a stylet versus without a stylet

Background: Neonatal endotracheal intubation is a common and potentially life-saving intervention. It is a mandatory skill for neonatal trainees, but one that is difficult to master and maintain. Intubation opportunities for trainees are decreasing and success rates are subsequently falling. Use of a stylet may aid intubation and improve success. However, the potential for associated harm must be considered. Objectives: To compare the benefits and harms of neonatal orotracheal intubation with a stylet versus neonatal orotracheal intubation without a stylet. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and previous reviews. We also searched cross-references, contacted expert informants, handsearched journals, and looked at conference proceedings. We searched clinical trials registries for current and recently completed trials. We conducted our most recent search in April 2017. Selection criteria: All randomised, quasi–randomised, and cluster-randomised controlled trials comparing use versus non-use of a stylet in neonatal orotracheal intubation. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed results of searches against predetermined criteria for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration, as documented in the Cochrane Handbook for Systemic Reviews of Interventions, and of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. Main results: We included a single-centre non-blinded randomised controlled trial that reported a total of 302 intubation attempts in 232 infants. The median gestational age of enrolled infants was 29 weeks. Paediatric residents and fellows performed the intubations. We judged the study to be at low risk of bias overall. Investigators compared success rates of first-attempt intubation with and without use of a stylet and reported success rates as similar between stylet and no-stylet groups (57% and 53%) (P = 0.47). Success rates did not differ between groups in subgroup analyses by provider level of training and infant weight. Results showed no differences in secondary review outcomes, including duration of intubation, number of attempts, participant instability during the procedure, and local airway trauma. Only 25% of all intubations took less than 30 seconds to perform. Study authors did not report neonatal morbidity nor mortality. We considered the quality of evidence as low on GRADE analysis, given that we identified only one unblinded study. Authors' conclusions: Current available evidence suggests that use of a stylet during neonatal orotracheal intubation does not significantly improve the success rate among paediatric trainees. However, only one brand of stylet and one brand of endotracheal tube have been tested, and researchers performed all intubations on infants in a hospital setting. Therefore, our results cannot be generalised beyond these limitations
Virtual reality environments for health professional education

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of virtual reality environment (VRE)-based educational interventions for health professionals on knowledge, skills, and participants??? attitude towards and satisfaction with the interventions. Additionally, this review will assess the interventions' economic impact (cost and cost effectiveness), patient-related outcomes and unintended adverse effects of VRE-based educational interventions for post-registration healthcare providers
Telephone interventions, delivered by healthcare professionals, for educating and psychosocially supporting informal caregivers of adults with diagnosed illnesses

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the effectiveness of telephone interventions, delivered by healthcare professionals, when compared to usual care or non-telephone-based support interventions for educating and psychosocially supporting informal carers of people with acute and chronic diagnosed illnesses, on these carers' quality of life, psychosocial and physical well-being. We aim, additionally, to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of telephone interventions
Interventions outside the workplace for reducing sedentary behaviour in adults under 60

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of non-occupational interventions for reducing sedentary behaviour in adults under 60 years of age on sedentary time. Secondary objectives are: to describe other health effects, and adverse events or unintended consequences of the interventions; to determine whether specific components of interventions are associated with changes in sedentary behaviour; to examine if there are any differential effects of interventions based on health inequalities (e.g. age, sex, income, employment)
Higher versus lower sodium intake for preterm infants

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To determine the effects of higher versus lower sodium supplementation in preterm infants. We will undertake three comparisons.

1.Higher (commencing ≥ 2 mmol/kg/day) versus lower (commencing < 2 mmol/kg/day) sodium supplementation in preterm infants less than 7 days of age.

2.Higher (≥ 5 mmol/kg/day) versus lower (< 3mmol/kg/day) or intermediate (≥ 3mmol/kg/day to < 5 mmol/kg/day) sodium supplementation in preterm infants ≥ 7 days of age.

1.Higher (≥ 5 mmol/kg/day) versus lower (< 3mmol/kg/day) sodium supplementation in preterm infants ≥ 7 days of age.

2.Higher (≥ 5 mmol/kg/day) versus intermediate (≥ 3mmol/kg/day to < 5 mmol/kg/day) sodium supplementation in preterm infants ≥ 7 days of age.

3.Intermediate (≥ 3mmol/kg/day to < 5 mmol/kg/day) versus lower (< 3mmol/kg/day) sodium supplementation in preterm infants ≥ 7 days of age.

3.Early and late higher versus lower sodium intake.

1.Higher (commencing ≥ 2 mmol/kg/day) or lower (commencing < 2 mmol/kg/day) sodium supplementation in preterm infants less than 7 days of age, and either:

1.higher (≥ 5 mmol/kg/day) versus lower (< 3mmol/kg/day) sodium supplementation in preterm infants ≥ 7 days of age; or

2.higher (≥ 5 mmol/kg/day) versus intermediate (≥ 3mmol/kg/day to < 5 mmol/kg/day) sodium supplementation in preterm infants ≥ 7 days of age; or

3.intermediate (≥ 3mmol/kg/day to < 5 mmol/kg/day) versus lower (< 3mmol/kg/day) sodium supplementation in preterm infants ≥ 7 days of age.

1.Higher (≥ 5 mmol/kg/day) versus lower (< 3mmol/kg/day) sodium supplementation in preterm infants ≥ 7 days of age.

2.Higher (≥ 5 mmol/kg/day) versus intermediate (≥ 3mmol/kg/day to < 5 mmol/kg/day) sodium supplementation in preterm infants ≥ 7 days of age.

3.Intermediate (≥ 3mmol/kg/day to < 5 mmol/kg/day) versus lower (< 3mmol/kg/day) sodium supplementation in preterm infants ≥ 7 days of age.

1.Higher (commencing ≥ 2 mmol/kg/day) or lower (commencing < 2 mmol/kg/day) sodium supplementation in preterm infants less than 7 days of age, and either:

1.higher (≥ 5 mmol/kg/day) versus lower (< 3mmol/kg/day) sodium supplementation in preterm infants ≥ 7 days of age; or

2.higher (≥ 5 mmol/kg/day) versus intermediate (≥ 3mmol/kg/day to < 5 mmol/kg/day) sodium supplementation in preterm infants ≥ 7 days of age; or

3.intermediate (≥ 3mmol/kg/day to < 5 mmol/kg/day) versus lower (< 3mmol/kg/day) sodium supplementation in preterm infants ≥ 7 days of age.

1.higher (≥ 5 mmol/kg/day) versus lower (< 3mmol/kg/day) sodium supplementation in preterm infants ≥ 7 days of age; or

2.higher (≥ 5 mmol/kg/day) versus intermediate (≥ 3mmol/kg/day to < 5 mmol/kg/day) sodium supplementation in preterm infants ≥ 7 days of age; or

3.intermediate (≥ 3mmol/kg/day to < 5 mmol/kg/day) versus lower (< 3mmol/kg/day) sodium supplementation in preterm infants ≥ 7 days of age.Full Tex
Strategies designed to help healthcare professionals to recruit participants to research studies

Background: Identifying and approaching eligible participants for recruitment to research studies usually relies on healthcare professionals. This process is sometimes hampered by deliberate or inadvertent gatekeeping that can introduce bias into patient selection. Objectives: Our primary objective was to identify and assess the effect of strategies designed to help healthcare professionals to recruit participants to research studies. Search methods: We performed searches on 5 January 2015 in the following electronic databases: Cochrane Methodology Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, British Nursing Index, PsycINFO, ASSIA and Web of Science (SSCI, SCI-EXPANDED) from 1985 onwards. We checked the reference lists of all included studies and relevant review articles and did citation tracking through Web of Science for all included studies. Selection criteria: We selected all studies that evaluated a strategy to identify and recruit participants for research via healthcare professionals and provided pre-post comparison data on recruitment rates. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened search results for potential eligibility, read full papers, applied the selection criteria and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios for each study to indicate the effect of each strategy. Main results: Eleven studies met our eligibility criteria and all were at medium or high risk of bias. Only five studies gave the total number of participants (totalling 7372 participants). Three studies used a randomised design, with the others using pre-post comparisons. Several different strategies were investigated. Four studies examined the impact of additional visits or information for the study site, with no increases in recruitment demonstrated. Increased recruitment rates were reported in two studies that used a dedicated clinical recruiter, and five studies that introduced an automated alert system for identifying eligible participants. The studies were embedded into trials evaluating care in oncology mainly but also in emergency departments, diabetes and lower back pain. Authors' conclusions: There is no strong evidence for any single strategy to help healthcare professionals to recruit participants in research studies. Additional visits or information did not appear to increase recruitment by healthcare professionals. The most promising strategies appear to be those with a dedicated resource (e.g. a clinical recruiter or automated alert system) for identifying suitable participants that reduced the demand on healthcare professionals, but these were assessed in studies at high risk of bias
Strategies designed to help healthcare professionals to recruit participants to research studies

Background

Identifying and approaching eligible participants for recruitment to research studies usually relies on healthcare professionals. This process is sometimes hampered by deliberate or inadvertent gatekeeping that can introduce bias into patient selection.
Objectives

Our primary objective was to identify and assess the effect of strategies designed to help healthcare professionals to recruit participants to research studies.
Search methods

We performed searches on 5 January 2015 in the following electronic databases: Cochrane Methodology Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, British Nursing Index, PsycINFO, ASSIA and Web of Science (SSCI, SCI-EXPANDED) from 1985 onwards. We checked the reference lists of all included studies and relevant review articles and did citation tracking through Web of Science for all included studies.
Selection criteria

We selected all studies that evaluated a strategy to identify and recruit participants for research via healthcare professionals and provided pre-post comparison data on recruitment rates.
Data collection and analysis

Two review authors independently screened search results for potential eligibility, read full papers, applied the selection criteria and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios for each study to indicate the effect of each strategy.
Main results

Eleven studies met our eligibility criteria and all were at medium or high risk of bias. Only five studies gave the total number of participants (totalling 7372 participants). Three studies used a randomised design, with the others using pre-post comparisons. Several different strategies were investigated. Four studies examined the impact of additional visits or information for the study site, with no increases in recruitment demonstrated. Increased recruitment rates were reported in two studies that used a dedicated clinical recruiter, and five studies that introduced an automated alert system for identifying eligible participants. The studies were embedded into trials evaluating care in oncology mainly but also in emergency departments, diabetes and lower back pain.
Authors' conclusions

There is no strong evidence for any single strategy to help healthcare professionals to recruit participants in research studies. Additional visits or information did not appear to increase recruitment by healthcare professionals. The most promising strategies appear to be those with a dedicated resource (e.g. a clinical recruiter or automated alert system) for identifying suitable participants that reduced the demand on healthcare professionals, but these were assessed in studies at high risk of bias.We would like to acknowledge the support of the Methodology
theme of theCancer ExperiencesCollaborative (CECo), who have
supported this review.This is the final published version. It first appeared at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.MR000036.pub2/abstract