dataset
stringclasses 1
value | id
stringlengths 1
5
| messages
listlengths 2
2
|
|---|---|---|
query-laysum | 1721 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nWhilst antipsychotics are the mainstay of treatment for schizophrenia spectrum disorders, there have been numerous attempts to identify biomarkers that can predict treatment response. One potential marker may be psychomotor abnormalities, including catatonic symptoms. Early studies suggested that catatonic symptoms predict poor treatment response, whilst anecdotal reports of rare adverse events have been invoked against antipsychotics. The efficacy and safety of antipsychotics in the treatment of this subtype of schizophrenia have rarely been studied in randomised controlled trials (RCTs).\nObjectives\nTo compare the effects of any single antipsychotic medication with another antipsychotic or with other pharmacological agents, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), other non-pharmacological neuromodulation therapies (e.g. transcranial magnetic stimulation), or placebo for treating positive, negative, and catatonic symptoms in people who have schizophrenia spectrum disorders with catatonic symptoms.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, the ISRCTN registry, and WHO ICTRP, on 19 September 2021. There were no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. We also manually searched reference lists from the included studies, and contacted study authors when relevant.\nSelection criteria\nAll RCTs comparing any single antipsychotic medication with another antipsychotic or with other pharmacological agents, ECT, other non-pharmacological neuromodulation therapies, or placebo for people who have schizophrenia spectrum disorders with catatonic symptoms.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data, and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes, we planned to calculate risk ratios and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous outcomes, we planned to calculate mean differences between groups and their 95% CI. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies, and created a summary of findings table; however, we did not assess the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach because there was no quantitative evidence in the included study.\nMain results\nOut of 53 identified reports, one RCT including 14 hospitalised adults with schizophrenia and catatonic symptoms met the inclusion criteria of the review. The study, which was conducted in India and lasted only three weeks, compared risperidone with ECT in people who did not respond to an initial lorazepam trial.\nThere were no usable data reported on the primary efficacy outcomes of clinically important changes in positive, negative, or catatonic symptoms. Whilst both study groups improved in catatonia scores on the Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS), the ECT group showed significantly greater improvement at week 3 endpoint (mean +/− estimated standard deviation; 0.68 +/− 4.58; N = 8) than the risperidone group (6.04 +/− 4.58; N = 6; P = 0.035 of a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures originally conducted in the trial). Similarly, both groups improved on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores by week 3, but ECT showed significantly greater improvement in positive symptoms scores compared with risperidone (P = 0.04). However, data on BFCRS scores in the ECT group appeared to be skewed, and mean PANSS scores were not reported, thereby precluding further analyses of both BFCRS and PANSS data according to the protocol.\nAlthough no cases of neuroleptic malignant syndrome were reported, extrapyramidal symptoms as a primary safety outcome were reported in three cases in the risperidone group. Conversely, headache (N = 6), memory loss (N = 4), and a prolonged seizure were reported in people receiving ECT. These adverse effects, which were assessed as specific for antipsychotics and ECT, respectively, were the only adverse effects reported in the study. However, the exact number of participants with adverse events was not clearly reported in both groups, precluding further analysis.\nOur results were based only on a single study with a very small sample size, short duration of treatment, unclear or high risk of bias due to unclear randomisation methods, possible imbalance in baseline characteristics, skewed data, and selective reporting. Data on outcomes of general functioning, global state, quality of life, and service use, as well as data on specific phenomenology and duration of catatonic symptoms, were not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found only one small, short-term trial suggesting that risperidone may improve catatonic and positive symptoms scale scores amongst people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and catatonic symptoms, but that ECT may result in greater improvement in the first three weeks of treatment. Due to small sample size, methodological shortcomings and brief duration of the study, as well as risk of bias, the evidence from this review is of very low quality. We are uncertain if these are true effects, limiting any conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence. No cases of neuroleptic malignant syndrome were reported, but we cannot rule out the risk of this or other rare adverse events in larger population samples.\nHigh-quality trials continue to be necessary to differentiate treatments for people with symptoms of catatonia in schizophrenia spectrum disorders. The lack of consensus on the psychopathology of catatonia remains a barrier to defining treatments for people with schizophrenia. Better understanding of the efficacy and safety of antipsychotics may clarify treatment for this unique subtype of schizophrenia.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are schizophrenia spectrum disorders and catatonic symptoms?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Schizophrenia and related spectrum disorders are serious mental disorders that present with a wide range of psychotic symptoms such as false ideas, hearing voices, and trouble thinking. Some people also have catatonic symptoms such as the inability to move or speak or repetitive movements over which they have little control. People with catatonic symptoms may be unable to interact or communicate with others."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1722 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTrachoma is the leading infectious cause of blindness. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends eliminating trachomatous blindness through the SAFE strategy: Surgery for trichiasis, Antibiotic treatment, Facial cleanliness and Environmental hygiene. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2006.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions for trachomatous trichiasis for people living in endemic settings.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2015, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to May 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to May 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), 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 7 May 2015. We searched the reference lists of included studies to identify further potentially relevant studies. We also contacted authors for details of other relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised trials of any intervention intended to treat trachomatous trichiasis.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently selected and assessed the trials, including the risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for missing data when necessary. Our primary outcome was post-operative trichiasis which was defined as any lash touching the globe at three months, one year or two years after surgery.\nMain results\nThirteen studies met the inclusion criteria with 8586 participants. Most of the studies were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. The majority of the studies were of a low or unclear risk of bias.\nFive studies compared different surgical interventions. Most surgical interventions were performed by non-physician technicians. These trials suggest the most effective surgery is full-thickness incision of the tarsal plate and rotation of the terminal tarsal strip. Pooled data from two studies suggested that the bilamellar rotation was more effective than unilamellar rotation (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.50). Use of a lid clamp reduced lid contour abnormalities (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.98) and granuloma formation (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.97). Absorbable sutures gave comparable outcomes to silk sutures (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.20) and were associated with less frequent granuloma formation (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.99). Epilation was less effective at preventing eyelashes from touching the globe than surgery for mild trichiasis, but had comparable results for vision and corneal change. Peri-operative azithromycin reduced post-operative trichiasis; however, the estimate of effect was imprecise and compatible with no effect or increased trichiasis (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.14; 1954 eyes; 3 studies). Community-based surgery when compared to health centres increased uptake with comparable outcomes. Surgery performed by ophthalmologists and integrated eye care workers was comparable. Adverse events were typically infrequent or mild and included rare postoperative infections, eyelid contour abnormalities and conjunctival granulomas.\nAuthors' conclusions\nNo trials were designed to evaluate whether the interventions for trichiasis prevent blindness as an outcome; however, several found modest improvement in vision following intervention. Certain interventions have been shown to be more effective at eliminating trichiasis. Full-thickness incision of the tarsal plate and rotation of the lash-bearing lid margin was found to be the best technique and is preferably delivered in the community. Surgery may be carried out by an ophthalmologist or a trained ophthalmic assistant. Surgery performed with silk or absorbable sutures gave comparable results. Post-operative azithromycin was found to improve outcomes where overall recurrence was low.\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": "These trials suggested that the most effective surgery requires full-thickness incision of the tarsal plate and rotation of the edge of the eyelid. The use of a surgical lid clamp improves eyelid contour outcomes and reduces granuloma formation. Silk and absorbable sutures give comparable results. The addition of azithromycin treatment at the time of surgery may reduce post-operative trichiasis under certain conditions. Epilation is less effective than surgery at treating trichiasis, but has comparable results for vision and corneal change two years after intervention. Community-based surgery was more convenient for patients by reducing the time and expense of travelling to a conventional hospital, and it did not increase the risk of complications or recurrence. Surgery performed by ophthalmologists and by integrated eye care workers were both similarly effective. Destroying the lash roots by freezing or electrical ablation appeared to have low success rates and the equipment required is costly and can be difficult to maintain."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1723 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) treated with dialysis are frequently affected by major depression. Dialysis patients have prioritised depression as a critically important clinical outcome in nephrology trials. Psychological and social support are potential treatments for depression, although a Cochrane review in 2005 identified zero eligible studies. This is an update of the Cochrane review first published in 2005.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of using psychosocial interventions versus usual care or a second psychosocial intervention for preventing and treating depression in patients with ESKD treated with dialysis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Register of Studies up to 21 June 2019 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of psychosocial interventions for prevention and treatment of depression among adults treated with long-term dialysis. We assessed effects of interventions on changes in mental state (depression, anxiety, cognition), suicide, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), withdrawal from dialysis treatment, withdrawal from intervention, death (any cause), hospitalisation and adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted study data. We applied the Cochrane 'Risk of Bias' tool and used the GRADE process to assess evidence certainty. We estimated treatment effects using random-effects meta-analysis. Results for continuous outcomes were expressed as a mean difference (MD) or as a standardised mean difference (SMD) when investigators used different scales. Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as risk ratios. All estimates were reported together with 95% confidence intervals (CI).\nMain results\nWe included 33 studies enrolling 2056 participants. Twenty-six new studies were added to this 2019 update. Seven studies originally excluded from the 2005 review were included as they met the updated review eligibility criteria, which have been expanded to include RCTs in which participants did not meet criteria for depression as an inclusion criterion.\nPsychosocial interventions included acupressure, cognitive-behavioural therapy, counselling, education, exercise, meditation, motivational interviewing, relaxation techniques, social activity, spiritual practices, support groups, telephone support, visualisation, and voice-recording of a psychological intervention.\nThe duration of study follow-up ranged between three weeks and one year. Studies included between nine and 235 participants. The mean study age ranged between 36.1 and 73.9 years.\nRandom sequence generation and allocation concealment were at low risk of bias in eight and one studies respectively. One study reported low risk methods for blinding of participants and investigators, and outcome assessment was blinded in seven studies. Twelve studies were at low risk of attrition bias, eight studies were at low risk of selective reporting bias, and 21 studies were at low risk of other potential sources of bias.\nCognitive behavioural therapy probably improves depressive symptoms measured using the Beck Depression Inventory (4 studies, 230 participants: MD -6.10, 95% CI -8.63 to -3.57), based on moderate certainty evidence. Cognitive behavioural therapy compared to usual care probably improves HRQoL measured either with the Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument Short Form or the Quality of Life Scale, with a 0.5 standardised mean difference representing a moderate effect size (4 studies, 230 participants: SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.83) , based on moderate certainty evidence. Cognitive behavioural therapy may reduce major depression symptoms (one study) and anxiety, and increase self-efficacy (one study). Cognitive behavioural therapy studies did not report hospitalisation.\nWe found low-certainty evidence that counselling may slightly reduce depressive symptoms measured with the Beck Depression Inventory (3 studies, 99 participants: MD -3.84, 95% CI -6.14 to -1.53) compared to usual care. Counselling reported no difference in HRQoL (one study). Counselling studies did not measure risk of major depression, suicide, or hospitalisation.\nExercise may reduce or prevent major depression (3 studies, 108 participants: RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.81), depression of any severity (3 studies, 108 participants: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.87) and improve HRQoL measured with Quality of Life Index score (2 studies, 64 participants: MD 3.06, 95% CI 2.29 to 3.83) compared to usual care with low certainty. With moderate certainty, exercise probably improves depression symptoms measured with the Beck Depression Inventory (3 studies, 108 participants: MD -7.61, 95% CI -9.59 to -5.63). Exercise may reduce anxiety (one study). No exercise studies measured suicide risk or withdrawal from dialysis.\nWe found moderate-certainty evidence that relaxation techniques probably reduce depressive symptoms measured with the Beck Depression Inventory (2 studies, 122 participants: MD -5.77, 95% CI -8.76 to -2.78). Relaxation techniques reported no difference in HRQoL (one study). Relaxation studies did not measure risk of major depression or suicide.\nSpiritual practices have uncertain effects on depressive symptoms measured either with the Beck Depression Inventory or the Brief Symptom Inventory (2 studies, 116 participants: SMD -1.00, 95% CI -3.52 to 1.53; very low certainty evidence). No differences between spiritual practices and usual care were reported on anxiety (one study), and HRQoL (one study). No study of spiritual practices evaluated effects on suicide risk, withdrawal from dialysis or hospitalisation.\nThere were few or no data on acupressure, telephone support, meditation and adverse events related to psychosocial interventions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCognitive behavioural therapy, exercise or relaxation techniques probably reduce depressive symptoms (moderate-certainty evidence) for adults with ESKD treated with dialysis. Cognitive behavioural therapy probably increases health-related quality of life. Evidence for spiritual practices, acupressure, telephone support, and meditation is of low certainty . Similarly, evidence for effects of psychosocial interventions on suicide risk, major depression, hospitalisation, withdrawal from dialysis, and adverse events is of low or very low certainty.\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": "This evidence is current to June 2019. We searched the medical literature and identified 33 studies with 2056 participants treated by dialysis. Studies evaluated a range of possible treatments including acupressure, cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), counselling, education, exercise, meditation, motivational interviewing, relaxation techniques, social activity, spiritual practices, support groups, telephone support, visualisation, and voice control compared to usual care or other psychosocial treatments. We also checked the quality of the information in the studies to learn how certain we could be about the results."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1724 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPressure ulcers, also known as bed sores, pressure sores or decubitus ulcers develop as a result of a localised injury to the skin or underlying tissue, or both. The ulcers usually arise over a bony prominence, and are recognised as a common medical problem affecting people confined to a bed or wheelchair for long periods of time. Anabolic steroids are used as off-label drugs (drugs which are used without regulatory approval) and have been used as adjuvants to usual treatment with dressings, debridement, nutritional supplements, systemic antibiotics and antiseptics, which are considered to be supportive in healing of pressure ulcers. Anabolic steroids are considered because of their ability to stimulate protein synthesis and build muscle mass. Comprehensive evidence is required to facilitate decision making, regarding the benefits and harms of using anabolic steroids.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of anabolic steroids for treating pressure ulcers.\nSearch methods\nIn March 2017 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.\nSelection criteria\nPublished or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of anabolic steroids with alternative treatments or different types of anabolic steroids in the treatment of pressure ulcers.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently carried out study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment.\nMain results\nThe review contains only one trial with a total of 212 participants, all with spinal cord injury and open pressure ulcers classed as stage III and IV. The participants were mainly male (98.2%, 106/108) with a mean age of 58.4 (standard deviation 10.4) years in the oxandrolone group and were all male (100%, 104/104) with a mean age of 57.3 (standard deviation 11.6) years in the placebo group. This trial compared oxandrolone (20 mg/day, administered orally) with a dose of placebo (an inactive substance consisting of 98% starch and 2% magnesium stearate) and reported data on complete healing of ulcers and adverse events. There was very low-certainty evidence on the relative effect of oxandrolone on complete ulcer healing at the end of a 24-week treatment period (risk ratio RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 1.26) (downgraded twice for imprecision due to an extremely wide 95% CI, which spanned both benefit and harm, and once for indirectness, as the participants were mostly male spinal cord injury patients). Thus, we are uncertain whether oxandrolone improves or reduces the complete healing of pressure ulcers, as we assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low.\nThere was low-certainty evidence on the risk of non-serious adverse events reported in participants treated with oxandrolone compared with placebo (RR 3.85, 95% CI 1.12 to 13.26) (downgraded once for imprecision and once for indirectness, as the participants were mostly male spinal cord injury patients). Thus, the treatment with oxandrolone may increase the risk of non-serious adverse events reported in participants.\nThere was very low-certainty evidence on the risk of serious adverse events reported in participants treated with oxandrolone compared with placebo (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.17) (downgraded twice for imprecision due to an extremely wide 95% CI, which spanned both benefit and harm, and once for indirectness, as the participants were mostly male spinal cord injury patients). Of the five serious adverse events reported in the oxandrolone-treated group, none were classed by the trial teams as being related to treatment. We are uncertain whether oxandrolone increases or decreases the risk of serious adverse events as we assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low.\nSecondary outcomes such as pain, length of hospital stay, change in wound size or wound surface area, incidence of different type of infection, cost of treatment and quality of life were not reported in the included trial.\nOverall the evidence in this study was of very low quality (downgraded for imprecision and indirectness). This trial stopped early when the futility analysis (interim analysis) in the opinion of the study authors showed that oxandrolone had no benefit over placebo for improving ulcer healing.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no high quality evidence to support the use of anabolic steroids in treating pressure ulcers.\nFurther well-designed, multicenter trials, at low risk of bias, are necessary to assess the effect of anabolic steroids on treating pressure ulcers, but careful consideration of the current trial and its early termination are required when planning future research.\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": "In March 2017, we searched for randomised controlled trials, which compared the use of anabolic steroids with other treatments for pressure ulcers. We found only one trial involving a total of 212 participants. This trial compared the effects of an anabolic steroid (oxandrolone capsules) with a placebo (dummy treatment containing no active medicine) on pressure ulcer healing in people with spinal cord injuries. The participants were mostly male (98.2%) with a mean age of 58.4 years in the oxandrolone group, which was comparable with the participants in the placebo group (male: 100%; mean age: 57.3 years). The trial was conducted over 24 weeks with a further follow-up for eight weeks."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1725 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nStem cell therapy (SCT) has been proposed as an alternative treatment for dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), nonetheless its effectiveness remains debatable.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of SCT in adults with non-ischaemic DCM.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and Embase for relevant trials in November 2020. We also searched two clinical trials registers in May 2020.\nSelection criteria\nEligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing stem/progenitor cells with no cells in adults with non-ischaemic DCM. We included co-interventions such as the administration of stem cell mobilizing agents. Studies were classified and analysed into three categories according to the comparison intervention, which consisted of no intervention/placebo, cell mobilization with cytokines, or a different mode of SCT.\nThe first two comparisons (no cells in the control group) served to assess the efficacy of SCT while the third (different mode of SCT) served to complement the review with information about safety and other information of potential utility for a better understanding of the effects of SCT.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened all references for eligibility, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We undertook a quantitative evaluation of data using random-effects meta-analyses. We evaluated heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We could not explore potential effect modifiers through subgroup analyses as they were deemed uninformative due to the scarce number of trials available. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We created summary of findings tables using GRADEpro GDT. We focused our summary of findings on all-cause mortality, safety, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), performance status, and major adverse cardiovascular events.\nMain results\nWe included 13 RCTs involving 762 participants (452 cell therapy and 310 controls). Only one study was at low risk of bias in all domains. There were many shortcomings in the publications that did not allow a precise assessment of the risk of bias in many domains. Due to the nature of the intervention, the main source of potential bias was lack of blinding of participants (performance bias). Frequently, the format of the continuous data available was not ideal for use in the meta-analysis and forced us to seek strategies for transforming data in a usable format.\nWe are uncertain whether SCT reduces all-cause mortality in people with DCM compared to no intervention/placebo (mean follow-up 12 months) (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.31; I² = 0%; studies = 7, participants = 361; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether SCT increases the risk of procedural complications associated with cells injection in people with DCM (data could not be pooled; studies = 7; participants = 361; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether SCT improves HRQoL (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.62, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.23; I² = 72%; studies = 5, participants = 272; very low-certainty evidence) and functional capacity (6-minute walk test) (mean difference (MD) 70.12 m, 95% CI –5.28 to 145.51; I² = 87%; studies = 5, participants = 230; very low-certainty evidence). SCT may result in a slight functional class (New York Heart Association) improvement (data could not be pooled; studies = 6, participants = 398; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported major adverse cardiovascular events as defined in our protocol. SCT may not increase the risk of ventricular arrhythmia (data could not be pooled; studies = 8, participants = 504; low-certainty evidence).\nWhen comparing SCT to cell mobilization with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), we are uncertain whether SCT reduces all-cause mortality (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.31; I² = 39%; studies = 3, participants = 195; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether SCT increases the risk of procedural complications associated with cells injection (studies = 1, participants = 60; very low-certainty evidence). SCT may not improve HRQoL (MD 4.61 points, 95% CI –5.62 to 14.83; studies = 1, participants = 22; low-certainty evidence). SCT may improve functional capacity (6-minute walk test) (MD 140.14 m, 95% CI 119.51 to 160.77; I² = 0%; studies = 2, participants = 155; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported MACE as defined in our protocol or ventricular arrhythmia.\nThe most commonly reported outcomes across studies were based on physiological measures of cardiac function where there were some beneficial effects suggesting potential benefits of SCT in people with non-ischaemic DCM. However, it is unclear if this intermediate effects translates into clinical benefits for these patients.\nWith regard to specific aspects related to the modality of cell therapy and its delivery, uncertainties remain as subgroup analyses could not be performed as planned, making it necessary to wait for the publication of several studies that are currently in progress before any firm conclusion can be reached.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain whether SCT in people with DCM reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and procedural complications, improves HRQoL, and performance status (exercise capacity). SCT may improve functional class (NYHA), compared to usual care (no cells).\nSimilarly, when compared to G-CSF, we are also uncertain whether SCT in people with DCM reduces the risk of all-cause mortality although some studies within this comparison observed a favourable effect that should be interpreted with caution. SCT may not improve HRQoL but may improve to some extent performance status (exercise capacity). Very low-quality evidence reflects uncertainty regarding procedural complications. These suggested beneficial effects of SCT, although uncertain due to the very low certainty of the evidence, are accompanied by favourable effects on some physiological measures of cardiac function.\nPresently, the most effective mode of administration of SCT and the population that could benefit the most is unclear. Therefore, it seems reasonable that use of SCT in people with DCM is limited to clinical research settings. Results of ongoing studies are likely to modify these conclusions.\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": "DCM is a disorder of the heart muscle with heart dilation (heart muscle becomes stretched) and impaired contraction, in the absence of high blood pressure, damaged or diseased heart valves, or heart disease present at birth or related to myocardial infarction (heart attack). The current standard of treatment is based on medicines and cardiac devices. However, DCM is still one of the leading causes of heart transplantation in adults.\nStem cells are special cells produced in the bone marrow that are able to develop into many different cell types. Giving stem cells directly into the heart muscle has been proposed as an alternative treatment to reduce or stop further deterioration in heart function in people with DCM."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1726 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe scientific literature examining effective treatments for opioid dependent adults clearly indicates that pharmacotherapy is a necessary and acceptable component of effective treatments for opioid dependence. Nevertheless, no studies have been published that systematically assess the effectiveness of the pharmacological detoxification among adolescents.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of any detoxification treatment alone or in combination with psychosocial intervention compared with no intervention, other pharmacological intervention or psychosocial interventions on completion of treatment, reducing the use of substances and improving health and social status.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2014, Issue 1), PubMed (January 1966 to January 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2014), CINHAL (January 1982 to January 2014), Web of Science (1991-January 2014) and reference lists of articles.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled clinical trials comparing any pharmacological interventions alone or associated with psychosocial intervention aimed at detoxification with no intervention, placebo, other pharmacological intervention or psychosocial intervention in adolescents (13 to 18 years).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration\nMain results\nTwo trials involving 190 participants were included. One trial compared buprenorphine with clonidine for detoxification. No difference was found for drop out: risk ratio (RR) 0.45 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.20 to 1.04) and acceptability of treatment: withdrawal score mean difference (MD): 3.97 (95% CI -1.38 to 9.32). More participants in the buprenorphine group initiated naltrexone treatment: RR 11.00 (95% CI 1.58 to 76.55), quality of evidence moderate.\nThe other trial compared maintenance treatment versus detoxification treatment: buprenorphine-naloxone maintenance versus buprenorphine detoxification. For drop out the results were in favour of maintenance treatment: RR 2.67 (95% CI 1.85, 3.86), as well as for results at follow-up RR 1.36 [95% CI 1.05to 1.76); no differences for use of opiate, quality of evidence low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIt is difficult to draw conclusions on the basis of two trials with few participants. Furthermore, the two studies included did not consider the efficacy of methadone that is still the most frequent drug utilised for the treatment of opioid withdrawal. One possible reason for the lack of evidence could be the difficulty in conducting trials with young people due to practical and ethical reasons.\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": "Substance abuse among adolescents (13 to 18 years old) is a serious and growing problem. It is important to identify effective treatments for those who are opioid dependent. For adults, pharmacotherapy is a necessary and acceptable part of effective treatment. Detoxification agents are used to reduce withdrawal symptoms during managed withdrawal but the rate of completion of detoxification tends to be low, and rates of relapse are high. Withdrawal symptoms, particularly drug craving, may continue for weeks and even months after detoxification. The period of recovery from dependence is typically influenced by a range of psychological, social and treatment- related factors. Detoxification treatments include methadone, buprenorphine, and alpha2-adrenergic agonists."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1727 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPelvic organ prolapse (POP) is the descent of a woman's uterus, bladder, or rectum into the vagina. It affects 50% of women over 50 years old who have given birth to at least one child, and recognised risk factors are older age, higher number of births, and higher body mass index. This review assesses the effects of oestrogen therapy, alone or in combination with other treatments, on POP in postmenopausal women.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of local and systemic oestrogen therapy in the management of pelvic organ prolapse symptoms in postmenopausal women, and to summarise the principal findings of relevant economic evaluations.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register (up to 20 June 2022), which includes CENTRAL, MEDLINE, two trials registers, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings. We also checked the reference lists of relevant articles for additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, multi-arm RCTs, and cross-over RCTs that evaluated the effects of oestrogen therapy (alone or in combination with other treatments) versus placebo, no treatment, or other interventions in postmenopausal women with any grade of POP.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data from the included trials using prespecified outcome measures and a piloted extraction form. The same review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of eligible trials using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. Had data allowed, we would have created summary of findings tables for our main outcome measures and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe identified 14 studies including a total of 1002 women. In general, studies were at high risk of bias in terms of blinding of participants and personnel, and there were also some concerns about selective reporting. Owing to insufficient data for the outcomes of interest, we were unable to perform our planned subgroup analyses (systemic versus topical oestrogen, parous versus nulliparous women, women with versus without a uterus).\nNo studies assessed the effects of oestrogen therapy alone versus no treatment, placebo, pelvic floor muscle training, devices such as vaginal pessaries, or surgery. However, we did identify three studies that assessed oestrogen therapy in conjunction with vaginal pessaries versus vaginal pessaries alone and 11 studies that assessed oestrogen therapy in conjunction with surgery versus surgery alone.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was insufficient evidence from RCTs to draw any solid conclusions on the benefits or harms of oestrogen therapy for managing POP symptoms in postmenopausal women. Topical oestrogen in conjunction with pessaries was associated with fewer adverse vaginal events compared with pessaries alone, and topical oestrogen in conjunction with surgery was associated with reduced postoperative urinary tract infections compared with surgery alone; however, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as the studies that contributed data varied substantially in their design.\nThere is a need for larger studies on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oestrogen therapy, used alone or in conjunction with pelvic floor muscle training, vaginal pessaries, or surgery, for the management of POP. These studies should measure outcomes in the medium and long term.\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 20 June 2022."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1728 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCommunity-based primary-level workers (PWs) are an important strategy for addressing gaps in mental health service delivery in low- and middle-income countries.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of PW-led treatments for persons with mental health symptoms in LMICs, compared to usual care.\nSearch methods\nMEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP, reference lists (to 20 June 2019).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials of PW-led or collaborative-care interventions treating people with mental health symptoms or their carers in LMICs.\nPWs included: primary health professionals (PHPs), lay health workers (LHWs), community non-health professionals (CPs).\nData collection and analysis\nSeven conditions were identified apriori and analysed by disorder and PW examining recovery, prevalence, symptom change, quality-of-life (QOL), functioning, service use (SU), and adverse events (AEs).\nRisk ratios (RRs) were used for dichotomous outcomes; mean difference (MDs), standardised mean differences (SMDs), or mean change differences (MCDs) for continuous outcomes.\nFor SMDs, 0.20 to 0.49 represented small, 0.50 to 0.79 moderate, and ≥0.80 large clinical effects.\nAnalysis timepoints: T1 (<1 month), T2 (1-6 months), T3 ( >6 months) post-intervention.\nMain results\nDescription of studies\n95 trials (72 new since 2013) from 30 LMICs (25 trials from 13 LICs).\nRisk of bias\nMost common: detection bias, attrition bias (efficacy), insufficient protection against contamination.\nIntervention effects\n*Unless indicated, comparisons were usual care at T2.\n“Probably”, “may”, or “uncertain” indicates \"moderate\", \"low,\" or \"very low\" certainty evidence.\nAdults with common mental disorders (CMDs)\nLHW-led interventions\na. may increase recovery (2 trials, 308 participants; RR 1.29, 95%CI 1.06 to 1.56);\nb. may reduce prevalence (2 trials, 479 participants; RR 0.42, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.96);\nc. may reduce symptoms (4 trials, 798 participants; SMD -0.59, 95%CI -1.01 to -0.16);\nd. may improve QOL (1 trial, 521 participants; SMD 0.51, 95%CI 0.34 to 0.69);\ne. may slightly reduce functional impairment (3 trials, 1399 participants; SMD -0.47, 95%CI -0.8 to -0.15);\nf. may reduce AEs (risk of suicide ideation/attempts);\ng. may have uncertain effects on SU.\nCollaborative-care\na. may increase recovery (5 trials, 804 participants; RR 2.26, 95%CI 1.50 to 3.43);\nb. may reduce prevalence although the actual effect range indicates it may have little-or-no effect (2 trials, 2820 participants; RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.32 to 1.01);\nc. may slightly reduce symptoms (6 trials, 4419 participants; SMD -0.35, 95%CI -0.63 to -0.08);\nd. may slightly improve QOL (6 trials, 2199 participants; SMD 0.34, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.53);\ne. probably has little-to-no effect on functional impairment (5 trials, 4216 participants; SMD -0.13, 95%CI -0.28 to 0.03);\nf. may reduce SU (referral to MH specialists);\ng. may have uncertain effects on AEs (death).\nWomen with perinatal depression (PND)\nLHW-led interventions\na. may increase recovery (4 trials, 1243 participants; RR 1.29, 95%CI 1.08 to 1.54);\nb. probably slightly reduce symptoms (5 trials, 1989 participants; SMD -0.26, 95%CI -0.37 to -0.14);\nc. may slightly reduce functional impairment (4 trials, 1856 participants; SMD -0.23, 95%CI -0.41 to -0.04);\nd. may have little-to-no effect on AEs (death);\ne. may have uncertain effects on SU.\nCollaborative-care\na. has uncertain effects on symptoms/QOL/SU/AEs.\nAdults with post-traumatic stress (PTS) or CMDs in humanitarian settings\nLHW-led interventions\na. may slightly reduce depression symptoms (5 trials, 1986 participants; SMD -0.36, 95%CI -0.56 to -0.15);\nb. probably slightly improve QOL (4 trials, 1918 participants; SMD -0.27, 95%CI -0.39 to -0.15);\nc. may have uncertain effects on symptoms (PTS)/functioning/SU/AEs.\nPHP-led interventions\na. may reduce PTS symptom prevalence (1 trial, 313 participants; RR 5.50, 95%CI 2.50 to 12.10) and depression prevalence (1 trial, 313 participants; RR 4.60, 95%CI 2.10 to 10.08);\nb. may have uncertain effects on symptoms/functioning/SU/AEs.\nAdults with harmful/hazardous alcohol or substance use\nLHW-led interventions\na. may increase recovery from harmful/hazardous alcohol use although the actual effect range indicates it may have little-or-no effect (4 trials, 872 participants; RR 1.28, 95%CI 0.94 to 1.74);\nb. may have little-to-no effect on the prevalence of methamphetamine use (1 trial, 882 participants; RR 1.01, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.13) and functional impairment (2 trials, 498 participants; SMD -0.14, 95%CI -0.32 to 0.03);\nc. probably slightly reduce risk of harmful/hazardous alcohol use (3 trials, 667 participants; SMD -0.22, 95%CI -0.32 to -0.11);\nd. may have uncertain effects on SU/AEs.\nPHP/CP-led interventions\na. probably have little-to-no effect on recovery from harmful/hazardous alcohol use (3 trials, 1075 participants; RR 0.93, 95%CI 0.77 to 1.12) or QOL (1 trial, 560 participants; MD 0.00, 95%CI -0.10 to 0.10);\nb. probably slightly reduce risk of harmful/hazardous alcohol and substance use (2 trials, 705 participants; SMD -0.20, 95%CI -0.35 to -0.05; moderate-certainty evidence);\nc. may have uncertain effects on prevalence (cannabis use)/SU/AEs.\nPW-led interventions for alcohol/substance dependence\na. may have uncertain effects.\nAdults with severe mental disorders\n*Comparisons were specialist-led care at T1.\nLHW-led interventions\na. may have little-to-no effect on caregiver burden (1 trial, 253 participants; MD -0.04, 95%CI -0.18 to 0.11);\nb. may have uncertain effects on symptoms/functioning/SU/AEs.\nPHP-led or collaborative-care\na. may reduce functional impairment (7 trials, 874 participants; SMD -1.13, 95%CI -1.78 to -0.47);\nb. may have uncertain effects on recovery/relapse/symptoms/QOL/SU.\nAdults with dementia and carers\nPHP/LHW-led carer interventions\na. may have little-to-no effect on the severity of behavioural symptoms in dementia patients (2 trials, 134 participants; SMD -0.26, 95%CI -0.60 to 0.08);\nb. may reduce carers' mental distress (2 trials, 134 participants; SMD -0.47, 95%CI -0.82 to -0.13);\nc. may have uncertain effects on QOL/functioning/SU/AEs.\nChildren with PTS or CMDs\nLHW-led interventions\na. may have little-to-no effect on PTS symptoms (3 trials, 1090 participants; MCD -1.34, 95%CI -2.83 to 0.14);\nb. probably have little-to-no effect on depression symptoms (3 trials, 1092 participants; MCD -0.61, 95%CI -1.23 to 0.02) or on functional impairment (3 trials, 1092 participants; MCD -0.81, 95%CI -1.48 to -0.13);\nc. may have little-or-no effect on AEs.\nCP-led interventions\na. may have little-to-no effect on depression symptoms (2 trials, 602 participants; SMD -0.19, 95%CI -0.57 to 0.19) or on AEs;\nb. may have uncertain effects on recovery/symptoms(PTS)/functioning.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPW-led interventions show promising benefits in improving outcomes for CMDs, PND, PTS, harmful alcohol/substance use, and dementia carers in LMICs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"1. Adults with depression and anxiety\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Treatments from lay health workers compared to usual care:\na. may increase recovery;\nb. may reduce the number of people with depression/anxiety;\nc. may improve quality of life;\nd. may slightly improve day-to-day functioning; and\ne. may reduce risk of suicidal thoughts/attempts.\nTreatments from primary-level workers in collaboration with mental health specialists compared to usual care:\na. may increase recovery;\nb. may reduce the number of people with depression/anxiety although the range for the actual effect indicates they may have little or no effect;\nc. may slightly reduce symptoms;\nd. may slightly improve quality of life;\ne. probably have little to no effect on day-to-day functioning; and\nf. may reduce referral to mental health specialists."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1729 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEarly discharge of stable preterm infants still requiring gavage feeds offers the benefits of uniting families sooner and reducing healthcare and family costs compared with discharge home when on full sucking feeds. Potential disadvantages of early discharge include increased care burden for the family and risk of complications related to gavage feeding.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effects of a policy of early discharge of stable preterm infants with home support of gavage feeding compared with a policy of discharge of such infants when they have reached full sucking feeds.\nWe planned subgroup analyses to determine whether safety and efficacy outcomes are altered by the type of support received (outpatient visits vs home support) or by the maturity of the infants discharged (gestational age ≤ 28 weeks at birth or birth weight ≤ 1000 grams).\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, together with searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to March 2015), EMBASE (1980 to March 2015) and MEDLINE (1950 to March 2015). We found no new trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised and quasi-randomised trials among infants born at < 37 weeks and requiring no intravenous nutrition at the point of discharge. Trials were required to compare early discharge home with gavage feeds and healthcare support versus later discharge home when full sucking feeds were attained.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We conducted study authors for additional information. We performed data analysis in accordance with the standards of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group.\nMain results\nWe included in the review data from one quasi-randomised trial with 88 infants from 75 families. Infants in the early discharge programme with home gavage feeding had a mean hospital stay that was 9.3 days shorter (mean difference (MD) -9.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) -18.49 to -0.11) than that of infants in the control group. Infants in the early discharge programme also had lower risk of clinical infection during the home gavage period compared with those in the control group spending corresponding time in hospital (risk ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.69). No significant differences were noted between groups in duration and extent of breast feeding, weight gain, re-admission within the first 12 months post discharge from the home gavage programme or from hospital, scores reflecting parental satisfaction or overall health service use.\nAuthors' conclusions\nExperimental evidence on the benefits and risks for preterm infants of early discharge from hospital with home gavage feeding compared with later discharge upon attainment of full sucking feeds is limited to the results of one small quasi-randomised controlled trial. High-quality trials with concealed allocation, complete follow-up of all randomly assigned infants and adequate sample size are needed before practice recommendations can be made.\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": "Evidence is needed regarding the effects of early home discharge for preterm babies who are stable but still need gavage (tube) feeds."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1730 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAdequate haemodialysis (HD) in people with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is reliant upon establishment of vascular access, which may consist of arteriovenous fistula, arteriovenous graft, or central venous catheters (CVC). Although discouraged due to high rates of infectious and thrombotic complications as well as technical issues that limit their life span, CVC have the significant advantage of being immediately usable and are the only means of vascular access in a significant number of patients. Previous studies have established the role of thrombolytic agents (TLA) in the prevention of catheter malfunction. Systematic review of different thrombolytic agents has also identified their utility in restoration of catheter patency following catheter malfunction. To date the use and efficacy of fibrin sheath stripping and catheter exchange have not been evaluated against thrombolytic agents.\nObjectives\nThis review aimed to evaluate the benefits and harms of TLA, preparations, doses and administration as well as fibrin-sheath stripping, over-the-wire catheter exchange or any other intervention proposed for management of tunnelled CVC malfunction in patients with ESKD on HD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register up to 17 August 2017 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Specialised 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 all studies conducted in people with ESKD who rely on tunnelled CVC for either initiation or maintenance of HD access and who require restoration of catheter patency following late-onset catheter malfunction and evaluated the role of TLA, fibrin sheath stripping or over-the-wire catheter exchange to restore catheter function. The primary outcome was be restoration of line patency defined as ≥ 300 mL/min or adequate to complete a HD session or as defined by the study authors. Secondary outcomes included dialysis adequacy and adverse outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed retrieved studies to determine which studies satisfy the inclusion criteria and carried out data extraction. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using GRADE.\nMain results\nOur search strategy identified 8 studies (580 participants) as eligible for inclusion in this review. Interventions included: thrombolytic therapy versus placebo (1 study); low versus high dose thrombolytic therapy (1); alteplase versus urokinase (1); short versus long thrombolytic dwell (1); thrombolytic therapy versus percutaneous fibrin sheath stripping (1); fibrin sheath stripping versus over-the-wire catheter exchange (1); and over-the-wire catheter exchange versus exchange with and without angioplasty sheath disruption (1). No two studies compared the same interventions. Most studies had a high risk of bias due to poor study design, broad inclusion criteria, low patient numbers and industry involvement.\nBased on low certainty evidence, thrombolytic therapy may restore catheter function when compared to placebo (149 participants: RR 4.05, 95% CI 1.42 to 11.56) but there is no data available to suggest an optimal dose or administration method. The certainty of this evidence is reduced due to the fact that it is based on only a single study with wide confidence limits, high risk of bias and imprecision in the estimates of adverse events (149 participants: RR 2.03, 95% CI 0.38 to 10.73).\nBased on the available evidence, physical disruption of a fibrin sheath using interventional radiology techniques appears to be equally efficacious as the use of a pharmaceutical thrombolytic agent for the immediate management of dysfunctional catheters (57 participants: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07).\nCatheter patency is poor following use of thrombolytic agents with studies reporting median catheter survival rates of 14 to 42 days and was reported to improve significantly by fibrin sheath stripping or catheter exchange (37 participants: MD -27.70 days, 95% CI -51.00 to -4.40). Catheter exchange was reported to be superior to sheath disruption with respect to catheter survival (30 participants: MD 213.00 days, 95% CI 205.70 to 220.30).\nThere is insufficient evidence to suggest any specific intervention is superior in terms of ensuring either dialysis adequacy or reduced risk of adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThrombolysis, fibrin sheath disruption and over-the-wire catheter exchange are effective and appropriate therapies for immediately restoring catheter patency in dysfunctional cuffed and tunnelled HD catheters. On current data there is no evidence to support physical intervention over the use of pharmaceutical agents in the acute setting. Pharmacological interventions appear to have a bridging role and long-term catheter survival may be improved by fibrin sheath disruption and is probably superior following catheter exchange. There is no evidence favouring any of these approaches with respect to dialysis adequacy or risk of adverse events.\nThe current review is limited by the small number of available studies with limited numbers of patients enrolled. Most of the studies included in this review were judged to have a high risk of bias and were potentially influenced by pharmaceutical industry involvement.\nFurther research is required to adequately address the question of the most efficacious and clinically appropriate technique for HD catheter dysfunction.\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 Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register up to 17 August 2017 and performed a systematic review of studies performed in patients with dysfunctional haemodialysis catheters and compared the success of thrombolytic agents, fibrin sheath stripping and line replacement."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1731 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe evidence on whether vitamin D supplementation is effective in decreasing cancers is contradictory.\nObjectives\nTo assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin D supplementation for prevention of cancer in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science to February 2014. We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and asked experts and pharmaceutical companies for additional trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised trials that compared vitamin D at any dose, duration, and route of administration versus placebo or no intervention in adults who were healthy or were recruited among the general population, or diagnosed with a specific disease. Vitamin D could have been administered as supplemental vitamin D (vitamin D₃ (cholecalciferol) or vitamin D₂ (ergocalciferol)), or an active form of vitamin D (1α-hydroxyvitamin D (alfacalcidol), or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol)).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors extracted data independently. We conducted random-effects and fixed-effect model meta-analyses. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratios (RRs). We considered risk of bias in order to assess the risk of systematic errors. We conducted trial sequential analyses to assess the risk of random errors.\nMain results\nEighteen randomised trials with 50,623 participants provided data for the analyses. All trials came from high-income countries. Most of the trials had a high risk of bias, mainly for-profit bias. Most trials included elderly community-dwelling women (aged 47 to 97 years). Vitamin D was administered for a weighted mean of six years. Fourteen trials tested vitamin D₃, one trial tested vitamin D₂, and three trials tested calcitriol supplementation. Cancer occurrence was observed in 1927/25,275 (7.6%) recipients of vitamin D versus 1943/25,348 (7.7%) recipients of control interventions (RR 1.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.06); P = 0.88; I² = 0%; 18 trials; 50,623 participants; moderate quality evidence according to the GRADE instrument). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) of the 18 vitamin D trials shows that the futility area is reached after the 10th trial, allowing us to conclude that a possible intervention effect, if any, is lower than a 5% relative risk reduction. We did not observe substantial differences in the effect of vitamin D on cancer in subgroup analyses of trials at low risk of bias compared to trials at high risk of bias; of trials with no risk of for-profit bias compared to trials with risk of for-profit bias; of trials assessing primary prevention compared to trials assessing secondary prevention; of trials including participants with vitamin D levels below 20 ng/mL at entry compared to trials including participants with vitamin D levels of 20 ng/mL or more at entry; or of trials using concomitant calcium supplementation compared to trials without calcium. Vitamin D decreased all-cause mortality (1854/24,846 (7.5%) versus 2007/25,020 (8.0%); RR 0.93 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.98); P = 0.009; I² = 0%; 15 trials; 49,866 participants; moderate quality evidence), but TSA indicates that this finding could be due to random errors. Cancer occurrence was observed in 1918/24,908 (7.7%) recipients of vitamin D₃ versus 1933/24,983 (7.7%) in recipients of control interventions (RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.06); P = 0.88; I² = 0%; 14 trials; 49,891 participants; moderate quality evidence). TSA of the vitamin D₃ trials shows that the futility area is reached after the 10th trial, allowing us to conclude that a possible intervention effect, if any, is lower than a 5% relative risk reduction. Vitamin D₃ decreased cancer mortality (558/22,286 (2.5%) versus 634/22,206 (2.8%); RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.98); P = 0.02; I² = 0%; 4 trials; 44,492 participants; low quality evidence), but TSA indicates that this finding could be due to random errors. Vitamin D₃ combined with calcium increased nephrolithiasis (RR 1.17 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.34); P = 0.02; I² = 0%; 3 trials; 42,753 participants; moderate quality evidence). TSA, however, indicates that this finding could be due to random errors. We did not find any data on health-related quality of life or health economics in the randomised trials included in this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently no firm evidence that vitamin D supplementation decreases or increases cancer occurrence in predominantly elderly community-dwelling women. Vitamin D₃ supplementation decreased cancer mortality and vitamin D supplementation decreased all-cause mortality, but these estimates are at risk of type I errors due to the fact that too few participants were examined, and to risks of attrition bias originating from substantial dropout of participants. Combined vitamin D₃ and calcium supplements increased nephrolithiasis, whereas it remains unclear from the included trials whether vitamin D₃, calcium, or both were responsible for this effect. We need more trials on vitamin D supplementation, assessing the benefits and harms among younger participants, men, and people with low vitamin D status, and assessing longer duration of treatments as well as higher dosages of vitamin D. Follow-up of all participants is necessary to reduce attrition bias.\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": "The available evidence on vitamin D and cancer occurrence is intriguing but inconclusive. Many observational studies as well as randomised trials suggest that high vitamin D levels in the blood are related to reduced cancer occurrence. However, results of randomised trials testing the effect of vitamin D supplementation for cancer prevention are contradictory."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1732 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeritoneal dialysis (PD) is an important therapy for patients with end-stage kidney disease and is used in more than 200,000 such patients globally. However, its value is often limited by the development of infections such as peritonitis and exit-site and tunnel infections. Multiple strategies have been developed to reduce the risk of peritonitis including antibiotics, topical disinfectants to the exit site and antifungal agents. However, the effectiveness of these strategies has been variable and are based on a small number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The optimal preventive strategies to reduce the occurrence of peritonitis remain unclear.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of antimicrobial strategies used to prevent peritonitis in PD patients.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 4 October 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings; and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs or quasi-RCTs in patients receiving chronic PD, which evaluated any antimicrobial agents used systemically or locally to prevent peritonitis or exit-site/tunnel infection were included.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).\nMain results\nThirty-nine studies, randomising 4435 patients, were included. Twenty additional studies have been included in this update. The risk of bias domains were often unclear or high; risk of bias was judged to be low in 19 (49%) studies for random sequence generation, 12 (31%) studies for allocation concealment, 22 (56%) studies for incomplete outcome reporting, and in 12 (31%) studies for selective outcome reporting. Blinding of participants and personnel was considered to be at low risk of bias in 8 (21%) and 10 studies (26%) for blinding of outcome assessors. It should be noted that blinding of participants and personnel was not possible in many of the studies because of the nature of the intervention or control treatment.\nThe use of oral or topical antibiotic compared with placebo/no treatment, had uncertain effects on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (3 studies, 191 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.04) and the risk of peritonitis (5 studies, 395 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.19).\nThe use of nasal antibiotic compared with placebo/no treatment had uncertain effects on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (3 studies, 338 patients, low quality evidence: RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.87) and the risk of peritonitis (3 studies, 338 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.31).\nPre/perioperative intravenous vancomycin compared with no treatment may reduce the risk of early peritonitis (1 study, 177 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.61) but has an uncertain effect on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (1 study, 177 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.32).\nThe use of topical disinfectant compared with standard care or other active treatment (antibiotic or other disinfectant) had uncertain effects on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (8 studies, 973 patients, low quality evidence, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.33) and the risk of peritonitis (6 studies, 853 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.06).\nAntifungal prophylaxis with oral nystatin/fluconazole compared with placebo/no treatment may reduce the risk of fungal peritonitis occurring after a patient has had an antibiotic course (2 studies, 817 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.63).\nNo intervention reduced the risk of catheter removal or replacement. Most of the available studies were small and of suboptimal quality. Only six studies enrolled 200 or more patients.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn this update, we identified limited data from RCTs and quasi-RCTs which evaluated strategies to prevent peritonitis and exit-site/tunnel infections. This review demonstrates that pre/peri-operative intravenous vancomycin may reduce the risk of early peritonitis and that antifungal prophylaxis with oral nystatin or fluconazole reduces the risk of fungal peritonitis following an antibiotic course. However, no other antimicrobial interventions have proven efficacy. In particular, the use of nasal antibiotic to eradicate Staphylococcus aureus, had an uncertain effect on the risk of peritonitis and raises questions about the usefulness of this approach. Given the large number of patients on PD and the importance of peritonitis, the lack of adequately powered and high quality RCTs to inform decision making about strategies to prevent peritonitis is striking.\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 that antibiotics given when a peritoneal dialysis catheter is implanted may reduce the risk of early peritonitis but not of exit-site/tunnel infection. Antifungal prophylaxis with oral nystatin or fluconazole reduces the risk of fungal peritonitis following an antibiotic course. The available studies are of low quality evidence and consequently, it is uncertain if there is any benefit from using nasal mupirocin or topical disinfectants or other interventions to reduce exit-site/tunnel infection or peritonitis."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1733 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is the first update of a review published in 2010. While calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are often recommended as a first-line drug to treat hypertension, the effect of CCBs on the prevention of cardiovascular events, as compared with other antihypertensive drug classes, is still debated.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether CCBs used as first-line therapy for hypertension are different from other classes of antihypertensive drugs in reducing the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events.\nSearch methods\nFor this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up to 1 September 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted the authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work and checked the references of published studies to identify additional trials. The searches had no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing first-line CCBs with other antihypertensive classes, with at least 100 randomised hypertensive participants and a follow-up of at least two years.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risk of bias, and entered the data for analysis. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. We contacted study authors for additional information.\nMain results\nThis update contains five new trials. We included a total of 23 RCTs (18 dihydropyridines, 4 non-dihydropyridines, 1 not specified) with 153,849 participants with hypertension. All-cause mortality was not different between first-line CCBs and any other antihypertensive classes. As compared to diuretics, CCBs probably increased major cardiovascular events (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.09, P = 0.03) and increased congestive heart failure events (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.51, moderate-certainty evidence). As compared to beta-blockers, CCBs reduced the following outcomes: major cardiovascular events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92), stroke (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88, moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, low-certainty evidence). As compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, CCBs reduced stroke (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, low-certainty evidence) and increased congestive heart failure (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, low-certainty evidence). As compared to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), CCBs reduced myocardial infarction (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.94, moderate-certainty evidence) and increased congestive heart failure (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.36, low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor the treatment of hypertension, there is moderate certainty evidence that diuretics reduce major cardiovascular events and congestive heart failure more than CCBs. There is low to moderate certainty evidence that CCBs probably reduce major cardiovascular events more than beta-blockers. There is low to moderate certainty evidence that CCBs reduced stroke when compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and reduced myocardial infarction when compared to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), but increased congestive heart failure when compared to ACE inhibitors and ARBs. Many of the differences found in the current review are not robust, and further trials might change the conclusions. More well-designed RCTs studying the mortality and morbidity of individuals taking CCBs as compared with other antihypertensive drug classes are needed for patients with different stages of hypertension, different ages, and with different comorbidities such as diabetes.\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 collected and analysed all relevant studies up to 01 September 2020."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1734 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPain is a common side effect of orthodontic treatment. It increases in proportion to the amount of force applied to the teeth, and the type of orthodontic appliance used can affect the intensity of the pain. Pain during orthodontic treatment has been shown to be the most common reason for people wanting to discontinue treatment, and has been ranked as the worst aspect of treatment. Although pharmacological methods of pain relief have been investigated, there remains some uncertainty among orthodontists about which painkillers are most suitable and whether pre-emptive analgesia is beneficial. We conducted this Cochrane Review to assess and summarize the international evidence relating to the effectiveness of analgesics for preventing this unwanted side effect associated with orthodontic treatment.\nObjectives\nThe objectives of this review are to determine:\n- the effectiveness of drug interventions for pain relief during orthodontic treatment; and\n- whether there is a difference in the analgesic effect provided by different types, forms and doses of analgesia taken during orthodontic treatment.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health’s Information Specialist searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 19 June 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL;the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 June 2017), Embase Ovid (1980 to 19 June 2017) and CINAHL EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; 1937 to 19 June 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched on the 19 June 2017 for ongoing studies. We placed no restrictions on language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) relating to pain control during orthodontic treatment. Pain could be measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS), numerical rating scale (NRS) or categorical scale.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the search results, agreed the studies to be included and extracted information from the included studies regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcomes, harms and results. We planned to resolve any discrepancies or disagreements through discussion. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess the risk of bias in the studies.\nMain results\nWe identified 32 relevant RCTs, which included 3110 participants aged 9 to 34 years, 2348 of whom we were able to include in our analyses. Seventeen of the studies had more than two arms. We were able to use data from 12 trials in meta-analyses that compared analgesics versus control (no treatment or a placebo); nine that compared non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) versus paracetamol; and two that compared pre-emptive versus post-treatment ibuprofen for pain control following orthodontic treatment. One study provided data for the comparison of NSAIDs versus local anaesthetic.\nWe found moderate-quality evidence that analgesics effectively reduced pain following orthodontic treatment when compared to no treatment or a placebo at 2 hours (mean difference (MD) -11.66 mm on a 0 to 100 mm VAS, 95% confidence interval (CI) -16.15 to -7.17; 10 studies, 685 participants), 6 hours (MD -24.27 mm on a VAS, 95% CI -31.44 to -17.11; 9 studies, 535 participants) and 24 hours (MD -21.19 mm on a VAS, 95% CI -28.31 to -14.06; 12 studies, 1012 participants).\nWe did not find any evidence of a difference in efficacy between NSAID and paracetamol at 2, 6 or 24 hours (at 24 hours: MD -0.51, 95% CI -8.93 to 7.92; 9 studies, 734 participants; low-quality evidence).\nVery low-quality evidence suggested pre-emptive ibuprofen gave better pain relief at 2 hours than ibuprofen taken post treatment (MD -11.30, 95% CI -16.27 to -6.33; one study, 41 participants), however, the difference was no longer significant at 6 or 24 hours.\nA single study of 48 participants compared topical NSAIDs versus local anaesthetic and showed no evidence of a difference in the effectiveness of the interventions (very low-quality evidence).\nUse of rescue analgesia was poorly reported. The very low-quality evidence did not show evidence of a difference between participants taking ibuprofen and participants taking paracetamol (relative risk (RR) 1.5, 95% CI 0.6 to 3.6). Nor did we find evidence of a difference between groups in likelihood of requiring rescue analgesia when ibuprofen was taken pre-emptively compared to after treatment (RR 0.8, 95% CI 0.3 to 1.9).\nAdverse effects were identified in one study, with one participant developing a rash that required treatment with antihistamines. This was provisionally diagnosed as a hypersensitivity to paracetamol.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAnalgesics are more effective at reducing pain following orthodontic treatment than placebo or no treatment. Low-quality evidence did not show a difference in effectiveness between systemic NSAIDs compared with paracetamol, or topical NSAIDs compared with local anaesthetic. More high-quality research is needed to investigate these comparisons, and to evaluate pre-emptive versus post-treatment administration of analgesics.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"NSAID versus paracetamol\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found no clear evidence of a difference between the effect of ibuprofen and paracetamol for reducing pain intensity at 2 hours, 6 hours or 24 hours following either the placement of separators (between teeth) or placement of an initial aligning archwire."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1735 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nNecrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) are severe and rapidly spreading soft tissue infections of the subcutaneous tissue, fascia, or muscle, which are mostly caused by bacteria. Associated rates of mortality and morbidity are high, with the former estimated at around 23%, and disability, sequelae, and limb loss occurring in 15% of patients. Standard management includes intravenous empiric antimicrobial therapy, early surgical debridement of necrotic tissues, intensive care support, and adjuvant therapies such as intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of medical and surgical treatments for necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) in adults in hospital settings.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to April 2018: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers, pharmaceutical company trial results databases, and the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency websites. We checked the reference lists of included studies and reviews for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).\nSelection criteria\nRCTs conducted in hospital settings, that evaluated any medical or surgical treatment for adults with NSTI were eligible for inclusion. Eligible medical treatments included 1) comparisons between different antimicrobials or with placebo; 2) adjuvant therapies such as intravenous immunoglobulin (IGIV) therapy compared with placebo; no treatment; or other adjuvant therapies. Eligible surgical treatments included surgical debridement compared with amputation, immediate versus delayed intervention, or comparisons of number of interventions.\nRCTs of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy for NSTI were ineligible because HBO is the focus of another Cochrane Review.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome measures were 1) mortality within 30 days, and 2) proportion of participants who experience a serious adverse event. Secondary outcomes were 1) survival time, and 2) assessment of long-term morbidity. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included three trials randomising 197 participants (62% men) who had a mean age of 55 years. One trial compared two antibiotic treatments, and two trials compared adjuvant therapies with placebo. In all trials, participants concomitantly received standard interventions, such as intravenous empiric antimicrobial therapy, surgical debridement of necrotic tissues, intensive care support, and adjuvant therapies. All trials were at risk of attrition bias and one trial was not blinded.\nMoxifloxacin versus amoxicillin-clavulanate\nOne trial included 54 participants who had a NSTI; it compared a third-generation quinolone, moxifloxacin, at a dose of 400 mg given once daily, against a penicillin, amoxicillin-clavulanate, at a dose of 3 g given three times daily for at least three days, followed by 1.5 g three times daily. Duration of treatment varied from 7 to 21 days. We are uncertain of the effects of these treatments on mortality within 30 days (risk ratio (RR) 3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 23.07) and serious adverse events at 28 days (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.31) because the quality of the evidence is very low.\nAB103 versus placebo\nOne trial of 43 randomised participants compared two doses, 0.5 mg/kg and 0.25 mg/kg, of an adjuvant drug, a CD28 antagonist receptor (AB103), with placebo. Treatment was given via infusion pump for 10 minutes before, after, or during surgery within six hours after the diagnosis of NSTI. We are uncertain of the effects of AB103 on mortality rate within 30 days (RR of 0.34, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.16) and serious adverse events measured at 28 days (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.52 to 4.27) because the quality of the evidence is very low.\nIntravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) versus placebo\nOne trial of 100 randomised participants assessed IVIG as an adjuvant drug, given at a dose of 25 g/day, compared with placebo, given for three consecutive days. There may be no clear difference between IVIG and placebo in terms of mortality within 30 days (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.23) (low-certainty evidence), nor serious adverse events experienced in the intensive care unit (ICU) (RR 0.73 CI 95% 0.32 to 1.65) (low-certainty evidence).\nSerious adverse events were only described in one RCT (the IVIG versus placebo trial) and included acute kidney injury, allergic reactions, aseptic meningitis syndrome, haemolytic anaemia, thrombi, and transmissible agents.\nOnly one trial reported assessment of long-term morbidity, but the outcome was not defined in the way we prespecified in our protocol. The trial used the Short Form Health Survey (SF36). Data on survival time were provided upon request for the trials comparing amoxicillin-clavulanate versus moxifloxacin and IVIG versus placebo. However, even with data provided, it was not possible to perform survival analysis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found very little evidence on the effects of medical and surgical treatments for NSTI. We cannot draw conclusions regarding the relative effects of any of the interventions on 30-day mortality or serious adverse events due to the very low quality of the evidence.\nThe quality of the evidence is limited by the very small number of trials, the small sample sizes, and the risks of bias in the included trials. It is important for future trials to clearly define their inclusion criteria, which will help with the applicability of future trial results to a real-life population.\nManagement of NSTI participants (critically-ill participants) is complex, involving multiple interventions; thus, observational studies and prospective registries might be a better foundation for future research, which should assess empiric antimicrobial therapy, as well as surgical debridement, along with the placebo-controlled comparison of adjuvant therapy. Key outcomes to assess include mortality (in the acute phase of the condition) and long-term functional outcomes, e.g. quality of life (in the chronic phase).\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 published up to April 2018."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1736 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInfluenza vaccinations are currently recommended in the care of people with COPD, but these recommendations are based largely on evidence from observational studies, with very few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reported. Influenza infection causes excess morbidity and mortality in people with COPD, but there is also the potential for influenza vaccination to cause adverse effects, or not to be cost effective.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether influenza vaccination in people with COPD reduces respiratory illness, reduces mortality, is associated with excess adverse events, and is cost effective.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, two clinical trials registries, and reference lists of articles. A number of drug companies we contacted also provided references. The latest search was carried out in December 2017.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs that compared live or inactivated virus vaccines with placebo, either alone or with another vaccine, in people with COPD.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data. All entries were double-checked. We contacted study authors and drug companies for missing information. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 11 RCTs with 6750 participants, but only six of these included people with COPD (2469 participants). The others were conducted on elderly and high-risk individuals, some of whom had chronic lung disease. Interventions compared with placebo were inactivated virus injections and live attenuated intranasal virus vaccines. Some studies compared intra-muscular inactivated vaccine and intranasal live attenuated vaccine with intra-muscular inactivated vaccine and intranasal placebo. Studies were conducted in the UK, USA and Thailand.\nInactivated vaccine reduced the total number of exacerbations per vaccinated participant compared with those who received placebo (mean difference (MD) –0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.64 to –0.11; P = 0.006; two RCTs, 180 participants; low quality evidence). This was due to the reduction in 'late' exacerbations, occurring after three or four weeks (MD –0.39, 95% CI –0.61 to –0.18; P = 0.0004; two RCTs, 180 participants; low quality evidence). Both in people with COPD, and in older people (only a minority of whom had COPD), there were significantly more local adverse reactions in people who had received the vaccine, but the effects were generally mild and transient.\nThere was no evidence of an effect of intranasal live attenuated virus when this was added to inactivated intramuscular vaccination.\nTwo studies evaluating mortality for influenza vaccine versus placebo were too small to have detected any effect on mortality. However, a large study (N=2215) noted that there was no difference in mortality when adding live attenuated virus to inactivated virus vaccination,\nAuthors' conclusions\nIt appeared, from the limited number of RCTs we were able to include, all of which were more than a decade old, that inactivated vaccine reduced exacerbations in people with COPD. The size of effect was similar to that seen in large observational studies, and was due to a reduction in exacerbations occurring three or more weeks after vaccination, and due to influenza. There was a mild increase in transient local adverse effects with vaccination, but no evidence of an increase in early exacerbations. Addition of live attenuated virus to the inactivated vaccine was not shown to confer additional benefit.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Do influenza vaccines reduce episodes of respiratory illness or death in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)?"
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1737 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOne in five fibromyalgia sufferers use acupuncture treatment within two years of diagnosis.\nObjectives\nTo examine the benefits and safety of acupuncture treatment for fibromyalgia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, National Research Register, HSR Project and Current Contents, as well as the Chinese databases VIP and Wangfang to January 2012 with no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised studies evaluating any type of invasive acupuncture for fibromyalgia diagnosed according to the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, and reporting any main outcome: pain, physical function, fatigue, sleep, total well-being, stiffness and adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo author pairs selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Treatment effects were reported as standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous outcomes using different measurement tools (pain, physical function, fatigue, sleep, total well-being and stiffness) and risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes (adverse events). We pooled data using the random-effects model.\nMain results\nNine trials (395 participants) were included. All studies except one were at low risk of selection bias; five were at risk of selective reporting bias (favouring either treatment group); two were subject to attrition bias (favouring acupuncture); three were subject to performance bias (favouring acupuncture) and one to detection bias (favouring acupuncture). Three studies utilised electro-acupuncture (EA) with the remainder using manual acupuncture (MA) without electrical stimulation. All studies used 'formula acupuncture' except for one, which used trigger points.\nLow quality evidence from one study (13 participants) showed EA improved symptoms with no adverse events at one month following treatment. Mean pain in the non-treatment control group was 70 points on a 100 point scale; EA reduced pain by a mean of 22 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 4 to 41), or 22% absolute improvement. Control group global well-being was 66.5 points on a 100 point scale; EA improved well-being by a mean of 15 points (95% CI 5 to 26 points). Control group stiffness was 4.8 points on a 0 to 10 point; EA reduced stiffness by a mean of 0.9 points (95% CI 0.1 to 2 points; absolute reduction 9%, 95% CI 4% to 16%). Fatigue was 4.5 points (10 point scale) without treatment; EA reduced fatigue by a mean of 1 point (95% CI 0.22 to 2 points), absolute reduction 11% (2% to 20%). There was no difference in sleep quality (MD 0.4 points, 95% CI -1 to 0.21 points, 10 point scale), and physical function was not reported.\nModerate quality evidence from six studies (286 participants) indicated that acupuncture (EA or MA) was no better than sham acupuncture, except for less stiffness at one month. Subgroup analysis of two studies (104 participants) indicated benefits of EA. Mean pain was 70 points on 0 to 100 point scale with sham treatment; EA reduced pain by 13% (5% to 22%); (SMD -0.63, 95% CI -1.02 to -0.23). Global well-being was 5.2 points on a 10 point scale with sham treatment; EA improved well-being: SMD 0.65, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.05; absolute improvement 11% (4% to 17%). EA improved sleep, from 3 points on a 0 to 10 point scale in the sham group: SMD 0.40 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.79); absolute improvement 8% (0.2% to 16%). Low-quality evidence from one study suggested that MA group resulted in poorer physical function: mean function in the sham group was 28 points (100 point scale); treatment worsened function by a mean of 6 points (95% CI -10.9 to -0.7). Low-quality evidence from three trials (289 participants) suggested no difference in adverse events between real (9%) and sham acupuncture (35%); RR 0.44 (95% CI 0.12 to 1.63).\nModerate quality evidence from one study (58 participants) found that compared with standard therapy alone (antidepressants and exercise), adjunct acupuncture therapy reduced pain at one month after treatment: mean pain was 8 points on a 0 to 10 point scale in the standard therapy group; treatment reduced pain by 3 points (95% CI -3.9 to -2.1), an absolute reduction of 30% (21% to 39%). Two people treated with acupuncture reported adverse events; there were none in the control group (RR 3.57; 95% CI 0.18 to 71.21). Global well-being, sleep, fatigue and stiffness were not reported. Physical function data were not usable.\nLow quality evidence from one study (38 participants) showed a short-term benefit of acupuncture over antidepressants in pain relief: mean pain was 29 points (0 to 100 point scale) in the antidepressant group; acupuncture reduced pain by 17 points (95% CI -24.1 to -10.5). Other outcomes or adverse events were not reported.\nModerate-quality evidence from one study (41 participants) indicated that deep needling with or without deqi did not differ in pain, fatigue, function or adverse events. Other outcomes were not reported.\nFour studies reported no differences between acupuncture and control or other treatments described at six to seven months follow-up.\nNo serious adverse events were reported, but there were insufficient adverse events to be certain of the risks.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is low to moderate-level evidence that compared with no treatment and standard therapy, acupuncture improves pain and stiffness in people with fibromyalgia. There is moderate-level evidence that the effect of acupuncture does not differ from sham acupuncture in reducing pain or fatigue, or improving sleep or global well-being. EA is probably better than MA for pain and stiffness reduction and improvement of global well-being, sleep and fatigue. The effect lasts up to one month, but is not maintained at six months follow-up. MA probably does not improve pain or physical functioning. Acupuncture appears safe. People with fibromyalgia may consider using EA alone or with exercise and medication. The small sample size, scarcity of studies for each comparison, lack of an ideal sham acupuncture weaken the level of evidence and its clinical implications. Larger studies are warranted.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Comparing acupuncture with sham interventions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Pain (higher scores mean worse or more severe pain)\n- People who had needle acupuncture with electrical stimulation rated their pain to be 13 points lower on a 100-point scale (absolute improvement) after six sessions of treatment.\n- People who had fake acupuncture rated their pain to be 70 on a scale of 0 to 100 at the end of treatment.\n- People who had needle acupuncture with electrical stimulation rated their pain to be 57.\nPhysical function (higher scores mean better function):\n- People who used needle acupuncture without electrical stimulation rated their physical function to be six points lower (absolute deterioration).\n- People who had fake treatment rated their physical function to be 28 on a scale of 0 to 100 at the end of treatment.\n- People who had needle acupuncture without electrical stimulation rated their physical function to be 22.\n- There are no data on needle acupuncture with electrical stimulation.\nGlobal well-being rated by participants (higher scores mean better function):\n- People who had needle acupuncture with electrical stimulation rated their well-being to be 11 points higher (absolute improvement).\n- People who had fake treatment rated their well-being to be 41 on a scale of 0 to 100 at the end of treatment.\n- People who had needle acupuncture with electrical stimulation rated their well-being to be 52.\nSleep (higher scores mean better sleep):\n- People who used acupuncture rated their sleep to be eight points higher (absolute improvement).\n- People who had fake treatment rated their sleep to be 30 on a scale of 0 to 100 at the end of treatment.\n- People who had needle acupuncture with electrical stimulation rated their sleep to be 38.\nFatigue (higher scores mean more severe fatigue):\n- People who had needle acupuncture with electrical stimulation rated their fatigue to be 15 points lower (absolute improvement).\n- People who had fake treatment rated their fatigue to be 78 on a scale of 0 to 100.\n- People who had needle acupuncture with electrical stimulation rated their fatigue to be 63.\nStiffness (higher scores mean more severe stiffness):\n- People who had needle acupuncture with electrical stimulation rated their stiffness to be nine points lower (absolute improvement).\n- People who had fake treatment rated their stiffness to be 66 on a scale of 0 to 100 at the end of treatment.\n- People who had needle acupuncture with electrical stimulation rated their stiffness to be 57.\n- Data on needle acupuncture without electrical acupuncture were not available.\nAdverse effects:\n- One in six people who had acupuncture reported adverse events.\n- One in three people who had fake treatments reported adverse events.\n- Overall, such events were minor and lasted less than one day."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1738 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis an update of a Cochrane Review.\nParaquat is a widely used herbicide, but is also a lethal poison. In some low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) paraquat is commonly available and inexpensive, making poisoning prevention difficult. Most of the people poisoned by paraquat have taken it as a means of self-poisoning.\nStandard treatment for paraquat poisoning prevents further absorption and reduces the load of paraquat in the blood through haemoperfusion or haemodialysis. The effectiveness of standard treatments is extremely limited.\nThe immune system plays an important role in exacerbating paraquat-induced lung fibrosis. Immunosuppressive treatment using glucocorticoid and cyclophosphamide in combination has been developed and studied as an intervention for paraquat poisoning.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of glucocorticoid with cyclophosphamide for moderate to severe oral paraquat poisoning.\nSearch methods\nThe most recent searches were run in September 2020. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Injuries Trials Register), Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE, Embase Classic + Embase (Ovid), ISI WOS (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S, and CPSI-SSH), and trials registries. We also searched the following three resources: China National Knowledge Infrastructure database (CNKI 数据库); Wanfang Data (万方数据库); and VIP (维普数据库) on 12 November 2020. We examined the reference lists of included studies and review papers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs). For this update, in accordance with Cochrane Injuries' Group policy (2015), we included only prospectively registered RCTs for trials published after 2010. We included trials which assessed the effects of glucocorticoid with cyclophosphamide delivered in combination. Eligible comparators were standard care (with or without a placebo), or any other therapy in addition to standard care. Outcomes of interest included mortality and infections.\nData collection and analysis\nWe calculated the mortality risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Where possible, we summarised data for all-cause mortality at relevant time periods (from hospital discharge to three months after discharge) in meta-analysis, using a fixed-effect model. We conducted sensitivity analyses based on factors including whether participants were assessed at baseline for plasma paraquat levels. We also reported data on infections within one week after initiation of treatment.\nMain results\nWe included four trials with a total of 463 participants. The included studies were conducted in Taiwan (Republic of China), Iran, and Sri Lanka. Most participants were male. The mean age of participants was 28 years.\nWe judged two of the four included studies, including the largest and most recently conducted study (n = 299), to be at low risk of bias for key domains including sequence generation. We assessed one study to be at high risk of selection bias and another at unclear risk, since allocation concealment was either not mentioned in the trial report or explicitly not undertaken. We assessed three of the four studies to be at unclear risk of selective reporting, as no protocols could be identified. An important source of heterogeneity amongst the included studies was the method of assessment of participants' baseline severity using analysis of plasma levels (two studies employed this method, whilst the other two did not).\nNo studies assessed the outcome of mortality at 30 days following ingestion of paraquat.\nLow-certainty evidence from two studies indicates that glucocorticoids with cyclophosphamide in addition to standard care may slightly reduce the risk of death in hospital compared to standard care alone ((RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.99; participants = 322); results come from sensitivity analysis excluding studies not assessing plasma at baseline). However, we have limited confidence in this finding as heterogeneity was high (I2 = 77%) and studies varied in terms of size and comparators. A single large study provided data showing that there may be little or no effect of treatment at three months post discharge from hospital (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13; 1 study, 293 participants; low-certainty evidence); however, analysis of long-term results amongst participants whose injuries arose from self-poisoning must be interpreted with caution.\nWe remain uncertain of the effect of glucocorticoids with cyclophosphamide on infection within one week after initiation of the treatment; this outcome was assessed by two small studies only (31 participants, very low-certainty evidence) that considered leukopenia as a proxy or risk factor for infection. Neither study reported infections in any participants.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow-certainly evidence suggests that glucocorticoids with cyclophosphamide in addition to standard care may slightly reduce mortality in hospitalised people with oral paraquat poisoning. However, we have limited confidence in this finding because of substantial heterogeneity and concerns about imprecision. Glucocorticoids with cyclophosphamide in addition to standard care may have little or no effect on mortality at three months after hospital discharge. We are uncertain whether glucocorticoid with cyclophosphamide puts patients at an increased risk of infection due to the limited evidence available for this outcome. Future research should be prospectively registered and CONSORT-compliant. Investigators should attempt to ensure an adequate sample size, screen participants for inclusion rigorously, and seek long-term follow-up of participants. Investigators may wish to research the effects of glucocorticoid in combination with other treatments.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We wanted to find out if a combination of steroids and cyclophosphamide (plus usual care) works better than usual care alone to reduce the number of people who die from paraquat poisoning.\nWe also wanted to find out if treatment with steroids plus cyclophosphamide causes an increased number of infections in patients."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1739 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMultinodular goitre is common in women. Treatments for non-toxic multinodular goitre include surgery, levothyroxine suppressive therapy, and radioiodine. Radioiodine therapy is the only non-surgical alternative for non-toxic multinodular goitre. However, a high amount of radioiodine is needed to enable the thyroid nodules to adequately take up the radioiodine, because the multinodular goitre takes up a low amount of iodine. Recombinant human thyrotropin (rhTSH) has been used to increase radioiodine uptake and reduce thyroid volume of the multinodular goitre. Whether the improved reduction of the goitre resulting from rhTSH-stimulated radioiodine therapy is beneficial to the person remains controversial.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of recombinant human thyrotropin-aided radioiodine treatment for non-toxic multinodular goitre.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Scopus as well as ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search of all databases was 18 December 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of rhTSH-aided radioiodine treatment compared with radioiodine alone for non-toxic multinodular goitre, with at least 12 months of follow-up.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance. Screening for inclusion, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were carried out by one review author and checked by a second. Our main outcomes were health-related quality of life (QoL), hypothyroidism, adverse events, thyroid volume, all-cause mortality, and costs. We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analyses, and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included six RCTs. A total of 197 participants were allocated to rhTSh-aided radioiodine therapy, and 124 participants were allocated to radioiodine. A single dose of radioiodine was administered 24 hours after the intramuscular injection of a single dose of rhTSH. The duration of follow-up ranged between 12 and 36 months.\nLow-certainty evidence from one study, with 85 participants, showed uncertain effects for QoL for either intervention. RhTSH-aided radioiodine increased hypothyroidism compared with radioiodine alone (64/197 participants (32.5%) in the rhTSH-aided radioiodine group versus 15/124 participants (12.1%) in the radioiodine alone group; RR 2.53, 95% CI 1.52 to 4.20; 6 studies, 321 participants; moderate-certainty evidence in favour of radioiodine alone). A total of 118/197 participants (59.9%) in the rhTSH-aided radioiodine group compared with 60/124 participants (48.4%) in the radioiodine alone group experienced adverse events (random-effects RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.63; 6 studies, 321 participants; fixed-effect RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.49 in favour of radioiodine only; low-certainty evidence).\nRhTSH-aided radioiodine reduced thyroid volume with a MD of 11.9% (95% CI 4.4 to 19.4; 6 studies, 268 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). One study with 28 participants reported one death in the radioiodine alone group (very-low certainty evidence). No study reported on costs.\nAuthors' conclusions\nRhTSH-aided radioiodine treatment for non-toxic multinodular goitre, compared to radioiodine alone, probably increased the risk of hypothyroidism but probably led to a greater reduction in thyroid volume. Data on QoL and costs were sparse or missing.\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": "One study with 85 participants showed there was not a clear beneficial or harmful effect on health-related quality of life for either intervention. Fewer people (53 to 377 of 1000 treated) receiving radioiodine alone experienced hypothyroidism compared with rhTSH-aided radioiodine therapy. It is possible that radioiodine alone resulted in fewer side effects, like discomfort and neck pain, than rhTSH-aided radioiodine, but we need more studies to confirm this finding. On the other hand, rhTSH-aided radioiodine reduced thyroid volume by, on average, 12% more than radioiodine treatment alone. One study, with 28 participants, reported one death in the radioiodine alone group. No study reported on costs."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1740 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTypical and atypical antipsychotics are widely used to treat agitation and psychosis in dementia. However, whether or not they are beneficial is uncertain. Some trials have yielded negative results and effectiveness may be outweighed by harms.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of antipsychotics for the treatment of agitation and psychosis in people with Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, MEDLINE (Ovid Sp), Embase (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), LILACS (BIREME), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's meta-register, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Portal on 7 January 2021. Two review authors independently screened the title and abstract of the hits, and two review authors assessed the full text of studies that got through this screening.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm trials comparing the effects of antipsychotics and placebo for the treatment of agitation or psychosis in people with dementia due to Alzheimer's disease or vascular dementia, or both, irrespective of age, severity of cognitive impairment, and setting. (The majority of) participants had to have clinically significant agitation (including aggression) or psychosis or both at baseline. We excluded studies about antipsychotics that are no longer available in the USA or EU, or that are used for emergency short-term sedation. We also excluded head-to-head trials and antipsychotic withdrawal trials.\nData collection and analysis\nThe primary outcomes were (1) reduction in agitation or psychosis in participants with agitation or psychosis, respectively at baseline, and (2) the number of participants with adverse events: somnolence, extrapyramidal symptoms, any adverse event, any serious adverse event (SAE), and death.\nTwo review authors independently extracted the necessary data and assessed risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We calculated the pooled effect on agitation and psychosis for typical and atypical antipsychotics separately, and the pooled risk of adverse effects independent of the target symptom (agitation or psychosis). We used RevMan Web for the analyses.\nMain results\nThe search yielded 8233 separate hits. After assessing the full-text of 35 studies, we included 24 trials that met the eligibility criteria. Six trials tested a typical antipsychotic, four for agitation and two for psychosis. Twenty trials tested an atypical antipsychotic, eight for agitation and 12 for psychosis. Two trials tested both drug types. Seventeen of 26 comparisons were performed in patients with Alzheimer’s disease specifically. The other nine comparisons also included patients with vascular dementia or mixed dementia. Together, the studies included 6090 participants (12 to 652 per study). The trials were performed in institutionalised, hospitalised and community-dwelling patients, or a combination of those.\nFor typical antipsychotics (e.g. haloperidol, thiothixene), we are uncertain whether these drugs improve agitation compared with placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.57 to -0.15, 4 studies, n = 361); very low-certainty evidence, but typical antipsychotics may improve psychosis slightly (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.03, 2studies, n= 240; low-certainty evidence) compared with placebo. These drugs probably increase the risk of somnolence (risk ratio (RR) 2.62, 95% CI 1.51 to 4.56, 3 studies, n = 466; moderate-certainty evidence) and increase extrapyramidal symptoms (RR 2.26, 95% CI 1.58 to 3.23, 3 studies, n = 467; high-certainty) evidence. There was no evidence regarding the risk of any adverse event. The risks of SAEs (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.66, 1 study, n = 193) and death (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.54 to 4.00, 6 studies, n = 578) may be increased slightly, but these estimates were very imprecise, and the certainty was low. The effect estimates for haloperidol from five trials were in line with those of the drug class.\nAtypical antipsychotics (e.g. risperidone, olanzapine, aripiprazole, quetiapine) probably reduce agitation slightly (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.12, 7 studies, n = 1971; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably have a negligible effect on psychosis (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.03, 12 studies, n = 3364; moderate-certainty evidence). These drugs increase the risk of somnolence (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.57 to 2.39, 13 studies, n - 3878; high-certainty evidence) and are probably also associated with slightly increased risk of extrapyramidal symptoms (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.68, 15 studies, n = 4180; moderate-certainty evidence), serious adverse events (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.61, 15 studies, n= 4316; moderate-certainty evidence) and death (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.05, 17 studies, n= 5032; moderate-certainty evidence), although the latter estimate was imprecise. The drugs probably have a negligible effect on the risk of any adverse event (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09, 11 studies, n = 2785; moderate-certainty evidence). The findings from seven trials for risperidone were in line with those for the drug class.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is some evidence that typical antipsychotics might decrease agitation and psychosis slightly in patients with dementia. Atypical antipsychotics reduce agitation in dementia slightly, but their effect on psychosis in dementia is negligible. The apparent effectiveness of the drugs seen in daily practice may be explained by a favourable natural course of the symptoms, as observed in the placebo groups. Both drug classes increase the risk of somnolence and other adverse events. If antipsychotics are considered for sedation in patients with severe and dangerous symptoms, this should be discussed openly with the patient and legal representative.\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 24 studies with a total of 6090 people:\n- six studies tested typical antipsychotics, mostly haloperidol;\n- 20 studies tested atypical antipsychotics, such as risperidone, olanzapine, and aripiprazole; and\n- two studies tested both typical and atypical antipsychotics.\nAll the studies compared antipsychotics with placebo. The people were living in institutions, hospitals, the community, or a combination of these settings."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1741 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMany women experience fear of childbirth (FOC). While fears about childbirth may be normal during pregnancy, some women experience high to severe FOC. At the extreme end of the fear spectrum is tocophobia, which is considered a specific condition that may cause distress, affect well-being during pregnancy and impede the transition to parenthood. Various interventions have been trialled, which support women to reduce and manage high to severe FOC, including tocophobia.\nObjectives\nTo investigate the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for reducing fear of childbirth (FOC) compared with standard maternity care in pregnant women with high to severe FOC, including tocophobia.\nSearch methods\nIn July 2020, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies. We contacted researchers of trials which were registered and appeared to be ongoing.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised clinical trials which recruited pregnant women with high or severe FOC (as defined by the individual trial), for treatment intended to reduce FOC. Two review authors independently screened and selected titles and abstracts for inclusion. We excluded quasi-randomised and cross-over trials.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological approaches as recommended by Cochrane. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the studies for risk of bias. A third review author checked the data analysis for accuracy. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. The primary outcome was a reduction in FOC. Secondary outcomes were caesarean section, depression, birth preference for caesarean section or spontaneous vaginal delivery, and epidural use.\nMain results\nWe included seven trials with a total of 1357 participants. The interventions included psychoeducation, cognitive behavioural therapy, group discussion, peer education and art therapy.\nWe judged four studies as high or unclear risk of bias in terms of allocation concealment; we judged three studies as high risk in terms of incomplete outcome data; and in all studies, there was a high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to concerns about risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency. None of the studies reported data about women's anxiety.\nParticipating in non-pharmacological interventions may reduce levels of fear of childbirth, as measured by the Wijma Delivery Expectancy Questionnaire (W-DEQ), but the reduction may not be clinically meaningful (mean difference (MD) -7.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) -12.19 to -1.97; 7 studies, 828 women; low-certainty evidence). The W-DEQ tool is scored from 0 to 165 (higher score = greater fear).\nNon-pharmacological interventions probably reduce the number of women having a caesarean section (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89; 5 studies, 557 women; moderate-certainty evidence).\nThere may be little to no difference between non-pharmacological interventions and usual care in depression scores measured with the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) (MD 0.09, 95% CI -1.23 to 1.40; 2 studies, 399 women; low-certainty evidence). The EPDS tool is scored from 0 to 30 (higher score = greater depression).\nNon-pharmacological interventions probably lead to fewer women preferring a caesarean section (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.89; 3 studies, 276 women; moderate-certainty evidence).\nNon-pharmacological interventions may increase epidural use compared with usual care, but the 95% CI includes the possibility of a slight reduction in epidural use (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.48; 2 studies, 380 women; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe effect of non-pharmacological interventions for women with high to severe fear of childbirth in terms of reducing fear is uncertain. Fear of childbirth, as measured by W-DEQ, may be reduced but it is not certain if this represents a meaningful clinical reduction of fear. There may be little or no difference in depression, but there may be a reduction in caesarean section delivery. Future trials should recruit adequate numbers of women and measure birth satisfaction and anxiety.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched for studies that investigated non-pharmacological treatments aimed at reducing fear of childbirth. We compared and summarised the results of the studies and rated our confidence in the evidence, based on factors such as study methods and number of participants."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1742 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nA medication review can be defined as a structured evaluation of a patient's medication conducted by healthcare professionals with the aim of optimising medication use and improving health outcomes. Optimising medication therapy though medication reviews may benefit hospitalised patients.\nObjectives\nWe examined the effects of medication review interventions in hospitalised adult patients compared to standard care or to other types of medication reviews on all-cause mortality, hospital readmissions, emergency department contacts and health-related quality of life.\nSearch methods\nIn this Cochrane Review update, we searched for new published and unpublished trials using the following electronic databases from 1 January 2014 to 17 January 2022 without language restrictions: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). To identify additional trials, we searched the reference lists of included trials and other publications by lead trial authors, and contacted experts.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised trials of medication reviews delivered by healthcare professionals for hospitalised adult patients. We excluded trials including outpatients and paediatric patients.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for data clarification and relevant unpublished data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the overall certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nIn this updated review, we included a total of 25 trials (15,076 participants), of which 15 were new trials (11,501 participants). Follow-up ranged from 1 to 20 months. We found that medication reviews in hospitalised adults may have little to no effect on mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.05; 18 trials, 10,108 participants; low-certainty evidence); likely reduce hospital readmissions (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98; 17 trials, 9561 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce emergency department contacts (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.03; 8 trials, 3527 participants; low-certainty evidence) and have very uncertain effects on health-related quality of life (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.30; 4 trials, 392 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nMedication reviews in hospitalised adult patients likely reduce hospital readmissions and may reduce emergency department contacts. The evidence suggests that mediation reviews may have little to no effect on mortality, while the effect on health-related quality of life is very uncertain. Almost all trials included elderly polypharmacy patients, which limits the generalisability of the results beyond this population.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is a medication review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "A medication review is a structured intervention conducted by healthcare professionals in order to optimise an individual patient’s medication and improve health outcomes."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1743 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCaries is one of the most prevalent, preventable conditions worldwide. A wide variety of management options are available at different thresholds of disease, ranging from non-operative preventive strategies such as improved oral hygiene, reduced sugar diet, and application of topical fluoride, to minimally invasive treatments for early lesions which are limited to enamel, through to selective removal and restoration for extensive lesions. The cornerstone of caries detection is a visual and tactile dental examination, however, an increasing array of methods of caries lesion detection have been proposed that could potentially support traditional methods of detection and diagnosis. Earlier identification of disease could afford patients the opportunity of less invasive treatment with less destruction of tooth tissue, reduce the need for treatment with aerosol-generating procedures, and potentially result in a reduced cost of care to the patient and to healthcare services.\nObjectives\nOur primary objective was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of different electrical conductance devices for the detection and diagnosis of non-cavitated coronal dental caries in different populations (children, adolescents, and adults) and when tested against different reference standards.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist undertook a search of the following databases: MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 26 April 2019); Embase Ovid (1980 to 26 April 2019); US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov, to 26 April 2019); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 26 April 2019). We studied reference lists as well as published systematic review articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included diagnostic accuracy studies that compared electrical conductance devices with a reference standard of histology or an enhanced visual examination. This included prospective studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of single index tests and studies that directly compared two or more index tests. We included studies using previously extracted teeth or those that recruited participants with teeth believed to be sound or with early lesions limited to enamel.\nStudies that explicitly recruited participants with more advanced lesions that were obviously into dentine or frankly cavitated were excluded.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors extracted data independently using a piloted study data extraction form based on the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported for each study. This information was displayed as coupled forest plots, and plotted as summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) plots, displaying the sensitivity-specificity points for each study. Due to variability in thresholds we estimated diagnostic accuracy using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) methods.\nMain results\nWe included seven studies reporting a total of 719 tooth sites or surfaces, with an overall prevalence of the target condition of 73% (528 tooth sites or surfaces). The included studies evaluated two index tests: the electronic caries monitor (ECM) (four studies, 475 tooth surfaces) and CarieScan Pro (three studies, 244 tooth surfaces). Six studies used histology as the reference standard, one used an enhanced visual examination. No study was considered to be at low risk of bias across all four domains or low concern for applicability or both. All studies were at high (five studies) or unclear (two studies) risk of bias for the patient selection domain. We judged two studies to be at unclear risk of bias for the index test domain, and one study to be at high risk of bias for the reference standard and flow and timing domains. We judged three studies to be at low concern for applicability for patient selection, and all seven studies to be of low concern for reference standard and flow and timing domains.\nStudies were synthesised using a hierarchical method for meta-analysis. There was variability in the results of the individual studies, with sensitivities which ranged from 0.55 to 0.98 and specificities from 0 to 1.00. These extreme values of specificity may be explained by a low number of healthy tooth surfaces in the included samples. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 15.65 (95% CI 1.43 to 171.15), and indicative of the variability in the included studies. Through meta-regression we observed no meaningful difference in accuracy according to device type or dentition. Due to the small number of studies we were unable to formally investigate other potential sources of heterogeneity.\nWe judged the certainty of the evidence as very low, and downgraded for risk of bias due to limitations in the design and conduct of the included studies, imprecision arising from the relatively small number of surfaces studied, and inconsistency due to the variability of results.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe design and conduct of studies to determine the diagnostic accuracy of methods to detect and diagnose caries in situ is particularly challenging. The evidence base to support the detection and diagnosis of caries with electrical conductance devices is sparse. Newer electrical conductance devices show promise and further research at the enamel caries threshold using a robust study design to minimise bias is warranted. In terms of applicability, any future studies should be carried out in a clinical setting to provide a realistic assessment within the oral cavity where plaque, staining, and restorations can be problematic.\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": "Studies included in the review were carried out in Brazil, UK, Denmark, and Turkey. Three studies performed the tests on extracted teeth and four studies were completed in a dental hospital."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1744 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPreterm and low birth weight infants are born with low stores in zinc, which is a vital trace element for growth, cell differentiation and immune function. Preterm infants are at risk of zinc deficiency during the postnatal period of rapid growth. Systematic reviews in the older paediatric population have previously shown that zinc supplementation potentially improves growth and positively influences the course of infectious diseases. In paediatric reviews, the effect of zinc supplementation was most pronounced in those with low nutritional status, which is why the intervention could also benefit preterm infants typically born with low zinc stores and decreased immunity.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether enteral zinc supplementation, compared with placebo or no supplementation, affects important outcomes in preterm infants, including death, neurodevelopment, common morbidities and growth.\nSearch methods\nOur searches are up-to-date to 20 February 2020. For the first search, we used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 8), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 29 September 2017), Embase (1980 to 29 September 2017), and CINAHL (1982 to 29 September 2017). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. We ran an updated search from 1 January 2017 to 20 February 2020 in the following databases: CENTRAL via CRS Web, MEDLINE via Ovid, and CINAHL via EBSCOhost.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs and quasi-RCTs that compared enteral zinc supplementation versus placebo or no supplementation in preterm infants (gestational age < 37 weeks), and low birth weight babies (birth weight < 2500 grams), at any time during their hospital admission after birth. We included zinc supplementation in any formulation, regimen, or dose administered via the enteral route. We excluded infants who underwent gastrointestinal (GI) surgery during their initial hospital stay, or had a GI malformation or another condition accompanied by abnormal losses of GI juices, which contain high levels of zinc (including, but not limited to, stomas, fistulas, and malabsorptive diarrhoea).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors separately screened abstracts, evaluated trial quality and extracted data. We synthesised effect estimates using risk ratios (RR), risk differences (RD), and standardised mean differences (SMD). Our primary outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality and neurodevelopmental disability. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included five trials with a total of 482 preterm infants; there was one ongoing trial. The five included trials were generally small, but of good methodological quality.\nEnteral zinc supplementation compared to no zinc supplementation\nEnteral zinc supplementation started in hospitalised preterm infants may decrease all-cause mortality (between start of intervention and end of follow-up period) (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.97; 3 studies, 345 infants; low-certainty evidence). No data were available on long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18 to 24 months of (post-term) age. Enteral zinc supplementation may have little or no effect on common morbidities such as bronchopulmonary dysplasia (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.40, 1 study, 193 infants; low-certainty evidence), retinopathy of prematurity (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.70, 1 study, 193 infants; low-certainty evidence), bacterial sepsis (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.04, 2 studies, 293 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), or necrotising enterocolitis (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.33, 1 study, 193 infants; low-certainty evidence).\nThe intervention probably improves weight gain (SMD 0.46, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.64; 5 studies, 481 infants; moderate-certainty evidence); and may slightly improve linear growth (SMD 0.75, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.14, 3 studies, 289 infants; low-certainty evidence), but may have little or no effect on head growth (SMD 0.21, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.44, 3 studies, 289 infants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nEnteral supplementation of zinc in preterm infants compared to no supplementation or placebo may moderately decrease mortality and probably improve short-term weight gain and linear growth, but may have little or no effect on common morbidities of prematurity. There are no data to assess the effect of zinc supplementation on long-term neurodevelopment.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "we included five small trials (482 preterm infants) which were all of reasonably strong design. There was one ongoing study. The search for trials is up-to-date as of 20 February 2020."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1745 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCompared with people without cancer, people with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE.\nObjectives\nTo compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants (i.e. fixed-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe performed a comprehensive search in the following major databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase (via Ovid). We also handsearched conference proceedings, checked references of included studies, and searched for ongoing studies. This update of the systematic review is based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 August 2021.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in people with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.\nData collection and analysis\nUsing a standardised form, we extracted data – in duplicate – on study design, participants, interventions, outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, symptomatic VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nOf 11,484 identified citations, 3073 were unique citations and 15 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria, none of which were identified in the latest search. These trials enrolled 1615 participants with cancer and VTE: 13 compared LMWH with UFH; one compared fondaparinux with UFH and LMWH; and one compared dalteparin with tinzaparin, two different types of low molecular weight heparin.\nThe meta-analyses showed that LMWH may reduce mortality at three months compared to UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.10; risk difference (RD) 57 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 101 fewer to 17 more; low certainty evidence) and may reduce VTE recurrence slightly (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.76; RD 30 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 70 fewer to 73 more; low certainty evidence). There were no data available for bleeding outcomes, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia.\nThe study comparing fondaparinux with heparin (UFH or LMWH) found that fondaparinux may increase mortality at three months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.81; RD 43 more per 1000, 95% CI 24 fewer to 139 more; low certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference in recurrent VTE (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.54; RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 52 fewer to 63 more; low certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference in major bleeding (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.66; RD 12 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 40 fewer to 44 more; low certainty evidence), and probably increases minor bleeding (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.66; RD 42 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 132 more; moderate certainty evidence). There were no data available for postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia.\nThe study comparing dalteparin with tinzaparin found that dalteparin may reduce mortality slightly (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73; RD 33 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 135 fewer to 173 more; low certainty evidence), may reduce recurrent VTE (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.16; RD 47 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 77 fewer to 98 more; low certainty evidence), may increase major bleeding slightly (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.20 to 23.42; RD 20 more per 1000, 95% CI 14 fewer to 380 more; low certainty evidence), and may reduce minor bleeding slightly (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.21; RD 24 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 95 fewer to 164 more; low certainty evidence). There were no data available for postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is probably superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient-important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review. The decision for a person with cancer to start LMWH therapy should balance the benefits and harms and consider the person's values and preferences.\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": "People with cancer are at increased risk of blood clots. The blood thinner (anticoagulant) administered in the first few days after identifying a blood clot can consist of unfractionated heparin (infused through a vein), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH, injected under the skin once or twice per day; dalteparin and tinzaparin are two different types of low molecular weight heparin), or fondaparinux (injected under the skin once daily). These blood thinners may have different effectiveness and safety profiles."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1746 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDental implants offer one way to replace missing teeth. Patients who have undergone radiotherapy and those who have also undergone surgery for cancer in the head and neck region may particularly benefit from reconstruction with implants. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBO) has been advocated to improve the success of implant treatment in patients who have undergone radiotherapy but this remains a controversial issue.\nObjectives\nTo compare the success, morbidity, patient satisfaction and cost effectiveness of dental implant treatment carried out with and without HBO in irradiated patients.\nSearch methods\nThe following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 17 June 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 5), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 17 June 2013) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 17 June 2013). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. We checked the bibliographies of relevant clinical trials and review articles for studies outside the searched journals. We wrote to authors of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and to more than 55 oral implant manufacturers; we used personal contacts and we made a request on an internet discussion group in an attempt to identify unpublished or ongoing RCTs.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of HBO therapy for irradiated patients requiring dental implants.\nData collection and analysis\nScreening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Results were analysed using random-effects models to determine mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals.\nMain results\nOnly one RCT, providing very low-quality evidence, was identified and included. Thirteen patients received HBO therapy while another 13 did not. Two to six implants were placed in people with fully edentulous mandibles to be rehabilitated with bar-retained overdentures. One year after implant loading, four patients had died from each group. One patient, treated with HBO, developed an osteoradionecrosis and lost all implants so the prosthesis could not be provided. Five patients in the HBO group had at least one implant failure versus two in the control group. There were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis and implant failures, postoperative complications and patient satisfaction between the two groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDespite the limited amount of clinical research available, it appears that HBO therapy in irradiated patients requiring dental implants may not offer any appreciable clinical benefits. There is a definite need for more RCTs to ascertain the effectiveness of HBO in irradiated patients requiring dental implants. These trials ought to be of a high quality and reported as recommended by the CONSORT statement (www.consort-statement.org/). Each clinical centre may have limited numbers of patients and it is likely that trials will need to be multicentred.\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": "Missing teeth can affect eating and speaking as well as appearance. Dental implants offer one way to replace missing teeth. Patients who have undergone radiotherapy and those who have also undergone surgery for cancer in the head and neck region may particularly benefit from reconstruction with implants. Dental implants into the bone of the jaw offer support for replacement teeth, and sometimes for replacements for parts of the mouth (prosthetics) that have been removed following surgery for cancer or as a result of damage to the bone (osteonecrosis) caused by radiation treatment.\nHyperbaric oxygen therapy (which requires patients to breath pure oxygen under pressure in a specially designed chamber on several occasions) has been advocated to improve the success of implant treatment. It has been suggested that HBO therapy will improve the healing of the bone and tissues around dental implants in patients who have undergone radiotherapy, but this remains a controversial issue."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1747 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHypertension is a major public health challenge affecting more than one billion people worldwide; it disproportionately affects populations in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where health systems are generally weak. The increasing prevalence of hypertension is associated with population growth, ageing, genetic factors, and behavioural risk factors, such as excessive salt and fat consumption, physical inactivity, being overweight and obese, harmful alcohol consumption, and poor management of stress. Over the long term, hypertension leads to risk for cardiovascular events, such as heart disease, stroke, kidney failure, disability, and premature mortality.\nCardiovascular events can be preventable when high-risk populations are targeted, for example, through population-wide screening strategies. When available resources are limited, taking a total risk approach whereby several risk factors of hypertension are taken into consideration (e.g. age, gender, lifestyle factors, diabetes, blood cholesterol) can enable more accurate targeting of high-risk groups. Targeting of high-risk groups can help reduce costs in that resources are not spent on the entire population.\nEarly detection in the form of screening for hypertension (and associated risk factors) can help identify high-risk groups, which can result in timely treatment and management of risk factors. Ultimately, early detection can help reduce morbidity and mortality linked to it and can help contain health-related costs, for example, those associated with hospitalisation due to severe illness and poorly managed risk factors and comorbidities.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of different screening strategies for hypertension (mass, targeted, or opportunistic) to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with hypertension.\nSearch methods\nAn Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS-Web), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) Bireme, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) without language, publication year, or publication status restrictions. The searches were conducted from inception until 9 April 2020.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs (NRCTs), that is, controlled before and after (CBA), interrupted time series (ITS), and prospective analytic cohort studies of healthy adolescents, adults, and elderly people participating in mass, targeted, or opportunistic screening of hypertension.\nData collection and analysis\nScreening of all retrieved studies was done in Covidence. A team of reviewers, in pairs, independently assessed titles and abstracts of identified studies and acquired full texts for studies that were potentially eligible. Studies were deemed to be eligible for full-text screening if two review authors agreed, or if consensus was reached through discussion with a third review author. It was planned that at least two review authors would independently extract data from included studies, assess risk of bias using pre-specified Cochrane criteria, and conduct a meta-analysis of sufficiently similar studies or present a narrative synthesis of the results.\nMain results\nWe screened 9335 titles and abstracts. We identified 54 potentially eligible studies for full-text screening. However, no studies met the eligibility criteria.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is an implicit assumption that early detection of hypertension through screening can reduce the burden of morbidity and mortality, but this assumption has not been tested in rigorous research studies. High-quality evidence from RCTs or programmatic evidence from NRCTs on the effectiveness and costs or harms of different screening strategies for hypertension (mass, targeted, or opportunistic) to reduce hypertension-related morbidity and mortality is lacking.\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": "Hypertension is a long-term non-communicable disease (NCD), also known as high, raised, or elevated blood pressure. Blood pressure is expressed by two measurements (systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) pressures), which are the maximum and minimum pressures. High blood pressure is generally diagnosed when resting blood pressure is persistently at SBP ≥ 130/140 millimetres mercury (mmHg) or at DBP ≥ 80/90 mmHg for adults.\nEven though blood pressure in the arteries is continuously raised, in many cases, high blood pressure does not cause symptoms. Nonetheless, hypertension can increase the risk for heart failure, stroke, vision loss, and chronic kidney disease, and so on, in the long term. People who have unhealthy diets, consume harmful amounts of alcohol and/or tobacco, and are physically inactive are at higher risk of hypertension.\nEarly detection, adequate treatment, and good control of high blood pressure can lower the risk of complications associated with hypertension. Although early detection through screening of hypertension has the potential to contain health-related costs, reducing the burden of hypertension will to some extent involve addressing behavioural and socioeconomic risk factors (such as income, occupation, and level of education). Therefore, it is unclear whether early detection of mild hypertension can positively impact health-related costs in the long term and improve health outcomes by reducing the need for hospitalisation and management of hypertension-related complications, which can be severe."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1748 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAsthma is a common chronic disease worldwide. Inhalers are often prescribed to help control asthma symptoms, improve quality of life and reduce the risk of exacerbations or flare-ups. However, evidence suggests that many people with asthma do not use their inhaler correctly. It is therefore important to evaluate whether interventions aimed specifically at improving technique are effective and safe, and whether use of these interventions translates into improved clinical outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the impact of interventions to improve inhaler technique on clinical outcomes and safety in adults and children with asthma.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains records compiled from multiple electronic and handsearched resources. We also searched trial registries and reference lists of primary studies. We conducted the most recent search on 23 November 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies comparing a group of adults or children with asthma receiving an inhaler technique intervention versus a group receiving a control or alternative intervention. We included parallel and cluster-randomised trials of any duration conducted in any setting, and planned to include only the first phase of any cross-over trials identified. We included studies reported as full-text articles, those published as abstracts only and unpublished data.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors screened the search results for eligible studies. We extracted outcome data, assessed risk of bias in duplicate and resolved discrepancies by involving another review author. We grouped studies making similar comparisons by consensus (e.g. all those comparing enhanced inhaler technique education vs usual care) and conducted meta-analyses only if treatments, participants and the underlying clinical question were similar enough for pooling to make sense. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios, and continuous data as mean differences or standardised mean differences, all with random-effects models. We described skewed data narratively. We graded the results and presented evidence in 'Summary of findings' tables for each comparison. Primary outcomes were inhaler technique, asthma control and exacerbations requiring at least oral corticosteroids (OCS).\nMain results\nThis review includes 29 parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 2210), although not all reported relevant or useable data. All participants had asthma, and follow-up ranged from 2 to 26 weeks. Most studies were at low or unclear risk of selection and attrition biases and at high risk for biases associated with blinding. We considered most of the evidence to be of low quality owing to these biases and to imprecision in the estimates of effect.\nWe classified studies into three comparisons: enhanced face-to-face training session(s), multi-media-delivered inhaler training (e.g. DVD, computer app or game) and technique feedback devices. Differences between interventions, populations and outcome measures limited quantitative analyses, particularly for exacerbations, adverse events, unscheduled visits to a healthcare provider and absenteeism from work or school.\nEnhanced inhaler technique education and multi-media training improved technique in most studies immediately after the intervention and at follow-up, although the variety of checklists used meant that this was difficult to assess reliably. For both adults and children, how and when inhaler technique was assessed appeared to affect whether inhaler technique improved and by how much.\nAnalyses of the numbers of people who demonstrated correct or 'good enough' technique were generally more useful than checklist scores. Adult studies of enhanced education showed benefit when this metric was used at 2 to 26 weeks' follow-up (odds ratio (OR) 5.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.83 to 13.65; 258 participants; three studies; 31 per 100 with correct technique in the control group compared with 69 (95% CI 45 to 86) in the education group; moderate-quality evidence). A similar result was seen in studies looking at feedback devices at four weeks' follow-up (OR 4.80, 95% CI 1.87 to 12.33; 97 participants; one study; 51 per 100 with correct technique in the control group compared with 83 (95% CI 66 to 93) in the feedback group; low-quality evidence). However, the benefit of multi-media training for adults even immediately after the intervention was uncertain (OR 2.15, 95% CI 0.84 to 5.50; 164 participants; two studies; I² = 49%; 30 per 100 in the control group with correct technique compared with 47 (95% CI 26 to 70) in the multi-media group; moderate-quality evidence). Evidence tended to be less clear for children, usually because results were based on fewer and smaller studies.\nSome studies did not report exacerbations in a way that allowed meta-analysis; others provided inconclusive results. Inhaler technique interventions provided some benefit for asthma control and quality of life but generally did not lead to consistent or important clinical benefits for adults or children. Confidence intervals included no difference or did not reach a threshold that could be considered clinically important. Responder analyses sometimes showed improvement among more people in the intervention groups, even though the mean difference between groups was small. We found no evidence about harms.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough interventions to improve inhaler technique may work in some circumstances, the variety of interventions and measurement methods used hampered our ability to perform meta-analyses and led to low to moderate confidence in our findings. Most included studies did not report important improvement in clinical outcomes. Guidelines consistently recommend that clinicians check regularly the inhaler technique of their patients; what is not clear is how clinicians can most effectively intervene if they find a patient's technique to be inadequate, and whether such interventions will have a discernible impact on clinical outcomes.\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 29 studies involving 2210 people with asthma. Studies lasted between 2 and 26 weeks. Studies reported inhaler technique on a range of different checklists.\nWe grouped studies into three types: studies testing enhanced face-to-face training session(s), studies using multi-media to deliver inhaler training (e.g. a video, computer app or game) and studies testing devices that give people visual or audio feedback about technique.\nStudies tested different types of training and used different measures to gauge success, meaning that we could not bring data together. This was particularly true when we tried to assess effects on asthma attacks, adverse events, visits to a healthcare provider and absences from work or school."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1749 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAntipsychotic agents are often used to treat neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) in people with dementia although there is uncertainty about the effectiveness of their long-term use for this indication and concern that they may cause harm, including higher mortality. When behavioural strategies have failed and treatment with antipsychotic drugs is instituted, regular attempts to withdraw them have been recommended in guidelines. Physicians, nurses and families of older people with dementia may be reluctant to stop antipsychotics, fearing deterioration of NPS.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate whether withdrawal of antipsychotic agents is successful in older people with dementia and NPS in primary care or nursing home settings, to list the different strategies for withdrawal of antipsychotic agents in older participants with dementia and NPS, and to measure the effects of withdrawal of antipsychotic agents on participants' behaviour and assess safety.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (ALOIS), the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, clinical trials registries and grey literature sources up to 11 January 2018.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised, controlled trials comparing an antipsychotic withdrawal strategy to continuation of antipsychotics in people with dementia who had been treated with an antipsychotic drug for at least three months.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We rated the quality of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 10 studies involving 632 participants. One new trial (19 participants) was added for this update.\nOne trial was conducted in a community setting, eight in nursing homes and one in both settings. Different types of antipsychotics at varying doses were discontinued in the studies. Both abrupt and gradual withdrawal schedules were used. Reported data were predominantly from studies at low or unclear risk of bias.\nWe included nine trials with 575 randomised participants that used a proxy outcome for overall success of antipsychotic withdrawal. Pooling data was not possible due to heterogeneity of outcome measures used. Based on assessment of seven studies, discontinuation may make little or no difference to whether or not participants complete the study (low-quality evidence).\nTwo trials included only participants with psychosis, agitation or aggression who had responded to antipsychotic treatment. In these two trials, stopping antipsychotics was associated with a higher risk of leaving the study early due to symptomatic relapse or a shorter time to symptomatic relapse.\nWe found low-quality evidence that discontinuation may make little or no difference to overall NPS, measured using various scales (7 trials, 519 participants). There was some evidence from subgroup analyses in two trials that discontinuation may reduce agitation for participants with less severe NPS at baseline, but may be associated with a worsening of NPS in participants with more severe NPS at baseline.\nNone of the studies assessed withdrawal symptoms. Adverse effects of antipsychotics (such as falls) were not systematically assessed. Low-quality evidence showed that discontinuation may have little or no effect on adverse events (5 trials, 381 participants), quality of life (2 trials, 119 participants), or cognitive function (5 trials, 365 participants).\nThere were insufficient data to determine whether discontinuation of antipsychotics has any effect on mortality (very low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is low-quality evidence that antipsychotics may be successfully discontinued in older people with dementia and NPS who have been taking antipsychotics for at least three months, and that discontinuation may have little or no important effect on behavioural and psychological symptoms. This is consistent with the observation that most behavioural complications of dementia are intermittent and often do not persist for longer than three months. Discontinuation may have little or no effect on overall cognitive function. Discontinuation may make no difference to adverse events and quality of life. Based on the trials in this review, we are uncertain whether discontinuation of antipsychotics leads to a decrease in mortality.\nPeople with psychosis, aggression or agitation who responded well to long-term antipsychotic drug use, or those with more severe NPS at baseline, may benefit behaviourally from continuation of antipsychotics. Discontinuation may reduce agitation for people with mild NPS at baseline. However, these conclusions are based on few studies or small subgroups and further evidence of benefits and harms associated with withdrawal of antipsychotic is required in people with dementia and mild and severe NPS.\nThe overall conclusions of the review have not changed since 2013 and the number of available trials remains low.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Methods\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched up to 11 January 2018 for any study that randomly allocated some people with dementia who were taking antipsychotic drugs to continue this treatment and others to stop taking antipsychotic drugs. Study participants were followed up over a period of time to see what happened."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1750 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIn people with haemophilia, therapeutic clotting agents might be recognised as a foreign protein and induce anti-factor VIII antibodies, known as 'inhibitors'. Drugs insensitive to such antibodies, either recombinant or plasma-derived, are called factor VIII 'by-passing' agents and used for treatment of bleeding in people with inhibitors.\nObjectives\nTo determine the clinical effectiveness of recombinant factor VIIa concentrate compared to plasma-derived concentrates for treating acute bleeding episodes in people with haemophilia and inhibitors.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Coagulopathies Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.\nDate of the most recent search of the Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register: 23 September 2015.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials comparing recombinant factor VIIa concentrate to human plasma-derived concentrates (high-dose human or recombinant factor VIII or factor IX concentrate; non-activated prothrombin complex concentrates; activated prothrombin complex concentrates) in people with haemophilia. Comparisons with animal-derived products were excluded.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed the trials (eligibility and risk of bias) and extracted data. No combined meta-analyses were performed due to the unavailability of outcomes and comparisons common to the included trials.\nMain results\nA total of 15 trials were identified, two of which (with data for a total of 69 participants) were eligible for analysis. Both trials showed methodological flaws and did not show superiority of one treatment over the other. Both the treatments showed that recombinant factor VIIa and activated prothrombin complex concentrate appeared to have a similar haemostatic effect in both trials, without increasing thromboembolic risk.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on the separate analysis of the two available randomised trials, recombinant factor VIIa and activated prothrombin complex concentrate were found to be similar in efficacy and safety. However, there is a need for further, well-designed, adequately-powered, randomised controlled trials to assess the relative benefits and risks of using recombinant factor VIIa compared to human plasma-derived concentrates in people with haemophilia with inhibitors. It is advisable that researchers in the field define commonly agreed objective outcome measures in order to enable the pooling of their results, thus increasing the power of comparisons. To date, data could not be combined in a formal meta-analysis. For the same reason reporting concordant and discordant pairs in cross-over trials is recommended.\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 two clinical trials comparing Novoseven®and FEIBA®. The trials did not show a difference in how well the two products worked and both were tolerated equally well with no clotting complications. We conclude that both recombinant factor VIIa and plasma-derived concentrates can be used to treat bleeds in people with haemophilia and inhibitors."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1751 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChild and adolescent obesity has increased globally, and can be associated with significant short- and long-term health consequences.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy of drug interventions for the treatment of obesity in children and adolescents.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed (subsets not available on Ovid), LILACS as well as the trial registers ICTRP (WHO) and ClinicalTrials.gov. Searches were undertaken from inception to March 2016. We checked references and applied no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological interventions for treating obesity (licensed and unlicensed for this indication) in children and adolescents (mean age under 18 years) with or without support of family members, with a minimum of three months' pharmacological intervention and six months' follow-up from baseline. We excluded interventions that specifically dealt with the treatment of eating disorders or type 2 diabetes, or included participants with a secondary or syndromic cause of obesity. In addition, we excluded trials which included growth hormone therapies and pregnant participants.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data following standard Cochrane methodology. Where necessary we contacted authors for additional information.\nMain results\nWe included 21 trials and identified eight ongoing trials. The included trials evaluated metformin (11 trials), sibutramine (six trials), orlistat (four trials), and one trial arm investigated the combination of metformin and fluoxetine. The ongoing trials evaluated metformin (four trials), topiramate (two trials) and exenatide (two trials). A total of 2484 people participated in the included trials, 1478 participants were randomised to drug intervention and 904 to comparator groups (91 participants took part in two cross-over trials; 11 participants not specified). Eighteen trials used a placebo in the comparator group. Two trials had a cross-over design while the remaining 19 trials were parallel RCTs. The length of the intervention period ranged from 12 weeks to 48 weeks, and the length of follow-up from baseline ranged from six months to 100 weeks.\nTrials generally had a low risk of bias for random sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding (participants, personnel and assessors) for subjective and objective outcomes. We judged approximately half of the trials as having a high risk of bias in one or more domain such as selective reporting.\nThe primary outcomes of this review were change in body mass index (BMI), change in weight and adverse events. All 21 trials measured these outcomes. The secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life (only one trial reported results showing no marked differences; very low certainty evidence), body fat distribution (measured in 18 trials), behaviour change (measured in six trials), participants' views of the intervention (not reported), morbidity associated with the intervention (measured in one orlistat trial only reporting more new gallstones following the intervention; very low certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (one suicide in the orlistat intervention group; low certainty evidence) and socioeconomic effects (not reported).\nIntervention versus comparator for mean difference (MD) in BMI change was -1.3 kg/m2 (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.9 to -0.8; P < 0.00001; 16 trials; 1884 participants; low certainty evidence). When split by drug type, sibutramine, metformin and orlistat all showed reductions in BMI in favour of the intervention.\nIntervention versus comparator for change in weight showed a MD of -3.9 kg (95% CI -5.9 to -1.9; P < 0.00001; 11 trials; 1180 participants; low certainty evidence). As with BMI, when the trials were split by drug type, sibutramine, metformin and orlistat all showed reductions in weight in favour of the intervention.\nFive trials reported serious adverse events: 24/878 (2.7%) participants in the intervention groups versus 8/469 (1.7%) participants in the comparator groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.43, 95% CI 0.63 to 3.25; 1347 participants; low certainty evidence). A total 52/1043 (5.0%) participants in the intervention groups versus 17/621 (2.7%) in the comparator groups discontinued the trial because of adverse events (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.52; 10 trials; 1664 participants; low certainty evidence). The most common adverse events in orlistat and metformin trials were gastrointestinal (such as diarrhoea, mild abdominal pain or discomfort, fatty stools). The most frequent adverse events in sibutramine trials included tachycardia, constipation and hypertension. The single fluoxetine trial reported dry mouth and loose stools. No trial investigated drug treatment for overweight children.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis systematic review is part of a series of associated Cochrane reviews on interventions for obese children and adolescents and has shown that pharmacological interventions (metformin, sibutramine, orlistat and fluoxetine) may have small effects in reduction in BMI and bodyweight in obese children and adolescents. However, many of these drugs are not licensed for the treatment of obesity in children and adolescents, or have been withdrawn. Trials were generally of low quality with many having a short or no post-intervention follow-up period and high dropout rates (overall dropout of 25%). Future research should focus on conducting trials with sufficient power and long-term follow-up, to ensure the long-term effects of any pharmacological intervention are comprehensively assessed. Adverse events should be reported in a more standardised manner specifying amongst other things the number of participants experiencing at least one adverse event. The requirement of regulatory authorities (US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency) for trials of all new medications to be used in children and adolescents should drive an increase in the number of high quality trials.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The overall certainty of the evidence was low or very low, mainly because there were only a few studies per outcome measurement, the number of included children or adolescents was small, and due to variation in the results of the studies. In addition, many children or adolescents left the studies before the study had finished."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1752 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDental caries is a sugar-dependent disease that damages tooth structure and, due to loss of mineral components, may eventually lead to cavitation. Dental caries is the most prevalent disease worldwide and is considered the most important burden of oral health. Conventional treatment methods (drill and fill) involve the use of rotary burs under local anaesthesia. The need for an electricity supply, expensive handpieces and highly trained dental health personnel may limit access to dental treatment, especially in underdeveloped regions.\nTo overcome the limitations of conventional restorative treatment, the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) was developed, mainly for treating caries in children living in under-served areas of the world where resources and facilities such as electricity and trained manpower are limited. ART is a minimally invasive approach which involves removal of decayed tissue using hand instruments alone, usually without use of anaesthesia and electrically driven equipment, and restoration of the dental cavity with an adhesive material (glass ionomer cement (GIC), composite resins, resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RM-GICs) and compomers).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) compared with conventional treatment for managing dental caries lesions in the primary and permanent teeth of children and adults.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health’s Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health’s Trials Register (to 22 February 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 1), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 22 February 2017), Embase Ovid (1980 to 22 February 2017), LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database; 1982 to 22 February 2017) and BBO BIREME Virtual Health Library (Bibliografia Brasileira de Odontologia; 1986 to 22 February 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least six months' follow-up that compared the effects of ART with a conventional restorative approach using the same or different restorative dental materials to treat caries lesions.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened search results, extracted data from included studies and assessed the risk of bias in those studies. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane to evaluate risk of bias and synthesise data. Where pooling was appropriate we conducted meta-analyses using the random-effects model. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nWe included a total of 15 eligible studies randomising 3760 participants in this review. The age of participants across the studies ranged from 3 to 101 years, with a mean of 25.42 years. 48% of participants were male. All included studies were published between 2002 and 2016. Two of the 15 studies declared that the financial support was from companies that manufacture restorative material. Five studies were individually randomised parallel-group studies; six were cluster-randomised parallel-group studies; and four were randomised studies that used a split-mouth design. Eleven studies evaluated the effects of ART on primary teeth only, and four on permanent teeth. The follow-up period of the included studies ranged from 6 months to 36 months. We judged all studies to be at high risk of bias.\nFor the main comparison of ART compared to conventional treatment using the same material: all but two studies used high-viscosity glass ionomer (H-GIC) as the restorative material; one study used a composite material; and one study used resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC)).\nCompared to conventional treatment using H-GIC, ART may increase the risk of restoration failure in the primary dentition, over a follow-up period from 12 to 24 months (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.27, five studies; 643 participants analysed; low-quality evidence). Our confidence in this effect estimate is limited due to serious concerns over risk of performance and attrition bias. For this comparison, ART may reduce pain during procedure compared with conventional treatment (MD -0.65, 95% CI -1.38 to 0.07; 40 participants analysed; low-quality evidence)\nComparisons of ART to conventional treatment using composite or RM-GIC were downgraded to very low quality due to indirectness, imprecision and high risk of performance and attrition bias. Given the very low quality of the evidence from single studies, we are uncertain about the restoration failure of ART compared with conventional treatment using composite over a 24-month follow-up period (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.29; one study; 57 participants) and ART using RM-GIC in the permanent teeth of older adults with root caries lesions over a six-month follow-up period (OR 2.71, 95% CI 0.94 to 7.81; one study; 64 participants).\nNo studies reported on adverse events or costs.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow-quality evidence suggests that ART using H-GIC may have a higher risk of restoration failure than conventional treatment for caries lesions in primary teeth. The effects of ART using composite and RM-GIC are uncertain due to the very low quality of the evidence and we cannot rely on the findings. Most studies evaluated the effects of ART on the primary dentition.\nWell-designed RCTs are required that report on restoration failure at clinically meaningful time points, as well as participant-reported outcomes such as pain and discomfort. Due to the potential confounding effects from the use of different dental materials, a robust body of evidence on the effects of ART compared with conventional treatment using the same restoration material is necessary. We identified four ongoing trials that could provide further insights into this area.\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": "The aim of this review is to evaluate the effects of a minimally invasive approach, namely Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART), for the treatment of tooth decay in children and adults (primary and permanent teeth)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1753 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nStrict or partial bed rest in hospital or at home is commonly recommended for women with multiple pregnancy to improve pregnancy outcomes. In order to advise women to rest in bed for any length of time, a policy for clinical practice needs to be supported by reliable evidence and weighed against possible adverse effects resulting from prolonged activity restriction.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review is to assess the effectiveness of bed rest in hospital or at home to improve perinatal outcomes in women with a multiple pregnancy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 May 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected all individual and cluster-randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of strict or partial bed rest at home or in hospital compared with no activity restriction during multiple pregnancy.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and methodological quality. We evaluated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach and summarised it in 'Summary of findings' tables.\nMain results\nWe included six trials, involving a total of 636 women with a twin or triplet pregnancy (total of 1298 babies). We assessed all of the included trials as having a low risk of bias for random sequence generation. Apart from one trial with an unclear risk of bias, we judged all remaining trials to be of low risk of bias for allocation concealment.\nFive trials (495 women and 1016 babies) compared strict bed rest in hospital with no activity restriction at home. There was no difference in the risk of very preterm birth (risk ratio (RR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.58, five trials, 495 women, assuming complete correlation between twins/triplets, low-quality evidence), perinatal mortality (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.21, five trials, 1016 neonates, assuming independence between twins/triplets, low-quality evidence) and low birthweight (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.21, three trials, 502 neonates, assuming independence between twins/triplets, low-quality evidence). We observed no differences for the risk of small-for-gestational age (SGA) (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.01, two trials, 293 women, assuming independence between twins/triplets, low-quality evidence) and prelabour preterm rupture of the membrane (PPROM) (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.38, three trials, 276 women, low-quality evidence). However, strict bed rest in hospital was associated with increased spontaneous onset of labour (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09, P = 0.004, four trials, 488 women) and a higher mean birthweight (mean difference (MD) 136.99 g, 95% CI 39.92 to 234.06, P = 0.006, three trials, 314 women) compared with no activity restriction at home.\nOnly one trial (141 women and 282 babies) compared partial bed rest in hospital with no activity restriction at home. There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of very preterm birth (RR 2.30, 95% CI 0.84 to 6.27, 141 women, assuming complete correlation between twins, low-quality evidence) and perinatal mortality (RR 4.17, 95% CI 0.90 to 19.31, 282 neonates, assuming complete independence twins, low-quality evidence) between the intervention and control group. Low birthweight was not reported in this trial. We found no differences in the risk of PPROM and SGA between women receiving partial bed rest and the control group (low-quality evidence). Women on partial bed rest in hospital were less likely to develop gestational hypertension compared with women without activity restriction at home (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.59, P = 0.0004, 141 women).\nStrict or partial bed rest in hospital was found to have no impact on other secondary outcomes. None of the trials reported on costs of the intervention or adverse effects such as the development of venous thromboembolism or psychosocial effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence to date is insufficient to inform a policy of routine bed rest in hospital or at home for women with a multiple pregnancy. There is a need for large-scale, multicenter randomised controlled trials to evaluate the benefits, adverse effects and costs of bed rest before definitive conclusions can be drawn.\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": "We did not find sufficient evidence to support or refute bed rest for women with a multiple pregnancy as a way of preventing preterm birth and other pregnancy complications."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1754 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGuidelines have provided positive recommendations for pulmonary rehabilitation after exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but recent studies indicate that postexacerbation rehabilitation may not always be effective in patients with unstable COPD.\nObjectives\nTo assess effects of pulmonary rehabilitation after COPD exacerbations on hospital admissions (primary outcome) and other patient-important outcomes (mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQL) and exercise capacity).\nSearch methods\nWe identified studies through searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) and the Cochrane Airways Review Group Register of Trials. Searches were current as of 20 October 2015, and handsearches were run up to 5 April 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pulmonary rehabilitation of any duration after exacerbation of COPD versus conventional care. Pulmonary rehabilitation programmes had to include at least physical exercise (endurance or strength exercise, or both). We did not apply a criterion for the minimum number of exercise sessions a rehabilitation programme had to offer to be included in the review. Control groups received conventional community care without rehabilitation.\nData collection and analysis\nWe expected substantial heterogeneity across trials in terms of how extensive rehabilitation programmes were (i.e. in terms of number of completed exercise sessions; type, intensity and supervision of exercise training; and patient education), duration of follow-up (< 3 months vs ≥ 3 months) and risk of bias (generation of random sequence, concealment of random allocation and blinding); therefore, we performed subgroup analyses that were defined before we carried them out. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane in preparing this update, and we used GRADE for assessing the quality of evidence.\nMain results\nFor this update, we added 11 studies and included a total of 20 studies (1477 participants). Rehabilitation programmes showed great diversity in terms of exercise training (number of completed exercise sessions; type, intensity and supervision), patient education (from none to extensive self-management programmes) and how they were organised (within one setting, e.g. pulmonary rehabilitation, to across several settings, e.g. hospital, outpatient centre and home). In eight studies, participants completed extensive pulmonary rehabilitation, and in 12 studies, participants completed pulmonary rehabilitation ranging from not extensive to moderately extensive.\nEight studies involving 810 participants contributed data on hospital readmissions. Moderate-quality evidence indicates that pulmonary rehabilitation reduced hospital readmissions (pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 0.91), but results were heterogenous (I2 = 77%). Extensiveness of rehabilitation programmes and risk of bias may offer an explanation for the heterogeneity, but subgroup analyses were not statistically significant (P values for subgroup effects were between 0.07 and 0.11). Six studies including 670 participants contributed data on mortality. The quality of evidence was low, and the meta-analysis did not show a statistically significant effect of rehabilitation on mortality (pooled OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.67). Again, results were heterogenous (I2 = 59%). Subgroup analyses showed statistically significant differences in subgroup effects between trials with more and less extensive rehabilitation programmes and between trials at low and high risk for bias, indicating possible explanations for the heterogeneity. Hospital readmissions and mortality studies newly included in this update showed, on average, significantly smaller effects of rehabilitation than were seen in earlier studies.\nHigh-quality evidence suggests that pulmonary rehabilitation after an exacerbation improves health-related quality of life. The eight studies that used St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) reported a statistically significant effect on SGRQ total score, which was above the minimal important difference (MID) of four points (mean difference (MD) -7.80, 95% CI -12.12 to -3.47; I2 = 64%). Investigators also noted statistically significant and important effects (greater than MID) for the impact and activities domains of the SGRQ. Effects were not statistically significant for the SGRQ symptoms domain. Again, all of these analyses showed heterogeneity, but most studies showed positive effects of pulmonary rehabilitation, some studies showed large effects and others smaller but statistically significant effects. Trials at high risk of bias because of lack of concealment of random allocation showed statistically significantly larger effects on the SGRQ than trials at low risk of bias. High-quality evidence shows that six-minute walk distance (6MWD) improved, on average, by 62 meters (95% CI 38 to 86; I2 = 87%). Heterogeneity was driven particularly by differences between studies showing very large effects and studies showing smaller but statistically significant effects. For both health-related quality of life and exercise capacity, studies newly included in this update showed, on average, smaller effects of rehabilitation than were seen in earlier studies, but the overall results of this review have not changed to an important extent compared with results reported in the earlier version of this review.\nFive studies involving 278 participants explicitly recorded adverse events, four studies reported no adverse events during rehabilitation programmes and one study reported one serious event.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, evidence of high quality shows moderate to large effects of rehabilitation on health-related quality of life and exercise capacity in patients with COPD after an exacerbation. Some recent studies showed no benefit of rehabilitation on hospital readmissions and mortality and introduced heterogeneity as compared with the last update of this review. Such heterogeneity of effects on hospital readmissions and mortality may be explained to some extent by the extensiveness of rehabilitation programmes and by the methodological quality of the included studies. Future researchers must investigate how the extent of rehabilitation programmes in terms of exercise sessions, self-management education and other components affects the outcomes, and how the organisation of such programmes within specific healthcare systems determines their effects after COPD exacerbations on hospital readmissions and mortality.\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 wished to compare the impact of pulmonary rehabilitation after an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on hospital readmissions and other patient-important outcomes such as quality of life versus usual post-exacerbation care."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1755 | [
{
"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: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found that intensive glucose control was highly effective in reducing the risk of developing microvascular diabetes complications, such as retinopathy (eye disease), nephropathy kidney disease), and neuropathy (nerve disease). For developing retinopathy, 63 per 1000 people with intensive glucose control compared to 232 per 1000 people with conventional glucose control experienced this diabetes complication. For developing nephropathy, 159 per 1000 people with intensive glucose control compared to 284 per 1000 people with conventional glucose control experienced this diabetes complication. For developing neuropathy, 49 per 1000 people with intensive glucose control compared to 139 per 1000 people with conventional glucose control experienced this diabetes complication.\nA weaker effect was found on the progression of retinopathy, while we could not find clear evidence of benefit of tight blood sugar control on the progression of nephropathy once participants had developed microalbuminuria (the kidney leaking small amounts of the protein albumin into the urine); no adequate data were available regarding the progression of neuropathy.\nMajor macrovascular outcomes (such as stroke and myocardial infarction) occurred very rarely; therefore we could not draw firm conclusions from the studies included in this review.\nWe found that intensive glucose control can increase the risk of severe hypoglycaemia, however the results varied across studies and only one big study showed a clear increase in severe hypoglycaemic episodes under intensive treatment. An analysis according to haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels (a long-term measure of glucose control) at the start of the study suggests that the risk of hypoglycaemia with intensive glucose control is possibly only increased for people who started the study with relatively low HbA1c values (less than 9.0%).\nThere were very few data on health-related quality of life, death from any cause, and costs. Overall, mortality was very low in almost all studies. The effects of intensive glucose control on health-related quality of life were unclear and were consistent with benefit or harm. One study reported that intensive glucose control could be highly cost-effective when considering the potential reduction of diabetes complications in the future.\nTight blood sugar control reduced the risk of developing microvascular diabetes complications. The main benefits identified in this review came from studies in younger individuals who were at early stages of the disease. Appropriate patient training is important with these interventions in order to avoid the risk of severe hypoglycaemia. The effects of tight blood sugar control seem to become weaker once complications occur. However, further research is needed on this issue. Furthermore, there is a lack of evidence from randomised controlled trials on the effects of tight blood sugar control on older patient populations or individuals with macrovascular disease. There is currently no firm evidence for specific blood glucose targets, therefore treatment goals need to be individualised, taking into account age, disease progression, macrovascular risk, as well as people's lifestyle and disease management capabilities."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1756 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAggression is a disposition, a willingness to inflict harm, regardless of whether this is behaviourally or verbally expressed and regardless of whether physical harm is sustained.\nDe-escalation is a psychosocial intervention for managing people with disturbed or aggressive behaviour. Secondary management strategies such as rapid tranquillisation, physical intervention and seclusion should only be considered once de-escalation and other strategies have failed to calm the service user.\nObjectives\nTo investigate the effects of de-escalation techniques in the short-term management of aggression or agitation thought or likely to be due to psychosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (latest search 7 April, 2016).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials using de-escalation techniques for the short-term management of aggressive or agitated behaviour. We planned to include trials involving adults (at least 18 years) with a potential for aggressive behaviour due to psychosis, from those in a psychiatric setting to those possibly under the influence of alcohol or drugs and/or as part of an acute setting as well. We planned to include trials meeting our inclusion criteria that provided useful data.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors inspected all abstracts of studies identified by the search process. As we were unable to include any studies, we could not perform data extraction and analysis.\nMain results\nOf the 345 citations that were identified using the search strategies, we found only one reference to be potentially suitable for further inspection. However, after viewing the full text, it was excluded as it was not a randomised controlled trial.\nAuthors' conclusions\nUsing de-escalation techniques for people with psychosis induced aggression or agitation appears to be accepted as good clinical practice but is not supported by evidence from randomised trials. It is unclear why it has remained such an under-researched area. Conducting trials in this area could be influenced by funding flow, ethical concerns - justified or not - anticipated pace of recruitment as well the difficulty in accurately quantifying the effects of de-escalation itself. With supportive funders and ethics committees, imaginative trialists, clinicians and service-user groups and wide collaboration this dearth of randomised research could be addressed.\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": "Are de-escalation techniques effective for managing psychosis-induced aggression or agitation?"
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1757 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBone marrow failure disorders include a heterogenous group of disorders, of which myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), forms the largest subgroup. MDS is predominantly a disease of the elderly, with many elderly people managed conservatively with regular allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusions to treat their anaemia. However, RBC transfusions are not without risk. Despite regular transfusions playing a central role in treating such patients, the optimal RBC transfusion strategy (restrictive versus liberal) is currently unclear.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of a restrictive versus liberal red blood cell transfusion strategy for patients with myelodysplasia, acquired aplastic anaemia, and other inherited bone marrow failure disorders.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE (from 1946), Ovid EMBASE (from 1974), EBSCO CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1980) and ongoing trial databases to 26th May 2015.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs including patients with long-term bone marrow failure disorders that require allogeneic blood transfusion, who are not being actively treated with a haematopoietic stem cell transplant, or intensive chemotherapy.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane review methodology. One author initially screened all references, and excluded any that were clearly irrelevant or duplicates. Two authors then independently screened all abstracts of articles, identified by the review search strategy, for relevancy. Two authors independently assessed the full text of all potentially relevant articles for eligibility, completed the data extraction and assessed the studies for risk of bias using The Cochrane Collaboration’s ’Risk of bias’ tool.\nMain results\nWe included one trial (13 participants) and identified three ongoing trials that assess RBC transfusion strategies in people with MDS.\nThe quality of the evidence was very low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology.\nThe one included study randomised participants to a restrictive [haemoglobin (Hb) transfusion trigger < 72 g/L, 8 participants] or liberal [Hb trigger < 96 g/L, 5 participants] transfusion policy. There was insufficient evidence to determine a difference in all-cause mortality (1 RCT; 13 participants; RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.32; very low quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine a difference in the number of red blood cell transfusions (1 RCT; 13 participants; 1.8 units per patient per month in the liberal group, compared to 0.8 in the restrictive arm, no standard deviation was reported; very low quality evidence). There were no anaemia-related complications reported (cardiac failure) and no reported effect on activity levels (no statistics provided). The study did not report: mortality due to bleeding/infection/transfusion reactions or iron overload, quality of life, frequency and length of hospital admissions, serious infections (requiring admission to hospital), or serious bleeding (e.g. WHO/CTCAE grade 3 (or equivalent) or above).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review indicates that there is currently a lack of evidence for the recommendation of a particular transfusion strategy for bone marrow failure patients undergoing supportive treatment only. The one RCT included in this review was only published as an abstract and contained only 13 participants. Further randomised trials with robust methodology are required to develop the optimal transfusion strategy for such patients, particularly as the incidence of the main group of bone marrow failure disorders, MDS, rises with an ageing population.\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 one small study including 13 patients with bone marrow failure was included in this review. The study was funded by two government agencies and one charity. We are aware of three ongoing studies which have not yet been completed.\nThe evidence is current to 26th May 2015."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1758 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDietary supplementation with prebiotic oligosaccharides to modulate the intestinal microbiome has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) and associated mortality and morbidity in very preterm or very low birth weight (VLBW) infants.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of enteral supplementation with prebiotics (versus placebo or no treatment) for preventing NEC and associated morbidity and mortality in very preterm or VLBW infants.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Maternity and Infant Care database and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), from the earliest records to July 2022. We searched clinical trials databases and conference proceedings, and examined the reference lists of retrieved articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing prebiotics with placebo or no prebiotics in very preterm (< 32 weeks' gestation) or VLBW (< 1500 g) infants. The primary outcomes were NEC and all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcomes were late-onset invasive infection, duration of hospitalisation since birth, and neurodevelopmental impairment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors separately evaluated risk of bias of the trials, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and mean difference (MD), with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcomes of interest were NEC and all-cause mortality; our secondary outcome measures were late-onset (> 48 hours after birth) invasive infection, duration of hospitalisation, and neurodevelopmental impairment. We used the GRADE approach to assess the level of certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included seven trials in which a total of 705 infants participated. All the trials were small (mean sample size 100). Lack of clarity on methods to conceal allocation and mask caregivers or investigators were potential sources of bias in three of the trials. The studied prebiotics were fructo- and galacto-oligosaccharides, inulin, and lactulose, typically administered daily with enteral feeds during birth hospitalisation.\nMeta-analyses of data from seven trials (686 infants) suggest that prebiotics may result in little or no difference in NEC (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.56; RD none fewer per 1000, 95% CI 50 fewer to 40 more; low-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.92; 40 per 1000 fewer, 95% CI 70 fewer to none fewer; low-certainty evidence), or late-onset invasive infection (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.06; 50 per 1000 fewer, 95% CI 100 fewer to 10 more; low-certainty evidence) prior to hospital discharge. The certainty of this evidence is low because of concerns about the risk of bias in some trials and the imprecision of the effect size estimates. The data available from one trial provided only very low-certainty evidence about the effect of prebiotics on measures of neurodevelopmental impairment (Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID) Mental Development Index score < 85: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.90; very low-certainty evidence; BSID Psychomotor Development Index score < 85: RR 0.24, 95% 0.03 to 2.00; very low-certainty evidence; cerebral palsy: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.35; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe available trial data provide low-certainty evidence about the effects of prebiotics on the risk of NEC, all-cause mortality before discharge, and invasive infection, and very low-certainty evidence about the effect on neurodevelopmental impairment for very preterm or VLBW infants. Our confidence in the effect estimates is limited; the true effects may be substantially different. Large, high-quality trials are needed to provide evidence of sufficient validity to inform policy and practice decisions.\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": "Combined analyses showed that giving very preterm or very low birth weight infants prebiotics may result in little or no difference in the risk of necrotising enterocolitis, death, or serious infection, but we have little confidence in the evidence. One trial assessed the effect on disability or developmental outcomes, but we have very little confidence in this evidence."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1759 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInfluenza is a highly infectious viral disease that is particularly common in the winter months. Oscillococcinum® is a patented homeopathic medicine that is made from a 1% solution of wild duck heart and liver extract, which is then serially diluted 200 times with water and alcohol.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether homeopathic Oscillococcinum® is more effective than placebo in the prevention and/or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness in adults or children.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1966 to August week 4, 2014), MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (4 September 2014), AMED (2006 to September 2014), Web of Science (1985 to September 2014), LILACS (1985 to September 2014) and EMBASE (1980 to September 2014). We contacted the manufacturers of Oscillococcinum® for information on further trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised, placebo-controlled trials of Oscillococcinum® in the prevention and/or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness in adults or children.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the eligible trials.\nMain results\nNo new trials were included in this 2014 update. We included six studies: two prophylaxis trials (327 young to middle-aged adults in Russia) and four treatment trials (1196 teenagers and adults in France and Germany). The overall standard of trial reporting was poor and hence many important methodological aspects of the trials had unclear risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference between the effects of Oscillococcinum® and placebo in the prevention of influenza-like illness: risk ratio (RR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.34, P value = 0.16. Two treatment trials (judged as 'low quality') reported sufficient information to allow full data extraction: 48 hours after commencing treatment, there was an absolute risk reduction of 7.7% in the frequency of symptom relief with Oscillococcinum® compared with that of placebo (risk difference (RD) 0.077, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.12); the RR was 1.86 (95% CI 1.27 to 2.73; P value = 0.001). A significant but lesser effect was observed at three days (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.56; P value = 0.03), and no significant difference between the groups was noted at four days (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; P value = 0.10) or at five days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16; P value = 0.25). One of the six studies reported one patient who suffered an adverse effect (headache) from taking Oscillococcinum®.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient good evidence to enable robust conclusions to be made about Oscillococcinum® in the prevention or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness. Our findings do not rule out the possibility that Oscillococcinum® could have a clinically useful treatment effect but, given the low quality of the eligible studies, the evidence is not compelling. There was no evidence of clinically important harms due to Oscillococcinum®.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The overall standard of research reporting was poor, and thus many aspects of the trials' methods and results were at unclear risk of bias. We therefore judged the evidence overall as low quality, preventing clear conclusions from being made about Oscillococcinum®in the prevention or treatment of flu and flu-like illness."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1760 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChildren with developmental speech sound disorders have difficulties in producing the speech sounds of their native language. These speech difficulties could be due to structural, sensory or neurophysiological causes (e.g. hearing impairment), but more often the cause of the problem is unknown. One treatment approach used by speech-language therapists/pathologists is non-speech oral motor treatment (NSOMT). NSOMTs are non-speech activities that aim to stimulate or improve speech production and treat specific speech errors. For example, using exercises such as smiling, pursing, blowing into horns, blowing bubbles, and lip massage to target lip mobility for the production of speech sounds involving the lips, such as /p/, /b/, and /m/. The efficacy of this treatment approach is controversial, and evidence regarding the efficacy of NSOMTs needs to be examined.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy of non-speech oral motor treatment (NSOMT) in treating children with developmental speech sound disorders who have speech errors.\nSearch methods\nIn April 2014 we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (R) and Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsycINFO and 11 other databases. We also searched five trial and research registers, checked the reference lists of relevant titles identified by the search and contacted researchers to identify other possible published and unpublished studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared (1) NSOMT versus placebo or control; and (2) NSOMT as adjunctive treatment or speech intervention versus speech intervention alone, for children aged three to 16 years with developmental speech sound disorders, as judged by a speech and language therapist. Individuals with an intellectual disability (e.g. Down syndrome) or a physical disability were not excluded.\nData collection and analysis\nThe Trials Search Co-ordinator of the Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group and one review author ran the searches. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts to eliminate irrelevant studies, extracted data from the included studies and assessed risk of bias in each of these studies. In cases of ambiguity or information missing from the paper, we contacted trial authors.\nMain results\nThis review identified three studies (from four reports) involving a total of 22 children that investigated the efficacy of NSOMT as adjunctive treatment to conventional speech intervention versus conventional speech intervention for children with speech sound disorders. One study, a randomised controlled trial (RCT), included four boys aged seven years one month to nine years six months - all had speech sound disorders, and two had additional conditions (one was diagnosed as \"communication impaired\" and the other as \"multiply disabled\"). Of the two quasi-randomised controlled trials, one included 10 children (six boys and four girls), aged five years eight months to six years nine months, with speech sound disorders as a result of tongue thrust, and the other study included eight children (four boys and four girls), aged three to six years, with moderate to severe articulation disorder only. Two studies did not find NSOMT as adjunctive treatment to be more effective than conventional speech intervention alone, as both intervention and control groups made similar improvements in articulation after receiving treatments. One study reported a change in postintervention articulation test results but used an inappropriate statistical test and did not report the results clearly. None of the included studies examined the effects of NSOMTs on any other primary outcomes, such as speech intelligibility, speech physiology and adverse effects, or on any of the secondary outcomes such as listener acceptability.\nThe RCT was judged at low risk for selection bias. The two quasi-randomised trials used randomisation but did not report the method for generating the random sequence and were judged as having unclear risk of selection bias. The three included studies were deemed to have high risk of performance bias as, given the nature of the intervention, blinding of participants was not possible. Only one study implemented blinding of outcome assessment and was at low risk for detection bias. One study showed high risk of other bias as the baseline characteristics of participants seemed to be unequal. The sample size of each of the included studies was very small, which means it is highly likely that participants in these studies were not representative of its target population. In the light of these serious limitations in methodology, the overall quality of the evidence provided by the included trials is judged to be low. Therefore, further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of treatment effect and is likely to change the estimate.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe three included studies were small in scale and had a number of serious methodological limitations. In addition, they covered limited types of NSOMTs for treating children with speech sound disorders of unknown origin with the sounds /s/ and /z/. Hence, we judged the overall applicability of the evidence as limited and incomplete. Results of this review are consistent with those of previous reviews: Currently no strong evidence suggests that NSOMTs are an effective treatment or an effective adjunctive treatment for children with developmental speech sound disorders. Lack of strong evidence regarding the treatment efficacy of NSOMTs has implications for clinicians when they make decisions in relation to treatment plans. Well-designed research is needed to carefully investigate NSOMT as a type of treatment for children with speech sound disorders.\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 April 2014. We found three studies (from four reports) involving a total of 22 children aged three to nine years who received a combination of NSOMTs and articulation or phonological therapy (intervention group), or articulation or phonological therapy alone (control group). One study was a randomised controlled trial in which four boys with speech sound disorders were randomly assigned to one of the two groups. In this study, each participant received 16 × 30-minute individual therapy sessions, twice per week over eight weeks, to treat the speech sound 's'. For the intervention group, NSOMT (oral placement therapy) was conducted in the first 10 minutes of each session, followed by 20-minute articulation therapy. The other two studies used randomisation, but the method used to generate the random sequence was not reported. In one of these studies, six boys and four girls, all with speech sound disorders due to tongue thrust, were randomly assigned to one of the two groups. Each participant received 22 × 30-minute individual sessions conducted weekly in the first six weeks, and twice a week in the following eight weeks, to treat 's' and 'z' sounds. The intervention group received NSOMT (Hanson's 1977 approach) in the first six weeks and alternating sessions of NSOMT and articulation therapy in the following eight weeks. The final study randomly assigned four boys and four girls with moderate to severe articulation disorder alone to either intervention group or control group. Each participant received 9 × 20-minute group therapy sessions (two participants in each group), conducted twice a week over five weeks. For the intervention group, NSOMT (oral motor exercises for speech clarity) was conducted during the first 10 minutes of each session. Speech errors associated with the 's' sound were treated for the intervention group; however, the speech sound(s) treated for the control group were not detailed. None of the studies reported funding support."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1761 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIn vitro maturation (IVM) is a fertility treatment that involves the transvaginal retrieval of immature oocytes, and their subsequent maturation and fertilisation. Although the live birth rate is lower than conventional in vitro fertilisation (IVF) with ovarian stimulation, it is a useful treatment, as it avoids the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Women with polycystic ovaries (PCO) or polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) are at an increased risk of OHSS. Thus, IVM may be a more useful treatment in this patient group.\nStrategies to maximise the maturation rates of the immature oocytes are important. This review focuses on the administration of human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) prior to immature oocyte retrieval.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness and safety of hCG priming in subfertile women who are undergoing IVM treatment in the context of assisted reproduction.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases up to 29 August 2016: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also searched the trial registries ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTPR to identify ongoing and registered trials. We sought recently published papers not yet indexed in the major databases, and reviewed the reference lists of reviews and retrieved studies as sources of potentially relevant studies. There were no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared hCG priming with placebo or no priming in women undergoing IVM. We also included RCTs that compared different doses of hCG, or the timing of oocyte retrieval. The primary outcomes were live birth rate and miscarriage rate per woman randomised.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, and with a third author, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted the original authors where data were missing. For dichotomous outcomes, we used the Mantel-Haenszel method to calculate odds ratios (OR). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean differences (MD) between treatment groups. We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE methods.\nMain results\nWe included four studies, with a total of 522 women, in the review. One of these studies did not report outcomes per woman randomised, and so was not included in formal analysis. Three studies investigated 10,000 units hCG priming compared to no priming. One study investigated 20,000 units hCG compared to 10,000 units hCG priming. Three studies only included women with PCOS (N = 122), while this was an exclusion criteria in the fourth study (N = 400).\nWe rated all four studies as having an unclear risk of bias in more than one of the seven domains assessed. The quality of the evidence was low, the main limitations being lack of blinding and imprecision.\nWhen 10,000 units hCG priming was compared to no priming, we found no evidence of a difference in the live birth rates per woman randomised (OR 0.65, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.24 to 1.74; one RCT; N = 82; low quality evidence); miscarriage rate (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.72; two RCTs; N = 282; I² statistic = 21%; low quality evidence), or clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.03; two RCTs, N = 282, I² statistic = 0%, low quality evidence). Though inconclusive, our findings suggested that hCG may be associated with a reduction in clinical pregnancy rates; 22% of women who received no priming achieved pregnancy, while between 7% and 23% of women who received hCG priming did so.\nThe study comparing 20,000 units hCG with 10,000 units hCG did not report sufficient data to enable us to calculate odds ratios.\nNo studies reported on adverse events (other than miscarriage) or drug reactions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review found no conclusive evidence that hCG priming had an effect on live birth, pregnancy, or miscarriage rates in IVM. There was low quality evidence that suggested that hCG priming may reduce clinical pregnancy rates, however, these findings were limited by the small number of data included. As no data were available on adverse events (other than miscarriage) or on drug reactions, we could not adequately assess the safety of hCG priming. We need further evidence from well-designed RCTs before we can come to definitive conclusions about the role of hCG priming, and the optimal dose and timing.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review Question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Cochrane authors reviewed the evidence about hCG priming in IVM to determine its effectiveness and safety in subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction. The main outcomes were live birth and miscarriage rate."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1762 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPostoperative pain is common and may be severe. Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, may reduce the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs).\nObjectives\nTo assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous ketorolac, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases without language restrictions: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS on 20 April 2020. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized double-blind trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous ketorolac with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. \nOur primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a four- and six-hour period.\nOur secondary outcomes were time to and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and for any other cause; and number of participants experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and NSAID-related or opioid-related AEs.\nFor subgroup analysis, we planned to analyze different doses of parenteral ketorolac separately and to analyze results based on the type of surgery performed.\nWe assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 12 studies, involving 1905 participants undergoing various surgeries (pelvic/abdominal, dental, and orthopedic), with 17 to 83 participants receiving intravenous ketorolac in each study. Mean study population ages ranged from 22.5 years to 67.4 years. Most studies administered a dose of ketorolac of 30 mg; one study assessed 15 mg, and another administered 60 mg.\nMost studies had an unclear risk of bias for some domains, particularly allocation concealment and blinding, and a high risk of bias due to small sample size. The overall certainty of evidence for each outcome ranged from very low to moderate. Reasons for downgrading certainty included serious study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision.\nKetorolac versus placebo\nVery low-certainty evidence from eight studies (658 participants) suggests that ketorolac results in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over four hours compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 2.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80 to 4.37). The number needed to treat for one additional participant to benefit (NNTB) was 2.4 (95% CI 1.8 to 3.7). Low-certainty evidence from 10 studies (914 participants) demonstrates that ketorolac may result in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over six hours compared to placebo (RR 3.26, 95% CI 1.93 to 5.51). The NNTB was 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.7).\nAmong secondary outcomes, for time to rescue medication, moderate-certainty evidence comparing intravenous ketorolac versus placebo demonstrated a mean median of 271 minutes for ketorolac versus 104 minutes for placebo (6 studies, 633 participants). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from five studies (417 participants) compared ketorolac with placebo. The RR was 0.60 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.00), that is, it did not demonstrate a difference between groups.\nKetorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with placebo (74% versus 65%; 8 studies, 810 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.19; number needed to treat for an additional harmful event (NNTH) 16.7, 95% CI 8.3 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from eight studies (703 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and placebo (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.03).\nKetorolac versus NSAIDs \nKetorolac was compared to parecoxib in four studies and diclofenac in two studies. For our primary outcome, over both four and six hours there was no evidence of a difference between intravenous ketorolac and another NSAID (low-certainty and moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). Over four hours, four studies (337 participants) produced an RR of 1.04 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.21) and over six hours, six studies (603 participants) produced an RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.19).\nFor time to rescue medication, low-certainty evidence from four studies (427 participants) suggested that participants receiving ketorolac waited an extra 35 minutes (mean median 331 minutes versus 296 minutes). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from three studies (260 participants) compared ketorolac with another NSAID. The RR was 0.90 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.40), that is, there may be little or no difference between groups.\nKetorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with another NSAID (76% versus 68%, 5 studies, 516 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.23; NNTH 12.5, 95% CI 6.7 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from five studies (530 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and another NSAID (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.13 to 76.99). Only one of the five studies reported a single serious AE.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe amount and certainty of evidence for the use of intravenous ketorolac as a treatment for postoperative pain varies across efficacy and safety outcomes and amongst comparators, from very low to moderate. The available evidence indicates that postoperative intravenous ketorolac administration may offer substantial pain relief for most patients, but further research may impact this estimate. Adverse events appear to occur at a slightly higher rate in comparison to placebo and to other NSAIDs. Insufficient information is available to assess whether intravenous ketorolac has a different rate of gastrointestinal or surgical-site bleeding, renal dysfunction, or cardiovascular events versus other NSAIDs. There was a lack of studies in cardiovascular surgeries and in elderly populations who may be at increased risk for adverse events.\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": "· Ketorolac may reduce short-term pain after surgery by 50% (half) or more in more people than a placebo (dummy treatment).\n· There may be little to no difference between ketorolac and other anti-inflammation medicines in the number of people whose pain is reduced by half or more.\n· Ketorolac probably causes slightly more unwanted effects than placebo and other anti-inflammation medicines; more evidence is required to establish if it causes serious unwanted effects."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1763 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCombining two different analgesics in fixed doses in a single tablet can provide better pain relief than either drug alone in acute pain. This appears to be broadly true across a range of different drug combinations, in postoperative pain and migraine headache. A new combination of dexketoprofen (a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug) plus tramadol (an opioid) has been tested in acute postoperative pain conditions. It is not yet licensed for use. This review is one of a series on oral analgesics for acute postoperative pain. Individual reviews have been brought together in two overviews to provide information about the relative efficacy and harm of the different interventions.\nObjectives\nTo assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of a single fixed-dose of oral dexketoprofen plus tramadol, compared with placebo, for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults, using methods that permit comparison with other analgesics evaluated in standardised trials using almost identical methods and outcomes. A secondary objective was to compare the combination with the individual analgesics alone.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via CRSO, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 31 May 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and two online clinical trial registries.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised, double-blind trials of oral dexketoprofen plus tramadol administered as a single oral dose, for the relief of acute postoperative pain in adults, and compared to placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, examined issues of study quality and potential bias, and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) for dexketoprofen plus tramadol, compared with placebo with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We collected information on the number of participants with at least 50% of the maximum possible pain relief over six hours, the median time to use of rescue medication, and the proportion of participants requiring rescue medication. We also collected information on adverse events and withdrawals. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.\nWe also collected information on the number of participants with at least 50% of the maximum possible pain relief over six hours for dexketoprofen alone and tramadol alone.\nMain results\nWe included three studies with 1853 participants who had undergone surgical removal of impacted wisdom teeth, hip replacement, or hysterectomy. The overall risk of bias across the three included studies was low, with unclear risk of bias in relation to the size of the three studies. Two studies did not report all our prespecified outcomes, which limited the analyses we could do.\nThe proportion of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over six hours with dexketoprofen 25 mg plus tramadol 75 mg was 66%, compared to 32% with placebo, giving an NNT of 3.0 (95% CI 2.5 to 3.7) (RR 2.1 (95% CI 1.7 to 2.4); 748 participants; 3 studies) (moderate quality evidence). The response rate with dexketoprofen 25 mg alone was 53% (RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.4); 744 participants; 3 studies) and with tramadol alone was 45% (RR 1.5 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.7); 741 participants; 3 studies) (moderate quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence because of some inconsistency in the results.\nThe median time to use of rescue medication could not be estimated exactly, but was probably eight hours or more, indicating a long duration of effect (moderate quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence because it was not possible to estimate the effect exactly in the two multiple dose studies, resulting in imprecision. Fewer participants used rescue medication with higher doses of active treatment (summary statistic not calculated; 123 participants; 1 study) (very low quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence because the data came from a single study with few participants and events.\nAdverse events and serious adverse events were not reported consistently for the single dose phase of the studies. In the single dose study, 11% of participants experienced adverse events with dexketoprofen 25 mg plus tramadol 75 mg, which were mostly mild or moderate nausea, vomiting, or dizziness, and typical with these medicines. Rates were lower with placebo and lower doses (very low quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence because the data came from a single study with few participants and events. Information on multiple dosing over three and five days supported a low event rate with the combination. Overall, rates were generally low in all treatment arms, as they were for withdrawals for adverse events or other reasons.\nAuthors' conclusions\nA single oral dose of dexketoprofen 25 mg plus tramadol 75 mg provided good levels of pain relief with long duration of action to more people than placebo or the same dose of dexketoprofen or tramadol alone. The magnitude of the effect was similar to other good analgesics. Adverse event rates were low.\nThere is modest uncertainty about the precision of the point estimate for efficacy, but the NNT of 3 is consistent with other analgesics considered effective and commonly used.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Bottom line\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review found that most people with moderate or severe pain after an operation get good pain relief from taking dexketoprofen 25 mg plus tramadol 75 mg."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1764 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAutomated telephone communication systems (ATCS) can deliver voice messages and collect health-related information from patients using either their telephone's touch-tone keypad or voice recognition software. ATCS can supplement or replace telephone contact between health professionals and patients. There are four different types of ATCS: unidirectional (one-way, non-interactive voice communication), interactive voice response (IVR) systems, ATCS with additional functions such as access to an expert to request advice (ATCS Plus) and multimodal ATCS, where the calls are delivered as part of a multicomponent intervention.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of ATCS for preventing disease and managing long-term conditions on behavioural change, clinical, process, cognitive, patient-centred and adverse outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched 10 electronic databases (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Global Health; WHOLIS; LILACS; Web of Science; and ASSIA); three grey literature sources (Dissertation Abstracts, Index to Theses, Australasian Digital Theses); and two trial registries (www.controlled-trials.com; www.clinicaltrials.gov) for papers published between 1980 and June 2015.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised, cluster- and quasi-randomised trials, interrupted time series and controlled before-and-after studies comparing ATCS interventions, with any control or another ATCS type were eligible for inclusion. Studies in all settings, for all consumers/carers, in any preventive healthcare or long term condition management role were eligible.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods to select and extract data and to appraise eligible studies.\nMain results\nWe included 132 trials (N = 4,669,689). Studies spanned across several clinical areas, assessing many comparisons based on evaluation of different ATCS types and variable comparison groups. Forty-one studies evaluated ATCS for delivering preventive healthcare, 84 for managing long-term conditions, and seven studies for appointment reminders. We downgraded our certainty in the evidence primarily because of the risk of bias for many outcomes. We judged the risk of bias arising from allocation processes to be low for just over half the studies and unclear for the remainder. We considered most studies to be at unclear risk of performance or detection bias due to blinding, while only 16% of studies were at low risk. We generally judged the risk of bias due to missing data and selective outcome reporting to be unclear.\nFor preventive healthcare, ATCS (ATCS Plus, IVR, unidirectional) probably increase immunisation uptake in children (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18 to 1.32; 5 studies, N = 10,454; moderate certainty) and to a lesser extent in adolescents (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11; 2 studies, N = 5725; moderate certainty). The effects of ATCS in adults are unclear (RR 2.18, 95% CI 0.53 to 9.02; 2 studies, N = 1743; very low certainty).\nFor screening, multimodal ATCS increase uptake of screening for breast cancer (RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.55 to 3.04; 2 studies, N = 462; high certainty) and colorectal cancer (CRC) (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.88 to 2.55; 3 studies, N = 1013; high certainty) versus usual care. It may also increase osteoporosis screening. ATCS Plus interventions probably slightly increase cervical cancer screening (moderate certainty), but effects on osteoporosis screening are uncertain. IVR systems probably increase CRC screening at 6 months (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.48; 2 studies, N = 16,915; moderate certainty) but not at 9 to 12 months, with probably little or no effect of IVR (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99, 1.11; 2 studies, 2599 participants; moderate certainty) or unidirectional ATCS on breast cancer screening.\nAppointment reminders delivered through IVR or unidirectional ATCS may improve attendance rates compared with no calls (low certainty). For long-term management, medication or laboratory test adherence provided the most general evidence across conditions (25 studies, data not combined). Multimodal ATCS versus usual care showed conflicting effects (positive and uncertain) on medication adherence. ATCS Plus probably slightly (versus control; moderate certainty) or probably (versus usual care; moderate certainty) improves medication adherence but may have little effect on adherence to tests (versus control). IVR probably slightly improves medication adherence versus control (moderate certainty). Compared with usual care, IVR probably improves test adherence and slightly increases medication adherence up to six months but has little or no effect at longer time points (moderate certainty). Unidirectional ATCS, compared with control, may have little effect or slightly improve medication adherence (low certainty). The evidence suggested little or no consistent effect of any ATCS type on clinical outcomes (blood pressure control, blood lipids, asthma control, therapeutic coverage) related to adherence, but only a small number of studies contributed clinical outcome data.\nThe above results focus on areas with the most general findings across conditions. In condition-specific areas, the effects of ATCS varied, including by the type of ATCS intervention in use.\nMultimodal ATCS probably decrease both cancer pain and chronic pain as well as depression (moderate certainty), but other ATCS types were less effective. Depending on the type of intervention, ATCS may have small effects on outcomes for physical activity, weight management, alcohol consumption, and diabetes mellitus. ATCS have little or no effect on outcomes related to heart failure, hypertension, mental health or smoking cessation, and there is insufficient evidence to determine their effects for preventing alcohol/substance misuse or managing illicit drug addiction, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, HIV/AIDS, hypercholesterolaemia, obstructive sleep apnoea, spinal cord dysfunction or psychological stress in carers.\nOnly four trials (3%) reported adverse events, and it was unclear whether these were related to the interventions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nATCS interventions can change patients' health behaviours, improve clinical outcomes and increase healthcare uptake with positive effects in several important areas including immunisation, screening, appointment attendance, and adherence to medications or tests. The decision to integrate ATCS interventions in routine healthcare delivery should reflect variations in the certainty of the evidence available and the size of effects across different conditions, together with the varied nature of ATCS interventions assessed. Future research should investigate both the content of ATCS interventions and the mode of delivery; users' experiences, particularly with regard to acceptability; and clarify which ATCS types are most effective and cost-effective.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusion\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "ATCS may be promising for changing certain health behaviours, improving health outcomes and increasing healthcare uptake."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1765 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFractures of the distal femur (the far end of the thigh bone just above the knee) are a considerable cause of morbidity. Various different surgical and non-surgical treatments have been used in the management of these injuries but the best treatment remains unknown.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of interventions for treating fractures of the distal femur in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was October 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in adults comparing interventions for treating fractures of the distal femur. Interventions included surgical implants (retrograde intramedullary nail (RIMN), fixed-angle devices, non-locking plate fixation, locking plate, internal fixation, distal femoral replacement, mono-axial plates, poly-axial plates and condylar buttress plates) and non-surgical management.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our critical outcomes were validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), direct adverse events, participant-reported quality of life (QoL) and pain scores. Our other important outcomes were adverse events indirectly related to intervention, symptomatic non-union, malunion and resource use. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 14 studies with 753 participants: 13 studies compared different surgical interventions, and one study compared surgical with non-surgical management. Here, we report the effects for RIMN compared with locking plates. Three studies (221 participants) reported this comparison; it included the largest study population and these are the two most commonly used devices in contemporary orthopaedic trauma practice.\nStudies used three different tools to assess PROMs. We found very-low certainty evidence for lower Disability Rating Index scores after RIMN at short-term follow-up favouring RIMN (mean difference (MD) −21.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) −38.16 to −5.64; 1 study, 12 participants) and low-certainty evidence of little or no difference at long-term follow-up (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.22, 95% CI −0.50 to 0.06; 2 studies, 198 participants). Re-expressing the SMD of the long-term follow-up data to Knee Society Score (KSS) used by one study found no clinical benefit of RIMN, based on a minimal clinically important difference of 9 points (MD 2.47, 95% CI −6.18 to 0.74). The effect on QoL was very uncertain at four months (MD 0.01, 95% CI −0.42 to 0.44; 1 study, 14 participants) and one year (MD 0.10, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.21; 1 study, 156 participants); this evidence was very low certainty.\nFor direct adverse events, studies reported reoperation, loss of fixation, superficial and deep infection, haematoma formation and implant loosening. Effects for all events were imprecise with the possibility of benefit or harm for both treatments. We considered reoperation the most clinically relevant. There was very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in reoperation between the two implants (risk ratio (RR) 1.48, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.00; 1 study, 104 participants).\nNo studies reported pain.\nFor other important outcomes, we noted that people treated with RIMN may be more likely to have varus/valgus deformity (RR 2.18, 95% CI 1.09 to 4.37; 1 study, 33 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, we found no evidence of any important differences between treatments in terms of bony union, indirect adverse events, or resource use.\nOther comparisons of surgical interventions included in the review were: RIMN versus single fixed-angle device (3 studies, 175 participants); RIMN versus non-locking plate fixation (1 study, 18 participants); locking plate versus single fixed-angle device (2 studies, 130 participants); internal fixation versus distal femoral replacement (1 study, 23 participants); mono-axial plates versus poly-axial plates (2 studies, 67 participants); mono-axial plate versus condylar buttress plate (1 study, 78 participants). The certainty of the evidence for outcomes in these comparisons was low to very low, and most effect estimates were imprecise.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review highlights the major limitations of the available evidence concerning current treatment interventions for fractures of the distal femur. The currently available evidence is incomplete and insufficient to inform clinical practice. Priority should be given to randomised controlled trials comparing contemporary treatments for people with fractures of the distal femur. At a minimum, these should report validated patient-reported functional and quality-of-life outcomes at one and two years, with an agreed core outcome set. All trials should be reported in full using the CONSORT guidelines.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Comparing two different types of metal plate (two studies, 67 participants)\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "at six months there is evidence to suggest improved patient outcome scores with a specific plate called a mono-axial plate, but this improvement was not shown at 12 months. When using x-rays to assess the function of the plates, there was evidence to suggest better x-rays with a plate called a poly-axial plate. There was no evidence to suggest differences in adverse events."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1766 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPersistent (chronic) pain is a frequent complaint in survivors of torture, particularly but not exclusively pain in the musculoskeletal system. Torture survivors may have no access to health care; where they do, they may not be recognised when they present, and the care available often falls short of their needs. There is a tendency in state and non-governmental organisations' services to focus on mental health, with poor understanding of persistent pain, while survivors may have many other legal, welfare, and social problems that take precedence over health care.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy of interventions for treating persistent pain and associated problems in survivors of torture.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in any language in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, LILACS, and PsycINFO, from database inception to 1 February 2017. We also searched trials registers and grey literature databases.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs of interventions of any type (medical, physical, psychological) compared with any alternative intervention or no intervention, and with a pain outcome. Studies needed to have at least 10 participants in each arm for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nWe identified 3578 titles in total after deduplication; we selected 24 full papers to assess for eligibility. We requested data from two completed trials without published results.\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated standardised mean difference (SMD) and effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.\nMain results\nThree small published studies (88 participants) met the inclusion criteria, but one had been retracted from publication because of ethical problems concerned with confidentiality and financial irregularities. Since these did not affect the data, the study was retained in this review. Despite the search including any intervention, only two types were represented in the eligible studies: two trials used cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) with biofeedback versus waiting list on unspecified persistent pain (58 participants completed treatment), and one examined the effect of complex manual therapy versus self-treatment on low back pain (30 participants completed treatment). Excluded studies were largely either not RCTs or did not report pain as an outcome.\nThere was no difference for the outcome of pain relief at the end of treatment between CBT and waiting list (two trials, 58 participants; SMD -0.05, 95% CI -1.23 to 1.12) (very low quality evidence); one of these reported a three-month follow-up with no difference between intervention and comparison (28 participants; SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.23) (very low quality evidence). The manual therapy trial also reported no difference between complex manual therapy and self-treatment (30 participants; SMD -0.48, 95% CI -9.95 to 0.35) (very low quality evidence). Two studies reported dropouts, one with partial information on reasons; none of the studies reported adverse effects.\nThere was no information from any study on the outcomes of use of analgesics or quality of life.\nReduction in disability showed no difference at the end of treatment between CBT and waiting list (two trials, 57 participants; SMD -0.39, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.39) (very low quality evidence); one of these reported a three-month follow-up with no difference between intervention and comparison (28 participants; SMD 0, 95% CI -0.74 to 0.74) (very low quality evidence). The manual therapy trial reported superiority of complex manual therapy over self-treatment for reducing disability (30 participants; SMD -1.10, 95% CI - 1.88 to -0.33) (very low quality evidence).\nReduction in distress showed no difference at the end of treatment between CBT and waiting list (two trials, 58 participants; SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.60) (very low quality evidence); one of these reported a three-month follow-up with no difference between intervention and comparison (28 participants; SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.99) (very low quality evidence). The manual therapy trial reported superiority of complex manual therapy over self-treatment for reducing distress (30 participants; SMD -1.26, 95% CI - 2.06 to -0.47) (very low quality evidence).\nThe risk of bias was considered high given the small number of trials, small size of trials, and the likelihood that each was underpowered for the comparisons it reported. We primarily downgraded the quality of the evidence due to small numbers in trials, lack of intention-to-treat analyses, high unaccounted dropout, lack of detail on study methods, and CIs around effect sizes that included no effect, benefit, and harm.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of any intervention for persistent pain in survivors of torture.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Bottom line\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "There is no good evidence about any method of treating long-lasting pain following torture."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1767 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDepression is common in the postnatal period and can lead to adverse effects on the infant and wider family, in addition to the morbidity for the mother. It is not clear whether antidepressants are effective for the prevention of postnatal depression and little is known about possible adverse effects for the mother and infant, particularly during breastfeeding. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2005.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of antidepressant medication for the prevention of postnatal depression, in comparison with any other treatment, placebo or standard care.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR ‒ both Studies and References), CENTRAL (Wiley), MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), PsycINFO (OVID), on 13 February 2018. We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 13 February 2018 to identify any additional unpublished or ongoing studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of initiation of antidepressants (alone or in combination with another treatment), compared with any other treatment, placebo or standard care for the prevention of postnatal depression among women who were either pregnant or had given birth in the previous six weeks and were not currently depressed at baseline.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We requested missing information from investigators wherever possible and sought data to allow intention-to-treat analyses.\nMain results\nTwo trials including a total of 81 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review. All participants in both studies had a history of postnatal depression and were not taking antidepressant medication at baseline. Both trials were conducted by the same research group. Risk of bias was low or unclear in most domains for both studies. We were unable to perform a meta-analysis due to the small number of studies.\nOne study compared nortriptyline with placebo and did not find any evidence that nortriptyline was effective in preventing postnatal depression. In this study, 23% (6/26) of women who took nortriptyline and 24% (6/25) of women who took placebo experienced postnatal depression (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.59, very low quality evidence) in the first 17 weeks postpartum. One woman taking nortriptyline developed mania; and one side effect, constipation, was more common among women taking nortriptyline than those taking placebo.\nThe second study compared sertraline with placebo. In this study, 7% (1/14) of women who took sertraline developed postnatal depression in the first 17 weeks postpartum compared with 50% (4/8) of women who took placebo. It is uncertain whether sertraline reduces the risk of postnatal depression (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.07, very low quality evidence). One woman taking sertraline had a hypomanic episode. Two side effects (dizziness and drowsiness) were more common among women taking sertraline than women taking placebo.\nConclusions are limited by the small number of studies, small sample sizes and incomplete outcome data due to study drop-out which may have led to bias in the results. We have assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low, based on the GRADE system. No data were available on secondary outcomes of interest including child development, the mother‒infant relationship, breastfeeding, maternal daily functioning, family relationships or maternal satisfaction.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to the limitations of the current evidence base, such as the low statistical power of the included studies, it is not possible to draw any clear conclusions about the effectiveness of antidepressants for the prevention of postnatal depression. It is striking that no new eligible trials have been completed in the period of over a decade since the last published version of this review. Larger trials are needed which include comparisons of antidepressant drugs with other prophylactic treatments (e.g. psychological interventions), and examine adverse effects for the fetus or infant. Future reviews in this area may benefit from broadening their focus to examine the effectiveness of antidepressants for the prevention of perinatal (i.e. antenatal or postnatal) depression, which could include studies comparing antidepressant discontinuation with continuation for the prevention of relapse of depression during pregnancy and the postnatal period.\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": "This evidence is current to February 2018.\nWe could only identify two relevant studies, which had small numbers of participants and inconsistent findings, and were conducted by the same research group. Therefore we consider the quality of evidence in this review to be very low. Further studies with larger samples are needed before we can know whether antidepressants can prevent postnatal depression.\nIt is worth noting that no new relevant trials have been completed in the 10 years since we last examined this evidence. It may be useful for future medical studies to investigate whether antidepressants can prevent depression during pregnancy as well as during the postnatal period; and whether women who continue to take antidepressants during pregnancy (compared with stopping medication) are less likely to have a relapse of depression at this time.\nWe also need studies which have longer follow-ups periods; examine outcomes and side effects for both the mother and fetus or breastfeeding infant; and compare antidepressants with other preventative interventions (such as psychological therapies)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1768 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPost-dural puncture headache (PDPH) is a common complication of lumbar punctures. Several theories have identified the leakage of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) through the hole in the dura as a cause of this side effect. It is therefore necessary to take preventive measures to avoid this complication. Prolonged bed rest has been used to treat PDPH once it has started, but it is unknown whether prolonged bed rest can also be used to prevent it. Similarly, the value of administering fluids additional to those of normal dietary intake to restore the loss of CSF produced by the puncture is unknown. This review is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 7, 2013) on \"Posture and fluids for preventing post-dural puncture headache\".\nObjectives\nTo assess whether prolonged bed rest combined with different body and head positions, as well as administration of supplementary fluids after lumbar puncture, prevent the onset of PDPH in people undergoing lumbar puncture for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS, as well as trial registries up to February 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe identified randomized controlled trials that compared the effects of bed rest versus immediate mobilization, head-down tilt versus horizontal position, prone versus supine positions during bed rest, and administration of supplementary fluids versus no/less supplementation, as prevention measures for PDPH in people who have undergone lumbar puncture.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the studies for eligibility through the web-based software EROS (Early Review Organizing Software). Two different review authors independently assessed risk of bias using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We resolved any disagreements by consensus. We extracted data on cases of PDPH, severe PDPH, and any headache after lumbar puncture and performed intention-to-treat analyses and sensitivity analyses by risk of bias. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table.\nMain results\nWe included 24 trials with 2996 participants in this updated review. The number of participants in each trial varied from 39 to 382. Most of the included studies compared bed rest versus immediate mobilization, and only two assessed the effects of supplementary fluids versus no supplementation. We judged the overall risk of bias of the included studies as low to unclear. The overall quality of evidence was low to moderate, downgraded because of the risk of bias assessment in most cases. The primary outcome in our review was the presence of PDPH.\nThere was low quality evidence for an absence of benefits associated with bed rest compared with immediate mobilization on the incidence of severe PDPH (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.41; participants = 1568; studies = 9) and moderate quality evidence on the incidence of any headache after lumbar puncture (RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.32; participants = 2477; studies = 18). Furthermore, bed rest probably increased PDPH (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.48; participants = 1519; studies = 12) compared with immediate mobilization. An analysis restricted to the most methodologically rigorous trials (i.e. those with low risk of bias in allocation method, missing data and blinding of outcome assessment) gave similar results. There was low quality evidence for an absence of benefits associated with fluid supplementation on the incidence of severe PDPH (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.73; participants = 100; studies = 1) and PDPH (RR 1; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.69; participants = 100; studies = 1), and moderate quality evidence on the incidence of any headache after lumbar puncture (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.34; participants = 200; studies = 2). We did not expect other adverse events and did not assess them in this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSince the previous version of this review, we found one new study for inclusion, but the conclusion remains unchanged. We considered the quality of the evidence for most of the outcomes assessed in this review to be low to moderate. As identified studies had shortcomings on aspects related to randomization and blinding of outcome assessment, we therefore downgraded the quality of the evidence. In general, there was no evidence suggesting that routine bed rest after dural puncture is beneficial for the prevention of PDPH onset. The role of fluid supplementation in the prevention of PDPH remains unclear.\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 considered the quality of the evidence for most of the outcomes assessed in this review to be low to moderate."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1769 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAutism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a behaviourally diagnosed condition. It is defined by impairments in social communication or the presence of restricted or repetitive behaviours, or both. Diagnosis is made according to existing classification systems. In recent years, especially following publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fifth Edition (DSM-5; APA 2013), children are given the diagnosis of ASD, rather than subclassifications of the spectrum such as autistic disorder, Asperger syndrome, or pervasive developmental disorder - not otherwise specified. Tests to diagnose ASD have been developed using parent or carer interview, child observation, or a combination of both.\nObjectives\nPrimary objectives\n1. To identify which diagnostic tools, including updated versions, most accurately diagnose ASD in preschool children when compared with multi-disciplinary team clinical judgement.\n2. To identify how the best of the interview tools compare with CARS, then how CARS compares with ADOS.\na. Which ASD diagnostic tool - among ADOS, ADI-R, CARS, DISCO, GARS, and 3di - has the best diagnostic test accuracy?\nb. Is the diagnostic test accuracy of any one test sufficient for that test to be suitable as a sole assessment tool for preschool children?\nc. Is there any combination of tests that, if offered in sequence, would provide suitable diagnostic test accuracy and enhance test efficiency?\nd. If data are available, does the combination of an interview tool with a structured observation test have better diagnostic test accuracy (i.e. fewer false-positives and fewer false-negatives) than either test alone?\nAs only one interview tool was identified, we modified the first three aims to a single aim (Differences between protocol and review): This Review evaluated diagnostic tests in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Specificity is the most important factor for diagnosis; however, both sensitivity and specificity are of interest in this Review because there is an inherent trade-off between these two factors.\nSecondary objectives\n1. To determine whether any diagnostic test has greater diagnostic test accuracy for age-specific subgroups within the preschool age range.\nSearch methods\nIn July 2016, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 10 other databases, and the reference lists of all included publications.\nSelection criteria\nPublications had to: \n1. report diagnostic test accuracy for any of the following six included diagnostic tools: Autism Diagnostic Interview - Revised (ADI-R), Gilliam Autism Rating Scale (GARS), Diagnostic Interview for Social and Communication Disorder (DISCO), Developmental, Dimensional, and Diagnostic Interview (3di), Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule - Generic (ADOS), and Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS); \n2. include children of preschool age (under six years of age) suspected of having an ASD; and \n3. have a multi-disciplinary assessment, or similar, as the reference standard.\nEligible studies included cohort, cross-sectional, randomised test accuracy, and case-control studies. The target condition was ASD.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed all studies for inclusion and extracted data using standardised forms. A third review author settled disagreements. We assessed methodological quality using the QUADAS-2 instrument (Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy - Revised). We conducted separate univariate random-effects logistical regressions for sensitivity and specificity for CARS and ADI-R. We conducted meta-analyses of pairs of sensitivity and specificity using bivariate random-effects methods for ADOS.\nMain results\nIn this Review, we included 21 sets of analyses reporting different tools or cohorts of children from 13 publications, many with high risk of bias or potential conflicts of interest or a combination of both. Overall, the prevalence of ASD for children in the included analyses was 74%.\nFor versions and modules of ADOS, there were 12 analyses with 1625 children. Sensitivity of ADOS ranged from 0.76 to 0.98, and specificity ranged from 0.20 to 1.00. The summary sensitivity was 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 0.97), and the summary specificity was 0.80 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.88).\nFor CARS, there were four analyses with 641 children. Sensitivity of CARS ranged from 0.66 to 0.89, and specificity ranged from 0.21 to 1.00. The summary sensitivity for CARS was 0.80 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.91), and the summary specificity was 0.88 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.96).\nFor ADI-R, there were five analyses with 634 children. Sensitivity for ADI-R ranged from 0.19 to 0.75, and specificity ranged from 0.63 to 1.00. The summary sensitivity for the ADI-R was 0.52 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.71), and the summary specificity was 0.84 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.95).\nStudies that compared tests were few and too small to allow clear conclusions.\nIn two studies that included analyses for both ADI-R and ADOS, tests scored similarly for sensitivity, but ADOS scored higher for specificity. In two studies that included analyses for ADI-R, ADOS, and CARS, ADOS had the highest sensitivity and CARS the highest specificity.\nIn one study that explored individual and additive sensitivity and specificity of ADOS and ADI-R, combining the two tests did not increase the sensitivity nor the specificity of ADOS used alone.\nPerformance for all tests was lower when we excluded studies at high risk of bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe observed substantial variation in sensitivity and specificity of all tests, which was likely attributable to methodological differences and variations in the clinical characteristics of populations recruited.\nWhen we compared summary statistics for ADOS, CARS, and ADI-R, we found that ADOS was most sensitive. All tools performed similarly for specificity. In lower prevalence populations, the risk of falsely identifying children who do not have ASD would be higher.\nNow available are new versions of tools that require diagnostic test accuracy assessment, ideally in clinically relevant situations, with methods at low risk of bias and in children of varying abilities.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How reliable are the results of analyses in this Review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Using a variety of best-estimate clinical approaches led to diagnosis in children. This method is commonly used in research but does not always replicate the multi-disciplinary assessment recommended for clinical diagnosis.\nProblems with how some studies were conducted and the presence of conflicts of interest in some publications may result in ADOS, CARS, and ADI-R appearing more accurate than they really are. Also, if these tools are used in populations with a lower prevalence of ASD, a higher proportion of children who do not have ASD are likely to receive an ASD diagnosis.\nThe numbers shown above represent average values across analyses. However, as individual estimates varied, we cannot be sure that ADOS will always produce these results. Numbers of children included in studies conducted to date, including studies comparing the accuracy of different tools, are insufficient to evoke confidence in these results."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1770 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nStroke is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Antiplatelet agents are considered to be the cornerstone for secondary prevention of stroke, but the role of using multiple antiplatelet agents early after stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) to improve outcomes has not been established.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness and safety of initiating, within 72 hours after an ischaemic stroke or TIA, multiple antiplatelet agents versus fewer antiplatelet agents to prevent stroke recurrence. The analysis explores the evidence for different drug combinations.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 6 July 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 7 of 12, 2020) (last searched 6 July 2020), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1946 to 6 July 2020), Embase (1980 to 6 July 2020), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP. We also searched the reference lists of identified studies and reviews and used the Science Citation Index Cited Reference search for forward tracking of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the use of multiple versus fewer antiplatelet agents initiated within 72 hours after stroke or TIA.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data from eligible studies for the primary outcomes of stroke recurrence and vascular death, and secondary outcomes of myocardial infarction; composite outcome of stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular death; intracranial haemorrhage; extracranial haemorrhage; ischaemic stroke; death from all causes; and haemorrhagic stroke. We computed an estimate of treatment effect and performed a test for heterogeneity between trials. We analysed data on an intention-to-treat basis and assessed bias for all studies. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 15 RCTs with a total of 17,091 participants. Compared with fewer antiplatelet agents, multiple antiplatelet agents were associated with a significantly lower risk of stroke recurrence (5.78% versus 7.84%, risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.82; P < 0.001; moderate-certainty evidence) with no significant difference in vascular death (0.60% versus 0.66%, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.45; P = 0.94; moderate-certainty evidence). There was a higher risk of intracranial haemorrhage (0.42% versus 0.21%, RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.50; P = 0.03; low-certainty evidence) and extracranial haemorrhage (6.38% versus 2.81%, RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.88 to 2.70; P < 0.001; high-certainty evidence) with multiple antiplatelet agents. On secondary analysis of dual versus single antiplatelet agent therapy, benefit for stroke recurrence (5.73% versus 8.06%, RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; P < 0.001; moderate-certainty evidence) was maintained as well as risk of extracranial haemorrhage (1.24% versus 0.40%, RR 3.08, 95% CI 1.74 to 5.46; P < 0.001; high-certainty evidence). The composite outcome of stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular death (6.37% versus 8.77%, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.82; P < 0.001; moderate-certainty evidence) and ischaemic stroke (6.30% versus 8.94%, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.81; P < 0.001; high-certainty evidence) were significantly in favour of dual antiplatelet therapy, whilst the risk of intracranial haemorrhage became less significant (0.34% versus 0.21%, RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.76 to 3.06; P = 0.23; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nMultiple antiplatelet agents are more effective in reducing stroke recurrence but increase the risk of haemorrhage compared to one antiplatelet agent. The benefit in reduction of stroke recurrence seems to outweigh the harm for dual antiplatelet agents initiated in the acute setting and continued for one month. Further studies are required in different populations to establish comprehensive safety profiles and long-term outcomes to establish duration of therapy.\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": "Stroke is the second most common non-communicable disease in the world, and carries a high risk of recurrence. Most recurrences occur early after stroke, and effective treatments are needed to prevent recurrence. Current guidelines recommend the use of an antiplatelet drug like aspirin after a stroke or transient ischaemic attack (mini-stroke). However, the safety and benefit of using more than one antiplatelet drug early after stroke has not been clearly established."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1771 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInfantile colic is a common disorder in the first months of life, affecting somewhere between 4% and 28% of infants worldwide, depending on geography and definitions used. Although it is self limiting and resolves by four months of age, colic is perceived by parents as a problem that requires action. Pain-relieving agents, such as drugs, sugars and herbal remedies, have been suggested as interventions to reduce crying episodes and severity of symptoms.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of pain-relieving agents for reducing colic in infants younger than four months of age.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases in March 2015 and again in May 2016: CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO, along with 11 other databases. We also searched two trial registers, four thesis repositories and the reference lists of relevant studies to identify unpublished and ongoing studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effects of pain-relieving agents given to infants with colic.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures of The Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nWe included 18 RCTs involving 1014 infants. All studies were small and at high risk of bias, often presenting major shortcomings across multiple design factors (e.g. selection, performance, attrition, lack of washout period).\nThree studies compared simethicone with placebo, and one with Mentha piperita; four studies compared herbal agents with placebo; two compared sucrose or glucose with placebo; five compared dicyclomine with placebo; and two compared cimetropium - one against placebo and the other at two different dosages. One multiple-arm study compared sucrose and herbal tea versus no treatment.\nSimethicone. Comparison with placebo revealed no difference in daily hours of crying reported for simethicone at the end of treatment in one small, low-quality study involving 27 infants. A meta-analysis of data from two cross-over studies comparing simethicone with placebo showed no difference in the number of of infants who responded positively to treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.23; 110 infants, low-quality evidence).\nOne small study (30 participants) compared simethicone with Mentha piperita and found no difference in crying duration, number of crying episodes or number of responders.\nHerbal agents. We found low-quality evidence suggesting that herbal agents reduce the duration of crying compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) 1.33, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.96; three studies, 279 infants), with different magnitude of benefit noted across studies (I² = 96%). We found moderate-quality evidence indicating that herbal agents increase response over placebo (RR 2.05, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.70; three studies, 277 infants).\nSucrose. One very low-quality study involving 35 infants reported that sucrose reduced hours spent crying compared with placebo (MD 1.72, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.06).\nDicyclomine. We could consider only one of the five studies of dicyclomine (48 infants) for the primary comparison. In this study, more of the infants given dicyclomine responded than than those given placebo (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.17 to 5.34).\nCimetropium bromide. Data from one very low-quality study comparing cimetropium bromide with placebo showed reduced crying duration among infants treated with cimetropium bromide (MD -30.20 minutes per crisis, 95% CI -39.51 to -20.89; 86 infants). The same study reported that cimetropium increased the number of responders (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.64).\nNo serious adverse events were reported for all of the agents considered, with the exception of dicyclomine, for which two of five studies reported relevant adverse effects (longer sleep 4%, wide-eyed state 4%, drowsiness 13%).\nAuthors' conclusions\nAt the present time, evidence of the effectiveness of pain-relieving agents for the treatment of infantile colic is sparse and prone to bias. The few available studies included small sample sizes, and most had serious limitations. Benefits, when reported, were inconsistent.\nWe found no evidence to support the use of simethicone as a pain-relieving agent for infantile colic.\nAvailable evidence shows that herbal agents, sugar, dicyclomine and cimetropium bromide cannot be recommended for infants with colic.\nInvestigators must conduct RCTs using standardised measures that allow comparisons among pain-relieving agents and pooling of results across studies. Parents, who most often provide the intervention and assess the outcome, should always be blinded.\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 18 randomised controlled trials (studies in which participants were randomly assigned to one of two or more treatment groups) involving 1014 infants with infantile colic. The evidence is current to May 2016.\nInfants were eight to 16 weeks old, and males and females were equally represented. All infants had colic, defined in one of two ways. Some studies defined it as inconsolable crying in otherwise healthy infants, lasting longer than three hours per day for more than three days a week for longer than three weeks. Other studies defined colic as attacks of screaming and crying (usually in the afternoon, or in the early evening) during which the infant failed to respond to any amount of comforting by adults.\nFour studies explored the effects of simethicone (a drug used to reduce excess gas in the intestinal tract); four studies looked at herbal agents (plant-derived remedies that might have relaxing properties that reduce cramps and pains in the bowel); two studies looked at sugar; and five studies explored the effects of dicyclomine and two the effects of cimetropium bromide (drugs that relieve bowel muscle spasms). One study compared sucrose and herbal tea in a group of infants who received no treatment for colic.\nSixteen of 18 studies compared the intervention with a placebo. Among the other two studies, one compared simethicone with Mentha piperita, and the other compared two different dosages of cimetropium.\nIncluded studies received funding from different sources: a public institution (two studies), academic funds (one study) and private companies (three studies). Three studies received no funding. Nine studies did not report whether the study received funding. In four studies that reported no funds and no details about funds, private companies supplied the products (pain-relieving agents)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1772 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHypertension is considered to be a serious health problem worldwide. Controlling and lowering blood pressure are of significant benefit to people with hypertension because hypertension is a risk factor for stroke, heart disease, and cardiovascular disease. Roselle, the tropical plant Hibiscus sabdariffa, also commonly called sour tea or red tea, has been used as both a thirst-quenching drink and for medicinal purposes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of Roselle on blood pressure in people with primary hypertension.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases and trials registers for randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register (to 6 August 2021), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2021, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 5 August 2021), Embase Ovid (1974 to 5 August 2021), ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (to 6 August 2021), Web of Science Clarivate (to 7 August 2021), Food Science and Technology Abstracts Clarivate (to 7 August 2021), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 6 August 2021), and the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (to 6 August 2021). We searched Google Scholar and OpenSIGLE. We also handsearched local and regional Chinese databases: CBM, CMCC, TCMLARS, CNKI, CMAC, and the Index to Chinese Periodical Literature (to 14 September 2020), as well as Thai databases (ThaiJO, CUIR, TDC, CMU e-Theses, TCTR) (to 3 October 2020). There were no language or publication date restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe sought RCTs evaluating the use of any forms of Roselle with placebo or no treatment in adults with hypertension. Our primary outcome was change in trough and/or peak systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP). Secondary outcomes were withdrawals due to adverse effects, change in pulse pressure, and change in heart rate.\nData collection and analysis\nAll search results were managed using Covidence and re-checked for the number of records, inclusion and exclusion of studies with Mendeley reference management software. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors worked independently in parallel for screening (titles and abstracts, and full reports), data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and assessment of the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consultation with the third review author if necessary. We presented mean difference (MD) of change in SBP and DBP with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).\nMain results\nFor this update, only one RCT with a parallel-group design involving 60 participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus fulfilled the inclusion criteria. This study investigated the effect of Roselle extract capsules (total dose of 5600 mg) compared with placebo (lactose) at eight weeks. The study was at low risk of selection bias, performance bias, and detection bias. Conversely, it was at high risk of attrition bias, reporting bias, and other bias (baseline imbalance).\nWe have very little confidence in the effect estimate of Roselle on change-from-baseline in both SBP and DBP between the two groups. The MD of change in SBP was 1.65, 95% CI −7.89 to 11.19 mmHg, 52 participants, very low-certainty evidence. The MD of change in DBP was 4.60, 95% CI −1.38 to 10.58 mmHg, 52 participants, very low-certainty evidence. Our secondary outcomes of withdrawals due to adverse effects, change in pulse pressure, and change in heart rate were not reported. Due to the limited available data, no secondary analyses were performed (subgroup and sensitivity analysis).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence is currently insufficient to determine the effectiveness of Roselle compared to placebo for controlling or lowering blood pressure in people with hypertension. The certainty of evidence was very low due to methodological limitations, imprecision, and indirectness. There is a need for rigorous RCTs that address the review question.\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 review updates our previous review. We searched for randomised controlled trials (studies in which participants are randomly assigned to one of two or more treatment groups) in core databases up to August 2021, and searched local and regional Chinese and Thai databases by hand up to October 2020."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1773 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPercutaneous exposure injuries from devices used for blood collection or for injections expose healthcare workers to the risk of blood borne infections such as hepatitis B and C, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Safety features such as shields or retractable needles can possibly contribute to the prevention of these injuries and it is important to evaluate their effectiveness.\nObjectives\nTo determine the benefits and harms of safety medical devices aiming to prevent percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel versus no intervention or alternative interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHSEED, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, Nioshtic, CISdoc and PsycINFO (until 11 November 2016).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCT), controlled before and after studies (CBA) and interrupted time-series (ITS) designs of the effect of safety engineered medical devices on percutaneous exposure injuries in healthcare staff.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo of the authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. We synthesized study results with a fixed-effect or random-effects model meta-analysis where appropriate.\nMain results\nWe included six RCTs with 1838 participants, two cluster-RCTs with 795 participants and 73,454 patient days, five CBAs with approximately 22,000 participants and eleven ITS with an average of 13.8 data points. These studies evaluated safe modifications of blood collection systems, intravenous (IV) systems, injection systems, multiple devices, sharps containers and legislation on the implementation of safe devices. We estimated the needlestick injury (NSI) rate in the control groups to be about one to five NSIs per 1000 person-years. There were only two studies from low- or middle-income countries. The risk of bias was high in 20 of 24 studies.\nSafe blood collection systems:\nWe found one RCT that found a safety engineered blood gas syringe having no considerable effect on NSIs (Relative Risk (RR) 0.2, 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) 0.01 to 4.14, 550 patients, very low quality evidence). In one ITS study, safe blood collection systems decreased NSIs immediately after the introduction (effect size (ES) -6.9, 95% CI -9.5 to -4.2) but there was no further decrease over time (ES -1.2, 95% CI -2.5 to 0.1, very low quality evidence). Another ITS study evaluated an outdated recapping shield, which we did not consider further.\nSafe Intravenous systems\nThere was very low quality evidence in two ITS studies that NSIs were reduced with the introduction of safe IV devices, whereas one RCT and one CBA study provided very low quality evidence of no effect. However, there was moderate quality evidence produced by four other RCT studies that these devices increased the number of blood splashes when the safety system had to be engaged actively (relative risk (RR) 1.6, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.36). In contrast there was low quality evidence produced by two RCTs of passive systems that showed no effect on blood splashes. Yet another RCT produced low quality evidence that a different safe active IV system also decreased the incidence of blood leakages.\nSafe injection devices\nThere was very low quality evidence provided by one RCT and one CBA study showing that introduction of safe injection devices did not considerably change the NSI rate. One ITS study produced low quality evidence showing that the introduction of safe passive injection systems had no effect on NSI rate when compared to safe active injection systems.\nMultiple safe devices\nThere was very low quality evidence from one CBA study and two ITS studies. According to the CBA study, the introduction of multiple safe devices resulted in a decrease in NSI,whereas the two ITS studies found no change.\nSafety containers\nOne CBA study produced very low quality evidence showing that the introduction of safety containers decreased NSI. However, two ITS studies evaluating the same intervention found inconsistent results.\nLegislation\nThere was low to moderate quality evidence in two ITS studies that introduction of legislation on the use of safety-engineered devices reduced the rate of NSIs among healthcare workers. There was also low quality evidence which showed a decrease in the trend over time for NSI rates.\nTwenty out of 24 studies had a high risk of bias and the lack of evidence of a beneficial effect could be due to both confounding and bias. This does not mean that these devices are not effective.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor safe blood collection systems, we found very low quality evidence of inconsistent effects on NSIs. For safe passive intravenous systems, we found very low quality evidence of a decrease in NSI and a reduction in the incidence of blood leakage events but moderate quality evidence that active systems may increase exposure to blood. For safe injection needles, the introduction of multiple safety devices or the introduction of sharps containers the evidence was inconsistent or there was no clear evidence of a benefit. There was low to moderate quality evidence that introduction of legislation probably reduces NSI rates.\nMore high-quality cluster-randomised controlled studies that include cost-effectiveness measures are needed, especially in countries where both NSIs and blood-borne infections are highly prevalent.\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": "For safe blood collection systems, one RCT found very low quality evidence showing no considerable effect and one NRS produced very low quality evidence showing a large reduction in NSI. Another NRS used an outdated cap shield.\nFor safe IV devices, there was very low-quality evidence that NSIs decreased in two NRS but not in one RCT and one other NRS. However, four other RCT studies produced moderate quality evidence that the devices which had to be switched on increased the number of blood splashes. In two RCT studies where the safety feature automatically switched on produced low quality evidence showing no change in amount of blood splashes. Another RCT study found low quality evidence showing a decrease in the number of blood leakage events with these devices.\nFor safe injection devices, there was very low quality evidence that these reduced the NSI rate in one RCT and in one NRS. However, another NRS found low quality evidence no difference in NSI rate between active and passive safe injection devices.\nFor the introduction of several safety devices at once, there was very low quality evidence of inconsistent effects from three NRS. .One NRS showed a decrease in NSI rate but the other two studies showed no difference.\nFor the use of safety containers, there was very low quality evidence of inconsistent effects from three NRS. . One NRS showed a decrease in NSI but the other two studies showed inconsistent results.\nFor the introduction of legislation on safety-engineered devices, there was low to moderate quality evidence produced by two NRS studies showing a reduction in NSIs."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1774 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe incidence of hip fracture is increasing and it is more common with increasing age. Surgery is used for almost all hip fractures. Blood loss occurs as a consequence of both the fracture and the surgery and thus red blood cell transfusion is frequently used. However, red blood cell transfusion is not without risks. Therefore, it is important to identify the evidence for the effective and safe use of red blood cell transfusion in people with hip fracture.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects (benefits and harms) of red blood cell transfusion in people undergoing surgery for hip fracture.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (31 October 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (January 1946 to 20 November 2014), EMBASE (January 1974 to 20 November 2014), CINAHL (January 1982 to 20 November 2014), British Nursing Index Database (January 1992 to 20 November 2014), the Systematic Review Initiative's Transfusion Evidence Library, PubMed for e-publications, various other databases and ongoing trial registers.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing red blood cell transfusion versus no transfusion or an alternative to transfusion, different transfusion protocols or different transfusion thresholds in people undergoing surgery for hip fracture.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently assessed each study's risk of bias and extracted data using a study-specific form. We pooled data where there was homogeneity in the trial comparisons and the timing of outcome measurement. We used GRADE criteria to assess the quality (low, moderate or high) of the evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included six trials (2722 participants): all compared two thresholds for red blood cell transfusion: a 'liberal' strategy to maintain a haemoglobin concentration of usually 10 g/dL versus a more 'restrictive' strategy based on symptoms of anaemia or a lower haemoglobin concentration, usually 8 g/dL. The exact nature of the transfusion interventions, types of surgery and participants varied between trials. The mean age of participants ranged from 81 to 87 years and approximately 24% of participants were men. The largest trial enrolled 2016 participants, over 60% of whom had a history of cardiovascular disease. The percentage of participants receiving a red blood cell transfusion ranged from 74% to 100% in the liberal transfusion threshold group and from 11% to 45% in the restrictive transfusion threshold group. There were no results available for the smallest trial (18 participants). All studies were at some risk of bias, in particular performance bias relating to the absence of blinding of personnel. We judged the evidence for all outcomes, except myocardial infarction, was low quality reflecting risk of bias primarily from imbalances in protocol violations in the largest trial and imprecision, often because of insufficient events. Thus, further research is likely to have an important impact on these results.\nThere was no evidence of a difference between a liberal versus restricted threshold transfusion in mortality, at 30 days post hip fracture surgery (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.26; five trials; 2683 participants; low quality evidence) or at 60 days post surgery (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.44; three trials; 2283 participants; low quality evidence). Assuming an illustrative baseline risk of 50 deaths per 1000 participants in the restricted threshold group at 30 days, these data equate to four fewer (95% CI 17 fewer to 14 more) deaths per 1000 in the liberal threshold group at 30 days.\nThere was no evidence of a difference between a liberal versus restricted threshold transfusion in functional recovery at 60 days, assessed in terms of the inability to walk 10 feet (3 m) without human assistance (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.15; two trials; 2083 participants; low quality evidence).\nThere was low quality evidence of no difference between the transfusion thresholds in postoperative morbidity for the following complications: thromboembolism (RR 1.15 favouring a restrictive threshold, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.37; four trials; 2416 participants), stroke (RR 2.40 favouring a restrictive threshold, 95% CI 0.85 to 6.79; four trials; 2416 participants), wound infection (RR 1.61 favouring a restrictive threshold, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.35; three trials; 2332 participants), respiratory infection (pneumonia) (RR 1.35 favouring a restrictive threshold, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.92; four trials; 2416 participants) and new diagnosis of congestive heart failure (RR 0.77 favouring a liberal threshold, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.23; three trials; 2332 participants). There was very low quality evidence of a lower risk of myocardial infarction in the liberal compared with the restrictive transfusion threshold group (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.96; three trials; 2217 participants). Assuming an illustrative baseline risk of myocardial infarction of 24 per 1000 participants in the restricted threshold group, this result was compatible with between one and 15 fewer myocardial infarctions in the liberal threshold group.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found low quality evidence of no difference in mortality, functional recovery or postoperative morbidity between 'liberal' versus 'restrictive' thresholds for red blood cell transfusion in people undergoing surgery for hip fracture. Although further research may change the estimates of effect, the currently available evidence does not support the use of liberal red blood cell transfusion thresholds based on a 10 g/dL haemoglobin trigger in preference to more restrictive transfusion thresholds based on lower haemoglobin levels or symptoms of anaemia in these people. Future research needs to address the effectiveness of red blood cell transfusions at different time points in the surgical pathway, whether pre-operative, peri-operative or postoperative. In particular, such research would need to consider people who are symptomatic or haemodynamically unstable who were excluded from most of these trials.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Results of the search\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched medical databases up to 20 November 2014 for studies that compared red blood cell transfusion versus no transfusion or an alternative to transfusion, different transfusion protocols or different transfusion thresholds in people undergoing any type of surgery for hip fracture. We found six studies (2722 people), all of which compared two different 'transfusion thresholds' for a red blood cell transfusion. The trials compared a liberal red blood cell transfusion threshold (giving a transfusion when the haemoglobin concentration was less than 10 g/dL) with a restrictive red blood cell transfusion threshold (giving a transfusion only when the person had symptoms of anaemia or when the haemoglobin concentration was less than 8 g/dL). Five studies applied these thresholds after surgery. The average age of trial participants was over 80 years and around three-quarters were women."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1775 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears are serious knee injuries that are frequently treated surgically in the form of arthroscopically assisted reconstruction with grafts from the patella or hamstrings tendons. We reviewed the evidence for the choice of arthroscopically assisted ACL reconstruction technique in terms of whether it should involve one incision (femoral tunnel drilled from inside the knee joint under arthroscopic visualisation) or two incisions (femoral tunnel drilled from outside to inside the knee joint).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects (benefits and harms) of one-incision versus two-incision techniques for arthroscopically assisted ACL reconstruction in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, reference lists, and conference abstracts. The date of the search was 16 August 2017.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials evaluating one-incision versus two-incision techniques for arthroscopically assisted ACL reconstruction in adults.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently searched and selected studies, and extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the eligible studies. We undertook limited pooling of data using the fixed-effect model.\nMain results\nWe included five trials (four randomised and one quasi-randomised) evaluating a total of 320 participants who were mainly in their 20s. All participants underwent ACL reconstruction with patella tendon grafts. All five included trials were at a high risk of bias, particularly performance bias. Based on these limitations and the insufficiency of the available data resulting in imprecision of effect estimates, we judged the quality of the evidence as very low for all outcomes. This means that we are uncertain of the findings of the review.\nWe found very low-quality evidence of no clinically important differences between the two techniques in self reported knee function, measured using the Lysholm knee score (scale 0 to 100: best outcome), at short-term (3 months) (mean difference (MD) 2.73 favours one-incision technique, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.70 to 8.15; 79 participants, 2 studies), intermediate-term (12 months) (MD -3.68 favours two-incision technique, 95% CI -6.61 to -0.75; 79 participants, 2 studies), and long-term follow-up. The data available for long-term follow-up (2 to 5 years) was expressed in terms of the numbers of participants with excellent Lysholm scores (90 points or more); we found no difference between the two groups (42/45 versus 36/40; risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.18; 1 study). There were no data for quality of life measures or for overall numbers of participants incurring an adverse event. We found very low-quality evidence of little between-group differences in individual adverse events such as infection, knee stiffness, reoperation, and graft failure.\nWe found very low-quality evidence from one study (59 participants) of little difference between the two groups in activity levels measured using Tegner scores (scale 0 to 10: highest sport activity) at two years (MD -0.80 favours two-incision technique, 95% CI -1.90 to 0.30). There was very low-quality evidence from four studies of minimal between-group difference in the number of participants with normal or nearly normal objectively measured knee function (International Knee Documentation Committee objective assessment grading) at intermediate follow-up (means 12 to 28 months): 56/78 versus 63/89; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.21; 167 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe very low-quality and often absent evidence means that we are uncertain whether one-incision arthroscopically assisted ACL reconstruction techniques yield better, worse, or equivalent results compared with two-incision techniques in terms of short-, intermediate-, or long-term subjective function, quality of life, adverse outcomes, activity levels, and objectively rated knee function. The evidence was available only for single-bundle ACL reconstruction using patella tendon grafts.\nWhen considering priorities for high-quality randomised trials on techniques for ACL reconstruction, it is important to note the insufficiency of the evidence available to inform this key comparison.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Results of the search\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched the medical literature databases up to August 2017 for randomised studies comparing one-incision versus two-incision arthroscopic ACL reconstruction techniques. We included five trials involving 320 people undergoing ACL reconstruction with patella tendon grafts. Most of the study participants were in their 20s."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1776 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAdjuvant tamoxifen reduces the risk of breast cancer recurrence in women with oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Tamoxifen also increases the risk of postmenopausal bleeding, endometrial polyps, hyperplasia, and endometrial cancer. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) causes profound endometrial suppression. This systematic review considered the evidence that the LNG-IUS prevents the development of endometrial pathology in women taking tamoxifen as adjuvant endocrine therapy for breast cancer.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness and safety of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in pre- and postmenopausal women taking adjuvant tamoxifen following breast cancer for the outcomes of endometrial and uterine pathology including abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting, and secondary breast cancer events.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases on 29 June 2020; The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group specialised register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group specialised register on 4 March 2020. We also searched two trials registers, checked references for relevant trials and contacted study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with breast cancer on adjuvant tamoxifen that compared the effectiveness of the LNG-IUS with endometrial surveillance versus endometrial surveillance alone on the incidence of endometrial pathology.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary outcome measure was endometrial pathology (including polyps, endometrial hyperplasia, or endometrial cancer), diagnosed at hysteroscopy or endometrial biopsy. Secondary outcome measures included fibroids, abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting, breast cancer recurrence, and breast cancer-related deaths. We rated the overall certainty of evidence using GRADE methods.\nMain results\nWe included four RCTs (543 women analysed) in this review. We judged the certainty of the evidence to be moderate for all of the outcomes, due to imprecision (i.e. limited sample sizes and low event rates). In the included studies, the active treatment arm was the 20 μg/day LNG-IUS plus endometrial surveillance; the control arm was endometrial surveillance alone.\nIn tamoxifen users, the LNG-IUS probably reduces the incidence of endometrial polyps compared to the control group over both a 12-month period (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.64, I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, n = 212; moderate-certainty evidence) and over a long-term follow-up period (24 to 60 months) (Peto OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.39; I² = 0%; 4 RCTs, n = 417; moderate-certainty evidence). For long-term follow-up, this suggests that if the incidence of endometrial polyps following endometrial surveillance alone is assumed to be 23.5%, the incidence following LNG-IUS with endometrial surveillance would be between 3.8% and 10.7%.\nThe LNG-IUS probably slightly reduces the incidence of endometrial hyperplasia compared with controls over a long-term follow-up period (24 to 60 months) (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.67; I² = 0%; 4 RCTs, n = 417; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of endometrial hyperplasia following endometrial surveillance alone is assumed to be 2.8%, the chance following LNG-IUS with endometrial surveillance would be between 0.1% and 1.9%. However, it should be noted that there were only six cases of endometrial hyperplasia.\nThere was insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion regarding the incidence of endometrial cancer in tamoxifen users, as no studies reported cases of endometrial cancer.\nAt 12 months of follow-up, the LNG-IUS probably increases abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting compared to the control group (Peto OR 7.26, 95% CI 3.37 to 15.66; I² = 0%; 3 RCTs, n = 376; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting following endometrial surveillance alone is assumed to be 1.7%, the chance following LNG-IUS with endometrial surveillance would be between 5.6% and 21.5%. By 24 months of follow-up, abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting occurs less frequently than at 12 months of follow-up, but is still more common in the LNG-IUS group than the control group (Peto OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.04 to 7.10; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, n = 233; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting following endometrial surveillance alone is assumed to be 4.2%, the chance following LNG-IUS with endometrial surveillance would be between 4.4% and 23.9%. By 60 months of follow-up, there were no cases of abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting in either group.\nThe numbers of events for the following outcomes were low: fibroids (n = 13), breast cancer recurrence (n = 18), and breast cancer-related deaths (n = 16). As a result, there is probably little or no difference in these outcomes between the LNG-IUS treatment group and the control group.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe LNG-IUS probably slightly reduces the incidence of benign endometrial polyps and endometrial hyperplasia in women with breast cancer taking tamoxifen. At 12 and 24 months of follow-up, the LNG-IUS probably increases abnormal vaginal bleeding or spotting among women in the treatment group compared to those in the control. Data were lacking on whether the LNG-IUS prevents endometrial cancer in these women. There is no clear evidence from the available RCTs that the LNG-IUS affects the risk of breast cancer recurrence or breast cancer-related deaths. Larger studies are necessary to assess the effects of the LNG-IUS on the incidence of endometrial cancer, and to determine whether the LNG-IUS might have an impact on the risk of secondary breast cancer events.\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": "Tamoxifen is commonly used by women to reduce the risk of breast cancer recurrence. Tamoxifen can also cause abnormal changes to the lining of the uterus (endometrium), including polyps and cancer. The LNG-IUS is a uterine device that releases the synthetic hormone levonorgestrel into the endometrium and causes marked endometrial suppression. As levonorgestrel is a progestin, and many breast cancers are progesterone-sensitive, it is important to study the safety of the LNG-IUS in breast cancer survivors."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1777 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 pandemic on 11 March 2020. Vaccine development and deployment were swiftly prioritised as a method to manage and control disease spread. The development of an effective vaccine relies on people's participation in randomised trials. Recruitment to vaccine trials is particularly challenging as it involves healthy volunteers who may have concerns around the potential risks and benefits associated with rapidly developed vaccines.\nObjectives\nTo explore the factors that influence a person's decision to participate in a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was June 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with an identifiable qualitative component. We included studies that explored the perspectives of adults aged 18 years or older who were invited to take part in vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.\nData collection and analysis\nWe assessed the title, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used a sampling frame to identify data-rich studies that represented a range of diseases and geographical spread. We used QSR NVivo to manage extracted data. We assessed methodological limitations using an adapted version of the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool for qualitative studies. We used the 'best-fit framework approach' to analyse and synthesise the evidence from our included studies. We then used the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) assessment to assess our confidence in each finding and develop implications for practice.\nMain results\nWe included 34 studies in our review. Most studies related to HIV vaccine trials. The other studies related to Ebola virus, tuberculosis, Zika virus and COVID-19. We developed 20 key findings, under three broad themes (with seven subthemes), that described the factors that people consider when deciding whether to take part in a vaccine trial for a pandemic or epidemic disease.\nOur GRADE-CERQual confidence was high in nine of the key findings, moderate in 10 key findings and low in one key finding. The main reason for downgrading review findings were concerns regarding the relevance and adequacy of the underlying data. As a result of the over-representation of HIV studies, our GRADE-CERQual assessment of some findings was downgraded in terms of relevance because the views described may not reflect those of people regarding vaccine trials for other pandemic or epidemic diseases. Adequacy relates to the degree of richness and quantity of data supporting a review finding. Moderate concerns about adequacy resulted in a downgrading of some review findings.\nSome factors were considered to be under the control of the trial team. These included how trial information was communicated and the inclusion of people in the community to help with trial information dissemination. Aspects of trial design were also considered under control of the trial team and included convenience of participation, provision of financial incentives and access to additional support services for those taking part in the trial.\nOther factors influencing people's decision to take part could be personal, from family, friends or wider society. From a personal perceptive, people had concerns about vaccine side effects, vaccine efficacy and possible impact on their daily lives (carer responsibilities, work, etc.). People were also influenced by their families, and the impact participation may have on relationships. The fear of stigma from society influenced the decision to take part. Also, from a societal perspective, the level of trust in governments' involvement in research and trial may influence a person's decision.\nFinally, the perceived rewards, both personal and societal, were influencing factors on the decision to participate. Personal rewards included access to a vaccine, improved health and improved disease knowledge, and a return to normality in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. Potential societal rewards included helping the community and contributing to science, often motivated by the memories of family and friends who had died from the disease.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review identifies many of the factors that influence a person's decision to take part in a vaccine trial, and these reflect findings from reviews that examine trials more broadly. However, we also recognise some factors that become more important in connection with a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. These factors include the potential stigma of taking part, the possible adverse effects of a vaccine, the added motivation for helping society, the role of community leaders in trial dissemination, and the level of trust placed in governments and companies developing vaccines. These specific influences need to be considered by trial teams when designing, and communicating about, vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.\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 included 34 studies that looked at people's views and experiences of being invited to take part in a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. Most of the studies related to HIV vaccine trials. The other studies related to Ebola virus, tuberculosis, Zika virus and COVID-19. Studies were set in many countries across Africa, Asia, Europe and North America. The studies looked at the views and experiences of adults aged 18 years and over who had been invited to take part in vaccine clinical trials. Some of them had accepted and some had decided not to take part."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1778 | [
{
"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: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Is acupuncture safe and effective in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain in adults?"
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1779 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInadvertent perioperative hypothermia occurs because of interference with normal temperature regulation by anaesthetic drugs and exposure of skin for prolonged periods. A number of different interventions have been proposed to maintain body temperature by reducing heat loss. Thermal insulation, such as extra layers of insulating material or reflective blankets, should reduce heat loss through convection and radiation and potentially help avoid hypothermia.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of pre- or intraoperative thermal insulation, or both, in preventing perioperative hypothermia and its complications during surgery in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 2), MEDLINE, OvidSP (1956 to 4 February 2014), EMBASE, OvidSP (1982 to 4 February 2014), ISI Web of Science (1950 to 4 February 2014), and CINAHL, EBSCOhost (1980 to 4 February 2014), and reference lists of articles. We also searched Current Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials of thermal insulation compared to standard care or other interventions aiming to maintain normothermia.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each included study, with a third author checking details. We contacted some authors to ask for additional details. We only collected adverse events if reported in the trials.\nMain results\nWe included 22 trials, with 16 trials providing data for some analyses. The trials varied widely in the type of patients and operations, the timing and measurement of temperature, and particularly in the types of co-interventions used. The risk of bias was largely unclear, but with a high risk of performance bias in most studies and a low risk of attrition bias. The largest comparison of extra insulation versus standard care had five trials with 353 patients at the end of surgery and showed a weighted mean difference (WMD) of 0.12 ºC (95% CI -0.07 to 0.31; low quality evidence). Comparing extra insulation with forced air warming at the end of surgery gave a WMD of -0.67 ºC (95% CI -0.95 to -0.39; very low quality evidence) indicating a higher temperature with forced air warming. Major cardiovascular outcomes were not reported and so were not analysed. There were no clear effects on bleeding, shivering or length of stay in post-anaesthetic care for either comparison. No other adverse effects were reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no clear benefit of extra thermal insulation compared with standard care. Forced air warming does seem to maintain core temperature better than extra thermal insulation, by between 0.5 ºC and 1 ºC, but the clinical importance of this difference is unclear.\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 evidence was low quality. We were particularly concerned about the potential for skewed results from operating theatre staff changing their behaviour when they knew ways of keeping the patient warm had changed."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1780 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMalignant neoplasms of the lymphoid or myeloid cell lines including lymphoma, leukaemia and myeloma are referred to as haematological malignancies. Complementary and alternative treatment options such as meditation practice or yoga are becoming popular by treating all aspects of the disease including physical and psychological symptoms. However, there is still unclear evidence about meditation's effectiveness, and how its practice affects the lives of haematologically-diseased patients.\nObjectives\nThis review aims to assess the benefits and harms of meditation practice as an additional treatment to standard care for adults with haematological malignancies.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 8, 2015), MEDLINE (1950 to August 2015), databases of ongoing trials, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (http://www.controlled-trials.com/mrct/), conference proceedings of annual meetings of: the American Society of Hematology; American Society of Clinical Oncology; European Hematology Association; European Congress for Integrative Medicine; and Global Advances in Health and Medicine (2010 to 2015).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using meditation practice for adult patients with haematological malignancies.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data from eligible studies and assessed the risk of bias according to predefined criteria. We evaluated quality of life and depression. The other outcomes of overall survival, anxiety, fatigue, quality of sleep and adverse events could not be evaluated, because they were not assessed in the included trial.\nMain results\nWe included only one small trial published as an abstract article. The included study investigated the effects of meditation practice on patients newly hospitalised with acute leukaemia. Ninety-one participants enrolled in the study, but only 42 participants remained in the trial throughout the six-month follow-up period and were eligible for analysis. There was no information provided about the average age and sex of the study population. We found a high risk for attrition bias and unclear risk for reporting bias, performance and detection bias because of missing data due to abstract publication only, thus we judged the overall risk of bias as high. According to the GRADE criteria, we judged the overall quality of the body of evidence for all predefined outcomes as 'very low', due to the extent of missing data on the study population, and the small sample size.\nAs the abstract publication did not provide numbers and results except P values, we are not able to give more details.\nMeditation practice might be beneficial for the quality of life of haematologically-diseased patients, with higher scores for participants in the mediation arms compared to the participants in the usual care control group (low quality of evidence). Levels of depression decreased for those practising meditation in both the spiritually-framed meditation group and the secularly-focused meditation group in comparison to the usual care control group, whose levels of depression remained constant (low quality of evidence). The influence of meditation practice on overall survival, fatigue, anxiety, quality of sleep and adverse events remained unclear, as these outcomes were not evaluated in the included trial.\nAuthors' conclusions\nTo estimate the effects of meditation practice for patients suffering from haematological malignancies, more high quality randomised controlled trials are needed. At present there is not enough information available on the effects of meditation in haematologically-diseased patients to draw any conclusion.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Meditation\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Meditation has been practised for thousands of years by many different cultures and has it's origins in ancient eastern traditions. Meditation practice can be done in various postures and ways. For example, the person can focus on breathing in and out, on an object or repeat a word or a pair of words (a mantra). Some sorts of mediation are based on spiritual beliefs. One treatment using meditation practice is called mindfulness-based cognitive therapy and has shown improvements on distress, quality of life and anxiety in cancer patients. However, there has not been a systematic evaluation on how meditation practice may improve and affect the lives of those with haematologically disease."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1781 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSedation reduces patient levels of anxiety and stress, facilitates the delivery of care and ensures safety. Alpha-2 agonists have a range of effects including sedation, analgesia and antianxiety. They sedate, but allow staff to interact with patients and do not suppress respiration. They are attractive alternatives for long-term sedation during mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients.\nObjectives\nTo assess the safety and efficacy of alpha-2 agonists for sedation of more than 24 hours, compared with traditional sedatives, in mechanically-ventilated critically ill patients.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 10, 2014), MEDLINE (1946 to 9 October 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 9 October 2014), CINAHL (1982 to 9 October 2014), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (1982 to 9 October 2014), ISI Web of Science (1987 to 9 October 2014), Chinese Biological Medical Database (1978 to 9 October 2014) and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (1979 to 9 October 2014), the World Health Organization international clinical trials registry platform (to 9 October 2014), Current Controlled Trials metaRegister of controlled trials active registers (to 9 October 2014), the ClinicalTrials.gov database (to 9 October 2014), the conference proceedings citation index (to 9 October 2014) and the reference lists of included studies and previously published meta-analyses and systematic reviews for relevant studies. We imposed no language restriction.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing alpha-2 agonists (clonidine or dexmedetomidine) versus alternative sedatives for long-term sedation (more than 24 hours) during mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We performed meta-analyses when more than three studies were included, and selected a random-effects model due to expected clinical heterogeneity. We calculated the geometric mean difference for continuous outcomes and the risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes. We described the effects by values and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We considered two-sided P < 0.05 to be statistically significant.\nMain results\nSeven studies, covering 1624 participants, met the inclusion criteria. All included studies investigated adults and compared dexmedetomidine with traditional sedatives, including propofol, midazolam and lorazepam. Compared with traditional sedatives, dexmedetomidine reduced the geometric mean duration of mechanical ventilation by 22% (95% CI 10% to 33%; four studies, 1120 participants, low quality evidence), and consequently the length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) by 14% (95% CI 1% to 24%; five studies, 1223 participants, very low quality evidence). There was no evidence that dexmedetomidine decreased the risk of delirium (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.14; seven studies, 1624 participants, very low quality evidence) as results were consistent with both no effect and appreciable benefit. Only one study assessed the risk of coma, but lacked methodological reliability (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.86, very low quality evidence). Of all the adverse events included, the most commonly reported one was bradycardia, and we observed a doubled (111%) increase in the incidence of bradycardia (RR 2.11; 95% CI 1.39 to 3.20; six studies, 1587 participants, very low quality evidence). Our meta-analysis provided no evidence that dexmedetomidine had any impact on mortality (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.24; six studies, 1584 participants, very low quality evidence). We observed high levels of heterogeneity in risk of delirium (I² = 70%), but due to the limited number of studies we were unable to determine the source of heterogeneity through subgroup analyses or meta-regression. We judged six of the seven studies to be at high risk of bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn this review, we found no eligible studies for children or for clonidine. Compared with traditional sedatives, long-term sedation using dexmedetomidine in critically ill adults reduced the duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay. There was no evidence for a beneficial effect on risk of delirium and the heterogeneity was high. The evidence for risk of coma was inadequate. The most common adverse event was bradycardia. No evidence indicated that dexmedetomidine changed mortality. The general quality of evidence ranged from very low to low, due to high risks of bias, serious inconsistency and imprecision, and strongly suspected publication bias. Future studies could pay more attention to children and to using clonidine.\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 databases until October 2014. We included seven randomized controlled trials, with a total of 1624 participants, comparing dexmedetomidine versus traditional sedatives. All the studies required participants to have an anticipated need for sedation of more than 24 hours. The alternative sedatives included propofol, midazolam and lorazepam. We found no eligible studies in children or for clonidine. Of the seven studies, six were funded by the drug manufacturer, and one did not state any conflict of interest."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1782 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe sense of taste is very much essential to the overall health of an individual. It is a necessary component to enjoy one's food, which in turn provides nutrition to an individual. Any disturbance in taste perception can hamper quality of life in such patients by influencing their appetite, body weight and psychological well-being. Taste disorders have been treated using different modalities of treatment and there is no consensus for the best intervention. Hence this Cochrane Review was undertaken. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in November 2014.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions for the management of patients with taste disturbances.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 4 July 2017); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017 Issue 6) in the Cochrane Library (searched 4 July 2017); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 4 July 2017); Embase Ovid (1980 to 4 July 2017); CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 4 July 2017); and AMED Ovid (1985 to 4 July 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for trials. Abstracts from scientific meetings and conferences were searched on 25 September 2017. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological agent with a control intervention or any non-pharmacological agent with a control intervention. We also included cross-over trials in the review.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo pairs of review authors independently, and in duplicate, assessed the quality of trials and extracted data. Wherever possible, we contacted trial authors for additional information. We collected adverse events information from the trials.\nMain results\nWe included 10 trials (581 participants), nine of which we were able to include in the quantitative analyses (566 participants). We assessed three trials (30%) as having a low risk of bias, four trials (40%) at high risk of bias and three trials (30%) as having an unclear risk of bias. We only included studies on taste disorders in this review that were either idiopathic, or resulting from zinc deficiency or chronic renal failure.\nOf these, nine trials with 544 people compared zinc supplements to placebo for patients with taste disorders. The participants in two trials were children and adolescents with respective mean ages of 10 and 11.2 years and the other seven trials had adult participants. Out of these nine, two trials assessed the patient-reported outcome for improvement in taste acuity using zinc supplements (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 2.09; 119 participants, very low-quality evidence). We meta-analysed for taste acuity improvement using objective outcome (continuous data) in idiopathic and zinc-deficient taste disorder patients (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.65; 366 participants, three trials, very low-quality evidence). We also analysed one cross-over trial separately using the first half of the results for taste detection (mean difference (MD) 2.50, 95% CI 0.93 to 4.07; 14 participants, very low-quality evidence), and taste recognition (MD 3.00, 95% CI 0.66 to 5.34; 14 participants, very low-quality evidence). We meta-analysed taste acuity improvement using objective outcome (dichotomous data) in idiopathic and zinc-deficient taste disorder patients (RR 1.42, 95% 1.09 to 1.84; 292 participants, two trials, very low-quality evidence). Out of the nine trials using zinc supplementation, four reported adverse events like eczema, nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhoea, constipation, decrease in blood iron, increase in blood alkaline phosphatase, and minor increase in blood triglycerides.\nOne trial tested taste discrimination using acupuncture (MD 2.80, 95% CI -1.18 to 6.78; 37 participants, very low-quality evidence). No adverse events were reported in the acupuncture trial.\nNone of the included trials could be included in the meta-analysis for health-related quality of life in taste disorder patients.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found very low-quality evidence that was insufficient to conclude on the role of zinc supplements to improve taste acuity reported by patients and very low-quality evidence that zinc supplements improve taste acuity in patients with zinc deficiency/idiopathic taste disorders. We did not find any evidence to conclude the role of zinc supplements for improving taste discrimination, or any evidence addressing health-related quality of life due to taste disorders.\nWe found very low-quality evidence that is not sufficient to conclude on the role of acupuncture for improving taste discrimination in cases of idiopathic dysgeusia (distortion of taste) and hypogeusia (reduced ability to taste). We were unable to draw any conclusions regarding the superiority of zinc supplements or acupuncture as none of the trials compared these interventions.\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 collected and analysed all relevant studies to answer this question and found 10 trials in which a total of 581 subjects received different treatments. Nine trials assessed the benefits of zinc compounds and one trial assessed the effects of acupuncture. We only included studies on taste disorders in this review that were either idiopathic, or resulting from zinc deficiency or chronic renal failure.\nTwo trials were from Germany, three from Japan, two from the UK, and three from the US. These studies compared zinc with placebo or acupuncture with sham procedure for patients with taste disorders. Two were government funded, three were privately funded, two were funded by a pharmaceutical company and three trials did not mention funding details.\nWhen patients with taste disorders are given zinc, compared to placebo:\n- we found very low-quality evidence that was insufficient to conclude on the role of zinc supplements to improve taste acuity reported by patients and very low-quality evidence that zinc supplements improve taste acuity in patients with zinc deficiency/idiopathic taste disorders;\n- zinc supplementation showed adverse events like eczema, nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhoea, constipation, decrease in blood iron, increase in blood alkaline phosphatase and minor increase in blood triglycerides;\n- no studies were found that looked at improvement in taste discrimination or quality of life.\nWhen patients with taste disorders are given acupuncture, compared to sham procedure:\n- we found very low-quality evidence that is not sufficient to conclude on the role of acupuncture for improving taste discrimination in cases of idiopathic dysgeusia (distortion of taste) and hypogeusia (reduced ability to taste);\n- acupuncture trial did not show adverse events;\n- no studies were found that looked at improvement in taste acuity or quality of life.\nWe were unable to draw any conclusions regarding the superiority of zinc supplements or acupuncture as none of the trials compared these interventions."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1783 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAntibiotic therapy for acute pulmonary exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis is usually chosen based on the results of antimicrobial susceptibility testing of individual drugs. Combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing assesses the efficacy of drug combinations including two or three antibiotics in vitro and can often demonstrate antimicrobial efficacy against bacterial isolates even when individual antibiotics have little or no effect. Therefore, choosing antibiotics based on combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing could potentially improve response to treatment in people with cystic fibrosis with acute exacerbations. This is an updated version of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo compare antibiotic therapy based on conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing to antibiotic therapy based on combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of acute pulmonary exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis and chronic infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register which comprises of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Date of latest search: 19 March 2020.\nWe also searched ongoing trials registries. Date of latest search: 07 April 2020.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled studies of antibiotic therapy based on conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing compared to antibiotic therapy based on combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of acute pulmonary exacerbations in cystic fibrosis due to chronic infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa.\nData collection and analysis\nBoth authors independently selected studies, assessed their quality and extracted data from eligible studies. Additionally, the authors contacted the study investigators to obtain further information.\nMain results\nThe search identified one multicentre study eligible for inclusion in the review. This study prospectively assessed whether the use of multiple combination bactericidal antibiotic testing improved clinical outcomes in participants with acute pulmonary exacerbations of cystic fibrosis who were infected with multiresistant bacteria. A total of 132 participants were randomised in the study. The study investigators provided data specific to the 82 participants who were only infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa for their primary outcome of time until next pulmonary exacerbation. For participants specifically infected with only Pseudomonas aeruginosa, the hazard ratio of a subsequent exacerbation was 0.82, favouring the control group (95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.51) (P = 0.52). No further data for any of this review's outcomes specific to participants infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa were available. The risk of bias for the included study was deemed to be low. The quality of the evidence was moderate for the only outcome providing data solely for individuals with infection due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. For other outcomes, we were unable to judge the quality of the evidence as no data were available for the relevant subset of participants.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe current evidence, limited to one study, shows that there is insufficient evidence to determine effect of choosing antibiotics based on combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing compared to choosing antibiotics based on conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of acute pulmonary exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis with chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection. A large international and multicentre study is needed to further investigate this issue.\nThe only study included in the review was published in 2005, and we have not identified any further relevant studies up to March 2017. We therefore do not plan to update this review until new studies are published.\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": "The main cause of death in people with cystic fibrosis is chronic lung infection. People with cystic fibrosis now live longer due to the aggressive use of antibiotics to treat lung infections. Traditionally, antibiotics are chosen based on the results of laboratory testing of each antibiotic separately against the bacterium (or bug) that is found in the lungs of the person with cystic fibrosis. Antibiotics tested in combination may work effectively against a bacterium even if not effective when tested alone. However, when choosing antibiotics to treat lung infections caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa in people with cystic fibrosis, it is unclear whether basing the choice of antibiotics on the results of combination testing is better than basing choice on the results of testing antibiotics separately.\nThis is an updated version of a previously published review."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1784 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMany surgical approaches are available to treat varicose veins secondary to chronic venous insufficiency. One of the least invasive techniques is the ambulatory conservative hemodynamic correction of venous insufficiency method (in French 'cure conservatrice et hémodynamique de l'insuffisance veineuse en ambulatoire' (CHIVA)), an approach based on venous hemodynamics with deliberate preservation of the superficial venous system. This is the second update of the review first published in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo compare the efficacy and safety of the CHIVA method with alternative therapeutic techniques to treat varicose veins.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registries to 19 October 2020. We also searched PUBMED to 19 October 2020 and checked the references of relevant articles to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared CHIVA to other therapeutic techniques to treat varicose veins.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed and selected studies, extracted data, and performed quantitative analysis from the selected papers. A third author solved any disagreements. We assessed the risk of bias in included trials with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), number of people needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB), and the number of people needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We evaluated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The main outcomes of interest were the recurrence of varicose veins and side effects.\nMain results\nFor this update, we identified two new additional studies. In total, we included six RCTs with 1160 participants (62% women) and collected from them eight comparisons. Three RCTs compared CHIVA with vein stripping. One RCT compared CHIVA with compression dressings in people with venous ulcers. The new studies included three comparisons, one compared CHIVA with vein stripping and radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and one compared CHIVA with vein stripping and endovenous laser therapy. We judged the certainty of the evidence for our outcomes as low to very low due to inconsistency, imprecision caused by the low number of events and risk of bias. The overall risk of bias across studies was high because neither participants nor personnel were blinded to the interventions. Two studies attempted to blind outcome assessors, but the characteristics of the surgery limited concealment.\nFive studies reported the outcome clinical recurrence of varicose veins with a follow-up of 18 months to 10 years. CHIVA may make little or no difference to the recurrence of varicose veins in the lower limb compared to stripping (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.20; 5 studies, 966 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether CHIVA reduced recurrence compared to compression dressing (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.96; 1 study, 47 participants; very low-certainty evidence). CHIVA may make little or no difference to clinical recurrence compared to RFA (RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.74 to 5.53; 1 study, 146 participants; low-certainty evidence) and endovenous laser (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.06; 1 study, 100 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nWe found no clear difference between CHIVA and stripping for the side effects of limb infection (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.10; 3 studies, 746 participants; low-certainty evidence), and superficial vein thrombosis (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.17; 4 studies, 846 participants; low-certainty evidence). CHIVA may reduce slightly nerve injury (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98; NNTH 9, 95% CI 5 to 100; 4 studies, 846 participants; low-certainty evidence) and hematoma compared to stripping (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.97; NNTH 11, 95% CI 5 to 100; 2 studies, 245 participants; low-certainty evidence). For bruising, one study found no differences between groups while another study found reduced rates of bruising in the CHIVA group compared to the stripping group. Compared to RFA, CHIVA may make little or no difference to rates of limb infection, superficial vein thrombosis, nerve injury or hematoma, but may cause more bruising (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.28; NNTH 8, CI 95% 5 to 25; 1 study, 144 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to endovenous laser, CHIVA may make little or no difference to rates of limb infection, superficial vein thrombosis, nerve injury or hematoma. The study comparing CHIVA versus compression did not report side effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere may be little or no difference in the recurrence of varicose veins when comparing CHIVA to stripping (low-certainty evidence), but CHIVA may slightly reduce nerve injury and hematoma in the lower limb (low-certainty evidence). Very limited evidence means we are uncertain of any differences in recurrence when comparing CHIVA with compression (very low-certainty evidence). CHIVA may make little or no difference to recurrence compared to RFA (low-certainty evidence), but may result in more bruising (low-certainty evidence). CHIVA may make little or no difference to recurrence and side effects compared to endovenous laser therapy (low-certainty evidence). However, we based these conclusions on a small number of trials with a high risk of bias as the effects of surgery could not be concealed, and the results were imprecise due to the low number of events. New RCTs are needed to confirm these results and to compare CHIVA with approaches other than open surgery.\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": "The evidence in this Cochrane Review is current to 19 October 2020."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1785 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis review was published originally in 1999 and was updated in 2001, 2002, 2009, 2017, and 2020. Updating was deemed necessary due to the high incidence of hip fractures, the large number of official societies providing recommendations on this condition, the possibility that perioperative peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) may improve patient outcomes, and the major role that PNBs may play in reducing preoperative and postoperative opioid use for analgesia.\nObjectives\nTo compare PNBs used as preoperative analgesia, as postoperative analgesia, or as a supplement to general anaesthesia versus no nerve block (or sham block) for adults with hip fracture. Outcomes were pain on movement at 30 minutes after block placement, acute confusional state, myocardial infarction, chest infection, death, time to first mobilization, and costs of an analgesic regimen for single-injection blocks.\nWe undertook the update to look for new studies and to update the methods to reflect Cochrane standards.\nSearch methods\nFor the updated review, we searched the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 11), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (Ovid SP, 1966 to November 2019); Embase (Ovid SP, 1974 to November 2019); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCO, 1982 to November 2019), as well as trial registers and reference lists of relevant articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing use of PNBs compared with no nerve block (or sham block) as part of the care provided for adults 16 years of age and older with hip fracture.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened new trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias-2 tool, and extracted data. When appropriate, we pooled results of outcome measures. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 49 trials (3061 participants; 1553 randomized to PNBs and 1508 to no nerve block (or sham block)). For this update, we added 18 new trials. Trials were published from 1981 to 2020. Trialists followed participants for periods ranging from 5 minutes to 12 months. The average age of participants ranged from 59 to 89 years. People with dementia were often excluded from the included trials. Additional analgesia was available for all participants.\nResults of 11 trials with 503 participants show that PNBs reduced pain on movement within 30 minutes of block placement (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.25 to -0.86; equivalent to -2.5 on a scale from 0 to 10; high-certainty evidence). Effect size was proportionate to the concentration of local anaesthetic used (P = 0.0003). Based on 13 trials with 1072 participants, PNBs reduce the risk of acute confusional state (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 12, 95% CI 7 to 47; high-certainty evidence). For myocardial infarction, there were no events in one trial with 31 participants (RR not estimable; low-certainty evidence). From three trials with 131 participants, PNBs probably reduce the risk for chest infection (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.89; NNTB 7, 95% CI 5 to 72; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on 11 trials with 617 participants, the effects of PNBs on mortality within six months are uncertain due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.60; low-certainty evidence). From three trials with 208 participants, PNBs likely reduce time to first mobilization (mean difference (MD) -10.80 hours, 95% CI -12.83 to -8.77 hours; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial with 75 participants indicated there may be a small reduction in the cost of analgesic drugs with a single-injection PNB (MD -4.40 euros, 95% CI -4.84 to -3.96 euros; low-certainty evidence).\nWe identified 29 ongoing trials, of which 15 were first posted or at least were last updated after 1 January 2018.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPNBs reduce pain on movement within 30 minutes after block placement, risk of acute confusional state, and probably also reduce the risk of chest infection and time to first mobilization. There may be a small reduction in the cost of analgesic drugs for single-injection PNB. We did not find a difference for myocardial infarction and mortality, but the numbers of participants included for these two outcomes were insufficient. Although randomized clinical trials may not be the best way to establish risks associated with an intervention, our review confirms low risks of permanent injury associated with PNBs, as found by others.\nSome trials are ongoing, but it is unclear whether any further RCTs should be registered, given the benefits found. Good-quality non-randomized trials with appropriate sample size may help to clarify the potential effects of PNBs on myocardial infarction and mortality.\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 medical databases for studies that investigated the use of PNBs versus no effective nerve block (i.e. no block at all or a placebo block) for pain in people with hip fracture. Study participants had to be over 16 years of age and had to have a hip fracture. We looked for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), where the treatment people receive is decided randomly."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1786 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInitial arch wires are the first arch wires to be inserted into the fixed appliance at the beginning of orthodontic treatment and are used mainly for the alignment of teeth by correcting crowding and rotations. With a number of different types of orthodontic arch wires available for initial tooth alignment, it is important to understand which wire is most efficient, as well as which wires cause least amount of root resorption and pain during the initial aligning stage of treatment. This is an update of the review entitledInitial arch wires for alignment of crooked teeth with fixed orthodontic braces, which was first published in 2010.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of initial arch wires for the alignment of teeth with fixed orthodontic braces, in terms of the rate of tooth alignment, amount of root resorption accompanying tooth movement, and intensity of pain experienced by patients during the initial alignment stage of treatment.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 5 October 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 9), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 5 October 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 5 October 2017. The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of initial arch wires to align teeth with fixed orthodontic braces. We included only studies involving participants with upper or lower, or both, full arch fixed orthodontic appliances.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors were responsible for study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction. We resolved disagreements by discussion between the review authors. We contacted corresponding authors of included studies to obtain missing information. We assessed the quality of the evidence for each comparison and outcome as high, moderate, low or very low, according to GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nFor this update, we found three new RCTs (228 participants), bringing the total to 12 RCTs with 799 participants. We judged three studies to be at high risk of bias, and three to be at low risk of bias; six were unclear. None of the studies reported the adverse outcome of root resorption. The review assessed six comparisons.\n1. Multistrand stainless steel versus superelastic nickel-titanium (NiTi) arch wires. There were five studies in this group and it was appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of two of them. There is insufficient evidence from these studies to determine whether there is a difference in rate of alignment between multistrand stainless steel and superelastic NiTi arch wires (mean difference (MD) -7.5 mm per month, 95% confidence interval (CI) -26.27 to 11.27; 1 study, 48 participants; low-quality evidence). The findings for pain at day 1 as measured on a 100 mm visual analogue scale suggested that there was no meaningful difference between the interventions (MD -2.68 mm, 95% CI -6.75 to 1.38; 2 studies, 127 participants; moderate-quality evidence).\n2. Multistrand stainless steel versus thermoelastic NiTi arch wires. There were two studies in this group, but it was not appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of the data. There is insufficient evidence from the studies to determine whether there is a difference in rate of alignment between multistrand stainless steel and thermoelastic NiTi arch wires (low-quality evidence). Pain was not measured.\n3. Conventional NiTi versus superelastic NiTi arch wires. There were three studies in this group, but it was not appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of the data. There is insufficient evidence from these studies to determine whether there is any difference between conventional and superelastic NiTi arch wires with regard to either alignment or pain (low- to very low-quality evidence).\n4. Conventional NiTi versus thermoelastic NiTi arch wires. There were two studies in this group, but it was not appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of the data. There is insufficient evidence from these studies to determine whether there is a difference in alignment between conventional and thermoelastic NiTi arch wires (low-quality evidence). Pain was not measured.\n5. Single-strand superelastic NiTi versus coaxial superelastic NiTi arch wires. There was only one study (24 participants) in this group. There is moderate-quality evidence that coaxial superelastic NiTi can produce greater tooth movement over 12 weeks (MD -6.76 mm, 95% CI -7.98 to -5.55). Pain was not measured.\n6. Superelastic NiTi versus thermoelastic NiTi arch wires. There were three studies in this group, but it was not appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of the data. There is insufficient evidence from these studies to determine whether there is a difference in alignment or pain between superelastic and thermoelastic NiTi arch wires (low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate-quality evidence shows that arch wires of coaxial superelastic nickel-titanium (NiTi) can produce greater tooth movement over 12 weeks than arch wires made of single-strand superelastic NiTi. Moderate-quality evidence also suggests there may be no difference in pain at day 1 between multistrand stainless steel arch wires and superelastic NiTi arch wires. Other than these findings, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether any particular arch wire material is superior to any other in terms of alignment rate, time to alignment, pain and root resorption.\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 find out the best kind of wire arches for orthodontists to use when putting braces on people’s teeth to make them straighter. Our review evaluated whether different types of initial arch wires result in important differences, such as faster straightening of teeth, reduced pain or reduced side effects, such as the shortening of the tooth root during treatment with braces?"
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1787 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major cause of disability and mortality globally. Premature fatal and non-fatal CVD is considered to be largely preventable through the control of risk factors by lifestyle modifications and preventive medication. Lipid-lowering and antihypertensive drug therapies for primary prevention are cost-effective in reducing CVD morbidity and mortality among high-risk people and are recommended by international guidelines. However, adherence to medication prescribed for the prevention of CVD can be poor. Approximately 9% of CVD cases in the EU are attributed to poor adherence to vascular medications. Low-cost, scalable interventions to improve adherence to medications for the primary prevention of CVD have potential to reduce morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs associated with CVD.\nObjectives\nTo establish the effectiveness of interventions delivered by mobile phone to improve adherence to medication prescribed for the primary prevention of CVD in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases on 7 January 2020. We also searched two clinical trials registers on 5 February 2020. We searched reference lists of relevant papers. We applied no language or date restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials investigating interventions delivered wholly or partly by mobile phones to improve adherence to cardiovascular medications prescribed for the primary prevention of CVD. We only included trials with a minimum of one-year follow-up in order that the outcome measures related to longer-term, sustained medication adherence behaviours and outcomes. Eligible comparators were usual care or control groups receiving no mobile phone-delivered component of the intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The main outcomes of interest were objective measures of medication adherence (blood pressure (BP) and cholesterol), CVD events, and adverse events. We contacted study authors for further information when this was not reported.\nMain results\nWe included 14 trials with 25,633 randomised participants. Participants were recruited from community-based primary and tertiary care or outpatient clinics. The interventions varied widely from those delivered solely through short messaging service (SMS) to those involving a combination of modes of delivery, such as SMS in addition to healthcare worker training, face-to-face counselling, electronic pillboxes, written materials, and home blood pressure monitors. Some interventions only targeted medication adherence, while others additionally targeted lifestyle changes such as diet and exercise. Due to heterogeneity in the nature and delivery of the interventions and study populations, we reported most results narratively, with the exception of two trials which were similar enough to meaningfully pool in meta-analyses.\nThe body of evidence for the effect of mobile phone-based interventions on objective outcomes of adherence (BP and cholesterol) was of low certainty, due to most trials being at high risk of bias, and inconsistency in outcome effects. Two trials were at low risk of bias.\nAmong five trials (total study enrolment: 5441 participants) recording low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), two studies found evidence for a small beneficial intervention effect on reducing LDL-C (−5.30 mg/dL, 95% confidence interval (CI) −8.30 to −2.30; and −9.20 mg/dL, 95% CI −17.70 to −0.70). The other three studies found results varying from a small reduction (−7.7 mg/dL) to a small increase in LDL-C (0.77 mg/dL). All of which had wide confidence intervals that included no effect.\nAcross 13 studies (25,166 participants) measuring systolic blood pressure, effect estimates ranged from a large reduction (MD −12.45 mmHg, 95% CI −15.02 to −9.88) to a small increase (MD 2.80 mmHg, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.30). We found a similar range of effect estimates for diastolic BP, ranging from −12.23 mmHg (95% CI −14.03 to −10.43) to 1.64 mmHg (95% CI −0.55 to 3.83) (11 trials, 19,716 participants). Four trials showed intervention benefits for systolic and diastolic BP with confidence intervals excluding no effect, and among these were all three of the trials evaluating self-monitoring of blood pressure with mobile phone-based telemedicine. The fourth trial included SMS and provider support (with additional varied features). Seven studies (19,185 participants) reported 'controlled' BP as an outcome, and intervention effect estimates varied from negligible effects (odds ratio (OR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.34) to large improvements in BP control (OR 2.41, 95% CI: 1.57 to 3.68). The three trials of clinician training or decision support combined with SMS (with additional varied features) had confidence intervals encompassing benefits and harms, with point estimates close to zero. Pooled analyses of the two trials of interventions solely delivered through SMS were indicative of little or no beneficial intervention effect on systolic BP (MD −1.55 mmHg, 95% CI −3.36 to 0.25; I2 = 0%) and small increases in controlled BP (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.65; I2 = 0%).\nBased on four studies (12,439 participants), there was very low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice for imprecision and once for risk of bias) relating to the intervention effect on combined (fatal and non-fatal) CVD events.\nTwo studies (2535 participants) provided low-certainty evidence for the effect of the intervention on cognitive outcomes, with little or no difference between trial arms for perceived quality of care and satisfaction with treatment.\nThere was moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) that the interventions did not cause harm, based on six studies (8285 participants). Three studies reported no adverse events attributable to the intervention. One study reported no difference between groups in experience of adverse effects of statins, and that no participants reported intervention-related adverse events. One study stated that potential side effects were similar between groups. One study reported a similar number of deaths in each arm, but did not provide further information relating to potential adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is low-certainty evidence on the effects of mobile phone-delivered interventions to increase adherence to medication prescribed for the primary prevention of CVD. Trials of BP self-monitoring with mobile-phone telemedicine support reported modest benefits. One trial at low risk of bias reported modest reductions in LDL cholesterol but no benefits for BP. There is moderate-certainty evidence that these interventions do not result in harm. Further trials of these interventions are warranted.\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": "Around 17.6 million people die from cardiovascular disease every year. Medications can help to prevent cardiovascular disease, but many people who have been given these medications do not take them as often or as consistently as recommended. This means that the medication will not work as well as it could to prevent cardiovascular disease. Interventions delivered through mobile phones, for example, prompting by text messaging, may be a low-cost way to help people to take their medication as recommended."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1788 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChest X-ray (CXR) is a longstanding method for the diagnosis of pneumothorax but chest ultrasonography (CUS) may be a safer, more rapid, and more accurate modality in trauma patients at the bedside that does not expose the patient to ionizing radiation. This may lead to improved and expedited management of traumatic pneumothorax and improved patient safety and clinical outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of chest ultrasonography (CUS) by frontline non-radiologist physicians versus chest X-ray (CXR) for diagnosis of pneumothorax in trauma patients in the emergency department (ED).\nTo investigate the effects of potential sources of heterogeneity such as type of CUS operator (frontline non-radiologist physicians), type of trauma (blunt vs penetrating), and type of US probe on test accuracy.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted a comprehensive search of the following electronic databases from database inception to 10 April 2020: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Web of Science Core Collection and Clinicaltrials.gov. We handsearched reference lists of included articles and reviews retrieved via electronic searching; and we carried out forward citation searching of relevant articles in Google Scholar and looked at the \"Related articles\" on PubMed.\nSelection criteria\nWe included prospective, paired comparative accuracy studies comparing CUS performed by frontline non-radiologist physicians to supine CXR in trauma patients in the emergency department (ED) suspected of having pneumothorax, and with computed tomography (CT) of the chest or tube thoracostomy as the reference standard.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data from each included study using a data extraction form. We included studies using patients as the unit of analysis in the main analysis and we included those using lung fields in the secondary analysis. We performed meta-analyses by using a bivariate model to estimate and compare summary sensitivities and specificities.\nMain results\nWe included 13 studies of which nine (410 traumatic pneumothorax patients out of 1271 patients) used patients as the unit of analysis; we thus included them in the primary analysis. The remaining four studies used lung field as the unit of analysis and we included them in the secondary analysis. We judged all studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias in one or more domains, with most studies (11/13, 85%) being judged at high or unclear risk of bias in the patient selection domain. There was substantial heterogeneity in the sensitivity of supine CXR amongst the included studies.\nIn the primary analysis, the summary sensitivity and specificity of CUS were 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.94) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00); and the summary sensitivity and specificity of supine CXR were 0.47 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.63) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00). There was a significant difference in the sensitivity of CUS compared to CXR with an absolute difference in sensitivity of 0.44 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.61; P < 0.001). In contrast, CUS and CXR had similar specificities: comparing CUS to CXR, the absolute difference in specificity was −0.007 (95% CI −0.018 to 0.005, P = 0.35). The findings imply that in a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients if 30 patients have traumatic pneumothorax (i.e. prevalence of 30%), CUS would miss 3 (95% CI 2 to 4) cases (false negatives) and overdiagnose 1 (95% CI 0 to 2) of those without pneumothorax (false positives); while CXR would miss 16 (95% CI 11 to 21) cases with 0 (95% CI 0 to 2) overdiagnosis of those who do not have pneumothorax.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe diagnostic accuracy of CUS performed by frontline non-radiologist physicians for the diagnosis of pneumothorax in ED trauma patients is superior to supine CXR, independent of the type of trauma, type of CUS operator, or type of CUS probe used. These findings suggest that CUS for the diagnosis of traumatic pneumothorax could be incorporated into trauma protocols and algorithms in future medical training programmes. In addition, CUS may beneficially change routine management of trauma\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the implications of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The studies in this review show that CUS is more accurate than CXR in diagnosing pneumothorax in ED trauma patients, which may lead to more timely treatment with tube thoracostomy, reducing pneumothorax-related complications, and improving outcomes. The risk of missing the diagnosis with CUS is low (4.2% of those whose CUS suggests they do not have a pneumothorax) suggesting that only a few patients may not immediately receive tube thoracostomy. The risk of incorrectly diagnosing traumatic pneumothorax using CUS is low (3.6% of those whose CUS suggests they have a pneumothorax) and may result in receiving unnecessary tube thoracostomy.\nIn comparison, the risk of missing a traumatic pneumothorax with CXR is high (18.6% of those whose CXR suggests they do not have a pneumothorax) suggesting that a large number of patients may not immediately receive tube thoracostomy. The risk of wrongly diagnosing traumatic pneumothorax using CXR is low (0% of those whose CUS suggests they have a pneumothorax)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1789 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nNeedle syringe programmes and opioid substitution therapy for preventing hepatitis C transmission in people who inject drugs\nNeedle syringe programmes (NSP) and opioid substitution therapy (OST) are the primary interventions to reduce hepatitis C (HCV) transmission in people who inject drugs. There is good evidence for the effectiveness of NSP and OST in reducing injecting risk behaviour and increasing evidence for the effectiveness of OST and NSP in reducing HIV acquisition risk, but the evidence on the effectiveness of NSP and OST for preventing HCV acquisition is weak.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of needle syringe programmes and opioid substitution therapy, alone or in combination, for preventing acquisition of HCV in people who inject drugs.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Drug and Alcohol Register, CENTRAL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), the Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA), the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHSEED), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Global Health, CINAHL, and the Web of Science up to 16 November 2015. We updated this search in March 2017, but we have not incorporated these results into the review yet. Where observational studies did not report any outcome measure, we asked authors to provide unpublished data. We searched publications of key international agencies and conference abstracts. We reviewed reference lists of all included articles and topic-related systematic reviews for eligible papers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included prospective and retrospective cohort studies, cross-sectional surveys, case-control studies and randomised controlled trials that measured exposure to NSP and/or OST against no intervention or a reduced exposure and reported HCV incidence as an outcome in people who inject drugs. We defined interventions as current OST (within previous 6 months), lifetime use of OST and high NSP coverage (regular attendance at an NSP or all injections covered by a new needle/syringe) or low NSP coverage (irregular attendance at an NSP or less than 100% of injections covered by a new needle/syringe) compared with no intervention or reduced exposure.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed the standard Cochrane methodological procedures incorporating new methods for classifying risk of bias for observational studies. We described study methods against the following 'Risk of bias' domains: confounding, selection bias, measurement of interventions, departures from intervention, missing data, measurement of outcomes, selection of reported results; and we assigned a judgment (low, moderate, serious, critical, unclear) for each criterion.\nMain results\nWe identified 28 studies (21 published, 7 unpublished): 13 from North America, 5 from the UK, 4 from continental Europe, 5 from Australia and 1 from China, comprising 1817 incident HCV infections and 8806.95 person-years of follow-up. HCV incidence ranged from 0.09 cases to 42 cases per 100 person-years across the studies. We judged only two studies to be at moderate overall risk of bias, while 17 were at serious risk and 7 were at critical risk; for two unpublished datasets there was insufficient information to assess bias. As none of the intervention effects were generated from RCT evidence, we typically categorised quality as low. We found evidence that current OST reduces the risk of HCV acquisition by 50% (risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.63, I2 = 0%, 12 studies across all regions, N = 6361), but the quality of the evidence was low. The intervention effect remained significant in sensitivity analyses that excluded unpublished datasets and papers judged to be at critical risk of bias. We found evidence of differential impact by proportion of female participants in the sample, but not geographical region of study, the main drug used, or history of homelessness or imprisonment among study samples.\nOverall, we found very low-quality evidence that high NSP coverage did not reduce risk of HCV acquisition (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.61) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 77%) based on five studies from North America and Europe involving 3530 participants. After stratification by region, high NSP coverage in Europe was associated with a 76% reduction in HCV acquisition risk (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.62) with less heterogeneity (I2 =0%). We found low-quality evidence of the impact of combined high coverage of NSP and OST, from three studies involving 3241 participants, resulting in a 74% reduction in the risk of HCV acquisition (RR 0.26 95% CI 0.07 to 0.89).\nAuthors' conclusions\nOST is associated with a reduction in the risk of HCV acquisition, which is strengthened in studies that assess the combination of OST and NSP. There was greater heterogeneity between studies and weaker evidence for the impact of NSP on HCV acquisition. High NSP coverage was associated with a reduction in the risk of HCV acquisition in studies in Europe.\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 28 research studies across Europe, Australia, North America and China. On average across the studies, the rate of new hepatitis C infections per year was 19.0 for every 100 people. Data from 11,070 people who inject drugs who were not infected with hepatitis C at the start of the study were combined in the analysis. Of the sample, 32% were female, 50% injected opioids, 51% injected daily, and 40% had been homeless. Our study was funded by the National Institute of Health Research's (NIHR) Public Health Research Programme, the Health Protection Research Unit in Evaluation of Interventions, and the European Commission Drug Prevention and Information Programme (DIPP), Treatment as Prevention in Europe: Model Projections."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1790 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nUncertainty exists regarding the management of newborn infants with a bloodstream infection and a central venous catheter in place. The central venous catheter may act as a nidus for infecting organisms and observational studies have suggested that early removal of the catheter is associated with a lower incidence of persistent or complicated infection. However, since central venous catheters provide secure vascular access to deliver nutrition and medications, the possible harms of early removal versus expectant management also need to be considered.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effect of early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters on morbidity and mortality in newborn infants with bloodstream infections.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2015), EMBASE (1980 to October 2015), CINAHL (1982 to October 2015), conference proceedings and previous reviews.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters in neonates with bloodstream infections.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group.\nMain results\nWe did not identify any eligible randomised controlled trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere are no trial data to guide practice regarding early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters in newborn infants with bloodstream infections. A simple and pragmatic randomised controlled trial is needed to resolve the uncertainty about optimal management in this common and important clinical scenario.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics/key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We did not find any randomised controlled trials that addressed this question."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1791 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDuring elective (planned) caesarean sections, some obstetricians routinely dilate the cervix intraoperatively, using sponge forceps, a finger, or other instruments, because the cervix of women not in labour may not be dilated, and this may cause obstruction of blood or lochia drainage. However, mechanical cervical dilatation during caesarean section may result in contamination by vaginal micro-organisms during dilatation, and increase the risk of infection or cervical trauma.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effects of mechanical dilatation of the cervix during elective caesarean section on postoperative morbidity.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and reference lists of retrieved studies on 20 September 2017.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised, quasi-randomised, and cluster-randomised controlled trials comparing intraoperative cervical dilatation using a finger, sponge forceps, or other instruments during elective caesarean section versus no mechanical dilatation.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included eight studies with a total of 2227 women undergoing elective caesarean section. Of these, 1097 underwent intraoperative cervical dilatation with a double-gloved index finger or Hegar dilator inserted into the cervical canal to dilate, and 1130 did not undergo intraoperative cervical dilatation. Six of the eight included trials had high risk of bias for some of the risk of bias domains.\nVery low-quality evidence suggested it was unclear whether cervical dilatation had any impact on postpartum haemorrhage (estimated blood loss greater than 1000 mL; risk ratio (RR) 1.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 8.13; 5/205 versus 3/242; one study, 447 women).\nLow- or very low-quality evidence showed no clear difference for the need for blood transfusion (RR 3.54, 95% CI 0.37 to 33.79; two studies, 847 women); postoperative haemoglobin (mean difference (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.06; three studies, 749 women), or haematocrit (MD 0.01%, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.20; one study, 400 women); the incidence of drop from baseline haemoglobin above 0.5 g/dL (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.31; two studies, 722 women), or amount of haemoglobin drop (MD -0.01 g/dL, 95% -0.14 to 0.13; three studies, 796 women); the incidence of secondary postpartum haemorrhage within six weeks (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 18.76; one study, 447 women); febrile morbidity (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.85; seven studies, 2126 women); endometritis (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.52; four studies, 1536 women); or uterine subinvolution (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.36; two studies, 654 women); the results crossed the line of no effect for all of the outcomes. There were no data for cervical trauma.\nWe found a slight improvement with mechanical dilatation for these secondary outcomes, not prespecified in the protocol: mean blood loss, endometrial cavity thickness, retained products of conception, distortion of uterine incision, and healing ratio. The evidence for these outcomes was based on one or two studies. Cervical dilatation did not have a clear effect on these secondary outcomes, not prespecified in the protocol: wound infection, urinary tract infection, operative time, infectious morbidity, and integrity of uterine scar.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAt this time, the evidence does not support or refute the use of mechanical dilatation of the cervix during elective caesarean section for reducing postoperative morbidity.\nFurther large, well-designed studies are required to compare the effect of intraoperative mechanical dilatation of the cervix with no intraoperative mechanical cervical dilatation for reducing postoperative morbidity.\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": "Some obstetricians believe that dilating the cervix helps the drainage of blood from the uterus, following birth by planned caesarean section before the onset of labour. Increased drainage may reduce the risk of intrauterine infection and postpartum haemorrhage. On the other hand, mechanically opening the cervix could result in contamination of the uterus with vaginal micro-organisms, and increase the risk of infections or cervical trauma. We set out to determine the effects of mechanical dilatation of the cervix during a planned caesarean section before the onset of labour on postoperative blood loss and uterine infection, when compared with no mechanical dilatation."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1792 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is the third update of the review first published in 2017.\nHypertension is a prominent preventable cause of premature morbidity and mortality. People with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease are at particularly high risk, so reducing blood pressure to below standard targets may be beneficial. This strategy could reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity but could also increase adverse events. The optimal blood pressure target in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease remains unknown.\nObjectives\nTo determine if lower blood pressure targets (systolic/diastolic 135/85 mmHg or less) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity compared with standard blood pressure targets (140 mmHg to 160mmHg/90 mmHg to 100 mmHg or less) in the treatment of people with hypertension and a history of cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, peripheral vascular occlusive disease).\nSearch methods\nFor this updated review, we used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was January 2022. We applied no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with more than 50 participants per group that provided at least six months' follow-up. Trial reports had to present data for at least one primary outcome (total mortality, serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality). Eligible interventions involved lower targets for systolic/diastolic blood pressure (135/85 mmHg or less) compared with standard targets for blood pressure (140 mmHg to 160 mmHg/90 mmHg to 100 mmHg or less).\nParticipants were adults with documented hypertension and adults receiving treatment for hypertension with a cardiovascular history for myocardial infarction, stroke, chronic peripheral vascular occlusive disease, or angina pectoris.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included seven RCTs that involved 9595 participants. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (range 1.0 to 4.7 years). Six of seven RCTs provided individual participant data. None of the included studies was blinded to participants or clinicians because of the need to titrate antihypertensive drugs to reach a specific blood pressure goal. However, an independent committee blinded to group allocation assessed clinical events in all trials. Hence, we assessed all trials at high risk of performance bias and low risk of detection bias. We also considered other issues, such as early termination of studies and subgroups of participants not predefined, to downgrade the certainty of the evidence.\nWe found there is probably little to no difference in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.23; 7 studies, 9595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.29; 6 studies, 9484 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Similarly, we found there may be little to no differences in serious adverse events (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; 7 studies, 9595 participants; low-certainty evidence) or total cardiovascular events (including myocardial infarction, stroke, sudden death, hospitalization, or death from congestive heart failure (CHF)) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; 7 studies, 9595 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about withdrawals due to adverse effects. However, studies suggest more participants may withdraw due to adverse effects in the lower target group (RR 8.16, 95% CI 2.06 to 32.28; 3 studies, 801 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings were lower in the lower target group (systolic: mean difference (MD) –8.77 mmHg, 95% CI –12.82 to –4.73; 7 studies, 8657 participants; diastolic: MD –4.50 mmHg, 95% CI –6.35 to –2.65; 6 studies, 8546 participants). More drugs were needed in the lower target group (MD 0.56, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.96; 5 studies, 7910 participants), but blood pressure targets at one year were achieved more frequently in the standard target group (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.23; 7 studies, 8699 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found there is probably little to no difference in total mortality and cardiovascular mortality between people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease treated to a lower compared to a standard blood pressure target. There may also be little to no difference in serious adverse events or total cardiovascular events. This suggests that no net health benefit is derived from a lower systolic blood pressure target. We found very limited evidence on withdrawals due to adverse effects, which led to high uncertainty. At present, evidence is insufficient to justify lower blood pressure targets (135/85 mmHg or less) in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease. Several trials are still ongoing, which may provide an important input to this topic in the near future.\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 is the third update of a review first published in 2017. The evidence is up to date to January 2022."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1793 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis an update of a Cochrane Review.\nParaquat is a widely used herbicide, but is also a lethal poison. In some low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) paraquat is commonly available and inexpensive, making poisoning prevention difficult. Most of the people poisoned by paraquat have taken it as a means of self-poisoning.\nStandard treatment for paraquat poisoning prevents further absorption and reduces the load of paraquat in the blood through haemoperfusion or haemodialysis. The effectiveness of standard treatments is extremely limited.\nThe immune system plays an important role in exacerbating paraquat-induced lung fibrosis. Immunosuppressive treatment using glucocorticoid and cyclophosphamide in combination has been developed and studied as an intervention for paraquat poisoning.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of glucocorticoid with cyclophosphamide for moderate to severe oral paraquat poisoning.\nSearch methods\nThe most recent searches were run in September 2020. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Injuries Trials Register), Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE, Embase Classic + Embase (Ovid), ISI WOS (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S, and CPSI-SSH), and trials registries. We also searched the following three resources: China National Knowledge Infrastructure database (CNKI 数据库); Wanfang Data (万方数据库); and VIP (维普数据库) on 12 November 2020. We examined the reference lists of included studies and review papers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs). For this update, in accordance with Cochrane Injuries' Group policy (2015), we included only prospectively registered RCTs for trials published after 2010. We included trials which assessed the effects of glucocorticoid with cyclophosphamide delivered in combination. Eligible comparators were standard care (with or without a placebo), or any other therapy in addition to standard care. Outcomes of interest included mortality and infections.\nData collection and analysis\nWe calculated the mortality risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Where possible, we summarised data for all-cause mortality at relevant time periods (from hospital discharge to three months after discharge) in meta-analysis, using a fixed-effect model. We conducted sensitivity analyses based on factors including whether participants were assessed at baseline for plasma paraquat levels. We also reported data on infections within one week after initiation of treatment.\nMain results\nWe included four trials with a total of 463 participants. The included studies were conducted in Taiwan (Republic of China), Iran, and Sri Lanka. Most participants were male. The mean age of participants was 28 years.\nWe judged two of the four included studies, including the largest and most recently conducted study (n = 299), to be at low risk of bias for key domains including sequence generation. We assessed one study to be at high risk of selection bias and another at unclear risk, since allocation concealment was either not mentioned in the trial report or explicitly not undertaken. We assessed three of the four studies to be at unclear risk of selective reporting, as no protocols could be identified. An important source of heterogeneity amongst the included studies was the method of assessment of participants' baseline severity using analysis of plasma levels (two studies employed this method, whilst the other two did not).\nNo studies assessed the outcome of mortality at 30 days following ingestion of paraquat.\nLow-certainty evidence from two studies indicates that glucocorticoids with cyclophosphamide in addition to standard care may slightly reduce the risk of death in hospital compared to standard care alone ((RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.99; participants = 322); results come from sensitivity analysis excluding studies not assessing plasma at baseline). However, we have limited confidence in this finding as heterogeneity was high (I2 = 77%) and studies varied in terms of size and comparators. A single large study provided data showing that there may be little or no effect of treatment at three months post discharge from hospital (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13; 1 study, 293 participants; low-certainty evidence); however, analysis of long-term results amongst participants whose injuries arose from self-poisoning must be interpreted with caution.\nWe remain uncertain of the effect of glucocorticoids with cyclophosphamide on infection within one week after initiation of the treatment; this outcome was assessed by two small studies only (31 participants, very low-certainty evidence) that considered leukopenia as a proxy or risk factor for infection. Neither study reported infections in any participants.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow-certainly evidence suggests that glucocorticoids with cyclophosphamide in addition to standard care may slightly reduce mortality in hospitalised people with oral paraquat poisoning. However, we have limited confidence in this finding because of substantial heterogeneity and concerns about imprecision. Glucocorticoids with cyclophosphamide in addition to standard care may have little or no effect on mortality at three months after hospital discharge. We are uncertain whether glucocorticoid with cyclophosphamide puts patients at an increased risk of infection due to the limited evidence available for this outcome. Future research should be prospectively registered and CONSORT-compliant. Investigators should attempt to ensure an adequate sample size, screen participants for inclusion rigorously, and seek long-term follow-up of participants. Investigators may wish to research the effects of glucocorticoid in combination with other treatments.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What happens in people with paraquat poisoning?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Paraquat is used as a herbicide, but is also a deadly poison. Most people who are poisoned by paraquat have taken it as a means of self-poisoning.\nTreatment for paraquat poisoning focuses on the physical removal (via stomach pumping and other methods) of as much paraquat as possible from the person's digestive system (stomach) and blood. Any paraquat that remains inside the body causes inflammation that can damage the lungs severely and lead to death.\nSteroids and cyclophosphamide (a medicine normally used in cancer treatment) are medicines that fight inflammation and so are also used to treat paraquat poisoning."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1794 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSkin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) is a surgical technique that aims to maximize skin preservation, facilitate breast reconstruction, and improve cosmetic outcomes. Despite its use in clinical practice, the benefits and harms related to SSM are not well established.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of skin-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Breast Cancer's Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov on 9 August 2019.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized or non-randomized studies (cohort and case-control) comparing SSM to conventional mastectomy for treating ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive breast cancer.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were local recurrence free-survival, adverse events (including overall complications, breast reconstruction loss, skin necrosis, infection and hemorrhage), cosmetic results, and quality of life. We performed a descriptive analysis and meta-analysis of the data.\nMain results\nWe found no RCTs or quasi-RCTs. We included two prospective cohort studies and twelve retrospective cohort studies. These studies included 12,211 participants involving 12,283 surgeries (3183 SSM and 9100 conventional mastectomies). It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis for overall survival and local recurrence free-survival due to clinical heterogeneity across studies and a lack of data to calculate hazard ratios (HR).\nBased on one study, the evidence suggests that SSM may not reduce overall survival for participants with DCIS tumors (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.02; P = 0.06; 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or for participants with invasive carcinoma (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.38; P = 0.44; 907 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For local recurrence-free survival, meta-analysis was not possible, due to high risk of bias in nine of the ten studies that measured this outcome. Informal visual examination of effect sizes from nine studies suggested the size of the HR may be similar between groups. Based on one study that adjusted for confounders, SSM may not reduce local recurrence-free survival (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.42; P = 0.48; 5690 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nThe effect of SSM on overall complications is unclear (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.46; P = 0.07, I2 = 88%; 4 studies, 677 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Skin-sparing mastectomy may not reduce the risk of breast reconstruction loss (RR 1.79, 95% CI 0.31 to 10.35; P = 0.52; 3 studies, 475 participants; very low-certainty evidence), skin necrosis (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.12; P = 0.22, I2 = 33%; 4 studies, 677 participants; very low-certainty evidence), local infection (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.03 to 142.71; P = 0.74, I2 = 88%; 2 studies, 371 participants; very low-certainty evidence), nor hemorrhage (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.27; P = 0.67, I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 677 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to the risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency among the studies. There were no data available on the following outcomes: systemic surgical complications, local complications, explantation of implant/expander, hematoma, seroma, rehospitalization, skin necrosis with revisional surgery, and capsular contracture of the implant.\nIt was not possible to perform a meta-analysis for cosmetic and quality of life outcomes due to a lack of data. One study performed an evaluation of aesthetic outcome after SSM: 77.7% of participants with immediate breast reconstruction had an overall aesthetic result of excellent or good versus 87% of participants with delayed breast reconstruction.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on very low-certainty evidence from observational studies, it was not possible to draw definitive conclusions on the effectiveness and safety of SSM for breast cancer treatment. The decision for this technique of breast surgery for treatment of DCIS or invasive breast cancer must be individualized and shared between the physician and the patient while considering the potential risks and benefits of available surgical options.\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": "We reviewed the evidence about the surgery technique called skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) (that is, removing the breast tissue including the breast and areola (skin surrounding the nipple) but preserving all the skin that overlies the breast) compared to conventional mastectomy (that is, removing the skin that overlies the breast including nipple and areola)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1795 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPharmacological interventions for disordered and problem gambling have been employed in clinical practice. Despite the availability of several reviews of the efficacy of pharmacological interventions for disordered or problem gambling, few have employed systematic search strategies or compared different categories of pharmacological interventions. Systematic reviews of high-quality evidence are therefore essential to provide guidance regarding the efficacy of different pharmacological interventions for disordered or problem gambling.\nObjectives\nThe primary aims of the review were to: (1) examine the efficacy of major categories of pharmacological-only interventions (antidepressants, opioid antagonists, mood stabilisers, atypical antipsychotics) for disordered or problem gambling, relative to placebo control conditions; and (2) examine the efficacy of these major categories relative to each other.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (all years to 11 January 2022).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised trials evaluating a pharmacological intervention for the treatment of disordered or problem gambling. Eligible control conditions included placebo control groups or comparisons with another category of pharmacological intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures, including systematic extraction of included study characteristics and results and risk of bias assessment. Our primary outcome was reduction in gambling symptom severity. Our secondary outcomes were reduction in gambling expenditure, gambling frequency, time spent gambling, depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and functional impairment; and responder status. We evaluated treatment effects for continuous and dichotomous outcomes using standardised mean difference (SMD) and risk ratios (RR), respectively, employing random-effects meta-analyses. A minimum of two independent treatment effects were required for a meta-analysis to be conducted (with only meta-analytic findings reported in this abstract).\nMain results\nWe included 17 studies in the review (n = 1193 randomised) that reported outcome data scheduled for end of treatment. Length of treatment ranged from 7 to 96 weeks.\nAntidepressants: Six studies (n = 268) evaluated antidepressants, with very low to low certainty evidence suggesting that antidepressants were no more effective than placebo at post-treatment: gambling symptom severity (SMD −0.32, 95% CI −0.74 to 0.09, n = 225), gambling expenditure (SMD −0.27, 95% CI −0.60 to 0.06, n = 144), depressive symptoms (SMD −0.19, 95% CI −0.60 to 0.23, n = 90), functional impairment (SMD −0.15, 95% CI −0.53 to 0.22, n = 110), and responder status (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.66, n = 268).\nOpioid antagonists: Four studies (n = 562) evaluated opioid antagonists, with very low to low certainty evidence showing a medium beneficial effect of treatment on gambling symptom severity relative to placebo at post-treatment (SMD −0.46, 95% CI −0.74 to −0.19, n = 259), but no difference between groups in responder status (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.14, n = 562).\nMood stabilisers: Two studies (n = 71) evaluated mood stabilisers (including anticonvulsants), with very low certainty evidence suggesting that mood stabilisers were no more effective than placebo at post-treatment: gambling symptom severity (SMD −0.92, 95% CI −2.24 to 0.39, n = 71), depressive symptoms (SMD −0.15, 95% CI −1.14 to 0.83, n = 71), and anxiety symptoms (SMD −0.17, 95% CI −0.64 to 0.30, n = 71).\nAtypical antipsychotics: Two studies (n = 63) evaluated the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine, with very low certainty evidence showing a medium beneficial effect of treatment on gambling symptom severity relative to placebo at post-treatment (SMD −0.59, 95% CI −1.10 to −0.08, n = 63).\nComparative effectiveness: Two studies (n = 62) compared antidepressants with opioid antagonists, with very low certainty evidence indicating that antidepressants were no more effective than opioid antagonists on depressive symptoms (SMD 0.22, 95% CI −0.29 to 0.72, n = 62) or anxiety symptoms (SMD 0.21, 95% CI −0.29 to 0.72, n = 62) at post-treatment. Two studies (n = 58) compared antidepressants with mood stabilisers (including anticonvulsants), with very low certainty evidence indicating that antidepressants were no more effective than mood stabilisers on depressive symptoms (SMD 0.02, 95% CI −0.53 to 0.56, n = 58) or anxiety symptoms (SMD 0.16, 95% CI −0.39 to 0.70, n = 58) at post-treatment.\nTolerability and adverse events: Several common adverse effects were reported by participants receiving antidepressants (e.g. headaches, nausea, diarrhoea/gastrointestinal issues) and opioid antagonists (e.g. nausea, dry mouth, constipation). There was little consistency in the types of adverse effects experienced by participants receiving mood stabilisers (e.g. tiredness, headaches, concentration difficulties) or atypical antipsychotics (e.g. pneumonia, sedation, increased hypomania). Discontinuation of treatment due to these adverse events was highest for opioid antagonists (10% to 32%), followed by antidepressants (4% to 31%), atypical antipsychotics (14%), and mood stabilisers (13%).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review provides preliminary support for the use of opioid antagonists (naltrexone, nalmefene) and atypical antipsychotics (olanzapine) to produce short-term improvements in gambling symptom severity, although a lack of available evidence precludes a conclusion regarding the degree to which these pharmacological agents can improve other gambling or psychological functioning indices. In contrast, the findings are inconclusive with regard to the effects of mood stabilisers (including anticonvulsants) in the treatment of disordered or problem gambling, and there is limited evidence to support the efficacy of antidepressants. However, these conclusions are based on very low to low certainty evidence characterised by a small number of included studies, high risk of bias, modest pooled sample sizes, imprecise estimates, moderate between-study heterogeneity, and exclusion of participants with psychiatric comorbidities. Moreover, there were insufficient studies to conduct meta-analyses on many outcome measures; to compare efficacy across and within major categories of interventions; to explore dosage effects; or to examine effects beyond post-treatment. These limitations suggest that, despite recommendations related to the administration of opioid antagonists in the treatment of disordered or problem gambling, pharmacological interventions should be administered with caution and with careful consideration of patient needs. A larger and more methodologically rigorous evidence base with longer-term evaluation periods is required before definitive conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness and durability of pharmacological treatments for disordered or problem gambling.\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 investigated whether different types of medications are effective in reducing gambling symptoms compared to no treatment (i.e. placebo, or dummy treatment) or other types of medications."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1796 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMany infants born preterm develop bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), with lung inflammation playing a role. Corticosteroids have powerful anti-inflammatory effects and have been used to treat individuals with established BPD. However, it is unclear whether any beneficial effects outweigh the adverse effects of these drugs.\nObjectives\nTo examine the relative benefits and adverse effects of late (starting at seven or more days after birth) systemic postnatal corticosteroid treatment for preterm infants with evolving or established BPD.\nSearch methods\nWe ran an updated search on 25 September 2020 of the following databases: CENTRAL via CRS Web and MEDLINE via OVID. We also searched clinical trials databases and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We did not include quasi-RCTs.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected for inclusion in this review RCTs comparing systemic (intravenous or oral) postnatal corticosteroid treatment versus placebo or no treatment started at seven or more days after birth for preterm infants with evolving or established BPD. We did not include trials of inhaled corticosteroids.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. We extracted and analysed data regarding clinical outcomes that included mortality, BPD, and cerebral palsy. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nUse of the GRADE approach revealed that the certainty of evidence was high for most of the major outcomes considered, except for BPD at 36 weeks for all studies combined and for the dexamethasone subgroup, which were downgraded one level to moderate because of evidence of publication bias, and for the combined outcome of mortality or BPD at 36 weeks for all studies combined and for the dexamethasone subgroup, which were downgraded one level to moderate because of evidence of substantial heterogeneity.\nWe included 23 RCTs (1817 infants); 21 RCTS (1382 infants) involved dexamethasone (one also included hydrocortisone) and two RCTs (435 infants) involved hydrocortisone only. The overall risk of bias of included studies was low; all were RCTs and most trials used rigorous methods.\nLate systemic corticosteroids overall reduce mortality to the latest reported age (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.99; 21 studies, 1428 infants; high-certainty evidence). Within the subgroups by drug, neither dexamethasone (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.11; 19 studies, 993 infants; high-certainty evidence) nor hydrocortisone (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.02; 2 studies, 435 infants; high-certainty evidence) alone clearly reduce mortality to the latest reported age. We found little evidence for statistical heterogeneity between the dexamethasone and hydrocortisone subgroups (P = 0.51 for subgroup interaction).\nLate systemic corticosteroids overall probably reduce BPD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; 14 studies, 988 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dexamethasone probably reduces BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.87; 12 studies, 553 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), but hydrocortisone does not (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.31; 2 studies, 435 infants; high-certainty evidence) (P < 0.001 for subgroup interaction).\nLate systemic corticosteroids overall probably reduce the combined outcome of mortality or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 14 studies, 988 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dexamethasone probably reduces the combined outcome of mortality or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.84; 12 studies, 553 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), but hydrocortisone does not (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.09; 2 studies, 435 infants; high-certainty evidence) (P < 0.001 for subgroup interaction).\nLate systemic corticosteroids overall have little to no effect on cerebral palsy (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.61; 17 studies, 1290 infants; high-certainty evidence). We found little evidence for statistical heterogeneity between the dexamethasone and hydrocortisone subgroups (P = 0.63 for subgroup interaction).\nLate systemic corticosteroids overall have little to no effect on the combined outcome of mortality or cerebral palsy (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.06; 17 studies, 1290 infants; high-certainty evidence). We found little evidence for statistical heterogeneity between the dexamethasone and hydrocortisone subgroups (P = 0.42 for subgroup interaction).\nStudies had few participants who were not intubated at enrolment; hence, it is not possible to make any meaningful comments on the effectiveness of late corticosteroids in preventing BPD in non-intubated infants, including those who might in the present day be supported by non-invasive techniques such as nasal continuous positive airway pressure or high-flow nasal cannula oxygen/air mixture, but who might still be at high risk of later BPD.\nResults of two ongoing studies are awaited.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLate systemic postnatal corticosteroid treatment (started at seven days or more after birth) reduces the risks of mortality and BPD, and the combined outcome of mortality or BPD, without evidence of increased cerebral palsy. However, the methodological quality of studies determining long-term outcomes is limited, and no studies were powered to detect increased rates of important adverse long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. This review supports the use of late systemic corticosteroids for infants who cannot be weaned from mechanical ventilation. The role of late systemic corticosteroids for infants who are not intubated is unclear and needs further investigation. Longer-term follow-up into late childhood is vital for assessment of important outcomes that cannot be assessed in early childhood, such as effects of late systemic corticosteroid treatment on higher-order neurological functions, including cognitive function, executive function, academic performance, behaviour, mental health, motor function, and lung function. Further RCTs of late systemic corticosteroids should include longer-term survival free of neurodevelopmental disability as the primary outcome.\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 reviewed all clinical trials in preterm babies that gave corticosteroids systemically, that is, either as an injection or as a medicine, starting from the first seven days of age, and provided data on rates of bronchopulmonary dysplasia later in the newborn period. We included 23 studies (1817 infants). Search is up-to-date as of 25 September 2020."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1797 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCorticosteroids are widely used in the treatment of idiopathic facial paralysis (Bell's palsy), but the effectiveness of additional treatment with an antiviral agent is uncertain. This review was first published in 2001 and most recently updated in 2015. Since a significant benefit of corticosteroids for the early management of Bell's palsy has been demonstrated, the main focus of this update, as in the previous version, was to determine the effect of adding antivirals to corticosteroid treatment. We undertook this update to integrate additional evidence and to better assess the robustness of findings, taking risk of bias fully into account.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of antiviral treatments alone or in combination with any other therapy for Bell's palsy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS in July 2019. We reviewed the bibliographies of the identified trials and contacted trial authors to identify additional published or unpublished data. We searched clinical trials registries for ongoing studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of antivirals with and without corticosteroids versus control therapies for the treatment of Bell's palsy. We excluded trials that followed-up participants for less than three months.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently assessed trials for relevance, eligibility, and risk of bias, using standard Cochrane procedures. We performed sensitivity analyses excluding trials at high or unclear risk of bias in at least five domains, and reported these data as the primary analyses.\nMain results\nFourteen trials, including 2488 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Most were small, and most were at high or unclear risk of bias in multiple domains. We included four new studies at this update.\nIncomplete recovery\nA combination of antivirals and corticosteroids may have little or no effect on rates of incomplete recovery in people with Bell's palsy compared to corticosteroids alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 1.74; 3 trials, N = 766; random-effects; low-certainty evidence). We excluded 10 trials that were at high or unclear risk of bias in several domains from this analysis and limited all analyses to studies at lower risk of bias. Recovery rates were better in participants receiving corticosteroids alone than antivirals alone (RR 2.69, 95% CI 0.73 to 10.01; 2 trials, N = 667; random-effects), but the result was imprecise and allowed for the possibility of no effect. The rate of incomplete recovery was lower with antivirals plus corticosteroids than with placebo or no treatment (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.76; 2 trials, N = 658; random-effects). Antivirals alone had no clear effect on incomplete recovery rates compared with placebo, but the result was imprecise (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.40; 2 trials, N = 658; fixed-effect). For people with severe Bell's palsy (House-Brackmann score of 5 and 6, or equivalent on other scales), we found that the combination of antivirals and corticosteroids had no clear effect on incomplete recovery at month six compared to corticosteroids alone, although the result was again imprecise (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17; 2 trials, N = 98; random-effects).\nMotor synkinesis or crocodile tears\nAntivirals plus corticosteroids reduced the proportion of participants who experienced these long-term sequelae from Bell's palsy compared to placebo plus corticosteroids (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87; 2 trials, N = 469; fixed-effect; moderate-certainty evidence). Antivirals plus corticosteroids reduced long-term sequelae compared to placebo but there was no clear difference in this outcome with antivirals alone compared to placebo.\nAdverse events\nAdverse event data were available in four studies providing data on 1592 participants. None of the four comparisons showed clear differences in adverse events between treatment and comparison arms (very low-certainty evidence); for the comparison of antivirals plus corticosteroids and corticosteroids alone in studies at lower risk of bias, the RR was 1.17 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.69; 2 trials, N = 656; fixed-effect; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe combination of antivirals and corticosteroids may have little or no effect on rates of incomplete recovery in comparison to corticosteroids alone in Bell's palsy of various degrees of severity, or in people with severe Bell's palsy, but the results were very imprecise. Corticosteroids alone were probably more effective than antivirals alone and antivirals plus corticosteroids were more effective than placebo or no treatment. There was no clear benefit from antivirals alone over placebo.\nThe combination of antivirals and corticosteroids probably reduced the late sequelae of Bell's palsy compared with corticosteroids alone. Studies also showed fewer episodes of long-term sequelae in corticosteroid-treated participants than antiviral-treated participants.\nWe found no clear difference in adverse events from the use of antivirals compared with either placebo or corticosteroids, but the evidence is too uncertain for us to draw conclusions.\nAn adequately powered RCT in people with Bell’s palsy that compares different antiviral agents may be indicated.\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 14 trials, which included 2488 participants with mild, moderate, or severe one-sided Bell's palsy of unknown cause. Participants were aged from 14 to 84 years. The trials compared:\n- antivirals plus corticosteroids to corticosteroids alone or in combination with placebo;\n- antivirals alone or in combination with placebo to placebo or no treatment;\n- antivirals alone or in combination with placebo to corticosteroid treatment alone or in combination with placebo; or\n- antivirals plus corticosteroids to placebo or no treatment.\nFor the majority of the studies, no information on funding was given. The remaining were mostly partly public funded, and one trial was funded by a pharmaceutical company.\nEleven studies had high or uncertain risk of bias from various factors that can systematically affect trial results. We chose to base our conclusions only on data from three studies at a lower risk of bias."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1798 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTobacco use is highly prevalent amongst people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) and has a substantial impact on morbidity and mortality.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of interventions to motivate and assist tobacco use cessation for people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA), and to evaluate the risks of any harms associated with those interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO in June 2015. We also searched EThOS, ProQuest, four clinical trial registries, reference lists of articles, and searched for conference abstracts using Web of Science and handsearched speciality conference databases.\nSelection criteria\nControlled trials of behavioural or pharmacological interventions for tobacco cessation for PLWHA.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted all data using a standardised electronic data collection form. They extracted data on the nature of the intervention, participants, and proportion achieving abstinence and they contacted study authors to obtain missing information. We collected data on long-term (greater than or equal to six months) and short-term (less than six months) outcomes. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis and estimated the pooled effects using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method. Two authors independently assessed and reported the risk of bias according to prespecified criteria.\nMain results\nWe identified 14 studies relevant to this review, of which we included 12 in a meta-analysis (n = 2087). All studies provided an intervention combining behavioural support and pharmacotherapy, and in most studies this was compared to a less intensive control, typically comprising a brief behavioural intervention plus pharmacotherapy.\nThere was moderate quality evidence from six studies for the long-term abstinence outcome, which showed no evidence of effect for more intense cessation interventions: (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.39) with no evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). The pooled long-term abstinence was 8% in both intervention and control conditions. There was very low quality evidence from 11 studies that more intense tobacco cessation interventions were effective in achieving short-term abstinence (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.00); there was moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 42%). Abstinence in the control group at short-term follow-up was 8% (n = 67/848) and in the intervention group was 13% (n = 118/937). The effect of tailoring the intervention for PLWHA was unclear. We further investigated the effect of intensity of behavioural intervention via number of sessions and total duration of contact. We failed to detect evidence of a difference in effect according to either measure of intensity, although there were few studies in each subgroup. It was not possible to perform the planned analysis of adverse events or HIV outcomes since these were not reported in more than one study.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate quality evidence that combined tobacco cessation interventions provide similar outcomes to controls in PLWHA in the long-term. There is very low quality evidence that combined tobacco cessation interventions were effective in helping PLWHA achieve short-term abstinence. Despite this, tobacco cessation interventions should be offered to PLWHA, since even non-sustained periods of abstinence have proven benefits. Further large, well designed studies of cessation interventions for PLWHA are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The quality of the evidence was judged to be moderate for the long-term abstinence outcome and very low for the short-term abstinence outcome, and so further research is needed to increase our confidence in our findings."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1799 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPostural drainage is used primarily in infants with cystic fibrosis from diagnosis up to the moment when they are mature enough to actively participate in self-administered treatments. However, there is a risk of gastroesophageal reflux associated with this technique.\nThis is an update of a review published in 2015.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effects of standard postural drainage (15º to 45º head-down tilt) with modified postural drainage (15º to 30º head-up tilt) with regard to gastroesophageal reflux in infants and young children up to six years old with cystic fibrosis in terms of safety and efficacy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Additional searches were conducted on ClinicalTrials.gov and on the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for any planned, ongoing and unpublished studies.\nThe date of the most recent literature searches: 19 June 2017.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled studies that compared two postural drainage regimens (standard and modified postural drainage) with regard to gastroesophageal reflux in infants and young children (up to and including six years old) with cystic fibrosis.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently identified studies for inclusion, extracted outcome data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by involving a third review author. We contacted study authors to obtain missing or additional information. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.\nMain results\nTwo studies, involving a total of 40 participants, were eligible for inclusion in the review. We included no new studies in the 2018 update. The included studies were different in terms of the age of participants, the angle of tilt, the reported outcomes, the number of sessions and the study duration. The following outcomes were measured: appearance or exacerbation of gastroesophageal reflux episodes; percentage of peripheral oxygen saturation; number of exacerbations of upper respiratory tract symptoms; number of days on antibiotics for acute exacerbations; chest X-ray scores; and pulmonary function tests. One study reported that postural drainage with a 20° head-down position did not appear to exacerbate gastroesophageal reflux. However, the majority of the reflux episodes in this study reached the upper oesophagus (moderate-quality evidence). The second included study reported that modified postural drainage (30° head-up tilt) was associated with fewer number of gastroesophageal reflux episodes and fewer respiratory complications than standard postural drainage (30° head-down tilt) (moderate-quality evidence). The included studies had an overall low risk of bias. One included study was funded by the Sydney Children’s Hospital Foundation and the other by the Royal Children’s Hospital Research Foundation and Physiotherapy Research Foundation of Australia. Data were not able to be pooled by meta-analysis due to differences in the statistical presentation of the data.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe limited evidence regarding the comparison between the two regimens of postural drainage is still weak due to the small number of included studies, the small number of participants assessed, the inability to perform any meta-analyses and some methodological issues with the studies. However, it may be inferred that the use of a postural regimen with a 30° head-up tilt is associated with a lower number of gastroesophageal reflux episodes and fewer respiratory complications in the long term. The 20° head-down postural drainage position was not found to be significantly different from the 20° head-up tilt modified position. Nevertheless, the fact that the majority of reflux episodes reached the upper oesophagus should make physiotherapists carefully consider their treatment strategy. We do not envisage that there will be any new trials undertaken that will affect the conclusions of this review; therefore, we do not plan to update this review.\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 about how different postural drainage positions affect gastroesophageal reflux in infants and young children up to six years old with cystic fibrosis. We compared standard postural drainage (includes head-down tilt) with modified postural drainage (includes horizontal positions and head-up tilt). This is an update of a previously published review."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1800 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMelanoma has one of the fastest rising incidence rates of any cancer. It accounts for a small percentage of skin cancer cases but is responsible for the majority of skin cancer deaths. Early detection and treatment is key to improving survival; however, anxiety around missing early cases needs to be balanced against appropriate levels of referral and excision of benign lesions. Used in conjunction with clinical or dermoscopic suspicion of malignancy, or both, reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) may reduce unnecessary excisions without missing melanoma cases.\nObjectives\nTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of reflectance confocal microscopy for the detection of cutaneous invasive melanoma and atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants in adults with any lesion suspicious for melanoma and lesions that are difficult to diagnose, and to compare its accuracy with that of dermoscopy.\nSearch methods\nWe undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases from inception up to August 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; Embase; and seven other databases. We studied reference lists and published systematic review articles.\nSelection criteria\nStudies of any design that evaluated RCM alone, or RCM in comparison to dermoscopy, in adults with lesions suspicious for melanoma or atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants, compared with a reference standard of either histological confirmation or clinical follow-up.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted all data using a standardised data extraction and quality assessment form (based on QUADAS-2). We contacted authors of included studies where information related to the target condition or diagnostic threshold were missing. We estimated summary sensitivities and specificities per algorithm and threshold using the bivariate hierarchical model. To compare RCM with dermoscopy, we grouped studies by population (defined by difficulty of lesion diagnosis) and combined data using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) methods. Analysis of studies allowing direct comparison between tests was undertaken. To facilitate interpretation of results, we computed values of specificity at the point on the SROC curve with 90% sensitivity as this value lies within the estimates for the majority of analyses. We investigated the impact of using a purposely developed RCM algorithm and in-person test interpretation.\nMain results\nThe search identified 18 publications reporting on 19 study cohorts with 2838 lesions (including 658 with melanoma), which provided 67 datasets for RCM and seven for dermoscopy. Studies were generally at high or unclear risk of bias across almost all domains and of high or unclear concern regarding applicability of the evidence. Selective participant recruitment, lack of blinding of the reference test to the RCM result, and differential verification were particularly problematic. Studies may not be representative of populations eligible for RCM, and test interpretation was often undertaken remotely from the patient and blinded to clinical information.\nMeta-analysis found RCM to be more accurate than dermoscopy in studies of participants with any lesion suspicious for melanoma and in participants with lesions that were more difficult to diagnose (equivocal lesion populations). Assuming a fixed sensitivity of 90% for both tests, specificities were 82% for RCM and 42% for dermoscopy for any lesion suspicious for melanoma (9 RCM datasets; 1452 lesions and 370 melanomas). For a hypothetical population of 1000 lesions at the median observed melanoma prevalence of 30%, this equated to a reduction in unnecessary excisions with RCM of 280 compared to dermoscopy, with 30 melanomas missed by both tests. For studies in equivocal lesions, specificities of 86% would be observed for RCM and 49% for dermoscopy (7 RCM datasets; 1177 lesions and 180 melanomas). At the median observed melanoma prevalence of 20%, this reduced unnecessary excisions by 296 with RCM compared with dermoscopy, with 20 melanomas missed by both tests. Across all populations, algorithms and thresholds assessed, the sensitivity and specificity of the Pellacani RCM score at a threshold of three or greater were estimated at 92% (95% confidence interval (CI) 87 to 95) for RCM and 72% (95% CI 62 to 81) for dermoscopy.\nAuthors' conclusions\nRCM may have a potential role in clinical practice, particularly for the assessment of lesions that are difficult to diagnose using visual inspection and dermoscopy alone, where the evidence suggests that RCM may be both more sensitive and specific in comparison to dermoscopy. Given the paucity of data to allow comparison with dermoscopy, the results presented require further confirmation in prospective studies comparing RCM with dermoscopy in a real-world setting in a representative population.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How reliable were the results of the studies of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "In all included studies, the diagnosis of melanoma was made by lesion biopsy (RCM/dermoscopy positive) (a biopsy involves taking a sample of body cells and examining them under a microscope), and the absence of melanoma was confirmed by biopsy or by follow-up over time to make sure the skin lesion remained negative for melanoma (RCM/dermoscopy negative)*. This is likely to have been a reliable method for deciding whether people really had melanoma. Only a small number of studies compared the accuracy of dermoscopy and RCM. Most were conducted by specialist research teams with high levels of experience with RCM. Therefore, RCM may have appeared more accurate than it actually was. Participants in the nine studies of any suspicious lesion may have had very obvious disease compared to that seen in practice leading to a lower number of false positive results than would actually occur. It is not possible to recommend a definition of a positive RCM test that will reliably produce the results presented here due to differences between studies."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1801 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSurgery is sometimes recommended for femoroacetabular impingement where non-operative interventions have failed.\nObjectives\nTo determine the benefits and safety of surgery for femoroacetabular impingement.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 11); MEDLINE (Ovid) (1946 to 19 November 2013); and EMBASE (Ovid) (1980 to 19 November 2013) for studies, unrestricted by language.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials assessing surgical intervention compared with placebo treatment, non-operative treatment or no treatment in adults with femoroacetabular impingement.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data.\nMain results\nThere were no studies that met the inclusion criteria, with 11 studies that were excluded following detailed review. There were four ongoing studies identified that may meet the inclusion criteria when they are completed; the results from these ongoing studies may begin to become available within the next five years. Three of the four ongoing studies are comparing hip arthroscopy versus non-operative care. The fourth study is comparing hip arthroscopy versus a sham arthroscopic hip procedure. All of the ongoing studies are recording at least one of our preferred clinical outcome measures for benefit and safety.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no high quality evidence examining the effectiveness of surgery for femoroacetabular impingement. There are four ongoing studies, which may provide evidence for the benefit and safety of this type of surgery in the future.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is femoroacetabular impingement and what is surgery?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Femoroacetabular impingement, or hip impingement, occurs because of subtle abnormalities of hip shape. The abnormalities of hip shape can cause damage to soft tissues around the hip including the cartilage (on the surfaces of the joint), which allows the joint to move freely. Femoroacetabular impingement can cause pain and restrict hip function. Surgery for femoroacetabular impingement can be either arthroscopic (keyhole) or open surgery. The aim of surgery is to correct the hip shape abnormalities and to repair damaged soft tissues and cartilage."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1802 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChild sexual abuse is a significant global problem in both magnitude and sequelae. The most widely used primary prevention strategy has been the provision of school-based education programmes. Although programmes have been taught in schools since the 1980s, their effectiveness requires ongoing scrutiny.\nObjectives\nTo systematically assess evidence of the effectiveness of school-based education programmes for the prevention of child sexual abuse. Specifically, to assess whether: programmes are effective in improving students' protective behaviours and knowledge about sexual abuse prevention; behaviours and skills are retained over time; and participation results in disclosures of sexual abuse, produces harms, or both.\nSearch methods\nIn September 2014, we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and 11 other databases. We also searched two trials registers and screened the reference lists of previous reviews for additional trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, and quasi-RCTs of school-based education interventions for the prevention of child sexual abuse compared with another intervention or no intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the eligibility of trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We summarised data for six outcomes: protective behaviours; knowledge of sexual abuse or sexual abuse prevention concepts; retention of protective behaviours over time; retention of knowledge over time; harm; and disclosures of sexual abuse.\nMain results\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review that included 15 trials (up to August 2006). We identified 10 additional trials for the period to September 2014. We excluded one trial from the original review. Therefore, this update includes a total of 24 trials (5802 participants). We conducted several meta-analyses. More than half of the trials in each meta-analysis contained unit of analysis errors.\n1. Meta-analysis of two trials (n = 102) evaluating protective behaviours favoured intervention (odds ratio (OR) 5.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.98 to 16.51), with borderline low to moderate heterogeneity (Chi² = 1.37, df = 1, P value = 0.24, I² = 27%, Tau² = 0.16). The results did not change when we made adjustments using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) to correct errors made in studies where data were analysed without accounting for the clustering of students in classes or schools.\n2. Meta-analysis of 18 trials (n = 4657) evaluating questionnaire-based knowledge favoured intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.78), but there was substantial heterogeneity (Chi² = 104.76, df = 17, P value < 0.00001, I² = 84%, Tau² = 0.10). The results did not change when adjusted for clustering (ICC: 0.1 SMD 0.66, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.81; ICC: 0.2 SMD 0.63, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.77).\n3. Meta-analysis of 11 trials (n =1688) evaluating vignette-based knowledge favoured intervention (SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.65), but there was substantial heterogeneity (Chi² = 34.25, df = 10, P value < 0.0002, I² = 71%, Tau² = 0.08). The results did not change when adjusted for clustering (ICC: 0.1 SMD 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.74; ICC: 0.2 SMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.89).\n4. We included four trials in the meta-analysis for retention of knowledge over time. The effect of intervention seemed to persist beyond the immediate assessment (SMD 0.78, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.17; I² = 84%, Tau² = 0.13, P value = 0.0003; n = 956) to six months (SMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.87; I² = 25%; Tau² = 0.01, P value = 0.26; n = 929). The results did not change when adjustments were made using ICCs.\n5. We included three studies in the meta-analysis for adverse effects (harm) manifesting as child anxiety or fear. The results showed no increase or decrease in anxiety or fear in intervention participants (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.07; n = 795) and there was no heterogeneity (I² = 0%, P value = 0.79; n=795). The results did not change when adjustments were made using ICCs.\n6. We included three studies (n = 1788) in the meta-analysis for disclosure of previous or current sexual abuse. The results favoured intervention (OR 3.56, 95% CI 1.13 to 11.24), with no heterogeneity (I² = 0%, P value = 0.84). However, adjusting for the effect of clustering had the effect of widening the confidence intervals around the OR (ICC: 0.1 OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.75 to 12.33; ICC: 0.2 OR 2.95, 95% CI 0.69 to 12.61).\nInsufficient information was provided in the included studies to conduct planned subgroup analyses and there were insufficient studies to conduct meaningful analyses.\nThe quality of evidence for all outcomes included in the meta-analyses was moderate owing to unclear risk of selection bias across most studies, high or unclear risk of detection bias across over half of included studies, and high or unclear risk of attrition bias across most studies. The results should be interpreted cautiously.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe studies included in this review show evidence of improvements in protective behaviours and knowledge among children exposed to school-based programmes, regardless of the type of programme. The results might have differed had the true ICCs or cluster-adjusted results been available. There is evidence that children's knowledge does not deteriorate over time, although this requires further research with longer-term follow-up. Programme participation does not generate increased or decreased child anxiety or fear, however there is a need for ongoing monitoring of both positive and negative short- and long-term effects. The results show that programme participation may increase the odds of disclosure, however there is a need for more programme evaluations to routinely collect such data. Further investigation of the moderators of programme effects is required along with longitudinal or data linkage studies that can assess actual prevention of child sexual abuse.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The quality of the evidence for all outcomes included in the meta-analyses (combining of data) was moderate. Study quality was compromised in about half of the included studies, due to suboptimal data collection methods for study outcomes and inappropriate data analysis."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1803 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPilonidal sinus disease is a common condition that mainly affects young adults. This condition can cause significant pain and impairment of normal activities. No consensus currently exists on the optimum treatment for pilonidal sinus and current therapies have various advantages and disadvantages. Fibrin glue has emerged as a potential treatment as both monotherapy and an adjunct to surgery.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of fibrin glue alone or in combination with surgery compared with surgery alone in the treatment of pilonidal sinus disease.\nSearch methods\nIn December 2016 we searched: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase and CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries and conference proceedings for ongoing and unpublished studies and scanned reference lists to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only. We included studies involving participants of all ages and studies conducted in any setting. We considered studies involving people with both new and recurrent pilonidal sinus. We included studies which evaluated fibrin glue monotherapy or as an adjunct to surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo study authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included four RCTs with 253 participants, all were at risk of bias. One unpublished study evaluated fibrin glue monotherapy compared with Bascom's procedure, two studies evaluated fibrin glue as an adjunct to Limberg flap and one study evaluated fibrin glue as an adjunct to Karydakis flap.\nFor fibrin glue monotherapy compared with Bascom's procedure, there were no data available for the primary outcomes of time to healing and adverse events. There was low-quality evidence of less pain on day one after the procedure with fibrin glue monotherapy compared with Bascom's procedure (mean difference (MD) -2.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.03 to -0.97) (evidence downgraded twice for risk of performance and detection bias). Fibrin glue may reduce the time taken to return to normal activities compared with Bascom's procedure (mean time 42 days with surgery and 7 days with glue, MD -34.80 days, 95% CI -66.82 days to -2.78 days) (very low-quality evidence, downgraded as above and for imprecision).\nFibrin glue as an adjunct to the Limberg flap may reduce the healing time from 22 to 8 days compared with the Limberg flap alone (MD -13.95 days, 95% CI -16.76 days to -11.14 days) (very low-quality evidence, downgraded twice for risk of selection, performance and detection bias and imprecision). It is uncertain whether use of fibrin glue affects the incidence of postoperative seroma (an adverse event) (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.61; very low-quality evidence, downgraded twice for risk of selection, performance and detection bias and imprecision). There was low-quality evidence that fibrin glue, as an adjunct to Limberg flap, may reduce postoperative pain (median 2 versus 4; P < 0.001) and time to return to normal activities (median 8 days versus 17 days; P < 0.001). The addition of fibrin glue to the Limberg flap may reduce the length of hospital stay (MD -1.69 days, 95% CI -2.08 days to -1.29 days) (very low-quality evidence, downgraded twice for risk of selection, performance and detection bias and for unexplained heterogeneity).\nA single RCT evaluating fibrin glue as an adjunct to the Karydakis flap did not report data for the primary outcome of time to healing. It is uncertain whether fibrin glue with the Karydakis flap affects the incidence of postoperative seroma (adverse event) (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 13.46) (very low-quality evidence, downgraded twice for risk of selection, performance and detection bias and for imprecision). Fibrin glue as an adjunct to Karydakis flap may reduce length of stay but this is highly uncertain (mean 2 days versus 3.7 days; P < 0.001, low-quality evidence downgraded twice for risk of selection, performance and detection bias).\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrent evidence is uncertain regarding any benefits associated with fibrin glue either as monotherapy or as an adjunct to surgery for people with pilonidal sinus disease. We identified only four RCTs and each was small and at risk of bias resulting in very low-quality evidence for the primary outcomes of time to healing and adverse events. Future studies should enrol many more participants, ensure adequate randomisation and blinding, whilst measuring clinically relevant outcomes.\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 regarding the effectiveness of fibrin glue, used on its own or with surgery, in the treatment of pilonidal sinus disease."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1804 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDrug insurance schemes are systems that provide access to medicines on a prepaid basis and could potentially improve access to essential medicines and reduce out-of-pocket payments for vulnerable populations.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects on drug use, drug expenditure, healthcare utilisation and healthcare outcomes of alternative policies for regulating drug insurance schemes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases, and two trials registers between November 2014 and September 2020, including a citation search for included studies on 15 September 2021 using Web of Science. We screened reference lists of all the relevant reports that we retrieved and reports from the Background section. Authors of relevant papers, relevant organisations, and discussion lists were contacted to identify additional studies, including unpublished and ongoing studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include randomised trials, non-randomised trials, interrupted time-series studies (including controlled ITS [CITS] and repeated measures [RM] studies), and controlled before-after (CBA) studies. Two review authors independently assessed the search results and reference lists of relevant reports, retrieved the full text of potentially relevant references and independently applied the inclusion criteria to those studies. We resolved disagreements by discussion, and when necessary by including a third review author. We excluded studies of the following pharmaceutical policies covered in other Cochrane Reviews: those that determined how decisions were made about which conditions or drugs were covered; those that placed restrictions on reimbursement for drugs that were covered; and those that regulated out-of-pocket payments for drugs.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data from the included studies and assessed risk of bias for each study, with disagreements being resolved by consensus. We used the criteria suggested by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) to assess the risk of bias of included studies. For randomised trials, non-randomised trials and controlled before-after studies, we planned to report relative effects. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported the risk ratio (RR) when possible and adjusted for baseline differences in the outcome measures. For interrupted time series and controlled interrupted time-series studies, we computed changes along two dimensions: change in level; and change in slope. We undertook a structured synthesis following the EPOC guidance on this topic, describing the range of effects found in the studies for each category of outcomes.\nMain results\nWe identified 58 studies that met the inclusion criteria (25 interrupted time-series studies and 33 controlled before-after studies). Most of the studies (54) assessed a single policy implemented in the United States (US) healthcare system: Medicare Part D. The other four assessed other drug insurance schemes from Canada and the US, but only one of them provided analysable data for inclusion in the quantitative synthesis. The introduction of drug insurance schemes may increase prescription drug use (low-certainty evidence). On the other hand, Medicare Part D may decrease drug expenditure measured as both out-of-pocket spending and total drug spending (low-certainty evidence). Regarding healthcare utilisation, drug insurance policies (such as Medicare Part D) may lead to a small increase in visits to the emergency department. However, it is uncertain whether this type of policy increases or decreases hospital admissions or outpatient visits by beneficiaries of the scheme because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Likewise, it is uncertain if the policy increases or reduces health outcomes such as mortality because the certainty of the evidence was very low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe introduction of drug insurance schemes such as Medicare Part D in the US health system may increase prescription drug use and may decrease out-of-pocket payments by the beneficiaries of the scheme and total drug expenditures. It may also lead to a small increase in visits to the emergency department by the beneficiaries of the policy. Its effects on other healthcare utilisation outcomes and on health outcomes are uncertain because of the very low certainty of the evidence. The applicability of this evidence to settings outside US healthcare is limited.\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": "The review authors searched for studies that had been published up to September 2020."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1805 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTreating vaso-occlusive painful crises in people with sickle cell disease is complex and requires multiple interventions. Extra fluids are routinely given as adjunct treatment, regardless of the individual's state of hydration with the aim of slowing or stopping the sickling process and thereby alleviating pain. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review.\nObjectives\nTo determine the optimal route, quantity and type of fluid replacement for people with sickle cell disease with acute painful crises.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.\nWe also conducted searches of Embase (November 2007), LILACS, www.ClinicalTrials.gov (05 January 2010), and the WHO ICTRP (30 June 2017).\nDate of most recent search of the Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 16 February 2017.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared the administration of supplemental fluids adjunctive to analgesics by any route in people with any type of sickle cell disease during an acute painful episode, under medical supervision (inpatient, day care or community).\nData collection and analysis\nNo relevant trials have yet been identified.\nMain results\nSixteen trials were identified by the searches, all of which were not eligible for inclusion in the review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nTreating vaso-occlusive crises is complex and requires multiple interventions. Extra fluids, generally oral or intravenous, are routinely administered during acute painful episodes to people with sickle cell disease regardless of the individual's state of hydration. Reports of their use during these acute painful episodes do not state the efficacy of any single route, type or quantity of fluid compared to another. However, there are no randomised controlled trials that have assessed the safety and efficacy of different routes, types or quantities of fluid. This systematic review identifies the need for a multicentre randomised controlled trial assessing the efficacy and possible adverse effects of different routes, types and quantities of fluid administered to people with sickle cell disease during acute painful episodes.\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": "To assess the best route, quantity and type of fluid replacement for people with sickle cell disease with acute painful crises."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1806 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPsoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that can markedly reduce life quality. Several systemic therapies exist for moderate to severe psoriasis, including oral fumaric acid esters (FAE). These contain dimethyl fumarate (DMF), the main active ingredient, and monoethyl fumarate. FAE are licensed for psoriasis in Germany but used off-licence in many countries.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects and safety of oral fumaric acid esters for psoriasis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to 7 May 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and LILACS (from 1982). We searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials. We handsearched six conference proceedings that were not already included in the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of FAE, including DMF monotherapy, in individuals of any age and sex with a clinical diagnosis of psoriasis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Primary outcomes were improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score and the proportion of participants discontinuing treatment due to adverse effects.\nMain results\nWe included 6 studies (2 full reports, 2 abstracts, 1 brief communication, and 1 letter), with a total of 544 participants. Risk of bias was unclear in several studies because of insufficient reporting. Five studies compared FAE with placebo, and one study compared FAE with methotrexate. All studies reported data at 12 to 16 weeks, and we identified no longer-term studies. When FAE were compared with placebo, we could not perform meta-analysis for the primary outcome of PASI score because the three studies that assessed this outcome reported the data differently, although all studies reported a significant reduction in PASI scores with FAE. Only 1 small study designed for psoriatic arthritis reported on the other primary outcome of participants discontinuing treatment due to adverse effects (2 of 13 participants on FAE compared with none of the 14 participants on placebo; risk ratio (RR) 5.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 102.1; 27 participants; very low-quality evidence). However, these findings are uncertain due to indirectness and a very wide confidence interval. Two studies, containing 247 participants and both only reported as abstracts, allowed meta-analysis for PASI 50, which showed superiority of FAE over placebo (RR 4.55, 95% CI 2.80 to 7.40; low-quality evidence), with a combined PASI 50 of 64% in those given FAE compared with a PASI 50 of 14% for those on placebo, representing a number needed to treat to benefit of 2. The same studies reported more participants achieving PASI 75 with FAE, but we did not pool the data because of significant heterogeneity; none of the studies measured PASI 90. One study reported significant improvement in participants' quality of life (QoL) with FAE, measured with Skindex-29. However, we could not compute the mean difference because of insufficient reporting in the abstract. More participants experienced adverse effects, mainly gastrointestinal disturbance and flushing, on FAE (RR 4.72, 95% CI 2.45 to 9.08; 1 study, 99 participants; moderate-quality evidence), affecting 76% of participants given FAE and 16% of the placebo group (representing a number needed to treat to harm of 2). The other studies reported similar findings or did not report adverse effects fully.\nOne study of 54 participants compared methotrexate (MTX) with FAE. PASI score at follow-up showed superiority of MTX (mean Difference (MD) 3.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 6.92; 51 participants; very low-quality evidence), but the difference was not significant after adjustment for baseline disease severity. The difference between groups for the proportion of participants who discontinued treatment due to adverse effects was uncertain because of imprecision (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.53; 1 study, 51 participants; very low-quality evidence). Overall, the number of participants experiencing common nuisance adverse effects was not significantly different between the 2 groups, with 89% of the FAE group affected compared with 100% of the MTX group (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.03; 54 participants; very low-quality evidence). Flushing was more frequent in those on FAE, with 13 out of 27 participants affected compared with 2 out of 27 given MTX. There was no significant difference in the number of participants who attained PASI 50, 75, and 90 in the 2 groups (very low-quality evidence) whereas this study did not measure the effect of treatments on QoL. The included studies reported no serious adverse effects of FAE and were too small and of limited duration to provide evidence about rare or delayed effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence suggests that FAE are superior to placebo and possibly similar in efficacy to MTX for psoriasis; however, the evidence provided in this review was limited, and it must be noted that four out of six included studies were abstracts or brief reports, restricting study reporting. FAE are associated with nuisance adverse effects, including flushing and gastrointestinal disturbance, but short-term studies reported no serious adverse effects.\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": "Our review included six randomised control trials (RCTs) that involved 544 participants. Five RCTs compared FAE with placebo, and one compared FAE with methotrexate. The outcomes we were interested in measuring were the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), which is a psoriasis severity score, and the proportion of participants who discontinued treatment because of adverse (side) effects that are common but sufficiently serious that the drug had to be stopped, such as severe diarrhoea, infections, or cutaneous malignancy."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1807 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInfectious mononucleosis (IM) is a clinical syndrome, usually caused by the Epstein Barr virus (EPV), characterised by lymphadenopathy, fever and sore throat. Most cases of symptomatic IM occur in older teenagers or young adults. Usually IM is a benign self-limiting illness and requires only symptomatic treatment. However, occasionally the disease course can be complicated or prolonged and lead to decreased productivity in terms of school or work. Antiviral medications have been used to treat IM, but the use of antivirals for IM is controversial. They may be effective by preventing viral replication which helps to keep the virus inactive. However, there are no guidelines for antivirals in IM.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of antiviral therapy for infectious mononucleosis (IM).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 3, March 2016), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to 15 April 2016), Embase (1974 to 15 April 2016), CINAHL (1981 to 15 April 2016), LILACS (1982 to 15 April 2016) and Web of Science (1955 to 15 April 2016). We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov for completed and ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antivirals versus placebo or no treatment in IM. We included trials of immunocompetent participants of any age or sex with clinical and laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of IM, who had symptoms for up to 14 days. Our primary outcomes were time to clinical recovery and adverse events and side effects of medication. Secondary outcomes included duration of abnormal clinical examination, complications, viral shedding, health-related quality of life, days missing from school or work and economic outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed the included studies' risk of bias and extracted data using a customised data extraction sheet. We used the GRADE criteria to rate the quality of the evidence. We pooled heterogeneous data where possible, and presented the results narratively where we could not statistically combine data.\nMain results\nWe included seven RCTs with a total of 333 participants in our review. Three trials studied hospitalised patients, two trials were conducted in an outpatient setting, while the trial setting was unclear in two studies. Participants' ages ranged from two years to young adults. The type of antiviral, administration route, and treatment duration varied between the trials. The antivirals in the included studies were acyclovir, valomaciclovir and valacyclovir. Follow-up varied from 20 days to six months. The diagnosis of IM was based on clinical symptoms and laboratory parameters.\nThe risk of bias for all included studies was either unclear or high risk of bias. The quality of evidence was graded as very low for all outcomes and so the results should be interpreted with caution. There were statistically significant improvements in the treatment group for two of the 12 outcomes. These improvements may be of limited clinical significance.\nThere was a mean reduction in 'time to clinical recovery as assessed by physician' of five days in the treatment group but with wide confidence intervals (CIs) (95% CI -8.04 to -1.08; two studies, 87 participants). Prospective studies indicate that clinical signs and symptoms may take one month or more to resolve and that fatigue may be persistent in approximately 10% of patients at six-month follow-up, so this may not be a clinically meaningful result.\nTrial results for the outcome 'adverse events and side effects of medication' were reported narratively in only five studies. In some reports authors were unsure whether an adverse event was related to medication or complication of disease. These results could not be pooled due to the potential for double counting results but overall, the majority of trials reporting this outcome did not find any significant difference between treatment and control groups.\nThere was a mean reduction in 'duration of lymphadenopathy' of nine days (95% CI -11.75 to -6.14, two studies, 61 participants) in favour of the treatment group.\nIn terms of viral shedding, the overall effect from six studies was that viral shedding was suppressed while on antiviral treatment, but this effect was not sustained when treatment stopped.\nFor all other outcomes there was no statistically significant difference between antiviral treatment and control groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe effectiveness of antiviral agents (acyclovir, valomaciclovir and valacyclovir) in acute IM is uncertain. The quality of the evidence is very low. The majority of included studies were at unclear or high risk of bias and so questions remain about the effectiveness of this intervention. Although two of the 12 outcomes have results that favour treatment over control, the quality of the evidence of these results is very low and may not be clinically meaningful. Alongside the lack of evidence of effectiveness, decision makers need to consider the potential adverse events and possible associated costs, and antiviral resistance. Further research in this area is warranted.\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 quality was rated as very low for all results, which means that we cannot know the exact effect of using antivirals for glandular fever. Better studies are needed so we can draw firm conclusions."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1808 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCrowded teeth develop when there is not enough space in the jaws into which the teeth can erupt. Crowding can affect baby teeth (deciduous dentititon), adult teeth (permanent dentition), or both, and is a common reason for referral to an orthodontist. Crowded teeth can affect a child's self-esteem and quality of life. Early loss of baby teeth as a result of tooth decay or trauma, can lead to crowded permanent teeth. Crowding tends to increase with age, especially in the lower jaw.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of orthodontic intervention for preventing or correcting crowded teeth in children.\nTo test the null hypothesis that there are no differences in outcomes between different orthodontic interventions for preventing or correcting crowded teeth in children.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 11 January 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any active interventions to prevent or correct dental crowding in children and adolescents, such as orthodontic braces or extractions, compared to no or delayed treatment, placebo treatment or another active intervention. The studies had to include at least 80% of participants aged 16 years and under.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors, independently and in duplicate, extracted information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcomes, harms and results. We resolved any disagreements by liaising with a third review author. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the risk of bias in the studies. We calculated mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous data and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs for dichotomous data. We undertook meta-analysis when studies of similar comparisons reported comparable outcome measures, using the random-effects model. We used the I2 statistic as a measure of statistical heterogeneity.\nMain results\nOur search identified 24 RCTs that included 1512 participants, 1314 of whom were included in analyses. We assessed 23 studies as being at high risk of bias and one as unclear.\nThe studies investigated 17 comparisons. Twenty studies evaluated fixed appliances and auxiliaries (lower lingual arch, lower lip bumper, brackets, archwires, lacebacks, headgear and adjunctive vibrational appliances); two studies evaluated removable appliances and auxiliaries (Schwarz appliance, eruption guidance appliance); and two studies evaluated dental extractions (lower deciduous canines or third molars).\nThe evidence should be interpreted cautiously as it is of very low certainty. Most interventions were evaluated by a single study.\nFixed appliances and auxiliaries\nOne study found that use of a lip bumper may reduce crowding in the early permanent dentition (MD −4.39 mm, 95% CI −5.07 to −3.71; 34 participants). One study evaluated lower lingual arch but did not measure amount of crowding.\nOne study concluded that coaxial nickel-titanium (NiTi) archwires may cause more tooth movement in the lower arch than single-stranded NiTi archwires (MD 6.77 mm, 95% CI 5.55 to 7.99; 24 participants). Another study, comparing copper NiTi versus NiTi archwires, found NiTi to be more effective for reducing crowding (MD 0.49 mm, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.63, 66 participants). Single studies did not show evidence of one type of archwire being better than another for Titinol versus Nitinol; nickel-titanium versus stainless steel or multistrand stainless steel; and multistranded stainless steel versus stainless steel.\nNor did single studies find evidence of a difference in amount of crowding between self-ligating and conventional brackets, active and passive self-ligating brackets, lacebacks added to fixed appliances versus fixed appliances alone, or cervical pull headgear versus minor interceptive procedures.\nMeta-analysis of two studies showed no evidence that adding vibrational appliances to fixed appliances reduces crowding at 8 to 10 weeks (MD 0.24 mm, 95% CI −0.81 to 1.30; 119 participants).\nRemovable appliances and auxiliaries\nOne study found use of the Schwarz appliance may be effective at treating dental crowding in the lower arch (MD -2.14 mm, 95% CI −2.79 to −1.49; 28 participants). Another study found an eruption guidance appliance may reduce the number of children with crowded teeth after one year of treatment (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.68; 46 participants); however, this may have been due to an increase in lower incisor proclination in the treated group. Whether these gains were maintained in the longer term was not assessed.\nDental extractions\nOne study found that extracting children's lower deciduous canines had more effect on crowding after one year than no treatment (MD −4.76 mm, 95 CI −6.24 to −3.28; 83 participants), but this was alongside a reduction in arch length. One study found that extracting wisdom teeth did not seem to reduce crowding any more than leaving them in the mouth (MD −0.30 mm, 95% CI −1.30 to 0.70; 77 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nMost interventions were assessed by single, small studies. We found very low-certainty evidence that lip bumper, used in the mixed dentition, may be effective for preventing crowding in the early permanent dentition, and a Schwarz appliance may reduce crowding in the lower arch. We also found very low-certainty evidence that coaxial NiTi may be better at reducing crowding than single-stranded NiTi, and that NiTi may be better than copper NiTi. As the current evidence is of very low certainty, our findings may change with future research.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are crowded teeth?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "When teeth erupt (come through the gum into the mouth), they may twist, stick out, drop back, or overlap if there is not enough space in the mouth. Losing baby teeth early from tooth decay or trauma can lead to crowded permanent teeth. If crowded teeth affect a child's self-esteem or cause pain, damage or chewing problems, the child may be referred to a specialist dentist known as an orthodontist to correct them. Orthodontics is about the growth of the jaws and face, and development of the teeth and bite."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1809 | [
{
"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 is the issue?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Sickle cell disease is an inherited disorder of haemoglobin, the protein in red blood cells that carries oxygen. In this condition, an abnormal haemoglobin S from one parent is combined with another abnormal haemoglobin from the other parent. Haemoglobin S inherited from both parents (genotype HbSS), described as sickle cell anaemia is the most common form."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1810 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPulmonary complications are often seen during the postoperative period following lung resection for patients with lung cancer. Some situations such as intubation, a long stay in the intensive care unit, the high cost of antibiotics and mortality may be avoided with the prevention of postoperative pulmonary complications. Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is widely used in hospitals, and is thought to reduce the number of pulmonary complications and mortality after this type of surgery. Therefore, a systematic review is needed to critically assess the benefits and harms of NIPPV for patients undergoing lung resection. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2015.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of NIPPV for preventing complications in patients following pulmonary resection for lung cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and PEDro until 21 December 2018, to identify potentially eligible trials. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches. We searched the reference lists of relevant papers and contacted experts in the field for information about additional published and unpublished studies. We also searched the Register of Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com) and ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov) to identify ongoing studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials that compared NIPPV in the immediate postoperative period after pulmonary resection with no intervention or conventional respiratory therapy.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors collected data and assessed trial risk of bias. Where possible, we pooled data from the individual studies using a fixed-effect model (quantitative synthesis), but where this was not possible we tabulated or presented the data in the main text (qualitative synthesis). Where substantial heterogeneity existed, we applied a random-effects model.\nMain results\nOf the 190 references retrieved from the searches, 7 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) (1 identified with the new search) and 1 quasi-randomised trial fulfilled the eligibility criteria for this review, including a total of 486 patients. Five studies described quantitative measures of pulmonary complications, with pooled data showing no difference between NIPPV compared with no intervention (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.47). Three studies reported intubation rates and there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.20). Five studies reported measures of mortality on completion of the intervention period. There was no statistical difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.53). Similar results were observed in the subgroup analysis considering ventilatory mode (bi-level versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). No study evaluated the postoperative use of antibiotics. Two studies reported the length of intensive care unit stay and there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups (MD -0.75; 95% CI -3.93 to 2.43). Four studies reported the length of hospital stay and there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups (MD -0.12; 95% CI -6.15 to 5.90). None of the studies described any complications related to NIPPV. Of the seven included studies, four studies were considered as 'low risk of bias' in all domains, two studies were considered 'high risk of bias' for the allocation concealment domain, and one of these was also considered 'high risk of bias' for random sequence generation. One other study was considered ‘high risk of bias’ for including participants with more severe disease. The new study identified could not be included in the meta-analysis as its intervention differed from the other studies (use of pre and postoperative NIPPV in the same population).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review demonstrated that there was no additional benefit of using NIPPV in the postoperative period after pulmonary resection for all outcomes analysed (pulmonary complications, rate of intubation, mortality, postoperative consumption of antibiotics, length of intensive care unit stay, length of hospital stay and adverse effects related to NIPPV). However, the quality of evidence is 'very low', 'low' and 'moderate' since there were few studies, with small sample size and low frequency of outcomes. New well-designed and well-conducted randomised trials are needed to answer the questions of this review with greater certainty.\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 the use of non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) safe and effective to prevent complications in the postoperative period in patients who underwent pulmonary resection for lung cancer?"
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1811 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChinese herbal medicines have been used for a long time to treat osteoporosis. The evidence of their benefits and harms needs to be systematically reviewed.\nObjectives\nTo assess the beneficial and harmful effects of Chinese herbal medicines as a general experimental intervention for treating primary osteoporosis by comparing herbal treatments with placebo, no intervention and conventional medicine.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases to January 2013: the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, JICST-E, AMED, Chinese Biomedical Database and CINAHL.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of Chinese herbal medicines compared with placebo, no intervention or conventional medicine were included.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently. Disagreement was resolved by discussion.\nMain results\nOne hundred and eight randomised trials involving 10,655 participants were included. Ninety-nine different Chinese herbal medicines were tested and compared with placebo (three trials), no intervention (five trials) or conventional medicine (61 trials), or Chinese herbal medicines plus western medicine were compared with western medicine (47 trials). The risk of bias across all studies was unclear for most domains primarily due to inadequate reporting of study design. Although we rated the risk of selective reporting for all studies as unclear, only a few studies contributed numerical data to the key outcomes.\nSeven trials reported fracture incidence, but they were small in sample size, suffered from various biases and tested different Chinese herbal medicines. These trials compared Kanggusong capsules versus placebo, Kanggusong granule versus Caltrate or ipriflavone plus Caltrate, Yigu capsule plus calcium versus placebo plus calcium, Xianlinggubao capsule plus Caltrate versus placebo plus Caltrate, Bushen Zhuanggu granules plus Caltrate versus placebo granules plus Caltrate, Kanggusong soup plus Caltrate versus Caltrate, Zhuangguqiangjin tablets and Shujinbogu tablets plus calcitonin ampoule versus calcitonin ampoule. The results were inconsistent.\nOne trial showed that Bushenhuoxue therapy plus calcium carbonate tablets and alfacalcidol had a better effect on quality of life score (scale 0 to 100, higher is better) than calcium carbonate tablets and alfacalcidol (mean difference (MD) 5.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.67 to 6.93).\nCompared with placebo in three separate trials, Chinese herbal medicines (Migu decoction, Bushen Yigu soft extract, Kanggusong capsules) showed a statistically significant increase in bone mineral density (BMD) (e.g. Kanggusong capsules, MD 0.06 g/cm3; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.10). Compared with no intervention in five trials, only two showed that Chinese herbal medicines had a statistically significant effect on increase in BMD (e.g. Shigu yin, MD 0.08 g/cm3; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.13). Compared with conventional medicine in 61 trials, 23 showed that Chinese herbal medicines had a statistically significant effect on increase in BMD. In 48 trials evaluating Chinese herbal medicines plus western medication against western medication, 26 showed better effects of the combination therapy on increase in BMD.\nNo trial reported death or serious adverse events of Chinese herbal medicines, while some trials reported minor adverse effects such as nausea, diarrhoea, etc.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrent findings suggest that the beneficial effect of Chinese herbal medicines in improving BMD is still uncertain and more rigorous studies are warranted.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"New fractures\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We are uncertain whether Chinese herbal medicines reduce the chance of having a new bone fracture. Seven trials evaluated the incidence of fractures. However, these trials were small and had flaws in their methods."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1812 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nA considerable challenge for maternity care providers is recognising clinical deterioration early in pregnant women. Professional bodies recommend the use of clinical assessment protocols or evaluation tools, commonly referred to as physiological track-and-trigger systems (TTS) or early warning systems (EWS), as a means of helping maternity care providers recognise actual or potential clinical deterioration early. TTS/EWS are clinician-administered (midwife, obstetrician), bedside physiological assessment protocols, charts or tools designed to record routinely assessed clinical parameters; that is, blood pressure, temperature, heart rate, urine output and mental/neurological alertness. In general, these systems involve the application of scores or alert indicators to the observed physiological parameters based on their prespecified limits of normality. The overall system score or alert limit is then used to assist the maternity care provider identify a need to escalate care. This, in turn, may allow for earlier intervention(s) to alter the course of the emerging critical illness and ultimately reduce or avoid mortality and morbidity sequelae.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of maternal physiological TTS/EWS on pregnancy, labour and birth, postpartum (up to 42 days) and neonatal outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (28 May 2021), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (7 June 2021), OpenGrey, the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (7 June 2021), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-RCTs, comparing physiological TTS/EWS with no system or another system. Participants were women who were pregnant or had given birth within the previous 42 days, at high risk and low risk for pregnancy, labour and birth, and postpartum complications.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors (VS and MN) independently assessed all identified papers for inclusion and performed risk of bias assessments. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus. Data extraction was also conducted independently by two review authors (VS and MN) and checked for accuracy. We used the summary odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to present the results for dichotomous data and the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI to present the results for continuous data.\nMain results\nWe included two studies, a parallel RCT involving 700 women and a stepped-wedge cluster trial involving 536,233 women. Both studies were published in 2019, and both were conducted in low-resource settings. The interventions were the 'Saving Mothers Score' (SMS) and the CRADLE Vital Sign Alert (VSA) device, and both interventions were compared with standard care. Both studies had low or unclear risk of bias on all seven risk of bias criteria. Evidence certainty, assessed using GRADE, ranged from very low to moderate certainty, mainly due to other bias as well as inconsistency and imprecision.\nFor women randomised to TTS/EWS compared to standard care there is probably little to no difference in maternal death (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.11; 1 study, 536,233 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Use of TTS/EWS compared to standard care may reduce total haemorrhage (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.69; 1 study, 700 participants; low-certainty evidence). For women randomised to TTS/EWS compared to standard care there may be little to no difference in sepsis (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.80; 1 study, 700 participants; low-certainty evidence), eclampsia (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.03; 2 studies, 536,933 participants; low-certainty evidence) and HELLP (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.40; 1 study, 700 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and probably little to no difference in maternal admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.15; 2 studies, 536,933 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Use of TTS/EWS compared to standard care may reduce a woman's length of hospital stay (MD -1.21, 95% CI -1.78 to -0.64; 1 study, 700 participants; low-certainty evidence) but may result in little to no difference in neonatal death (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.84; 1 study, 700 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cost-effectiveness measures were not measured in either of the two studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nUse of TTS/EWS in maternity care may be helpful in reducing some maternal outcomes such as haemorrhage and maternal length of hospital stay, possibly through early identification of clinical deterioration and escalation of care. The evidence suggests that the use of TTS/EWS compared to standard care probably results in little to no difference in maternal death and may result in little to no difference in neonatal death. Both of the included studies were conducted in low-resource settings where the use of TTS/EWS might potentially confer a different effect to TTS/EWS use in high-resource settings. Further high-quality trials in high- and middle-resource settings, as well as in discrete populations of high- and low-risk women, are required.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the question?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The aim of this review is to find out from randomised controlled trials if using simple monitoring tools are helpful in alerting to clinical problems and in reducing serious illness or death in pregnant women and in their first six weeks after birth. Examples of such tools are track and trigger systems or early warning systems kept by the bedside in maternity care."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1813 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPsoriatic arthritis is an inflammatory disease associated with joint damage, impaired function, pain, and reduced quality of life. Methotrexate is a disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) commonly prescribed to alleviate symptoms, attenuate disease activity, and prevent progression of disease.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of methotrexate for psoriatic arthritis in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and www.clinicaltrials.gov for relevant records. We searched all databases from inception to 29 January 2018. We handsearched included articles for additional records and contacted study authors for additional unpublished data. We applied no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared methotrexate versus placebo, or versus another DMARD, for adults with psoriatic arthritis. We reported on the following major outcomes: disease response (measured by psoriatic arthritis response criteria (PsARC)), function (measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire for Rheumatoid Arthritis (HAQ)), health-related quality of life, disease activity (measured by disease activity score (28 joints) with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR)), radiographic progression, serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently reviewed search results, assessed risk of bias, extracted trial data, and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We undertook meta-analysis only when this was meaningful.\nMain results\nWe included in this review eight RCTs conducted in an outpatient setting, in Italy, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, China, Russia, and Bangladesh. Five studies compared methotrexate versus placebo, and four studies compared methotrexate versus other DMARDs. The average age of participants varied across studies (26 to 52 years), as did the average duration of psoriatic arthritis (one to nine years). Doses of methotrexate varied from 7.5 mg to 25 mg orally per week, but most studies administered approximately 15 mg or less orally per week. Risk of bias was generally unclear or high across most domains for all studies. We considered only one study to have low risk of selection and detection bias. The main study informing results of the primary comparison (methotrexate vs placebo up to six months) was at low risk of bias for all domains except attrition bias and reporting bias.\nWe restricted reporting of results to the comparison of methotrexate versus placebo for up to six months. Low-quality evidence (downgraded due to bias and imprecision) from a single study (221 participants; methotrexate dose 15 mg orally or less per week) informed results for disease response, function, and disease activity. Disease response, measured by the proportion who responded to treatment according to PsARC (response indicates improvement), was 41/109 in the methotrexate group and 24/112 in the placebo group (risk ratio (RR) 1.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 2.70). This equates to an absolute difference of 16% more responders with methotrexate (4% more to 28% more), and a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 6 (95% CI 5 to 25). Mean function, measured by the HAQ (scale 0 to 3; 0 meaning no functional impairment; minimum clinically important difference 0.22), was 1.0 points with placebo and 0.3 points better (95% 0.51 better to 0.09 better) with methotrexate; absolute improvement was 10% (3% better to 17% better), and relative improvement 30% (9% better to 51% better). Mean disease activity as measured by the DAS28-ESR (scale of 0 to 10; lower score means lower disease activity; minimum clinically important difference unknown) was 3.8 points in the methotrexate group and 4.06 points in the placebo group; mean difference was -0.26 points (95% CI -0.65 to 0.13); absolute improvement was 3% (7% better to 1% worse), and relative improvement 6% (16% better to 3% worse).\nLow-quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision) from three studies (n = 293) informed our results for serious adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. Due to low event rates, we are uncertain if methotrexate results show increased risk of serious adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events compared to placebo. Results show 1/141 serious adverse events in the methotrexate group and 4/152 in the placebo group: RR 0.26 (95% CI 0.03 to 2.26); absolute difference was 2% fewer events with methotrexate (5% fewer to 1% more). In all, 9/141 withdrawals in the methotrexate group were due to adverse events and 7/152 in the placebo group: RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.51 to 3.42); absolute difference was 1% more withdrawals (4% fewer to 6% more).\nOne study measured health-related quality of life but did not report these results. No study measured radiographic progression.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow-quality evidence suggests that low-dose (15 mg or less) oral methotrexate might be slightly more effective than placebo when taken for six months; however we are uncertain if it is more harmful. Effects of methotrexate on health-related quality of life, radiographic progression, enthesitis, dactylitis, and fatigue; its benefits beyond six months; and effects of higher-dose methotrexate have not been measured or reported in a randomised placebo-controlled trial.\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": "Low-quality evidence suggests that methotrexate might lead to slightly greater benefit than placebo for some outcomes (e.g. improving function) but may be no better than placebo for other outcomes (e.g. reducing disease activity). We assessed the quality of the evidence as low due to flawed trial design and imprecision (some results are meaningful to patients and some are not). We are uncertain whether methotrexate causes more harm than placebo due to the small number of reported events."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1814 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nNo cure for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is known at present, so treatment often focuses on management of symptoms such as pain, stiffness and mobility. Treatment options include pharmacological interventions, physical therapy treatments and balneotherapy. Balneotherapy is defined as bathing in natural mineral or thermal waters (e.g. mineral baths, sulphur baths, Dead Sea baths), using mudpacks or doing both. Despite its popularity, reported scientific evidence for the effectiveness or efficacy of balneotherapy is sparse. This review, which evaluates the effects of balneotherapy in patients with RA, is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003 and updated in 2008.\nObjectives\nTo perform a systematic review on the benefits and harms of balneotherapy in patients with RA in terms of pain, improvement, disability, tender joints, swollen joints and adverse events.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane 'Rehabilitation and Related Therapies' Field Register (to December 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2014, Issue 1), MEDLIINE (1950 to December 2014), EMBASE (1988 to December 2014), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to December 2014), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) (1985 to December 2014), PsycINFO (1806 to December 2014) and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). We applied no language restrictions; however, studies not reported in English, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, German or French are awaiting assessment. We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing and recently completed trials.\nSelection criteria\nStudies were eligible if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) consisting of participants with definitive or classical RA as defined by the American Rheumatism Association (ARA) criteria of 1958, the ARA/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria of 1988 or the ACR/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria of 2010, or by studies using the criteria of Steinbrocker.\nBalneotherapy had to be the intervention under study, and had to be compared with another intervention or with no intervention.\nThe World Health Organization (WHO) and the International League Against Rheumatism (ILAR) determined in 1992 a core set of eight endpoints in clinical trials concerning patients with RA. We considered pain, improvement, disability, tender joints, swollen joints and adverse events among the main outcome measures. We excluded studies when only laboratory variables were reported as outcome measures.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials, performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus and, if necessary, by third party adjudication.\nMain results\nThis review includes two new studies and a total of nine studies involving 579 participants. Unfortunately, most studies showed an unclear risk of bias in most domains. Four out of nine studies did not contribute to the analysis, as they presented no data.\nOne study involving 45 participants with hand RA compared mudpacks versus placebo. We found no statistically significant differences in terms of pain on a 0 to 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.84 to 1.84), improvement (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.70) or number of swollen joints on a scale from 0 to 28 (MD 0.60, 95% CI -0.90 to 2.10) (very low level of evidence). We found a very low level of evidence of reduction in the number of tender joints on a scale from 0 to 28 (MD -4.60, 95% CI -8.72 to -0.48; 16% absolute difference). We reported no physical disability and presented no data on withdrawals due to adverse events or on serious adverse events.\nTwo studies involving 194 participants with RA evaluated the effectiveness of additional radon in carbon dioxide baths. We found no statistically significant differences between groups for all outcomes at three-month follow-up (low to moderate level of evidence). We noted some benefit of additional radon at six months in terms of pain frequency (RR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.9; 31% reduction; improvement in one or more points (categories) on a 4-point scale; moderate level of evidence) and 9.6% reduction in pain intensity on a 0 to 100-mm VAS (MD 9.6 mm, 95% CI 1.6 to 17.6; moderate level of evidence). We also observed some benefit in one study including 60 participants in terms of improvement in one or more categories based on a 4-point scale (RR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1 to 4.7; 30% absolute difference; low level of evidence). Study authors did not report physical disability, tender joints, swollen joints, withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events.\nOne study involving 148 participants with RA compared balneotherapy (seated immersion) versus hydrotherapy (exercises in water), land exercises or relaxation therapy. We found no statistically significant differences in pain on the McGill Questionnaire or in physical disability (very low level of evidence) between balneotherapy and the other interventions. No data on improvement, tender joints, swollen joints, withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events were presented.\nOne study involving 57 participants with RA evaluated the effectiveness of mineral baths (balneotherapy) versus Cyclosporin A. We found no statistically significant differences in pain intensity on a 0 to 100-mm VAS (MD 9.64, 95% CI -1.66 to 20.94; low level of evidence) at 8 weeks (absolute difference 10%). We found some benefit of balneotherapy in overall improvement on a 5-point scale at eight weeks of 54% (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.83). We found no statistically significant differences (low level of evidence) in the number of swollen joints, but some benefit of Cyclosporin A in the number of tender joints (MD 8.9, 95% CI 3.8 to 14; very low level of evidence). Physical disability, withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events were not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall evidence is insufficient to show that balneotherapy is more effective than no treatment, that one type of bath is more effective than another or that one type of bath is more effective than mudpacks, exercise or relaxation therapy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"This review shows that in people with rheumatoid arthritis\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "• we are uncertain whether mudpacks (balneotherapy) improve pain, overall wellness and swollen joints compared with placebo (fake treatment) in patients with hand RA. Mudpacks may improve tender joints slightly compared with placebo, but information about physical ability and adverse events was not reported in the study.\n• adding radon to carbon dioxide baths did not improve pain intensity at three months but may improve overall well-being and pain at six months compared with carbon dioxide baths without radon, but this may have happened by chance. Information about physical disability, tender and swollen joints and adverse events was not reported in the studies.\n• we are uncertain whether balneotherapy (seated immersion) improves pain and physical function compared with hydrotherapy, exercise or relaxation. Improvement, tender joints, swollen joints and adverse events were not reported in the study.\n• we are uncertain whether bathing in mineral baths (balneotherapy) improves pain and swollen joints compared with using a drug (Cyclosporin A). Mineral baths may improve overall wellness compared with Cyclosporin A, and Cyclosporin A may improve the number of tender joints compared with mineral baths. Physical disability and adverse events were not reported.\n• we do not have precise information about side effects and complications of balneotherapy. This is particularly true for rare side effects. Side effects may include skin rash, infection and accidents, for example, slipping on wet surfaces near the bath area. The only study that reported side effects stated that they did not find any."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1815 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIt is estimated that up to 75% of cancer survivors may experience cognitive impairment as a result of cancer treatment and given the increasing size of the cancer survivor population, the number of affected people is set to rise considerably in coming years. There is a need, therefore, to identify effective, non-pharmacological interventions for maintaining cognitive function or ameliorating cognitive impairment among people with a previous cancer diagnosis.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the cognitive effects, non-cognitive effects, duration and safety of non-pharmacological interventions among cancer patients targeted at maintaining cognitive function or ameliorating cognitive impairment as a result of cancer or receipt of systemic cancer treatment (i.e. chemotherapy or hormonal therapies in isolation or combination with other treatments).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Centre Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PUBMED, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PsycINFO databases. We also searched registries of ongoing trials and grey literature including theses, dissertations and conference proceedings. Searches were conducted for articles published from 1980 to 29 September 2015.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-pharmacological interventions to improve cognitive impairment or to maintain cognitive functioning among survivors of adult-onset cancers who have completed systemic cancer therapy (in isolation or combination with other treatments) were eligible. Studies among individuals continuing to receive hormonal therapy were included. We excluded interventions targeted at cancer survivors with central nervous system (CNS) tumours or metastases, non-melanoma skin cancer or those who had received cranial radiation or, were from nursing or care home settings. Language restrictions were not applied.\nData collection and analysis\nAuthor pairs independently screened, selected, extracted data and rated the risk of bias of studies. We were unable to conduct planned meta-analyses due to heterogeneity in the type of interventions and outcomes, with the exception of compensatory strategy training interventions for which we pooled data for mental and physical well-being outcomes. We report a narrative synthesis of intervention effectiveness for other outcomes.\nMain results\nFive RCTs describing six interventions (comprising a total of 235 participants) met the eligibility criteria for the review. Two trials of computer-assisted cognitive training interventions (n = 100), two of compensatory strategy training interventions (n = 95), one of meditation (n = 47) and one of physical activity intervention (n = 19) were identified. Each study focused on breast cancer survivors. All five studies were rated as having a high risk of bias. Data for our primary outcome of interest, cognitive function were not amenable to being pooled statistically. Cognitive training demonstrated beneficial effects on objectively assessed cognitive function (including processing speed, executive functions, cognitive flexibility, language, delayed- and immediate- memory), subjectively reported cognitive function and mental well-being. Compensatory strategy training demonstrated improvements on objectively assessed delayed-, immediate- and verbal-memory, self-reported cognitive function and spiritual quality of life (QoL). The meta-analyses of two RCTs (95 participants) did not show a beneficial effect from compensatory strategy training on physical well-being immediately (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.59 to 0.83; I2= 67%) or two months post-intervention (SMD - 0.21, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.47; I2 = 63%) or on mental well-being two months post-intervention (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.34; I2 = 67%). Lower mental well-being immediately post-intervention appeared to be observed in patients who received compensatory strategy training compared to wait-list controls (SMD -0.57, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.16; I2 = 0%). We assessed the assembled studies using GRADE for physical and mental health outcomes and this evidence was rated to be low quality and, therefore findings should be interpreted with caution. Evidence for physical activity and meditation interventions on cognitive outcomes is unclear.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, the, albeit low-quality evidence may be interpreted to suggest that non-pharmacological interventions may have the potential to reduce the risk of, or ameliorate, cognitive impairment following systemic cancer treatment. Larger, multi-site studies including an appropriate, active attentional control group, as well as consideration of functional outcomes (e.g. activities of daily living) are required in order to come to firmer conclusions about the benefits or otherwise of this intervention approach. There is also a need to conduct research into cognitive impairment among cancer patient groups other than women with breast cancer.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the conclusions?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "There is not enough good quality evidence to know if any interventions improve cognitive impairment or maintain cognitive functioning among people who have received systemic treatment for cancer. There are several ongoing trials in the field, which may provide the necessary evidence in the future."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1816 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic (present > 48 hours) non-hypovolaemic hyponatraemia occurs frequently, can be caused by various conditions, and is associated with shorter survival and longer hospital stays. Many treatments, such as fluid restriction or vasopressin receptor antagonists can be used to improve the hyponatraemia, but whether that translates into improved patient-important outcomes is less certain.\nObjectives\nThis review aimed to 1) look at the benefits and harms of interventions for chronic non-hypovolaemic hypotonic hyponatraemia when compared with placebo, no treatment or head-to-head; and 2) determine if benefits and harms vary in absolute or relative terms dependent on the specific compound within a drug class, on the dosage used, or the underlying disorder causing the hyponatraemia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 1 December 2017 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also screened the reference lists of potentially relevant studies, contacted authors, and screened the websites of regulatory agencies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared the effects of any intervention with placebo, no treatment, standard care, or any other intervention in patients with chronic non-hypovolaemic hypotonic hyponatraemia. We also included subgroups with hyponatraemia from studies with broader inclusion criteria (e.g. people with chronic heart failure or people with cirrhosis with or without hyponatraemia), provided we could obtain outcomes for participants with hyponatraemia from the report or the study authors.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We expressed treatment effects as mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes (health-related quality of life, length of hospital stay, change from baseline in serum sodium concentration, cognitive function), and risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes (death, response and rapid increase in serum sodium concentration, hypernatraemia, polyuria, hypotension, acute kidney injury, liver function abnormalities) together with 95% confidence intervals (CI).\nMain results\nWe identified 35 studies, enrolling 3429 participants. Twenty-eight studies (3189 participants) compared a vasopressin receptor antagonist versus placebo, usual care, no treatment, or fluid restriction. In adults with chronic, non-hypovolaemic hypotonic hyponatraemia, vasopressin receptor antagonists have uncertain effects on death at six months (15 studies, 2330 participants: RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.33) due to risk of selective reporting and serious imprecision; and on health-related quality of life because results are at serious risk of performance, selective reporting and attrition bias, and suffer from indirectness related to the validity of the Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) in the setting of hyponatraemia. Vasopressin receptor antagonists may reduce hospital stay (low certainty evidence due to risk of performance bias and imprecision) (3 studies, 610 participants: MD -1.63 days, 95% CI -2.96 to -0.30), and may make little or no difference to cognitive function (low certainty evidence due to indirectness and imprecision). Vasopressin receptor antagonists probably increase the intermediate outcome of serum sodium concentration (21 studies, 2641 participants: MD 4.17 mmol/L, 95% CI 3.18 to 5.16), corresponding to two and a half as many people having a 5 to 6 mmol/L increase in sodium concentration compared with placebo at 4 to 180 days (moderate certainty evidence due to risk of attrition bias) (18 studies, 2014 participants: RR 2.49, 95% CI 1.95 to 3.18). But they probably also increase the risk of rapid serum sodium correction - most commonly defined as > 12 mmol/L/d (moderate certainty evidence due to indirectness) (14 studies, 2058 participants: RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.40) and commonly cause side-effects such as thirst (13 studies, 1666 participants: OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.80 to 4.27) and polyuria (6 studies, 1272 participants): RR 4.69, 95% CI 1.59 to 13.85) (high certainty evidence). The potential for liver toxicity remains uncertain due to large imprecision. Effects were generally consistent across the different agents, suggesting class effect.\nData for other interventions such as fluid restriction, urea, mannitol, loop diuretics, corticosteroids, demeclocycline, lithium and phenytoin were largely absent.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn people with chronic hyponatraemia, vasopressin receptor antagonists modestly raise serum sodium concentration at the cost of a 3% increased risk of it being rapid. To date there is very low certainty evidence for patient-important outcomes; the effects on mortality and health-related quality of life are unclear and do not rule out appreciable benefit or harm; there does not appear to be an important effect on cognitive function, but hospital stay may be slightly shorter, although available data are limited. Treatment decisions must weigh the value of an increase in serum sodium concentration against its short-term risks and unknown effects on patient-important outcomes. Evidence for other treatments is largely absent.\nFurther studies assessing standard treatments such as fluid restriction or urea against placebo and one-another would inform practice and are warranted. Given the limited available evidence for patient-important outcomes, any study should include these outcomes in a standardised manner.\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": "In people with low blood sodium concentration, vasopressin receptor antagonists modestly raised the sodium concentration. The effects on mortality and health-related quality of life are unclear and do not rule out appreciable benefit or harm; there does not appear to be an important effect on cognitive function, but hospital stay may be slightly shorter, although available data are limited. Evidence for other treatments is largely absent."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1817 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCongenital syphilis continues to be a substantial public health problem in many parts of the world. Since the first use of penicillin for the treatment of syphilis in 1943, which was a notable early success, it has remained the preferred and standard treatment including for congenital syphilis. However, the treatment of congenital syphilis is largely based on clinical experience and there is extremely limited evidence on the optimal dose or duration of administration of penicillin or the use of other antibiotics.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic treatment for newborns with confirmed, highly probable and possible congenital syphilis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane STI Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov and Web of Science to 23 May 2018. We also handsearched conference proceedings, contacted trial authors and reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antibiotic treatment (any concentration, frequency, duration and route) with no intervention or any other antibiotic treatment for neonates with confirmed, highly probable or possible congenital syphilis.\nData collection and analysis\nAll review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We resolved any disagreements through consensus. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nTwo RCTs (191 participants) met our inclusion criteria and none of these trials was funded by the industry. One trial (22 participants) compared benzathine penicillin with no intervention for infants with possible congenital syphilis. Low-quality evidence suggested that benzathine penicillin administration may not have decreased the rate of neonatal death due to any cause (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 11.70), and showed a possible reduction into the proportion of neonates with clinical manifestations of congenital syphilis (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.09). Penicillin administration increased the serological cure at the third month (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.06 to 4.27). These results should be taken with caution, because the trial was stopped early because there were four cases with clinical congenital syphilis in the no treatment group and none in the treatment group. Interim analysis suggested this difference was significant. This study did not report neonatal death due to congenital syphilis or the frequency of serious or minor adverse events after therapy. We downgraded the quality of evidence because of imprecision and risk of bias.\nOne trial (169 participants) compared benzathine penicillin versus procaine benzylpenicillin. High- and moderate-quality evidence suggested that there were probably no differences between benzathine penicillin and procaine benzylpenicillin for the outcomes: absence of clinical manifestations of congenital syphilis (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.03) and serological cure (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.03). There were no cases of neonatal death due congenital syphilis; all 152 babies who followed up survived. This study did not report on the frequency of serious or minor adverse events after therapy. We downgraded the quality of evidence because of serious risk of bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAt present, the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic treatment for newborns with confirmed, highly probable or possible congenital syphilis is sparse, implying that we are uncertain about the estimated effect. One trial compared benzathine penicillin with no intervention for infants with possible congenital syphilis. Low-quality evidence suggested penicillin administration possibly reduce the proportion of neonates with clinical manifestations of congenital syphilis, penicillin administration increased the serological cure at the third month. These findings support the clinical use of penicillin in neonates with confirmed, highly probable or possible congenital syphilis. High- and moderate-quality evidence suggests that there are probably no differences between benzathine penicillin and procaine benzylpenicillin administration for the outcomes of absence of clinical manifestations of syphilis or serological cure.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The quality of the evidence for the first trial was low due to poor reporting of study methods. For the second trial, there was high-quality evidence for the absence of clinical manifestations of congenital syphilis on neonates, but moderate-quality evidence for serological cure due to few data."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1818 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nControl of rubella is desired because infection in early pregnancy can result in miscarriage, foetal death or congenital abnormality. Primary studies examining the effectiveness of immunoglobulins for post-exposure prophylaxis of rubella have small sample sizes and varying results. National public health recommendations suggest a degree of effectiveness.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of intramuscular injection or intravenous infusion of polyclonal immunoglobulins of human sera or plasma origin for preventing rubella and congenital rubella syndrome when administered to exposed susceptible people before the onset of disease.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1946 to August week 2, 2014), EMBASE (1974 to August 2014), CINAHL (1981 to August 2014), LILACS (1982 to August 2014) and Web of Science (1955 to August 2014). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry on 16 October 2014. We searched the reference lists of relevant retrieved reviews and studies and identified national public health guidelines.\nSelection criteria\nFor the outcome 'preventing cases of rubella', we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. We found several studies addressing this outcome where the design was a controlled clinical trial (CCT) (with exposure to rubella virus controlled by the investigators) but the method of allocation of participants to groups was not reported. We found an alternative report of one of these studies that indicated participants were assigned to groups randomly. We therefore included such studies as meeting criteria for RCTs or quasi-RCTs and undertook sensitivity analyses. For the outcomes, 'congenital rubella infection' and 'congenital rubella syndrome', we included RCTs, quasi-RCTs and prospective controlled (cohort) studies. Participants were necessarily susceptible and exposed to rubella. Polyclonal immunoglobulins derived from human sera or plasma must have been administered intramuscularly or intravenously as the only intervention in at least one group.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nWe included 12 studies (430 participants) in the review: seven RCTs and five CCTs where it was not clear whether participants were randomly allocated to groups. We did not include any unpublished studies. Participants included children and adults of both sexes. Only one study included pregnant women. All studies were conducted in high-income countries.\nThe quality of the 11 studies in the initial meta-analysis was moderate, although we classified no study as having a low risk of bias on all criteria.\nWe included 11 studies in the initial meta-analysis of gamma-globulin (concentrated polyclonal immunoglobulins) versus control (saline or no treatment) for rubella cases. The result favoured the intervention group (risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.83) but was heterogenous (Chi² test = 36.59, df = 10 (P value < 0.0001); I² statistic = 73%). Heterogeneity was explained by subgrouping studies according to the estimated volume of gamma-globulin administered per pound of bodyweight and then removing those studies where the intervention was administered more than five days after participant exposure to rubella (post hoc analysis). The test of subgroup differences demonstrated heterogeneity between subgroups according to our protocol definition (P value < 0.1; I² statistic > 60%) and there appeared to be greater effectiveness of the intervention when a greater volume of gamma-globulin was administered ('0.027 to 0.037 ml/lb' RR 1.60 (95% CI 0.57 to 4.52); '0.1 to 0.15 ml/lb' RR 0.53 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.99); '0.2 to 0.5 ml/lb' RR 0.20 (95% CI 0.04 to 1.00)).\nNone of the studies reported the outcome 'congenital rubella infection'. One included study reported on congenital rubella syndrome, with no cases among participants who were fewer than nine weeks pregnant at enrolment and who were randomised to one of two gamma-globulin groups ('high' or 'low' rubella titre). However, the study did not report how congenital rubella syndrome was measured and did not report the length of follow-up according to intervention group. This study did not include a non-treatment group.\nNo included study measured adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCompared to no treatment, polyclonal immunoglobulins seem to be of benefit for preventing rubella. The available evidence suggests that this intervention may be of benefit up to five days after exposure, and that effectiveness is dependent on dose. Considering the attack rate for rubella cases in the control group of the highest volume gamma-globulin subgroup (333 per 1000), the absolute risk reduction (calculated from the RR) for this volume of gamma-globulin was 266 (95% CI 0 to 320) and the number needed to treat to benefit is four (95% CI 3 to incalculable).\nThe included studies did not measure rubella-specific antibodies in the immunoglobulin products used in a standard way and thus estimation of the dose of rubella-specific antibodies in international units administered was not possible. As the concentration of rubella-specific antibodies in today's polyclonal immunoglobulin products may vary from those products used in the studies in the review, the volume required per pound of bodyweight to produce similar results may also vary.\nThere is insufficient evidence to make direct conclusions about the effectiveness of polyclonal immunoglobulins for preventing congenital rubella syndrome. This is an area requiring further research.\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": "People who have had rubella (German measles), or rubella vaccine, have antibodies against the virus in their blood. These antibodies protect them from getting rubella should they come into contact with it again. These antibodies can be extracted from blood donated by these people.\nIf people without antibodies come into contact with someone who is contagious with rubella, they can contract it. Rubella can be serious. The baby of a woman who is infected with rubella, especially early in pregnancy, may be born with a range of birth defects including heart, eye and hearing problems. One way of preventing rubella in people who come into contact with a contagious person is to inject them with antibodies that have been extracted from blood donations. This was done in the 1950s and 1960s and is still recommended for rubella control in some circumstances in some countries. Whether this is effective is unclear. We sought to answer this question."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1819 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nConvalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.\nSearch methods\nTo identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity.\nWe excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methodology.\nTo assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.\nMain results\nIn this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed.\nIndividuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease\n29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text.\nConvalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone\nConvalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI −2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nConvalescent plasma versus standard plasma\nWe are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes.\nConvalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin\nConvalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes.\nIndividuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease\nWe identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma.\nConvalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone\nWe are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes.\nConvalescent plasma versus standard plasma\nWe are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes.\nThis is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have very-low to low certainty evidence for most primary outcomes and moderate certainty for hospital admission or death. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key messages\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "• We are very confident that plasma from the blood of people who have recovered from COVID-19 (convalescent plasma) has no benefits for the treatment of people with moderate to severe COVID-19.\n• Convalescent plasma may have little to no benefit for treating people with mild COVID-19.\n• We found 49 ongoing studies and 33 finished studies with unpublished results. We will update our review with evidence from these studies as soon as possible. New evidence may answer our remaining questions, especially for people with mild COVID-19 or who have no symptoms."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 1820 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCombining two different analgesics in fixed doses in a single tablet can provide better pain relief than either drug alone in acute pain. This appears to be broadly true across a range of different drug combinations, in postoperative pain and migraine headache. A new combination of dexketoprofen (a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug) plus tramadol (an opioid) has been tested in acute postoperative pain conditions. It is not yet licensed for use. This review is one of a series on oral analgesics for acute postoperative pain. Individual reviews have been brought together in two overviews to provide information about the relative efficacy and harm of the different interventions.\nObjectives\nTo assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of a single fixed-dose of oral dexketoprofen plus tramadol, compared with placebo, for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults, using methods that permit comparison with other analgesics evaluated in standardised trials using almost identical methods and outcomes. A secondary objective was to compare the combination with the individual analgesics alone.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via CRSO, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 31 May 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and two online clinical trial registries.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised, double-blind trials of oral dexketoprofen plus tramadol administered as a single oral dose, for the relief of acute postoperative pain in adults, and compared to placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, examined issues of study quality and potential bias, and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) for dexketoprofen plus tramadol, compared with placebo with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We collected information on the number of participants with at least 50% of the maximum possible pain relief over six hours, the median time to use of rescue medication, and the proportion of participants requiring rescue medication. We also collected information on adverse events and withdrawals. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.\nWe also collected information on the number of participants with at least 50% of the maximum possible pain relief over six hours for dexketoprofen alone and tramadol alone.\nMain results\nWe included three studies with 1853 participants who had undergone surgical removal of impacted wisdom teeth, hip replacement, or hysterectomy. The overall risk of bias across the three included studies was low, with unclear risk of bias in relation to the size of the three studies. Two studies did not report all our prespecified outcomes, which limited the analyses we could do.\nThe proportion of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over six hours with dexketoprofen 25 mg plus tramadol 75 mg was 66%, compared to 32% with placebo, giving an NNT of 3.0 (95% CI 2.5 to 3.7) (RR 2.1 (95% CI 1.7 to 2.4); 748 participants; 3 studies) (moderate quality evidence). The response rate with dexketoprofen 25 mg alone was 53% (RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.4); 744 participants; 3 studies) and with tramadol alone was 45% (RR 1.5 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.7); 741 participants; 3 studies) (moderate quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence because of some inconsistency in the results.\nThe median time to use of rescue medication could not be estimated exactly, but was probably eight hours or more, indicating a long duration of effect (moderate quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence because it was not possible to estimate the effect exactly in the two multiple dose studies, resulting in imprecision. Fewer participants used rescue medication with higher doses of active treatment (summary statistic not calculated; 123 participants; 1 study) (very low quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence because the data came from a single study with few participants and events.\nAdverse events and serious adverse events were not reported consistently for the single dose phase of the studies. In the single dose study, 11% of participants experienced adverse events with dexketoprofen 25 mg plus tramadol 75 mg, which were mostly mild or moderate nausea, vomiting, or dizziness, and typical with these medicines. Rates were lower with placebo and lower doses (very low quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence because the data came from a single study with few participants and events. Information on multiple dosing over three and five days supported a low event rate with the combination. Overall, rates were generally low in all treatment arms, as they were for withdrawals for adverse events or other reasons.\nAuthors' conclusions\nA single oral dose of dexketoprofen 25 mg plus tramadol 75 mg provided good levels of pain relief with long duration of action to more people than placebo or the same dose of dexketoprofen or tramadol alone. The magnitude of the effect was similar to other good analgesics. Adverse event rates were low.\nThere is modest uncertainty about the precision of the point estimate for efficacy, but the NNT of 3 is consistent with other analgesics considered effective and commonly used.\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": "In May 2016, we found three studies involving 1853 people. The main comparison was between the fixed-dose of dexketoprofen 25 mg plus tramadol 75 mg and placebo (a dummy treatment). The studies tested single doses after wisdom tooth extraction, hip replacement operations, and gynaecological (female reproductive system) operations. Studies included adults over a range of ages, and 7 out of 10 participants were women. The main outcome was the number of participants having at least half of the maximum possible pain relief over the first six hours after taking the tablets."
}
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.