dataset
stringclasses 1
value | id
stringlengths 1
5
| messages
listlengths 2
2
|
|---|---|---|
query-laysum | 1519 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nWork disability such as sickness absence is common in people with depression.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing work disability in employees with depressive disorders.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO until April 4th 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of work-directed and clinical interventions for depressed people that included sickness absence days or being off work as an outcome. We also analysed the effects on depression and work functioning.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted the data and rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We used standardised mean differences (SMDs) or risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) to pool study results in studies we judged to be sufficiently similar.\nMain results\nIn this update, we added 23 new studies. In total, we included 45 studies with 88 study arms, involving 12,109 participants with either a major depressive disorder or a high level of depressive symptoms.\nRisk of bias\nThe most common types of bias risk were detection bias (27 studies) and attrition bias (22 studies), both for the outcome of sickness absence.\nWork-directed interventions\nWork-directed interventionscombined with clinical interventions\nA combination of a work-directed intervention and a clinical intervention probably reduces sickness absence days within the first year of follow-up (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.12; 9 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). This translates back to 0.5 fewer (95% CI -0.7 to -0.2) sick leave days in the past two weeks or 25 fewer days during one year (95% CI -37.5 to -11.8). The intervention does not lead to fewer persons being off work beyond one year follow-up (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.83; 2 studies, high-certainty evidence). The intervention may reduce depressive symptoms (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.01; 8 studies, low-certainty evidence) and probably has a small effect on work functioning (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.06; 5 studies, moderate-certainty evidence) within the first year of follow-up.\nStand alone work-directed interventions\nA specific work-directed intervention alone may increase the number of sickness absence days compared with work-directed care as usual (SMD 0.39, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.74; 2 studies, low-certainty evidence) but probably does not lead to more people being off work within the first year of follow-up (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence) or beyond (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.22; 2 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably no effect on depressive symptoms (SMD -0.10, 95% -0.30 CI to 0.10; 4 studies, moderate-certainty evidence) within the first year of follow-up and there may be no effect on depressive symptoms beyond that time (SMD 0.18, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.49; 1 study, low-certainty evidence). The intervention may also not lead to better work functioning (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.90 to 0.26; 1 study, low-certainty evidence) within the first year of follow-up.\nPsychological interventions\nA psychological intervention, either face-to-face, or an E-mental health intervention, with or without professional guidance, may reduce the number of sickness absence days, compared with care as usual (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.03; 9 studies, low-certainty evidence). It may also reduce depressive symptoms (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.15, 8 studies, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether these psychological interventions improve work ability (SMD -0.15 95% CI -0.46 to 0.57; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence).\nPsychological interventioncombined with antidepressant medication\nTwo studies compared the effect of a psychological intervention combined with antidepressants to antidepressants alone. One study combined psychodynamic therapy with tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) medication and another combined telephone-administered cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). We are uncertain if this intervention reduces the number of sickness absence days (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.99 to 0.24; 2 studies, very low-certainty evidence) but found that there may be no effect on depressive symptoms (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.12; 2 studies, low-certainty evidence).\nAntidepressant medication only\nThree studies compared the effectiveness of SSRI to selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) medication on reducing sickness absence and yielded highly inconsistent results.\nImproved care\nOverall, interventions to improve care did not lead to fewer sickness absence days, compared to care as usual (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.06; 7 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). However, in studies with a low risk of bias, the intervention probably leads to fewer sickness absence days in the first year of follow-up (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.05; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Improved care probably leads to fewer depressive symptoms (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.07; 7 studies, moderate-certainty evidence) but may possibly lead to a decrease in work-functioning (SMD 0.5, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.66; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence).\nExercise\nSupervised strength exercise may reduce sickness absence, compared to relaxation (SMD -1.11; 95% CI -1.68 to -0.54; one study, low-certainty evidence). However, aerobic exercise probably is not more effective than relaxation or stretching (SMD -0.06; 95% CI -0.36 to 0.24; 2 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). Both studies found no differences between the two conditions in depressive symptoms.\nAuthors' conclusions\nA combination of a work-directed intervention and a clinical intervention probably reduces the number of sickness absence days, but at the end of one year or longer follow-up, this does not lead to more people in the intervention group being at work. The intervention may also reduce depressive symptoms and probably increases work functioning more than care as usual. Specific work-directed interventions may not be more effective than usual work-directed care alone. Psychological interventions may reduce the number of sickness absence days, compared with care as usual. Interventions to improve clinical care probably lead to lower sickness absence and lower levels of depression, compared with care as usual. There was no evidence of a difference in effect on sickness absence of one antidepressant medication compared to another. Further research is needed to assess which combination of work-directed and clinical interventions works best.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the results of our review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Our main findings within the first year of follow-up, for workplace changes or treatments compared with usual care, are listed below.\nWorkplace changes combined with a clinical programme:\nprobably reduce the number of days on sick leave (on average, by 25 days for each person over one year; 9 studies; 1292 participants);\ndo not reduce the number of people off work (2 studies; 1025 participants);\nmay reduce symptoms of depression (8 studies; 1091 participants); and\nmay improve ability to cope with work (5 studies; 926 participants).\nWorkplace changes alone:\nmay increase the number of days on sick leave (2 studies, 130 participants);\nprobably do not lead to more people off work (1 study; 226 participants);\nprobably do not affect symptoms of depression (4 studies; 390 participants); and\nmay not improve ability to cope with work (1 study; 48 participants).\nImproved healthcare alone:\nprobably reduces the number of days on sick leave, by 20 days (in two, well-conducted studies in 692 participants, although not in all 7 studies, in 1912 participants);\nprobably reduces symptoms of depression (7 studies; 1808 participants); and\nmay reduce ability to cope with work (1 study; 604 participants).\nPsychological therapies alone:\nmay reduce the number of days off work, by 15 days (9 studies; 1649 participants); and\nmay reduce symptoms of depression (8 studies; 1255 participants).\nWe are uncertain if psychological therapies alone affect people's ability to cope with work (1 study; 58 participants)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1520 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) show that breastfeeding newborn infants during painful procedures reduces pain. Mechanisms are considered to be multifactorial and include sucking, skin-to-skin contact, warmth, rocking, sound and smell of the mother, and possibly endogenous opiates present in the breast milk.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effect of breastfeeding on procedural pain in infants beyond the neonatal period (first 28 days of life) up to one year of age compared to no intervention, placebo, parental holding, skin-to-skin contact, expressed breast milk, formula milk, bottle feeding, sweet-tasting solutions (e.g. sucrose or glucose), distraction, or other interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases to 18 February 2016: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (OVID), Embase (OVID), PsycINFO (OVID), and CINAHL (EBSCO); the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (apps.who.int/trialsearch/) for ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs and quasi-RCTs involving infants aged 28 days postnatal to 12 months and receiving breastfeeding while undergoing a painful procedure. Comparators included, but were not limited to, oral administration of water, sweet-tasting solutions, expressed breast or formula milk, no intervention, use of pacifiers, positioning, cuddling, distraction, topical anaesthetics, and skin-to-skin care. Procedures included, but were not limited to: subcutaneous or intramuscular injection, venipuncture, intravenous line insertion, heel lance, and finger lance. We applied no language restrictions.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. The main outcome measures were behavioural or physiological indicators and composite pain scores, as well as other clinically important outcomes reported by the authors of included studies. We pooled data for the most comparable outcomes and where data from at least two studies could be included. We used mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI), employing a random-effects model for continuous outcomes measured on the same scales. For continuous outcomes measured on different scales, we pooled standardised mean differences (SMDs) and associated 95% CIs. For dichotomous outcomes, we planned to pool events between groups across studies using risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs. However, as insufficient studies reported dichotomous outcomes, we did not pool such events. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.\nMain results\nWe included 10 studies with a total of 1066 infants. All studies were conducted during early childhood immunisation. As the breastfeeding intervention cannot be blinded, we rated all studies as being at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. We assessed nine studies as being at low risk of bias for incomplete outcome data. In addition, we rated nine studies as high risk for blinding of outcome assessment. We scored risk of bias related to random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and selective reporting as unclear for the majority of the studies due to lack of information.\nOur primary outcome was pain. Breastfeeding reduced behavioural pain responses (cry time and pain scores) during vaccination compared to no treatment, oral water, and other interventions such as cuddling, oral glucose, topical anaesthetic, massage, and vapocoolant. Breastfeeding did not consistently reduce changes in physiological indicators, such as heart rate. We pooled data for duration of cry from six studies (n = 547 infants). Breastfeeding compared to water or no treatment resulted in a 38-second reduction in cry time (MD -38, 95% CI -50 to -26; P < 0.00001). The quality of the evidence according to GRADE for this outcome was moderate, as most infants were 6 months or younger, and outcomes may be different for infants during their 12-month immunisation. We pooled data for pain scores from five studies (n = 310 infants). Breastfeeding was associated with a 1.7-point reduction in standardised pain scores (SMD -1.7, 95% CI -2.2 to -1.3); we considered this evidence to be of moderate quality as data were primarily from infants younger than 6 months of age. We could pool heart rate data following injections for only two studies (n = 186); we considered this evidence to be of low quality due to insufficient data. There were no differences between breastfeeding and control (MD -3.6, -23 to 16).\nFour of the 10 studies had more than two study arms. Breastfeeding was more effective in reducing crying duration or pain scores during vaccination compared to: 25% dextrose and topical anaesthetic cream (EMLA), vapocoolant, maternal cuddling, and massage.\nNo included studies reported adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe conclude, based on the 10 studies included in this review, that breastfeeding may help reduce pain during vaccination for infants beyond the neonatal period. Breastfeeding consistently reduced behavioural responses of cry duration and composite pain scores during and following vaccinations. However, there was no evidence that breastfeeding had an effect on physiological responses. No studies included in this review involved populations of hospitalised infants undergoing other skin-breaking procedures. Although it may be possible to extrapolate the review results to this population, further studies of efficacy, feasibility, and acceptability in this population are warranted.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Breastfeeding reduced crying in young babies having vaccinations. On average, breastfed babies cried for 38 seconds less than babies who were not breastfed (6 studies; 547 infants; moderate-quality evidence), and pain scores were significantly lower (5 studies; 310 infants; moderate-quality evidence).\nNo studies reported on any harm (very low-quality evidence). We could draw no conclusions on risk of harm while breastfeeding healthy babies during vaccination.\nGoing forward: if mothers are breastfeeding, it could be considered when possible for babies during vaccinations. More evidence is needed to learn if breastfeeding helps older babies and babies in hospital during blood work or procedures such as insertion of drips."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1521 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAn association has been hypothesized between periodontitis and hypertension. Periodontal therapy is believed to reduce systemic inflammatory mediators and increase endothelial function, thus having the potential to prevent and treat hypertension.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect and safety of different periodontal treatment modalities on blood pressure (BP) in people with chronic periodontitis.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to November 2020 in the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, seven other databases, and two clinical trials registries. We contacted the authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs and quasi-RCTs aiming to detect the effect of periodontal treatment on BP were eligible. Participants should have been diagnosed with chronic periodontitis and hypertension (or no hypertension if the study explored the preventive effect of periodontal treatment). Participants in the intervention group should have undergone subgingival scaling and root planing (SRP) and any other type of periodontal treatments, compared with either no periodontal treatment or alternative periodontal treatment in the control group.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for study identification, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We used a formal pilot-tested data extraction form for data extraction, and the Cochrane risk of bias tool for risk of bias assessment. We planned the meta-analysis, test for heterogeneity, sensitivity analysis, and subgroup analysis. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary outcome was change in systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP).\nMain results\nWe included eight RCTs. Five had low risk of bias, one had unclear risk of bias, and two had high risk of bias.\nFour trials compared periodontal treatment with no treatment. We found no evidence of a difference in the short-term change of SBP and DBP for people diagnosed with periodontitis and other cardiovascular diseases except hypertension (very low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference in long-term changes in SBP (mean difference [MD] −2.25 mmHg, 95% confidence interval [CI] −9.41 to 4.92; P = 0.54; studies = 2, participants = 108; low-certainty evidence) and DBP (MD −2.55 mmHg, 95% CI −6.90 to 1.80; P = 0.25; studies = 2, participants = 103; low-certainty evidence). Concerning people diagnosed with periodontitis, in the short term, two studies of low certainty reported no changes in SBP (MD −0.14 mmHg, 95% CI −4.05 to 3.77; P = 0.94; participants = 294) and DBP (MD −0.15 mmHg, 95% CI −2.47 to 2.17; P = 0.90; participants = 294), and we found no evidence of a difference in SBP and DBP over a long period based on low certainty of evidence.\nThree studies compared intensive periodontal treatment with supra-gingival scaling. We found no evidence of a difference in changes in SBP and DBP for any length of time in people diagnosed with periodontitis (very low-certainty evidence).\nIn people diagnosed with periodontitis and hypertension, we found one study reporting a significant reduction in the short term in SBP (MD −11.20 mmHg, 95% CI −15.40 to −7.00; P < 0.001; participants = 101; moderate-certainty evidence) and DBP (MD −8.40 mmHg, 95% CI −12.19 to −4.61; P < 0.0001; participants = 101; moderate-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no evidence of a difference of an impact of periodontal treatments on BP in most comparisons assessed in this review, and given the low certainty of evidence and the lack of relevant studies we could not draw conclusions about the effect of periodontal treatment on BP in people with chronic periodontitis. We found only one study suggesting that periodontal treatment may reduce SBP and DBP over a short period in people with hypertension and chronic periodontitis, but the certainty of evidence was moderate.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "It was not well documented how the included studies were conducted and described, therefore the quality of evidence was low. Consequently, there was insufficient information to draw firm conclusions."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1522 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCervical artery dissection (CeAD) is a pathological bleed or tear, or both, in the wall of the carotid or vertebral arteries as they course through the neck, and is a leading cause of stroke in young people.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of surgical and radiological interventions versus best medical treatment alone for treating symptomatic cervical artery dissection.\nSearch methods\nWe performed comprehensive searches of the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched March 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), 2020, Issue 4, in the Cochrane Library (searched March 2020), MEDLINE (1946 to March 2020) and Embase (1974 to March 2020). We searched relevant ongoing trials and research registers (searched March 2020), checked references in all relevant papers for additional eligible studies, and contacted authors and researchers in the field.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of either surgical or endovascular intervention for the management of symptomatic CeAD were eligible for inclusion. Only studies with anticoagulants or antiplatelet treatment as the control group were included. Two review authors planned to independently extract data.\nData collection and analysis\nPrimary outcomes were ipsilateral stroke and disability. Secondary outcomes were death, any stroke, or transient ischaemic attack, residual stenosis (> 50%), recurrence of cervical dissection, expanding pseudoaneurysm, or major bleeding. We analysed the studies according to the first choice of treatment. We planned to assess for risk of bias and apply GRADE criteria for any included studies.\nMain results\nWe did not find any completed RCTs or CCTs undertaken in this area of research.\nAuthors' conclusions\nNo RCTs or CCTs compared either surgery or endovascular therapy with control. Thus, there is no available evidence to support their use for the treatment of extracranial cervical artery dissection in addition to antithrombotic therapy in people who continue to have neurological symptoms when treated with antithrombotic therapy alone.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Search date\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We performed a thorough and comprehensive review of the literature to look for clinical trials which could help us to answer the review question. The evidence is current to March 2020."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1523 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nRotavirus is a common cause of diarrhoea, diarrhoea-related hospital admissions, and diarrhoea-related deaths worldwide. Rotavirus vaccines prequalified by the World Health Organization (WHO) include Rotarix (GlaxoSmithKline), RotaTeq (Merck), and, more recently, Rotasiil (Serum Institute of India Ltd.), and Rotavac (Bharat Biotech Ltd.).\nObjectives\nTo evaluate rotavirus vaccines prequalified by the WHO for their efficacy and safety in children.\nSearch methods\nOn 30 November 2020, we searched PubMed, the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (published in the Cochrane Library), Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science & Humanities. We also searched the WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinical trial reports from manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies, and relevant systematic reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in children that compared rotavirus vaccines prequalified for use by the WHO with either placebo or no intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed trial eligibility and assessed risk of bias. One author extracted data and a second author cross-checked them. We combined dichotomous data using the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We stratified the analyses by under-five country mortality rate and used GRADE to evaluate evidence certainty.\nMain results\nSixty trials met the inclusion criteria and enrolled a total of 228,233 participants. Thirty-six trials (119,114 participants) assessed Rotarix, 15 trials RotaTeq (88,934 participants), five trials Rotasiil (11,753 participants), and four trials Rotavac (8432 participants).\nRotarix\nInfants vaccinated and followed up for the first year of life\nIn low-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 93% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (14,976 participants, 4 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 52% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (3874 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence).\nIn medium-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 79% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (31,671 participants, 4 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 36% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (26,479 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).\nIn high-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 58% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (15,882 participants, 4 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 27% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (5639 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).\nChildren vaccinated and followed up for two years\nIn low-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 90% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (18,145 participants, 6 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 51% of severe all-cause diarrhoea episodes (6269 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence).\nIn medium-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 77% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (28,834 participants, 3 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 26% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (23,317 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence).\nIn high-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 35% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (13,768 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence), and 17% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (2764 participants, 1 trial; high-certainty evidence).\nRotaTeq\nInfants vaccinated and followed up for the first year of life\nIn low-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 97% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (5442 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).\nIn medium-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 79% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (3863 participants, 1 trial; low-certainty evidence).\nIn high-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (6775 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), but there is probably little or no difference between vaccine and placebo for severe all-cause diarrhoea (1 trial, 4085 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nChildren vaccinated and followed up for two years\nIn low-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 96% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (5442 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).\nIn medium-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 79% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (3863 participants, 1 trial; low-certainty evidence).\nIn high-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 44% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (6744 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 15% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (5977 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).\nWe did not identify RotaTeq studies reporting on severe all-cause diarrhoea in low- or medium-mortality countries.\nRotasiil\nRotasiil has not been assessed in any RCT in countries with low or medium child mortality.\nInfants vaccinated and followed up for the first year of life\nIn high-mortality countries, Rotasiil prevented 48% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (11,008 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and resulted in little to no difference in severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (11,008 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).\nChildren vaccinated and followed up for two years\nIn high-mortality countries, Rotasiil prevented 44% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (11,008 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and resulted in little to no difference in severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (11,008 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).\nRotavac\nRotavac has not been assessed in any RCT in countries with low or medium child mortality.\nInfants vaccinated and followed up for the first year of life\nIn high-mortality countries, Rotavac prevented 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (6799 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence), and 16% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (6799 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence).\nChildren vaccinated and followed up for two years\nIn high-mortality countries, Rotavac prevented 54% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (6541 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence); no Rotavac studies have reported on severe all-cause diarrhoea at two-years follow-up.\nSafety\nNo increased risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) was detected with Rotarix (103,714 participants, 31 trials; high-certainty evidence), RotaTeq (82,502 participants, 14 trials; moderate to high-certainty evidence), Rotasiil (11,646 participants, 3 trials; high-certainty evidence), or Rotavac (8210 participants, 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence).\nDeaths were infrequent and the analysis had insufficient evidence to show an effect on all-cause mortality. Intussusception was rare.\nAuthors' conclusions\nRotarix, RotaTeq, Rotasiil, and Rotavac prevent episodes of rotavirus diarrhoea. The relative effect estimate is smaller in high-mortality than in low-mortality countries, but more episodes are prevented in high-mortality settings as the baseline risk is higher. In high-mortality countries some results suggest lower efficacy in the second year. We found no increased risk of serious adverse events, including intussusception, from any of the prequalified rotavirus vaccines.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched for studies that had been published up to 30 November 2020."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1524 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\n18F-florbetapir uptake by brain tissue measured by positron emission tomography (PET) is accepted by regulatory agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicine Agencies (EMA) for assessing amyloid load in people with dementia. Its added value is mainly demonstrated by excluding Alzheimer's pathology in an established dementia diagnosis. However, the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association (NIA-AA) revised the diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease and confidence in the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer's disease may be increased when using amyloid biomarkers tests like 18F-florbetapir. These tests, added to the MCI core clinical criteria, might increase the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of a testing strategy. However, the DTA of 18F-florbetapir to predict the progression from MCI to Alzheimer’s disease dementia (ADD) or other dementias has not yet been systematically evaluated.\nObjectives\nTo determine the DTA of the 18F-florbetapir PET scan for detecting people with MCI at time of performing the test who will clinically progress to ADD, other forms of dementia (non-ADD), or any form of dementia at follow-up.\nSearch methods\nThis review is current to May 2017. We searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), BIOSIS Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), Web of Science Core Collection, including the Science Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science) and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), LILACS (BIREME), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (http://www.who.int/ictrp/search/en/). We also searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia & Cognitive Improvement Group’s specialised register of dementia studies (http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois/). We checked the reference lists of any relevant studies and systematic reviews, and performed citation tracking using the Science Citation Index to identify any additional relevant studies. No language or date restrictions were applied to the electronic searches.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies that had prospectively defined cohorts with any accepted definition of MCI at time of performing the test and the use of 18F-florbetapir scan to evaluate the DTA of the progression from MCI to ADD or other forms of dementia. In addition, we only selected studies that applied a reference standard for Alzheimer’s dementia diagnosis, for example, National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke and the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (NINCDS-ADRDA) or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (DSM-IV) criteria.\nData collection and analysis\nWe screened all titles and abstracts identified in electronic-database searches. Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted data to create two-by-two tables, showing the binary test results cross-classified with the binary reference standard. We used these data to calculate sensitivities, specificities, and their 95% confidence intervals. Two independent assessors performed quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool plus some additional items to assess the methodological quality of the included studies.\nMain results\nWe included three studies, two of which evaluated the progression from MCI to ADD, and one evaluated the progression from MCI to any form of dementia.\nProgression from MCI to ADD was evaluated in 448 participants. The studies reported data on 401 participants with 1.6 years of follow-up and in 47 participants with three years of follow-up. Sixty-one (15.2%) participants converted at 1.6 years follow-up; nine (19.1%) participants converted at three years of follow-up.\nProgression from MCI to any form of dementia was evaluated in five participants with 1.5 years of follow-up, with three (60%) participants converting to any form of dementia.\nThere were concerns regarding applicability in the reference standard in all three studies. Regarding the domain of flow and timing, two studies were considered at high risk of bias.\nMCI to ADD;\nProgression from MCI to ADD in those with a follow-up between two to less than four years had a sensitivity of 67% (95% CI 30 to 93) and a specificity of 71% (95% CI 54 to 85) by visual assessment (n = 47, 1 study).\nProgression from MCI to ADD in those with a follow-up between one to less than two years had a sensitivity of 89% (95% CI 78 to 95) and a specificity of 58% (95% CI 53 to 64) by visual assessment, and a sensitivity of 87% (95% CI 76 to 94) and a specificity of 51% (95% CI 45 to 56) by quantitative assessment by the standardised uptake value ratio (SUVR)(n = 401, 1 study).\nMCI to any form of dementia;\nProgression from MCI to any form of dementia in those with a follow-up between one to less than two years had a sensitivity of 67% (95% CI 9 to 99) and a specificity of 50% (95% CI 1 to 99) by visual assessment (n = 5, 1 study).\nMCI to any other forms of dementia (non-ADD);\nThere was no information regarding the progression from MCI to any other form of dementia (non-ADD).\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough sensitivity was good in one included study, considering the poor specificity and the limited data available in the literature, we cannot recommend routine use of 18F-florbetapir PET in clinical practice to predict the progression from MCI to ADD.\nBecause of the poor sensitivity and specificity, limited number of included participants, and the limited data available in the literature, we cannot recommend its routine use in clinical practice to predict the progression from MCI to any form of dementia.\nBecause of the high financial costs of 18F-florbetapir, clearly demonstrating the DTA and standardising the process of this modality are important prior to its wider use.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence is current to May 2017. We found three studies including 453 participants with MCI. Two studies evaluated the progression from MCI to ADD and one study evaluated the progression from MCI to any form of dementia.\nRegarding the two studies that evaluated the progression from MCI to ADD, one study had 401 participants with a follow-up of 1.6 years and the mean age was 72 years. The other study had 47 participants with a follow-up of three years, and the mean age was 72 years.\nThe other study that looked at any form of dementia included 5 participants over 90 years old.\nTwo of the studies were funded by the test manufacturer."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1525 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nClinicians must balance the risks of bleeding and thrombosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in people with an indication for anticoagulation. The potential of non-vitamin K antagonists (NOACs) to prevent bleeding complications is promising, but evidence remains limited.\nObjectives\nTo review the evidence from randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) compared to vitamin K antagonists post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in people with an indication for anticoagulation.\nSearch methods\nWe identified studies by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the Conference Proceedings Citation Index – Science and two clinical trials registers in February 2019. We checked bibliographies of identified studies and applied no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared NOACs and vitamin K antagonists for people with an indication for anticoagulation who underwent PCI.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently checked the results of searches to identify relevant studies, assessed each included study, and extracted study data. We conducted random-effects, pairwise analyses using Review Manager 5 and network meta-analyses (NMA) using the R package 'netmeta'. We ranked competing treatments by P scores, which are derived from the P values of all pairwise comparisons, and allow ranking of treatments on a continuous 0 to 1 scale.\nMain results\nWe identified nine RCTs that met the inclusion criteria, but four were ongoing trials, and were not included in this analysis. We included five RCTs, with 8373 participants, in the NMA (two RCTs compared apixaban to a vitamin K antagonist, two RCTs compared rivaroxaban to a vitamin K antagonist, and one RCT compared dabigatran to a vitamin K antagonist).\nVery low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference between NOACs and vitamin K antagonists in death from cardiovascular causes (not reported in the dabigatran trial), myocardial infarction, stroke, death from any cause, and stent thrombosis. Apixaban (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.95), high dose rivaroxaban (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.00), and low dose rivaroxaban (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92) probably reduce the risk of recurrent hospitalisation compared with vitamin K antagonists. No studies looked at health-related quality of life.\nVery low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests that NOACs may be safer than vitamin K antagonists in terms of bleeding. Both high dose dabigatran (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.97), and low dose dabigatran (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.70) may reduce major bleeding more than vitamin K antagonists. High dose dabigatran (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96), low dose dabigatran (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.75), apixaban (RR 0.67, 95% Cl 0.51 to 0.88), high dose rivaroxaban (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.83), and low dose rivaroxaban (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.88) probably reduce non-major bleeding more than vitamin K antagonists.\nThe results from the NMA were inconclusive between the different NOACs for all primary and secondary outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nVery low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests no meaningful difference in efficacy outcomes between non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) and vitamin K antagonists following percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in people with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. NOACs probably reduce the risk of recurrent hospitalisation for adverse events compared with vitamin K antagonists.\nLow- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests that dabigatran may reduce the rates of major and non-major bleeding, and apixaban and rivaroxaban probably reduce the rates of non-major bleeding compared with vitamin K antagonists.\nOur network meta-analysis did not show superiority of one NOAC over another for any of the outcomes. Head to head trials, directly comparing NOACs against each other, are required to provide more certain evidence.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We identified nine studies that compared NOACs with warfarin, four of which were ongoing studies. We included five trials involving 8373 participants in this review. Evidence is current to February 2019."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1526 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeripheral artery disease (PAD) is associated with a high clinical and socioeconomic burden. Treatments to alleviate the symptoms of PAD and decrease the risks of amputation and death are a high societal priority. A number of growth factors have shown a potential to stimulate angiogenesis. Growth factors delivered directly (as recombinant proteins), or indirectly (e.g. by viral vectors or DNA plasmids encoding these factors), have emerged as a promising strategy to treat patients with PAD.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of growth factors that promote angiogenesis for treating people with PAD of the lower extremities.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Specialised Register (June 2016) and CENTRAL (2016, Issue 5). We searched trial registries for details of ongoing or unpublished studies. We also checked the reference lists of relevant publications and, if necessary, tried to contact the trialists for details of the studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing growth factors (delivered directly or indirectly) with no intervention, placebo or any other intervention not based on the growth factor's action in patients with PAD of the lower extremities. The primary outcomes were limb amputation, death and adverse events. The secondary outcomes comprised walking ability, haemodynamic measures, ulceration and rest pain.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials and assessed the risk of bias. We used outcomes of the studies at low risk of bias for the main analysis and of all studies in the sensitivity analyses. We calculated odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We evaluated statistical heterogeneity using the I2 statistic and Cochrane's Q test. We conducted meta-analysis for the overall effect and for each growth factor as a subgroup analysis using OR in a fixed-effect model. We evaluated the robustness of the results in a sensitivity analysis using risk ratio (RR) and/or a random-effects model. We also assessed the quality of the evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 20 trials in the review and used 14 studies (on approximately 1400 participants) with published results in the analyses. Six published studies compared fibroblast growth factors (FGF), four studies hepatocyte growth factors (HGF) and another four studies vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF), versus placebo or no therapy. Six of these studies exclusively or mainly investigated participants with intermittent claudication and eight studies exclusively participants with critical limb ischaemia. Follow-up generally ranged from three months to one year. Two small studies provided some data at 2 years and one of them also at 10 years.\nThe direction and size of effects for growth factors on major limb amputations (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.38; 10 studies, N = 1075) and death (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.41; 12 studies, N = 1371) at up to two years are uncertain. The quality of the evidence is low due to risk of bias and imprecision (at one year, moderate-quality evidence due to imprecision). However, growth factors may decrease the rate of any limb amputations (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.99; 6 studies, N = 415). The quality of the evidence is low due to risk of bias and selective reporting.\nThe direction and size of effects for growth factors on serious adverse events (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.50; 13 studies, N = 1411) and on any adverse events (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.64; 4 studies, N = 709) at up to two years are also uncertain. The quality of the evidence is low due to risk of bias and imprecision (for serious adverse events at one year, moderate-quality evidence due to imprecision).\nGrowth factors may improve haemodynamic measures (low-quality evidence), ulceration (very low-quality evidence) and rest pain (very low-quality evidence) up to one year, but they have little or no effect on walking ability (low-quality evidence). We did not identify any relevant differences in effects between growth factors (FGF, HGF and VEGF).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results of this review do not support the use of therapy with the growth factors FGF, HGF or VEGF in people with PAD of the lower extremities to prevent death or major limb amputation or to improve walking ability. However, the use of these growth factors may improve haemodynamic measures and decrease the rate of any limb amputations (probably due to preventing minor amputations) with an uncertain effect on adverse events; an improvement of ulceration and rest pain is very uncertain. New trials at low risk of bias are needed to generate evidence with more certainty.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background and review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Different diseases, such as atherosclerosis, can cause reduced blood supply to the legs. Depending on the disease severity this may be associated with symptoms such as leg pain when walking or resting, ulceration (open sores) and gangrene of the leg. Reduced blood supply to the legs affects 3% to 10% of all people and 15% to 20% of people over 70 years of age. It is a major cause of decreased mobility and quality of life and of increased risks for amputation or death.\nThe treatment strategy generally comprises behavioural changes (e.g. smoking cessation, exercise and diet), drugs (e.g. antiplatelets, statins) and catheter-based or surgical interventions. However, for some patients the only option is leg amputation.\nSome substances naturally produced in the body, called growth factors, can stimulate new vessel formation. Nowadays, these substances are laboratory produced with the attempt to treat people with reduced blood supply to the legs. Therefore, we evaluated the evidence from clinical studies on the effects of growth factors in those people."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1527 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBladder dysfunction is a common complication following radical hysterectomy, caused by the damage to pelvic autonomic nerves that innervate the muscles of the bladder, urethral sphincter, and pelvic floor fasciae. Bladder dysfunction increases the rates of urinary tract infection, hospital visits or admission, and patient dissatisfaction. In addition, bladder dysfunction can also negatively impact patient quality of life (QoL). Several postoperative interventions have been proposed to prevent bladder dysfunction following radical hysterectomy. To our knowledge, there has been no systematic review evaluating the effectiveness and safety of these interventions for preventing bladder dysfunction following radical hysterectomy in women with cervical cancer.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of postoperative interventions for preventing bladder dysfunction following radical hysterectomy in women with early-stage cervical cancer (stage IA2 to IIA2).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 4) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to April week 2, 2020), and Embase via Ovid (1980 to 2020, week 16). We also checked registers of clinical trials, grey literature, conference reports, and citation lists of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness and safety of any type of postoperative interventions for preventing bladder dysfunction following a radical hysterectomy in women with stage IA2 to IIA2 cervical cancer.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected potentially relevant RCTs, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, compared results, and made judgments on the quality and certainty of the evidence. We resolved any disagreements through discussion or consultation with a third review author. Outcomes of interest consisted of spontaneous voiding recovery one week after the operation, quality of life (QoL), adverse events, post-void residual urine volume one month after the operation, urinary tract infection over the one month following the operation, and subjective urinary symptoms.\nMain results\nWe identified 1464 records as a result of the search (excluding duplicates). Of the 20 records that potentially met the review criteria, we included five reports of four studies. Most of the studies had unclear risks of selection and reporting biases. Of the four studies, one compared bethanechol versus placebo and three studies compared suprapubic catheterisation with intermittent self-catheterisation. We identified two ongoing studies.\nBethanechol versus placebo\nThe study reported no information on the rate of spontaneous voiding recovery at one week following the operation, QoL, adverse events, urinary tract infection in the first month after surgery, and subjective urinary symptoms for this comparison. The volume of post-void residual urine, assessed at one month after surgery, among women receiving bethanechol was lower than those in the placebo group (mean difference (MD) -37.4 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) -60.35 to -14.45; one study, 39 participants; very-low certainty evidence).\nSuprapubic catheterisation versus intermittent self-catheterisation\nThe studies reported no information on the rate of spontaneous voiding recovery at one week and post-void residual urine volume at one month following the operation for this comparison. There was no difference in risks of acute complication (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.49; one study, 71 participants; very low certainty evidence) and urinary tract infections during the first month after surgery (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.13; two studies, 95 participants; very- low certainty evidence) between participants who underwent suprapubic catheterisation and those who underwent intermittent self-catheterisation. Available data were insufficient to calculate the relative measures of the effect of interventions on QoL and subjective urinary symptoms.\nAuthors' conclusions\nNone of the included studies reported rate of spontaneous voiding recovery one week after surgery, time to a post-void residual volume of urine of 50 mL or less, or post-void residual urine volume at 6 and 12 months after surgery, all of which are important outcomes for assessing postoperative bladder dysfunction.\nLimited evidence suggested that bethanechol may minimise the risk of bladder dysfunction after radical hysterectomy by lowering post-void residual urine volume. The certainty of this evidence, however, was very low. The effectiveness of different types of postoperative urinary catheterisation (suprapubic and intermittent self-catheterisation) remain unproven.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"The aim of the review\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "To assess the usefulness and safety of treatment to prevent bladder dysfunction following radical hysterectomy in women with early-stage cervical cancer. We searched the scientific databases for randomised controlled trials (studies in which people or groups of people are allocated by chance to two or more groups, treating them differently) published to April 2020."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1528 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFibromyalgia is characterised by persistent, widespread pain; sleep problems; and fatigue. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is the delivery of pulsed electrical currents across the intact surface of the skin to stimulate peripheral nerves and is used extensively to manage painful conditions. TENS is inexpensive, safe, and can be self-administered. TENS reduces pain during movement in some people so it may be a useful adjunct to assist participation in exercise and activities of daily living. To date, there has been only one systematic review in 2012 which included TENS, amongst other treatments, for fibromyalgia, and the authors concluded that TENS was not effective.\nObjectives\nTo assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of TENS alone or added to usual care (including exercise) compared with placebo (sham) TENS; no treatment; exercise alone; or other treatment including medication, electroacupuncture, warmth therapy, or hydrotherapy for fibromyalgia in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases up to 18 January 2017: CENTRAL (CRSO); MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase (Ovid); CINAHL (EBSCO); PsycINFO (Ovid); LILACS; PEDRO; Web of Science (ISI); AMED (Ovid); and SPORTDiscus (EBSCO). We also searched three trial registries. There were no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised trials of TENS treatment for pain associated with fibromyalgia in adults. We included cross-over and parallel-group trial designs. We included studies that evaluated TENS administered using non-invasive techniques at intensities that produced perceptible TENS sensations during stimulation at either the site of pain or over nerve bundles proximal (or near) to the site of pain. We included TENS administered as a sole treatment or TENS in combination with other treatments, and TENS given as a single treatment or as a course of treatments.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently determined study eligibility by assessing each record and reaching agreement by discussion. A third review author acted as arbiter. We did not anonymise the records of studies before assessment. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies before entering information into a 'Characteristics of included studies' table. Primary outcomes were participant-reported pain relief from baseline of 30% or greater or 50% or greater, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). We assessed the evidence using GRADE and added 'Summary of findings' tables.\nMain results\nWe included eight studies (seven RCTs, one quasi-RCT, 315 adults (299 women), aged 18 to 75 years): six used a parallel-group design and two used a cross-over design. Sample sizes of intervention arms were five to 43 participants.\nTwo studies, one of which was a cross-over design, compared TENS with placebo TENS (82 participants), one study compared TENS with no treatment (43 participants), and four studies compared TENS with other treatments (medication (two studies, 74 participants), electroacupuncture (one study, 44 participants), superficial warmth (one cross-over study, 32 participants), and hydrotherapy (one study, 10 participants)). Two studies compared TENS plus exercise with exercise alone (98 participants, 49 per treatment arm). None of the studies measured participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater or PGIC. Overall, the studies were at unclear or high risk of bias, and in particular all were at high risk of bias for sample size.\nOnly one study (14 participants) measured the primary outcome participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater. Thirty percent achieved 30% or greater reduction in pain with TENS and exercise compared with 13% with exercise alone. One study found 10/28 participants reported pain relief of 25% or greater with TENS compared with 10/24 participants using superficial warmth (42 °C). We judged that statistical pooling was not possible because there were insufficient data and outcomes were not homogeneous.\nThere were no data for the primary outcomes participant-reported pain relief from baseline of 50% or greater and PGIC.\nThere was a paucity of data for secondary outcomes. One pilot cross-over study of 43 participants found that the mean (95% confidence intervals (CI)) decrease in pain intensity on movement (100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS)) during one 30-minute treatment was 11.1 mm (95% CI 5.9 to 16.3) for TENS and 2.3 mm (95% CI 2.4 to 7.7) for placebo TENS. There were no significant differences between TENS and placebo for pain at rest. One parallel group study of 39 participants found that mean ± standard deviation (SD) pain intensity (100-mm VAS) decreased from 85 ± 20 mm at baseline to 43 ± 20 mm after one week of dual-site TENS; decreased from 85 ± 10 mm at baseline to 60 ± 10 mm after single-site TENS; and decreased from 82 ± 20 mm at baseline to 80 ± 20 mm after one week of placebo TENS. The authors of seven studies concluded that TENS relieved pain but the findings of single small studies are unlikely to be correct.\nOne study found clinically important improvements in Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) subscales for work performance, fatigue, stiffness, anxiety, and depression for TENS with exercise compared with exercise alone. One study found no additional improvements in FIQ scores when TENS was added to the first three weeks of a 12-week supervised exercise programme.\nNo serious adverse events were reported in any of the studies although there were reports of TENS causing minor discomfort in a total of 3 participants.\nThe quality of evidence was very low. We downgraded the GRADE rating mostly due to a lack of data; therefore, we have little confidence in the effect estimates where available.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was insufficient high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of TENS for fibromyalgia. We found a small number of inadequately powered studies with incomplete reporting of methodologies and treatment interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We did not find enough high-quality studies to allow us to come to any conclusions about the effectiveness of TENS for fibromyalgia pain. Even though seven studies concluded that TENS relieved pain associated with fibromyalgia, the studies were low quality and the findings for measures of pain were inconsistently reported. Studies did not measure most of our outcomes and it was not always clear what aspects of pain were being reported (e.g. present pain, remembered pain, pain severity, etc.). Only one small pilot study found that one 30-minute treatment of TENS reduced pain on movement during and immediately after treatment; however, there were too few participants observed and it is unknown whether this effect would be maintained over a longer course of TENS treatments. Overall, it is not possible to judge whether TENS reduces pain associated with fibromyalgia. There were no serious side events reported in any of the studies."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1529 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2014, Issue 4. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) precedes the development of invasive carcinoma of the cervix. Current treatment of CIN is quite effective, but there is morbidity for the patient related to pain, bleeding, infection, cervical stenosis and premature birth in a subsequent pregnancy. Effective treatment with medications, rather than surgery, would be beneficial.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs), including cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, to induce regression and prevent the progression of CIN.\nSearch methods\nPreviously, we searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 11), MEDLINE (November, 2013) and Embase (November week 48, 2013). An updated search was performed in August 2017 for CENTRAL (2017, Issue 8), MEDLINE (July, week 3, 2017) and Embase (July week 31, 2017). Trial registries and journals were also searched as part of the update.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled trials of NSAIDs in the treatment of CIN.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risks of bias in accordance with Cochrane methodology. Outcome data were pooled using fixed-effect meta-analyses.\nMain results\nIn three RCTs, 171 women over the age of 18 years were randomised to receive celecoxib 400 mg daily for 14 to 18 weeks versus placebo (one study, 130 participants), celecoxib 200 mg twice daily by mouth for six months versus placebo (one study, 25 participants), or rofecoxib 25 mg once daily by mouth for three months versus placebo (one study, 16 participants). The study with rofecoxib was discontinued when the medicine was withdrawn from the market in 2004. The trials ran from June 2005 to April 2012, June 2002 to October 2003, and May to October 2004, respectively. We have chosen to include the data from the rofecoxib study as outcomes may be similar when other such NSAIDs are utilised.\nPartial or complete regression of CIN 2 or CIN 3 occurred in 31 out of 70 (44%) in the treatment arms and 19 of 62 (31%) in the placebo arms (risk ratio (RR) 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 2.27; P value 0.10), three studies, 132 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Complete regression of CIN 2 or CIN 3 occurred in 15 of 62 (24%) of those receiving celecoxib versus 10 of 54 (19%) of those receiving placebo (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.67; P value 0.45, two studies, 116 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Partial regression of CIN 2 or CIN 3 occurred in 14 of 62 (23%) of those receiving celecoxib versus 8 of 54 (15%) of those receiving placebo (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.72 to 3.4; P value 0.26), two studies, 116 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nProgression to a higher grade of CIN, but not to invasive cancer, occurred in one of 12 (8%) of those receiving celecoxib and two of 13 (15%) receiving placebo (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.24; P value 0.60, one study, 25 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies reported no cases of progression to invasive cancer within the timeframe of the study. No toxicity was reported in the two original articles. The trial added in this update had one Grade 3 gastrointestinal adverse effect in the treatment arm, but otherwise had similar Grade 1 to 2 side effects between treatment and placebo groups. Although the studies were well-conducted and randomised, some risk of bias was detected in all studies. Furthermore, the duration of the studies was short, which may mask identifying progression to cancer.\nThe addition of the trial in this update quadrupled the number of patients in the original review and was a well-designed multicentre trial thus, increasing the overall certainty of evidence from very low to moderate for this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere are currently no convincing data to support a benefit for NSAIDs in the treatment of CIN. With the addition of this new, larger randomised trial we would rate this as overall moderate-certainty evidence by the GRADE criteria.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review is an update of a previously published review in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 4 on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) to induce regression and prevent the progression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) is a common pre-cancerous condition of the cervix associated with HPV (the human papillomavirus), which can occur in anyone but is commonly found in younger women who wish to maintain their fertility and treatment often involves surgical excision. CIN can progress to invasive cancer of the cervix. CIN is identified by screening and can be treated with surgery to the cervix either by removal with surgical excision or destruction of the cells covering the cervix such as with laser therapy, heating, or freezing. While this is effective in the majority of cases, the surgery can cause immediate unwanted effects, such as bleeding and infection, or later complications including difficulty with menses due to scarring of the cervix and early (premature) labour.\nNSAIDs have been found to prevent the development of cancer of the large bowel and other organs, but with some unwanted side effects especially on the heart and blood vessels. Although rofecoxib, used in one of these studies, was withdrawn from the market in 2004, it may shed light on the feasibility of treatment with other NSAIDs.\nWe wanted to discover whether the use of NSAIDs for women with CIN could promote regression or prevent progression to cervical cancer without undue risk or side effects."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1530 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nClinical guidelines differ regarding their recommended blood glucose targets for patients with type 1 diabetes and recent studies on patients with type 2 diabetes suggest that aiming at very low targets can increase the risk of mortality.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of intensive versus conventional glycaemic targets in patients with type 1 diabetes in terms of long-term complications and determine whether very low, near normoglycaemic values are of additional benefit.\nSearch methods\nA systematic literature search was performed in the databases The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE. The date of the last search was December 2012 for all databases.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that had defined different glycaemic targets in the treatment arms, studied patients with type 1 diabetes, and had a follow-up duration of at least one year.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data, assessed studies for risk of bias, with differences resolved by consensus. Overall study quality was evaluated by the 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation' (GRADE) system. Random-effects models were used for the main analyses and the results are presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes.\nMain results\nWe identified 12 trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, including a total of 2230 patients. The patient populations varied widely across studies with one study only including children, one study only including patients after a kidney transplant, one study with newly diagnosed adult patients, and several studies where patients had retinopathy or microalbuminuria at baseline. The mean follow-up duration across studies varied between one and 6.5 years. The majority of the studies were carried out in the 1980s and all trials took place in Europe or North America. Due to the nature of the intervention, none of the studies could be carried out in a blinded fashion so that the risk of performance bias, especially for subjective outcomes such as hypoglycaemia, was present in all of the studies. Fifty per cent of the studies were judged to have a high risk of bias in at least one other category.\nUnder intensive glucose control, the risk of developing microvascular complications was reduced compared to conventional treatment for a) retinopathy: 23/371 (6.2%) versus 92/397 (23.2%); RR 0.27 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.42); P < 0.00001; 768 participants; 2 trials; high quality evidence; b) nephropathy: 119/732 (16.3%) versus 211/743 (28.4%); RR 0.56 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.68); P < 0.00001; 1475 participants; 3 trials; moderate quality evidence; c) neuropathy: 29/586 (4.9%) versus 86/617 (13.9%); RR 0.35 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.53); P < 0.00001; 1203 participants; 3 trials; high quality evidence. Regarding the progression of these complications after manifestation, the effect was weaker (retinopathy) or possibly not existent (nephropathy: RR 0.79 (95% CI 0.37 to 1.70); P = 0.55; 179 participants with microalbuminuria; 3 trials; very low quality evidence); no adequate data were available regarding the progression of neuropathy. For retinopathy, intensive glucose control reduced the risk of progression in studies with a follow-up duration of at least two years (85/366 (23.2%) versus 154/398 (38.7%); RR 0.61 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.76); P < 0.0001; 764 participants; 2 trials; moderate quality evidence), while we found evidence for an initial worsening of retinopathy after only one year of intensive glucose control (17/49 (34.7%) versus 7/47 (14.9%); RR 2.32 (95% CI 1.16 to 4.63); P = 0.02; 96 participants; 2 trials; low quality evidence).\nMajor macrovascular outcomes (stroke and myocardial infarction) occurred very rarely, and no firm evidence could be established regarding these outcome measures (low quality evidence).\nWe found that intensive glucose control increased the risk for severe hypoglycaemia, however the results were heterogeneous and only the 'Diabetes Complications Clinical Trial' (DCCT) showed a clear increase in severe hypoglycaemic episodes under intensive treatment. A subgroup analysis according to the baseline haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of participants in the trials (low quality evidence) suggests that the risk of hypoglycaemia is possibly only increased for patients who started with relatively low HbA1c values (< 9.0%). Several of the included studies also showed a greater weight gain under intensive glucose control, and the risk of ketoacidosis was only increased in studies using insulin pumps in the intensive treatment group (very low quality evidence).\nOverall, all-cause mortality was very low in all studies (moderate quality evidence) except in one study investigating renal allograft as treatment for end-stage diabetic nephropathy. Health-related quality of life was only reported in the DCCT trial, showing no statistically significant differences between the intervention and comparator groups (moderate quality evidence). In addition, only the DCCT published data on costs, indicating that intensive glucose therapy control was highly cost-effective considering the reduction of potential diabetes complications (moderate quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nTight blood sugar control reduces the risk of developing microvascular diabetes complications. The evidence of benefit is mainly from studies in younger patients at early stages of the disease. Benefits need to be weighed against risks including severe hypoglycaemia, and patient training is an important aspect in practice. The effects of tight blood sugar control seem to become weaker once complications have been manifested. However, further research is needed on this issue. Furthermore, there is a lack of evidence from RCTs on the effects of tight blood sugar control in older patient populations or patients with macrovascular disease. There is no firm evidence for specific blood glucose targets and treatment goals need to be individualised taking into account age, disease progression, macrovascular risk, as well as the patient's lifestyle and disease management capabilities.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "For the majority of outcomes we evaluated the overall quality of evidence as moderate or low (analysed by the 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation' (GRADE) system)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1531 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCollaborative writing applications (CWAs), such as wikis and Google Documents, hold the potential to improve the use of evidence in both public health and healthcare. Although a growing body of literature indicates that CWAs could have positive effects on healthcare, such as improved collaboration, behavioural change, learning, knowledge management, and adaptation of knowledge to local context, this has never been assessed systematically. Moreover, several questions regarding safety, reliability, and legal aspects exist.\nObjectives\nThe objectives of this review were to (1) assess the effects of the use of CWAs on process (including the behaviour of healthcare professionals) and patient outcomes, (2) critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the use of resources, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with CWAs to improve professional practices and patient outcomes, and (3) explore the effects of different CWA features (e.g. open versus closed) and different implementation factors (e.g. the presence of a moderator) on process and patient outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and 11 other electronic databases. We searched the grey literature, two trial registries, CWA websites, individual journals, and conference proceedings. We also contacted authors and experts in the field. We did not apply date or language limits. We searched for published literature to August 2016, and grey literature to September 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies, interrupted time series (ITS) studies, and repeated measures studies (RMS), in which CWAs were used as an intervention to improve the process of care, patient outcomes, or healthcare costs.\nData collection and analysis\nTeams of two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of studies. Disagreements were resolved by discussion, and when consensus was not reached, a third review author was consulted.\nMain results\nWe screened 11,993 studies identified from the electronic database searches and 346 studies from grey literature sources. We analysed the full text of 99 studies. None of the studies met the eligibility criteria; two potentially relevant studies are ongoing.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhile there is a high number of published studies about CWAs, indicating that this is an active field of research, additional studies using rigorous experimental designs are needed to assess their impact and cost-effectiveness on process and patient outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the aim of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The aim of this Cochrane review was to find out whether collaborative writing applications (CWAs), also known as collaborative writing tools, could improve the way health professionals work, and improve patients’ health. Another goal of our study was to examine the costs and resources needed to use CWAs. Finally, we wanted to know if certain CWA features (for example, being open, like Wikipedia, versus being closed, like the Canadian CPOE toolkit), and different clinical practice change factors (for example, the presence of a moderator) increased the CWAs' impact on healthcare. We searched for studies to answer these questions."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1532 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPulmonary hypertension (PH) comprises a group of complex and heterogenous conditions, characterised by elevated pulmonary artery pressure, and which left untreated leads to right-heart failure and death. PH includes World Health Organisation (WHO) Group 1 pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH); Group 2 consists of PH due to left-heart disease (PH-LHD); Group 3 comprises PH as a result of lung diseases or hypoxia, or both; Group 4 includes PH due to chronic thromboembolic occlusion of pulmonary vasculature (CTEPH), and Group 5 consists of cases of PH due to unclear and/or multifactorial mechanisms including haematological, systemic, or metabolic disorders. Phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors increase vasodilation and inhibit proliferation.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy of PDE5 inhibitors for pulmonary hypertension in adults and children.\nSearch methods\nWe performed searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science up to 26 September 2018. We handsearched review articles, clinical trial registries, and reference lists of retrieved articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials that compared any PDE5 inhibitor versus placebo, or any other PAH disease-specific therapies, for at least 12 weeks. We include separate analyses for each PH group.\nData collection and analysis\nWe imported studies identified by the search into a reference manager database. We retrieved the full-text versions of relevant studies, and two review authors independently extracted data. Primary outcomes were: change in WHO functional class, six-minute walk distance (6MWD), and mortality. Secondary outcomes were haemodynamic parameters, quality of life/health status, dyspnoea, clinical worsening (hospitalisation/intervention), and adverse events. When appropriate, we performed meta-analyses and subgroup analyses by severity of lung function, connective tissue disease diagnosis, and radiological pattern of fibrosis. We assessed the evidence using the GRADE approach and created 'Summary of findings' tables.\nMain results\nWe included 36 studies with 2999 participants (with pulmonary hypertension from all causes) in the final review. Trials were conducted for 14 weeks on average, with some as long as 12 months. Two trials specifically included children.\nNineteen trials included group 1 PAH participants. PAH participants treated with PDE5 inhibitors were more likely to improve their WHO functional class (odds ratio (OR) 8.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.95 to 18.72; 4 trials, 282 participants), to walk 48 metres further in 6MWD (95% CI 40 to 56; 8 trials, 880 participants), and were 22% less likely to die over a mean duration of 14 weeks (95% CI 0.07 to 0.68; 8 trials, 1119 participants) compared to placebo (high-certainty evidence). The number needed to treat to prevent one additional death was 32 participants. There was an increased risk of adverse events with PDE5 inhibitors, especially headache (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.92; 5 trials, 848 participants), gastrointestinal upset (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.48; 5 trials, 848 participants), flushing (OR 4.12, 95% CI 1.83 to 9.26; 3 trials, 748 participants), and muscle aches and joint pains (OR 2.52, 95% CI 1.59 to 3.99; 4 trials, 792 participants).\nData comparing PDE5 inhibitors to placebo whilst on other PAH-specific therapy were limited by the small number of included trials. Those PAH participants on PDE5 inhibitors plus combination therapy walked 19.66 metres further in six minutes (95% CI 9 to 30; 4 trials, 509 participants) compared to placebo (moderate-certainty evidence). There were limited trials comparing PDE5 inhibitors directly with other PAH-specific therapy (endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs)). Those on PDE5 inhibitors walked 49 metres further than on ERAs (95% CI 4 to 95; 2 trials, 36 participants) (low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in WHO functional class or mortality across both treatments.\nFive trials compared PDE5 inhibitors to placebo in PH secondary to left-heart disease (PH-LHD). The quality of data were low due to imprecision and inconsistency across trials. In those with PH-LHD there were reduced odds of an improvement in WHO functional class using PDE5 inhibitors compared to placebo (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.87; 3 trials, 285 participants), and those using PDE5 inhibitors walked 34 metres further compared to placebo (95% CI 23 to 46; 3 trials, 284 participants). There was no evidence of a difference in mortality. Five trials compared PDE5 inhibitors to placebo in PH secondary to lung disease/hypoxia, mostly in COPD. Data were of low quality due to imprecision of effect and inconsistency across trials. There was a small improvement of 27 metres in 6MWD using PDE5 inhibitors compared to placebo in those with PH due to lung disease. There was no evidence of worsening hypoxia using PDE5 inhibitors, although data were limited. Three studies compared PDE5 inhibitors to placebo or other PAH-specific therapy in chronic thromboembolic disease. There was no significant difference in any outcomes. Data quality was low due to imprecision of effect and heterogeneity across trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPDE5 inhibitors appear to have clear beneficial effects in group 1 PAH. Sildenafil, tadalafil and vardenafil are all efficacious in this clinical setting, and clinicians should consider the side-effect profile for each individual when choosing which PDE5 inhibitor to prescribe.\nWhile there appears to be some benefit for the use of PDE5 inhibitors in PH-left-heart disease, it is not clear based on the mostly small, short-term studies, which type of left-heart disease stands to benefit. These data suggest possible harm in valvular heart disease. There is no clear benefit for PDE5 inhibitors in pulmonary hypertension secondary to lung disease or chronic thromboembolic disease. Further research is required into the mechanisms of pulmonary hypertension secondary to left-heart disease, and cautious consideration of which subset of these patients may benefit from PDE5 inhibitors. Future trials in PH-LHD should be sufficiently powered, with long-term follow-up, and should include invasive haemodynamic data, WHO functional class, six-minute walk distance, and clinical worsening.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We wanted to review whether a group of drugs called PDE5 inhibitors (which may work to open up the vessels in the lung) can help people with pulmonary hypertension (increased pressures in the blood vessels of the lungs). Cochrane researchers collected and analysed all relevant studies to answer this question, and found 36 studies."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1533 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMénière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. First-line treatments often involve dietary or lifestyle changes, medication or local (intratympanic) treatments. However, surgery may also be considered for people with persistent or severe symptoms. The efficacy of different surgical interventions at preventing vertigo attacks, and their associated symptoms, is currently unclear.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of surgical interventions versus placebo or no treatment in people with Ménière's disease.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 14 September 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with definite or probable Ménière's disease comparing ventilation tubes, endolymphatic sac surgery, semi-circular canal plugging/obliteration, vestibular nerve section or labyrinthectomy with either placebo (sham surgery) or no treatment. We excluded studies with follow-up of less than three months, or with a cross-over design (unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) change in hearing, 6) change in tinnitus and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included two studies with a total of 178 participants. One evaluated ventilation tubes compared to no treatment, the other evaluated endolymphatic sac decompression compared to sham surgery.\nVentilation tubes\nWe included a single RCT of 148 participants with definite Ménière's disease. It was conducted in a single centre in Japan from 2010 to 2013. Participants either received ventilation tubes with standard medical treatment, or standard medical treatment alone, and were followed up for two years. Some data were reported on the number of participants in whom vertigo resolved, and the effect of the intervention on hearing. Our other primary and secondary outcomes were not reported in this study. This is a single, small study and for all outcomes the certainty of evidence was low or very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results.\nEndolymphatic sac decompression\nWe also included one RCT of 30 participants that compared endolymphatic sac decompression with sham surgery. This was a single-centre study conducted in Denmark during the 1980s. Follow-up was predominantly conducted at one year, but additional follow-up continued for up to nine years in some participants. Some data were reported on hearing and vertigo (both improvement in vertigo and change in vertigo), but our other outcomes of interest were not reported. Again, this is a single, very small study and we rated the certainty of the evidence as very low for all outcomes. We are therefore unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are unable to draw clear conclusions about the efficacy of these surgical interventions for Ménière's disease. We identified evidence for only two of our five proposed comparisons, and we assessed all the evidence as low- or very low-certainty. This means that we have very low confidence that the effects reported are accurate estimates of the true effect of these interventions. Many of the outcomes that we planned to assess were not reported by the studies, such as the impact on quality of life, and adverse effects of the interventions. Consensus on the appropriate outcomes to measure in studies of Ménière's disease is needed (i.e. a core outcome set) in order to guide future studies in this area and enable meta-analyses of the results. This must include appropriate consideration of the potential harms of treatment, as well as the benefits.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How is Ménière's disease treated?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "There is a lot of variation in how Ménière's disease is treated in different places (both nationally and internationally). Currently there is no agreement on the best treatment strategy. Lifestyle and dietary advice and oral medications are often used as the initial treatment for Ménière's disease. Sometimes other treatments - such as injections into the ear - may also be used. If these treatments do not work, or if people have very severe symptoms, then surgery may be considered."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1534 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDiabetes is associated with long-term damage, dysfunction and failure of various organs, especially the eyes, kidneys, nerves, heart and blood vessels. The risk of developing type 2 diabetes increases with age, obesity and lack of physical activity. Insulin resistance is a fundamental aspect of the aetiology of type 2 diabetes. Insulin resistance has been shown to be associated with atherosclerosis, dyslipidaemia, glucose intolerance, hyperuricaemia, hypertension and polycystic ovary syndrome. The mineral zinc plays a key role in the synthesis and action of insulin, both physiologically and in diabetes mellitus. Zinc seems to stimulate insulin action and insulin receptor tyrosine kinase activity.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of zinc supplementation for the prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults with insulin resistance.\nSearch methods\nThis review is an update of a previous Cochrane systematic review published in 2007. We searched the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and the ICTRP trial register (from inception to March 2015). There were no language restrictions. We conducted citation searches and screened reference lists of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies if they had a randomised or quasi-randomised design and if they investigated zinc supplementation compared with placebo or no intervention in adults with insulin resistance living in the community.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors selected relevant trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data.\nMain results\nWe included three trials with a total of 128 participants in this review. The duration of zinc supplementation ranged between four and 12 weeks. Risk of bias was unclear for most studies regarding selection bias (random sequence generation, allocation concealment) and detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment). No study reported on our key outcome measures (incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus, adverse events, health-related quality of life, all-cause mortality, diabetic complications, socioeconomic effects). Evaluation of insulin resistance as measured by the Homeostasis Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) showed neutral effects when comparing zinc supplementation with control (two trials; 114 participants). There were neutral effects for trials comparing zinc supplementation with placebo for total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and triglycerides (2 studies, 70 participants). The one trial comparing zinc supplementation with exercise also showed neutral effects for total cholesterol, HDL and LDL cholesterol, and a mean difference in triglycerides of -30 mg/dL (95% confidence interval (CI) -49 to -10) in favour of zinc supplementation (53 participants). Various surrogate laboratory parameters were also analysed in the included trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently no evidence on which to base the use of zinc supplementation for the prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Future trials should investigate patient-important outcome measures such as incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus, health-related quality of life, diabetic complications, all-cause mortality and socioeconomic effects.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "No study reported on our patient-important key outcomes (new onset of type 2 diabetes mellitus, side effects, health-related quality of life, all-cause mortality, diabetic complications, socioeconomic effects). The effects of zinc supplementation are uncertain regarding insulin resistance and lipid levels in the blood (mainly cholesterol and triglycerides)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1535 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEstablishment of a secure airway is a critical part of neonatal resuscitation in the delivery room and the neonatal intensive care unit. Videolaryngoscopy has the potential to facilitate successful endotracheal intubation, and decrease adverse consequences of a delay in airway stabilization. Videolaryngoscopy may enhance visualization of the glottis and intubation success in neonates. This is an update of a review first published in 2015, and updated in 2018.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness and safety of videolaryngoscopy compared to direct laryngoscopy in decreasing the time and attempts required for endotracheal intubation and increasing the success rate on first intubation attempt in neonates (0 to 28 days of age).\nSearch methods\nIn November 2022, we updated the search for trials evaluating videolaryngoscopy for neonatal endotracheal intubation in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and BIOSIS. We also searched abstracts of the Pediatric Academic Societies, clinical trials registries (www.clinicaltrials.gov; www.controlled-trials.com), and reference lists of relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs, or cross-over trials, in neonates (0 to 28 days of age), evaluating videolaryngoscopy with any device used for endotracheal intubation compared with direct laryngoscopy.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors performed data collection and analysis, as recommended by Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors independently assessed studies identified by the search strategy for inclusion.\nWe used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nThe updated search yielded 7786 references, from which we identified five additional RCTs for inclusion, seven ongoing trials, and five studies awaiting classification. Three studies were included in the previous version of the review. For this update, we included eight studies, which provided data on 759 intubation attempts in neonates. We included neonates of either sex, who were undergoing endotracheal intubation in international hospitals. Different videolaryngoscopy devices (including C-MAC, Airtraq, and Glidescope) were used in the studies.\nFor the primary outcomes; videolaryngoscopy may not reduce the time required for successful intubation when compared with direct laryngoscopy (mean difference [MD] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.19 to 1.67; 5 studies; 505 intubations; low-certainty evidence). Videolaryngoscopy may result in fewer intubation attempts (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.00; 6 studies; 659 intubations; low-certainty evidence). Videolaryngoscopy may increase the success of intubation at the first attempt (risk ratio [RR] 1.24, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.37; risk difference [RD] 0.14, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.20; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome [NNTB] 7, 95% CI 5 to 13; 8 studies; 759 intubation attempts; low-certainty evidence).\nFor the secondary outcomes; the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of videolaryngoscopy on desaturation or bradycardia episodes, or both, during intubation (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.30; 3 studies; 343 intubations; very-low certainty evidence). Videolaryngoscopy may result in little to no difference in the lowest oxygen saturations during intubation compared with direct laryngoscopy (MD -0.76, 95% CI -5.74 to 4.23; 2 studies; 359 intubations; low-certainty evidence). Videolaryngoscopy likely results in a slight reduction in the incidence of airway trauma during intubation attempts compared with direct laryngoscopy (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.79; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.01; NNTB 25, 95% CI 14 to 100; 5 studies; 467 intubations; moderate-certainty evidence).\nThere were no data available on other adverse effects of videolaryngoscopy. We found a high risk of bias in areas of allocation concealment and performance bias in the included studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nVideolaryngoscopy may increase the success of intubation on the first attempt and may result in fewer intubation attempts, but may not reduce the time required for successful intubation (low-certainty evidence). Videolaryngoscopy likely results in a reduced incidence of airway-related adverse effects (moderate-certainty evidence).\nThese results suggest that videolaryngoscopy may be more effective and potentially reduce harm when compared to direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in neonates.\nWell-designed, adequately powered RCTS are necessary to confirm the efficacy and safety of videolaryngoscopy in neonatal intubation.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up to date is this evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence is up to date to November 2022."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1536 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPancreatic cancer remains one of the five leading causes of cancer deaths in industrialised nations. For adenocarcinomas in the head of the gland and premalignant lesions, partial pancreaticoduodenectomy represents the standard treatment for resectable tumours. The gastro- or duodenojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy can be reestablished via either an antecolic or retrocolic route. The debate about the more favourable technique for bowel reconstruction is ongoing.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effectiveness and safety of antecolic and retrocolic gastro- or duodenojejunostomy after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy.\nSearch methods\nIn this updated version, we conducted a systematic literature search up to 6 July 2021 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 6, MEDLINE (1946 to 6 July 2021), and Embase (1974 to 6 July 2021). We applied no language restrictions. We handsearched reference lists of identified trials to identify further relevant trials, and searched the trial registries clinicaltrials.govand World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered all RCTs comparing antecolic with retrocolic reconstruction of bowel continuity after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy for any given indication to be eligible.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the identified references and extracted data from the included trials. The same two review authors independently assessed risk of bias of included trials, according to standard Cochrane methodology. We used a random-effects model to pool the results of the individual trials in a meta-analysis. We used odds ratios (OR) to compare binary outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes.\nMain results\nOf a total of 287 citations identified by the systematic literature search, we included eight randomised controlled trials (reported in 11 publications), with a total of 818 participants. There was high risk of bias in all of the trials in regard to blinding of participants and/or outcome assessors and unclear risk for selective reporting in six of the trials.\nThere was little or no difference in the frequency of delayed gastric emptying (OR 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 1.09; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence) with relevant heterogeneity between trials (I2=40%).\nThere was little or no difference in postoperative mortality (risk difference (RD) -0.00; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01; eight trials, 818 participants, high-certainty evidence); postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR 1.01; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.40; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence); postoperative haemorrhage (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.59; six trials, 742 participants, low-certainty evidence); intra-abdominal abscess (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.74; seven trials, 788 participants, low-certainty evidence); bile leakage (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.91; seven trials, 606 participants, low-certainty evidence); reoperation rate (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.34 to 1.36; five trials, 682 participants, low-certainty evidence); and length of hospital stay (MD -0.21; 95% CI -1.41 to 0.99; eight trials, 818 participants, low-certainty evidence).\nOnly one trial reported quality of life, on a subgroup of 73 participants, also without a relevant difference between the two groups at any time point. The overall certainty of the evidence was low to moderate, due to some degree of heterogeneity, inconsistency and risk of bias in the included trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that antecolic reconstruction after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy results in little to no difference in morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay, or quality of life. Due to heterogeneity in definitions of the endpoints between trials, and differences in postoperative management, future research should be based on clearly defined endpoints and standardised perioperative management, to potentially elucidate differences between these two procedures. Novel strategies should be evaluated for prophylaxis and treatment of common complications, such as delayed gastric emptying.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Our confidence in the results is limited because the results from the studies varied widely, and most studies involved only small numbers of people. Most studies used methods likely to introduce errors. Therefore, the results should be interpreted in the light of these limitations."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1537 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChildren with acute pneumonia may be vitamin D deficient. Clinical trials have found that prophylactic vitamin D supplementation decreases children's risk of developing pneumonia. Data on the therapeutic effects of vitamin D in acute childhood pneumonia are limited. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2018.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of vitamin D supplementation as an adjunct to antibiotics for the treatment of acute childhood pneumonia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries on 28 December 2021. We applied no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared vitamin D supplementation with placebo in children (aged one month to five years) hospitalised with acute community-acquired pneumonia, as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) acute respiratory infection guidelines. For this update, we reappraised eligible trials according to research integrity criteria, excluding RCTs published from April 2018 that were not prospectively registered in a trials registry according to WHO or Clinical Trials Registry – India (CTRI) guidelines (it was not mandatory to register clinical trials in India before April 2018).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we extracted the number of participants experiencing the outcome and the total number of participants in each treatment group. For continuous data, we used the arithmetic mean and standard deviation (SD) for each treatment group together with number of participants in each group. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nIn this update, we included three new trials involving 468 children, bringing the total number of trials to seven, with 1601 children (631 with pneumonia and 970 with severe or very severe pneumonia). We categorised three previously included studies and three new studies as 'awaiting classification' based on the research integrity screen.\nFive trials used a single bolus dose of vitamin D (300,000 IU in one trial and 100,000 IU in four trials) at the onset of illness or within 24 hours of hospital admission; one used a daily dose of oral vitamin D (1000 IU for children aged up to one year and 2000 IU for children aged over one year) for five days; and one used variable doses (on day 1, 20,000 IU in children younger than six months, 50,000 IU in children aged six to 12 months, and 100,000 IU in children aged 13 to 59 months; followed by 10,000 IU/day for four days or until discharge). Three trials performed microbiological diagnosis of pneumonia, radiological diagnosis of pneumonia, or both.\nVitamin D probably has little or no effect on the time to resolution of acute illness (mean difference (MD) −1.28 hours, 95% confidence interval (CI) −5.47 to 2.91; 5 trials, 1188 children; moderate-certainty evidence). We do not know if vitamin D has an effect on the duration of hospitalisation (MD 4.96 hours, 95% CI −8.28 to 18.21; 5 trials, 1023 children; very low-certainty evidence). We do not know if vitamin D has an effect on mortality rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.07; 3 trials, 584 children; low-certainty evidence). The trials reported no major adverse events.\nAccording to GRADE criteria, the evidence was of very low-to-moderate certainty for all outcomes, owing to serious trial limitations, inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision.\nThree trials received funding: one from the New Zealand Aid Corporation, one from an institutional grant, and one from multigovernment organisations (Bangladesh, Sweden, and UK). The remaining four trials were unfunded.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on the available evidence, we are uncertain whether vitamin D supplementation has important effects on outcomes of acute pneumonia when used as an adjunct to antibiotics. The trials reported no major adverse events. Uncertainty in the evidence is due to imprecision, risk of bias, inconsistency, and indirectness.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is pneumonia, and how can it be treated?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Pneumonia is inflammation (swelling) of the lungs caused by an infection. Treatment for pneumonia includes antibiotics, providing oxygen through a mask, and other supportive therapies. Vitamin D boosts immune defences and reduces excessive inflammation: these effects may help children recover from an episode of pneumonia."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1538 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic lung disease (CLD) is a major cause of mortality and morbidity in very low birth weight infants despite increased use of antenatal steroids and surfactant therapy. Ventilator injury and oxygen toxicity are thought to be important factors in the pathogenesis of chronic pulmonary disease. Evidence from animal studies and from adult human studies indicates that high-frequency jet ventilation may reduce the severity of lung injury associated with mechanical ventilation.\nObjectives\nTo compare use of high-frequency jet ventilation (HFJV) versus conventional ventilation (CV) in preterm infants with severe pulmonary dysfunction.\nSubgroup analyses include the following.\n• Trials with and without surfactant replacement therapy.\n• Trials with and without strategies to maintain lung volume.\n• Trials with infants of different gestational ages and birth weights (specific subgroups to include < 28 weeks' gestation and < 1000 grams).\n• Trials with and without adequate humidification of inspired gases.\nSearch methods\nThe original search included MEDLINE (1966 to August 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2005, Issue 3) and EMBASE (1988 to August 2005). We also obtained information from experts in the field and checked cross-references. We updated the electronic search in June 2013 and again in June 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe included in this systematic review randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of rescue high-frequency jet ventilation versus conventional ventilation in preterm infants born at less than 35 weeks' gestation or with birth weight less than 2000 grams in respiratory distress.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, including independent trial assessment and data extraction. We analysed data using risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs).\nMain results\nWe included only one trial in the review. Keszler 1991 randomly assigned 166 preterm infants; reported data on 144 infants; and permitted cross-over to the alternate treatment if initial treatment failed. Investigators found no statistically significant differences in overall mortality (including survival after cross-over) between the two groups (RR 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.72). In a secondary analysis of infants up to the time of cross-over, rescue treatment with HFJV was associated with lower mortality (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97). Researchers reported no significant differences in the incidence of CLD among survivors at 28 days of age, nor in the incidence of intraventricular haemorrhage, new air leaks, airway obstruction and necrotising tracheobronchitis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nStudy authors reported no significant differences in overall mortality between rescue high-frequency jet ventilation and conventional ventilation and presented highly imprecise results for important adverse effects such as intraventricular haemorrhage, new air leaks, airway obstruction and necrotising tracheobronchitis.\nThe overall quality of evidence is affected by limitations in trial design and by imprecision due to the small number of infants in the included study. Existing evidence does not support the use of high-frequency jet ventilation as rescue therapy in preterm infants.\nStudies that target populations at greatest risk and that have sufficient power to assess important outcomes are needed. These trials should incorporate long-term pulmonary and neurodevelopmental outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "One study randomly assigned 166 preterm infants and reported data on 144 infants. The included study was completed before the introduction of surfactant and widespread use of antenatal steroids."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1539 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nVacuum and forceps assisted vaginal deliveries are reported to increase the incidence of postpartum infections and maternal readmission to hospital compared to spontaneous vaginal delivery. Prophylactic antibiotics may be prescribed to prevent these infections. However, the benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal deliveries is still unclear. This is an update of a review last published in 2017.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing infectious puerperal morbidities in women undergoing operative vaginal deliveries including vacuum or forceps delivery, or both.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (5 July 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials comparing any prophylactic antibiotic regimens with placebo or no treatment in women undergoing vacuum or forceps deliveries were eligible. Participants were all pregnant women without evidence of infections or other indications for antibiotics of any gestational age. Interventions were any antibiotic prophylaxis (any dosage regimen, any route of administration or at any time during delivery or the puerperium).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias. Two review authors extracted the data independently using prepared data extraction forms. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion and a consensus reached through discussion with all review authors. We assessed methodological quality of the two included studies using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nTwo studies, involving 3813 women undergoing either vacuum or forceps deliveries, were included. One study involving 393 women compared the antibiotic intravenous cefotetan after cord clamping compared with no treatment. The other study involving 3420 women compared a single dose of intravenous amoxicillin and clavulanic acid with placebo using 20 mL of intravenous sterile 0.9% saline.\nThe evidence suggests that prophylactic antibiotics reduce superficial perineal wound infection (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.69; women = 3420; 1 study; high-certainty evidence), deep perineal wound infection (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.69; women = 3420; 1 study; high-certainty evidence) and probably reduce wound breakdown (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.63; women = 2593; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). We are unclear about the effect on organ or space perineal wound infection (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.05; women = 3420; 1 study) and endometritis (average RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.64; 15/1907 versus 30/1906; women = 3813; 2 studies) based on low-certainty evidence with wide CIs that include no effect. Prophylactic antibiotics probably lower serious infectious complications (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.89; women = 3420; 1 study; high-certainty evidence). They also have an important effect on reduction of confirmed or suspected maternal infection. The two included studies did not report on fever or urinary tract infection.\nIt is unclear, based on low-certainty evidence, whether prophylactic antibiotics have any impact on maternal adverse reactions (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.18 to 22.05; women = 2593; 1 study) and maternal length of stay (MD 0.09 days, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.41; women = 393; 1 study) as the CIs were wide and included no effect. Prophylactic antibiotics slightly improve perineal pain and health consequences of perineal pain and probably reduce costs. Prophylactic antibiotics did not have an important effect on dyspareunia (difficult or painful sexual intercourse) or breastfeeding at six weeks. Antibiotic prophylaxis may slightly improve maternal hospital re-admission and maternal health-related quality of life. Neonatal adverse reactions were not reported in any included trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nProphylactic intravenous antibiotics are effective in reducing infectious puerperal morbidities in terms of superficial and deep perineal wound infection or serious infectious complications in women undergoing operative vaginal deliveries without clinical indications for antibiotic administration after delivery. Prophylactic antibiotics slightly improve perineal pain and health consequences of perineal pain, probably reduce the costs, and may slightly reduce the maternal hospital re-admission and health-related quality of life. However, the effect on reduction of endometritis, organ or space perineal wound infection, maternal adverse reactions and maternal length of stay is unclear due to low-certainty evidence.\nAs the evidence was mainly derived from a single multi-centre study conducted in a high-income setting, future well-designed randomised trials in other settings, particularly in low- and middle-income settings, are required to confirm the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What evidence did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We updated our search for evidence from randomised controlled studies in July 2019. We included two studies, published in 1989 and 2019. The older study was conducted in the USA and the more recent study was from a number of hospital obstetric units in the UK. A total of 3813 women undergoing operative vaginal delivery were included. The USA study involved 393 women and compared 2 g of intravenous cefotetan after cord clamping with no treatment. The other study involved 3420 women. This study compared intravenous amoxicillin and clavulanic acid with placebo. The certainty of the evidence varied from high certainty to low, with low certainty being downgraded because of concerns relating to imprecise results, with few events and only a single study reporting on a number of the findings.\n\nProphylactic antibiotics given to reduce or prevent infection halved the number of women with infected episiotomies or lacerations. These findings included superficial and deep perineal wound infections (one study, 3420 women; high-certainty evidence) or wound breakdown (one study, 2593 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Serious infectious complications were also reduced (one study, 3420 women; high-certainty evidence). Due to low-certainty evidence, prophylactic antibiotics had uncertain effects on endometritis, experienced as fever and uterine tenderness or heavy bleeding (two studies, 3813 women; low-certainty evidence) and infected episiotomy/laceration presenting with organ or space perineal infection (one study, 3420 women; low-certainty evidence).\n\nThe impact on maternal adverse reactions (one study, 2593 women; low-certainty evidence) and maternal length of stay in hospital (one study, 393 women; low-certainty evidence) was also unclear due to the low-certainty of the study. Perineal pain and health consequences of perineal pain were slightly reduced. Prophylactic antibiotics did not have a clear effect on pain during sex and breastfeeding at six weeks. Maternal hospital re-admission and maternal health-related quality of life may be slightly improved. Costs were reduced with use of prophylactic antibiotics. Neither study specifically measured fever, urinary tract infection or adverse reactions in babies."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1540 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMultiple sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune, T-cell-dependent, inflammatory, demyelinating disease of the central nervous system, with an unpredictable course. Current MS therapies focus on treating and preventing exacerbations, and avoiding the progression of disability. At present, there is no treatment that is capable of safely and effectively reaching these objectives. Clinical trials suggest that alemtuzumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody, could be a promising option for MS.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of alemtuzumab alone or associated with other treatments in people with any form of MS.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 21 June 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with any subtype of MS comparing alemtuzumab alone or associated with other medications versus placebo; another active drug; or alemtuzumab in another dose, regimen, or duration.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our co-primary outcomes were 1. relapse-free survival, 2. sustained disease progression, and 3. number of participants experiencing at least one adverse event. Our secondary outcomes were 4. participants free of clinical disability, 5. quality of life, 6. change in disability, 7. fatigue, 8. new or enlarging lesions on resonance imaging, and 9. dropouts. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included three RCTs (1713 participants) comparing intravenous alemtuzumab versus subcutaneous interferon beta-1a for relapsing–remitting MS. Participants were treatment-naive (two studies) or had experienced at least one relapse after interferon or glatiramer (one study). Alemtuzumab was given at doses of 12 mg/day or 24 mg/day for five days at months 0 and 12, or 24 mg/day for three days at months 12 and 24. Participants in the interferon beta-1a group received 44 μg three times weekly.\nAlemtuzumab 12 mg: 1. may improve relapse-free survival at 36 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18 to 0.53; 1 study, 221 participants; low-certainty evidence); 2. may improve sustained disease progression-free survival at 36 months (HR 0.25, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.56; 1 study, 223 participants; low-certainty evidence); 3. may make little to no difference on the proportion of participants with at least one adverse event at 36 months (risk ratio [RR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02; 1 study, 224 participants; low-certainty evidence), although the proportion of participants with at least one adverse event was high with both drugs; 4. may slightly reduce disability at 36 months (mean difference [MD] −0.70, 95% CI −1.04 to −0.36; 1 study, 223 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain regarding the risk of dropouts at 36 months (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.14; 1 study, 224 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nAlemtuzumab 24 mg: 1. may improve relapse-free survival at 36 months (HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.40; 1 study, 221 participants; low-certainty evidence); 2. may improve sustained disease progression-free survival at 36 months (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.69; 1 study, 221 participants; low-certainty evidence); 3. may make little to no difference on the proportion of participants with at least one adverse event at 36 months (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 1 study, 215 participants; low-certainty evidence), although the proportion of participants with at least one adverse event was high with both drugs; 4. may slightly reduce disability at 36 months (MD −0.83, 95% CI −1.16 to −0.50; 1 study, 221 participants; low-certainty evidence); 5. may reduce the risk of dropouts at 36 months (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.57; 1 study, 215 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nFor quality of life, fatigue, and participants free of clinical disease activity, the studies either did not consider these outcomes or they used different measuring tools to those planned in this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCompared with interferon beta-1a, alemtuzumab may improve relapse-free survival and sustained disease progression-free survival, and make little to no difference on the proportion of participants with at least one adverse event for people with relapsing–remitting MS at 36 months. The certainty of the evidence for these results was very low to low.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found three studies (including 1713 participants) that fulfilled the review selection criteria. All studies compared intravenous (injected into a vein) alemtuzumab versus subcutaneous (injected under the skin) interferon beta-1a for people with relapsing–remitting MS. Two studies (called CARE-MS I and CAMMS223) were treating the participants for their MS the first time (treatment-naive). The third study (CARE-MS II) included participants with at least one relapse while being treated with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate for at least six months."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1541 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThere are ongoing concerns regarding pharmaceutical opioid-related harms, including overdose and dependence, with an associated increase in treatment demand. People dependent on pharmaceutical opioids appear to differ in important ways from people who use heroin, yet most opioid agonist treatment research has been conducted in people who use heroin.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of maintenance opioid agonist pharmacotherapy for the treatment of pharmaceutical opioid dependence.\nSearch methods\nWe updated our searches of the following databases to January 2022: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, four other databases, and two trial registers. We checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs with adults and adolescents examining maintenance opioid agonist treatments that made the following two comparisons.\n1. Full opioid agonists (methadone, morphine, oxycodone, levo-alpha-acetylmethadol (LAAM), or codeine) versus different full opioid agonists or partial opioid agonists (buprenorphine) for maintenance treatment.\n2. Full or partial opioid agonist maintenance versus non-opioid agonist treatments (detoxification, opioid antagonist, or psychological treatment without opioid agonist treatment).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods.\nMain results\nWe identified eight RCTs that met inclusion criteria (709 participants). We found four studies that compared methadone and buprenorphine maintenance treatment, and four studies that compared buprenorphine maintenance to either buprenorphine taper (in addition to psychological treatment) or a non-opioid maintenance treatment comparison.\nWe found low-certainty evidence from three studies of a difference between methadone and buprenorphine in favour of methadone on self-reported opioid use at end of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.86; 165 participants), and low-certainty evidence from four studies finding a difference in favour of methadone for retention in treatment (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43; 379 participants). We found low-certainty evidence from three studies showing no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on substance use measured with urine drug screens at end of treatment (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17; 206 participants), and moderate-certainty evidence from one study of no difference in days of self-reported opioid use (mean difference 1.41 days, 95% CI 3.37 lower to 0.55 days higher; 129 participants). There was low-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on adverse events (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.93; 206 participants).\nWe found low-certainty evidence from four studies favouring maintenance buprenorphine treatment over non-opioid treatments in terms of fewer opioid positive urine drug tests at end of treatment (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.84; 270 participants), and very low-certainty evidence from four studies finding no difference on self-reported opioid use in the past 30 days at end of treatment (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.01; 276 participants). There was low-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference in the number of days of unsanctioned opioid use (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.19, 95% CI −0.47 to 0.09; 205 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence from four studies favouring buprenorphine maintenance over non-opioid treatments on retention in treatment (RR 3.02, 95% CI 1.73 to 5.27; 333 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference in adverse effects between buprenorphine maintenance and non-opioid treatments (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.48; 252 participants).\nThe main weaknesses in the quality of the data was the use of open-label study designs, and difference in follow-up rates between treatment arms.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is very low- to moderate-certainty evidence supporting the use of maintenance agonist pharmacotherapy for pharmaceutical opioid dependence. Methadone or buprenorphine did not differ on some outcomes, although on the outcomes of retention and self-reported substance use some results favoured methadone. Maintenance treatment with buprenorphine appears more effective than non-opioid treatments.\nDue to the overall very low- to moderate-certainty evidence and small sample sizes, there is the possibility that the further research may change these findings.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What were the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Overall, the evidence was of low to moderate quality. All studies put people into treatment groups randomly, but the participants and researchers knew which medication the participants were taking, which could bias the results and lower the quality of the evidence. In some studies, many people did not finish the study, leading to a meaningful amount of missing data which may bias the results. In some studies, there were more missing results in one arm of the study than the other. Most of the studies were similar in design and results were collected in a way that allowed them to compare the main outcomes of opioid use and number of people completing the study."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1542 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGanoderma lucidum (also known as lingzhi or reishi) is a mushroom that has been consumed for its broad medicinal properties in Asia for over 2000 years. G lucidum is becoming increasingly popular in western countries as a complementary medicine for cardiovascular health.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of G lucidum for the treatment of pharmacologically modifiable risk factors of cardiovascular disease in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL Issue 6 of 12, 2014) on The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OVID, 1946 to June week 3 2014), EMBASE (OVID, 1980 to 2014 week 26), Science Direct (1823 to 2013), Current Controlled Trials (1990 to 2013), Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (2005 to 2013), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (2007 to 2013), Chinese Medical Current Contents (2007 to 2013) and other databases. We checked reference lists of included studies, contacted content experts and handsearched The International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms. We applied no language or publication restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials of G lucidum for the treatment of cardiovascular risk factors. Primary outcomes were blood glucose level, blood pressure and lipid profile.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and cross checked data extraction and analysis. A third author arbitrated in the event of disagreement.\nMain results\nFive trials with a total of 398 participants were eligible for inclusion. Of these, one study was published in Chinese and translated to English; one study was published but study authors provided the additional data used in this review; one study was unpublished and the study authors provided data; and two studies did not provide comparison group data suitable for statistical analyses. The three studies from which data were used for statistical analyses compared G lucidum (1.4 g to 3 g per day) to placebo over 12 to 16 weeks of intervention. Although inclusion criteria varied, all participants of these three studies had type 2 diabetes mellitus. Of the five included studies, risk of bias was low for one study and unclear for the remaining four.\nResults from two studies showed that G lucidum was not associated with statistically or clinically significant reduction in HbA1c (WMD -0.10%; 95% CI -1.05% to 0.85%; 130 participants), total cholesterol (WMD -0.07mmol/L; 95% CI -0.57 mmol/L to 0.42 mmol/L; 107 participants ), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (WMD 0.02 mmol/L; 95% CI -0.41 mmol/L to 0.45 mmol/L; 107 participants), or body-mass index (WMD -0.32 kg/m2; 95% CI -2.67 kg/m2 to 2.03 kg/m2; 107 participants). All other analyses were from a single study of 84 participants. We found no improvement for fasting plasma glucose (WMD 0.30 mmol/L; 95% CI -0.95 mmol/L to 1.55 mmol/L). Measures of post-prandial blood glucose level found inconsistent results, being in favour of placebo for '2-hour post-prandial blood glucose' (WMD 0.7 mmol/L; 95% CI 0.29 mmol/L to 1.11 mmol/L) and in favour of G lucidum for 'plasma glucose under the curve at 4th hour' (WMD -49.4mg/dL/h; 95% CI -77.21 mg/dL/h to -21.59 mg/dL/h). As the Minimal Clinical Important Differences are unknown, the clinical significance of this effect is unclear. There were no statistically significant differences between groups for blood pressure or triglycerides. Participants who took G lucidum for four months were 1.67 times (RR 1.67 95% CI 0.86 to 3.24) more likely to experience an adverse event than those who took placebo but these were not serious side effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence from a small number of randomised controlled trials does not support the use of G lucidum for treatment of cardiovascular risk factors in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Future research into the efficacy of G lucidum should be placebo-controlled and adhere to clinical trial reporting standards.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are cardiovascular risk factors?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Cardiovascular disease is the name given to any disease, such as heart attack or stroke, that affects the heart and circulatory system (which moves blood around the body). Risk factors for cardiovascular diseases include high blood pressure, and high levels in the blood of glucose and cholesterol. People with cardiovascular risk factors are more likely to have a heart attack or stroke than people without them."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1543 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nLocally advanced and metastatic breast cancer remains a challenge to treat. With emerging study results, it is important to interpret the available clinical data and apply the evidence offering the most effective treatment to the right patient. Poly(ADP Ribose) Polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are a new class of drug and their role in the treatment of locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer is being established.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy, safety profile, and potential harms of Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. The primary outcome of interest was overall survival; secondary outcomes included progression-free survival, tumour response rate, quality of life, and adverse events.\nSearch methods\nOn 8 June 2020, we searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via OvidSP, Embase via OvidSP, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) search portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched proceedings from the major oncology conferences as well as scanned reference lists from eligible publications and contacted corresponding authors of trials for further information, where needed.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials on participants with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer comparing 1) chemotherapy in combination with PARP inhibitors, compared to the same chemotherapy without PARP inhibitors or 2) treatment with PARP inhibitors, compared to treatment with other chemotherapy. We included studies that reported on our primary outcome of overall survival and secondary outcomes including progression-free survival, tumour response rate, quality of life, and adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures defined by Cochrane. Summary statistics for the endpoints used hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for overall survival and progression-free survival, and odds ratios (OR) for response rate (RR) and toxicity.\nMain results\nWe identified 49 articles for qualitative synthesis, describing five randomised controlled trials that were included in the quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). A sixth trial was assessed as eligible but had ended prematurely and no data were available for inclusion in our meta-analysis. Risk of bias was predominately low to unclear across all studies except in regards to performance bias (3/5 high risk) and detection bias for the outcomes of quality of life (2/2 high risk) and reporting of adverse events (3/5 high risk).\nHigh-certainty evidence shows there may be a small advantage in overall survival (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.00; 4 studies; 1435 patients). High-certainty evidence shows that PARP inhibitors offer an improvement in PFS in locally advanced/metastatic HER2-negative, BRCA germline mutated breast cancer patients (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.71; 5 studies; 1474 patients). There was no statistical heterogeneity for these outcomes. Subgroup analyses for PFS outcomes based on trial level data were performed for triple-negative breast cancer, hormone-positive and/or HER2-positive breast cancer, BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations, and patients who had received prior chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer or not. The subgroup analyses showed a persistent PFS benefit regardless of the subgroup chosen. Pooled analysis shows PARP inhibitors likely result in a moderate improvement in tumour response rate compared to other treatment arms (66.9% vs 48.9%; RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.54; 5 studies; 1185 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nThe most common adverse events reported across all five studies included neutropenia, anaemia and fatigue. Grade 3 or higher adverse events probably occur no less frequently in patients receiving PARP inhibitors (59.4% for PARP arm versus 64.5% for non-PARP arm, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.04; 5 studies; 1443 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nOnly two studies reported quality of life outcomes so this was not amenable to meta-analysis. However, both studies that did assess quality of life showed PARP inhibitors were superior compared to physician’s choice of chemotherapy in terms of participant-reported outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn people with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-negative, BRCA germline mutated breast cancer, PARP inhibitors offer an improvement in progression-free survival, and likely improve overall survival and tumour response rates. This systematic review provides evidence supporting the use of PARP inhibitors as part of the therapeutic strategy for breast cancer patients in this subgroup. The toxicity profile for PARP inhibitors is probably no worse than chemotherapy but more information is required regarding quality of life outcomes, highlighting the importance of collecting such data in future studies. Future studies should also be powered to detect clinically important differences in overall survival and could focus on the role of PARP inhibitors in other relevant breast cancer populations, including HER2-positive, BRCA-negative/homologous recombination repair-deficient and Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PDL1) positive.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched for published trials up to June 2020 and included the results of five trials involving 1474 participants."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1544 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPregnant women with sickle cell disease (HbSS, HbSC and HbSβThal) may require blood transfusion to prevent severe anaemia or to manage potential medical complications. Preventive blood transfusion in the absence of complications starting from the early weeks of pregnancy or blood transfusion only for medical or obstetric indications have been used as management policies. There is currently no consensus on the blood transfusion policy that guarantees optimal clinical benefits with minimal risks for such women and their babies. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was published in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of a policy of prophylactic versus selective blood transfusion in pregnant women with sickle cell disease.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. We did not apply any language or date restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials evaluating the effects of prophylactic versus selective (emergency) blood transfusion in pregnant women with sickle cell disease (SCD). Quasi-randomised trials and trials using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Two review authors independently assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nOut of six relevant reports identified by the search strategy, one trial involving 72 women with sickle cell anaemia (HbSS) met our inclusion criteria. The trial was at unclear risk of bias. Overall, there were few events for most of the reported outcomes and the results were generally imprecise. The included trial reported no maternal mortality occurring in women who received either prophylactic or selective blood transfusion. Very low-quality evidence indicated no clear differences in maternal mortality, perinatal mortality (risk ratio (RR) 2.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 13.22; very low-quality evidence) or markers of severe maternal morbidity (pulmonary embolism (no events); congestive cardiac failure (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.38; very low-quality evidence); acute chest syndrome (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.75)) between the treatment groups (prophylactic blood transfusion versus selective blood transfusion). Low-quality evidence indicated that prophylactic blood transfusion reduced the risk of pain crisis compared with selective blood transfusion (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.67, one trial, 72 women; low-quality evidence), and no differences in the occurrence of acute splenic sequestration (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.92; low-quality evidence), haemolytic crises (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.06) or delayed blood transfusion reaction (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.54 to 7.39; very low-quality evidence) between the comparison groups.\nOther relevant maternal outcomes pre-specified for this review such as cumulative duration of hospital stay, postpartum haemorrhage and iron overload, and infant outcomes, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and haemolytic disease of the newborn, were not reported by the trial.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence from one small trial of very low quality suggests that prophylactic blood transfusion to pregnant women with sickle cell anaemia (HbSS) confers no clear clinical benefits when compared with selective transfusion. Currently, there is no evidence from randomised or quasi-randomised trials to provide reliable advice on the optimal blood transfusion policy for women with other variants of sickle cell disease (i.e. HbSC and HbSβThal). The available data and quality of evidence on this subject are insufficient to advocate for a change in existing clinical practice and policy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What does this mean?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The available evidence on this subject is insufficient to advocate for a change in clinical practice and policy. More research needs to be conducted."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1545 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nNon-infectious uveitis describes a heterogenous group of ocular disorders characterised by intraocular inflammation in the absence of infection. Uveitis is a leading cause of visual loss, most commonly due to uveitic macular oedema (UMO). Treatment is aimed at reducing disease activity by suppression of the intraocular inflammatory response. In the case of macular oedema, the aim is to restore macular architecture as quickly as possible, in order to prevent irreversible photoreceptor damage in this area. Acute exacerbations are typically managed with corticosteroids, which may be administered topically, locally or systemically. Whilst these are often rapidly effective in achieving disease control, long-term use is associated with significant local and systemic side effects, and 'steroid sparing agents' are typically used to achieve prolonged control in severe or recalcitrant disease. Anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) drugs block a critical cytokine in the inflammatory signalling process, and have emerged as effective steroid-sparing immunomodulatory agents in a wide range of non-ocular conditions. There is mechanistic data to suggest that they may provide a more targeted approach to disease control in UMO than other agents, but to date, these agents have predominantly been used 'off label' as the majority are not licensed for ocular use. This review aims to summarise the available literature reporting the use of anti-TNF therapy in UMO, thus developing the evidence-base on which to make future treatment decisions and develop clinical guidelines in this area.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy of anti-TNF therapy in treatment of UMO.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 2), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (CPCI-S); System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (OpenGrey); the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 29 March 2018.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include all relevant randomised controlled trials assessing the use of anti-TNF agents in treatment of UMO. No limits were applied to participant age, gender or ethnicity. The primary comparisons of this review were: anti-TNF versus no treatment or placebo; anti-TNF versus another pharmacological agent; comparison of different anti-TNF drugs; comparison of different doses and routes of administration of the same anti-TNF drug. The primary outcome measure that we assessed for this review was best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in the treated eye. Secondary outcome measures were anatomical macular change, clinical estimation of vitreous haze and health-related quality of life.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles and abstracts retrieved through the database searches. We retrieved full-text reports of studies categorised as 'unsure' or 'include' after we had reviewed the abstracts. Two review authors independently reviewed each full-text report for eligibility. We resolved discrepancies through discussion.\nMain results\nWe identified no completed or ongoing trial that was eligible for this Cochrane Review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur review did not identify any evidence from randomised controlled trials for or against the role of anti-TNF agents in the management of UMO. Although there are a number of high-quality randomised controlled trials that demonstrate the efficacy of anti-TNF agents in preventing recurrence of inflammation in uveitis, the reported study outcomes do not include changes in UMO. As a result, there were insufficient data to conclude whether there was a significant treatment effect specifically for UMO. Future trials should be designed to include quantitative measures of UMO as primary study outcomes, for example by reporting the presence or absence of UMO, or by measuring central macular thickness for study participants. Furthermore, whilst UMO is an important complication of uveitis, we acknowledge that uveitis is associated with many significant structural and functional complications. It is not possible to determine treatment efficacy based on a single outcome measure. We recommend that future reviews of therapeutic interventions in uveitis should use composite measures of treatment response comprising a range of potential complications of disease.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Uveitis is a group of eye conditions where there is inflammation within the eye. If there is inflammation at the back of the eye (macula) this can cause swelling (macular oedema). Macula oedema can lead to loss of vision,\nUveitis is often treated with steroids to control the inflammation and avoid damage to the eye. But steroids have potentially serious side effects, and doctors do not recommend long-term use. 'Steroid-sparing agents' are medications with similar anti-inflammatory effects to steroids, but with fewer side effects. They are preferred when people with uveitis need long-term treatment. Anti-tumour necrosis factor agents are a new type of steroid-sparing agent. They have been used for other conditions. Cochrane researchers wanted to find out if these agents are useful in the treatment of macular oedema in uveitis."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1546 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe role of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been the subject of much uncertainty. COPD clinical guidelines currently recommend selective use of ICS. ICS are not recommended as monotherapy for people with COPD, and are only given in combination with long-acting bronchodilators due to greater efficacy of combination therapy. Incorporating and critiquing newly published placebo-controlled trials into the monotherapy evidence base may help to resolve ongoing uncertainties and conflicting findings about their role in this population.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of inhaled corticosteroids, used as monotherapy versus placebo, in people with stable COPD, in terms of objective and subjective outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was October 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised trials comparing any dose of any type of ICS, given as monotherapy, with a placebo control in people with stable COPD. We excluded studies of less than 12 weeks' duration and studies of populations with known bronchial hyper-responsiveness (BHR) or bronchodilator reversibility.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our a priori primary outcomes were 1. exacerbations of COPD and 2. quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were 3. all-cause mortality, 4. lung function (rate of decline of forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)), 5. rescue bronchodilator use, 6. exercise capacity, 7. pneumonia and 8. adverse events including pneumonia. ]. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nThirty-six primary studies with 23,139 participants met the inclusion criteria. Mean age ranged from 52 to 67 years, and females were 0% to 46% of participants. Studies recruited across the severities of COPD. Seventeen studies were of duration longer than three months and up to six months and 19 studies were of duration longer than six months. We judged the overall risk of bias as low.\nLong-term (more than six months) use of ICS as monotherapy reduced the mean rate of exacerbations in those studies where pooling of data was possible (generic inverse variance analysis: rate ratio 0.88 exacerbations per participant per year, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.94; I2 = 48%, 5 studies, 10,097 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; pooled means analysis: mean difference (MD) −0.05 exacerbations per participant per year, 95% CI −0.07 to −0.02; I2 = 78%, 5 studies, 10,316 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). ICS slowed the rate of decline in quality of life, as measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (MD −1.22 units/year, 95% CI −1.83 to −0.60; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2507 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; minimal clinically importance difference 4 points). There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality in people with COPD (odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 16,636 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Long-term use of ICS reduced the rate of decline in FEV1 in people with COPD (generic inverse variance analysis: MD 6.31 mL/year benefit, 95% CI 1.76 to 10.85; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 9829 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; pooled means analysis: 7.28 mL/year, 95% CI 3.21 to 11.35; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 12,502 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nAdverse events: in the long-term studies, the rate of pneumonia was increased in the ICS group, compared to placebo, in studies that reported pneumonia as an adverse event (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.88; I2 = 55%; 9 studies, 14,831 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was an increased risk of oropharyngeal candidiasis (OR 2.66, 95% CI 1.91 to 3.68; 5547 participants) and hoarseness (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.74; 3523 participants). The long-term studies that measured bone effects generally showed no major effect on fractures or bone mineral density over three years. We downgraded the certainty of evidence to moderate for imprecision and low for imprecision and inconsistency.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis systematic review updates the evidence base for ICS monotherapy with newly published trials to aid the ongoing assessment of their role for people with COPD. Use of ICS alone for COPD likely results in a reduction of exacerbation rates of clinical relevance, probably results in a reduction in the rate of decline of FEV1 of uncertain clinical relevance and likely results in a small improvement in health-related quality of life not meeting the threshold for a minimally clinically important difference. These potential benefits should be weighed up against adverse events (likely to increase local oropharyngeal adverse effects and may increase the risk of pneumonia) and probably no reduction in mortality. Though not recommended as monotherapy, the probable benefits of ICS highlighted in this review support their continued consideration in combination with long-acting bronchodilators. Future research and evidence syntheses should be focused in that area.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key messages\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Inhaled corticosteroids alone probably reduce flare-ups of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), slow the decline of lung function (measured as the volume of air you can force from your lungs in one second) and lead to small improvements in quality of life. However, they probably also increase the risk of pneumonia and side effects in the mouth and probably do not improve survival. These findings support their continued consideration in combination with other treatments, and future research should be focused in that area."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1547 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTransurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) has been the gold-standard treatment for alleviating urinary symptoms and improving urinary flow in men with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). However, the morbidity of TURP approaches 20%, and less invasive techniques have been developed for treating BPH. Transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) is an alternative, minimally-invasive treatment that delivers microwave energy to produce coagulation necrosis in prostatic tissue. This is an update of a review last published in 2012.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of transurethral microwave thermotherapy for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.\nSearch methods\nWe performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and LILACS), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings published up to 31 May 2021, with no restrictions by language or publication status.\nSelection criteria\nWe included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of participants with BPH who underwent TUMT.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion at each stage and undertook data extraction and risk of bias and GRADE assessments of the certainty of the evidence (CoE). We considered review outcomes measured up to 12 months after randomization as short-term and beyond 12 months as long-term. Our main outcomes included: urologic symptoms scores, quality of life, major adverse events, retreatment, and ejaculatory and erectile function.\nMain results\nIn this update, we identified no new RCTs, but we included data from studies excluded in the previous version of this review. We included 16 trials with 1919 participants, with a median age of 69 and moderate lower urinary tract symptoms. The certainty of the evidence for most comparisons was moderate-to-low, due to an overall high risk of bias across studies and imprecision (few participants and events).\nTUMT versus TURP\nBased on data from four studies with 306 participants, when compared to TURP, TUMT probably results in little to no difference in urologic symptom scores measured by the International Prostatic Symptom Score (IPSS) on a scale from 0 to 35, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.03 to 2.03; moderate certainty). There is likely to be little to no difference in the quality of life (MD −0.10, 95% CI −0.67 to 0.47; 1 study, 136 participants, moderate certainty). TUMT likely results in fewer major adverse events (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.43; 6 studies, 525 participants, moderate certainty); based on 168 cases per 1000 men in the TURP group, this corresponds to 135 fewer (153 to 96 fewer) per 1000 men in the TUMT group. TUMT, however, probably results in a large increase in the need for retreatment (risk ratio (RR) 7.07, 95% CI 1.94 to 25.82; 5 studies, 337 participants, moderate certainty) (usually by repeated TUMT or TURP); based on zero cases per 1000 men in the TURP group, this corresponds to 90 more (40 to 150 more) per 1000 men in the TUMT group. There may be little to no difference in erectile function between these interventions (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.63; 5 studies, 337 participants; low certainty). However, TUMT may result in fewer cases of ejaculatory dysfunction compared to TURP (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.53; 4 studies, 241 participants; low certainty).\nTUMT versus sham\nBased on data from four studies with 483 participants we found that, when compared to sham, TUMT probably reduces urologic symptom scores using the IPSS at short-term follow-up (MD −5.40, 95% CI −6.97 to −3.84; moderate certainty). TUMT may cause little to no difference in the quality of life (MD −0.95, 95% CI −1.14 to −0.77; 2 studies, 347 participants; low certainty) as measured by the IPSS quality-of-life question on a scale from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating a worse quality of life. We are very uncertain about the effects on major adverse events, since most studies reported no events or isolated lesions of the urinary tract. TUMT may also reduce the need for retreatment compared to sham (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.88; 2 studies, 82 participants, low certainty); based on 194 retreatments per 1000 men in the sham group, this corresponds to 141 fewer (178 to 23 fewer) per 1000 men in the TUMT group. We are very uncertain of the effects on erectile and ejaculatory function (very low certainty), since we found isolated reports of impotence and ejaculatory disorders (anejaculation and hematospermia).\nThere were no data available for the comparisons of TUMT versus convective radiofrequency water vapor therapy, prostatic urethral lift, prostatic arterial embolization or temporary implantable nitinol device.\nAuthors' conclusions\nTUMT provides a similar reduction in urinary symptoms compared to the standard treatment (TURP), with fewer major adverse events and fewer cases of ejaculatory dysfunction at short-term follow-up. However, TUMT probably results in a large increase in retreatment rates. Study limitations and imprecision reduced the confidence we can place in these results. Furthermore, most studies were performed over 20 years ago. Given the emergence of newer minimally-invasive treatments, high-quality head-to-head trials with longer follow-up are needed to clarify their relative effectiveness. Patients' values and preferences, their comorbidities and the effects of other available minimally-invasive procedures, among other factors, can guide clinicians when choosing the optimal treatment for this condition.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "An enlarged prostate may cause bothersome urinary tract symptoms, such as having to urinate often during the day or night, having a weak stream, and the feeling of not completely emptying the bladder. When lifestyle changes (like drinking fewer liquids) or medications do not help, men may choose to have surgery, such as transurethral resection of the prostate. However, this procedure may cause unwanted effects, such as erection and ejaculation problems, or require retreatment. This review looks at the results of transurethral microwave thermotherapy, which is an alternative, less invasive procedure that uses microwave energy to reduce prostatic tissue."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1548 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCocaine dependence is a severe disorder for which no medication has been approved. Like opioids for heroin dependence, replacement therapy with psychostimulants could be an effective therapy for treatment.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of psychostimulants for cocaine abuse and dependence. Specific outcomes include sustained cocaine abstinence and retention in treatment. We also studied the influence of type of drug and comorbid disorders on psychostimulant efficacy.\nSearch methods\nThis is an update of the review previously published in 2010. For this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO up to 15 February 2016. We handsearched references of obtained articles and consulted experts in the field.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised parallel group controlled clinical trials comparing the efficacy of a psychostimulant drug versus placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 26 studies involving 2366 participants. The included studies assessed nine drugs: bupropion, dexamphetamine, lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate, modafinil, mazindol, methamphetamine, mixed amphetamine salts and selegiline. We did not consider any study to be at low risk of bias for all domains included in the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. Attrition bias was the most frequently suspected potential source of bias of the included studies. We found very low quality evidence that psychostimulants improved sustained cocaine abstinence (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.77, P = 0.02), but they did not reduce cocaine use (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.16, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.33) among participants who continued to use it. Furthermore, we found moderate quality evidence that psychostimulants did not improve retention in treatment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06). The proportion of adverse event-induced dropouts and cardiovascular adverse event-induced dropouts was similar for psychostimulants and placebo (RD 0.00, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.01; RD 0.00, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.01, respectively). When we included the type of drug as a moderating variable, the proportion of patients achieving sustained cocaine abstinence was higher with bupropion and dexamphetamine than with placebo. Psychostimulants also appeared to increase the proportion of patients achieving sustained cocaine and heroin abstinence amongst methadone-maintained, dual heroin-cocaine addicts. Retention to treatment was low, though, so our results may be compromised by attrition bias. We found no evidence of publication bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review found mixed results. Psychostimulants improved cocaine abstinence compared to placebo in some analyses but did not improve treatment retention. Since treatment dropout was high, we cannot rule out the possibility that these results were influenced by attrition bias. Existing evidence does not clearly demonstrate the efficacy of any pharmacological treatment for cocaine dependence, but substitution treatment with psychostimulants appears promising and deserves further investigation.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Search date\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "the evidence is current to 15 February 2016."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1549 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIt is unclear whether people with type 2 diabetes mellitus on insulin monotherapy who do not achieve adequate glycaemic control should continue insulin as monotherapy or can benefit from adding oral glucose-lowering agents to the insulin therapy.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of insulin monotherapy compared with the addition of oral glucose-lowering agents to insulin monotherapy for people with type 2 diabetes already on insulin therapy and inadequate glycaemic control.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and reference lists of articles. The date of the last search was November 2015 for all databases.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled clinical trials of at least two months' duration comparing insulin monotherapy with combinations of insulin with one or more oral glucose-lowering agent in people with type 2 diabetes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated overall quality of the evidence using GRADE. We summarised data statistically if they were available, sufficiently similar and of sufficient quality. We performed statistical analyses according to the statistical guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.\nMain results\nWe included 37 trials with 40 treatment comparisons involving 3227 participants. The duration of the interventions ranged from 2 to 12 months for parallel trials and two to four months for cross-over trials.\nThe majority of trials had an unclear risk of bias in several risk of bias domains. Fourteen trials showed a high risk of bias, mainly for performance and detection bias. Insulin monotherapy, including once-daily long-acting, once-daily intermediate-acting, twice-daily premixed insulin, and basal-bolus regimens (multiple injections), was compared to insulin in combination with sulphonylureas (17 comparisons: glibenclamide = 11, glipizide = 2, tolazamide = 2, gliclazide = 1, glimepiride = 1), metformin (11 comparisons), pioglitazone (four comparisons), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (four comparisons: acarbose = 3, miglitol = 1), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4 inhibitors) (three comparisons: vildagliptin = 1, sitagliptin = 1, saxagliptin = 1) and the combination of metformin and glimepiride (one comparison). No trials assessed all-cause mortality, diabetes-related morbidity or health-related quality of life. Only one trial assessed patients' treatment satisfaction and showed no substantial differences between the addition of either glimepiride or metformin and glimepiride to insulin compared with insulin monotherapy.\nInsulin-sulphonylurea combination therapy (CT) compared with insulin monotherapy (IM) showed a MD in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of -1% (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.6 to -0.5); P < 0.01; 316 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence. Insulin-metformin CT compared with IM showed a MD in HbA1c of -0.9% (95% CI -1.2 to -0.5); P < 0.01; 698 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence. We could not pool the results of adding pioglitazone to insulin. Insulin combined with alpha-glucosidase inhibitors compared with IM showed a MD in HbA1c of -0.4% (95% CI -0.5 to -0.2); P < 0.01; 448 participants; 3 trials; low-quality evidence). Insulin combined with DPP-4 inhibitors compared with IM showed a MD in HbA1c of -0.4% (95% CI -0.5 to -0.4); P < 0.01; 265 participants; 2 trials; low quality evidence. In most trials the participants with CT needed less insulin, whereas insulin requirements increased or remained stable in participants with IM.\nWe did not perform a meta-analysis for hypoglycaemic events because the included studies used different definitions.. In most trials the insulin-sulphonylurea combination resulted in a higher number of mild episodes of hypoglycaemia, compared to the IM group (range: 2.2 to 6.1 episodes per participant in CT versus 2.0 to 2.6 episodes per participant in IM; low-quality evidence). Pioglitazone CT also resulted in more mild to moderate hypoglycaemic episodes compared with IM (range 15 to 90 episodes versus 9 to 75 episodes, respectively; low-quality evidence. The trials that reported hypoglycaemic episodes in the other combinations found comparable numbers of mild to moderate hypoglycaemic events (low-quality evidence).\nThe addition of sulphonylureas resulted in an additional weight gain of 0.4 kg to 1.9 kg versus -0.8 kg to 2.1 kg in the IM group (220 participants; 7 trials; low-quality evidence). Pioglitazone CT caused more weight gain compared to IM: MD 3.8 kg (95% CI 3.0 to 4.6); P < 0.01; 288 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence. Metformin CT was associated with weight loss: MD -2.1 kg (95% CI -3.2 to -1.1), P < 0.01; 615 participants; 7 trials; low-quality evidence). DPP-4 inhibitors CT showed weight gain of -0.7 to 1.3 kg versus 0.6 to 1.1 kg in the IM group (362 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence). Alpha-glucosidase CT compared to IM showed a MD of -0.5 kg (95% CI -1.2 to 0.3); P = 0.26; 241 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence.\nUsers of metformin CT (range 7% to 67% versus 5% to 16%), and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors CT (14% to 75% versus 4% to 35%) experienced more gastro-intestinal adverse effects compared to participants on IM. Two trials reported a higher frequency of oedema with the use of pioglitazone CT (range: 16% to 18% versus 4% to 7% IM).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe addition of all oral glucose-lowering agents in people with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control who are on insulin therapy has positive effects on glycaemic control and insulin requirements. The addition of sulphonylureas results in more hypoglycaemic events. Additional weight gain can only be avoided by adding metformin to insulin. Other well-known adverse effects of oral glucose-lowering agents have to be taken into account when prescribing oral glucose-lowering agents in addition to insulin therapy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The addition of oral agents to insulin monotherapy reduced HbA1c by 0.4% to 1%. Most combinations of oral antidiabetic agents with insulin resulted in a reduction in the necessary insulin dose per day whereas the insulin dose per day had to be increased or remained stable in participants with insulin monotherapy. In studies reporting hypoglycaemic episodes severe events were rare and mild to moderate hypoglycaemia was observed in similar numbers when comparing insulin monotherapy to the addition of oral antidiabetic agents to insulin. However, most studies adding sulphonylureas to insulin reported more hypoglycaemic episodes. Moreover, the addition of sulphonylureas to insulin resulted in an additional weight gain of 0.4 kg to 1.9 kg compared with -0.8 kg to 2.1 kg in the insulin monotherapy groups. Pioglitazone insulin combination therapy caused on average an increase in weight of 3.8 kg compared with insulin monotherapy. The difference in average weight gain with metformin insulin combination therapy compared with insulin monotherapy was 2.1 kg less in favour of the combination therapy. Gastro-intestinal side effects such as flatulence and diarrhoea were mostly reported with metformin and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors. Addition of pioglitazone to insulin compared with insulin monotherapy resulted in more cases of oedema (fluid retention in the body) and heart failure. Only one study assessed participants' treatment satisfaction and showed no substantial differences between the addition of glimepiride or metformin and glimepiride to insulin compared with insulin monotherapy. No study assessed all-cause mortality, diabetes-related morbidity or health-related quality of life.\nThis evidence is up to date as of November 2015."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1550 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nUp to 75% of people with serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have co-occurring substance use disorders (dual diagnosis). Dual diagnosis can have an adverse effect on treatment and prognosis of SMI.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of risperidone compared to treatment with other antipsychotics (first-generation and other second-generation antipsychotics) used in people with serious mental illness and co-occurring substance misuse.\nSearch methods\nOn 6 January 2016 and 9 October 2017, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group’s Study-Based Register of Trials (including trial registers).\nSelection criteria\nWe selected randomised trials of risperidone versus any other antipsychotic in people with SMI and substance abuse (dual diagnosis). We included trials meeting our inclusion criteria and reporting useable data. We excluded trials that either did not meet our inclusion criteria or met our inclusion criteria but did not report any useable data.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently inspected citations and selected studies. For included studies, we independently extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes we calculated the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals. For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean differences (MDs) and their 95% confidence intervals. We pooled data using random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the quality of evidence, creating a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe identified eight randomised trials containing a total of 1073 participants with SMI and co-occurring substance misuse. Seven of these contributed useable data to the review. There was heterogeneity in trial design and measurement. Risperidone was compared to clozapine, olanzapine, perphenazine, quetiapine and ziprasidone. Few trials compared risperidone with first-generation agents. Few trials examined participants with a dual diagnosis from the outset and most trials only contained separate analyses of subgroups with a dual diagnosis or were secondary data analyses of subgroups of people with a dual diagnosis from existing larger trials.\nFor risperidone versus clozapine we found no clear differences between these two antipsychotics in the reduction of positive psychotic symptoms (1 randomised controlled trial (RCT), n = 36, mean difference (MD) 0.90, 95% CI −2.21 to 4.01, very low quality evidence), or reduction in cannabis use (1 RCT, n = 14, risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.35, very low quality evidence), improvement in subjective well-being (1 RCT, n = 36, MD −6.00, 95% CI −14.82 to 2.82, very low quality evidence), numbers discontinuing medication (1 RCT, n = 36, RR 4.05, 95% CI 0.21 to 78.76, very low quality evidence), extrapyramidal side-effects (2 RCTs, n = 50, RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.30 to 24.08; I² = 0%, very low quality evidence), or leaving the study early (2 RCTs, n = 45, RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.51; I² = 34%, very low quality evidence). Clozapine was associated with lower levels of craving for cannabis (1 RCT, n = 28, MD 7.00, 95% CI 2.37 to 11.63, very low quality evidence).\nFor risperidone versus olanzapine we found no clear differences in the reduction of positive psychotic symptoms (1 RCT, n = 37, MD −1.50, 95% CI −3.82 to 0.82, very low quality evidence), reduction in cannabis use (1 RCT, n = 41, MD 0.40, 95% CI −4.72 to 5.52, very low quality evidence), craving for cannabis (1 RCT, n = 41, MD 5.00, 95% CI −4.86 to 14.86, very low quality evidence), parkinsonism (1 RCT, n = 16, MD −0.08, 95% CI −1.21 to 1.05, very low quality evidence), or leaving the study early (2 RCT, n = 77, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.35; I² = 0%, very low quality evidence).\nFor risperidone versus perphenazine, we found no clear differences in the number of participants leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 281, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20, low-quality evidence).\nFor risperidone versus quetiapine, we found no clear differences in the number of participants leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 294, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.07, low-quality evidence).\nFor risperidone versus ziprasidone, we found no clear differences in the number of participants leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 240, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.10, low-quality evidence).\nFor many comparisons, important outcomes were missing; and no data were reported in any study for metabolic disturbances, global impression of illness severity, quality of life or mortality.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is not sufficient good-quality evidence available to determine the effects of risperidone compared with other antipsychotics in people with a dual diagnosis. Few trials compared risperidone with first-generation agents, leading to limited applicability to settings where access to second-generation agents is limited, such as in low- and middle-income countries. Moreover, heterogeneity in trial design and measurement of outcomes precluded the use of many trials in our analyses. Future trials in this area need to be sufficiently powered but also need to conform to consistent methods in study population selection, use of measurement scales, definition of outcomes, and measures to counter risk of bias. Investigators should adhere to CONSORT guidelines in the reporting of results.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is dual diagnosis?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Dual diagnosis is a term used to describe people who have both a psychiatric disorder and an alcohol or drug use disorder. Up to 75% of people with a serious mental illness (SMI) are dual diagnosis. It has been suggested that one of the reasons behind the high levels of substance use in people with SMI is due to 'self-medication', with patients taking additional drugs in order to counter their distressing symptoms. People with a dual diagnosis have been shown to have more complications in their treatment, including higher rates of relapse and re-hospitalisation, more contact with legal and forensic services, higher levels of psychotic symptoms, more risk-taking behaviour, greater levels of side-effects to antipsychotics and lower medication adherence. Antipsychotics are the main treatment for SMI. It has been suggested that second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) such as risperidone may be superior to older, first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) in improving negative affective states, reducing drug craving, improving subjective well-being, and may lead to fewer side-effects and hence greater medication adherence. Such improvements in symptoms may lead to less self-medication with alcohol and drugs, and improved overall mental states. However it remains unclear to what extent risperidone, one of the first atypical antipsychotics to be manufactured, is superior to other antipsychotics for dual diagnosis."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1551 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPrimary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT), a disorder in which the parathyroid glands produce excessive amounts of parathyroid hormone, is most common in older adults and postmenopausal women. While most people with PHPT are asymptomatic at diagnosis, symptomatic disease can lead to hypercalcaemia, osteoporosis, renal stones, cardiovascular abnormalities and reduced quality of life. Surgical removal of abnormal parathyroid tissue (parathyroidectomy) is the only established treatment for adults with symptomatic PHPT to prevent exacerbation of symptoms and to be cured of PHPT. However, the benefits and risks of parathyroidectomy compared to simple observation or medical therapy for asymptomatic and mild PHPT are not well established.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of parathyroidectomy in adults with PHPT compared to simple observation or medical therapy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP from their date of inception until 26 November 2021. We applied no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing parathyroidectomy with simple observation or medical therapy for the treatment of adults with PHPT.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. cure of PHPT, 2. morbidity related to PHPT and 3. serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. health-related quality of life and 3. hospitalisation for hypercalcaemia, acute renal impairment or pancreatitis. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe identified eight eligible RCTs that included 447 adults with (mostly asymptomatic) PHPT; 223 participants were randomised to parathyroidectomy. Follow-up duration varied from six months to 24 months.\nOf the 223 participants (37 men) randomised to surgery, 164 were included in the analyses, of whom 163 were cured at six to 24 months (overall cure rate 99%). Parathyroidectomy compared to observation probably results in a large increase in cure rate at six to 24 months follow-up: 163/164 participants (99.4%) in the parathyroidectomy group and 0/169 participants in the observation or medical therapy group were cured of their PHPT (8 studies, 333 participants; moderate certainty).\nNo studies explicitly reported intervention effects on morbidities related to PHPT, such as osteoporosis, osteopenia, kidney dysfunction, urolithiasis, cognitive dysfunction or cardiovascular disease, although some studies reported surrogate outcomes for osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease. A post-hoc analysis revealed that parathyroidectomy, compared to observation or medical therapy, may have little or no effect after one to two years on bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine (mean difference (MD) 0.03 g/cm2,95% CI −0.05 to 0.12; 5 studies, 287 participants; very low certainty). Similarly, compared to observation, parathyroidectomy may have little or no effect on femoral neck BMD after one to two years (MD −0.01 g/cm2, 95% CI −0.13 to 0.11; 3 studies, 216 participants; very low certainty). However, the evidence is very uncertain for both BMD outcomes. Furthermore, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of parathyroidectomy on improving left ventricular ejection fraction (MD −2.38%, 95% CI −4.77 to 0.01; 3 studies, 121 participants; very low certainty).\nFour studies reported serious adverse events. Three of these reported zero events in both the intervention and control groups; consequently, we were unable to include data from these three studies in the pooled analysis. The evidence suggests that parathyroidectomy compared to observation may have little or no effect on serious adverse events (RR 3.35, 95% CI 0.14 to 78.60; 4 studies, 168 participants; low certainty).\nOnly two studies reported all-cause mortality. One study could not be included in the pooled analysis as zero events were observed in both the intervention and control groups. Parathyroidectomy compared to observation may have little or no effect on all-cause mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 2.11, 95% CI 0.20 to 22.60; 2 studies, 133 participants; very low certainty).\nThree studies measured health-related quality of life using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and reported inconsistent differences in scores for different domains of the questionnaire between parathyroidectomy and observation.\nSix studies reported hospitalisations for the correction of hypercalcaemia. Two studies reported zero events in both the intervention and control groups and could not be included in the pooled analysis. Parathyroidectomy, compared to observation, may have little or no effect on hospitalisation for hypercalcaemia (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.25; 6 studies, 287 participants; low certainty). There were no reported hospitalisations for renal impairment or pancreatitis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn accordance with the literature, our review findings suggest that parathyroidectomy, compared to simple observation or medical (etidronate) therapy, probably results in a large increase in cure rates of PHPT (with normalisation of serum calcium and parathyroid hormone levels to laboratory reference values). Parathyroidectomy, compared with observation, may have little or no effect on serious adverse events or hospitalisation for hypercalcaemia, and the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of parathyroidectomy on other short-term outcomes, such as BMD, all-cause mortality and quality of life. The high uncertainty of evidence limits the applicability of our findings to clinical practice; indeed, this systematic review provides no new insights with regard to treatment decisions for people with (asymptomatic) PHPT. In addition, the methodological limitations of the included studies, and the characteristics of the study populations (mainly comprising white women with asymptomatic PHPT), warrant caution when extrapolating the results to other populations with PHPT.\nLarge-scale multi-national, multi-ethnic and long-term RCTs are needed to explore the potential short- and long-term benefits of parathyroidectomy compared to non-surgical treatment options with regard to osteoporosis or osteopenia, urolithiasis, hospitalisation for acute kidney injury, cardiovascular disease and quality of life.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We are moderately confident in the evidence on cure rates because the reports of the RCTs did not contain enough information to prove their methods were reliable. However, we have little or very little confidence in the other results because the methods may have been unreliable, the studies did not measure complications of PHPT directly, and the studies enrolled few people."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1552 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDental professionals are well placed to help their patients stop using tobacco products. Large proportions of the population visit the dentist regularly. In addition, the adverse effects of tobacco use on oral health provide a context that dental professionals can use to motivate a quit attempt.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness, adverse events and oral health effects of tobacco cessation interventions offered by dental professionals.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register up to February 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials assessing tobacco cessation interventions conducted by dental professionals in the dental practice or community setting, with at least six months of follow-up.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently reviewed abstracts for potential inclusion and extracted data from included trials. We resolved disagreements by consensus. The primary outcome was abstinence from all tobacco use (e.g. cigarettes, smokeless tobacco) at the longest follow-up, using the strictest definition of abstinence reported. Individual study effects and pooled effects were summarised as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models to combine studies where appropriate. We assessed statistical heterogeneity with the I2 statistic. We summarised secondary outcomes narratively.\nMain results\nTwenty clinical trials involving 14,897 participants met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Sixteen studies assessed the effectiveness of interventions for tobacco-use cessation in dental clinics and four assessed this in community (school or college) settings. Five studies included only smokeless tobacco users, and the remaining studies included either smoked tobacco users only, or a combination of both smoked and smokeless tobacco users. All studies employed behavioural interventions, with four offering nicotine treatment (nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or e-cigarettes) as part of the intervention. We judged three studies to be at low risk of bias, one to be at unclear risk of bias, and the remaining 16 studies to be at high risk of bias.\nCompared with usual care, brief advice, very brief advice, or less active treatment, we found very low-certainty evidence of benefit from behavioural support provided by dental professionals, comprising either one session (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.41; I2 = 66%; four studies, n = 6328), or more than one session (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.17 to 3.11; I2 = 61%; seven studies, n = 2639), on abstinence from tobacco use at least six months from baseline. We found moderate-certainty evidence of benefit from behavioural interventions provided by dental professionals combined with the provision of NRT or e-cigarettes, compared with no intervention, usual care, brief, or very brief advice only (RR 2.76, 95% CI 1.58 to 4.82; I2 = 0%; four studies, n = 1221). We did not detect a benefit from multiple-session behavioural support provided by dental professionals delivered in a high school or college, instead of a dental setting (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.65; I2 = 83%; three studies, n = 1020; very low-certainty evidence). Only one study reported adverse events or oral health outcomes, making it difficult to draw any conclusions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is very low-certainty evidence that quit rates increase when dental professionals offer behavioural support to promote tobacco cessation. There is moderate-certainty evidence that tobacco abstinence rates increase in cigarette smokers if dental professionals offer behavioural support combined with pharmacotherapy. Further evidence is required to be certain of the size of the benefit and whether adding pharmacological interventions is more effective than behavioural support alone. Future studies should use biochemical validation of abstinence so as to preclude the risk of detection bias. There is insufficient evidence on whether these interventions lead to adverse effects, but no reasons to suspect that these effects would be specific to interventions delivered by dental professionals. There was insufficient evidence that interventions affected oral health.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Our confidence in our results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We are moderately confident about the benefit of support from dental professionals plus NRT or e-cigarettes. We are less confident about the benefits of one, or several, sessions of behavioural support from dental professionals.\nWe found weaknesses in the evidence. Some studies only asked people if they had stopped using tobacco, and did not use tests – such as testing their breath or saliva – to find out if they had stopped. Some studies did not describe clearly how they were conducted, or how they assigned people to the different groups. In some studies more than half of the people dropped out of the study before it ended.\nOur results may change when more, high-quality evidence becomes available."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1553 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSkin-to-skin care (SSC), often referred to as 'kangaroo care' (KC) due to its similarity with marsupial behaviour of ventral maternal-infant contact, is one non-pharmacological intervention for pain control in infants.\nObjectives\nThe primary objectives were to determine the effect of SSC alone on pain from medical or nursing procedures in neonates compared to no intervention, sucrose or other analgesics, or additions to simple SSC such as rocking; and to determine the effects of the amount of SSC (duration in minutes), method of administration (e.g. who provided the SSC) of SSC in reducing pain from medical or nursing procedures in neonates\nThe secondary objectives were to determine the safety of SSC care for relieving procedural pain in infants; and to compare the SSC effect in different postmenstrual age subgroups of infants.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 1); MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 25 February 2016); Embase (1980 to 25 February 2016); and CINAHL (1982 to 25 February 2016). We also searched clinical trials' databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials.\nSelection criteria\nStudies with randomisation or quasi-randomisation, double- or single-blinded, involving term infants (≥ 37 completed weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA) to a maximum of 44 weeks' PMA and preterm infants (< 37 completed weeks PMA) receiving SSC for painful procedures conducted by healthcare professionals.\nData collection and analysis\nThe main outcome measures were physiological or behavioural pain indicators and composite pain scores. A mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using a fixed-effect model was reported for continuous outcome measures. We included variations on type of tissue-damaging procedure, provider of care, and duration of SSC.\nMain results\nTwenty-five studies (n = 2001 infants) were included. Nineteen studies (n = 1065) used heel lance as the painful procedure, one study combined venepuncture and heel stick (n = 50), three used intramuscular injection (n = 776), one used 'vaccination' (n = 60), and one used tape removal (n = 50). The studies were generally strong and had low or uncertain risk of bias. Blinding of the intervention was not possible, making them subject to high risk, depending on the method of scoring outcomes.\nSeventeen studies (n = 810) compared SSC to a no-treatment control. Although 15 studies measured heart rate during painful procedures, data from only five studies (n = 161) could be combined for a mean difference (MD) of −10.78 beats per minute (95% CI −13.63 to −7.93) favouring SSC. Meta-analysis of four studies (n = 120) showed no difference in heart rate following the painful procedure (MD 0.08, 95% CI −4.39 to 4.55). Two studies (n = 38) reported heart rate variability with no significant differences. Two studies (n = 101) in a meta-analysis on oxygen saturation at 30 and 60 seconds following the painful procedure did not show a difference. Duration of crying meta-analysis was performed on four studies (n = 133): two (n = 33) investigated response to heel lance (MD = −34.16, 95% CI −42.86 to −25.45), and two (n = 100) following IM injection (MD = −8.83, 95% CI −14.63 to −3.02), favouring SSC. Five studies, one consisting of two substudies (n = 267), used the Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) as a primary outcome, which favoured SCC at 30 seconds (MD −3.21, 95% CI −3.94 to −2.47), at 60 seconds (3 studies; n = 156) (MD −1.64, 95% CI −2.86 to −0.43), and at 90 seconds (n = 156) (MD −1.28, 95% CI −2.53 to −0.04); but at 120 seconds there was no difference (n = 156) (MD 0.07, 95% CI −1.11 to 1.25). No studies on return of heart rate to baseline level, cortisol levels, and facial actions could be combined for meta-analysis findings.\nEight studies compared SSC to another intervention with or without a no-treatment control. Two cross-over studies (n = 80) compared mother versus other provider (father, another female) on PIPP scores at 30, 60, 90, and 120 seconds with no significant difference. When SSC was compared to other interventions, there were not enough similar studies to pool results in an analysis. One study compared SSC (n = 640) with and without dextrose and found that the combination was most effective and that SSC alone was more effective than dextrose alone. Similarly, in another study SSC was more effective than oral glucose for heart rate (n = 95). SSC either in combination with breastfeeding or alone was favoured over a no-treatment control, but not different to breastfeeding. One study compared SSC alone and in combination with both sucrose and breastfeeding on heart rate (HR), NIPS scores, and crying time (n = 127). The combinations were more effective than SSC alone for NIPS and crying. Expressed breast milk was compared to SSC in one study (n = 50) and found both equally effective on PIPP scores. There were not enough participants with similar outcomes and painful procedures to compare age groups or duration of SSC. No adverse events were reported in any of the studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSSC appears to be effective as measured by composite pain indicators with both physiological and behavioural indicators and, independently, using heart rate and crying time; and safe for a single painful procedure. Purely behavioural indicators tended to favour SSC but with facial actions there is greater possibility of observers not being blinded. Physiological indicators were mixed although the common measure of heart rate favoured SSC. Two studies compared mother-providers to others, with non-significant results. There was more heterogeneity in the studies with behavioural or composite outcomes. There is a need for replication studies that use similar, clearly defined outcomes. Studies examining optimal duration of SSC, gestational age groups, repeated use, and long-term effects of SSC are needed. Of interest would be to study synergistic effects of SSC with other interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Twenty-eight studies in which newborn babies who were by chance in the kangaroo care group or condition were included from an extensive search of the literature. Skin-to-skin care was clearly defined and could have been compared to no pain-reducing strategies or other pain-reducing strategies such as sweet taste. Studies were examined which examined well-established signs of pain, both physiological and behavioural, as well as a combination of physiological and behavioural signs. Different providers of skin-to-skin care other than the mother were included."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1554 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with cough, sputum production or dyspnoea, and a reduction in lung function, quality of life, and life expectancy. Apart from smoking cessation, no other treatments that slow lung function decline are available. Roflumilast and cilomilast are oral phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE₄) inhibitors proposed to reduce the airway inflammation and bronchoconstriction seen in COPD. This Cochrane Review was first published in 2011, and was updated in 2017 and 2020.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral PDE₄ inhibitors for management of stable COPD.\nSearch methods\nWe identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register (date of last search 9 March 2020). We found other trials at web-based clinical trials registers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs if they compared oral PDE₄ inhibitors with placebo in people with COPD. We allowed co-administration of standard COPD therapy.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Two independent review authors selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by involving a third review author. We assessed our confidence in the evidence by using GRADE recommendations. Primary outcomes were change in lung function (minimally important difference (MID) = 100 mL) and quality of life (scale 0 to 100; higher score indicates more limitations).\nMain results\nWe found 42 RCTs that met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analyses for roflumilast (28 trials with 18,046 participants) or cilomilast (14 trials with 6457 participants) or tetomilast (1 trial with 84 participants), with a duration between six weeks and one year or longer. These trials included people across international study centres with moderate to very severe COPD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) grades II to IV), with mean age of 64 years.\nWe judged risks of selection bias, performance bias, and attrition bias as low overall amongst the 39 published and unpublished trials.\nLung function\nTreatment with a PDE₄ inhibitor was associated with a small, clinically insignificant improvement in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) over a mean of 40 weeks compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) 49.33 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) 44.17 to 54.49; participants = 20,815; studies = 29; moderate-certainty evidence). Forced vital capacity (FVC) and peak expiratory flow (PEF) were also improved over 40 weeks (FVC: MD 86.98 mL, 95% CI 74.65 to 99.31; participants = 22,108; studies = 17; high-certainty evidence; PEF: MD 6.54 L/min, 95% CI 3.95 to 9.13; participants = 4245; studies = 6; low-certainty evidence).\nQuality of life\nTrials reported improvements in quality of life over a mean of 33 weeks (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) MD -1.06 units, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.43; participants = 7645 ; moderate-certainty evidence).\nIncidence of exacerbations\nTreatment with a PDE₄ inhibitor was associated with a reduced likelihood of COPD exacerbation over a mean of 40 weeks (odds ratio (OR) 0.78, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.84; participants = 20,382; studies = 27; high-certainty evidence), that is, for every 100 people treated with PDE₄ inhibitors, five more remained exacerbation-free during the study period compared with those given placebo (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 20, 95% CI 16 to 27). No change in COPD-related symptoms nor in exercise tolerance was found.\nAdverse events\nMore participants in the treatment groups experienced an adverse effect compared with control participants over a mean of 39 weeks (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.38; participants = 21,310; studies = 30; low-certainty evidence). Participants experienced a range of gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, or dyspepsia. Diarrhoea was more commonly reported with PDE₄ inhibitor treatment (OR 3.20, 95% CI 2.74 to 3.50; participants = 20,623; studies = 29; high-certainty evidence), that is, for every 100 people treated with PDE₄ inhibitors, seven more suffered from diarrhoea during the study period compared with those given placebo (number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 15, 95% CI 13 to 17). The likelihood of psychiatric adverse events was higher with roflumilast 500 µg than with placebo (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.54; participants = 11,168; studies = 15 (COPD pool data); moderate-certainty evidence). Roflumilast in particular was associated with weight loss during the trial period and with an increase in insomnia and depressive mood symptoms.\nParticipants treated with PDE₄ inhibitors were more likely to withdraw from trial participation; on average, 14% in the treatment groups withdrew compared with 8% in the control groups.\nMortality\nNo effect on mortality was found (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.24; participants = 19,786; studies = 27; moderate-certainty evidence), although mortality was a rare event during these trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor this current update, five new studies from the 2020 search contributed to existing findings but made little impact on outcomes described in earlier versions of this review.\nPDE₄ inhibitors offered a small benefit over placebo in improving lung function and reducing the likelihood of exacerbations in people with COPD; however, they had little impact on quality of life or on symptoms. Gastrointestinal adverse effects and weight loss were common, and the likelihood of psychiatric symptoms was higher, with roflumilast 500 µg.\nThe findings of this review provide cautious support for the use of PDE₄ inhibitors in COPD. In accordance with GOLD 2020 guidelines, they may have a place as add-on therapy for a subgroup of people with persistent symptoms or exacerbations despite optimal COPD management (e.g. people whose condition is not controlled by fixed-dose long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combinations). More longer-term trials are needed to determine whether or not PDE₄ inhibitors modify FEV₁ decline, hospitalisation, or mortality in COPD.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We were moderately certain about data for lung function and quality of life. We were highly certain of evidence for side effects such as diarrhoea and of data for exacerbations.\nResults seen in trials published in journals by pharmaceutical companies show greater benefit of these medicines than those that were unpublished. Psychiatric adverse effects data remain unpublished."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1555 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAbout 70% to 80% of adults with cancer experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). CINV remains one of the most distressing symptoms associated with cancer therapy and is associated with decreased adherence to chemotherapy. Combining 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists with corticosteroids or additionally with neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists is effective in preventing CINV among adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Various treatment options are available, but direct head-to-head comparisons do not allow comparison of all treatments versus another.\nObjectives\n• In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving HEC\n- To compare the effects of antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids on prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in network meta-analysis (NMA)\n- To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy\n• In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving MEC\n- To compare whether antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids are superior for prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting to treatment combinations including 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists and corticosteroids solely, in network meta-analysis\n- To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings, and study registries from 1988 to February 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs including adults with any cancer receiving HEC or MEC (according to the latest definition) and comparing combination therapies of NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors and corticosteroids for prevention of CINV.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nWe expressed treatment effects as risk ratios (RRs). Prioritised outcomes were complete control of vomiting during delayed and overall phases, complete control of nausea during the overall phase, quality of life, serious adverse events (SAEs), and on-study mortality. We assessed GRADE and developed 12 'Summary of findings' tables. We report results of most crucial outcomes in the abstract, that is, complete control of vomiting during the overall phase and SAEs. For a comprehensive illustration of results, we randomly chose aprepitant plus granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for HEC, and granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for MEC.\nMain results\nHighly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)\nWe included 73 studies reporting on 25,275 participants and comparing 14 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids.\nComplete control of vomiting during the overall phase\nWe estimated that 704 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (39 RCTs, 21,642 participants; 12 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron for completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): fosnetupitant + palonosetron (810 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.37; moderate certainty), aprepitant + palonosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.98 to 1.18; low-certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.21; low certainty), and fosaprepitant + palonosetron (746 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19; low certainty).\nNetupitant + palonosetron (704 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; high-certainty) and fosaprepitant + granisetron (697 of 1000; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; high-certainty) have little to no impact on complete control of vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.\nEvidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant + ondansetron (676 of 1000; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05; low certainty), fosaprepitant + ondansetron (662 of 1000; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (634 of 1000; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; low certainty), rolapitant + granisetron (627 of 1000; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate certainty), and rolapitant + ondansetron (598 of 1000; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; low certainty).\nWe could not include two treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.\nSerious adverse events\nWe estimated that 35 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (23 RCTs, 16,065 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that fewer participants may experience SAEs when treated with the following drug combinations than with aprepitant + granisetron: fosaprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.07; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.39; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (9 of 1000; RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.58; low certainty), fosaprepitant + granisetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.50; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (20 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.70; low certainty).\nEvidence is very uncertain about the effects of aprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.14; very low certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (11 of 1000; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.90; very low certainty), fosaprepitant + palonosetron (12 of 1000; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.95; very low certainty), fosnetupitant + palonosetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.16; very low certainty), and aprepitant + palonosetron (17 of 1000; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 4.78; very low certainty) on the risk of SAEs when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.\nWe could not include three treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron, rolapitant + ondansetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.\nModerately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC)\nWe included 38 studies reporting on 12,038 participants and comparing 15 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors, or 5-HT₃ inhibitors solely. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids.\nComplete control of vomiting during the overall phase\nWe estimated that 555 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with granisetron. Evidence from NMA (22 RCTs, 7800 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): aprepitant + palonosetron (716 of 1000; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.66; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (694 of 1000; RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.70; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (660 of 1000; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.33; high certainty).\nPalonosetron (588 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) and aprepitant + granisetron (577 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) may or may not increase complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron, respectively. Azasetron (560 of 1000; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.34; low certainty) may result in little to no difference in complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron.\nEvidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): fosaprepitant + ondansetron (500 of 1000; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.22; low certainty), aprepitant + ondansetron (477 of 1000; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.17; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (461 of 1000; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; low certainty), and ondansetron (433 of 1000; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.04; low certainty).\nWe could not include five treatment combinations (fosaprepitant + granisetron, azasetron, dolasetron, ramosetron, tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.\nSerious adverse events\nWe estimated that 153 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with granisetron. Evidence from pair-wise comparison (1 RCT, 1344 participants) suggests that more participants may experience SAEs when treated with rolapitant + granisetron (176 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.50; low certainty). NMA was not feasible for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.\nCertainty of evidence\nOur main reason for downgrading was serious or very serious imprecision (e.g. due to wide 95% CIs crossing or including unity, few events leading to wide 95% CIs, or small information size). Additional reasons for downgrading some comparisons or whole networks were serious study limitations due to high risk of bias or moderate inconsistency within networks.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis field of supportive cancer care is very well researched. However, new drugs or drug combinations are continuously emerging and need to be systematically researched and assessed.\nFor people receiving HEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest one superior treatment for prevention and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.\nFor people receiving MEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest superiority for treatments including both NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors when compared to treatments including 5-HT₃ inhibitors only. Rather, the results of our NMA suggest that the choice of 5-HT₃ inhibitor may have an impact on treatment efficacy in preventing CINV.\nWhen interpreting the results of this systematic review, it is important for the reader to understand that NMAs are no substitute for direct head-to-head comparisons, and that results of our NMA do not necessarily rule out differences that could be clinically relevant for some individuals.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Our conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The results of our analysis suggest that there is no superior drug combination for prevention of CINV for people receiving HEC or MEC. However, results suggest that the choice of drugs targeting the serotonin receptor may impact effectiveness, irrespective of whether given with or without a drug targeting the neurokinin receptor. However, when interpreting these results, it is important for the reader to understand that these kinds of multiple-comparison analyses are no substitute for head-to-head comparisons, and that the results do not necessarily rule out differences that could be clinically relevant for some individuals."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1556 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEvery day children and adults die from acute community-acquired bacterial meningitis, particularly in low-income countries, and survivors risk deafness, epilepsy and neurological disabilities. Osmotic therapies may attract extra-vascular fluid and reduce cerebral oedema, and thus reduce death and improve neurological outcomes.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of osmotic therapies added to antibiotics for acute bacterial meningitis in children and adults on mortality, deafness and neurological disability.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (2017, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to 17 February 2017), Embase (1974 to 17 February 2017), CINAHL (1981 to 17 February 2017), LILACS (1982 to 17 February 2017) and registers of ongoing clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.com, WHO ICTRP) (21 February 2017). We also searched conference abstracts and contacted researchers in the field (up to 12 December 2015).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials testing any osmotic therapy in adults or children with acute bacterial meningitis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the search results and selected trials for inclusion. Results are presented using risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) and grouped according to whether the participants received steroids or not. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included five trials with 1451 participants. Four trials evaluated glycerol against placebo, and one evaluated glycerol against 50% dextrose; in addition three trials evaluated dexamethasone and one trial evaluated acetaminophen (paracetamol) in a factorial design. Stratified analysis shows no effect modification with steroids; we present aggregate effect estimates.\nCompared to placebo, glycerol probably has little or no effect on death in people with bacterial meningitis (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.30; 5 studies, 1272 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but may reduce neurological disability (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.00; 5 studies, 1270 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nGlycerol may have little or no effect on seizures during treatment for meningitis (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.30; 4 studies, 1090 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nGlycerol may reduce the risk of subsequent deafness (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.93; 5 studies, 922 participants; low to moderate-certainty evidence).\nGlycerol probably has little or no effect on gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.19; 3 studies, 607 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence on nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea is uncertain (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.47; 2 studies, 851 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nGlycerol was the only osmotic therapy evaluated, and data from trials to date have not demonstrated an effect on death. Glycerol may reduce neurological deficiency and deafness.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "In meningitis, the cerebrospinal fluid that surrounds the brain and spinal cord is infected, usually as a result of spread from the blood. Any form of meningitis can result in death or severe disability, but acute bacterial meningitis is rapidly fatal without treatment. Even with antibiotics, 10% to 15% of children with bacterial meningitis die in high-income countries with much higher rates in low-income settings. The infection causes the brain to swell, and this is thought to contribute to death and to long-term brain damage in survivors. Osmotic therapies increase the concentration of the blood by exerting an osmotic pressure across a semi-permeable membrane (such as a cell wall or blood vessel lining in the brain). This draws water from the brain into the blood, thereby reducing pressure in the brain. Potentially osmotic therapies could increase the rate of survival, or they could do harm."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1557 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOtitis media with effusion (OME) is characterised by an accumulation of fluid in the middle ear behind an intact tympanic membrane, without the symptoms or signs of acute infection. Since most cases of OME will resolve spontaneously, only children with persistent middle ear effusion and associated hearing loss potentially require treatment. Previous Cochrane reviews have focused on the effectiveness of ventilation tube insertion, adenoidectomy, nasal autoinflation, antihistamines, decongestants and corticosteroids in OME. This review, focusing on the effectiveness of antibiotics in children with OME, is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2012.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of oral antibiotics in children up to 18 years with OME.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 3); PubMed; Ovid EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 14 April 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing oral antibiotics with placebo, no treatment or therapy of unproven effectiveness in children with OME.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nTwenty-five trials (3663 children) were eligible for inclusion. Two trials did not report on any of the outcomes of interest, leaving 23 trials (3258 children) covering a range of antibiotics, participants, outcome measures and time points for evaluation. Overall, we assessed most studies as being at low to moderate risk of bias.\nWe found moderate quality evidence (six trials including 484 children) that children treated with oral antibiotics are more likely to have complete resolution at two to three months post-randomisation (primary outcome) than those allocated to the control treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.58 to 2.53; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 5). However, there is evidence (albeit of low quality; five trials, 742 children) indicating that children treated with oral antibiotics are more likely to experience diarrhoea, vomiting or skin rash (primary outcome) than those allocated to control treatment (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.29 to 3.60; number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) 20).\nIn respect of the secondary outcome of complete resolution at any time point, we found low to moderate quality evidence from five meta-analyses, including between two and 14 trials, of a beneficial effect of antibiotics, with a NNTB ranging from 3 to 7. Time periods ranged from 10 to 14 days to six months.\nIn terms of other secondary outcomes, only two trials (849 children) reported on hearing levels at two to four weeks and found conflicting results. None of the trials reported data on speech, language and cognitive development or quality of life. Low quality evidence did not show that oral antibiotics were associated with a decrease in the rate of ventilation tube insertion (two trials, 121 children) or in tympanic membrane sequelae (one trial, 103 children), while low quality evidence indicated that children treated with antibiotics were less likely to have acute otitis media episodes within four to eight weeks (five trials, 1086 children; NNTB 18) and within six months post-randomisation (two trials, 199 children; NNTB 5). It should, however, be noted that the beneficial effect of oral antibiotics on acute otitis media episodes within four to eight weeks was no longer significant when we excluded studies with high risk of bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review presents evidence of both benefits and harms associated with the use of oral antibiotics to treat children up to 16 years with OME. Although evidence indicates that oral antibiotics are associated with an increased chance of complete resolution of OME at various time points, we also found evidence that these children are more likely to experience diarrhoea, vomiting or skin rash. The impact of antibiotics on short-term hearing is uncertain and low quality evidence did not show that oral antibiotics were associated with fewer ventilation tube insertions. Furthermore, we found no data on the impact of antibiotics on other important outcomes such as speech, language and cognitive development or quality of life.\nEven in situations where clear and relevant benefits of oral antibiotics have been demonstrated, these must always be carefully balanced against adverse effects and the emergence of bacterial resistance. This has specifically been linked to the widespread use of antibiotics for common conditions such as otitis media.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Moderate quality evidence is available that children with glue ear do benefit from oral antibiotics in terms of resolving glue ear at various time points and reducing acute otitis media episodes during follow-up compared with control treatment. Low quality evidence is available that children treated with oral antibiotics are more likely to experience diarrhoea, vomiting and skin rash than those receiving the control treatment. Currently only two trials have assessed the impact of oral antibiotics on hearing and these showed conflicting results (low quality evidence). Low quality evidence did not show that oral antibiotics were associated with fewer ventilation tube insertions or in adverse consequences for the tympanic membrane."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1558 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDevelopments in ultrasound assessment of pregnancy has resulted in the increasing diagnosis of antenatal fetal issues. Many structural fetal conditions as well as complications associated with multiple pregnancies have the potential for in-utero treatment to improve both pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. Procedures such as laser ablation for twin-twin syndrome or cord occlusion for selective fetal termination require fetal immobilisation. Immobilisation of the fetus can occur through administration of medication to the mother or directly to the fetus. This improves procedural success and reduces the ongoing risk to the pregnancy. Evidence regarding the best medication and mode of delivery helps to ensure the optimal decision is made for both the mother and the fetus.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of perioperative pharmacological interventions for fetal immobilisation during fetal surgery and invasive procedures on fetal, neonatal, and maternal outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (10 May 2021), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (including published abstracts) which compared different classes of medication administered to the mother or fetus to allow in-utero procedures to be performed. We also included cluster-randomised trials but excluded cross-over trials.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth methods for data collection and analysis. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data, and checked them for accuracy.\nMain results\nOne study with three trial reports met the inclusion criteria. This involved 54 women with a multiple pregnancy. The study was conducted in a tertiary European hospital maternal-fetal medicine unit and compared remifentanil to diazepam for fetal immobilisation and maternal sedation during fetoscopic surgery.\nLow-certainty evidence suggested that remifentanil may reduce fetal movement more than diazepam for two outcomes of fetal movement, one of fetal immobilisation at 40 minutes using a visual analogue score (VAS) (where 0 = immobile and 100 = baseline mobility), and one of gross body and limb movements (score was absolute number of movements), both assessed by a sonographer evaluating a taped ultrasound sequence (mean difference (MD) -65.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -69.38 to -60.62 and MD -10.00, 95% CI -11.62 to -8.38; 1 study, 50 women).\nSurgeons may also report being more satisfied with the procedure when using remifentanil rather than diazepam (risk ratio (RR) 2.88, 95% CI 1.60 to 5.15; 1 study, 50 women; low-certainty evidence). However, maternal respiratory rate may decrease more during the surgical procedure with remifentanil compared with diazepam (MD -6.00, 95% CI -8.29 to -3.71; 1 study, 50 women; low-certainty evidence). Maternal sedation may also be worse with remifentanil compared with diazepam (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.65; 1 study, 50 women; low-certainty evidence) measured using an observer assessment of alertness/sedation (where a score of < 4 equates to profound sedation and > 4 equates to insufficient sedation). Perinatal mortality and time taken to perform the procedure were not reported in the trial.\nWe prespecified 20 outcomes and planned to use GRADE for 6 of them, all other outcomes were not able to be reported against for the purpose of meta-analysis due to data not being provided or unable to be interpreted.\nWe assessed the included study at low risk of selection bias (appropriate random sequence generation and allocation concealment), performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel), detection bias (outcome assessors were blinded), attrition bias (incomplete outcome data minimal), and reporting bias.\nOur GRADE assessment for certainty of the evidence indicates that there is low certainty of the evidence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe were only able to include one study with a small number of women, from a single centre, a European tertiary hospital. This study was published in 2005 with an abstract of this trial published in 2004. This study evaluated two intravenous medications administered to the mother - remifentanil and diazepam. This study reported our prespecified primary outcome but only evaluated several of our secondary outcomes, which limited further assessment. Low-certainty evidence suggested that remifentanil may be better at reducing fetal movements and surgeons were more satisfied with the procedure. However, maternal sedation and depression of breathing may be worse with remifentanil.\nFurther high-quality RCTs assessing both fetal and maternal medications are required to evaluate their efficacy for fetal immobilisation as well as safety for both mother and fetus.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the issue?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Use of ultrasound during pregnancy has made great advances resulting in increased diagnosis of problems with the development of unborn babies. Many structural fetal problems as well as complications associated with multiple pregnancies can be treated while babies are still in the mother's uterus. Many problems generally require treatment before birth, for example a blockage in the airways. We set out to determine which medications are effective at providing fetal immobilisation for in-utero procedures to be performed, as well as looking at the effect on the mother in terms of sedation and pain relief. For these procedures to be performed safely, fetal movements may need to be reduced. This can be done by giving medication either to the mother (usually by injection into a vein) or directly to the fetus (by injecting into fetal muscle)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1559 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nRetinopathy of prematurity (ROP) is a vision-threatening disease of preterm neonates. The use of beta-adrenergic blocking agents (beta-blockers), which modulate the vasoproliferative retinal process, may reduce the progression of ROP or even reverse established ROP.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effect of beta-blockers on short-term structural outcomes, long-term functional outcomes, and the need for additional treatment, when used either as prophylaxis in preterm infants without ROP, stage 1 ROP (zone I), or stage 2 ROP (zone II) without plus disease or as treatment in preterm infants with at least prethreshold ROP.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group Specialized Register; CENTRAL (in the Cochrane Library Issue 7, 2017); Embase (January 1974 to 7 August 2017); PubMed (January 1966 to 7 August 2017); and CINAHL (January 1982 to 7 August 2017). We checked references and cross-references and handsearched abstracts from the proceedings of the Pediatric Academic Societies Meetings.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered for inclusion randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials that used beta-blockers for prevention or treatment of ROP in preterm neonates of less than 37 weeks' gestational age.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methods of Cochrane and the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included three randomised trials (N = 366) in this review. Two of these studies were at high risk of bias. All studies reported on prevention of ROP and compared oral propranolol with placebo or no treatment. We found no trials assessing beta-blockers in infants with established stage 2 or higher ROP with plus disease.\nIn one trial, study medication was started after one week of life, i.e. prior to the first ROP screening. The other two trials included preterm infants if they had stage 2 or lower ROP without plus disease. Based on the GRADE assessment, we considered evidence to be of low quality for the following outcomes: rescue treatment with anti-VEGF or laser therapy; and arterial hypotension or bradycardia requiring inotropic support. Evidence was of moderate quality for the following outcomes: progression to stage 2 with plus disease; progression to stage 3 ROP; and progression to stage 4 or 5 ROP.\nMeta-analysis of three trials (N = 366) suggested beneficial effects of oral beta-blockers on the risk of requiring anti-VEGF agents (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 0.86; I² = 0%; typical risk difference (RD) −0.06, 95% CI −0.10 to −0.01; I² = 75%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 18, 95% CI 14 to 84) and laser therapy (typical RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.89; typical RD −0.09, 95% CI −0.16 to −0.02; I² = 31%; NNTB 12, 95% CI 8 to 47). Meta-analysis of two trials (N = 161) demonstrated a beneficial effect of oral beta-blockers on progression to stage 3 ROP (typical RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.96; I² = 0%; typical RD −0.15, 95% CI −0.28 to −0.02; I² = 73%; NNTB 7, 95% CI 5 to 67). There was no significant effect of oral beta-blockers on progression to stage 2 ROP with plus disease or to stage 4 or 5 ROP. Although meta-analysis did not indicate a significant effect of beta-blockers on arterial hypotension or bradycardia, propranolol dosage in one study was reduced by 50% in infants of less than 26 weeks' gestational age due to severe hypotension, bradycardia, and apnoea in several participants. Analyses did not indicate significant effects of beta-blockers on complications of prematurity or mortality. None of the trials reported on long-term visual impairment.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLimited evidence of low-to-moderate quality suggests that prophylactic administration of oral beta-blockers might reduce progression towards stage 3 ROP and decrease the need for anti-VEGF agents or laser therapy. The clinical relevance of those findings is unclear as no data on long-term visual impairment were reported. Adverse events attributed to oral propranolol at a dose of 2 mg/kg/d raise concerns regarding systemic administration of this drug for prevention of ROP at the given dose. There is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy and safety of beta-blockers for prevention of ROP due to high risk of bias in two included trials and the lack of long-term functional outcomes. We would encourage researchers to conduct large, well-designed trials to confirm or refute the role of beta-blockers for prevention and treatment of ROP in preterm infants. Trials should report on long-term visual impairment. Researchers should consider dose-finding studies of systemic beta-blockers and topical administration of beta-blockers, in order to optimise drug delivery and minimise adverse events.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We reviewed the evidence for the effect of beta-blockers on retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) in preterm infants."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1560 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople living with chronic kidney disease (CKD) experience a range of symptoms and often have complex comorbidities. Many pharmacological interventions for people with CKD have known risks of adverse events. Acupuncture is widely used for symptom management in patients with chronic diseases and in other palliative care settings. However, the safety and efficacy of acupuncture for people with CKD remains largely unknown.\nObjectives\nWe aimed to evaluate the benefits and harms of acupuncture, electro-acupuncture, acupressure, moxibustion and other acupuncture-related interventions (alone or combined with other acupuncture-related interventions) for symptoms of CKD. In particular, we planned to compare acupuncture and related interventions with conventional medicine, active non-pharmacological interventions, and routine care for symptoms of CKD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register up to 28 January 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. We also searched Korean medical databases (including Korean Studies Information, DBPIA, Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Research Information Centre for Health Database, KoreaMed, the National Assembly Library) and Chinese databases (including the China Academic Journal).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that investigated the effects of acupuncture and related point-stimulation interventions with or without needle penetration that involved six sessions or more in adults with CKD stage 3 to 5, regardless of the language and type of publication. We excluded studies that used herbal medicine or co-interventions administered unequally among the study groups.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous outcomes and risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. Primary outcomes were changes in pain and depression, and occurrence of serious of adverse events.\nMain results\nWe included 24 studies that involved a total of 1787 participants. Studies reported on various types of acupuncture and related interventions including manual acupuncture and acupressure, ear acupressure, transcutaneous electrical acupuncture point stimulation, far-infrared radiation on acupuncture points and indirect moxibustion. CKD stages included pre-dialysis stage 3 or 4 and end-stage kidney disease on either haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis.\nNone of the included studies assessed pain outcomes, nor formally addressed occurrence of serious adverse events, although three studies reported three participant deaths and three hospitalisations as reasons for attrition. Three studies reported minor acupuncture-related harms; the remainder did not report if those events occurred.\nAll studies were assessed at high or unclear risk of bias in terms of allocation concealment. Seventeen studies reported outcomes measured for only two months.\nThere was very low quality of evidence that compared with routine care, manual acupressure reduced scores of the Beck Depression Inventory score (scale from 0 to 63) (3 studies, 128 participants: MD -4.29, 95% CI -7.48 to -1.11, I2 = 0%), the revised Piper Fatigue Scale (scale from 0 to 10) (3 studies, 128 participants: MD -1.19, 95% CI -1.77 to -0.60, I2 = 0%), and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (scale from 0 to 21) (4 studies, 180 participants: MD -2.46, 95% CI -4.23 to -0.69, I2 = 50%).\nWe were unable to perform further meta-analyses because of the paucity of data and problems with clinical heterogeneity, such as different interventions, comparisons and timing of outcome measurements.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was very low quality of evidence of the short-term effects of manual acupressure as an adjuvant intervention for fatigue, depression, sleep disturbance and uraemic pruritus in patients undergoing regular haemodialysis. The paucity of evidence indicates that there is little evidence of the effects of other types of acupuncture for other outcomes, including pain, in patients with other stages of CKD. Overall high or unclear risk of bias distorts the validity of the reported benefit of acupuncture and makes the estimated effects uncertain. The incomplete reporting of acupuncture-related harm does not permit us to assess the safety of acupuncture and related interventions. Future studies should investigate the effects and safety of acupuncture for pain and other common symptoms in patients with CKD and those undergoing dialysis.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched the literature up to January 2016 and analysed 24 studies that involved 1787 participants. Of these, only seven studies provided data that could be combined for analysis. The studies reported that manual acupressure improved fatigue, depression and sleep disturbance when used as an adjunct to routine care for patients undergoing maintenance haemodialysis 4 weeks from baseline. No study assessed pain and most did not report whether adverse events of acupuncture occurred."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1561 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nExercise-based cardiac rehabilitation may benefit adults with atrial fibrillation or those who had been treated for atrial fibrillation. Atrial fibrillation is caused by multiple micro re-entry circuits within the atrial tissue, which result in chaotic rapid activity in the atria.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of exercise-based rehabilitation programmes, alone or with another intervention, compared with no-exercise training controls in adults who currently have AF, or have been treated for AF.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases; CENTRAL and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, PsycINFO Ovid, Web of Science Core Collection Thomson Reuters, CINAHL EBSCO, LILACS Bireme, and three clinical trial registers on 14 July 2016. We also checked the bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews identified by the searches. We imposed no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCT) that investigated exercise-based interventions compared with any type of no-exercise control. We included trials that included adults aged 18 years or older with atrial fibrillation, or post-treatment for atrial fibrillation.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently extracted data. We assessed the risk of bias using the domains outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We assessed clinical and statistical heterogeneity by visual inspection of the forest plots, and by using standard Chi² and I² statistics. We performed meta-analyses using fixed-effect and random-effects models; we used standardised mean differences where different scales were used for the same outcome. We assessed the risk of random errors with trial sequential analysis (TSA) and used the GRADE methodology to rate the quality of evidence, reporting it in the 'Summary of findings' table.\nMain results\nWe included six RCTs with a total of 421 patients with various types of atrial fibrillation. All trials were conducted between 2006 and 2016, and had short follow-up (eight weeks to six months). Risks of bias ranged from high risk to low risk.The exercise-based programmes in four trials consisted of both aerobic exercise and resistance training, in one trial consisted of Qi-gong (slow and graceful movements), and in another trial, consisted of inspiratory muscle training.\nFor mortality, very low-quality evidence from six trials suggested no clear difference in deaths between the exercise and no-exercise groups (relative risk (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 15.78; participants = 421; I² = 0%; deaths = 2). Very low-quality evidence from five trials suggested no clear difference between groups for serious adverse events (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.05; participants = 381; I² = 0%; events = 8). Low-quality evidence from two trials suggested no clear difference in health-related quality of life for the Short Form-36 (SF-36) physical component summary measure (mean difference (MD) 1.96, 95% CI -2.50 to 6.42; participants = 224; I² = 69%), or the SF-36 mental component summary measure (MD 1.99, 95% CI -0.48 to 4.46; participants = 224; I² = 0%). Exercise capacity was assessed by cumulated work, or maximal power (Watt), obtained by cycle ergometer, or by six minute walking test, or ergospirometry testing measuring VO2 peak. We found moderate-quality evidence from two studies that exercise-based rehabilitation increased exercise capacity, measured by VO2 peak, more than no exercise (MD 3.76, 95% CI 1.37 to 6.15; participants = 208; I² = 0%); and very low-quality evidence from four studies that exercise-based rehabilitation increased exercise capacity more than no exercise, measured by the six-minute walking test (MD 75.76, 95% CI 14.00 to 137.53; participants = 272; I² = 85%). When we combined the different assessment tools for exercise capacity, we found very low-quality evidence from six trials that exercise-based rehabilitation increased exercise capacity more than no exercise (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.86, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.26; participants = 359; I² = 65%). Overall, the quality of the evidence for the outcomes ranged from moderate to very-low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to few randomised patients and outcomes, we could not evaluate the real impact of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality or serious adverse events. The evidence showed no clinically relevant effect on health-related quality of life. Pooled data showed a positive effect on the surrogate outcome of physical exercise capacity, but due to the low number of patients and the moderate to very low-quality of the underpinning evidence, we could not be certain of the magnitude of the effect. Future high-quality randomised trials are needed to assess the benefits and harms of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with atrial fibrillation on patient-relevant outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "There were two deaths and eight serious adverse events (harmful side effects) reported in the six trials, therefore, we had insufficient data to conclude whether exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation improved outcomes that matter the most to patients, such as death and serious adverse events (e.g. hospitalisation). Exercise-based rehabilitation was not found to have a clinically relevant impact on quality of life for the patient group, but may increase exercise capacity."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1562 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media (COM), is a chronic inflammation and often polymicrobial infection (involving more than one micro-organism) of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through a perforated tympanic membrane. The predominant symptoms of CSOM are ear discharge and hearing loss. Topical antibiotics, the most common treatment for CSOM, act to kill or inhibit the growth of micro-organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antibiotics can be used alone or in addition to other treatments for CSOM, such as antiseptics or ear cleaning (aural toileting).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of topical antibiotics (without steroids) for people with CSOM.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 April 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a one-week follow-up involving participants (adults and children) who had chronic ear discharge of unknown cause or CSOM, where the ear discharge had continued for more than two weeks.\nThe interventions were any single, or combination of, topical antibiotic agent(s) of any class, applied directly into the ear canal as ear drops, powders or irrigations, or as part of an aural toileting procedure.\nThe two main comparisons were topical antibiotic compared to a) placebo or no intervention and b) another topical antibiotic (e.g. topical antibiotic A versus topical antibiotic B).\nWithin each comparison we separated studies where both groups of participants had received topical antibiotic a) alone or with aural toileting and b) on top of background treatment (such as systemic antibiotics).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.\nOur primary outcomes were: resolution of ear discharge or 'dry ear' (whether otoscopically confirmed or not), measured at between one week and up to two weeks, two weeks to up to four weeks and after four weeks; health-related quality of life using a validated instrument; ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications and ototoxicity measured in several ways.\nMain results\nWe included 17 studies with a total of 2198 participants. Twelve studies reported the sample size in terms of participants (not ears); these had a total of 1797 participants. The remaining five studies reported both the number of participants and ears, representing 401 participants, or 510 ears.\nA: Topical antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment (with aural toilet in both arms and no other background treatment)\nOne small study compared a topical antibiotic (ciprofloxacin) with placebo (saline). All participants received aural toilet. Although ciprofloxacin was better than saline in terms of resolution of discharge at one to two weeks: 84% versus 12% (risk ratio (RR) 6.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.82 to 24.99; 35 participants, very low-certainty evidence), the very low certainty of the evidence means that it is very uncertain whether or not one intervention is better or worse than the other. The study authors reported that \"no medical side-effects and worsening of audiological measurements related to this topical medication were detected\" (very low-certainty evidence).\nB: Topical antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment (with use of oral antibiotics in both arms)\nFour studies compared topical ciprofloxacin to no treatment (three studies; 190 participants) or topical ceftizoxime to no treatment (one study; 248 participants). In each study all participants received the same antibiotic systemically (oral ciprofloxacin, injected ceftizoxime). In at least one study all participants received aural toilet. Useable data were only available from the first three studies; ciprofloxacin was better than no treatment, resolution of discharge occurring in 88.2% versus 60% at one to two weeks (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.80; 2 studies, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported ear pain or discomfort/local irritation.\nC: Comparisons of different topical antibiotics\nThe certainty of evidence for all outcomes in these comparisons is very low.\nQuinolones versus aminoglycosides\nSeven studies compared an aminoglycoside (gentamicin, neomycin or tobramycin) with ciprofloxacin (734 participants) or ofloxacin (214 participants). Whilst resolution of discharge at one to two weeks was higher in the quinolones group the very low certainty of the evidence means that it is very uncertain whether or not one intervention is better or worse than the other (RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 4.29; 6 studies, 694 participants). One study measured ear pain and reported no difference between the groups.\nQuinolones versus aminoglycosides/polymyxin B combination ±gramicidin\nWe identified three studies but data on our primary outcome were only available in one study. Comparing ciprofloxacin to a neomycin/polymyxin B/gramicidin combination, for an unknown treatment duration (likely four weeks), ciprofloxacin was better (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.22, 186 participants). A \"few\" patients experienced local irritation upon the first instillation of topical treatment (numbers/groups not stated).\nOthers\nOther studies examined topical gentamicin versus a trimethoprim/sulphacetamide/polymixin B combination (91 participants) and rifampicin versus chloramphenicol (160 participants). Limited data were available and the findings were very uncertain.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain about the effectiveness of topical antibiotics in improving resolution of ear discharge in patients with CSOM because of the limited amount of low-quality evidence available. However, amongst this uncertainty there is some evidence to suggest that the use of topical antibiotics may be effective when compared to placebo, or when used in addition to a systemic antibiotic. There is also uncertainty about the relative effectiveness of different types of antibiotics; it is not possible to determine with any certainty whether or not quinolones are better or worse than aminoglycosides. These two groups of compounds have different adverse effect profiles, but there is insufficient evidence from the included studies to make any comment about these. In general, adverse effects were poorly reported.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the aim of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The aim of this Cochrane Review was to find out if topical antibiotics are effective in treating chronic suppurative otitis media and whether one type of topical antibiotic treatment is more effective than any other. We collected and analysed all relevant studies to answer this question."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1563 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nUveitis is a term used to describe a group of intraocular inflammatory diseases. Uveitis is the fifth most common cause of vision loss in high-income countries, with the highest incidence of disease in the working-age population. Corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment for all subtypes of non-infectious uveitis. They can be administered orally, topically with drops, by periocular (around the eye) or intravitreal (inside the eye) injection, or by surgical implantation.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy and safety of steroid implants in people with chronic non-infectious posterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, and panuveitis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase, PubMed, LILACS, and three trials registries to November 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials comparing either fluocinolone acetonide (FA) or dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implants with standard-of-care therapy or sham procedures, with at least six months of follow-up after treatment. We included studies that enrolled participants of all ages, who had chronic non-infectious posterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, or panuveitis with vision that was better than hand-motion.\nData collection and analysis\nWe applied standard Cochrane methodology.\nMain results\nWe included data from four trials (683 participants, 907 eyes) that compared corticosteroid implants with either sham or standard-of-care therapy.\nStudy characteristics and risk of bias\nOf the two trials that compared corticosteroid implants with sham procedure, one examined a 0.18 mg FA implant, and the other, a 0.7 mg DEX implant. The other two trials compared a 0.59 mg FA implant with standard-of-care therapy, which included systemic corticosteroids and immunosuppressive medications, if needed. Considering improvement in visual acuity, we assessed the four trials to be at either low risk, or with some concerns of risk of bias across all domains.\nFindings\nUsing sham procedure as control, combined results at the six-month primary time point suggested that corticosteroid implants may decrease the risk of uveitis recurrence by 60% (relative risk [RR] 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30 to 0.54; 2 trials, 282 participants; low-certainty evidence); and lead to a greater improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA; mean difference [MD] 0.15 logMAR, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.24; 1 trial, 153 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence based on a single-study report (146 participants) suggested that steroid implants may have no effects on visual functioning quality of life, measured on the National Eye Institute 25-Item Visual Function Questionnaire (MD 2.85, 95%CI -3.64 to 9.34; 1 trial, 146 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nUsing standard-of care therapy as control, combined estimates at the 24-month primary time point suggested that corticosteroid implants were likely to decrease the risk of recurrence of uveitis by 54% (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.60; 2 trials, 619 eyes). Combined estimates at 24 months also suggested that steroid implants may have little to no effects on improving BCVA (MD 0.05 logMAR, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.12; 2 trials, 619 eyes; low-certainty evidence). Evidence based on a single-study report (232 participants) suggested that steroid implants may have minimal clinical effects on visual functioning (MD 4.64, 95% CI 0.13 to 9.15; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); physical functioning (SF-36 physical subscale MD 2.95, 95% CI 0.55 to 5.35; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or mental health (SF-36 mental subscale MD 3.65, 95% CI 0.52 to 6.78; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but not on EuroQoL (MD 6.17, 95% CI 1.87 to 10.47; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or EuroQoL-5D scale (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.08; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nAdverse effects\nCompared with sham procedures, corticosteroid implants may slightly increase the risk of cataract formation (RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.17 to 6.18; 1 trial, 90 eyes; low-certainty evidence), but not the risk of cataract progression (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 6.12; 1 trial, 117 eyes; low-certainty evidence); or the need for surgery (RR 2.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 10.81; 1 trial, 180 eyes; low-certainty evidence), during up to 12 months of follow-up. These implants may increase the risk of elevated intraocular pressure ([IOP] RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.42 to 5.56; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and the need for IOP-lowering eyedrops (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.25; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but not the need for IOP-lowering surgery (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.13 to 4.17; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nEvidence comparing the 0.59 mg FA implant with standard-of-care suggested that the implant may increase the risk of cataract progression (RR 2.71, 95% CI 2.06 to 3.56; 2 trials, 210 eyes; low-certainty evidence); and the need for surgery (RR 2.98, 95% CI 2.33 to 3.79; 2 trials, 371 eyes; low-certainty evidence); along with the risk of elevated IOP (RR 3.64, 95% CI 2.71 to 4.87; 2 trials, 605 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence); and the need for medical (RR 3.04, 95% CI 2.36 to 3.91; 2 trials, 544 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence); or surgical interventions (RR 5.43, 95% CI 3.12 to 9.45; 2 trials, 599 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence).\nIn either comparison, these implants did not increase the risk for endophthalmitis, retinal tear, or retinal detachment (moderate-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur confidence is limited that local corticosteroid implants are superior to sham therapy or standard-of-care therapy in reducing the risk of uveitis recurrence. We demonstrated different effectiveness on BCVA relative to comparators in people with non-infectious uveitis. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that these implants may increase the risk of cataract progression and IOP elevation, which will require interventions over time.\nTo better understand the efficacy and safety profiles of corticosteroid implants, we need future trials that examine implants of different doses, used for different durations. The trials should measure core standard outcomes that are universally defined, and measured at comparable follow-up time points.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is chronic non-infectious uveitis?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Uveitis is a group of eye diseases caused by inflammation (redness, swelling, pain, etc.) inside the eye, which can lead to vision loss. Uveitis can result from infections, or non-infectious causes. Non-infectious uveitis can result from a disease somewhere else in the body. The uvea (middle layer of the eye) has many blood vessels. If the immune system is fighting a problem in one area, the cells and chemicals it makes can travel through the bloodstream and enter the eye, leading to inflammation. Acute uveitis lasts less than three months; chronic uveitis lasts longer than three months."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1564 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe prevalence of substance use, both prescribed and non-prescribed, is increasing in many areas of the world. Substance use by women of childbearing age contributes to increasing rates of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). Neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS) is a newer term describing the subset of NAS related to opioid exposure. Non-pharmacological care is the first-line treatment for substance withdrawal in newborns. Despite the widespread use of non-pharmacological care to mitigate symptoms of NAS, there is not an established definition of, and standard for, non-pharmacological care practices in this population. Evaluation of safety and efficacy of non-pharmacological practices could provide clear guidance for clinical practice.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of non-pharmacological treatment of infants at risk for, or having symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal on the length of hospitalization and use of pharmacological treatment for symptom management.\nComparison 1: in infants at risk for, or having early symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal, does non-pharmacological treatment reduce the length of hospitalization and use of pharmacological treatment?\nComparison 2: in infants receiving pharmacological treatment for symptoms consistent with opioid withdrawal, does concurrent non-pharmacological treatment reduce duration of pharmacological treatment, maximum and cumulative doses of opioid medication, and length of hospitalization?\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search CENTRAL (2019, Issue 10); Ovid MEDLINE; and CINAHL on 11 October 2019. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included trials comparing single or bundled non-pharmacological interventions to no non-pharmacological treatment or different single or bundled non-pharmacological interventions. We assessed non-pharmacological interventions independently and in combination based on sufficient similarity in population, intervention, and comparison groups studied. We categorized non-pharmacological interventions as: modifying environmental stimulation, feeding practices, and support of the mother-infant dyad. We presented non-randomized studies identified in the search process narratively.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes in infants at risk for, or having early symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal included length of hospitalization and pharmacological treatment with one or more doses of opioid or sedative medication. Primary outcomes in infants receiving opioid treatment for symptoms consistent with opioid withdrawal included length of hospitalization, length of pharmacological treatment with opioid or sedative medication, and maximum and cumulative doses of opioid medication.\nMain results\nWe identified six RCTs (353 infants) in which infants at risk for, or having symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal participated between 1975 and 2018. We identified no RCTs in which infants receiving opioid treatment for symptoms consistent with opioid withdrawal participated. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes was very low to low. We also identified and excluded 34 non-randomized studies published between 2005 and 2018, including 29 in which infants at risk for, or having symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal participated and five in which infants receiving opioid treatment for symptoms consistent with opioid withdrawal participated. We identified seven preregistered interventional clinical trials that may qualify for inclusion at review update when complete.\nOf the six RCTs, four studies assessed modifying environmental stimulation in the form of a mechanical rocking bed, prone positioning, non-oscillating waterbed, or a low-stimulation nursery; one study assessed feeding practices (comparing 24 kcal/oz to 20 kcal/oz formula); and one study assessed support of the maternal-infant dyad (tailored breastfeeding support).\nThere was no evidence of a difference in length of hospitalization in the one study that assessed modifying environmental stimulation (mean difference [MD) –1 day, 95% confidence interval [CI) –2.82 to 0.82; 30 infants; very low-certainty evidence) and the one study of support of the maternal-infant dyad (MD –8.9 days, 95% CI –19.84 to 2.04; 14 infants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies of feeding practices evaluated the length of hospitalization.\nThere was no evidence of a difference in use of pharmacological treatment in three studies of modifying environmental stimulation (typical risk ratio [RR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; 92 infants; low-certainty evidence), one study of feeding practices (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.33; 49 infants; very low-certainty evidence), and one study of support of the maternal-infant dyad (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.90; 14 infants; very low-certainty evidence).\nReported secondary outcomes included neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, days to regain birth weight, and weight nadir. One study of support of the maternal-infant dyad reported NICU admission (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.90; 14 infants; very low-certainty evidence). One study of feeding practices reported days to regain birth weight (MD 1.10 days, 95% CI 2.76 to 0.56; 46 infants; very low-certainty evidence). One study that assessed modifying environmental stimulation reported weight nadir (MD –0.28, 95% CI –1.15 to 0.59; 194 infants; very low-certainty evidence) and one study of feeding practices reported weight nadir (MD –0.8, 95% CI –2.24 to 0.64; 46 infants; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain whether non-pharmacological care for opioid withdrawal in newborns affects important clinical outcomes including length of hospitalization and use of pharmacological treatment based on the six included studies. The outcomes identified for this review were of very low- to low-certainty evidence. Combined analysis was limited by heterogeneity in study design and intervention definitions as well as the number of studies. Many prespecified outcomes were not reported. Although caregivers are encouraged by experts to optimize non-pharmacological care for opioid withdrawal in newborns prior to initiating pharmacological care, we do not have sufficient evidence to inform specific clinical practices. Larger well-designed studies are needed to determine the effect of non-pharmacological care for opioid withdrawal in newborns.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We looked at randomized controlled trials (RCTs; clinical studies where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups) of opioid-exposed newborns treated with one or more non-pharmacological care practice. Non-pharmacological care practices include changes to the environment to reduce stimulation or provide soothing, changes to feeding frequency or type, changes that increase maternal care of the newborn or maternal wellness, and multiple changes such as occur in a new site or system of care. Search is up to date as of October 2019."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1565 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBiologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (biologics) are highly effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head biologic comparison studies. We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis (NMA) to update the 2009 Cochrane Overview. This review is focused on the adults with RA who are naive to methotrexate (MTX) that is, receiving their first disease-modifying agent.\nObjectives\nTo compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA who are naive to methotrexate.\nMethods\nIn June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase; and trials registers. We used standard Cochrane methods. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for traditional meta-analyses and 95% credible intervals (CrI) using a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for network meta-analysis (NMA). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) for ease of interpretation. We also present results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB/H).\nMain results\nNineteen RCTs with 6485 participants met inclusion criteria (including five studies from the original 2009 review), and data were available for four TNF biologics (adalimumab (six studies; 1851 participants), etanercept (three studies; 678 participants), golimumab (one study; 637 participants) and infliximab (seven studies; 1363 participants)) and two non-TNF biologics (abatacept (one study; 509 participants) and rituximab (one study; 748 participants)).\nLess than 50% of the studies were judged to be at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 21% were at low risk for selective reporting, 53% had low risk of bias for attrition and 89% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. Three trials used biologic monotherapy, that is, without MTX. There were no trials with placebo-only comparators and no trials of tofacitinib. Trial duration ranged from 6 to 24 months. Half of the trials contained participants with early RA (less than two years' duration) and the other half included participants with established RA (2 to 10 years).\nBiologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX (17 trials (6344 participants)/MTX + methylprednisolone 2 trials (141 participants))\nIn traditional meta-analyses, there was moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency that biologics with MTX were associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit versus comparator as demonstrated by ACR50 (American College of Rheumatology scale) and RA remission rates. For ACR50, biologics with MTX showed a risk ratio (RR) of 1.40 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.49), absolute difference of 16% (95% CI 13% to 20%) and NNTB = 7 (95% CI 6 to 8). For RA remission rates, biologics with MTX showed a RR of 1.62 (95% CI 1.33 to 1.98), absolute difference of 15% (95% CI 11% to 19%) and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 6 to 7). Biologics with MTX were also associated with a statistically significant, but not clinically meaningful, benefit in physical function (moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency), with an improvement of HAQ scores of -0.10 (95% CI -0.16 to -0.04 on a 0 to 3 scale), absolute difference -3.3% (95% CI -5.3% to -1.3%) and NNTB = 4 (95% CI 2 to 15).\nWe did not observe evidence of differences between biologics with MTX compared to MTX for radiographic progression (low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision and inconsistency) or serious adverse events (moderate-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision). Based on low-quality evidence, results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events (RR of 1.32, but 95% confidence interval included possibility of important harm, 0.89 to 1.97). Results for cancer were also inconclusive (Peto OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.33) and downgraded to low-quality evidence for serious imprecision.\nBiologic without MTX versus active comparator (MTX 3 trials (866 participants)\nThere was no evidence of statistically significant or clinically important differences for ACR50, HAQ, remission, (moderate-quality evidence for these benefits, downgraded for imprecision), withdrawals due to adverse events,and serious adverse events (low-quality evidence for these harms, downgraded for serious imprecision). All studies were for TNF biologic monotherapy and none for non-TNF biologic monotherapy. Radiographic progression was not measured.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn MTX-naive RA participants, there was moderate-quality evidence that, compared with MTX alone, biologics with MTX was associated with absolute and relative clinically meaningful benefits in three of the efficacy outcomes (ACR50, HAQ scores, and RA remission rates). A benefit regarding less radiographic progression with biologics with MTX was not evident (low-quality evidence). We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that biologic therapy with MTX was not associated with any higher risk of serious adverse events compared with MTX, but results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events and cancer to 24 months.\nTNF biologic monotherapy did not differ statistically significantly or clinically meaningfully from MTX for any of the outcomes (moderate-quality evidence), and no data were available for non-TNF biologic monotherapy.\nWe conclude that biologic with MTX use in MTX-naive populations is beneficial and that there is little/inconclusive evidence of harms. More data are needed for tofacitinib, radiographic progression and harms in this patient population to fully assess comparative efficacy and safety.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"ACR50 (American College of Rheumatology 50: number of tender or swollen joints, pain and disability)\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": ""
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1566 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute and chronic postoperative pain are important healthcare problems, which can be treated with a combination of opioids and regional anaesthesia. The erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a new regional anaesthesia technique, which might be able to reduce opioid consumption and related side effects.\nObjectives\nTo compare the analgesic effects and side effect profile of ESPB against no block, placebo block or other regional anaesthetic techniques.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science on 4 January 2021 and updated the search on 3 January 2022.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating adults undergoing surgery with general anaesthesia were included. We included ESPB in comparison with no block, placebo blocks or other regional anaesthesia techniques irrespective of language, publication year, publication status or technique of regional anaesthesia used (ultrasound, landmarks or peripheral nerve stimulator).\nQuasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs, cross-over trials and studies investigating co-interventions in either arm were excluded.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed all trials for inclusion and exclusion criteria, and risk of bias (RoB), and extracted data.\nWe assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and we used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the primary outcomes.\nThe primary outcomes were postoperative pain at rest at 24 hours and block-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain at rest (2, 48 hours) and during activity (2, 24 and 48 hours after surgery), chronic pain after three and six months, as well as cumulative oral morphine requirements at 2, 24 and 48 hours after surgery and rates of opioid-related side effects.\nMain results\nWe identified 69 RCTs in the first search and included these in the systematic review. We included 64 RCTs (3973 participants) in the meta-analysis. The outcome postoperative pain was reported in 38 out of 64 studies; block-related adverse events were reported in 40 out of 64 studies. We assessed RoB as low in 44 (56%), some concerns in 24 (31%) and high in 10 (13%) of the study results. Overall, 57 studies reported one or both primary outcomes. Only one study reported results on chronic pain after surgery.\nIn the updated literature search on 3 January 2022 we found 37 new studies and categorised these as awaiting classification.\nESPB compared to no block\nThere is probably a slight but not clinically relevant reduction in pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery in patients treated with ESPB compared to no block (visual analogue scale (VAS), 0 to 10 points) (mean difference (MD) -0.77 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.08 to -0.46; 17 trials, 958 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events between the groups treated with ESPB and those receiving no block (no events in 18 trials reported, 1045 participants, low-certainty evidence).\nESPB compared to placebo block\nESPB probably has no effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to placebo block (MD -0.14 points, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.00; 8 trials, 499 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events between ESPB and placebo blocks (no events in 10 trials reported; 592 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nESPB compared to other regional anaesthetic techniques\nParavertebral block (PVB)\nESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to PVB (MD 0.23 points, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.52; 7 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is probably no difference in block-related adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.95; 7 trials, 522 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nTransversus abdominis plane block (TAPB)\nESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to TAPB (MD -0.16 points, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.14; 3 trials, 160 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.83; 4 trials, 202 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nSerratus anterior plane block (SAPB)\nThe effect on postoperative pain could not be assessed because no studies reported this outcome. There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.59; 2 trials, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nPectoralis plane block (PECSB)\nESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to PECSB (MD 0.24 points, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.58; 2 trials, 98 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect on block-related adverse events could not be assessed.\nQuadratus lumborum block (QLB)\nOnly one study reported on each of the primary outcomes.\nIntercostal nerve block (ICNB)\nESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to ICNB, but this is uncertain (MD -0.33 points, 95% CI -3.02 to 2.35; 2 trials, 131 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events, but this is uncertain (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.28; 3 trials, 181 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nEpidural analgesia (EA)\nWe are uncertain whether ESPB has an effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to EA (MD 1.20 points, 95% CI -2.52 to 4.93; 2 trials, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A risk ratio for block-related adverse events was not estimable because only one study reported this outcome.\nAuthors' conclusions\nESPB in addition to standard care probably does not improve postoperative pain intensity 24 hours after surgery compared to no block. The number of block-related adverse events following ESPB was low. Further research is required to study the possibility of extending the duration of analgesia.\nWe identified 37 new studies in the updated search and there are three ongoing studies, suggesting possible changes to the effect estimates and the certainty of the evidence in the future.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We included 64 studies that randomly assigned patients to one of the treatment groups (randomised controlled trials) with 3973 patients in total. In these studies all patients received standard opioid care as well as the different regional anaesthesia according to their group allocation."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1567 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTraumatic upper limb injury is a leading cause of work-related disability. After return-to-work (RTW), many survivors of injuries are able to regain a quality of life (QoL) comparable with the normal population. Since RTW plays an important role in economic productivity and regaining health-related QoL, enhancing RTW in workers with traumatic limb injuries is the primary goal of rehabilitation. Vocational rehabilitation has been commonly employed in the field of occupational safety and health to increase the number of injured people returning to the labour market, prevent illness, increase well-being, and reduce disability.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of vocational rehabilitation programmes for enhancing RTW in workers with traumatic upper limb injuries.\nSearch methods\nThis is an update of a Cochrane review previously published in 2013. We updated our searches of the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 9), MEDLINE (to 30 August 2017), EMBASE (to 3 September 2017), CINAHL (to 6 September 2017), and PsycINFO (to 6 September 2017), and we handsearched the references lists of relevant review articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe aimed to include all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vocational rehabilitation with an alternative (control) intervention such as standard rehabilitation, a limited form of the vocational rehabilitation intervention (such as advice on RTW, referral information, or liaison with employer), or waiting-list controls.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently inspected abstracts, and we obtained full papers when necessary. When the two authors disagreed about the inclusion of a study, we resolved disagreements by discussion. A third author arbitrated when necessary.\nMain results\nOur updated search identified 466 citations. Based on assessments of their titles and abstracts, we decided to evaluate the full texts of five records; however, none met our inclusion criteria.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently no high-quality evidence to support or refute the efficacy of vocational rehabilitation for enhancing RTW in workers with traumatic upper limb injuries. Since injured people in occupational settings frequently receive vocational rehabilitation with the aim of decreasing work disability, enhancing RTW, increasing productivity, and containing the welfare cost, further high-quality RCTs assessing the efficacy of vocational rehabilitation for workers with traumatic upper limb injury are needed to fill this gap in knowledge.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main results of the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We examined all the research published up to 30 August 2017. We wanted to include only studies that randomly assigned participants to receive either vocational rehabilitation or some other treatment. This way of conducting research, commonly known as RCT, is the best way to ensure that any measured improvement is really caused by the treatment. We did not find any RCTs that had studied whether vocational rehabilitation can help workers with upper limb injuries return to work."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1568 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic hepatitis B is a liver disease associated with high morbidity and mortality. Chronic hepatitis B requires long-term management aiming to reduce the risks of hepatocellular inflammatory necrosis, liver fibrosis, decompensated liver cirrhosis, liver failure, and liver cancer, as well as to improve health-related quality of life. Acupuncture is being used to decrease discomfort and improve immune function in people with chronic hepatitis B. However, the benefits and harms of acupuncture still need to be established in a rigorous way.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of acupuncture versus no intervention or sham acupuncture in people with chronic hepatitis B.\nSearch methods\nWe undertook electronic searches of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chongqing VIP (CQVIP), Wanfang Data, and SinoMed to 1 March 2019. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov/), and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) for ongoing or unpublished trials until 1 March 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised clinical trials, irrespective of publication status, language, and blinding, comparing acupuncture versus no intervention or sham acupuncture in people with chronic hepatitis B. We included participants of any sex and age, diagnosed with chronic hepatitis B as defined by the trialists or according to guidelines. We allowed co-interventions when the co-interventions were administered equally to all intervention groups.\nData collection and analysis\nReview authors in pairs individually retrieved data from reports and through correspondence with investigators. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, proportion of participants with one or more serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes were hepatitis B-related mortality, hepatitis B-related morbidity, and adverse events considered not to be serious. We presented the pooled results as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the risks of bias using risk of bias domains with predefined definitions. We put more weight on the estimate closest to zero effect when results with fixed-effect and random-effects models differed. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included eight randomised clinical trials with 555 randomised participants. All included trials compared acupuncture versus no intervention. These trials assessed heterogeneous acupuncture interventions. All trials used heterogeneous co-interventions applied equally in the compared groups. Seven trials included participants with chronic hepatitis B, and one trial included participants with chronic hepatitis B with comorbid tuberculosis. All trials were assessed at overall high risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence for all outcomes was very low due to high risk of bias for each outcome, imprecision of results (the confidence intervals were wide), and publication bias (small sample size of the trials, and all trials were conducted in China). Additionally, 79 trials lacked the necessary methodological information to ensure their inclusion in our review.\nNone of the included trials aim to assess all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, hepatitis B-related mortality, and hepatitis B-related morbidity. We are uncertain whether acupuncture, compared with no intervention, has an effect regarding adverse events considered not to be serious (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.06; I² = 0%; 3 trials; 203 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or detectable hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg) (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.68; I² = 98%; 2 trials; 158 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Acupuncture showed a reduction in detectable hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA (a non-validated surrogate outcome; RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; 1 trial, 58 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether acupuncture has an effect regarding the remaining separately reported adverse events considered not to be serious.\nThree of the eight included trials received academic funding from government or hospital. None of the remaining five trials reported information on funding.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe clinical effects of acupuncture for chronic hepatitis B remain unknown. The included trials lacked data on all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, serious adverse events, hepatitis-B related mortality, and hepatitis-B related morbidity. The vast number of excluded trials lacked clear descriptions of their design and conduct. Whether acupuncture influences adverse events considered not to be serious is uncertain. It remains unclear if acupuncture affects HBeAg, and if it is associated with reduction in detectable HBV DNA. Based on available data from only one or two small trials on adverse events considered not to be serious and on the surrogate outcomes HBeAg and HBV DNA, the certainty of evidence is very low. In view of the wide usage of acupuncture, any conclusion that one might try to draw in the future should be based on data on patient and clinically relevant outcomes, assessed in large, high-quality randomised sham-controlled trials with homogeneous groups of participants and transparent funding.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "None of the eight included trials reported data on clinically important outcomes such as all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, hepatitis B-related mortality, or hepatitis B-related morbidity. We are uncertain whether acupuncture compared with no intervention has a beneficial or harmful effect regarding adverse events considered not to be serious. Acupuncture compared with no intervention seems to reduce the proportion of people with detectable hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA (a non-validated surrogate outcome; only one trial). We are uncertain whether acupuncture compared with no intervention has an effect on the proportion of people with detectable HBeAg (a non-validated surrogate outcome; only two trials). Caution is needed in interpreting these findings as data are provided by only one or a few trials at high risk of bias, and these surrogate outcomes have not yet been proven relevant for people with chronic hepatitis B. We are uncertain whether acupuncture compared with no intervention has an effect on the remaining separately reported adverse events considered not to be serious. We could not use data from 79 other studies, of possible interest to our review, because study authors provided highly insufficient information on their study design and methods. Accordingly, we need more information from randomised clinical trials before benefits or harms of acupuncture for chronic hepatitis B can be determined."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1569 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nLower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) in young children account for 1.4 million deaths annually worldwide. Antibiotics could be beneficial in preventing LRTIs in high-risk children, and may also help prevent school absenteeism and work days missed by children and/or carers. While it is well documented that the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis for RTIs decreases over time, there are no reviews that describe the use of antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent LRTIs in high-risk children aged 12 years and under.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in the prevention of bacterial LRTIs in high-risk children aged 12 years and under.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 1) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process (OvidSP) (1946 to 13 February 2015), EMBASE (OvidSP) (1974 to 12 February 2015), Science Citation Index Expanded (1945 to 13 February 2015) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (Web of Science Core Collection) (1990 to 13 February 2015). We searched for ongoing studies on ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization ICTRP. We handsearched the bibliographies of retrieved full texts of relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral or intravenous antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment to prevent infections in high-risk children aged 12 years and under. We used a combination of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Health Service (NHS), American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines to define conditions at higher risk of complications. Our primary outcome was the incidence of bacterial lower respiratory infections. Secondary outcomes included clinical function, hospital admission, mortality, growth, use of secondary antibiotics, time off school or parental work, quality of life and adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data using a customised data extraction sheet, assessed the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' criteria, and used the GRADE criteria to rate the quality of the evidence. We used a random-effects model for meta-analysis. We presented the results narratively where we could not statistically combine data.\nMain results\nWe included 10 RCTs of high-risk children using antibiotics (azithromycin, ciprofloxacin, co-trimoxazole, isoniazid, oral penicillin V or vancomycin) to prevent LRTIs. Three studies included HIV-infected children (n = 1345), four cystic fibrosis (n = 429) and one each sickle cell disease (n = 219), cancer (n = 160) and low birth weight neonates with underlying respiratory disorders (n = 40). The study duration ranged from seven days to three years. The quality of the evidence from studies including children with HIV infection, cystic fibrosis or cancer was moderate. Due to inadequate data, we were unable to rate the quality of the evidence for two studies: one in children with sickle cell disease (low risk of bias), and another in low birth weight neonates with underlying respiratory disorders (high risk of bias).\nIn HIV-infected children receiving continuous isoniazid prophylaxis, there was no significant difference in the incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32 to 1.29, I2 statistic = 47%, P value = 0.21). There was no significant effect on mortality with co-trimoxazole or isoniazid prophylaxis (RR 0.82, 0.46 to 1.46, I2 statistic = 76%, P value = 0.58); however, analysis of one study that used co-trimoxazole showed a significant reduction in mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.85, P value = 0.001). There was a significant decrease in the rates of hospital admission per child-year of follow-up with co-trimoxazole prophylaxis in one study (P value = 0.01). There was no evidence of increased adverse events due to antibiotic prophylaxis (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.64, I2 statistic = 22%, P value = 0.28); however, there was scant reporting of antibiotic resistance - the one study that did assess this found no increase.\nIn two studies of children with cystic fibrosis receiving ciprofloxacin prophylaxis, there was no significant difference in Pseudomonas infections (RR 0.76, 0.44 to 1.31, I2 statistic = 0%, P value = 0.33). In two studies assessing the benefit of azithromycin prophylaxis, there was a significant reduction in the frequency of pulmonary exacerbations (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.76, I2 statistic = 0%, P value < 0.0001). The effect of antibiotic prophylaxis on growth in children with cystic fibrosis was inconsistent across the studies. There was an increased risk of emergence of pathogenic strains with either azithromycin or ciprofloxacin prophylaxis in two studies reporting this outcome. There was no significant difference in the quality of life (one study). In three studies, there was no significant increase in the frequency of adverse events with prophylaxis with azithromycin (two studies) or ciprofloxacin (one study). There was no evidence of increased antibiotic resistance in two studies.\nIn the one study of children with sickle cell disease, a significantly lesser proportion of children with pneumococcal septicaemia was reported with penicillin V prophylaxis (P value = 0.0025).\nIn the one study of children with cancer there was a significant decrease in Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.47, P value < 0.01). There was no significant increase in the frequency of adverse events with antibiotic prophylaxis.\nIn low birth weight children with underlying respiratory disorders, there was no significant difference in the proportion of children with pulmonary infection with vancomycin prophylaxis (P value = 0.18).\nNo included studies reported time off school or carer time off work.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is inconclusive evidence that antibiotic prophylaxis in certain groups of high-risk children can reduce pneumonia, exacerbations, hospital admission and mortality in certain conditions. However, limitations in the evidence base mean more clinical trials assessing the effectiveness of antibiotics for preventing LRTIs in children at high risk should be conducted. Specifically, clinical trials assessing the effectiveness of antibiotics for preventing LRTIs in congenital heart disease, metabolic disease, endocrine and renal disorders, neurological disease or prematurity should be a priority.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "In children with HIV, we rated the overall quality of the evidence for two studies that examined the effect of antibiotics for preventing tuberculosis as moderate because of differences in how the antibiotics were administered. We rated the quality of the evidence for antibiotic use in reducing deaths as moderate because of differences in the types of antibiotics used. Due to lack of data, we could not rate the quality of the evidence for hospital admissions.\nIn children with cystic fibrosis, we rated the overall quality of the evidence for two studies that examined the effect of antibiotics in reducing the likelihood of Pseudomonas infection as moderate because of differences in the types of antibiotics used. We rated the quality of the evidence for the effect of antibiotics in reducing 'flare-ups' as high.\nIn children with cancer, we rated the quality of the evidence for the effect of antibiotics in reducing the likelihood of Pneumocystis infection as moderate because of the likelihood of indirectness of the study results.\nDue to lack of data, we could not rate the quality of the evidence for the effect of antibiotics in reducing the likelihood of blood infections in children with sickle cell disease, or in reducing the likelihood of lung infections in low birth weight newborns with respiratory disorders; the two studies had low probability and high probability of bias respectively."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1570 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) prevents ischaemic stroke and systemic embolism in people with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) but dose adjustment, coagulation monitoring and bleeding limits its use. Direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs) are under investigation as potential alternatives.\nObjectives\nTo assess (1) the comparative efficacy of long-term anticoagulation using DTIs versus VKAs on vascular deaths and ischaemic events in people with non-valvular AF, and (2) the comparative safety of chronic anticoagulation using DTIs versus VKAs on (a) fatal and non-fatal major bleeding events including haemorrhagic strokes, (b) adverse events other than bleeding and ischaemic events that lead to treatment discontinuation and (c) all-cause mortality in people with non-valvular AF.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (July 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (The Cochrane Library, May 2013), MEDLINE (1950 to July 2013), EMBASE (1980 to October 2013), LILACS (1982 to October 2013) and trials registers (September 2013). We also searched the websites of clinical trials and pharmaceutical companies and handsearched the reference lists of articles and conference proceedings.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DTIs versus VKAs for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in people with non-valvular AF.\nData collection and analysis\nAll three review authors independently performed data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. Primary analyses compared all DTIs combined versus warfarin. We performed post hoc analyses excluding ximelagatran because this drug was withdrawn from the market owing to safety concerns.\nMain results\nWe included eight studies involving a total of 27,557 participants with non-valvular AF and one or more risk factors for stroke; 26,601 of them were assigned to standard doses groups and included in the primary analysis. The DTIs: dabigatran 110 mg twice daily and 150 mg twice daily (three studies, 12,355 participants), AZD0837 300 mg once per day (two studies, 233 participants) and ximelagatran 36 mg twice per day (three studies, 3726 participants) were compared with the VKA warfarin (10,287 participants). Overall risk of bias and statistical heterogeneity of the studies included were low.\nThe odds of vascular death and ischaemic events were not significantly different between all DTIs and warfarin (odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.05). Sensitivity analysis by dose of dabigatran on reduction in ischaemic events and vascular mortality indicated that dabigatran 150 mg twice daily was superior to warfarin although the effect estimate was of borderline statistical significance (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99). Sensitivity analyses by other factors did not alter the results. Fatal and non-fatal major bleeding events, including haemorrhagic strokes, were less frequent with the DTIs (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97). Adverse events that led to discontinuation of treatment were significantly more frequent with the DTIs (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.82 to 2.61). All-cause mortality was similar between DTIs and warfarin (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.01).\nAuthors' conclusions\nDTIs were as efficacious as VKAs for the composite outcome of vascular death and ischaemic events and only the dose of dabigatran 150 mg twice daily was found to be superior to warfarin. DTIs were associated with fewer major haemorrhagic events, including haemorrhagic strokes. Adverse events that led to discontinuation of treatment occurred more frequently with the DTIs. We detected no difference in death from all causes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Non-valvular atrial fibrillation is a type of irregular heartbeat that arises in a heart with normal valves. It increases the risk of developing blood clots in the heart which can then travel to the brain, leading to a stroke, and to other parts of the body. Warfarin (a vitamin K antagonist) is a drug that prevents the formation of such clots, thus reducing the risk of stroke. However, the need for frequent blood tests to adjust the dose and the risk of bleeding limits the use of warfarin. The oral DTIs represent a potential alternative. We aimed to establish the comparative effectiveness and safety of these new drugs compared with the standard treatment (warfarin) used for long-term anticoagulation in people with AF."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1571 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCystic fibrosis (CF) a life-limiting inherited disease affecting a number of organs, but classically associated with chronic lung infection and progressive loss of lung function. Chronic infection by Burkholderia cepacia complex (BCC) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality and therefore represents a significant challenge to clinicians treating people with CF. This review examines the current evidence for long-term antibiotic therapy in people with CF and chronic BCC infection.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review is to assess the effects of long-term oral and inhaled antibiotic therapy targeted against chronic BCC lung infections in people with CF. The primary objective is to assess the efficacy of treatments in terms of improvements in lung function and reductions in exacerbation rate. Secondary objectives include quantifying adverse events, mortality and changes in quality of life associated with treatment.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched online trial registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.\nDate of last search: 12 April 2021.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of long-term antibiotic therapy in people with CF and chronic BCC infection.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included one RCT (100 participants) which lasted 52 weeks comparing continuous inhaled aztreonam lysine (AZLI) and placebo in a double-blind RCT for 24 weeks, followed by a 24-week open-label extension and a four-week follow-up period. The average participant age was 26.3 years, 61% were male and average lung function was 56.5% predicted.\nTreatment with AZLI for 24 weeks was not associated with improvement in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), mean difference 0.91% (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.15 to 4.97) (moderate-quality evidence). The median time to the next exacerbation was 75 days in the AZLI group compared to 51 days in the placebo group, but the difference was not significant (P = 0.27) (moderate-quality evidence). Similarly, the number of participants hospitalised for respiratory exacerbations showed no difference between groups, risk ratio (RR) 0.88 (95% CI 0.53 to 1.45) (moderate-quality evidence). Overall adverse events were similar between groups, RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.19) (moderate-quality evidence). There were no significant differences between treatment groups in relation to mortality (moderate-quality evidence), quality of life or sputum density.\nIn relation to methodological quality, the overall risk of bias in the study was assessed to be unclear to low risk.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found insufficient evidence from the literature to determine an effective strategy for antibiotic therapy for treating chronic BCC infection.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We reviewed the evidence for long-term antibiotic treatments for people with cystic fibrosis who are infected with Burkholderia cepacia complex (bacteria composed of at least 20 different species)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1572 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCardiovascular disease (CVD) is the major cause of mortality worldwide. Coronary artery disease (CAD) contributes to half of mortalities caused by CVD. The mainstay of management of CAD is medical therapy and revascularisation. Revascularisation can be achieved via coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Peripheral arteries, such as the femoral or radial artery, provide the access to the coronary arteries to perform diagnostic or therapeutic (or both) procedures.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of the transradial compared to the transfemoral approach in people with CAD undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography (CA) or PCI (or both).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials on 10 October 2017: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in August 2017. There were no language restrictions. Reference lists were also checked and we contacted authors of included studies for further information.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials that compared transradial and transfemoral approaches in adults (18 years of age or older) undergoing diagnostic CA or PCI (or both) for CAD.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. At least two authors independently screened trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We contacted trial authors for missing information. We used risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All analyses were checked by another author.\nMain results\nWe identified 31 studies (44 reports) including 27,071 participants and two ongoing studies. The risk of bias in the studies was low or unclear for several domains. Compared to the transfemoral approach, the transradial approach reduced short-term net adverse clinical events (NACE) (i.e. assessed during hospitalisation and up to 30 days of follow-up) (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.94; 17,133 participants; 4 studies; moderate quality evidence), cardiac death (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.88; 11,170 participants; 11 studies; moderate quality evidence). However, short-term myocardial infarction was similar between both groups (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 19,430 participants; 11 studies; high quality evidence). The transradial approach had a lower procedural success rate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.96 to 0.98; 25,920 participants; 28 studies; moderate quality evidence), but was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95; 18,955 participants; 10 studies; high quality evidence), bleeding (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.74; 23,043 participants; 20 studies; low quality evidence), and access site complications (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.59; 16,112 participants; 24 studies; low quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nTransradial approach for diagnostic CA or PCI (or both) in CAD may reduce short-term NACE, cardiac death, all-cause mortality, bleeding, and access site complications. There is insufficient evidence regarding the long-term clinical outcomes (i.e. beyond 30 days of follow-up).\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Should physicians introduce the catheter (a long, thin tube) through the femoral artery (transfemoral access via the groin) or the radial artery (transradial access via the wrist) to reach the coronary arteries (blood vessels supplying the heart) for the diagnosis or treatment of coronary artery disease?"
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1573 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHip fractures are a major healthcare problem, presenting a challenge and burden to individuals and healthcare systems. The number of hip fractures globally is rising. The majority of extracapsular hip fractures are treated surgically.\nObjectives\nTo assess the relative effects (benefits and harms) of all surgical treatments used in the management of extracapsular hip fractures in older adults, using a network meta-analysis of randomised trials, and to generate a hierarchy of interventions according to their outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and five other databases in July 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing different treatments for fragility extracapsular hip fractures in older adults. We included internal and external fixation, arthroplasties and non-operative treatment. We excluded studies of hip fractures with specific pathologies other than osteoporosis or resulting from high-energy trauma.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. One review author completed data extraction which was checked by a second review author. We collected data for three outcomes at different time points: mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) - both reported within 4 months, at 12 months and after 24 months of surgery, and unplanned return to theatre (at end of study follow-up).\nWe performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) with Stata software, using frequentist methods, and calculated the differences between treatments using risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We also performed direct comparisons using the same codes.\nMain results\nWe included 184 studies (160 RCTs and 24 quasi-RCTs) with 26,073 participants with 26,086 extracapsular hip fractures in the review. The mean age in most studies ranged from 60 to 93 years, and 69% were women.\nAfter discussion with clinical experts, we selected nine nodes that represented the best balance between clinical plausibility and efficiency of the networks: fixed angle plate (dynamic and static), cephalomedullary nail (short and long), condylocephalic nail, external fixation, hemiarthroplasty, total hip arthroplasty (THA) and non-operative treatment. Seventy-three studies (with 11,126 participants) with data for at least two of these treatments contributed to the NMA.\nWe selected the dynamic fixed angle plate as a reference treatment against which other treatments were compared. This was a common treatment in the networks, providing a clinically appropriate comparison.\nWe downgraded the certainty of the evidence for serious and very serious risks of bias, and because some of the estimates included the possibility of transitivity owing to the proportion of stable and unstable fractures between treatment comparisons. We also downgraded if we noted evidence of inconsistency in direct or indirect estimates from which the network estimate was derived. Most estimates included the possibility of benefits and harms, and we downgraded the evidence for these treatments for imprecision.\nOverall, 20.2% of participants who received the reference treatment had died by 12 months after surgery. We noted no evidence of any differences in mortality at this time point between the treatments compared. Effect estimates of all treatments included plausible benefits as well as harms. Short cephalomedullary nails had the narrowest confidence interval (CI), with 7 fewer deaths (26 fewer to 15 more) per 1000 participants, compared to the reference treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.07). THA had the widest CI, with 62 fewer deaths (177 fewer to 610 more) per 1000 participants, compared to the reference treatment (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.12 to 4.03). The certainty of the evidence for all treatments was low to very low. Although we ranked the treatments, this ranking should be interpreted cautiously because of the imprecision in all the network estimates for these treatments.\nOverall, 4.3% of participants who received the reference treatment had unplanned return to theatre. Compared to this treatment, we found very low-certainty evidence that 58 more participants (14 to 137 more) per 1000 participants returned to theatre if they were treated with a static fixed angle plate (RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.50), and 91 more participants (37 to 182 more) per 1000 participants returned to theatre if treated with a condylocephalic nail (RR 3.33, 95% CI 1.95 to 5.68). We also found that these treatments were ranked as having the highest probability of unplanned return to theatre. In the remaining treatments, we noted no evidence of any differences in unplanned return to theatre, with effect estimates including benefits as well as harms. The certainty of the evidence for these other treatments ranged from low to very low.\nWe did not use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for early mortality, but our findings were similar to those for 12-month mortality, with no evidence of any differences in treatments when compared to dynamic fixed angle plate. Very few studies reported HRQoL and we were unable to build networks from these studies and perform network meta-analysis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAcross the networks, we found that there was considerable variability in the ranking of each treatment such that there was no one outstanding, or subset of outstanding, superior treatments. However, static implants such as condylocephalic nails and static fixed angle plates did yield a higher risk of unplanned return to theatre. We had insufficient evidence to determine the effects of any treatments on HRQoL, and this review includes data for only two outcomes. More detailed pairwise comparisons of some of the included treatments are reported in other Cochrane Reviews in this series. Short cephalomedullary nails versus dynamic fixed angle plates contributed the most evidence to each network, and our findings indicate that there may be no difference between these treatments. These data included people with both stable and unstable extracapsular fractures. At this time, there are too few studies to draw any conclusions regarding the benefits or harms of arthroplasty or external fixation for extracapsular fracture in older adults.\nFuture research could focus on the benefits and harms of arthroplasty interventions compared with internal fixation using a dynamic implant.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the treatments?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "- Using metal implants to fix the broken parts of the bone. A nail is inserted inside the thigh bone. These long or short nails may be inserted downwards from the hip joint towards the knee (cephalomedullary nails). Some nails may be inserted upwards from the knee towards the hip joint (condylocephalic nail). Alternatively, the surgeon may use a 'fixed angle plate' which sits on the outer edge of the broken bone and is attached to the bone with screws or pins. Often the screws for these plates slide in a sleeve and the plate is called a dynamic fixed angle plate. Without this, it is a static fixed angle plate.\n- Replacing the broken hip with an artificial one. This can be done using a hemiarthroplasty (HA), which replaces only the ball part of the joint, or with a total hip arthroplasty (THA) which replaces all of the hip joint including the socket.\n- Using external fixation. Pins or screws are placed into the bones around the fracture and a metal frame holds these nails in place. The frame sits outside the body, around the broken hip.\n- Treatment without an operation, usually requiring a period of rest in bed whilst the leg is held in position using traction with weights."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1574 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) represents the most severe course of COVID-19 (caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus), usually resulting in a prolonged stay in an intensive care unit (ICU) and high mortality rates. Despite the fact that most affected individuals need invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), evidence on specific ventilation strategies for ARDS caused by COVID-19 is scarce. Spontaneous breathing during IMV is part of a therapeutic concept comprising light levels of sedation and the avoidance of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA). This approach is potentially associated with both advantages (e.g. a preserved diaphragmatic motility and an optimised ventilation-perfusion ratio of the ventilated lung), as well as risks (e.g. a higher rate of ventilator-induced lung injury or a worsening of pulmonary oedema due to increases in transpulmonary pressure). As a consequence, spontaneous breathing in people with COVID-19-ARDS who are receiving IMV is subject to an ongoing debate amongst intensivists.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of early spontaneous breathing activity in invasively ventilated people with COVID-19 with ARDS compared to ventilation strategies that avoid spontaneous breathing.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, Clinical Trials.gov WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv) and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies from their inception to 2 March 2022.\nSelection criteria\nEligible study designs comprised randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated spontaneous breathing in participants with COVID-19-related ARDS compared to ventilation strategies that avoided spontaneous breathing (e.g. using NMBA or deep sedation levels). Additionally, we considered controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series with comparison group, prospective cohort studies and retrospective cohort studies. For these non-RCT studies, we considered a minimum total number of 50 participants to be compared as necessary for inclusion. Prioritised outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinical improvement or worsening, quality of life, rate of (serious) adverse events and rate of pneumothorax. Additional outcomes were need for tracheostomy, duration of ICU length of stay and duration of hospitalisation.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.\nTwo review authors independently screened all studies at the title/abstract and full-text screening stage. We also planned to conduct data extraction and risk of bias assessment in duplicate. We planned to conduct meta-analysis for each prioritised outcome, as well as subgroup analyses of mortality regarding severity of oxygenation impairment and duration of ARDS. In addition, we planned to perform sensitivity analyses for studies at high risk of bias, studies using NMBA in addition to deep sedation level to avoid spontaneous breathing and a comparison of preprints versus peer-reviewed articles. We planned to assess the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe identified no eligible studies for this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no direct evidence on whether early spontaneous breathing in SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS is beneficial or detrimental to this particular group of patients. RCTs comparing early spontaneous breathing with ventilatory strategies not allowing for spontaneous breathing in SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS are necessary to determine its value within the treatment of severely ill people with COVID-19. Additionally, studies should aim to clarify whether treatment effects differ between people with SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS and people with non-SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "After systematic search, we found no records that met the inclusion criteria."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1575 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAlthough complementary feeding is a universal practice, the methods and manner in which it is practiced vary between cultures, individuals and socioeconomic classes. The period of complementary feeding is a critical time of transition in the life of an infant, and inappropriate complementary feeding practices, with their associated adverse health consequences, remain a significant global public health problem. Educational interventions are widely acknowledged as effective in promoting public health strategy, and those aimed at improving complementary feeding practices provide information about proper complementary feeding practices to caregivers of infants/children. It is therefore important to summarise evidence on the effectiveness of educational interventions to improve the complementary feeding practices of caregivers of infants.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of educational interventions for improving the complementary feeding (weaning) practices of primary caregivers of children of complementary feeding age, and related health and growth outcomes in infants.\nSearch methods\nIn November 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 10 other databases and two trials registers. We also searched the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews to identify any additional studies. We did not limit the searches by date, language or publication status.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparing educational interventions to no intervention, usual practice, or educational interventions provided in conjunction with another intervention, so long as the educational intervention was only available in the experimental group and the adjunctive intervention was available to the control group. Study participants included caregivers of infants aged 4 to 24 months undergoing complementary feeding. Pregnant women who were expected to give birth and commence complementary feeding during the period of the study were also included.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data on participants, settings, interventions, methodology and outcomes using a specifically-developed and piloted data extraction form. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MD) and 95% CIs for continuous data. Where data permitted, we conducted a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. We assessed the included studies for risk of bias and also assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 23 studies (from 35 reports) with a total of 11,170 caregiver-infant pairs who were randomly assigned to receive an educational intervention delivered to the caregiver or usual care. Nineteen of the included studies were community-based studies while four were facility-based studies. In addition, 13 of the included studies were cluster-randomised while the others were individually randomised. Generally, the interventions were focused on the introduction of complementary feeding at the appropriate time, the types and amount of complementary foods to be fed to infants, and hygiene. Using the GRADE criteria, we assessed the quality of the evidence as moderate, mostly due to inadequate allocation concealment and insufficient blinding.\nEducational interventions led to improvements in complementary feeding practices for age at introduction of complementary foods (average RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; 4 studies, 1738 children; moderate-quality evidence) and hygiene practices (average RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.55; 4 studies, 2029 participants; moderate-quality evidence). For duration of exclusive breastfeeding, pooled results were compatible with both a reduction and an increase in the outcome (average RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.22; 3 studies, 1544 children; very low-quality evidence). There was limited (low to very low-quality) evidence of an effect for all growth outcomes.\nQuality of evidence\nThere is moderate to very low-quality evidence that educational interventions can improve complementary feeding practices but insufficient evidence to conclude that it impacts growth outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, we found evidence that education improves complementary feeding practices.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Does education improve complementary feeding practices of caregivers of infants as well as the health and growth of the infants?"
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1576 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms among sedentary workers is high. Interventions that promote occupational standing or walking have been found to reduce occupational sedentary time, but it is unclear whether these interventions ameliorate musculoskeletal symptoms in sedentary workers.\nObjectives\nTo investigate the effectiveness of workplace interventions to increase standing or walking for decreasing musculoskeletal symptoms in sedentary workers.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, OSH UPDATE, PEDro, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal up to January 2019. We also screened reference lists of primary studies and contacted experts to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised controlled trials (cluster-RCTs), quasi RCTs, and controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies of interventions to reduce or break up workplace sitting by encouraging standing or walking in the workplace among workers with musculoskeletal symptoms. The primary outcome was self-reported intensity or presence of musculoskeletal symptoms by body region and the impact of musculoskeletal symptoms such as pain-related disability. We considered work performance and productivity, sickness absenteeism, and adverse events such as venous disorders or perinatal complications as secondary outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles for study eligibility. These review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors to request additional data when required. We used GRADE considerations to assess the quality of evidence provided by studies that contributed to the meta-analyses.\nMain results\nWe found ten studies including three RCTs, five cluster RCTs, and two CBA studies with a total of 955 participants, all from high-income countries. Interventions targeted changes to the physical work environment such as provision of sit-stand or treadmill workstations (four studies), an activity tracker (two studies) for use in individual approaches, and multi-component interventions (five studies). We did not find any studies that specifically targeted only the organisational level components. Two studies assessed pain-related disability.\nPhysical work environment\nThere was no significant difference in the intensity of low back symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.80 to 0.10; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) nor in the intensity of upper back symptoms (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -.96 to 0.00; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) in the short term (less than six months) for interventions using sit-stand workstations compared to no intervention. No studies examined discomfort outcomes at medium (six to less than 12 months) or long term (12 months and more). No significant reduction in pain-related disability was noted when a sit-stand workstation was used compared to when no intervention was provided in the medium term (mean difference (MD) -0.4, 95% CI -2.70 to 1.90; 1 RCT; low-quality evidence).\nIndividual approach\nThere was no significant difference in the intensity or presence of low back symptoms (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.77; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), upper back symptoms (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.84; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), neck symptoms (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.78; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), shoulder symptoms (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.90; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), or elbow/wrist and hand symptoms (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.90; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) for interventions involving an activity tracker compared to an alternative intervention or no intervention in the short term. No studies provided outcomes at medium term, and only one study examined outcomes at long term.\nOrganisational level\nNo studies evaluated the effects of interventions solely targeted at the organisational level.\nMulti-component approach\nThere was no significant difference in the proportion of participants reporting low back symptoms (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.27; 3 RCTs; low-quality evidence), neck symptoms (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.32; 3 RCTs; low-quality evidence), shoulder symptoms (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.12 to 5.80; 2 RCTs; very low-quality evidence), and upper back symptoms (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.32; 3 RCTs; low-quality evidence) for interventions using a multi-component approach compared to no intervention in the short term. Only one RCT examined outcomes at medium term and found no significant difference in low back symptoms (MD -0.40, 95% CI -1.95 to 1.15; 1 RCT; low-quality evidence), upper back symptoms (MD -0.70, 95% CI -2.12 to 0.72; low-quality evidence), and leg symptoms (MD -0.80, 95% CI -2.49 to 0.89; low-quality evidence). There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants reporting low back symptoms (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.40; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), neck symptoms (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08; two RCTs; low-quality evidence), and upper back symptoms (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.08 to 3.29; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) for interventions using a multi-component approach compared to no intervention in the long term. There was a statistically significant reduction in pain-related disability following a multi-component intervention compared to no intervention in the medium term (MD -8.80, 95% CI -17.46 to -0.14; 1 RCT; low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently available limited evidence does not show that interventions to increase standing or walking in the workplace reduced musculoskeletal symptoms among sedentary workers at short-, medium-, or long-term follow up. The quality of evidence is low or very low, largely due to study design and small sample sizes. Although the results of this review are not statistically significant, some interventions targeting the physical work environment are suggestive of an intervention effect. Therefore, in the future, larger cluster-RCTs recruiting participants with baseline musculoskeletal symptoms and long-term outcomes are needed to determine whether interventions to increase standing or walking can reduce musculoskeletal symptoms among sedentary workers and can be sustained over time.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"The purpose of this review\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We wanted to find out the effects of interventions aimed at increasing standing or walking for decreasing musculoskeletal symptoms in sedentary workers. We searched the literature in various databases up to January 2019."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1577 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nProlonging kidney transplant survival is an important clinical priority. Induction immunosuppression with antibody therapy is recommended at transplantation and non-depleting interleukin-2 receptor monoclonal antibodies (IL2Ra) are considered first line. It is suggested that recipients at high risk of rejection should receive lymphocyte-depleting antibodies but the relative benefits and harms of the available agents are uncertain.\nObjectives\nWe aimed to: evaluate the relative and absolute effects of different antibody preparations (except IL2Ra) when used as induction therapy in kidney transplant recipients; determine how the benefits and adverse events vary for each antibody preparation; determine how the benefits and harms vary for different formulations of antibody preparation; and determine whether the benefits and harms vary in specific subgroups of recipients (e.g. children and sensitised recipients).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 29 August 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing monoclonal or polyclonal antibodies with placebo, no treatment, or other antibody therapy in adults and children who had received a kidney transplant.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Dichotomous outcomes are reported as relative risk (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI).\nMain results\nWe included 99 studies (269 records; 8956 participants; 33 with contemporary agents). Methodology was incompletely reported in most studies leading to lower confidence in the treatment estimates.\nAntithymocyte globulin (ATG) prevented acute graft rejection (17 studies: RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.78). The benefits of ATG on graft rejection were similar when used with (12 studies: RR 0.61, 0.49 to 0.76) or without (5 studies: RR 0.65, 0.43 to 0.98) calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) treatment. ATG (with CNI therapy) had uncertain effects on death (3 to 6 months, 3 studies: RR 0.41, 0.13 to 1.22; 1 to 2 years, 5 studies: RR 0.75, 0.27 to 2.06; 5 years, 2 studies: RR 0.94, 0.11 to 7.81) and graft loss (3 to 6 months, 4 studies: RR 0.60, 0.34 to 1.05; 1 to 2 years, 3 studies: RR 0.65, 0.36 to 1.19). The effect of ATG on death-censored graft loss was uncertain at 1 to 2 years and 5 years. In non-CNI studies, ATG had uncertain effects on death but reduced death-censored graft loss (6 studies: RR 0.55, 0.38 to 0.78). When CNI and older non-CNI studies were combined, a benefit was seen with ATG at 1 to 2 years for both all-cause graft loss (7 studies: RR 0.71, 0.53 to 0.95) and death-censored graft loss (8 studies: RR 0.55, 0.39 to 0.77) but not sustained longer term. ATG increased cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection (6 studies: RR 1.55, 1.24 to 1.95), leucopenia (4 studies: RR 3.86, 2.79 to 5.34) and thrombocytopenia (4 studies: RR 2.41, 1.61 to 3.61) but had uncertain effects on delayed graft function, malignancy, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD), and new onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT).\nAlemtuzumab was compared to ATG in six studies (446 patients) with early steroid withdrawal (ESW) or steroid minimisation. Alemtuzumab plus steroid minimisation reduced acute rejection compared to ATG at one year (4 studies: RR 0.57, 0.35 to 0.93). In the two studies with ESW only in the alemtuzumab arm, the effect of alemtuzumab on acute rejection at 1 year was uncertain compared to ATG (RR 1.27, 0.50 to 3.19). Alemtuzumab had uncertain effects on death (1 year, 2 studies: RR 0.39, 0.06 to 2.42; 2 to 3 years, 3 studies: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.95), graft loss (1 year, 2 studies: RR 0.39, 0.13 to 1.30; 2 to 3 years, 3 studies: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.06), and death-censored graft loss (1 year, 2 studies: RR 0.38, 0.08 to 1.81; 2 to 3 years, 3 studies: RR 2.45, 95% CI 0.67 to 8.97) compared to ATG. Creatinine clearance was lower with alemtuzumab plus ESW at 6 months (2 studies: MD -13.35 mL/min, -23.91 to -2.80) and 2 years (2 studies: MD -12.86 mL/min, -23.73 to -2.00) compared to ATG plus triple maintenance. Across all 6 studies, the effect of alemtuzumab versus ATG was uncertain on all-cause infection, CMV infection, BK virus infection, malignancy, and PTLD. The effect of alemtuzumab with steroid minimisation on NODAT was uncertain, compared to ATG with steroid maintenance.\nAlemtuzumab plus ESW compared with triple maintenance without induction therapy had uncertain effects on death and all-cause graft loss at 1 year, acute rejection at 6 months and 1 year. CMV infection was increased (2 studies: RR 2.28, 1.18 to 4.40). Treatment effects were uncertain for NODAT, thrombocytopenia, and malignancy or PTLD.\nRituximab had uncertain effects on death, graft loss, acute rejection and all other adverse outcomes compared to placebo.\nAuthors' conclusions\nATG reduces acute rejection but has uncertain effects on death, graft survival, malignancy and NODAT, and increases CMV infection, thrombocytopenia and leucopenia. Given a 45% acute rejection risk without ATG induction, seven patients would need treatment to prevent one having rejection, while incurring an additional patient experiencing CMV disease for every 12 treated. Excluding non-CNI studies, the risk of rejection was 37% without induction with six patients needing treatment to prevent one having rejection.\nIn the context of steroid minimisation, alemtuzumab prevents acute rejection at 1 year compared to ATG. Eleven patients would require treatment with alemtuzumab to prevent 1 having rejection, assuming a 21% rejection risk with ATG.\nTriple maintenance without induction therapy compared to alemtuzumab combined with ESW had similar rates of acute rejection but adverse effects including NODAT were poorly documented. Alemtuzumab plus steroid withdrawal would cause one additional patient experiencing CMV disease for every six patients treated compared to no induction and triple maintenance, in the absence of any clinical benefit. Overall, ATG and alemtuzumab decrease acute rejection at a cost of increased CMV disease while patient-centred outcomes (reduced death or lower toxicity) do not appear to be improved.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Overall the available research on antibody treatment for kidney transplantation is limited when clinicians and patients make joint decisions about antibody therapy at the time of a kidney transplant because of the uncertain long term benefits and hazards of these treatments."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1578 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nExchange blood transfusion (EBT) is a form of whole blood transfusion in which the total blood volume is replaced within a few hours. In perinatal and neonatal medicine, EBT is most often used in the management of severe anaemia or severe hyperbilirubinaemia in the first week of life. Hypocalcaemia, one of the common morbidities associated with EBT, is thought to arise from the chelating effects of the citrate commonly used as an anticoagulant in the donor's blood. This disorder manifests with muscular and nervous irritability and cardiac arrhythmias.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether the use of prophylactic calcium reduces the risk of hypocalcaemia-related morbidities and death among newborn infants receiving EBT.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 5), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 29 June 2016), Embase (1980 to 29 June 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 29 June 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised and quasi-randomised trials of prophylactic intravenous calcium in EBT for newborns.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed and extracted data on methods, participants, interventions, and outcomes (mean total and ionised serum calcium before and after EBT and the presence of adverse events such as hypoglycaemia, apnoea, cardiac arrest, and death immediately after EBT). We reported results as means difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous outcomes and risk ratio (RR) and risk differences (RD) and 95% CIs for dichotomous outcomes. We assessed quality using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' assessment tool and the GRADE system.\nMain results\nWe found only one quasi-randomised trial with 30 participants that met our inclusion criteria. In the small trial, total and ionised serum calcium levels were measured immediately before and immediately after EBT. All the participants were included in the final analysis and all the important outcomes were reported.\nPrimary outcomes\nThere was one death in each group (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.55; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.18; participants = 30; studies = 1). The study did not report the presence of cardiac arrhythmias within one week of EBT and the number of infants with serum calcium levels (total less than 8 mg/dL (2 mmol/L) or ionised less than 4.4 mg/dL (1.1 mmol/L)).\nPair-wise comparison of EBT with intravenous 10% calcium gluconate versus EBT without intravenous calcium (change from baseline) showed mean total serum calcium was raised in the intervention group compared to the control group (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.81 to -0.11; participants = 30; studies = 1). Very low-quality evidence also indicated an increase in the levels of mean ionised serum calcium in the intervention group compared to the control group (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.11; participants = 30; studies = 1).\nSecondary outcomes\nAdverse reactions to intravenous calcium therapy included cardiac arrest in one neonate in the intervention arm (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 68.26; RD 0.07, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.23; participants = 30; studies = 1). There was apnoea and hypoglycaemia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.55; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.18; participants = 30; studies = 1) in the two neonates who died. Data were not available for other major secondary outcomes such as the number of infants with reduced serum magnesium, reduced parathormone, increased calcitonin, presence of seizures, carpopedal spasm, jitteriness and prolonged QTc interval on electrocardiography within one week of EBT.\nAuthors' conclusions\nVery low-quality data from one quasi-randomised controlled trial suggested that the mean serum total and ionised calcium increased in the study group but decreased in the control group immediately after EBT. However, the mean values of total and ionised calcium in both arms of studies remained within international reference ranges. Unfortunately, data were not available to assess the trend of total and ionised serum calcium to the end of the first week after EBT. Therefore, due to the very low quality of evidence available, it is difficult to support or reject the continual use of prophylactic intravenous calcium in newborn infants receiving EBT. Researchers are encouraged to conduct more robustly designed trials with larger numbers of participants, and particularly, addressing the pattern of differences based on gestational age of participants, type of anticoagulant used, and the volume of blood used.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "EBT is a type of massive blood transfusion (where blood is taken from a healthy person and infused into the bloodstream of an ill person) which predisposes to low blood calcium as a result of the bonding (chelating) effect of anticlotting chemicals used to preserve donor's blood. Low blood calcium can cause abnormal functions of muscles (including the heart) and nerves. In this review, we investigated the benefits of administered calcium on blood calcium levels and the safety of calcium administration to newborn infants receiving EBT.\nWe searched medical databases for clinical trials that administered calcium or no calcium to newborns aged from birth to 28 days receiving EBT and monitored a range of symptoms including death and heart problems."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1579 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nApical vaginal prolapse is the descent of the uterus or vaginal vault (post-hysterectomy). Various surgical treatments are available, but there are no guidelines to recommend which is the best.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of any surgical intervention compared to another intervention for the management of apical vaginal prolapse.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group's Specialised Register of controlled trials, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings and ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 14 March 2022).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery and recurrent prolapse (any site).\nMain results\nWe included 59 RCTs (6705 women) comparing surgical procedures for apical vaginal prolapse. Evidence certainty ranged from very low to moderate. Limitations included imprecision, poor methodology, and inconsistency.\nVaginal procedures compared to sacral colpopexy for vault prolapse (seven RCTs, n=613; six months to f four-year review)\nAwareness of prolapse was more common after vaginal procedures (risk ratio (RR) 2.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 4.21, 4 RCTs, n = 346, I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). If 8% of women are aware of prolapse after sacral colpopexy, 18% (10% to 32%) are likely to be aware after vaginal procedures.\nSurgery for recurrent prolapse was more common after vaginal procedures (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.34 to 4.04; 6 RCTs, n = 497, I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). The confidence interval suggests that if 6% of women require repeat prolapse surgery after sacral colpopexy, 14% (8% to 25%) are likely to require it after vaginal procedures.\nProlapse on examination is probably more common after vaginal procedures (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.65; 5 RCTs, n = 422; I2 = 24%, moderate-certainty evidence). If 18% of women have recurrent prolapse after sacral colpopexy, between 23% and 47% are likely to do so after vaginal procedures.\nOther outcomes:\nStress urinary incontinence (SUI) was more common after vaginal procedures (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.94; 3 RCTs, n = 263; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence).\nThe effect of vaginal procedures on dyspareunia was uncertain (RR 3.44, 95% CI 0.61 to 19.53; 3 RCTs, n = 106, I2 = 65%, low-certainty evidence).\nVaginal hysterectomy compared to sacral hysteropexy/cervicopexy (six RCTS, 554 women, one to seven year review)\nAwareness of prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.01 95% CI 0.10 to 9.98; 2 RCTs, n = 200, very low-certainty evidence).\nSurgery for recurrent prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.54; 5 RCTs, n = 403; I2 = 9%, low-certainty evidence).\nProlapse on examination- there was little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.11; 2 RCTs n = 230; I2 = 9%, moderate-certainty evidence).\nVaginal hysteropexy compared to sacral hysteropexy/cervicopexy (two RCTs, n = 388, 1-four-year review)\nAwareness of prolapse - No difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.55 95% CI 0.21 to 1.44; 1 RCT n = 257, low-certainty evidence).\nSurgery for recurrent prolapse - No difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.44; 2 RCTs, n = 345; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence).\nProlapse on examination- There were little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; 2 RCTs n =367; I2 =9%, moderate-certainty evidence).\nVaginal hysterectomy compared to vaginal hysteropexy (four RCTs, n = 620, 6 months to five-year review)\nAwareness of prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.0 95% CI 0.44 to 2.24; 2 RCTs, n = 365, I2 = 0% moderate-quality certainty evidence).\nSurgery for recurrent prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.60; 3 RCTs, n = 443; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence).\nProlapse on examination- There were little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.61; 2 RCTs n =361; I2 =74%, low-certainty evidence).\nOther outcomes:\nTotal vaginal length (TVL) was shorter after vaginal hysterectomy (mean difference (MD) 0.89cm 95% CI 0.49 to 1.28cm shorter; 3 RCTs, n=413, low-certainty evidence).\nThere is probably little or no difference between the groups in terms of operating time, dyspareunia and stress urinary incontinence.\nOther analyses\nThere were no differences identified for any of our primary review outcomes between different types of vaginal native tissue repair (4 RCTs), comparisons of graft materials for vaginal support (3 RCTs), pectopexy versus other apical suspensions (5 RCTs), continuous versus interrupted sutures at sacral colpopexy (2 RCTs), absorbable versus permanent sutures at apical suspensions (5 RCTs) or different routes of sacral colpopexy. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy is associated with shorter admission time than open approach (3 RCTs) and quicker operating time than robotic approach (3 RCTs). Transvaginal mesh does not confer any advantage over native tissue repair, however is associated with a 17.5% rate of mesh exposure (7 RCTs).\nAuthors' conclusions\nSacral colpopexy is associated with lower risk of awareness of prolapse, recurrent prolapse on examination, repeat surgery for prolapse, and postoperative SUI than a variety of vaginal interventions.\nThe limited evidence does not support the use of transvaginal mesh compared to native tissue repair for apical vaginal prolapse.\nThere were no differences in primary outcomes for different routes of sacral colpopexy. However, the laparoscopic approach is associated with a shorter operating time than robotic approach, and shorter admission than open approach.\nThere were no significant differences between vaginal hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine prolapse nor between vaginal hysteropexy and abdominal hysteropexy/cervicopexy.\nThere were no differences detected between absorbable and non absorbable sutures however, the certainty of evidence for mesh exposure and dyspareunia was low.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Which surgical interventions for apical vaginal prolapse have the best outcomes?"
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1580 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBladder pain syndrome (BPS), which includes the condition of interstitial cystitis, is a poorly understood clinical condition for which patients present with varying symptoms. Management of BPS is challenging for both patients and practitioners. At present, there is no universally accepted diagnosis and diverse causes have been proposed. This is reflected in wide-ranging treatment options, used alone or in combination, with limited evidence. A network meta-analysis (NMA) simultaneously comparing multiple treatments may help to determine the best treatment options for patients with BPS.\nObjectives\nTo conduct a network meta-analysis to assess the effects of interventions for treating people with symptoms of bladder pain syndrome (BPS).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and handsearched journals and conference proceedings (searched 11 May 2018) and the reference lists of relevant articles. We conducted a further search on 5 June 2019, which yielded four small studies that were screened for eligibility but were not incorporated into the review.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of interventions for treating adults with BPS. All types of interventions (including conservative, pharmacological and surgical) were eligible.\nData collection and analysis\nWe assessed the risk of bias of included studies using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool. Primary outcomes were the number of people cured or improved, pain, frequency and nocturia. For each outcome, random-effects NMA models were fitted using WinBUGS 1.4. We monitored median odds ratios (ORs) for binary outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes with 95% credible intervals (Crls). We compared results of the NMA with direct evidence from pairwise meta-analysis of head-to-head trials. We used the CINeMA tool to assess the certainty of evidence for selected treatment categories.\nMain results\nWe included 81 RCTs involving 4674 people with a median of 38 participants (range 10 to 369) per RCT. Most trials compared treatment against control; few trials compared two active treatments. There were 65 different active treatments, and some comparisons were informed by direct evidence from only one trial. To simplify, treatments were grouped into 31 treatment categories by mode of action. Most studies were judged to have unclear or high risk of bias for most domains, particularly for selection and detection bias. Overall, the NMA suggested that six (proportion cured/improved), one (pain), one (frequency) and zero (nocturia) treatment categories were effective compared with control, but there was great uncertainty around estimates of effect.\nDue to the large number of intervention comparisons in this review, we focus on three interventions: antidepressants, pentosan polysulfate (PPS) and neuromuscular blockade. We selected these interventions on the basis that they are given 'strong recommendations' in the EAU Guidelines for management of BPS (EAU Guidelines 2019).\nWe found very low-certainty evidence suggesting that antidepressants were associated with greater likelihood of cure or improvement compared with control (OR 5.91, 95% CrI 1.12 to 37.56), but it was uncertain whether they reduced pain (MD -1.27, 95% CrI -3.25 to 0.71; low-certainty evidence), daytime frequency (MD -2.41, 95% CrI -6.85 to 2.05; very low-certainty evidence) or nocturia (MD 0.01, 95% CrI -2.53 to 2.50; very low-certainty evidence).\nThere was no evidence that PPS had improved cure/improvement rates (OR 0.14, 95% CrI 0.40 to 3.35; very low-certainty evidence) or reduced pain (MD 0.42, 95% CrI -1.04 to 1.91; low-certainty evidence), frequency (MD -0.37, 95% CrI -5.00 to 3.44; very low-certainty evidence) or nocturia (MD -1.20, 95% CrI -3.62 to 1.28; very low-certainty evidence).\nThere was evidence that neuromuscular blockade resulted in greater cure or improvement (OR 5.80, 95% CrI 2.08 to 18.30) but no evidence that it improved pain (MD -0.33, 95% CrI -1.71 to 1.03), frequency (MD -0.91, 95% CrI -3.24, 1.29) or nocturia (MD -0.04, 95% CrI -1.35 to 1.27). The certainty of this evidence was always very low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain whether some treatments may be effective in treating patients with BPS because the certainty of evidence was generally low or very low. Data were available for a relatively large number of trials, but most had small sample sizes and effects of treatments often could not be estimated with precision. An NMA was successfully conducted, but limited numbers of small trials for each treatment category hampered our ability to fully exploit the advantages of this analysis. Larger, more focused trials are needed to improve the current evidence base.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is bladder pain syndrome?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Bladder pain syndrome (BPS; also called painful bladder syndrome or interstitial cystitis) is a long-term painful condition that affects the bladder. ‘Syndrome’ refers to a collection of symptoms. In BPS, these symptoms include: intense pain in the pelvis (felt below the bellybutton); sudden strong urges to urinate; needing to urinate more often than usual; and waking up several times during the night to urinate.\nBPS is more common in women. We do not know what causes it or how to cure it. Symptoms sometimes come and go in phases. BPS can significantly affect lifestyle, work, emotional health and relationships."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1581 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPreterm infants often start milk feeds by gavage tube. As they mature, sucking feeds are gradually introduced. Women with preterm infants may not always be in hospital to breastfeed their baby and need an alternative approach to feeding. Most commonly, milk (expressed breast milk or formula) is given by bottle. Whether using bottles during establishment of breastfeeds is detrimental to breastfeeding success is a topic of ongoing debate.\nObjectives\nTo identify the effects of avoidance of bottle feeds during establishment of breastfeeding on the likelihood of successful breastfeeding, and to assess the safety of alternatives to bottle feeds.\nSearch methods\nA new search strategy was developed for this update. Searches were conducted without date or language limits in September 2021 in: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL. We also searched the ISRCTN trial registry and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs and quasi-RCTs comparing avoidance of bottles with use of bottles for preterm infants where their mothers planned to breastfeed.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. When appropriate, we contacted study authors for additional information. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Outcomes included full breastfeeding and any breastfeeding on discharge home and at three and six months after discharge, as well as length of hospital stay and episodes of infant infection. We synthesised data using risk ratios (RR), risk differences (RD) and mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included seven trials with 1152 preterm infants in this updated review. There are three studies awaiting classification. Five included studies used a cup feeding strategy, one used a tube feeding strategy and one used a novel teat when supplements to breastfeeds were needed. We included the novel teat study in this review as the teat was designed to closely mimic the sucking action of breastfeeding. The trials were of small to moderate size, and two had high risk of attrition bias. Adherence with cup feeding was poor in one of the studies, indicating dissatisfaction with this method by staff or parents (or both); the remaining four cup feeding studies provided no such reports of dissatisfaction or low adherence.\nAvoiding bottles may increase the extent of full breastfeeding on discharge home (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.80; 6 studies, 1074 infants; low-certainty evidence), and probably increases any breastfeeding (full and partial combined) on discharge (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.16; studies, 1138 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Avoiding bottles probably increases the occurrence of full breastfeeding three months after discharge (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.78; 4 studies, 986 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may also increase full breastfeeding six months after discharge (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.36; 3 studies, 887 infants; low-certainty evidence).\nAvoiding bottles may increase the occurrence of any breastfeeding (full and partial combined) three months after discharge (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.71; 5 studies, 1063 infants; low-certainty evidence), and six months after discharge (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.41; 3 studies, 886 infants; low-certainty evidence). The effects on breastfeeding outcomes were evident at all time points for the tube alone strategy and for all except any breastfeeding three months after discharge for cup feeding, but were not present for the novel teat. There were no other benefits or harms including for length of hospital stay (MD 2.25 days, 95% CI −3.36 to 7.86; 4 studies, 1004 infants; low-certainty evidence) or episodes of infection per infant (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.42; 3 studies, 500 infants; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nAvoiding the use of bottles when preterm infants need supplementary feeds probably increases the extent of any breastfeeding at discharge, and may improve any and full breastfeeding (exclusive) up to six months postdischarge. Most of the evidence demonstrating benefit was for cup feeding. Only one study used a tube feeding strategy. We are uncertain whether a tube alone approach to supplementing breastfeeds improves breastfeeding outcomes; further studies of high certainty are needed to determine this.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "we found seven eligible studies (involving 1152 preterm babies). These studies were of small to moderate size, and most had some problems with study design or conduct. The search is up to date as of 18 June 2020."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1582 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTardive dyskinesia (TD) is a disfiguring movement disorder, often of the orofacial region, frequently caused by using antipsychotic drugs. A wide range of strategies have been used to help manage TD, and for those who are unable to have their antipsychotic medication stopped or substantially changed, the benzodiazepine group of drugs have been suggested as a useful adjunctive treatment. However, benzodiazepines are very addictive.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effects of benzodiazepines for antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia in people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or other chronic mental illnesses.\nSearch methods\nOn 17 July 2015 and 26 April 2017, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (including trial registers), inspected references of all identified studies for further trials and contacted authors of each included trial for additional information.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on people with schizophrenia (or other chronic mental illnesses) and antipsychotic-induced TD that compared benzodiazepines with placebo, no intervention, or any other intervention for the treatment of TD.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently extracted data from the included studies and ensured that they were reliably selected, and quality assessed. For homogenous dichotomous data, we calculated random effects, risk ratio (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We synthesised continuous data from valid scales using mean differences (MD). For continuous outcomes, we preferred endpoint data to change data. We assumed that people who left early had no improvement.\nMain results\nThe review now includes four trials (total 75 people, one additional trial since 2006, 21 people) randomising inpatients and outpatients in China and the USA. Risk of bias was mostly unclear as reporting was poor. We are uncertain about all the effects as all evidence was graded at very low quality. We found no significant difference between benzodiazepines and placebo for the outcome of 'no clinically important improvement in TD' (2 RCTs, 32 people, RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.09, very low quality evidence). Significantly fewer participants allocated to clonazepam compared with phenobarbital (as active placebo) experienced no clinically important improvement (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.96, 1 RCT, 21 people, very low quality evidence). For the outcome 'deterioration of TD symptoms,' we found no clear difference between benzodiazepines and placebo (2 RCTs, 30 people, RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.22 to 9.82, very low quality evidence). All 10 participants allocated to benzodiazepines experienced any adverse event compared with 7/11 allocated to phenobarbital (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.41, 1 RCT, 21 people, very low quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the incidence of participants leaving the study early for benzodiazepines compared with placebo (3 RCTs, 56 people, RR 2.73, 95% CI 0.15 to 48.04, very low quality evidence) or compared with phenobarbital (as active placebo) (no events, 1 RCT, 21 people, very low quality evidence). No trials reported on social confidence, social inclusion, social networks, or personalised quality of life, which are outcomes designated important by patients. No trials comparing benzodiazepines with placebo or treatment as usual reported on adverse effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is only evidence of very low quality from a few small and poorly reported trials on the effect of benzodiazepines as an adjunctive treatment for antipsychotic-induced TD. These inconclusive results mean routine clinical use is not indicated and these treatments remain experimental. New and better trials are indicated in this under-researched area; however, as benzodiazepines are addictive, we feel that other techniques or medications should be adequately evaluated before benzodiazepines are chosen.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Evidence is limited because the trials are so few, small, and poorly reported. It is uncertain whether benzodiazepines are helpful in the treatment of tardive dyskinesia. The use of benzodiazepines for treating people with antipsychotic-induced TD therefore remains experimental, and because they are highly addictive, a last resort. The low number of studies in this review strongly indicates that this is not an active area of research. To fully investigate whether benzodiazepines have any positive effects for people with tardive dyskinesia, there would have to be more well-designed, conducted and reported trials.\nThis plain language summary was adapted by the review authors from a summary originally written by Ben Gray, Senior Peer Researcher, McPin Foundation (mcpin.org/)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1583 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nA blood transfusion is an acute intervention, used to address life- and health-threatening conditions on a short-term basis. Packed red blood cells are most often used for blood transfusion. Sometimes blood is transfused after prolonged storage but there is continuing debate as to whether transfusion of 'older' blood is as beneficial as transfusion of 'fresher' blood.\nObjectives\nTo assess the clinical benefits and harms of prolonged storage of packed red blood cells, in comparison with fresh, on recipients of blood transfusion.\nSearch methods\nWe ran the search on 1st May 2014. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCO Host) and two other databases. We also searched clinical trials registers and screened reference lists of the retrieved publications and reviews. We updated this search in June 2015 but these results have not yet been incorporated.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised clinical trials including participants assessed as requiring red blood cell transfusion were eligible for inclusion. Prolonged storage was defined as red blood cells stored for ≥ 21 days in a blood bank. We did not apply limits regarding the duration of follow-up, or country where the study took place. We excluded trials where patients received a combination of short- and long-stored blood products, and also trials without a clear definition of prolonged storage.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction by at least two review authors. The major outcomes were death from any cause, transfusion-related acute lung injury, and adverse events. We estimated relative risk for dichotomous outcomes. We measured statistical heterogeneity using I2. We used a random-effects model to synthesise the findings.\nMain results\nWe identified three randomised clinical trials, involving a total of 120 participants, comparing packed red blood cells with ≥ 21 days storage ('prolonged' or 'older') versus packed red blood cells with < 21 days storage ('fresh'). We pooled data to assess the effect of prolonged storage on death from any cause. The confidence in the results from these trials was very low, due to the bias in their design and their limited sample sizes.\nThe estimated effect of packed red blood cells with ≥ 21 days storage versus packed red blood cells with < 21 days storage for the outcome death from any cause was imprecise (5/45 [11.11%] versus 2/46 [4.34%]; RR 2.36; 95% CI 0.65 to 8.52; I2: 0%, P = 0.26, very low quality of evidence). Trial sequential analysis, with only two trials, shows that we do not yet have convincing evidence that older packed red blood cells induce a 20% relative risk reduction of death from any cause compared with fresher packed red blood cells. No trial included other outcomes of interest specified in this review, namely transfusion-related acute lung injury, postoperative infections, and adverse events. The safety profile is unknown.\nAuthors' conclusions\nRecognising the limitations of the review, relating to the size and nature of the included trials, this Cochrane Review provides no evidence to support or reject the use of packed red blood cells for blood transfusion which have been stored for ≥ 21 days ('prolonged' or 'older') compared with those stored for < 21 days ('fresh'). These results are based on three small single centre trials with high risks of bias. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effects of fresh or older packed red blood cells for blood transfusion. Therefore, we urge readers to interpret the trial results with caution. The results from four large ongoing trials will help to inform future updates of this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Blood transfusion is used to try to solve life- and health-threatening conditions on a short-term basis. Packed red blood cells are most often used for blood transfusion. Sometimes blood is transfused after prolonged storage of these cells but there is continuing debate as to whether transfusion of 'older' blood is as beneficial as transfusion of 'fresher' blood."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1584 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been recognised as a global health concern, and one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Projections of the World Health Organization (WHO) indicate that prevalence rates of COPD continue to increase, and by 2030, it will become the world's third leading cause of death. Depression is a major comorbidity amongst patients with COPD, with an estimate prevalence of up to 80% in severe stages of COPD. Prevalence studies show that patients who have COPD are four times as likely to develop depression compared to those without COPD. Regrettably, they rarely receive appropriate treatment for COPD-related depression. Available findings from trials indicate that untreated depression is associated with worse compliance with medical treatment, poor quality of life, increased mortality rates, increased hospital admissions and readmissions, prolonged length of hospital stay, and subsequently, increased costs to the healthcare system. Given the burden and high prevalence of untreated depression, it is important to evaluate and update existing experimental evidence using rigorous methodology, and to identify effective psychological therapies for patients with COPD-related depression.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of psychological therapies for the treatment of depression in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2018, Issue 11), and Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO from June 2016 to 26 November 2018. Previously these databases were searched via the Cochrane Airways and Common Mental Disorders Groups' Specialised Trials Registers (all years to June 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the ISRCTN registry, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to 26 November 2018 to identify unpublished or ongoing trials. Additionally, the grey literature databases and the reference lists of studies initially identified for full-text screening were also searched.\nSelection criteria\nEligible for inclusion were randomised controlled trials that compared the use of psychological therapies with either no intervention, education, or combined with a co-intervention and compared with the same co-intervention in a population of patients with COPD whose depressive symptoms were measured before or at baseline assessment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the titles and abstracts identified by the search to determine which studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. We assessed two primary outcomes: depressive symptoms and adverse events; and the following secondary outcomes: quality of life, dyspnoea, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), exercise tolerance, hospital length of stay or readmission rate, and cost-effectiveness. Potentially eligible full-text articles were also independently assessed by two review authors. A PRISMA flow diagram was prepared to demonstrate the decision process in detail. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' evaluation tool to examine the risk of bias, and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE framework. All outcomes were continuous, therefore, we calculated the pooled standardised mean difference (SMD) or mean difference (MD) with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). We used a random-effects model to calculate treatment effects.\nMain results\nThe findings are based on 13 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with a total of 1500 participants. In some of the included studies, the investigators did not recruit participants with clinically confirmed depression but applied screening criteria after randomisation. Hence, across the studies, baseline scores for depressive symptoms varied from no symptoms to severe depression. The severity of COPD across the studies was moderate to severe.\nPrimary outcomes\nThere was a small effect showing the effectiveness of psychological therapies in improving depressive symptoms when compared to no intervention (SMD 0.19, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.33; P = 0.009; 6 studies, 764 participants), or to education (SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.41; P = 0.010; 3 studies, 507 participants).\nTwo studies compared psychological therapies plus a co-intervention versus the co-intervention alone (i.e. pulmonary rehabilitation (PR)). The results suggest that a psychological therapy combined with a PR programme can reduce depressive symptoms more than a PR programme alone (SMD 0.37, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.74; P = 0.05; 2 studies, 112 participants).\nWe rated the quality of evidence as very low. Owing to the nature of psychological therapies, blinding of participants, personnel, and outcome assessment was a concern.\nNone of the included studies measured adverse events.\nSecondary outcomes\nQuality of life was measured in four studies in the comparison with no intervention, and in three studies in the comparison with education. We found inconclusive results for improving quality of life. However, when we pooled data from two studies using the same measure, the result suggested that psychological therapy improved quality of life better than no intervention. One study measured hospital admission rates and cost-effectiveness and showed significant reductions in the intervention group compared to the education group. We rated the quality of evidence as very low for the secondary outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe findings from this review indicate that psychological therapies (using a CBT-based approach) may be effective for treating COPD-related depression, but the evidence is limited. Depressive symptoms improved more in the intervention groups compared to: 1) no intervention (attention placebo or standard care), 2) educational interventions, and 3) a co-intervention (pulmonary rehabilitation). However, the effect sizes were small and quality of the evidence very low due to clinical heterogeneity and risk of bias. This means that more experimental studies with larger numbers of participants are needed, to confirm the potential beneficial effects of therapies with a CBT approach for COPD-related depression.\nNew trials should also address the gap in knowledge related to limited data on adverse effects, and the secondary outcomes of quality of life, dyspnoea, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), exercise tolerance, hospital length of stay and frequency of readmissions, and cost-effectiveness. Also, new research studies need to adhere to robust methodology to produce higher quality evidence.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What does the evidence from the review tell us?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review included 13 experimental studies (RCTs) with 1500 participants. Our main result shows that psychological therapies using cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) approach may, potentially, be effective in reducing depressive symptoms in patients with COPD. However, the quality of this evidence is very low because of many limitations related to the way the studies were conducted."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1585 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHyaluronic acid is synthesised in plasma membranes and can be found in extracellular tissues. It has been suggested that the application of hyaluronic acid to chronic wounds may promote healing, and the mechanism may be due to its ability to maintain a moist wound environment which helps cell migration in the wound bed.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of hyaluronic acid (and its derivatives) on the healing of chronic wounds.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was February 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials that compared the effects of hyaluronic acid (as a dressing or topical agent) with other dressings on the healing of pressure, venous, arterial, or mixed-aetiology ulcers and foot ulcers in people with diabetes.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 12 trials (13 articles) in a qualitative synthesis, and were able to combine data from four trials in a quantitative analysis. Overall, the included trials involved 1108 participants (mean age 69.60 years) presenting 178 pressure ulcers, 54 diabetic foot ulcers, and 896 leg ulcers. Sex was reported for 1022 participants (57.24% female).\nPressure ulcers\nIt is uncertain whether there is a difference in complete healing (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 2.35); change in ulcer size (mean difference (MD) 25.60, 95% CI 6.18 to 45.02); or adverse events (none reported) between platelet-rich growth factor (PRGF) + hyaluronic acid and PRGF because the certainty of evidence is very low (1 trial, 65 participants). It is also uncertain whether there is a difference in complete healing between lysine hyaluronate and sodium hyaluronate because the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 2.50, 95% CI 0.71 to 8.83; 1 trial, 14 ulcers from 10 participants).\nFoot ulcers in people with diabetes\nIt is uncertain whether there is a difference in time to complete healing between hyaluronic acid and lyophilised collagen because the certainty of evidence is very low (MD 16.60, 95% CI 7.95 to 25.25; 1 study, 20 participants). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in complete ulcer healing (RR 2.20, 95% CI 0.97 to 4.97; 1 study, 34 participants) or change in ulcer size (MD −0.80, 95% CI −3.58 to 1.98; 1 study, 25 participants) between hyaluronic acid and conventional dressings because the certainty of evidence is very low.\nLeg ulcers\nWe are uncertain whether there is a difference in complete wound healing (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.26 to 3.76), percentage of adverse events (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.80), pain (MD 2.10, 95% CI −5.81 to 10.01), or change in ulcer size (RR 2.11, 95% CI 0.92 to 4.82) between hyaluronic acid + hydrocolloid and hydrocolloid because the certainty of evidence is very low (1 study, 125 participants). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in change in ulcer size between hyaluronic acid and hydrocolloid because the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.25; 1 study, 143 participants). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in complete wound healing between hyaluronic acid and paraffin gauze because the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 19.23; 1 study, 24 ulcers from 17 participants).\nWhen compared with neutral vehicle, hyaluronic acid probably improves complete ulcer healing (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.07; 4 studies, 526 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may slightly increase the reduction in pain from baseline (MD −8.55, 95% CI −14.77 to −2.34; 3 studies, 337 participants); and may slightly increase change in ulcer size, measured as mean reduction from baseline to 45 days (MD 30.44%, 95% CI 15.57 to 45.31; 2 studies, 190 participants). It is uncertain if hyaluronic acid alters incidence of infection when compared with neutral vehicle (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.49; 3 studies, 425 participants). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in change in ulcer size (cm2) between hyaluronic acid and dextranomer because the certainty of evidence is very low (MD 5.80, 95% CI −10.0 to 21.60; 1 study, 50 participants).\nWe downgraded the certainty of evidence due to risk of bias or imprecision, or both, for all of the above comparisons. No trial reported health-related quality of life or wound recurrence. Measurement of change in ulcer size was not homogeneous among studies, and missing data precluded further analysis for some comparisons.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of hyaluronic acid dressings in the healing of pressure ulcers or foot ulcers in people with diabetes. We found evidence that hyaluronic acid probably improves complete ulcer healing and may slightly decrease pain and increase change in ulcer size when compared with neutral vehicle. Future research into the effects of hyaluronic acid in the healing of chronic wounds should consider higher sample size and blinding to minimise bias and improve the quality of evidence.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main results of the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found 12 studies involving a total of 1108 participants. Sex was reported for 1022 participants (57.24% female). Mean age corresponded to 69.60 years. Dressings containing varying concentrations of hyaluronic acid, or containing hyaluronic acid in combination with another treatment, were compared with other dressing types.\nIt is uncertain whether hyaluronic acid is better or worse at healing pressure ulcers or foot ulcers in people with diabetes. It is also uncertain if there is any difference in effect between hyaluronic acid and other dressings on adverse events and pain in these types of wounds. This is due to scarcity of data to analyse or because of study limitations such as small sample sizes and methodological problems.\nIn leg ulcers, hyaluronic acid probably improves complete ulcer healing when compared with neutral vehicle (4 studies, 526 participants), and may slightly reduce pain (3 studies, 337 participants) and slightly increase change in ulcer size (2 studies, 190 participants). It is uncertain whether hyaluronic acid is better or worse at healing leg ulcers when compared with hydrocolloid (an agent that forms a gel when exposed to wound fluids), paraffin gauze, or dextranomer (a type of dressing that promotes wound healing).\nNo trial reported health-related quality of life or wound recurrence."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1586 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSickle cell disease (SCD), one of the commonest severe monogenic disorders, is caused by the inheritance of two abnormal haemoglobin (beta-globin) genes. SCD can cause severe pain, significant end-organ damage, pulmonary complications, and premature death. Kidney disease is a frequent and potentially severe complication in people with SCD.\nChronic kidney disease (CKD) is defined as abnormalities of kidney structure or function present for more than three months. Sickle cell nephropathy refers to the spectrum of kidney complications in SCD.\nGlomerular damage is a cause of microalbuminuria and can develop at an early age in children with SCD, with increased prevalence in adulthood. In people with sickle cell nephropathy, outcomes are poor as a result of the progression to proteinuria and chronic kidney insufficiency. Up to 12% of people who develop sickle cell nephropathy will develop end-stage renal disease.\nThis is an update of a review first published in 2017.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of any intervention for preventing or reducing kidney complications or chronic kidney disease in people with sickle cell disease. Possible interventions include red blood cell transfusions, hydroxyurea, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), either alone or in combination.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for relevant trials in the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, seven other databases, and two other trials registers.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing interventions to prevent or reduce kidney complications or CKD in people with SCD. We applied no restrictions related to outcomes examined, language, or publication status.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias, and assessed the certainty of the evidence (GRADE).\nMain results\nWe included three RCTs with 385 participants.\nWe rated the certainty of the evidence as low to very low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology, downgrading for risk of bias concerns, indirectness, and imprecision.\nHydroxyurea versus placebo\nOne RCT published in 2011 compared hydroxyurea to placebo in 193 children aged nine to 18 months. We are unsure if hydroxyurea compared to placebo reduces or prevents progression of kidney disease assessed by change in glomerular filtration rate (mean difference (MD) 0.58 mL/min /1.73 m2, 95% confidence interval (CI) −14.60 to 15.76; 142 participants; very low certainty). Hydroxyurea compared to placebo may improve the ability to concentrate urine (MD 42.23 mOsm/kg, 95% CI 12.14 to 72.32; 178 participants; low certainty), and may make little or no difference to SCD-related serious adverse events, including acute chest syndrome (risk ratio (RR) 0.39, 99% CI 0.13 to 1.16; 193 participants; low certainty), painful crisis (RR 0.68, 99% CI 0.45 to 1.02; 193 participants; low certainty); and hospitalisations (RR 0.83, 99% CI 0.68 to 1.01; 193 participants; low certainty).\nNo deaths occurred in either trial arm and the RCT did not report quality of life.\nAngiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors versus placebo\nOne RCT published in 1998 compared an ACEI (captopril) to placebo in 22 adults with normal blood pressure and microalbuminuria. We are unsure if captopril compared to placebo reduces proteinuria (MD −49.00 mg/day, 95% CI −124.10 to 26.10; 22 participants; very low certainty). We are unsure if captopril reduces or prevents kidney disease as measured by creatinine clearance; the trial authors stated that creatinine clearance remained constant over six months in both groups, but provided no comparative data (very low certainty).\nThe RCT did not report serious adverse events, all-cause mortality, or quality of life.\nAngiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors versus vitamin C\nOne RCT published in 2020 compared an ACEI (lisinopril) with vitamin C in 170 children aged one to 18 years with normal blood pressure and microalbuminuria. It reported no data we could analyse. We are unsure if lisinopril compared to vitamin C reduces proteinuria in this population: the large drop in microalbuminuria in both arms of the trial after only one month on treatment may have been due to an overestimation of microalbuminuria at baseline rather than a true effect.\nThe RCT did not report serious adverse events, all-cause mortality, or quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are unsure if hydroxyurea improves glomerular filtration rate or reduces hyperfiltration in children aged nine to 18 months, but it may improve their ability to concentrate urine and may make little or no difference to the incidence of acute chest syndrome, painful crises, and hospitalisations.\nWe are unsure if ACEI compared to placebo has any effect on preventing or reducing kidney complications in adults with normal blood pressure and microalbuminuria.\nWe are unsure if ACEI compared to vitamin C has any effect on preventing or reducing kidney complications in children with normal blood pressure and microalbuminuria.\nNo RCTs assessed red blood cell transfusions or any combined interventions to prevent or reduce kidney complications.\nDue to lack of evidence, we cannot comment on the management of children aged over 18 months or adults with any known genotype of SCD.\nWe have identified a lack of adequately designed and powered studies, although we found four ongoing trials since the last version of this review. Only one ongoing trial addresses renal function as a primary outcome in the short term, but such interventions have long-term effects. Trials of hydroxyurea, ACEIs or red blood cell transfusion in older children and adults are urgently needed to determine any effect on prevention or reduction of kidney complications in people with SCD.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "SCD is a serious inherited blood disorder where the red blood cells, which carry oxygen around the body, develop abnormally. Normal red blood cells are flexible and disc-shaped, but sickled cells are rigid and crescent-shaped, and stickier than normal red blood cells. This can lead to blockage of blood vessels, resulting in tissue and organ damage and episodes of severe pain. The abnormal cells are fragile and break apart easily, which leads to a decreased number of red blood cells, known as anaemia.\nKidney complications can start at an early age in children with SCD and are common in adults with the condition. Kidney complications leading to kidney protein leak and chronic kidney disease can be severe, with serious effects on health. Severe complications include the need for dialysis (a procedure to remove waste products and excess fluid from the blood when the kidneys stop working properly) or a kidney transplant. Identifying therapies that can prevent or slow down the decline in kidney function in people with SCD is critical for improving health outcomes."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1587 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nKeratoconus is a condition of the eye that affects approximately 1 in 2000 people. The disease leads to a gradual increase in corneal curvature and decrease in visual acuity with consequent impact on quality of life. Collagen cross-linking (CXL) with ultraviolet A (UVA) light and riboflavin (vitamin B2) is a relatively new treatment that has been reported to slow or halt the progression of the disease in its early stages.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review was to assess whether there is evidence that CXL is an effective and safe treatment for halting the progression of keratoconus compared to no treatment.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to August 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2014), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to August 2014), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to August 2014), OpenGrey (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe) (www.opengrey.eu/), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We used no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 28 August 2014.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where CXL with UVA light and riboflavin was used to treat people with keratoconus and was compared to no treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the search results, assessed trial quality, and extracted data using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were two indicators of progression at 12 months: increase in maximum keratometry of 1.5 dioptres (D) or more and deterioration in uncorrected visual acuity of more than 0.2 logMAR.\nMain results\nWe included three RCTs conducted in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States that enrolled a total of 225 eyes and analysed 219 eyes. The total number of people enrolled was not clear in two of the studies. Only adults were enrolled into these studies. Out of the eyes analysed, 119 had CXL (all using the epithelium-off technique) and 100 served as controls. One of these studies only reported comparative data on review outcomes. All three studies were at high risk for performance bias (lack of masking), detection bias (only one trial attempted to mask outcome assessment), and attrition bias (incomplete follow-up). It was not possible to pool data due to differences in measuring and reporting outcomes. We identified a further three unpublished trials that potentially had enrolled a total of 195 participants.\nThere was limited evidence on the risk of progression. Analysis of the first few participants followed up to one year in one study suggested that eyes given CXL were less likely to have an increase in maximum keratometry of 1.5 D or more at 12 months compared to eyes given no treatment, but the confidence intervals (CI) were wide and compatible with no effect or more progression in the CXL group (risk ratio (RR) 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.00, 19 eyes). The same study reported the number of eyes with an increase of 2 D or more at 36 months in the whole cohort with a RR of 0.03 favouring CXL (95% CI 0.00 to 0.43, 94 eyes). Another study reported \"progression\" at 18 months using a different definition; people receiving CXL were less likely to progress, but again the effect was uncertain (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.61, 44 eyes). We judged this to be very low-quality evidence due to the risk of bias of included studies, imprecision, indirectness and publication bias but noted that the size of the potential effect was large.\nOn average, treated eyes had a less steep cornea (approximately 2 D less steep) (mean difference (MD) -1.92, 95% CI -2.54 to -1.30, 94 eyes, 1 RCT, very low-quality evidence) and better uncorrected visual acuity (approximately 2 lines or 10 letters better) (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.09, 94 eyes, 1 RCT, very low-quality evidence) at 12 months. None of the studies reported loss of 0.2 logMAR acuity. The data on corneal thickness were inconsistent. There were no data available on quality of life or costs. Adverse effects were not uncommon but mostly transient and of low clinical significance. In one trial, 3 out of 12 participants treated with CXL had an adverse effect including corneal oedema, anterior chamber inflammation, and recurrent corneal erosions. In one trial at 3 years 3 out of 50 participants experienced adverse events including mild diffuse corneal oedema and paracentral infiltrate, peripheral corneal vascularisation, and subepithelial infiltrates and anterior chamber inflammation. No adverse effects were reported in the control groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence for the use of CXL in the management of keratoconus is limited due the lack of properly conducted RCTs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Is corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL) a good treatment for slowing down the progression of keratoconus?"
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1588 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPolycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is characterised by both metabolic and reproductive disorders, and affects 5% to 15% of women of reproductive age. Different western medicines have been proposed for PCOS-related subfertility, such as oral contraceptives, insulin sensitisers and laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD). Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) have also been used for subfertility caused by PCOS for decades, and are expected to become an alternative treatment for subfertile women with PCOS.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) for subfertile women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and six other databases, from inception to 2 June 2020. In addition, we searched three trials registries, the reference lists of included trials and contacted experts in the field to locate trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CHM versus placebo, no treatment or conventional (western) therapies for the treatment of subfertile women with PCOS.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened trials for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in included studies and extracted data. We contacted primary study authors for additional information. We conducted meta-analyses. We used the odds ratios (ORs) to report dichotomous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods.\nMain results\nWe included eight RCTs with 609 participants. The comparisons in the included trials were as follows: CHM versus clomiphene, CHM plus clomiphene versus clomiphene (with or without ethinyloestradiol cyproterone acetate (EE/CPA)), CHM plus follicle aspiration plus ovulation induction versus follicle aspiration plus ovulation induction alone, and CHM plus laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) versus LOD alone. The overall certainty of the evidence for most comparisons was very low.\nNone of the included studies reported the primary outcome, live birth rate. Most studies reported the secondary outcomes, and only one study reported data on adverse events.\nIn trials that compared CHM to clomiphene (with or without LOD in both study arms), we are uncertain of the effect of CHM on pregnancy rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 3.19; I2 = 28%; 3 studies, 140 participants; very low certainty evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy following clomiphene is assumed to be 21.5%, the chance following CHM would vary between 14.7% and 46.7%. No study reported data on adverse events.\nWhen CHM plus clomiphene was compared to clomiphene (with or without EE/CPA), there was low certainty evidence of a higher pregnancy rate in the CHM plus clomiphene group (OR 3.06, 95% CI 2.05 to 4.55; I2 = 10%; 6 studies, 470 participants; low certainty evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy following clomiphene is assumed to be 31.5%, the chance following CHM plus clomiphene would vary between 48.5% and 67.7%.\nNo data were reported on adverse events.\nIn trials that compared CHM plus follicle aspiration and ovulation induction to follicle aspiration and ovulation induction alone, we are uncertain of the effect of CHM on pregnancy rates (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.68; 1 study, 44 women; very low certainty evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy following follicle aspiration and ovulation induction is assumed to be 29.2%, the chance following CHM with follicle aspiration and ovulation induction would vary between 15.9% and 70%. Reported adverse events included severe luteinised unruptured follicle syndrome (LUFS) (Peto OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.14; 1 study, 44 women; very low certainty evidence), ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (Peto OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.00 to 8.19; 1 study, 44 women; very low certainty evidence) or multiple pregnancy (Peto OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.14; 1 study, 44 women; very low certainty evidence). These results suggest that if the chances of LUFS, OHSS, and multiple pregnancy following follicle aspiration and ovulation induction are assumed to be 8.3%, 4.2%, and 8.3% respectively, the chances following CHM with follicle aspiration and ovulation induction would be 0.5% to 35.8%, 0% to 26.3% and 0.5% to 35.8% respectively.\nIn trials that compared CHM plus LOD to LOD alone, we are uncertain if CHM improves pregnancy rates (OR 3.50, 95% CI 0.72 to 17.09; 1 study, 30 women; very low certainty evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy following LOD is assumed to be 40%, the chance following CHM with LOD would vary between 32.4% and 91.9%. No data were reported on adverse events.\nWe are uncertain of the results in the comparison groups for all outcomes. The certainty of the evidence for all other comparisons and outcomes was very low. The main limitations in the evidence were failure to report live birth or adverse events, failure to describe study methods in adequate detail and imprecision due to very low event rates and wide CIs.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to support the use of CHM for subfertile women with PCOS. No data are available on live birth. We are uncertain of the effect of CHM on pregnancy rates for there is no consistent evidence to indicate that CHM influences fertility outcomes. However, we find that the addition of CHM to clomiphene may improve pregnancy rates, but there is very limited, low certainty evidence for this outcome. Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence on adverse effects to indicate whether CHM is safe. In the future, well-designed, carefully conducted RCTs are needed, with a particular focus on the live birth rate and other safety indexes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "PCOS is a common and complex reproductive endocrine disorder, affecting 5% to 15% of women of reproductive age. Women with PCOS may present with irregular menstrual cycles, subfertility (failure to conceive), hirsutism (excessive hair growth), acne and obesity. Many western medical therapies have been used to manage PCOS, including oral contraceptives, clomiphene (drugs used to induce ovulation in women), insulin sensitisers (drugs that help return the blood sugar to the normal range) and laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) which is a surgical treatment that can trigger ovulation in women with PCOS. CHM has been suggested as an alternative approach for subfertile women with PCOS. We wanted to investigate the effectiveness and safety of CHM compared to other therapies for subfertile women with PCOS."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1589 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMost people admitted to hospitals worldwide require a vascular access device (VAD). Hundreds of millions of VADs are inserted annually in the USA with reports of over a billion peripheral intravenous catheters used annually worldwide. Numerous reports suggest that a team approach for the assessment, insertion, and maintenance of VADs improves clinical outcomes, the patient experience, and healthcare processes.\nObjectives\nTo compare the use of the vascular access specialist team (VAST) for VAD insertion and care to a generalist model approach for hospital or community participants requiring a VAD in terms of insertion success, device failure, and cost-effectiveness.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to 7 February 2018); Ovid Embase (1980 to 7 February 2018); EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 7 February 2018); Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science and Social Science and Humanities (1990 to 7 February 2018); and Google Scholar. We searched the following trial registries: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (www.anzctr.org.au); ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com/mrct); HKU Clinical Trials Registry (www.hkclinicaltrials.com); Clinical Trials Registry - India (ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/login.php); UK Clinical Trials Gateway (www.controlled-trials.com/ukctr/); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (www.who.int/trialsearch). We searched all databases on 7 February 2018.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of VAST or specialist inserters for their impact on clinical outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane and used Covidence software to assist with file management.\nMain results\nWe retrieved 2398 citations: 30 studies were eligible for further examination of their full text, and we found one registered clinical trial in progress. No studies could be included in the analysis or review. We assigned one study as awaiting classification, as it has not been accepted for publication.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis systematic review failed to locate relevant published RCTs to support or refute the assertion that vascular access specialist teams are superior to the generalist model. A vascular access specialist team has advanced knowledge with regard to insertion techniques, clinical care, and management of vascular access devices, whereas a generalist model comprises nurses, doctors, or other designated healthcare professionals in the healthcare facility who may have less advanced insertion techniques and who care for vascular access devices amongst other competing clinical tasks. However, this conclusion may change once the one study awaiting classification and one ongoing study are published. There is a need for good-quality RCTs to evaluate the efficacy of a vascular access specialist team approach for vascular access device insertion and care for the prevention of failure.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We reviewed the evidence concerning the effectiveness of vascular access specialist teams (VAST) compared with generalist models in terms of vascular access device insertion success, device failure, and cost-effectiveness.\nWe did not find any eligible studies for our review."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1590 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common childhood infectious diseases. Pain is the key symptom of AOM and central to children's and parents' experience of the illness. Because antibiotics provide only marginal benefits, analgesic treatment including paracetamol (acetaminophen) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is regarded as the cornerstone of AOM management. This is an update of a review first published in 2016.\nObjectives\nOur primary objective was to assess the effectiveness of paracetamol (acetaminophen) or NSAIDs, alone or combined, compared with placebo or no treatment in relieving pain in children with AOM. Our secondary objective was to assess the effectiveness of NSAIDs as compared with paracetamol in children with AOM.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 5, April 2023; MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to May 2023), Embase (from 1947 to May 2023), CINAHL (from 1981 to May 2023), LILACS (from 1982 to May 2023), and Web of Science Core Collection (from 1955 to May 2023). We searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov for completed and ongoing trials (23 May 2023).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of paracetamol or NSAIDs, alone or combined, for pain relief in non-hospitalised children aged six months to 16 years with AOM. We also included trials of paracetamol or NSAIDs, alone or combined, for children with fever or upper respiratory tract infections if we were able to extract subgroup data on pain relief in children with AOM either directly or after obtaining additional data from study authors. We extracted and summarised data for the following comparisons: paracetamol versus placebo, NSAIDs versus placebo, NSAIDs versus paracetamol, and NSAIDs plus paracetamol versus paracetamol alone.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We rated the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome of interest using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included four trials (411 children) which were assessed at low to high risk of bias.\nParacetamol versus placebo\nData from one trial (148 children) informed this comparison. Paracetamol may be more effective than placebo in relieving pain at 48 hours (proportion of children with pain 10% versus 25%, risk ratio (RR) 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.85; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 7; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of paracetamol on fever at 48 hours (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.12; very low-certainty evidence) and adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.93; very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for our other outcomes of interest.\nNSAIDs versus placebo\nData from one trial (146 children) informed this comparison. Ibuprofen may be more effective than placebo in relieving pain at 48 hours (proportion of children with pain 7% versus 25%, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.70; NNTB 6; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ibuprofen on fever at 48 hours (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.57; very low-certainty evidence) and adverse events (RR 1.76, 95% CI 0.44 to 7.10; very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for our other outcomes of interest.\nNSAIDs versus paracetamol\nData from four trials (411 children) informed this comparison. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ibuprofen versus paracetamol in relieving ear pain at 24 hours (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.18; 2 RCTs, 39 children; very low-certainty evidence); 48 to 72 hours (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.54; 3 RCTs, 183 children; low-certainty evidence); and four to seven days (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.23; 2 RCTs, 38 children; very low-certainty evidence).\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ibuprofen versus paracetamol on mean pain score at 24 hours (0.29 lower, 95% CI 0.79 lower to 0.20 higher; 3 RCTs, 111 children; very low-certainty evidence); 48 to 72 hours (0.25 lower, 95% CI 0.66 lower to 0.16 higher; 3 RCTs, 108 children; very low-certainty evidence); and four to seven days (0.30 higher, 95% CI 1.78 lower to 2.38 higher; 2 RCTs, 31 children; very low-certainty evidence).\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ibuprofen versus paracetamol in resolving fever at 24 hours (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.00; 2 RCTs, 39 children; very low-certainty evidence); 48 to 72 hours (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.31 to 4.44; 3 RCTs, 182 children; low-certainty evidence); and four to seven days (RR 2.75, 95% CI 0.12 to 60.70; 2 RCTs, 39 children; very low-certainty evidence).\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ibuprofen versus paracetamol on adverse events (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.43 to 6.90; 3 RCTs, 281 children; very low-certainty evidence); reconsultations (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.40; 1 RCT, 53 children; very low-certainty evidence); and delayed antibiotic prescriptions (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.35; 1 RCT, 53 children; very low-certainty evidence).\nNo data were available on time to resolution of pain.\nNSAIDs plus paracetamol versus paracetamol alone\nData on the effectiveness of ibuprofen plus paracetamol versus paracetamol alone came from two trials that provided crude subgroup data for 71 children with AOM. The small sample provided imprecise effect estimates, therefore we were unable to draw any firm conclusions (very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nDespite explicit guideline recommendations on the use of analgesics in children with AOM, the current evidence on the effectiveness of paracetamol or NSAIDs, alone or combined, in children with AOM is limited. Paracetamol and ibuprofen as monotherapies may be more effective than placebo in relieving short-term ear pain in children with AOM. The evidence is very uncertain for the effect of ibuprofen versus paracetamol on relieving short-term ear pain in children with AOM, as well as for the effectiveness of ibuprofen plus paracetamol versus paracetamol alone, thereby preventing any firm conclusions. Further research is needed to provide insights into the role of ibuprofen as adjunct to paracetamol, and other analgesics such as anaesthetic eardrops, for children with AOM.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Due to such issues as study limitations and questions about the applicability of the evidence, we have low confidence in the evidence for all comparisons."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1591 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nA large number of people are employed in sedentary occupations. Physical inactivity and excessive sitting at workplaces have been linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, obesity, and all-cause mortality.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions to reduce sitting at work compared to no intervention or alternative interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, OSH UPDATE, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal up to 9 August 2017. We also screened reference lists of articles and contacted authors to find more studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over RCTs, cluster-randomised controlled trials (cluster-RCTs), and quasi-RCTs of interventions to reduce sitting at work. For changes of workplace arrangements, we also included controlled before-and-after studies. The primary outcome was time spent sitting at work per day, either self-reported or measured using devices such as an accelerometer-inclinometer and duration and number of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more. We considered energy expenditure, total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), time spent standing at work, work productivity and adverse events as secondary outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles for study eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional data where required.\nMain results\nWe found 34 studies — including two cross-over RCTs, 17 RCTs, seven cluster-RCTs, and eight controlled before-and-after studies — with a total of 3,397 participants, all from high-income countries. The studies evaluated physical workplace changes (16 studies), workplace policy changes (four studies), information and counselling (11 studies), and multi-component interventions (four studies). One study included both physical workplace changes and information and counselling components. We did not find any studies that specifically investigated the effects of standing meetings or walking meetings on sitting time.\nPhysical workplace changes\nInterventions using sit-stand desks, either alone or in combination with information and counselling, reduced sitting time at work on average by 100 minutes per workday at short-term follow-up (up to three months) compared to sit-desks (95% confidence interval (CI) −116 to −84, 10 studies, low-quality evidence). The pooled effect of two studies showed sit-stand desks reduced sitting time at medium-term follow-up (3 to 12 months) by an average of 57 minutes per day (95% CI −99 to −15) compared to sit-desks. Total sitting time (including sitting at and outside work) also decreased with sit-stand desks compared to sit-desks (mean difference (MD) −82 minutes/day, 95% CI −124 to −39, two studies) as did the duration of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more (MD −53 minutes/day, 95% CI −79 to −26, two studies, very low-quality evidence).\nWe found no significant difference between the effects of standing desks and sit-stand desks on reducing sitting at work. Active workstations, such as treadmill desks or cycling desks, had unclear or inconsistent effects on sitting time.\nWorkplace policy changes\nWe found no significant effects for implementing walking strategies on workplace sitting time at short-term (MD −15 minutes per day, 95% CI −50 to 19, low-quality evidence, one study) and medium-term (MD −17 minutes/day, 95% CI −61 to 28, one study) follow-up. Short breaks (one to two minutes every half hour) reduced time spent sitting at work on average by 40 minutes per day (95% CI −66 to −15, one study, low-quality evidence) compared to long breaks (two 15-minute breaks per workday) at short-term follow-up.\nInformation and counselling\nProviding information, feedback, counselling, or all of these resulted in no significant change in time spent sitting at work at short-term follow-up (MD −19 minutes per day, 95% CI −57 to 19, two studies, low-quality evidence). However, the reduction was significant at medium-term follow-up (MD −28 minutes per day, 95% CI −51 to −5, two studies, low-quality evidence).\nComputer prompts combined with information resulted in no significant change in sitting time at work at short-term follow-up (MD −14 minutes per day, 95% CI −39 to 10, three studies, low-quality evidence), but at medium-term follow-up they produced a significant reduction (MD −55 minutes per day, 95% CI −96 to −14, one study). Furthermore, computer prompting resulted in a significant decrease in the average number (MD −1.1, 95% CI −1.9 to −0.3, one study) and duration (MD -74 minutes per day, 95% CI −124 to −24, one study) of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more.\nComputer prompts with instruction to stand reduced sitting at work on average by 14 minutes per day (95% CI 10 to 19, one study) more than computer prompts with instruction to walk at least 100 steps at short-term follow-up.\nWe found no significant reduction in workplace sitting time at medium-term follow-up following mindfulness training (MD −23 minutes per day, 95% CI −63 to 17, one study, low-quality evidence). Similarly a single study reported no change in sitting time at work following provision of highly personalised or contextualised information and less personalised or contextualised information. One study found no significant effects of activity trackers on sitting time at work.\nMulti-component interventions\nCombining multiple interventions had significant but heterogeneous effects on sitting time at work (573 participants, three studies, very low-quality evidence) and on time spent in prolonged sitting bouts (two studies, very low-quality evidence) at short-term follow-up.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAt present there is low-quality evidence that the use of sit-stand desks reduce workplace sitting at short-term and medium-term follow-ups. However, there is no evidence on their effects on sitting over longer follow-up periods. Effects of other types of interventions, including workplace policy changes, provision of information and counselling, and multi-component interventions, are mostly inconsistent. The quality of evidence is low to very low for most interventions, mainly because of limitations in study protocols and small sample sizes. There is a need for larger cluster-RCTs with longer-term follow-ups to determine the effectiveness of different types of interventions to reduce sitting time at work.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What trials did the review find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found 34 studies conducted with a total of 3,397 employees from high-income countries. Sixteen studies evaluated physical changes in the workplace design and environment, four studies evaluated changes in workplace policies, 10 studies evaluated information and counselling interventions, and four studies evaluated multi-category interventions."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1592 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCurrently, with stroke burden increasing, there is a need to explore therapeutic options that ameliorate the acute insult. There is substantial evidence of a neuroprotective effect of marine-derived n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in animal models of stroke, leading to a better functional outcome.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of administration of marine-derived n-3 PUFAs on functional outcomes and dependence in people with stroke.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register (last searched 31 May 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2021, Issue 5), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1948 to 31 May 2021), Embase Ovid (from 1980 to 31 May 2021), CINAHL EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; from 1982 to 31 May 2021), Science Citation Index Expanded ‒ Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED), Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science – Web of Science (CPCI-S), and BIOSIS Citation Index. We also searched ongoing trial registers, reference lists, relevant systematic reviews, and used the Science Citation Index Reference Search.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing marine-derived n-3 PUFAs to placebo or open control (no placebo) in people with a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA), or both.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence. We contacted study authors for clarification and additional information on stroke/TIA participants. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis or narrative synthesis, as appropriate. The primary outcome was efficacy (functional outcome) assessed using a validated scale, for example, the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) dichotomised into poor or good clinical outcome, the Barthel Index (higher score is better; scale from 0 to 100), or the Rivermead Mobility Index (higher score is better; scale from 0 to 15). Our secondary outcomes were vascular-related death, recurrent events, incidence of other type of stroke, adverse events, quality of life, and mood.\nMain results\nWe included 30 RCTs; nine of them provided outcome data (3339 participants). Only one study included participants in the acute phase of stroke (haemorrhagic). Doses of marine-derived n-3 PUFAs ranged from 400 mg/day to 3300 mg/day. Risk of bias was generally low or unclear in most trials, with a higher risk of bias in smaller studies. We assessed results separately for short (up to three months) and longer (more than three months) follow-up studies.\nShort follow-up (up to three months)\nFunctional outcome was reported in only one pilot study as poor clinical outcome assessed with the GOSE (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.68, P = 0.52; 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Mood (assessed with the GHQ-30, lower score better) was reported by only one study and favoured control (mean difference (MD) 1.41, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.75, P = 0.04; 102 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nWe found no evidence of an effect of the intervention for the remainder of the secondary outcomes: vascular-related death (two studies, not pooled due to differences in population, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.00, P = 0.50, and RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.72, P = 0.49; 142 participants; low-certainty evidence); recurrent events (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.02 to 8.84, P = 0.57; 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence); incidence of other type of stroke (two studies, not pooled due to different type of index stroke, RR 6.11, 95% CI 0.33 to 111.71, P = 0.22, and RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.58, P = 0.32; 58 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and quality of life (physical component, MD −2.31, 95% CI −4.81 to 0.19, P = 0.07, and mental component, MD −2.16, 95% CI −5.91 to 1.59, P = 0.26; 1 study; 102 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nAdverse events were reported by two studies (57 participants; very low-certainty evidence), one trial reporting extracranial haemorrhage (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.73, P = 0.16) and the other one reporting bleeding complications (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.35, P = 0.47).\nLonger follow-up (more than three months)\nOne small trial assessed functional outcome with both the Barthel Index for activities of daily living (MD 7.09, 95% CI −5.16 to 19.34, P = 0.26), and the Rivermead Mobility Index for mobility (MD 1.30, 95% CI −1.31 to 3.91, P = 0.33) (52 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We carried out meta-analysis for vascular-related death (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35, P = 0.86; 5 studies; 2237 participants; low-certainty evidence) and fatal recurrent events (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.55, P = 0.37; 3 studies; 1819 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nWe found no evidence of an effect of the intervention for mood (MD 1.00, 95% CI −2.07 to 4.07, P = 0.61; 1 study; 14 participants; low-certainty evidence). Incidence of other type of stroke and quality of life were not reported.\nAdverse events (all combined) were reported by only one study (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.58, P = 0.82; 1455 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are very uncertain of the effect of marine-derived n-3 PUFAs therapy on functional outcomes and dependence after stroke as there is insufficient high-certainty evidence. More well-designed RCTs are needed, specifically in acute stroke, to determine the efficacy and safety of the intervention.\nStudies assessing functional outcome might consider starting the intervention as early as possible after the event, as well as using standardised, clinically relevant measures for functional outcomes, such as the modified Rankin Scale. Optimal doses remain to be determined; delivery forms (type of lipid carriers) and mode of administration (ingestion or injection) also need further consideration.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Date of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review updates one carried out originally in 2019. It is now up to date to 31 May 2021."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1593 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDyspnoea is a common symptom in advanced cancer, with a prevalence of up to 70% among patients at end of life. The cause of dyspnoea is often multifactorial, and may cause considerable psychological distress and suffering. Dyspnoea is often undertreated and good symptom control is less frequently achieved in people with dyspnoea than in people with other symptoms of advanced cancer, such as pain and nausea. The exact mechanism of action of corticosteroids in managing dyspnoea is unclear, yet corticosteroids are commonly used in palliative care for a variety of non-specific indications, including pain, nausea, anorexia, fatigue and low mood, despite being associated with a wide range of adverse effects. In view of their widespread use, it is important to seek evidence of the effects of corticosteroids for the management of cancer-related dyspnoea.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of systemic corticosteroids for the management of cancer-related breathlessness (dyspnoea) in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Science Citation Index Web of Science, Latin America and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) and clinical trial registries, from inception to 25 January 2018.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials that included adults aged 18 years and above. We included participants with cancer-related dyspnoea when randomised to systemic corticosteroids (at any dose) administered for the relief of cancer-related dyspnoea or any other indication, compared to placebo, standard or alternative treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nFive review authors independently assessed trial quality and three extracted data. We used means and standard deviations for each outcome to report the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the risk of bias and quality of evidence using GRADE. We extracted primary outcomes of sensory-perceptual experience of dyspnoea (intensity of dyspnoea), affective distress (quality of dyspnoea) and symptom impact (burden of dyspnoea or impact on function) and secondary outcomes of serious adverse events, participant satisfaction with treatment and participant withdrawal from trial.\nMain results\nTwo studies met the inclusion criteria, enrolling 157 participants (37 participants in one study and 120 in the other study), of whom 114 were included in the analyses. The studies compared oral dexamethasone to placebo, followed by an open-label phase in one study. One study lasted seven days, and the duration of the other study was 15 days.\nWe were unable to conduct many of our predetermined analyses due to different agents, dosages, comparators and outcome measures, routes of drug delivery, measurement scales and time points. Subgroup analysis according to type of cancer was not possible.\nPrimary outcomes\nWe included two studies (114 participants) with data at one week in the meta-analysis for change in dyspnoea intensity/dyspnoea relief from baseline. Corticosteroid therapy with dexamethasone resulted in an MD of lower dyspnoea intensity compared to placebo at one week (MD –0.85 lower dyspnoea (scale 0–10; lower score = less breathlessness), 95% CI -1.73 to 0.03; very low-quality evidence), although we were uncertain as to whether corticosteroids had an important effect on dyspnoea as results were imprecise. We downgraded the quality of evidence by three levels from high to very low due to very serious study limitations and imprecision.\nOne study measured affective distress (quality of dyspnoea) and results were similar between groups (29 participants; very low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of the evidence three times for imprecision, inconsistency, and serious study limitations.\nBoth studies assessed symptom impact (burden of dyspnoea or impact on function) (113 participants; very low-quality evidence). In one study, it was unclear whether dexamethasone had an effect on dyspnoea as results were imprecise. The second study showed more improvement for physical well-being scores at days eight and 15 in the dexamethasone group compared with the control group, but there was no evidence of a difference for FACIT social/family, emotional or functional scales. We downgraded the quality of the evidence three times for imprecision, inconsistency, and serious study limitations.\nSecondary outcomes\nDue to the lack of homogenous outcome measures and inconsistency in reporting, we could not perform quantitative analysis for any secondary outcomes. In both studies, the frequency of adverse events was similar between groups, and corticosteroids were generally well tolerated. The withdrawal rates for the two studies were 15% and 36%. Reasons for withdrawal included lost to follow-up, participant or carer (or both) refusal, and death due to disease progression. We downgraded the quality of evidence for these secondary outcomes by three levels from high to very low due to serious study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision.\nNeither study examined participant satisfaction with treatment.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere are few studies assessing the effects of systemic corticosteroids on cancer-related dyspnoea in adults with cancer. We judged the evidence to be of very low quality that neither supported nor refuted corticosteroid use in this population. Further high-quality studies are needed to determine if corticosteroids are efficacious in this setting.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The current evidence was based on only two studies with a small number of participants. We rated the quality of the evidence from these 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 judged the quality of the evidence in this review to be very low, downgraded due to problems with study quality and too few data. We are very uncertain of the results. More high-quality studies are needed to determine if corticosteroids are effective for dyspnoea in people with cancer."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1594 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCystic fibrosis (CF) is one of the most common life-shortening autosomal-recessive genetic conditions with around 100,000 people affected globally. CF mainly affects the respiratory system, but cystic fibrosis-related diabetes (CFRD) is a common extrapulmonary co-morbidity and causes excess morbidity and mortality in this population. Continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGMS) are a relatively new technology and, as yet, the impact of these on the monitoring and subsequent management of CFRD remains undetermined.\nObjectives\nTo establish the impact of insulin therapy guided by continuous glucose monitoring compared to insulin therapy guided by other forms of glucose data collection on the lives of people with CFRD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. Date of latest search: 23 September 2021.\nWe also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews and online trials registries. Date of last search: 23 September 2021.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled studies comparing insulin regimens led by data from CGMS (including real-time or retrospective data, or both) with insulin regimens guided by abnormal blood glucose measurements collected through other means of glycaemic data collection in people with CFRD. Studies with a cross-over design, even with a washout period between intervention arms, are not eligible for inclusion due to the potential long-term impact of each of the interventions and the potential to compromise the outcomes of the second intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nNo studies were included in the review, meaning that no data were available to be collected for analysis.\nMain results\nReview authors screened 14 studies at the full-text stage against the review's inclusion criteria. Consequently, seven were excluded due to the study type being ineligible (not randomised), two studies were excluded due to their cross-over design, and two studies was excluded since the intervention used was not eligible and one was a literature review. One study in participants hospitalised for a pulmonary exacerbation is ongoing. Investigators are comparing insulin dosing via insulin pump with blood sugar monitoring by a CGMS to conventional diabetes management with daily insulin injections (or on an insulin pump if already on an insulin pump in the outpatient setting) and capillary blood glucose monitoring. The participants in the control arm will wear a blinded continuous glucose monitoring system for outcome assessment.\nIn addition to this, one further study is still awaiting classification, and will be screened to determine whether it is eligible for inclusion, or is to be excluded, in an update of this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nNo studies were included in the review, indicating that there is currently insufficient evidence to determine the impact of insulin therapy guided by CGMS compared to insulin therapy guided by other forms of glucose data collection on the lives of people with CFRD, nor on potential adverse effects of continuous glucose monitoring in this context. Randomised controlled studies are needed to generate evidence on the efficacy and safety of continuous glucose monitoring in people with CFRD. There is one relevant ongoing study that may be eligible for inclusion in a future update of this Cochrane Review, and whose results may help answer the review question.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "When we ran our searches, we did not find any studies that matched our inclusion criteria. This means we cannot comment on how CGMS affects the outcomes we set out to investigate as there is no evidence for us to look at. We found one ongoing study in people with CFRD who are in hospital for a pulmonary exacerbation (flare up of chest symptoms). The study is comparing the effects of giving insulin via an insulin pump and monitoring blood sugar using a CGMS to giving daily insulin injections (or if participants are already using an insulin pump before being admitted to hospital, they continue with this) and monitoring blood sugar levels using the 'finger stick' method. The people using the finger stick method will wear a dummy CGMS so the clinicians measuring outcomes will not know which group they are in. The study has not yet been completed, so we could not include it, but we might be able to include it in a future version of this review.\nMore research is needed on this topic to help fill the gap in the evidence which we have identified in this review."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1595 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPerioperative fluid management is a crucial element of perioperative care and has been studied extensively recently; however, 'the right amount' remains uncertain. One concept in perioperative fluid handling is goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT), wherein fluid administration targets various continuously measured haemodynamic variables with the aim of optimizing oxygen delivery. Another recently raised concept is that perioperative restrictive fluid therapy (RFT) may be beneficial and at least as effective as GDFT, with lower cost and less resource utilization.\nObjectives\nTo investigate whether RFT may be more beneficial than GDFT for adults undergoing major non-cardiac surgery.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases on 11 October 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, in the Cochrane Libary; MEDLINE; and Embase. Additionally, we performed a targeted search in Google Scholar and searched trial registries (World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov) for ongoing and unpublished trials. We scanned the reference lists and citations of included trials and any relevant systematic reviews identified.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing perioperative RFT versus GDFT for adults (aged ≥ 18 years) undergoing major non-cardiac surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened references for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion and consulted a third review author if necessary. When necessary, we contacted trial authors to request additional information. We presented pooled estimates for dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and for continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) with standard deviations (SDs). We used Review Manager 5 software to perform the meta-analyses. We used a fixed-effect model if we considered heterogeneity as not important; otherwise, we used a random-effects model. We used Poisson regression models to compare the average number of complications per person.\nMain results\nFrom 6396 citations, we included six studies with a total of 562 participants. Five studies were performed in participants undergoing abdominal surgery (including one study in participants undergoing cytoreductive abdominal surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC)), and one study was performed in participants undergoing orthopaedic surgery. In all studies, surgeries were elective. In five studies, crystalloids were used for basal infusion and colloids for boluses, and in one study, colloid was used for both basal infusion and boluses. Five studies reported the ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) status of participants. Most participants were ASA II (60.4%), 22.7% were ASA I, and only 16.9% were ASA III. No study participants were ASA IV. For the GDFT group, oesophageal doppler monitoring was used in three studies, uncalibrated invasive arterial pressure analysis systems in two studies, and a non-invasive arterial pressure monitoring system in one study. In all studies, GDFT optimization was conducted only intraoperatively. Only one study was at low risk of bias in all domains. The other five studies were at unclear or high risk of bias in one to three domains.\nRFT may have no effect on the rate of major complications compared to GDFT, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.34; 484 participants; 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence). RFT may increase the risk of all-cause mortality compared to GDFT, but the evidence on this is also very uncertain (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.06; 544 participants; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence). In a post-hoc analysis using a Peto odds ratio (OR) or a Poisson regression model, the odds of all-cause mortality were 4.81 times greater with the use of RFT compared to GDFT, but the evidence again is very uncertain (Peto OR 4.81, 95% CI 1.38 to 16.84; 544 participants; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Nevertheless, sensitivity analysis shows that exclusion of a study in which the final volume of fluid received intraoperatively was higher in the RFT group than in the GDFT group revealed no differences in mortality. Based on analysis of secondary outcomes, such as length of hospital stay (464 participants; 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence), surgery-related complications (364 participants; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence), non-surgery-related complications (74 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), renal failure (410 participants; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence), and quality of surgical recovery (74 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), GDFT may have no effect on the risk of these outcomes compared to RFT, but the evidence is very uncertain. Included studies provided no data on administration of vasopressors or inotropes to correct haemodynamic instability nor on cost of treatment.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on very low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain whether RFT is inferior to GDFT in selected populations of adults undergoing major non-cardiac surgery. The evidence is based mainly on data from studies on abdominal surgery in a low-risk population. The evidence does not address higher-risk populations or other surgery types. Larger, higher-quality RCTs including a wider spectrum of surgery types and a wider spectrum of patient groups, including high-risk populations, are needed to determine effects of the intervention.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence is current to 11 October 2019. We included studies that randomly assigned adults to intervention groups comparing the two techniques described above. We found six studies including a total of 562 participants. Five studies involved abdominal surgery, and one involved orthopaedic surgery. No studies involved emergency surgery nor patients suffering from serious medical conditions before surgery."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1596 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nApproximately half of people with heart failure have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD have the potential to reduce death (any cause) or hospitalisations for decompensated heart failure. However, these interventions are of uncertain benefit and may increase the risk of harm, such as hypotension and electrolyte abnormalities, in those with CKD.\nObjectives\nThis review aims to look at the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions for HF (i.e., antihypertensive agents, inotropes, and agents that may improve the heart performance indirectly) in people with HF and CKD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies through 12 September 2019 in consultation with an Information Specialist and using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials of any pharmacological intervention for acute or chronic heart failure, among people of any age with chronic kidney disease of at least three months duration.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened the records to identify eligible studies and extracted data on the following dichotomous outcomes: death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure, worsening kidney function, hyperkalaemia, and hypotension. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate treatment effects, which we expressed as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. We applied the GRADE methodology to rate the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nOne hundred and twelve studies met our selection criteria: 15 were studies of adults with CKD; 16 studies were conducted in the general population but provided subgroup data for people with CKD; and 81 studies included individuals with CKD, however, data for this subgroup were not provided. The risk of bias in all 112 studies was frequently high or unclear. Of the 31 studies (23,762 participants) with data on CKD patients, follow-up ranged from three months to five years, and study size ranged from 16 to 2916 participants. In total, 26 studies (19,612 participants) reported disaggregated and extractable data on at least one outcome of interest for our review and were included in our meta-analyses.\nIn acute heart failure, the effects of adenosine A1-receptor antagonists, dopamine, nesiritide, or serelaxin on death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure or kidney function, hyperkalaemia, hypotension or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported.\nIn chronic heart failure, the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (4 studies, 5003 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; I2 = 78%; low certainty evidence), aldosterone antagonists (2 studies, 34 participants: RR 0.61 95% CI 0.06 to 6.59; very low certainty evidence), and vasopressin receptor antagonists (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1840 participants; low certainty evidence) on death (any cause) were uncertain. Treatment with beta-blockers may reduce the risk of death (any cause) (4 studies, 3136 participants: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.79; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence).\nTreatment with ACEi or ARB (2 studies, 1368 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.90; I2 = 97%; very low certainty evidence) had uncertain effects on hospitalisation for heart failure, as treatment estimates were consistent with either benefit or harm. Treatment with beta-blockers may decrease hospitalisation for heart failure (3 studies, 2287 participants: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.05; I2 = 87%; low certainty evidence).\nAldosterone antagonists may increase the risk of hyperkalaemia compared to placebo or no treatment (3 studies, 826 participants: RR 2.91, 95% CI 2.03 to 4.17; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). Renin inhibitors had uncertain risks of hyperkalaemia (2 studies, 142 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; very low certainty). We were unable to estimate whether treatment with sinus node inhibitors affects the risk of hyperkalaemia, as there were few studies and meta-analysis was not possible. Hyperkalaemia was not reported for the CKD subgroup in studies investigating other therapies.\nThe effects of ACEi or ARB, or aldosterone antagonists on worsening heart failure or kidney function, hypotension, or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported.\nEffects of anti-arrhythmic agents, digoxin, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, renin inhibitors, sinus node inhibitors, vasodilators, and vasopressin receptor antagonists were very uncertain due to the paucity of studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe effects of pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD are uncertain and there is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice. Study data for treatment outcomes in patients with heart failure and CKD are sparse despite the potential impact of kidney impairment on the benefits and harms of treatment. Future research aimed at analysing existing data in general population HF studies to explore the effect in subgroups of patients with CKD, considering stage of disease, may yield valuable insights for the management of people with HF and CKD.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found 31 studies involving 23,762 people with heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Patients were given either a heart failure medicine compared to standard care or a placebo. The treatment they received was decided by random chance. Although there were many different treatments studied, unfortunately, few of them looked at the same type of medicine. As well, there were many different ways that researchers measured what happened when patients took these medicines. As a result, we could not combine the studies together and clarify the benefits and harms of each treatment. Existing studies cannot really tell us whether medicines used to treat heart failure in the general population are effective or safe for people who have both heart failure and chronic kidney disease."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1597 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThere is a substantial body of evidence that prescribing for care home residents is suboptimal and requires improvement. Consequently, there is a need to identify effective interventions to optimise prescribing and resident outcomes in this context. This is an update of a previously published review (Alldred 2013).\nObjectives\nThe objective of the review was to determine the effect of interventions to optimise overall prescribing for older people living in care homes.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Specialised Register), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL to May 2015. We also searched clinical trial registries for relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials evaluating interventions aimed at optimising prescribing for older people (aged 65 years or older) living in institutionalised care facilities. Studies were included if they measured one or more of the following primary outcomes: adverse drug events; hospital admissions; mortality; or secondary outcomes, quality of life (using validated instrument); medication-related problems; medication appropriateness (using validated instrument); medicine costs.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We presented a narrative summary of results.\nMain results\nThe 12 included studies involved 10,953 residents in 355 (range 1 to 85) care homes in ten countries. Nine studies were cluster-randomised controlled trials and three studies were patient-randomised controlled trials. The interventions evaluated were diverse and often multifaceted. Medication review was a component of ten studies. Four studies involved multidisciplinary case-conferencing, five studies involved an educational element for health and care professionals and one study evaluated the use of clinical decision support technology. We did not combine the results in a meta-analysis due to heterogeneity across studies. Interventions to optimise prescribing may lead to fewer days in hospital (one study out of eight; low certainty evidence), a slower decline in health-related quality of life (one study out of two; low certainty evidence), the identification and resolution of medication-related problems (seven studies; low certainty evidence), and may lead to improved medication appropriateness (five studies out of five studies; low certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether the intervention improves/reduces medicine costs (five studies; very low certainty evidence) and it may make little or no difference on adverse drug events (two studies; low certainty evidence) or mortality (six studies; low certainty evidence). The risk of bias across studies was heterogeneous.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe could not draw robust conclusions from the evidence due to variability in design, interventions, outcomes and results. The interventions implemented in the studies in this review led to the identification and resolution of medication-related problems and improvements in medication appropriateness, however evidence of a consistent effect on resident-related outcomes was not found. There is a need for high-quality cluster-randomised controlled trials testing clinical decision support systems and multidisciplinary interventions that measure well-defined, important resident-related outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We judged the overall quality of the evidence for the reported outcomes to be low for adverse drug events (harmful effects caused by medicines), hospital admissions, death, quality-of-life, medication-related problems, medication appropriateness, and very low for the cost of medicines. More high-quality studies need to be done to gather more evidence for these and other types of interventions. Further studies are needed to evaluate new technologies, including computer systems that support prescribing decisions. More work needs to be done to make sure that researchers are consistently measuring outcomes that are important to care home residents."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1598 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTrabeculectomy is performed as a treatment for many types of glaucoma in an attempt to lower the intraocular pressure. The surgery involves creating a channel through the sclera, through which intraocular fluid can leave the eye. If scar tissue blocks the exit of the surgically created channel, intraocular pressure rises and the operation fails. Antimetabolites such as 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) are used to inhibit wound healing to prevent the conjunctiva scarring down on to the sclera. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2000, and previously updated in 2009.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of both intraoperative application and postoperative injections of 5-FU in eyes of people undergoing surgery for glaucoma at one year.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 6), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to July 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to July 2013), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 25 July 2013. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and the Science Citation Index and contacted investigators and experts for details of additional relevant trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised trials of intraoperative application and postoperative 5-FU injections compared with placebo or no treatment in trabeculectomy for glaucoma.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We contacted trial investigators for missing information. Data were summarised using risk ratio (RR), Peto odds ratio and mean difference, as appropriate.\nThe participants were divided into three separate subgroup populations (high risk of failure, combined surgery and primary trabeculectomy) and the interventions were divided into three subgroups of 5-FU injections (intraoperative, regular dose postoperative and low dose postoperative). The low dose was defined as a total dose less than 19 mg.\nMain results\nTwelve trials, which randomised 1319 participants, were included in the review. As far as can be determined from the trial reports, the methodological quality of the trials was not high, including a high risk of detection bias in many. Of note, only one study reported low-dose postoperative 5-FU and this paper was at high risk of reporting bias.\nNot all studies reported population characteristics, of those that did mean age ranged from 61 to 75 years. 83% of participants were white and 40% were male. All studies were a minimum of one year long.\nA significant reduction in surgical failure in the first year after trabeculectomy was detected in eyes at high risk of failure and those undergoing surgery for the first time receiving regular-dose 5-FU postoperative injections (RR 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.68 and 0.21, 0.06 to 0.68, respectively). No surgical failures were detected in studies assessing combined surgery. No difference was detected in the low-dose postoperative 5-FU injection group in patients undergoing primary trabeculectomy (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.24). Peroperative 5-FU in patients undergoing primary trabeculectomy significantly reduced risk of failure (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.88). This translates to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome of 4.1 for the high risk of failure patients, and 5.0 for primary trabeculectomy patients receiving postoperative 5-FU.\nIntraocular pressure was also reduced in the primary trabeculectomy group receiving intraoperative 5-FU (mean difference (MD) -1.04, 95% CI -1.65 to -0.43) and regular-dose postoperative 5-FU (MD -4.67, 95% CI -6.60 to -2.73). No significant change occurred in the primary trabeculectomy group receiving low-dose postoperative 5-FU (MD -0.50, 95% CI -2.96 to 1.96). Intraocular pressure was particularly reduced in the high risk of failure population receiving regular-dose postoperative 5-FU (MD -16.30, 95% CI -18.63 to -13.97). No difference was detected in the combined surgery population receiving regular-dose postoperative 5-FU (MD -1.02, 95% CI -2.40 to 0.37).\nWhilst no evidence was found of an increased risk of serious sight-threatening complications, other complications are more common after 5-FU injections. None of the trials reported on the participants' perspective of care.\nThe quality of evidence varied between subgroups and outcomes, most notably the evidence for combined surgery and low-dose postoperative 5-FU was found to be very low using GRADE. The combined surgery postoperative 5-FU subgroup because no surgical failures have been reported and the sample size is small (n = 118), and the low-dose postoperative 5-FU group because of the small sample size (n = 76) and high risk of bias of the only contributing study.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPostoperative injections of 5-FU are now rarely used as part of routine packages of postoperative care but are increasingly used on an ad hoc basis. This presumably reflects an aspect of the treatment that is unacceptable to both patients and doctors. None of the trials reported on the participants' perspective of care, which constitutes a serious omission for an invasive treatment such as this.\nThe small but statistically significant reduction in surgical failures and intraocular pressure at one year in the primary trabeculectomy group and high-risk group must be weighed against the increased risk of complications and patient preference.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Side effects and complications of 5-FU during or after surgery\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Complications such as damage to cells at the front of the eye or a leak from the wound seem more common when 5-FU is used."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1599 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAlpha-glucosidase inhibitors (AGI) reduce blood glucose levels and may thus prevent or delay type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and its associated complications in people at risk of developing of T2DM.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of AGI in people with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), impaired fasting blood glucose (IFG), moderately elevated glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) or any combination of these.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the reference lists of systematic reviews, articles and health technology assessment reports. The date of the last search of all databases was December 2017.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with a duration of one year or more, comparing AGI with any pharmacological glucose-lowering intervention, behaviour-changing intervention, placebo or no intervention in people with IFG, IGT, moderately elevated HbA1c or combinations of these.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles or records, assessed quality and extracted outcome data independently. One review author extracted data, which were checked by a second review author. We resolved discrepancies by consensus or involvement of a third review author. For meta-analyses we used a random-effects model with assessment of risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence by using the GRADE instrument.\nMain results\nFor this update of the Cochrane Review (first published 2006, Issue 4) we included 10 RCTs (11,814 participants), eight investigating acarbose and two investigating voglibose, that included people with IGT or people \"at increased risk for diabetes\". The trial duration ranged from one to six years. Most trials compared AGI with placebo (N = 4) or no intervention (N = 4).\nAcarbose reduced the incidence of T2DM compared to placebo: 670 out of 4014 people (16.7%) in the acarbose groups developed T2DM, compared to 812 out of 3994 people (20.3%) in the placebo groups (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.89; P < 0.0001; 3 trials; 8008 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial including participants with coronary heart disease and IGT contributed 64% of cases for this outcome. Acarbose reduced the risk of T2DM compared to no intervention: 7 out 75 people (9.3%) in the acarbose groups developed T2DM, compared to 18 out of 65 people (27.7%) in the no-intervention groups (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.69; P = 0.004; 2 trials; 140 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nAcarbose compared to placebo did not reduce or increase the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.18; P = 0.86; 3 trials; 8069 participants; very low-certainty evidence), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.10; P = 0.26; 3 trials; 8069 participants; very low-certainty evidence), serious adverse events (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.29; P = 0.13; 2 trials; 6625 participants; low-certainty evidence), non-fatal stroke (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.74; P = 0.43; 1 trial; 1368 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or congestive heart failure (RR of 0.87; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.12; P = 0.40; 2 trials; 7890 participants; low-certainty evidence). Acarbose compared to placebo reduced non-fatal myocardial infarction: one out of 742 participants (0.1%) in the acarbose groups had a non-fatal myocardial infarction compared to 15 out of 744 participants (2%) in the placebo groups (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.53; P = 0.007; 2 trials; 1486 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Acarbose treatment showed an increased risk of non-serious adverse events (mainly gastro-intestinal events), compared to placebo: 751 of 775 people (96.9%) in the acarbose groups experienced an event, compared to 723 of 775 people (93.3%) in the placebo groups (RR 1.04; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.06; P = 0.0008; 2 trials; 1550 participants). Acarbose compared to no intervention showed no advantage or disadvantage for any of these outcome measures (very low-certainty evidence).\nOne trial each compared voglibose with placebo (1780 participants) or diet and exercise (870 participants). Voglibose compared to placebo reduced the incidence of T2DM: 50 out of 897 participants (5.6%) developed T2DM, compared to 106 out of 881 participants (12%) in the placebo group (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.64; P < 0.0001; 1 trial; 1778 participants; low-certainty evidence). For all other reported outcome measures there were no clear differences between voglibose and comparator groups. One trial with 90 participants compared acarbose with diet and exercise and another trial with 98 participants reported data on acarbose versus metformin. There were no clear differences for any outcome measure between these two acarbose interventions and the associated comparator groups.\nNone of the trials reported amputation of lower extremity, blindness or severe vision loss, end-stage renal disease, health-related quality of life, time to progression to T2DM, or socioeconomic effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAGI may prevent or delay the development of T2DM in people with IGT. There is no firm evidence that AGI have a beneficial effect on cardiovascular mortality or cardiovascular events.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "For most of our outcomes we are uncertain or very uncertain how valid the results of our comparisons are. Reasons for this uncertainty are systematic errors in some of the included trials, the overall low number of trials for a particular outcome, imprecise results and missing data of one included trial."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1600 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThalassaemia is a quantitative abnormality of haemoglobin caused by mutations in genes controlling production of alpha or beta globins. Abnormally unpaired globin chains cause membrane damage and cell death within organ systems and destruction of erythroid precursors in the bone marrow, leading to haemolytic anaemia. The life-long management of the general health effects of thalassaemia is highly challenging, and failure to deal with dental and orthodontic complications exacerbates the public health, financial and personal burden of the condition. There is a lack of evidence-based guidelines to help care seekers and providers manage such dental and orthodontic complications. This review aimed to evaluate the available evidence on methods for treating dental and orthodontic complications in people with thalassaemia to inform future recommendations. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2019.\nObjectives\nTo assess different methods for treating dental and orthodontic complications in people with thalassaemia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register in September 2022, and we searched nine online databases and trials registries in January 2022. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews and contacted haematologists, experts in fields of dentistry, organisations, pharmaceutical companies and researchers working in this field.\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated treatment of dental and orthodontic complications in individuals diagnosed with thalassaemia, irrespective of phenotype, severity, age, sex and ethnic origin.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the 37,242 titles retrieved by the search. After deduplication, we identified two potentially relevant RCTs. On assessing their eligibility against our inclusion and exclusion criteria, we excluded one and included the other.\nMain results\nWe included one parallel-design RCT conducted in Saudi Arabia and involving 29 participants (19 males, 10 females) with thalassaemia. It aimed to assess the effectiveness of photodynamic therapy as an adjuvant to conventional full-mouth ultrasonic scaling for the treatment of gingivitis. The average age of participants was around 23 years.\nThere is very low-certainty evidence from this trial that full-mouth ultrasonic scaling plus photodynamic therapy compared to full-mouth ultrasonic scaling alone may improve gingival index score and bleeding on probing after 12 weeks in people with thalassaemia.\nWe found no studies that assessed other interventions for the various dental or orthodontic complications of thalassaemia.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough the included study showed greater reduction in gingivitis in the group treated with full-mouth ultrasonic scaling plus photodynamic therapy, the evidence is of very low certainty. The study had unclear risk of bias, a short follow-up period and no data on safety or adverse effects. We cannot make definitive recommendations for clinical practice based on the limited evidence of a single trial. Future studies will very likely affect the conclusions of this review.\nThis review highlights the need for high-quality RCTs that investigate the effectiveness of various treatment modalities for dental and orthodontic complications in people with thalassaemia. It is crucial that future trials assess adverse effects of interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up to date is the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence is current to January 2022."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1601 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGliomas are brain tumours arising from glial cells with an annual incidence of 4 to 11 people per 100,000. In this review we focus on gliomas with low aggressive potential in the short term, i.e. low-grade gliomas. Most people with low-grade gliomas are treated with surgery and may receive radiotherapy thereafter. However, there is concern about the possible long-term effects of radiotherapy, especially on neurocognitive functioning.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the long-term neurocognitive and other side effects of radiotherapy (with or without chemotherapy) compared with no radiotherapy, or different types of radiotherapy, among people with glioma (where 'long-term' is defined as at least two years after diagnosis); and to write a brief economic commentary.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases on 16 February 2018 and updated the search on 14 November 2018: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 11) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via Ovid; and Embase via Ovid. We also searched clinical trial registries and relevant conference proceedings from 2014 to 2018 to identify ongoing and unpublished studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and non-randomised trials, and controlled before-and-after studies (CBAS). Participants were aged 16 years and older with cerebral glioma other than glioblastoma. We included studies where patients in at least one treatment arm received radiotherapy, with or without chemotherapy, and where neurocognitive outcomes were assessed two or more years after treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of findings using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nThe review includes nine studies: seven studies were of low-grade glioma and two were of grade 3 glioma. Altogether 2406 participants were involved but there was high sample attrition and outcome data were available for a minority of people at final study assessments. In seven of the nine studies, participants were recruited to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which longer-term follow-up was undertaken in a subset of people that had survived without disease progression. There was moderate to high risk of bias in studies due to lack of blinding and high attrition, and in two observational studies there was high risk of selection bias. Paucity of data and risk of bias meant that evidence was of low to very low certainty. We were unable to combine results in meta-analysis due to diversity in interventions and outcomes.\nThe studies examined the following five comparisons.\nRadiotherapy versus no adjuvant treatment\nTwo observational studies contributed data. At the 12-year follow-up in one study, the risk of cognitive impairment (defined as cognitive disability deficits in at least five of 18 neuropsychological tests) was greater in the radiotherapy group (risk ratio (RR) 1.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 3.71; n = 65); at five to six years the difference between groups did not reach statistical significance (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.06; n = 195). In the other study, one subject in the radiotherapy group had cognitive impairment (defined as significant deterioration in eight of 12 neuropsychological tests) at two years compared with none in the control group (very low certainty evidence).\nWith regard to neurocognitive scores, in one study the radiotherapy group was reported to have had significantly worse mean scores on some tests compared with no radiotherapy; however, the raw data were only given for significant findings. In the second study, there were no clear differences in any of the various cognitive outcomes at two years (n = 31) and four years (n = 15) (very low certainty evidence).\nRadiotherapy versus chemotherapy\nOne RCT contributed data on cognitive impairment at up to three years with no clear difference between arms (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.36 to 5.70, n = 117) (low-certainty evidence).\nHigh-dose radiotherapy versus low-dose radiotherapy\nOnly one of two studies reporting this comparison contributed data, and at two and five years there were no clear differences between high- and low-dose radiotherapy arms (very low certainty evidence).\nConventional radiotherapy versus stereotactic conformal radiotherapy\nOne study involving younger people contributed limited data from the subgroup aged 16 to 25 years. The numbers of participants with neurocognitive impairment at five years after treatment were two out of 12 in the conventional arm versus none out of 11 in the stereotactic conformal radiotherapy arm (RR 4.62, 95% CI 0.25 to 86.72; n = 23; low-certainty evidence).\nChemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy\nTwo RCTs tested for cognitive impairment. One defined cognitive impairment as a decline of more than 3 points in MMSE score compared with baseline and reported data from 2-year (110 participants), 3-year (91 participants), and 5-year (57 participants) follow-up with no clear difference between the two arms at any time point. A second study did not report raw data but measured MMSE scores over five years in 126 participants at two years, 110 at three years, 69 at four years and 53 at five years. Authors concluded that there was no difference in MMSE scores between the two study arms (P = 0.4752) (low-certainty evidence).\nTwo RCTs reported quality of life (QoL) outcomes for this comparison. One reported no differences in Brain-QoL scores between study arms over a 5-year follow-up period (P = 0.2767; no raw data were given and denominators were not stated). The other trial reported that the long-term results of health-related QoL showed no difference between the arms but did not give the raw data for overall HRQoL scores (low-certainty evidence).\nWe found no comparative data on endocrine dysfunction; we planned to develop a brief economic commentary but found no relevant economic studies for inclusion.\nAuthors' conclusions\nRadiotherapy for gliomas with a good prognosis may increase the risk of neurocognitive side effects in the long term; however the magnitude of the risk is uncertain. Evidence on long-term neurocognitive side effects associated with chemoradiotherapy is also uncertain. Neurocognitive assessment should be an integral part of long-term follow-up in trials involving radiotherapy for lower-grade gliomas to improve the certainty of evidence regarding long-term neurocognitive effects. Such trials should also assess other potential long-term effects, including endocrine dysfunction, and evaluate costs and cost effectiveness.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Methods and results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched for relevant research studies up to 14 November 2018. We only included studies with a control group (i.e. studies that included groups of people that had or had not received radiotherapy or had received different types or doses of radiotherapy). The review includes nine research studies that collected information on long-term neurocognitive or quality of life outcomes, mostly among people with low-grade gliomas. Altogether 2406 participants were involved in these studies. The studies looked at five different comparisons including radiotherapy versus no radiotherapy, radiotherapy versus chemotherapy, high- versus low-dose radiotherapy, different types of radiotherapy, and radiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy. Some evidence suggested that radiotherapy might increase the risk of cognitive impairment compared with no radiotherapy after surgery; however, this and evidence for the other comparisons was not convincing. This was partly because many of the people were not followed up, either because they had died or their disease had progressed, and so the resulting evidence was weak.\nNo studies compared effects of radiotherapy on relevant hormone functioning; we planned to develop a brief economic commentary to summarise information on whether the interventions represented a good use of health services but found no relevant studies."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1602 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nA rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is a separation of the neurosensory retina from the retinal pigment epithelium caused by a full-thickness break associated with vitreous traction. While pneumatic retinopexy (PR), scleral buckle (SB), and vitrectomy are all well-received surgical interventions for eyes with RRD, their relative effectiveness has remained controversial.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of PR versus SB or PR versus a combination treatment of SB and vitrectomy for people with RRD and to summarize any data on economic measures and quality of life.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; and four other databases on 11 March 2021. We used no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of PR versus SB (with or without vitrectomy) for eyes with RRD.\nData collection and analysis\nAfter screening for eligibility, two review authors independently extracted study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. We followed systematic review standards as set by Cochrane.\nMain results\nIn this update, we identified and included one new randomized controlled trial. Together with two trials from the 2015 version of the review, we included three trials (276 eyes of 274 participants) comparing the effectiveness of PR versus SB. None compared PR versus a combined treatment of SB and vitrectomy.\nOf the three trials, one was a small study (published in 1996) with 20 participants (20 eyes) enrolled in Ireland and followed for a mean of 16 months; the second (published in 1989) included 196 participants (198 eyes) in the US followed for at least six months, and the third (published in 2021) was conducted in Italy and enrolled 58 participants (58 eyes) with a follow-up of 12 months. Overall, poor reporting quality resulted in unclear or high risks of bias.\nWe found low-certainty evidence that PR may achieve retinal reattachment slightly less often than SB (risk ratio [RR] 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81 to 1.02; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 276 eyes). Eyes undergoing PR may also display a higher risk of recurrent retinal detachment (low-certainty evidence), but the RR estimates were very imprecise (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.98; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 276 eyes).\nAll three studies described the final visual acuity (VA) after the two procedures. However, the results were reported using different metrics and could not be combined. One study (196 participants) reported the proportion of eyes with a final VA of 20/40 or greater and favored PR (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.65; low-certainty evidence), whereas in the 2021 study, both groups showed an improvement in final VA and there was no evidence of a difference between the two (mean difference [MD] −0.03, 95% CI −0.25 to 0.19; low-certainty evidence).\nNo study reported data on quality of life or economic measures.\nPostoperative safety outcomes generally favored PR versus SB (low/very low-certainty evidence); however, there was considerable uncertainty regarding the risk of any operative ocular adverse events (RR 0.55 CI 0.28 to 1.11; 276 eyes), glaucoma (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.46; 198 eyes), macular pucker (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.11; 256 eyes), proliferative vitreoretinopathy (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.96; 276 eyes), and persistent diplopia (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.09; 256 eyes). Eyes undergoing PR experienced fewer postoperative cataract developments (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.75; 153 eyes), choroidal detachments (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.57; 198 eyes), and myopic shift (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.10; 256 eyes).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe current update confirms the findings of the previous review. PR may result in lower rates of reattachment and higher rates of recurrence than SB, but carries a lower burden of postoperative complications. The effects of these two procedures on other functional outcomes and quality of life remain uncertain. The available evidence remains insufficient and of low quality.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Results from the three studies suggested that SB may perform better or as well as PR in terms of reattachment rates and for reducing the risk of recurrence of detachment. Few ocular adverse events (eye-related side effects) occurred during either procedure, and differences in some adverse events occurring after the surgeries were very uncertain. More eyes in the SB group experienced cataract and a shift of refraction toward myopia (change to nearsightedness that may be a sign of developing cataract) than eyes in the PR group."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1603 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCurrent treatments for amblyopia, typically patching or pharmacological blurring, have limited success. Less than two-thirds of children achieve good acuity of 0.20 logMAR in the amblyopic eye, with limited improvement of stereopsis, and poor adherence to treatment. A new approach, based on presentation of movies or computer games separately to each eye, may yield better results and improve adherence. These treatments aim to balance the input of visual information from each eye to the brain.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether binocular treatments in children, aged three to eight years, with unilateral amblyopia result in better visual outcomes than conventional patching or pharmacological blurring treatment.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE, Embase, ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP to 19 November 2020, with no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nTwo review authors independently screened the results of the search for relevant studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled children between the ages of three and eight years old with unilateral amblyopia. Amblyopia was classed as present when the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was worse than 0.200 logMAR in the amblyopic eye, with BCVA 0.200 logMAR or better in the fellow eye, in the presence of an amblyogenic risk factor, such as anisometropia, strabismus, or both. To be eligible, children needed to have undergone cycloplegic refraction and ophthalmic examination, including fundal examination and optical treatment, if indicated, with stable BCVA in the amblyopic eye despite good adherence with wearing glasses. We included any type of binocular viewing intervention, on any device (e.g. computer monitors viewed with liquid-crystal display shutter glasses; hand-held screens, including mobile phones with lenticular prism overlay; or virtual reality displays). Control groups received standard amblyopia treatment, which could include patching or pharmacological blurring of the better-seeing eye. We included full-time (all waking hours) and part-time (between 1 and 12 hours a day) patching regimens.\nWe excluded children who had received any treatment other than optical treatment; and studies with less than 8-week follow-up.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome of the review was the change from baseline of distance BCVA in the amblyopic eye after 16 (± 2) weeks of treatment, measured in logMAR units on an age-appropriate acuity test.\nMain results\nWe identified one eligible RCT of conventional patching treatment versus novel binocular treatment, and analysed a subset of 68 children who fulfilled the age criterion of this review. We obtained data for the mean change in amblyopic eye visual acuity, adverse events (diplopia), and adherence to prescribed treatment at 8- and 16-week follow-up intervals, though no data were available for change in BCVA after 52 weeks. Risk of bias for the included study was considered to be low.\nThe certainty of evidence for the visual acuity outcomes at 8 and 16 weeks of treatment and adherence to the study intervention was rated moderate using the GRADE criteria, downgrading by one level due to imprecision. The certainty of evidence was downgraded by two levels and rated low for the proportion of participants reporting adverse events due to the sample size.\nAcuity improved in the amblyopic eye in both the binocular and patching groups following 16 weeks of treatment (improvement of -0.21 logMAR in the binocular group and -0.24 logMAR in the patching group), mean difference (MD) 0.03 logMAR (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.10 to 0.04; 63 children). This difference was non-significant and the improvements in both the binocular and patching groups are also considered clinically similar.\nFollowing 8 weeks of treatment, acuity improved in both the binocular and patching groups (improvement of -0.18 logMAR in the patching group compared to -0.16 logMAR improvement in the binocular-treatment group) (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.08). Again this difference was statistically non-significant, and the differences observed between the patching and binocular groups are also clinically non-significant. No adverse event of permanent diplopia was reported.\nAdherence was higher in the patching group (47% of participants in the iPad group achieved over 75% compliance compared with 90% of the patching group).\nData were not available for changes in stereopsis nor for contrast sensitivity following treatment.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently, there is only one RCT that offers evidence of the safety and effectiveness of binocular treatment.\nThe authors are moderately confident that after 16 weeks of treatment, the gain in amblyopic eye acuity with binocular treatment is likely comparable to that of conventional patching treatment. However, due to the limited sample size and lack of long term (52 week) follow-up data, it is not yet possible to draw robust conclusions regarding the overall safety and sustained effectiveness of binocular treatment.\nFurther research, using acknowledged methods of visual acuity and stereoacuity assessment with known reproducibility, is required to inform decisions about the implementation of binocular treatments for amblyopia in clinical practice, and should incorporate longer term follow-up to establish the effectiveness of binocular treatment. Randomised controlled trials should also include outcomes reported by users, adherence to prescribed treatment, and recurrence of amblyopia after cessation of treatment.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up to date is this evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review updates our previous review. The evidence is up to date to November 2020."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1604 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe therapeutic role of azathioprine (AZA) and 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) remains controversial due to their relatively slow onset of action and potential for adverse events. An updated meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy of these agents for the maintenance of remission in quiescent Crohn's disease.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy of AZA and 6-MP for maintenance of remission in quiescent Crohn's disease.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to June 30, 2015.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials of oral azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine compared to placebo or active therapy involving adult patients (> 18 years) with quiescent Crohn's disease were considered for inclusion. Patients with surgically-induced remission were excluded.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). The primary outcome was maintenance of remission. Secondary outcomes included steroid sparing, adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events. All data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary outcome and selected secondary outcomes was assessed using the GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nEleven studies (881 participants) were included. Comparisons included AZA versus placebo (7 studies, 532 participants), AZA or 6-MP versus mesalazine or sulfasalazine (2 studies, 166 participants), AZA versus budesonide (1 study, 77 participants), AZA and infliximab versus infliximab (1 study, 36 patients), 6-MP versus methotrexate (1 study, 31 patients), and early AZA versus conventional management (1 study, 147 participants). Two studies were rated as low risk of bias. Four studies were rated as high risk of bias for being non-blinded or single-blind. Five studies were rated as unclear risk of bias. A pooled analysis of six studies (489 participants) showed that AZA (1.0 to 2.5 mg/kg/day) was significantly superior to placebo for maintenance of remission over a 6 to 18 month period. Seventy-three per cent of patients in the AZA group maintained remission compared to 62% of placebo patients (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.34). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome was nine. A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to sparse data (327 events) and unclear risk of bias. A pooled analysis of two studies (166 participants) showed no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who maintained remission between AZA (1.0 to 2.5 mg/kg/day) or 6-MP (1.0 mg/day) and mesalazine (3 g/day) or sulphasalazine (0.5 g/15 kg/day) therapy. Sixty-nine per cent of patients in the AZA/6-MP group maintained remission compared to 67% of mesalazine/sulphasalazine patients (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.34). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to sparse data (113 events) and high or unclear risk of bias. One small study found AZA (2.0 to 2.5 mg/kg/day) to be superior to budesonide (6 to 9 mg/day) for maintenance of remission at one year. Seventy-six per cent (29/38) of AZA patients maintained remission compared to 46% (18/39) of budesonide patients (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.42). GRADE indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to sparse data (47 events) and high risk of bias. One small study found no difference in maintenance of remission rates at one year between combination therapy with AZA (2.5 mg/kg) and infliximab (5 mg/kg every 8 weeks) compared to infliximab monotherapy. Eighty-one per cent (13/16) of patients in the combination therapy group maintained remission compared to 80% (16/20) of patients in the infliximab group (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.40). GRADE indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was very low due to very sparse data (29 events) and high risk of bias. One small study found no difference in maintenance of remission rates at one year between 6-MP (1 mg/kg/day) and methotrexate (10 mg/week). Fifty per cent (8/16) of 6-MP patients maintained remission at one year compared to 53% (8/15) of methotrexate patients (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.85). GRADE indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was very low due to very sparse data (16 events) and high risk of bias. One study (147 participants) failed to show any significant benefit for early azathioprine treatment over a conventional management strategy. In the early azathioprine treatment group 67% (11-85%) of trimesters were spent in remission compared to 56% (29-73%) in the conventional management group. AZA when compared to placebo had a significantly increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.64), withdrawal due to adverse events (3.12, 95% CI 1.59 to 6.09) and serious adverse events (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 4.90). AZA/6-MP also demonstrated a significantly higher risk of serious adverse events when compared to mesalazine or sulphasalazine (RR 9.37, 95% CI 1.84 to 47.7). Common adverse events included pancreatitis, leukopenia, nausea, allergic reaction and infection.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow quality evidence suggests that AZA is more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease. Although AZA may be effective for maintenance of remission its use is limited by adverse effects. Low quality evidence suggests that AZA may be superior to budesonide for maintenance of remission but because of small study size and high risk of bias, this result should be interpreted with caution. No conclusions can be drawn from the other active comparator studies because of low and very low quality evidence. Adequately powered trials are needed to determine the comparative efficacy and safety of AZA and 6-MP compared to other active maintenance therapies. Further research is needed to assess the efficacy and safety of the use of AZA with infliximab and other biologics and to determine the optimal management strategy for patients with quiescent Crohn's disease.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is Crohn's disease?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Crohn's disease is a long-term chronic inflammatory bowel disease that can affect any part of the gastrointestinal tract from mouth to anus. Symptoms include abdominal pain, diarrhea and weight loss. When people with Crohn's disease are experiencing symptoms of the disease it is said to be ‘active’. Periods when the symptoms stop are called ‘remission’."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1605 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGlaucoma is a chronic optic neuropathy characterized by retinal ganglion cell death resulting in damage to the optic nerve head and the retinal nerve fiber layer. Pigment dispersion syndrome is characterized by a structural disturbance in the iris pigment epithelium (the densely pigmented posterior surface of the iris) that leads to dispersion of the pigment and its deposition on various structures within the eye. Pigmentary glaucoma is a specific form of open-angle glaucoma found in patients with pigment dispersion syndrome.\nTopcial medical therapy is usually the first-line treatment; however, peripheral laser iridotomy has been proposed as an alternate treatment. Peripheral laser iridotomy involves creating an opening in the iris tissue to allow drainage of fluid from the posterior chamber to the anterior chamber and vice versa. Equalizing the pressure within the eye may help to alleviate the friction that leads to pigment dispersion and prevent visual field deterioration. However, the effectiveness of peripheral laser iridotomy in reducing the development or progression of pigmentary glaucoma is unknown.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review was to assess the effects of peripheral laser iridotomy compared with other interventions, including medication, trabeculoplasty, and trabeculectomy, or no treatment, for pigment dispersion syndrome and pigmentary glaucoma.\nSearch methods\nWe searched a number of electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE and clinical trials websites such as (mRCT) and ClinicalTrials.gov. We last searched the electronic databases on 2 November 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that had compared peripheral laser iridotomy versus no treatment or other treatments for pigment dispersion syndrome and pigmentary glaucoma.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures for systematic reviews. Two review authors independently screened articles for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed included trials for risk of bias. We did not perform a meta-analysis because of variability in reporting and follow-up intervals for primary and secondary outcomes of interest.\nMain results\nWe included five RCTs (260 eyes of 195 participants) comparing yttrium-aluminum-garnet (YAG) laser iridotomy versus no laser iridotomy. Three trials included participants with pigmentary glaucoma at baseline, and two trials enrolled participants with pigment dispersion syndrome. Only two trials reported the country of enrollment: one - Italy, the other - United Kingdom. Overall, we assessed trials as having high or unclear risk of bias owing to incomplete or missing data and selective outcome reporting.\nData on visual fields were available for one of three trials that included participants with pigmentary glaucoma at baseline. At an average follow-up of 28 months, the risk of progression of visual field damage was uncertain when comparing laser iridotomy with no iridotomy (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.16 to 6.25; 32 eyes; very low-quality evidence). The two trials that enrolled participants with pigment dispersion syndrome at baseline reported the proportion of participants with onset of glaucomatous visual field changes during the study period. At three-year follow-up, one trial reported that the risk ratio for conversion to glaucoma was 2.72 (95% CI 0.76 to 9.68; 42 eyes; very low-quality evidence). At 10-year follow-up, the other trial reported that no eye showed visual field progression.\nOne trial reported the mean change in intraocular pressure (IOP) in eyes with pigmentary glaucoma: At an average of nine months of follow-up, the mean difference in IOP between groups was 2.69 mmHg less in the laser iridotomy group than in the control group (95% CI -6.05 to 0.67; 14 eyes; very low-quality evidence). This trial also reported the mean change in anterior chamber depth at an average of nine months of follow-up and reported no meaningful differences between groups (mean difference 0.04 mm, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.15; 14 eyes; very low-quality evidence). No other trial reported mean change in anterior chamber depth. Two trials reported greater flattening of iris configuration in the laser iridotomy group than in the control group among eyes with pigmentary glaucoma; however, investigators provided insufficient data for analysis. No trial reported data related to mean visual acuity, aqueous melanin granules, costs, or quality of life outcomes.\nTwo trials assessed the need for additional treatment for control of IOP. One trial that enrolled participants with pigmentary glaucoma reported that more eyes in the laser iridotomy group required additional treatment between six and 23 months of follow-up than eyes in the control group (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.75; 46 eyes); however, the other trial enrolled participants with pigment dispersion syndrome and indicated that the difference between groups at three-year follow-up was uncertain (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.17; 105 eyes). We graded the certainty of evidence for this outcome as very low.\nTwo trials reported that no serious adverse events were observed in either group among eyes with pigment dispersion syndrome. Mild adverse events included postoperative inflammation; two participants required cataract surgery (at 18 and 34 months after baseline), and two participants required a repeat iridotomy.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found insufficient evidence of high quality on the effectiveness of peripheral iridotomy for pigmentary glaucoma or pigment dispersion syndrome. Although adverse events associated with peripheral iridotomy may be minimal, the long-term effects on visual function and other patient-important outcomes have not been established. Future research on this topic should focus on outcomes that are important to patients and the optimal timing of treatment in the disease process (eg, pigment dispersion syndrome with normal IOP, pigment dispersion syndrome with established ocular hypertension, pigmentary glaucoma).\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found no clear benefit for peripheral laser iridotomy versus no laser in eyes with PDS or pigmentary glaucoma in terms of preventing loss of visual field. Very low-quality evidence suggests that laser iridotomy may be more effective in lowering pressure within the eye when compared with no laser iridotomy for up to 10 years after treatment. Few adverse effects were reported among participants in these trials; the most commonly reported adverse events were mild postoperative inflammation and cataract."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1606 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nStudies report that up to 80% of individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may struggle with symptoms of depression. However, this major comorbidity in COPD is rarely managed effectively. A number of recent studies indicate that left untreated, COPD-related depression is associated with worse quality of life, worse compliance with COPD treatment plan, increased exacerbations, hospital admissions, and healthcare costs when compared to individuals with COPD without depression. Regrettably, COPD practice guidelines do not provide conclusive treatment recommendations for the use of antidepressants in patients with COPD, and base their guidelines on findings from trials in the general population. This may be problematic, as there is an elevated risk of respiratory issues associated with antidepressant treatment and COPD. Evaluating effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions specifically for patients with COPD and depression was therefore paramount.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of depression in patients with COPD.\nSearch methods\nThe last search was performed on 26 November 2018. We initially searched the following databases via the Specialised Trials Registers of the Cochrane Airways and Common Mental Disorders Groups (to June 2016): MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, AMED, and the Cochrane Library trials register (CENTRAL). Searches from June 2016 to November 2018 were performed directly on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library (Issue 11, 2018). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the ISRCTN registry, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 26 November 2018. We searched the grey literature databases to identify studies not indexed in major databases and the reference lists of studies initially identified for full-text screening.\nSelection criteria\nAll published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of pharmacological interventions with no intervention, placebo or co-intervention in adults with diagnosed COPD and depression were eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed articles identified by the search for eligibility. Our primary outcomes were change in depressive symptoms and adverse events. The secondary outcomes were: change in quality of life, change in dyspnoea, change in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), change in exercise tolerance, change in hospital utilisation (length of stay and readmission rates), and cost-effectiveness. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the pooled mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) as appropriate. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the pooled odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% CI using a random-effects model. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE framework.\nMain results\nOf the 1125 records screened for eligibility, four RCTs (N = 201 participants), and one on-going study, met the inclusion criteria. Two classes of antidepressants were investigated in two separate comparisons with placebo: a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).\nTCA versus placebo\nOnly one RCT (N = 30 participants) provided results for this comparison.\nPrimary outcomes\nThe TCA (nortriptyline) reduced depressive symptoms post-treatment compared to placebo (MD -10.20, 95% CI -16.75 to -3.65; P = 0.007; very low-quality evidence), as measured by the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D). Three participants withdrew from the trial due to adverse events related to the tested antidepressant (dry mouth, sedation, orthostatic hypotension).\nSecondary outcomes\nThe overall results post-treatment indicated that nortriptyline was not effective in improving the quality of life of individuals with COPD, as measured by the Sickness Impact Profile (MD -2.80, 95% CI -11.02 to 5.42; P = 0.50; very low-quality evidence).\nThe results for the change in dyspnoea for the domains examined (e.g. dyspnoea scores for 'most day-to-day activities') post-treatment showed no improvement in the intervention group (MD 9.80, 95% CI -6.20 to 25.80; P = 0.23; very low-quality evidence).\nNo data were reported for change in FEV1, change in exercise tolerance, change in hospital utilisation, or cost-effectiveness. The TCA study provided short-term results, with the last follow-up data collection at 12 weeks.\nThe quality of the evidence for all the outcomes evaluated was very low due to a small sample size, imprecision, attrition, and selection and reporting bias.\nSSRIs versus placebo\nThree RCTs (N = 171 participants) provided results for this comparison.\nPrimary outcomes\nThe pooled results for two studies showed no difference for the change in depressive symptoms post-intervention (SMD 0.75, 95% CI -1.14 to 2.64; 148 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.44; very low-quality evidence). High heterogeneity was observed (I² = 95%), limiting the reliability of these findings.\nWhile it was not possible to meta-analyse the total adverse events rates across the studies, it was possible to combine the results for two medication-specific adverse effects: nausea and dizziness. There were no significant post-treatment group differences for nausea (OR 2.32, 95% CI 0.66 to 8.12; 171 participants; 3 studies; P = 0.19; very low-quality evidence) or dizziness (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.09 to 4.06; 143 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.61; very low-quality evidence).\nSecondary outcomes\nThe pooled analysis of two trials reporting data for the change in quality of life did not show improvement post-treatment in the intervention group compared to placebo (SMD 1.17, 95% CI -0.80 to 3.15; 148 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.25; very low-quality evidence).\nThere was no difference between groups in change in FEV1 post-treatment (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.05; 148 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.60; low-quality evidence). However, two trials reported improvement in exercise tolerance in the SSRI group versus the placebo group (MD 13.88, 95% CI 11.73 to 16.03; 148 participants; 2 studies; P < 0.001; very low-quality evidence).\nThe trials included in this comparison did not report data related to the change in dyspnoea, hospital utilisation rates, or cost-effectiveness.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to make definitive statements about the efficacy or safety of antidepressants for treating COPD-related depression. New RCTs are needed; with better methodological quality and more accurate reporting of the methods used. Moreover, longer-term follow-up data collection is needed, including outcomes such as adverse events, hospital utilisation and cost-effectiveness.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What does the evidence from the review tell us?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We have identified only four studies worldwide that were eligible for inclusion in our review. This means limited evidence to support the use of antidepressants for the treatment of depression in patients with COPD. Only one study evaluated a tricyclic antidepressant, nortriptyline, finding that it reduced depressive symptoms when compared to a placebo. Three studies evaluated a newer generation class of antidepressants called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), finding no evidence for their effectiveness in improving depressive symptoms. Due to the limited evidence, we are unable to make definitive statements about the effectiveness but also safety of antidepressants when used for COPD-related depression. However, SSRIs may increase exercise capacity in patients with COPD.\nGiven that the current findings were based on only four small studies with evidence rated as of very low quality, it is important to interpret our results with caution."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1607 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGastric cancer is the third most common cause of cancer death worldwide. Individuals infected with Helicobacter pylori have a higher likelihood of developing gastric cancer than individuals who are not infected. Eradication of H. pylori in healthy asymptomatic individuals in the general population may reduce the incidence of gastric cancer, but the magnitude of this effect is unclear.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of eradication of H. pylori in healthy asymptomatic individuals in the general population in reducing the incidence of gastric cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe identified trials by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to February 2020), and EMBASE (1974 to February 2020). We handsearched reference lists from trials selected by electronic searching to identify further relevant trials. We handsearched published abstracts from conference proceedings from the United European Gastroenterology Week (published in Gut) and Digestive Disease Week (published in Gastroenterology) between 2001 and 2019. We contacted members of the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Review Group and experts in the field and asked them to provide details of outstanding clinical trials and any relevant unpublished materials.\nSelection criteria\nWe analysed randomised controlled trials comparing at least one week of H. pylori therapy with placebo or no treatment in preventing subsequent development of gastric cancer in otherwise healthy and asymptomatic H. pylori-positive adults. Trials had to follow up participants for at least two years and needed to have at least two participants with gastric cancer as an outcome. We defined gastric cancer as any gastric adenocarcinoma, including intestinal (differentiated) or diffuse (undifferentiated) type, with or without specified histology.\nData collection and analysis\nWe collected data on incidence of gastric cancer, incidence of oesophageal cancer, deaths from gastric cancer, deaths from any cause, and adverse effects arising due to therapy.\nMain results\nSix trials met all our eligibility criteria and provided extractable data in the previous version. Following our updated search, one new RCT was identified, meaning that seven trials were included in this updated review. In addition, one previously included trial provided fully published data out to 10 years, and another previously included trial provided fully published data out to 22 years of follow-up. Four trials were at low risk of bias, one trial was at unclear risk, and two trials were at high risk of bias. Six trials were conducted in Asian populations.\nIn preventing development of subsequent gastric cancer, H. pylori eradication therapy was superior to placebo or no treatment (RR 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.72, 7 trials, 8323 participants, moderate certainty evidence). Only two trials reported the effect of eradication of H. pylori on the development of subsequent oesophageal cancer. Sixteen (0.8%) of 1947 participants assigned to eradication therapy subsequently developed oesophageal cancer compared with 13 (0.7%) of 1941 participants allocated to placebo (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.54, moderate certainty evidence). H. pylori eradication reduced mortality from gastric cancer compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.92, 4 trials, 6301 participants, moderate certainty evidence). There was little or no evidence in all-cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.12, 5 trials, 7079 participants, moderate certainty evidence). Adverse events data were poorly reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found moderate certainty evidence that searching for and eradicating H. pylori reduces the incidence of gastric cancer and death from gastric cancer in healthy asymptomatic infected Asian individuals, but we cannot necessarily extrapolate this data to other populations.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "A literature search up to 02 Feburary 2020 found seven trials (containing 8323 participants, four trials at low risk of bias). Six of the studies were based in Asia."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1608 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMortality and morbidity due to neonatal sepsis and necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) remain high despite the use of potent antimicrobial agents. Agents that modulate inflammation may improve outcomes. Pentoxifylline (PTX), a phosphodiesterase inhibitor, is one such agent. This is an update of a review first published in 2003 and updated in 2011 and 2015.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of intravenous PTX as an adjunct to antibiotic therapy on mortality and morbidity in neonates with suspected or confirmed sepsis and neonates with NEC.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and trial registries in July 2022. We also searched the reference lists of identified clinical trials and handsearched conference abstracts.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs assessing the efficacy of PTX with antibiotics (any dose or duration) for treatment of suspected or confirmed sepsis or NEC in neonates. We included three comparisons: (1) PTX with antibiotics compared to placebo or no intervention with antibiotics; (2) PTX with antibiotics compared to PTX with antibiotics and adjunct treatments such as immunoglobulin M-enriched intravenous immunoglobulin (IgM-enriched IVIG); (3) PTX with antibiotics compared to adjunct treatments such as IgM-enriched IVIG with antibiotics.\nData collection and analysis\nWe reported typical risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes derived from a fixed-effect model of meta-analysis. We calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) if there was a statistically significant reduction in RD.\nMain results\nWe identified no new studies for this update. We included six RCTs (416 neonates). All of the included studies examined neonates with sepsis; we identified no studies on neonates with NEC. Four of the six trials had high risk of bias for at least one risk of bias domain.\nComparison 1: PTX with antibiotics compared to placebo with antibiotics, or antibiotics alone, in neonates with sepsis may reduce all-cause mortality during hospital stay (typical RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.93; typical RD −0.08, 95% CI −0.14 to −0.01; NNTB 13, 95% CI 7 to 100; 6 studies, 416 participants, low-certainty evidence) and may decrease length of hospital stay (LOS) (MD −7.74, 95% CI −11.72 to −3.76; 2 studies, 157 participants, low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain that PTX with antibiotics compared to placebo or no intervention results in any change in chronic lung disease (CLD) (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.45 to 5.05; 1 study, 120 participants, very low-certainty evidence), severe intraventricular haemorrhage (sIVH) (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.03; 1 study, 120 participants, very low-certainty evidence), periventricular leukomalacia (PVL) (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.63; 1 study, 120 participants, very low-certainty evidence), NEC (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.06; 6 studies, 405 participants, very low-certainty evidence), or retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.98; 1 study, 120 participants, very low-certainty evidence) in neonates with sepsis.\nComparison 2: the evidence is very uncertain that PTX with antibiotics compared to PTX with antibiotics and IgM-enriched IVIG has any effect on mortality (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.10; 102 participants, 1 study, very low-certainty evidence) or development of NEC in neonates with sepsis (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.31 to 5.66; 1 study, 102 participants, very low-certainty evidence). The outcomes of CLD, sIVH, PVL, LOS, and ROP were not reported.\nComparison 3: the evidence is very uncertain that PTX with antibiotics compared to IgM-enriched IVIG with antibiotics has any effect on mortality (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.36 to 4.39; 102 participants, 1 study, very low-certainty evidence) or development of NEC (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.31 to 5.66; 102 participants, 1 study, very low-certainty evidence) in neonates with sepsis. The outcomes of CLD, sIVH, PVL, LOS, and ROP were not reported.\nAll of the included studies evaluated adverse effects due to PTX, but none were reported in the intervention group in any of the comparisons.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow-certainty evidence suggests that adjunct PTX therapy in neonatal sepsis may decrease mortality and length of hospital stay without any adverse effects. The evidence is very uncertain if PTX with antibiotics compared to PTX with antibiotics and IgM-enriched IVIG, or PTX with antibiotics compared to IgM-enriched IVIG with antibiotics, has any effect on mortality or development of NEC. We encourage researchers to undertake well-designed multicentre trials to confirm or refute the effectiveness and safety of pentoxifylline in reducing mortality and morbidity in neonates with sepsis or NEC.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We wanted to know if the use of PTX in addition to antibiotics can decrease deaths and complications such as lung disease, eye disease, duration of stay in the hospital, and time on the breathing machine. We also wanted to know if the use of PTX is safe without adverse effects."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1609 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHypertonic saline enhances mucociliary clearance and may lessen the destructive inflammatory process in the airways. This is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo investigate efficacy and tolerability of nebulised hypertonic saline treatment in people with cystic fibrosis (CF) compared to placebo or other treatments that enhance mucociliary clearance.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched ongoing trials databases.\nMost recent search: 25 April 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials assessing hypertonic saline compared to placebo or other mucolytic therapy, for any duration or dose regimen in people with CF (any age or disease severity).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently reviewed all identified trials and data, and assessed trial quality. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. For cross-over trials we stipulated a one-week washout period. We planned to use results from a paired analysis in the review, but this was only possible in one trial. For other cross-over trials, we chose to treat the trials as if they were parallel.\nMain results\nWe included 24 trials (1318 participants, aged one month to 56 years); we excluded 29 trials, two trials are ongoing and six are awaiting classification. We judged 15 of the 24 included trials to have a high risk of bias due to participants' ability to discern the taste of the solutions.\nHypertonic saline 3% to 7% versus placebo (stable disease)\nWe are uncertain whether the regular use of nebulised hypertonic saline in stable lung disease leads to an improvement in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) % predicted at four weeks, (mean difference (MD) 3.30%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 5.89; 4 trials, 246 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In preschool children we found no difference in lung clearance index (LCI) at four weeks, but a small improvement after 48 weeks of treatment with hypertonic saline compared to isotonic saline (MD -0.60, 95% CI -1.00 to -0.19; 2 trials, 192 participants). We are also uncertain whether hypertonic saline made a difference to mucociliary clearance, pulmonary exacerbations or adverse events compared to placebo.\nHypertonic saline versus control (acute exacerbation)\nTwo trials compared hypertonic saline to control, but only one provided data. There may be little or no difference in lung function measured by FEV1 % predicted after hypertonic saline compared to isotonic saline (MD 5.10%, 95% CI -14.67 to 24.87; 1 trial, 130 participants). Neither trial reported any deaths or measures of sputum clearance. There were no serious adverse events.\nHypertonic saline versus rhDNase\nThree trials compared a similar dose of hypertonic saline to recombinant deoxyribonuclease (rhDNase); two trials (61 participants) provided data for inclusion in the review. We are uncertain whether there was an effect of hypertonic saline on FEV1 % predicted after three weeks (MD 1.60%, 95% CI -7.96 to 11.16; 1 trial, 14 participants; very low-certainty evidence). At three months, rhDNase may lead to a greater increase in FEV1 % predicted than hypertonic saline (5 mL twice daily) at 12 weeks in participants with moderate to severe lung disease (MD 8.00%, 95% CI 2.00 to 14.00; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether adverse events differed between the two treatments. No deaths were reported.\nHypertonic saline versus amiloride\nOne trial (12 participants) compared hypertonic saline to amiloride but did not report on most of our outcomes. The trial found that there was no difference between treatments in measures of sputum clearance (very low-certainty evidence).\nHypertonic saline compared with sodium-2-mercaptoethane sulphonate (Mistabron®)\nOne trial (29 participants) compared hypertonic saline to sodium-2-mercaptoethane sulphonate. The trial did not measure our primary outcomes. There was no difference between treatments in any measures of sputum clearance, courses of antibiotics or adverse events (very low-certainty evidence).\nHypertonic saline versus mannitol\nOne trial (12 participants) compared hypertonic saline to mannitol, but did not report lung function at relevant time points for this review; there were no differences in sputum clearance, but mannitol was reported to be more 'irritating' (very low-certainty evidence).\nHypertonic saline versus xylitol\nTwo trials compared hypertonic saline to xylitol, but we are uncertain whether there is any difference in FEV1 % predicted or median time to exacerbation between groups (very low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes were reported in the review.\nHypertonic saline 7% versus hypertonic saline 3%\nWe are uncertain whether there was an improvement in FEV1 % predicted after treatment with 7% hypertonic saline compared with 3% (very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are very uncertain if regular use of nebulised hypertonic saline by adults and children over the age of 12 years with CF results in an improvement in lung function after four weeks (three trials; very low-certainty evidence); there was no difference seen at 48 weeks (one trial; low-certainty evidence). Hypertonic saline improved LCI modestly in children under the age of six years.\nEvidence from one small cross-over trial in children indicates that rhDNase may lead to better lung function than hypertonic saline at three months; qualifying this, we highlight that while the study did demonstrate that the improvement in FEV1 was greater with daily rhDNase, there were no differences seen in any of the secondary outcomes.\nHypertonic saline does appear to be an effective adjunct to physiotherapy during acute exacerbations of lung disease in adults. However, for the outcomes assessed, the certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to low at best, according to the GRADE criteria.\nThe role of hypertonic saline in conjunction with cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator therapy now needs to be considered, and future research needs to focus on this aspect.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Hypertonic saline versus mucus mobilising treatments\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Three trials compared hypertonic saline with rhDNase and found that rhDNase may lead to an improvement in lung function compared to hypertonic saline after three months. We are unsure whether there is any difference in side effects.\nOne trial compared hypertonic saline to amiloride and a further trial compared hypertonic saline to sodium-2-mercaptoethane sulphonate (Mistabron®), but neither of the trials gave information about the effect of the treatments on lung function.\nSimilarly, a trial comparing hypertonic saline with mannitol did not give information about the effects on lung function, but they did report that there was no difference between treatments in clearing mucus from the lungs. People taking mannitol said it was more irritating than hypertonic saline.\nTwo trials compared hypertonic saline with xylitol, but we are unsure if there is any difference in lung function and none of our other outcomes were measured."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1610 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nNeuropathic pain may be caused by nerve damage, and is often followed by changes to the central nervous system. Uncertainty remains regarding the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture treatments for neuropathic pain, despite a number of clinical trials being undertaken.\nObjectives\nTo assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of acupuncture treatments for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four Chinese databases, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 14 February 2017. We also cross checked the reference lists of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) with treatment duration of eight weeks or longer comparing acupuncture (either given alone or in combination with other therapies) with sham acupuncture, other active therapies, or treatment as usual, for neuropathic pain in adults. We searched for studies of acupuncture based on needle insertion and stimulation of somatic tissues for therapeutic purposes, and we excluded other methods of stimulating acupuncture points without needle insertion. We searched for studies of manual acupuncture, electroacupuncture or other acupuncture techniques used in clinical practice (such as warm needling, fire needling, etc).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and pain relief. The secondary outcomes were any pain-related outcome indicating some improvement, withdrawals, participants experiencing any adverse event, serious adverse events and quality of life. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and for continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. We also calculated number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) where possible. We combined all data using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE to generate 'Summary of findings' tables.\nMain results\nWe included six studies involving 462 participants with chronic peripheral neuropathic pain (442 completers (251 male), mean ages 52 to 63 years). The included studies recruited 403 participants from China and 59 from the UK. Most studies included a small sample size (fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm) and all studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. Most studies had unclear risk of bias for sequence generation (four out of six studies), allocation concealment (five out of six) and selective reporting (all included studies). All studies investigated manual acupuncture, and we did not identify any study comparing acupuncture with treatment as usual, nor any study investigating other acupuncture techniques (such as electroacupuncture, warm needling, fire needling).\nOne study compared acupuncture with sham acupuncture. We are uncertain if there is any difference between the two interventions on reducing pain intensity (n = 45; MD -0.4, 95% CI -1.83 to 1.03, very low-quality evidence), and neither group achieved 'no worse than mild pain' (visual analogue scale (VAS, 0-10) average score was 5.8 and 6.2 respectively in the acupuncture and sham acupuncture groups, where 0 = no pain). There was limited data on quality of life, which showed no clear difference between groups. Evidence was not available on pain relief, adverse events or other pre-defined secondary outcomes for this comparison.\nThree studies compared acupuncture alone versus other therapies (mecobalamin combined with nimodipine, and inositol). Acupuncture may reduce the risk of 'no clinical response' to pain than other therapies (n = 209; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.51), however, evidence was not available for pain intensity, pain relief, adverse events or any of the other secondary outcomes.\nTwo studies compared acupuncture combined with other active therapies (mecobalamin, and Xiaoke bitong capsule) versus other active therapies used alone. We found that the acupuncture combination group had a lower VAS score for pain intensity (n = 104; MD -1.02, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.95) and improved quality of life (n = 104; MD -2.19, 95% CI -2.39 to -1.99), than those receiving other therapy alone. However, the average VAS score of the acupuncture and control groups was 3.23 and 4.25 respectively, indicating neither group achieved 'no worse than mild pain'. Furthermore, this evidence was from a single study with high risk of bias and a very small sample size. There was no evidence on pain relief and we identified no clear differences between groups on other parameters, including 'no clinical response' to pain and withdrawals. There was no evidence on adverse events.\nThe overall quality of evidence is very low due to study limitations (high risk of performance, detection, and attrition bias, and high risk of bias confounded by small study size) or imprecision. We have limited confidence in the effect estimate and the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimated effect.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to the limited data available, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of acupuncture for neuropathic pain in general, or for any specific neuropathic pain condition when compared with sham acupuncture or other active therapies. Five studies are still ongoing and seven studies are awaiting classification due to the unclear treatment duration, and the results of these studies may influence the current findings.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Neuropathic pain is a complex, chronic pain caused by damaged nerves. It is different from pain messages that are carried along healthy nerves from damaged tissue (for example, a fall or cut, or arthritic knee). Approximately 7% to 10% of the general population have neuropathic pain. Acupuncture is a traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) technique of treating disease by inserting needles into the skin, or the tissues below.\nIn this review, we were interested in whether acupuncture could relieve pain, improve quality of life, and cause fewer side effects than other treatment options, for adults with neuropathic pain. We looked for studies comparing acupuncture with sham acupuncture (sham acupuncture involves using a blunt needle that slides into the handle rather than penetrating the skin or tissues below). We also looked for studies comparing acupuncture with treatment as usual, or with other active therapies (such as mecobalamin, nimodipine, inositol, and Xiaoke bitong capsule)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1611 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAtypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome (aHUS) is a rare disorder characterised by thrombocytopenia, microangiopathic haemolytic anaemia, and acute kidney injury. The condition is primarily caused by inherited or acquired dysregulation of complement regulatory proteins with ~40% of those affected aged < 18 years. Historically, kidney failure and death were common outcomes, however, improved understanding of the condition has led to discovery of novel therapies.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of interventions for aHUS.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies for randomised controlled studies (RCTs) up to 3 September 2020 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. MEDLINE(OVID) 1946 to 27 July 2020 and EMBASE (OVID) 1974 to 27 July 2020 were searched for non-RCTs.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised and non-randomised clinical trials comparing an intervention with placebo, an intervention with supportive therapy, or two or more interventions for aHUS were included. Given the rare nature of the condition in question, prospective single-arm studies of any intervention for aHUS were also included.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently extracted pre-specified data from eligible studies and evaluated risk of bias using a newly developed tool based on existing Cochrane criteria. As statistical meta-analysis was not appropriate, qualitative analysis of data was then performed.\nMain results\nWe included five single-arm studies, all of which evaluated terminal complement inhibition for the treatment of aHUS. Four studies evaluated the short-acting C5 inhibitor eculizumab and one study evaluated the longer-acting C5 inhibitor ravulizumab. All included studies within the review were of non-randomised, single-arm design. Thus, risk of bias is high, and it is challenging to draw firm conclusions from this low-quality evidence. One hundred patients were included within three primary studies evaluating eculizumab, with further data reported from 37 patients in a secondary study. Fifty-eight patients were included in the ravulizumab study. After 26 weeks of eculizumab therapy there were no deaths and a 70% reduction in the number of patients requiring dialysis. Complete thrombotic microangiopathic (TMA) response was observed in 60% of patients at 26 weeks and 65% at two years. After 26 weeks of ravulizumab therapy four patients had died (7%) and complete TMA response was observed in 54% of patients. Substantial improvements were seen in estimated glomerular filtration rate and health-related quality of life in both eculizumab and ravulizumab studies. Serious adverse events occurred in 42% of patients, and meningococcal infection occurred in two patients, both treated with eculizumab.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhen compared with historical data, terminal complement inhibition appears to offer favourable outcomes in patients with aHUS, based upon very low-quality evidence drawn from five single-arm studies. It is unlikely that an RCT will be conducted in aHUS and therefore careful consideration of future single-arm data as well as longer term follow-up data will be required to better understand treatment duration, adverse outcomes and risk of disease recurrence associated with terminal complement inhibition.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched the literature extensively and found five studies which tested therapies for aHUS. In four studies the treatment used was eculizumab and in one study the treatment was ravulizumab. Both of these recently developed drugs act in a similar way and have shown promise in other medical conditions."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1612 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe prevention of relapse is a major issue in the management of Crohn's disease. Corticosteroids, the mainstay of treatment of acute exacerbations, are not effective for maintenance of remission and its chronic use is limited by numerous adverse events. Randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) agents for maintenance of medically-induced remission in Crohn's disease have produced conflicting results.\nObjectives\nTo conduct a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral 5-ASA agents for the maintenance of medically-induced remission in Crohn's disease.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and the IBD Group Specialized Register from inception to 8 June 2016. We also searched reference lists and conference proceedings.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials that compared oral 5-ASA agents to either placebo or sulphasalazine in patients with quiescent Crohn's disease. The trials had to have a treatment duration of at least six months.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently extracted data and performed the risk of bias assessment. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus. The primary outcome measure was the occurrence of relapse as defined by the primary studies. Secondary outcomes included time to relapse, adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events and serious adverse events. We calculated the pooled risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI) using a fixed-effect model. All data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis and drop-outs were considered to be relapses. Sensitivity analyses included an available case analysis where drop-outs were ignored and using a random-effects model. We evaluated the overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes using the GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nTwelve studies (2146 participants) that compared 5-ASA to placebo were included. We did not identify any studies that compared sulphasalazine to placebo. Seven studies were judged to be at low risk of bias. The other studies were judged to have an unclear risk of bias for various items due to insufficient details to allow for a judgement. There was no statistically significant difference in relapse rates at 12 months. Fifty-three per cent (526/998) of 5-ASA patients (dose 1.6 g to 4 g/day) relapsed at 12 months compared to 54% (544/1016) of placebo patients (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.07; 11 studies; 2014 patients; moderate-quality evidence). Sensitivity analyses based on an available case analysis and a random-effects model had no impact on the results. One study found no difference in relapse rates at 24 months. Fifty-four per cent (31/57) of 5-ASA patients (dose 2 g/day) relapsed at 24 months compared to 58% (36/62) of placebo patients (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.29, 119 patients; low-quality evidence). One paediatric study found no statistically significant difference in relapse rates at 12 months. Sixty-two per cent (29/47) of paediatric 5-ASA patients (dose 50 mg/kg/day) relapsed at 12 months compared to 64% (35/55) of paediatric placebo patients (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.31; 102 patients; moderate-quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who experienced an adverse event, withdrawal due to adverse events or serious adverse events. Thirty-four per cent (307/900) of 5-ASA patients had at least one adverse event compared to 33% (301/914) of placebo patients (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17; 10 studies; 1814 patients). Fourteen per cent (127/917) of 5-ASA patients withdrew due to adverse events compared to 13% (119/916) of placebo patients (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.38; 9 studies; 1833 patients). One per cent (3/293) of 5-ASA patients had a serious adverse event compared to 0.7% (2/283) of placebo patients (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.83; 3 studies; 576 patients). Common adverse events reported in the studies included diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting, abdominal pain, headache and skin rash.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no evidence in this review to suggest that oral 5-ASA preparations are superior to placebo for the maintenance of medically-induced remission in patients with Crohn's disease. Additional randomised trials may not be justified.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did the researchers find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found 12 studies that included a total of 2146 participants. Eleven studies including 2014 adult participants compared oral 5-ASA to a placebo (i.e. inactive pills or tablets). One study including 132 children compared oral 5-ASA to a placebo. Eleven studies were conducted for 12 months and one study was conducted for 24 months. Seven studies were judged to be of high quality and the other studies were judged to be of unclear quality because insufficient details were reported to allow for a judgement about quality. The studies with insufficient details were generally older studies that were published 20 or more years ago. A combined analysis of eleven studies including 2014 adult participants found no difference between oral 5-ASA (at daily doses between 1.6 g to 4 g) and placebo in the proportion of participants who remained in remission at 12 months. Similarly, a study including 161 adult participants found no difference between oral 5-ASA (at a dose of 2 g per day) and placebo in the proportion of participants who remained in remission at 24 months. The study involving children found no difference between oral 5-ASA (at a daily dose of 50 mg/kg) and placebo in the proportion of participants who remained in remission at 12 months. There does not appear to be an increased risk of side effects in people who take oral 5-ASA compared to placebo. Common adverse events reported in the studies included diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting, abdominal pain, headache and skin rash.\nIn conclusion, there is no evidence that oral 5-ASA is superior to placebo for helping people with Crohn's disease remain in remission that was achieved by medical therapy."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1613 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nImmediate delivery of the preterm fetus with suspected compromise may decrease the risk of damage due to intrauterine hypoxia. However, it may also increase the risks of prematurity.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of immediate versus deferred delivery of preterm babies with suspected fetal compromise on neonatal, maternal and long-term outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials comparing a policy of immediate delivery with deferred delivery or expectant management in preterm fetuses with suspected in utero compromise. Quasi-randomised trials and trials employing a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.\nMain results\nWe included one trial of 548 women (588 babies) in the review. Women with pregnancies between 24 and 36 weeks' gestation took part. The study took place in 13 European countries, between 1993 and 2001. The difference in the median randomisation to delivery interval between immediate delivery and deferred delivery was four days (median: 0.9 (inter-quartile range (IQR) 0.4 to 1.3) days for immediate delivery, median: 4.9 (IQR 2.0 to 10.8) days in the delay group).\nThere was no clear difference in the primary outcomes of extended perinatal mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 2.04, one trial, 587 babies, moderate-quality evidence) or the composite outcome of death or disability at or after two years of age (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.75, one trial, 573 babies, moderate-quality evidence) with immediate delivery compared to deferred delivery. The results for these outcomes are consistent with both appreciable benefit and harm. More babies in the immediate delivery group were ventilated for more than 24 hours (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.97, one trial, 576 babies). There were no differences between the immediate delivery and deferred delivery groups in any other infant mortality outcome (stillbirth, neonatal mortality, postneonatal mortality > 28 days to discharge), individual neonatal morbidity or markers of neonatal morbidity (cord pH less than 7.00, Apgar less than seven at five minutes, convulsions, interventricular haemorrhage or germinal matrix haemorrhage, necrotising enterocolitis and periventricular leucomalacia or ventriculomegaly).\nSome important outcomes were not reported, in particular infant admission to neonatal intensive care or special care facility, and respiratory distress syndrome. We were not able to calculate composite rates of serious neonatal morbidity, even though individual morbidities were reported, due to the risk of double counting infants with more than one morbidity.\nMore children in the immediate delivery group had cerebral palsy at or after two years of age (RR 5.88, 95% CI 1.33 to 26.02, one trial, 507 children). There were, however, no differences in neurodevelopment impairment at or after two years (RR 1.72, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.41, one trial, 507 children), death at or after two years of age (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.63, one trial, 573 children), or death or disability in childhood (six to 13 years of age) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.40, one trial, 302 children). More women in the immediate delivery group had caesarean delivery than in the deferred delivery group (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.24, one trial, 547 women, high-quality evidence). Data were not available on any other maternal outcomes.\nThere were several methodological weaknesses in the included study, and the level of evidence for the primary outcomes was graded high for caesarean section and moderate for extended perinatal mortality and death or disability at or after two years. The evidence was downgraded because the CIs for these outcomes were wide, and were consistent with both appreciable benefit and harm. Bias may have been introduced by several factors: blinding was not possible due to the nature of the intervention, data for childhood follow-up were incomplete due to attrition, and no adjustment was made in the analysis for the non-independence of babies from multiple pregnancies (39 out of 548 pregnancies). This study only included cases of suspected fetal compromise where there was uncertainty whether immediate delivery was indicated, thus results must be interpreted with caution.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently there is insufficient evidence on the benefits and harms of immediate delivery compared with deferred delivery in cases of suspected fetal compromise at preterm gestations to make firm recommendations. There is a lack of trials addressing this question, and limitations of the one included trial means that caution must be used in interpreting and generalising the findings. More research is needed to guide clinical practice.\nAlthough the included trial is relatively large, it has insufficient power to detect differences in neonatal mortality. It did not report any maternal outcomes other than mode of delivery, or evaluate maternal satisfaction or economic outcomes. The applicability of the findings is limited by several factors: Women with a wide range of obstetric complications and gestational ages were included, and subgroup analysis is currently limited. Advances in Doppler assessment techniques may diagnose severe compromise more accurately and help make decisions about the timing of delivery. The potential benefits of deferring delivery for longer or shorter periods cannot be presumed.\nWhere there is uncertainty whether or not to deliver a preterm fetus with suspected fetal compromise, there seems to be no benefit to immediate delivery. Deferring delivery until test results worsen or increasing gestation favours delivery may improve the outcomes for mother and baby.\nThere is a need for high-quality randomised controlled trials comparing immediate and deferred delivery where there is suspected fetal compromise at preterm gestations to guide clinical practice. Future trials should report all important outcomes, and should be adequately powered to detect differences in maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is this important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Waiting allows the baby to develop as much as possible and decreases the risks associated with being premature. Premature babies are more likely to have breathing difficulties, low body temperature, low blood sugar levels, infection and jaundice. Remaining in the womb may mean the baby's vital organs are affected by a lack of oxygen."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1614 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nYoga is an ancient spiritual practice that originated in India and is currently accepted in the Western world as a form of relaxation and exercise. It has been of interest for people with schizophrenia to determine the efficacy of yoga delivered as a package of care versus standard care.\nObjectives\nTo examine the effects of yoga as a package of care versus standard care.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (latest 30 March 2017) which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, BIOSS, AMED, PsychINFO, and registries of clinical trials. We searched the references of all included studies. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including people with schizophrenia comparing yoga as a package of care with standard-care control.\nData collection and analysis\nThe review authors independently selected studies, quality rated these, and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk difference (RD) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its CI. We employed mixed-effect and fixed-effect models for analysis. We examined heterogeneity (I2 technique), assessed risk of bias for included studies, and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).\nMain results\nThree studies are included in this review. All outcomes were short term (less than eight weeks). Useable data were reported for two outcomes only; leaving the study early and quality of life. There was some evidence in favour of the yoga package for quality of life endpoint scores (1 RCT, n=80, MD 22.93 CI 19.74 to 26.12, low-quality evidence). Leaving the study early data were equivocal between the treatment groups (3 RCTs, n=193, RD 0.06 CI -0.01 to 0.13, medium-quality evidence, high heterogeneity). Overall, this review has an inordinate number of missing key outcomes, which included mental and global state, social functioning, physical health, adverse effects and costs of care.\nAuthors' conclusions\nA small number of small studies were included in this review and these lacked many key outcomes. The sparse data means we cannot state with any degree of certainty if yoga delivered as a package of care is beneficial in comparison to standard care.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Only three short-term studies (lasting eight weeks) that randomised people with schizophrenia to either receive sessions of yoga as a package of care or standard care could be included in this review. Yoga was combined with drama, music and dance in one study, with a motivational and feedback session in another study. The final study included in this review combined yoga with counselling and an interactive question and answer session.The relative contribution of yoga was not clearly outlined in these studies. We found these studies by electronic searching of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register in March 2017. All participants continued to receive their prescribed antipsychotic treatment during their trial."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1615 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute hypoxaemia de novo or on a background of chronic hypoxaemia is a common reason for admission to intensive care and for provision of mechanical ventilation. Various refinements of mechanical ventilation or adjuncts are employed to improve patient outcomes. Mortality from acute respiratory distress syndrome, one of the main contributors to the need for mechanical ventilation for hypoxaemia, remains approximately 30-40%. Ventilation in the prone position may improve lung mechanics and gas exchange and could improve outcomes.\nObjectives\nThe objectives of this review are to ascertain whether prone ventilation offers a mortality advantage when compared with traditional supine or semi recumbent ventilation in adult patients with severe acute respiratory failure requiring conventional invasive artificial ventilation.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and LILACS up to May 2020 for eligible randomized controlled trials using an updated version of the search strategy from the earlier version of the review. We added a search in the Cochrane COVID 19 Register.\nWe also searched for studies by hand-searching reference lists and citations of relevant articles, by contacting colleagues, by hand-searching published proceedings of relevant journals. We searched trial registers for ongoing studies in November 2020. We applied no language or publication status constraints.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effects of prone position versus supine/semi recumbent position during conventional mechanical ventilation in adult participants with acute hypoxaemia.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We analysed data using Review Manager software and pooled included studies to determine the risk ratio (RR) for mortality and the risk ratio or mean difference (MD) for secondary outcomes; we also performed subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses.\nMain results\nWe identified nine relevant open-label (unblinded) RCTs (12 publications), which enrolled a total of 2165 participants. All recruited participants suffered from disorders of lung function causing moderate to severe hypoxaemia and requiring mechanical ventilation, so they were fairly comparable within what is the great diversity of specific disease diagnoses in intensive care. Blinding of participants, carers, clinical trialists and other decision-makers to treatment allocation was not possible (face-up vs face-down). This predisposes to bias with regards to use of co-interventions and also initiation of with-holding or withdrawing life-support, a common practice in intensive care.\nPrimary analyses of short- and longer-term mortality pooled from six trials demonstrated an RR of 0.84 to 0.86 in favour of the prone position (PP), but findings were not statistically significant: In the short term, mortality for those ventilated prone was 33.4% (363/1086) and supine 38.3% (395/1031). This resulted in an RR of 0.84 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.02). For longer-term mortality, results showed 41.7% (462/1107) for prone and 47.1% (490/1041) for supine positions, with an RR of 0.86 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.03). The quality of the evidence for both outcomes was rated as low as a result of important potential bias and serious inconsistency.\nSubgroup analyses for mortality identified three groups consistently favouring PP: those recruited within 48 hours of meeting entry criteria (five trials; 1024 participants; RR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.59 to 94)); those treated in the PP for 16 or more hours per day (five trials; 1005 participants; RR of 0.77 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.99)); and participants with more severe hypoxaemia at trial entry (six trials; 1108 participants; RR of 0.77 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.92)). The quality of the evidence for these outcomes was rated as moderate as a result of potentially important risk of bias.\nProne positioning appeared to influence adverse effects: pressure ulcers (four trials; 823 participants) with an RR of 1.25 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.48) and tracheal tube obstruction with an RR of 1.78 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.60) were increased with prone ventilation. Reports of arrhythmias were reduced with PP, with an RR of 0.64 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.87).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no convincing evidence of benefit nor harm from universal application of PP in adults with hypoxaemia, mechanically ventilated in intensive care units (ICUs). This is despite the benefits observed in one of the open-label trials restricted to participants with greater disease severity. Three subgroups (early implementation of PP, prolonged adoption of PP and severe hypoxaemia at study entry) suggested that prone positioning may confer a benefit for mortality, but these results should be interpreted with caution. Additional adequately powered studies would be required to definitively confirm or refute these observations of subgroup benefit. This is problematic, given the results of the most recent open-label trial showing a benefit and recommendations derived from several published subgroup analyses. If replication and confirmation of such trial results, which would be desirable, are not realistic, formal meta-analysis of individual patient data and post-trial observational studies (as occur after phase III clinical drug trials) could be utilised to confirm apparent benefit in at-risk populations. Complications such as tracheal tube obstruction and pressure ulcers are increased with the use of prone ventilation. Long-term mortality data (12 months and beyond), as well as functional, neuro-psychological and quality of life data, are required if future studies are to better inform the role of PP in the management of hypoxaemic respiratory failure in the ICU.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We identified and included in this review randomized controlled trials of adults that compared conventional mechanical ventilation in the face-down versus the face-up position."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1616 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review that was originally published in 2014, Issue 2.\n\nThe presence of residual disease after primary debulking surgery is a highly significant prognostic factor in women with advanced ovarian cancer. In up to 60% of women, residual tumour of > 1 cm is left behind after primary debulking surgery (defined as suboptimal debulking). These women might have benefited from neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) prior to interval debulking surgery instead of primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy. It is therefore important to select accurately those women who would best be treated with primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy from those who would benefit from NACT prior to surgery.\nObjectives\nTo determine if performing a laparoscopy, in addition to conventional diagnostic work-up, in women suspected of advanced ovarian cancer is accurate in predicting the resectability of disease.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 6) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, MEDION and Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (ISI Web of Science) to July 2018. We also checked references of identified primary studies and review articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopy to determine the resectability of disease in women who are suspected of advanced ovarian cancer and planned to receive primary debulking surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nPairs of review authors independently assessed the quality of included studies using QUADAS-2 and extracted data on study and participant characteristics, index test, target condition and reference standard. We extracted data for two-by-two tables and summarised these graphically. We calculated sensitivity and specificity and negative predictive values.\nMain results\nWe included 18 studies, reporting on 14 cohorts of women (including 1563 participants), of which one was a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Laparoscopic assessment suggested that disease was suitable for optimal debulking surgery (no macroscopic residual disease or residual disease < 1 cm (negative predictive values)) in 54% to 96% of women who had macroscopic complete debulking surgery (no visible disease at end of laparotomy) and in 69% to 100% of women who had optimal debulking surgery (residual tumour < 1 cm at end of laparotomy).\nOnly two studies avoided partial verification bias by operating on all women independent of laparoscopic findings, and provided data to calculate sensitivity and specificity. These two studies had no false positive laparoscopies (i.e. no women had a laparoscopy indicating unresectable disease and then went on to have optimal debulking surgery (no disease > 1 cm remaining)).\nDue to the large heterogeneity pooling of the data was not possible for meta-analysis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLaparoscopy may be a useful tool to identify those women who have unresectable disease, as no women were inappropriately unexplored. However, some women had suboptimal primary debulking surgery, despite laparoscopy predicting optimal debulking and data are at high risk of verification bias as only two studies performed the reference standard (debulking laparotomy) in test (laparoscopy)-positive women. Using a prediction model does not increase the sensitivity and will result in more unnecessarily explored women, due to a lower specificity.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Who do the results of this review apply to?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Some studies used for this review also included women who underwent debulking surgery after chemotherapy or for recurrence. But mainly women were only included who were planned for primary debulking surgery. Therefore, the results presented in this review are applicable for all women who are scheduled for primary debulking surgery."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1617 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAutomated closed loop systems may improve adaptation of mechanical support for a patient's ventilatory needs and facilitate systematic and early recognition of their ability to breathe spontaneously and the potential for discontinuation of ventilation. This review was originally published in 2013 with an update published in 2014.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective for this review was to compare the total duration of weaning from mechanical ventilation, defined as the time from study randomization to successful extubation (as defined by study authors), for critically ill ventilated patients managed with an automated weaning system versus no automated weaning system (usual care).\nSecondary objectives for this review were to determine differences in the duration of ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital lengths of stay (LOS), mortality, and adverse events related to early or delayed extubation with the use of automated weaning systems compared to weaning in the absence of an automated weaning system.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 8); MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1948 to September 2013); EMBASE (OvidSP) (1980 to September 2013); CINAHL (EBSCOhost) (1982 to September 2013); and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS). Relevant published reviews were sought using the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA Database). We also searched the Web of Science Proceedings; conference proceedings; trial registration websites; and reference lists of relevant articles. The original search was run in August 2011, with database auto-alerts up to August 2012.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials comparing automated closed loop ventilator applications to non-automated weaning strategies including non-protocolized usual care and protocolized weaning in patients over four weeks of age receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in an ICU.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. We combined data in forest plots using random-effects modelling. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted according to a priori criteria.\nMain results\nWe included 21 trials (19 adult, two paediatric) totaling 1676 participants (1628 adults, 48 children) in this updated review. Pooled data from 16 eligible trials reporting weaning duration indicated that automated closed loop systems reduced the geometric mean duration of weaning by 30% (95% confidence interval (CI) 13% to 45%), however heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 87%, P < 0.00001). Reduced weaning duration was found with mixed or medical ICU populations (42%, 95% CI 10% to 63%) and Smartcare/PS™ (28%, 95% CI 7% to 49%) but not in surgical populations or using other systems. Automated closed loop systems reduced the duration of ventilation (10%, 95% CI 3% to 16%) and ICU LOS (8%, 95% CI 0% to 15%). There was no strong evidence of an effect on mortality rates, hospital LOS, reintubation rates, self-extubation and use of non-invasive ventilation following extubation. Prolonged mechanical ventilation > 21 days and tracheostomy were reduced in favour of automated systems (relative risk (RR) 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.95 and RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90 respectively). Overall the quality of the evidence was high with the majority of trials rated as low risk.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAutomated closed loop systems may result in reduced duration of weaning, ventilation and ICU stay. Reductions are more likely to occur in mixed or medical ICU populations. Due to the lack of, or limited, evidence on automated systems other than Smartcare/PS™ and Adaptive Support Ventilation no conclusions can be drawn regarding their influence on these outcomes. Due to substantial heterogeneity in trials there is a need for an adequately powered, high quality, multi-centre randomized controlled trial in adults that excludes 'simple to wean' patients. There is a pressing need for further technological development and research in the paediatric population.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background and importance\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Critically ill patients receiving assistance from breathing machines (ventilators) may be restored to normal breathing using clinical methods (collectively termed weaning) that require both expertise and continuous monitoring. Inefficient weaning may result in a prolonged time on a ventilator, putting patients at risk of lung injury, pneumonia and death. At times, delivery of the most effective and efficient care can be difficult due to organizational constraints. Computerized weaning systems may provide a solution to inefficient weaning methods. In this Cochrane review we evaluated if computerized weaning systems were more effective than clinical methods used by clinicians for reducing inappropriate delays in weaning, the overall duration of ventilation, and the length of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1618 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nVenous leg ulcers are a type of chronic, recurring, complex wound that is more common in people aged over 65 years. Venous ulcers pose a significant burden to patients and healthcare systems. While compression therapy (such as bandages or stockings) is an effective first-line treatment, ultrasound may have a role to play in healing venous ulcers.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether venous leg ulcers treated with ultrasound heal more quickly than those not treated with ultrasound.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register (searched 19 September 2016); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Daily and Epub Ahead of Print) (1946 to 19 September 2016); Ovid Embase (1974 to 19 September 2016); and EBSCO CINAHL Plus (1937 to 19 September 2016). We also searched three clinical trials registries and the references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. There were no restrictions based on language, date of publication or study setting.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ultrasound with no ultrasound. Eligible non-ultrasound comparator treatments included usual care, sham ultrasound and alternative leg ulcer treatments.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed the search results and selected eligible studies. Details from included studies were summarised using a data extraction sheet, and double-checked. We attempted to contact trial authors for missing data.\nMain results\nEleven trials are included in this update; 10 of these we judged to be at an unclear or high risk of bias. The trials were clinically heterogeneous with differences in duration of follow-up, and ultrasound regimens. Nine trials evaluated high frequency ultrasound; seven studies provided data for ulcers healed and two provided data on change in ulcer size only. Two trials evaluated low frequency ultrasound and both reported ulcers healed data.\nIt is uncertain whether high frequency ultrasound affects the proportion of ulcers healed compared with no ultrasound at any of the time points evaluated: at seven to eight weeks (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.71; 6 trials, 678 participants; low quality evidence - downgraded once for risk of bias and once for imprecision); at 12 weeks (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.73; 3 trials, 489 participants; moderate quality evidence - downgraded once for imprecision); and at 12 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.18; 1 trial, 337 participants; low quality evidence - downgraded once for unclear risk of bias and once for imprecision).\nOne trial (92 participants) reported that a greater percentage reduction in ulcer area was achieved at four weeks with high-frequency ultrasound, while another (73 participants) reported no clear difference in change in ulcer size at seven weeks. We downgraded the level of this evidence to very low, mainly for risk of bias (typically lack of blinded outcome assessment and attrition) and imprecision.\nData from one trial (337 participants) suggest that high frequency ultrasound may increase the risk of non-serious adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.64; moderate quality evidence - downgraded once for imprecision) and serious adverse events (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.89; moderate quality evidence downgraded once for imprecision).\nIt is uncertain whether low frequency ultrasound affects venous ulcer healing at eight and 12 weeks (RR 3.91, 95% CI 0.47 to 32.85; 2 trials, 61 participants; very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision)).\nHigh-frequency ultrasound probably makes little or no difference to quality of life (moderate quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision). The outcomes of adverse effects, quality of life and cost were not reported for low-frequency ultrasound treatment.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIt is uncertain whether therapeutic ultrasound (either high or low frequency) improves the healing of venous leg ulcers. We rated most of the evidence as low or very low quality due to risk of bias and imprecision.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Most of the studies we found did not have many participants, had short follow-up times and had weaknesses of study design that meant they were quite likely to give a misleading result. We consider the available evidence to be low quality due to these risks of bias.\nThis plain language summary is up to date as of September 2016."
}
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.