dataset
stringclasses 1
value | id
stringlengths 1
5
| messages
listlengths 2
2
|
|---|---|---|
query-laysum | 2126 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAutologous stem cell transplantation is widely used to restore functioning bone marrow in people with malignant lymphoma or multiple myeloma after myeloablative chemotherapy. Results of some clinical trials indicate that plerixafor in addition to granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) compared to G-CSF only could lead to an increased mobilisation and release of CD34-positive cells, facilitating effective apheresis.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of additional plerixafor to G-CSF for haematopoietic stem cell mobilisation in people with malignant lymphoma or multiple myeloma.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1990 to September 2015), as well as conference proceedings (American Society of Hematology; American Society of Clinical Oncology; European Hematology Association; American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation; European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation) for studies. Two review authors independently screened search results.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing plerixafor in addition to G-CSF compared to G-CSF only for stem cell mobilisation in people with malignant lymphoma or multiple myeloma of all stages and ages. We included full text as well as abstracts and unpublished data if sufficient information on study design, participant characteristics, interventions, and outcomes was available. We excluded cross-over trials, quasi-randomised trials, and post-hoc retrospective trials.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the results of the search strategies, extracted data, assessed quality, and analysed data according to standard Cochrane methods. We performed final interpretation with an experienced clinician.\nMain results\nWe identified four RCTs fitting the inclusion criteria. However, two of these closed prematurely due to low recruitment and did not report results. The remaining two trials evaluated 600 participants with multiple myeloma or non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In both studies the experimental group received G-CSF plus plerixafor and the control group received G-CSF plus placebo.\nThe meta-analysis showed no evidence for differences between plerixafor and placebo group regarding mortality at 12 months (600 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.69; P = 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) and adverse events during stem cell mobilisation and collection (593 participants; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.06; P = 0.19; high-quality evidence).\nRegarding the outcome successful stem cell collection, the meta-analysis showed an advantage for those participants randomised to the plerixafor group (600 participants; RR 2.42, 95% CI 1.98 to 2.96; P < 0.00001; high-quality evidence).\nAs there was high heterogeneity between studies for the number of transplanted participants, we did not meta-analyse these data. In the multiple myeloma study, 95.9% (142 participants) in the plerixafor arm and 88.3% (136 participants) in the placebo arm underwent transplantation (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.16); in the non-Hodgkin lymphoma trial, 90% (135 participants) in the plerixafor group versus 55.4% (82 participants) in the placebo group could be transplanted (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.39 to 1.89). In both trials there was no evidence for a difference between participants in the plerixafor and placebo group in terms of time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment in transplanted participants.\nNone of the trials reported on the outcomes quality of life and progression-free survival.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results of the analysed data suggest that additional plerixafor leads to increased stem cell collection in a shorter time. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether additional plerixafor affects survival or adverse events.\nThe two trials included in the meta-analysis, both of which were conducted by the Genzyme Corporation, the manufacturer of plerixafor, were published several times. Two more RCTs examining the addition of plerixafor to a G-CSF mobilisation regimen terminated early without publishing any outcome. The trials included nine and five participants, respectively. Another RCT with 100 participants was recently completed, but has not yet published outcomes. Due to the unpublished RCTs, it is possible that our review is affected by publication bias, even though two trials failed to recruit a sufficient number of participants to analyse any data.\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": "Malignant lymphoma can be differentiated into Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and usually affects the lymph nodes and the lymphatic system. Multiple myeloma is a cancer of the bone marrow. An effective treatment option for non-Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myeloma is high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation. In autologous transplantation, stem cells are collected from the patient's blood prior to high-dose chemotherapy, which must be mobilised from the bone marrow in the blood. A commonly used agent for stem cell mobilisation is G-CSF. Recent studies have suggested that the addition of the new agent plerixafor, which was originally developed for the treatment of HIV infection, to G-CSF could lead to higher stem cell harvest and thereby increase the probability of successful transplantation after chemotherapy."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2127 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nStable angina pectoris is a chronic medical condition with significant impact on mortality and quality of life; it can be macrovascular or microvascular in origin. Ranolazine is a second-line anti-anginal drug approved for use in people with stable angina. However, the effects of ranolazine for people with angina are considered to be modest, with uncertain clinical relevance.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of ranolazine on cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, quality of life, acute myocardial infarction incidence, angina episodes frequency and adverse events incidence in stable angina patients, used either as monotherapy or as add-on therapy, and compared to placebo or any other anti-anginal agent.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science in February 2016, as well as regional databases and trials registers. We also screened reference lists.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) which directly compared the effects of ranolazine versus placebo or other anti-anginals in people with stable angina pectoris were eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Estimates of treatment effects were calculated using risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MD) and standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. Where we found statistically significant heterogeneity (Chi² P < 0.10), we used a random-effects model for pooling estimates. Meta-analysis was not performed where we found considerable heterogeneity (I² ≥ 75%). We used GRADE criteria to assess evidence quality and the GRADE profiler (GRADEpro GDT) to import data from Review Manager 5.3 to create 'Summary of findings' tables.\nMain results\nWe included 17 RCTs (9975 participants, mean age 63.3 years). We found very limited (or no) data to inform most planned comparisons. Summary data were used to inform comparison of ranolazine versus placebo. Overall, risk of bias was assessed as unclear.\nFor add-on ranolazine compared to placebo, no data were available to estimate cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality. We found uncertainty about the effect of ranolazine on: all-cause mortality (1000 mg twice daily, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.71; 3 studies, 2053 participants; low quality evidence); quality of life (any dose, SMD 0.25, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.52; 4 studies, 1563 participants; I² = 73%; moderate quality evidence); and incidence of non-fatal acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (1000mg twice daily, RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.07; 2 studies, 1509 participants; low quality evidence). Add-on ranolazine 1000 mg twice daily reduced the fervour of angina episodes (MD -0.66, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.35; 3 studies, 2004 participants; I² = 39%; moderate quality evidence) but increased the risk of non-serious adverse events (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.40; 3 studies, 2053 participants; moderate quality evidence).\nFor ranolazine as monotherapy compared to placebo, we found uncertain effect on cardiovascular mortality (1000 mg twice daily, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.88; 1 study, 2604 participants; low quality evidence). No data were available to estimate non-cardiovascular mortality. We also found an uncertain effect on all-cause mortality for ranolazine (1000 mg twice daily, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.25; 3 studies, 6249 participants; low quality evidence), quality of life (1000 mg twice daily, MD 0.28, 95% CI -1.57 to 2.13; 3 studies, 2254 participants; moderate quality evidence), non-fatal AMI incidence (any dose, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.12; 3 studies, 2983 participants; I² = 50%; low quality evidence), and frequency of angina episodes (any dose, MD 0.08, 95% CI -0.85 to 1.01; 2 studies, 402 participants; low quality evidence). We found an increased risk for non-serious adverse events associated with ranolazine (any dose, RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.00; 3 studies, 947 participants; very low quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found very low quality evidence showing that people with stable angina who received ranolazine as monotherapy had increased risk of presenting non-serious adverse events compared to those given placebo. We found low quality evidence indicating that people with stable angina who received ranolazine showed uncertain effect on the risk of cardiovascular death (for ranolazine given as monotherapy), all-cause death and non-fatal AMI, and the frequency of angina episodes (for ranolazine given as monotherapy) compared to those given placebo. Moderate quality evidence indicated that people with stable angina who received ranolazine showed uncertain effect on quality of life compared with people who received placebo. Moderate quality evidence also indicated that people with stable angina who received ranolazine as add-on therapy had fewer angina episodes but increased risk of presenting non-serious adverse events compared to those given placebo.\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 only compared ranolazine and placebo because there were few data for other comparisons. The evidence was uncertain about the effect of ranolazine 1000 mg given alone twice daily to people with stable angina pectoris on the chance of dying from heart-related causes. There was no evidence about whether ranolazine changed the risk of dying from causes that were not heart-related.\nAlthough the evidence was uncertain about the effect of ranolazine 1000 mg twice daily on the chance of dying from any cause, quality of life, the possibility of heart attack or the frequency of angina attacks (for ranolazine taken alone), ranolazine did modestly reduce the numbers of angina attacks per week when given with other anti-angina drugs. Ranolazine 1000 mg twice daily increased the risk for experiencing dizziness, nausea and constipation from taking the drug (mild adverse events)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2128 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBrexpiprazole is the newest antipsychotic drug approved as an adjunctive for treatment-resistant depression. This systematic review provides comprehensive, high-quality evidence for the effects of brexpiprazole in major depressive disorder (MDD) based on existing and emerging randomised controlled trials (RCTs).\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of brexpiprazole as monotherapy or adjunct treatment in the acute and longer-term treatment of MDD compared to placebo or other antidepressive agents.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was November 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs in people with a history of non-response to one or more antidepressant monotherapies comparing brexpiprazole as monotherapy or adjunct treatment with placebo or other antidepressive agents.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were 1. response to treatment, measured as number of participants who achieved 50% or more reduction of the score on a validated scale for depression, 2. dropouts due to any reason, and 3. dropouts due to adverse effects, all measured at eight weeks (acute treatment). Our secondary outcomes were 4. number of participants who responded to treatment after two and 18 weeks, number of participants who achieved remission after eight weeks, 5. total number of participants with any adverse events, 6. social functioning or adjustment, and 7. health-related quality of life. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe retrieved nine studies with 3424 participants with treatment-resistant depression, defined as lack of response to at least two trials of antidepressant monotherapy. The age of participants was 18 to 65 years in seven studies, 18 to 75 years in one study, and older than 65 years in one study. Inclusion criteria for all studies required a diagnosis of MDD with a current major depressive episode per Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Text Revision Fourth Edition criteria and additional criteria on minimal scores on Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale which varied across studies. Eight studies compared brexpiprazole as adjunctive treatment to an antidepressant versus placebo as adjunctive treatment to an antidepressant. One study added brexpiprazole or placebo to a combination of antidepressant and ketamine. Four studies used fixed dosages and five studies used flexible dosages of brexpiprazole. The manufacturer sponsored eight studies and one study was independently funded.\nBrexpiprazole was superior in achieving response at eight weeks (odds ratio (OR) 1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 1.75; 8 studies, 3409 participants; high-certainty evidence). More participants randomised to brexpiprazole dropped out due to any cause at eight weeks (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.83; 7 studies, 2523 participants; high-certainty evidence) or due to adverse effects (OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.37 to 6.05; 6 studies, 2472 participants; high-certainty evidence). Brexpiprazole was superior to placebo when added to an antidepressant for achieving remission at eight weeks (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.79; 7 studies, 3358 participants; high-certainty evidence). When response was defined based on a change in the score on MADRS, brexpiprazole also demonstrated better efficacy than placebo (mean difference (MD) –1.39, 95% CI –1.96 to –0.82; 8 studies, 3263 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, add-on brexpiprazole is probably more likely to result in akathisia (OR 2.95, 95% CI 2.06 to 4.21; 7 studies, 3358 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and weight gain (OR 3.14, 95% CI 2.19 to 4.49; 9 studies, 3424 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nThe risk of bias varied between low and unclear for most studies. Only one study was at high risk of selective reporting bias and other bias; however, this study had a small sample size and its impact on overall risk of bias was not considered significant. The certainty of the evidence on five of the main outcomes (response to treatment, measured as number of participants who achieved response and change in depressive symptoms, remission, dropouts due to any cause, dropouts due to adverse effects) was high. The certainty of evidence for akathisia and weight gain was downgraded one level to moderate due to indirectness.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur review supports the superior efficacy of add-on brexpiprazole in comparison to placebo in adults with treatment-resistant depression for the short-term and acute treatment of depression. Our findings were limited by the small number of studies and the moderate-certainty evidence for the most common adverse effects (akathisia and weight gain). There was insufficient evidence for the effects of brexpiprazole for depression in older people or children. In addition, we found no studies that compared brexpiprazole to other antidepressants or where brexpiprazole was added after lack of response to only one antidepressant. We also lacked sufficient data to establish the long-term efficacy of brexpiprazole as adjunctive treatment. Active comparators, long-term studies in different age groups and cost-effect analyses are needed to more precisely establish the clinical role of brexpiprazole in the treatment of MDD.\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": "Our evidence is up-to-date to 1 November 2021."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2129 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOsteoarthritis is a chronic disease characterized by joint pain, tenderness, and limitation of movement. At present, no cure is available. Thus only treatment of the person's symptoms and treatment to prevent further development of the disease are possible. Clinical trials indicate that aquatic exercise may have advantages for people with osteoarthritis. This is an update of a published Cochrane review.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of aquatic exercise for people with knee or hip osteoarthritis, or both, compared to no intervention.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to 28 April 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2014), MEDLINE (from 1949), EMBASE (from 1980), CINAHL (from 1982), PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), and Web of Science (from 1945). There was no language restriction.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled clinical trials of aquatic exercise compared to a control group (e.g. usual care, education, social attention, telephone call, waiting list for surgery) of participants with knee or hip osteoarthritis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included trials. We analysed the pooled results using standardized mean difference (SMD) values.\nMain results\nNine new trials met the inclusion criteria and we excluded two earlier included trials. Thus the number of participants increased from 800 to 1190 and the number of included trials increased from six to 13. Most participants were female (75%), with an average age of 68 years and a body mass index (BMI) of 29.4. Osteoarthritis duration was 6.7 years, with a great variation of the included participants. The mean aquatic exercise duration was 12 weeks. We found 12 trials at low to unclear risk of bias for all domains except blinding of participants and personnel. They showed that aquatic exercise caused a small short term improvement compared to control in pain (SMD −0.31, 95% CI −0.47 to −0.15; 12 trials, 1076 participants) and disability (SMD −0.32, 95% CI −0.47 to −0.17; 12 trials, 1059 participants). Ten trials showed a small effect on quality of life (QoL) (SMD −0.25, 95% CI −0.49 to −0.01; 10 trials, 971 participants). These effects on pain and disability correspond to a five point lower (95% CI three to eight points lower) score on mean pain and mean disability compared to the control group (scale 0 to 100), and a seven point higher (95% CI 0 to 13 points higher) score on mean QoL compared with control group (scale 0 to 100). No included trials performed a radiographic evaluation. No serious adverse events were reported in the included trials with relation to aquatic exercise.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate quality evidence that aquatic exercise may have small, short-term, and clinically relevant effects on patient-reported pain, disability, and QoL in people with knee and hip OA. The conclusions of this review update does not change those of the previous published version of this Cochrane 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": "What are the effects of aquatic exercise interventions in the treatment of people with knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA)?"
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2130 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInhaled anticholinergics given in addition to β2-agonists are effective in reducing hospital admissions in children presenting to the emergency department with a moderate to severe asthma exacerbation. It seems logical to assume a similar beneficial effect in children hospitalised for an acute asthma exacerbation.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of anticholinergics added to β2-agonists as inhaled or nebulised therapy in children hospitalised for an acute asthma exacerbation. To investigate the characteristics of patients or therapy, if any, that would influence the magnitude of response attributable to the addition of anticholinergics.\nSearch methods\nWe identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR), which is derived through systematic searches of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO and through handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. The search is current to November 2013.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials comparing the combination of inhaled or nebulised anticholinergics and short-acting β2-agonists versus short-acting β2-agonists alone in children one to 18 years of age hospitalised for an acute asthma exacerbation were eligible.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the methodological quality of trials and extracted data; disagreement was resolved by consensus or with the input of a third review author, when needed. Primary outcomes were duration of hospital stay and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes included admission and duration of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU), ventilation assistance, time to short-acting β2-agonists spaced at four hours or longer, supplemental asthma therapy, duration of supplemental oxygen, change from baseline in asthma severity, relapse after discharge, adverse health effects and withdrawals.\nMain results\nSeven randomised trials were included, four of which reported usable data on 472 children with asthma one to 18 years of age who were admitted to paediatric wards. No trials included patients admitted to the ICU. The anticholinergic used, ipratropium bromide 250 μg, was given every one to eight hours over a period from four hours to the entire length of the hospital stay. Two of four trials (50%) contributing data were deemed of high methodological quality. The addition of anticholinergics to β2-agonists showed no evidence of effect on the duration of hospital admission (mean difference (MD) -0.28 hours, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.07 to 4.52, 3 studies, 327 participants, moderate quality evidence) and no serious or non-serious adverse events were reported in any included trials. As a result of the similarity of trials, we could not explore the influence of age, admission site, intensity of anticholinergic treatment and co-interventions on primary outcomes. No statistically significant group difference was noted in other secondary outcomes, including the need for supplemental asthma therapy, time to short-acting β2-agonists spaced at four hours or longer, asthma clinical scores, lung function and overall withdrawals for any reason.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn children hospitalised for an acute asthma exacerbation, no evidence of benefit for length of hospital stay and other markers of response to therapy was noted when nebulised anticholinergics were added to short-acting β2-agonists. No adverse health effects were reported, yet the small number of trials combined with inadequate reporting prevent firm reassurance regarding the safety of anticholinergics. In the absence of trials conducted in ICUs, no conclusion can be drawn regarding children with impending respiratory failure. These findings support current national and international recommendations indicating that healthcare practitioners should refrain from using anticholinergics in children hospitalised for acute asthma.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review is based on a small number of identified trials conducted in children with acute asthma. All trials contributing to the primary outcome are of high methodological quality, but they are few. As the addition of new trials may change the conclusion, the quality of evidence was downgraded from high to moderate. Additional and larger trials are needed."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2131 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nReady-to-use lipid-based nutrient supplements (LNS) are a highly nutrient-dense supplement, which could be a good source of macro- and micronutrients for pregnant women who need to supplement their nutrient intake.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of LNS for maternal, birth and infant outcomes in pregnant women. Secondary objectives were to explore the most appropriate composition, frequency and duration of LNS administration.\nSearch methods\nIn May 2018, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 22 other databases and two trials registers for any published and ongoing studies. We also checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews, and we contacted the authors of included studies and other experts in the field to identify any studies we may have missed, including any unpublished studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared LNS given in pregnancy to no intervention, placebo, iron folic acid (IFA), multiple micronutrients (MMN) or nutritional counselling.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane procedures.\nMain results\nWe included four studies in 8018 pregnant women. All four studies took place in stable community settings in low- and middle-income countries: Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Ghana and Malawi. None were in emergency settings. The oldest trial was published in 2009. Of the four included studies, one compared LNS to IFA, one compared LNS to MMN, and two compared LNS to both IFA and MMN.\nWe considered the included studies to be of medium to high quality, and we rated the quality of the evidence as moderate using the GRADE approach.\nLNS versus IFA\nMaternal outcomes: there was no difference between the LNS and IFA groups as regards maternal gestational weight gain per week (standard mean difference (SMD) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.44 to 1.36; 2 studies, 3539 participants). One study (536 participants) showed a two-fold increase in the prevalence of maternal anaemia in the LNS group compared to the IFA group, but no difference between the groups as regards adverse effects. There was no difference between the two groups for maternal mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.41; 3 studies, 5628 participants).\nBirth and infant outcomes: there was no difference between the LNS and IFA groups for low birth weight (LBW) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.05; 3 studies, 4826 participants), though newborns in the LNS group had a slightly higher mean birth weight (mean difference (MD) 53.28 g, 95% CI 28.22 to 78.33; 3 studies, 5077 participants) and birth length (cm) (MD 0.24 cm, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.36; 3 studies, 4986 participants). There was a reduction in the proportion of infants who were small for gestational age (SGA) (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.99; 3 studies, 4823 participants) and had newborn stunting (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.94; 2 studies, 4166 participants) in the LNS group, but no difference between the LNS and IFA groups for preterm delivery (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11; 4 studies, 4924 participants), stillbirth (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.52 to 2.48; 3 studies, 5575 participants) or neonatal death (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.14 to 6.51). The current evidence for child developmental outcomes is not sufficient to draw any firm conclusions.\nLNS versus MMN\nMaternal outcomes: one study (662 participants) showed no difference between the LNS and MMN groups as regards gestational weight gain per week or adverse effects. Another study (557 participants) showed an increased risk of maternal anaemia in the LNS group compared to the MMN group.\nBirth and infant outcomes: there was no difference between the LNS and MMN groups for LBW (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 3 studies, 2404 participants), birth weight (MD 23.67 g, 95% CI −10.53 to 57.86; 3 studies, 2573 participants), birth length (MD 0.20 cm, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.42; 3 studies, 2567 participants), SGA (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; 3 studies, 2393 participants), preterm delivery (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.42; 3 studies, 2630 participants), head circumference z score (MD 0.10, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.21; 2 studies, 1549 participants) or neonatal death (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.15; 1 study, 1175 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nFindings from this review suggest that LNS supplementation has a slight, positive effect on weight at birth, length at birth, SGA and newborn stunting compared to IFA. LNS and MMN were comparable for all maternal, birth and infant outcomes. Both IFA and MMN were better at reducing maternal anaemia when compared to LNS. We did not find any trials for LNS given to pregnant women in emergency settings.\nReaders should interpret the beneficial findings of the review with caution since the evidence comes from a small number of trials, with one-large scale study (conducted in community settings in Bangladesh) driving most of the impact. In addition, effect sizes are too small to propose any concrete recommendation for practice.\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": "This review suggests that there may be a slight benefit of LNS on babies who are born small, and on newborn weight and length, when compared to IFA. LNS did not seem to give any additional benefit to women and newborns compared to MMN, and both IFA and MMN were better at reducing maternal anaemia than LNS. We did not find any studies on LNS for pregnant women in emergency settings."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2132 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening condition caused by direct or indirect injury to the lungs. Despite improvements in clinical management (for example, lung protection strategies), mortality in this patient group is at approximately 40%. This is an update of a previous version of this review, last published in 2004.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacological agents in adults with ARDS on mortality, mechanical ventilation, and fitness to return to work at 12 months.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL on 10 December 2018. We searched clinical trials registers and grey literature, and handsearched reference lists of included studies and related reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological agents with control (placebo or standard therapy) to treat adults with established ARDS. We excluded trials of nitric oxide, inhaled prostacyclins, partial liquid ventilation, neuromuscular blocking agents, fluid and nutritional interventions and medical oxygen. We excluded studies published earlier than 2000, because of changes to lung protection strategies for people with ARDS since this date.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 48 RCTs with 6299 participants who had ARDS; two included only participants with mild ARDS (also called acute lung injury). Most studies included causes of ARDS that were both direct and indirect injuries. We noted differences between studies, for example the time of administration or the size of dose, and because of unclear reporting we were uncertain whether all studies had used equivalent lung protection strategies.\nWe included five types of agents as the primary comparisons in the review: corticosteroids, surfactants, N-acetylcysteine, statins, and beta-agonists. We included 15 additional agents (sivelestat, mesenchymal stem cells, ulinastatin, anisodimine, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, recombinant human ACE2 (palifermin), AP301, granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF), levosimendan, prostacyclins, lisofylline, ketaconazole, nitroglycerins, L-2-oxothiazolidine-4-carboxylic acid (OTZ), and penehyclidine hydrochloride).\nWe used GRADE to downgrade outcomes for imprecision (because of few studies and few participants), for study limitations (e.g. high risks of bias) and for inconsistency (e.g. differences between study data).\nCorticosteroids versus placebo or standard therapy\nCorticosteroids may reduce all-cause mortality within three months by 86 per 1000 patients (with as many as 161 fewer to 19 more deaths); however, the 95% confidence interval (CI) includes the possibility of both increased and reduced deaths (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.05; 6 studies, 574 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to the very low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain whether corticosteroids make little or no difference to late all-cause mortality (later than three months) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.52; 1 study, 180 participants), or to the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference (MD) −4.30, 95% CI −9.72 to 1.12; 3 studies, 277 participants). We found that ventilator-free days up to day 28 (VFD) may be improved with corticosteroids (MD 4.09, 95% CI 1.74 to 6.44; 4 studies, 494 participants; low-certainty evidence). No studies reported adverse events leading to discontinuation of study medication, or fitness to return to work at 12 months (FTR).\nSurfactants versus placebo or standard therapy\nWe are uncertain whether surfactants make little or no difference to early mortality (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.29; 9 studies, 1338 participants), or whether they reduce late all-cause mortality (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.61; 1 study, 418 participants). Similarly, we are uncertain whether surfactants reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD −2.50, 95% CI −4.95 to -0.05; 1 study, 16 participants), make little or no difference to VFD (MD −0.39, 95% CI −2.49 to 1.72; 2 studies, 344 participants), or to adverse events leading to discontinuation of study medication (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.44; 2 studies, 88 participants). We are uncertain of these effects because we assessed them as very low-certainty. No studies reported FTR.\nN-aceytylcysteine versus placebo\nWe are uncertain whether N-acetylcysteine makes little or no difference to early mortality, because we assessed this as very low-certainty evidence (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.30; 1 study, 36 participants). No studies reported late all-cause mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, VFD, adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation, or FTR.\nStatins versus placebo\nStatins probably make little or no difference to early mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.26; 3 studies, 1344 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or to VFD (MD 0.40, 95% CI −0.71 to 1.52; 3 studies, 1342 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Statins may make little or no difference to duration of mechanical ventilation (MD 2.70, 95% CI -3.55 to 8.95; 1 study, 60 participants; low-certainty evidence). We could not include data for adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation in one study because it was unclearly reported. No studies reported late all-cause mortality or FTR.\nBeta-agonists versus placebo control\nBeta-agonists probably slightly increase early mortality by 40 per 1000 patients (with as many as 119 more or 25 fewer deaths); however, the 95% CI includes the possibility of an increase as well as a reduction in mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.42; 3 studies, 646 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Due to the very low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain whether beta-agonists increase VFD (MD −2.20, 95% CI −3.68 to −0.71; 3 studies, 646 participants), or make little or no difference to adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation (one study reported little or no difference between groups, and one study reported more events in the beta-agonist group). No studies reported late all-cause mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, or FTR.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found insufficient evidence to determine with certainty whether corticosteroids, surfactants, N-acetylcysteine, statins, or beta-agonists were effective at reducing mortality in people with ARDS, or duration of mechanical ventilation, or increasing ventilator-free days. Three studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of this review. As the potential long-term consequences of ARDS are important to survivors, future research should incorporate a longer follow-up to measure the impacts on quality of life.\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 10 December 2018. We included 48 studies, of 20 different drug types, involving 6299 people who had ARDS. Three studies are awaiting classification (because we did not have enough details to assess them), and 18 studies are still ongoing. We found differences between included studies, such as the severity of ARDS, or potential differences in clinical management and doses. We excluded studies published before 2000, in order to only include up-to-date clinical management of people with ARDS (for example, in the pressure applied during mechanical ventilation). However, we found that many studies did not report these management strategies.\nFor the main comparisons in this review, we included five types of drugs: corticosteroids, surfactants, N-acetylcysteine, statins, and beta-agonists. These were compared to placebo or to standard care."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2133 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPoor diet and insufficient physical activity are major risk factors for non-communicable diseases. Developing healthy diet and physical activity behaviors early in life is important as these behaviors track between childhood and adulthood. Parents and other adult caregivers have important influences on children's health behaviors, but whether their involvement in children's nutrition and physical activity interventions contributes to intervention effectiveness is not known.\nObjectives\n• To assess effects of caregiver involvement in interventions for improving children's dietary intake and physical activity behaviors, including those intended to prevent overweight and obesity\n• To describe intervention content and behavior change techniques employed, drawing from a behavior change technique taxonomy developed and advanced by Abraham, Michie, and colleagues (Abraham 2008; Michie 2011; Michie 2013; Michie 2015)\n• To identify content and techniques related to reported outcomes when such information was reported in included studies\nSearch methods\nIn January 2019, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 11 other databases, and three trials registers. We also searched the references lists of relevant reports and systematic reviews.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effects of interventions to improve children's dietary intake or physical activity behavior, or both, with children aged 2 to 18 years as active participants and at least one component involving caregivers versus the same interventions but without the caregiver component(s). We excluded interventions meant as treatment or targeting children with pre-existing conditions, as well as caregiver-child units residing in orphanages and school hostel environments.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures outlined by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 23 trials with approximately 12,192 children in eligible intervention arms. With the exception of two studies, all were conducted in high-income countries, with more than half performed in North America. Most studies were school-based and involved the addition of healthy eating or physical education classes, or both, sometimes in tandem with other changes to the school environment. The specific intervention strategies used were not always reported completely. However, based on available reports, the behavior change techniques used most commonly in the child-only arm were \"shaping knowledge,\" \"comparison of behavior,\" \"feedback and monitoring,\" and \"repetition and substitution.\" In the child + caregiver arm, the strategies used most commonly included additional \"shaping knowledge\" or \"feedback and monitoring\" techniques, as well as \"social support\" and \"natural consequences.\"\nWe considered all trials to be at high risk of bias for at least one design factor. Seven trials did not contribute any data to analyses. The quality of reporting of intervention content varied between studies, and there was limited scope for meta-analysis. Both validated and non-validated instruments were used to measure outcomes of interest. Outcomes measured and reported differed between studies, with 16 studies contributing data to the meta-analyses. About three-quarters of studies reported their funding sources; no studies reported industry funding. We assessed the quality of evidence to be low or very low.\nDietary behavior change interventions with a caregiver component versus interventions without a caregiver component\nSeven studies compared dietary behavior change interventions with and without a caregiver component. At the end of the intervention, we did not detect a difference between intervention arms in children's percentage of total energy intake from saturated fat (mean difference [MD] −0.42%, 95% confidence interval [CI] −1.25 to 0.41, 1 study, n = 207; low-quality evidence) or from sodium intake (MD −0.12 g/d, 95% CI −0.36 to 0.12, 1 study, n = 207; low-quality evidence). No trial in this comparison reported data for children's combined fruit and vegetable intake, sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) intake, or physical activity levels, nor for adverse effects of interventions.\nPhysical activity interventions with a caregiver component versus interventions without a caregiver component\nSix studies compared physical activity interventions with and without a caregiver component. At the end of the intervention, we did not detect a difference between intervention arms in children's total physical activity (MD 0.20 min/h, 95% CI −1.19 to 1.59, 1 study, n = 54; low-quality evidence) or moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) (standard mean difference [SMD] 0.04, 95% CI −0.41 to 0.49, 2 studies, n = 80; moderate-quality evidence). No trial in this comparison reported data for percentage of children's total energy intake from saturated fat, sodium intake, fruit and vegetable intake, or SSB intake, nor for adverse effects of interventions.\nCombined dietary and physical activity interventions with a caregiver component versus interventions without a caregiver component\nTen studies compared dietary and physical activity interventions with and without a caregiver component. At the end of the intervention, we detected a small positive impact of a caregiver component on children's SSB intake (SMD −0.28, 95% CI −0.44 to −0.12, 3 studies, n = 651; moderate-quality evidence). We did not detect a difference between intervention arms in children's percentage of total energy intake from saturated fat (MD 0.06%, 95% CI −0.67 to 0.80, 2 studies, n = 216; very low-quality evidence), sodium intake (MD 35.94 mg/d, 95% CI −322.60 to 394.47, 2 studies, n = 315; very low-quality evidence), fruit and vegetable intake (MD 0.38 servings/d, 95% CI −0.51 to 1.27, 1 study, n = 134; very low-quality evidence), total physical activity (MD 1.81 min/d, 95% CI −15.18 to 18.80, 2 studies, n = 573; low-quality evidence), or MVPA (MD −0.05 min/d, 95% CI −18.57 to 18.47, 1 study, n = 622; very low-quality evidence). One trial indicated that no adverse events were reported by study participants but did not provide data.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrent evidence is insufficient to support the inclusion of caregiver involvement in interventions to improve children's dietary intake or physical activity behavior, or both. For most outcomes, the quality of the evidence is adversely impacted by the small number of studies with available data, limited effective sample sizes, risk of bias, and imprecision. To establish the value of caregiver involvement, additional studies measuring clinically important outcomes using valid and reliable measures, employing appropriate design and power, and following established reporting guidelines are needed, as is evidence on how such interventions might contribute to health equity.\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 23 studies, published between 1982 and 2019, that implemented diet interventions, physical activity interventions, or combined diet and physical activity interventions with children or adolescents, and evaluated the effects of adding an intervention component involving parents or other adult caregivers. Approximately 12,192 children aged 2 to 18 years were examined. More than half of studies took place in North America, and all but two were conducted in high-income countries. Most studies were school-based and involved the addition of healthy eating or physical education classes, or both, sometimes in tandem with other changes to the school environment. The breadth of information provided about intervention content varied between studies. The most commonly used intervention techniques were those aimed at shaping participants' knowledge, such as providing instruction about how to perform a behavior (e.g. dance, cooking lessons). About three-quarters of studies reported their funding source; no studies reported industry funding."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2134 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic exposure to stress has been linked to several negative physiological and psychological health outcomes. Among employees, stress and its associated effects can also result in productivity losses and higher healthcare costs. In-person (face-to-face) and computer-based (web- and mobile-based) stress management interventions have been shown to be effective in reducing stress in employees compared to no intervention. However, it is unclear if one form of intervention delivery is more effective than the other. It is conceivable that computer-based interventions are more accessible, convenient, and cost-effective.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effects of computer-based interventions versus in-person interventions for preventing and reducing stress in workers.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, NIOSHTIC, NIOSHTIC-2, HSELINE, CISDOC, and two trials registers up to February 2017.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled studies that compared the effectiveness of a computer-based stress management intervention (using any technique) with a face-to-face intervention that had the same content. We included studies that measured stress or burnout as an outcome, and used workers from any occupation as participants.\nData collection and analysis\nThree authors independently screened and selected 75 unique studies for full-text review from 3431 unique reports identified from the search. We excluded 73 studies based on full-text assessment. We included two studies. Two review authors independently extracted stress outcome data from the two included studies. We contacted study authors to gather additional data. We used standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to report study results. We did not perform meta-analyses due to variability in the primary outcome and considerable statistical heterogeneity. We used the GRADE approach to rate the quality of the evidence.\nMain results\nTwo studies met the inclusion criteria, including a total of 159 participants in the included arms of the studies (67 participants completed computer-based interventions; 92 participants completed in-person interventions). Workers were primarily white, Caucasian, middle-aged, and college-educated. Both studies delivered education about stress, its causes, and strategies to reduce stress (e.g. relaxation or mindfulness) via a computer in the computer-based arm, and via small group sessions in the in-person arm. Both studies measured stress using different scales at short-term follow-up only (less than one month). Due to considerable heterogeneity in the results, we could not pool the data, and we analysed the results of the studies separately. The SMD of stress levels in the computer-based intervention group was 0.81 standard deviations higher (95% CI 0.21 to 1.41) than the in-person group in one study, and 0.35 standard deviations lower (95% CI -0.76 to 0.05) than the in-person group in another study. We judged both studies as having a high risk of bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found very low-quality evidence with conflicting results, when comparing the effectiveness of computer-based stress management interventions with in-person stress management interventions in employees. We could include only two studies with small sample sizes. We have very little confidence in the effect estimates. It is very likely that future studies will change these conclusions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the results of the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found two studies, involving 159 employees, that looked at stress levels in workers after completing stress management programmes on a computer, compared to workers receiving that same programme content from a live person. Both studies taught participants, individually or in small groups, how to recognise and reduce stress, but had conflicting results."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2135 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBreathing exercises have been widely used worldwide as a non-pharmacological therapy to treat people with asthma. Breathing exercises aim to control the symptoms of asthma and can be performed as the Papworth Method, the Buteyko breathing technique, yogic breathing, deep diaphragmatic breathing or any other similar intervention that manipulates the breathing pattern. The training of breathing usually focuses on tidal and minute volume and encourages relaxation, exercise at home, the modification of breathing pattern, nasal breathing, holding of breath, lower rib cage and abdominal breathing.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the evidence for the efficacy of breathing exercises in the management of people with asthma.\nSearch methods\nTo identify relevant studies we searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED and performed handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. We also consulted trials registers and reference lists of included articles.\nThe most recent literature search was on 4 April 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials of breathing exercises in adults with asthma compared with a control group receiving asthma education or, alternatively, with no active control group.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We used Review Manager 5 software for data analysis based on the random-effects model. We expressed continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) with confidence intervals (CIs) of 95%. We assessed heterogeneity by inspecting the forest plots. We applied the Chi2 test, with a P value of 0.10 indicating statistical significance, and the I2 statistic, with a value greater than 50% representing a substantial level of heterogeneity. The primary outcome was quality of life.\nMain results\nWe included nine new studies (1910 participants) in this update, resulting in a total of 22 studies involving 2880 participants in the review. Fourteen studies used Yoga as the intervention, four studies involved breathing retraining, one the Buteyko method, one the Buteyko method and pranayama, one the Papworth method and one deep diaphragmatic breathing. The studies were different from one another in terms of type of breathing exercise performed, number of participants enrolled, number of sessions completed, period of follow-up, outcomes reported and statistical presentation of data. Asthma severity in participants from the included studies ranged from mild to moderate, and the samples consisted solely of outpatients. Twenty studies compared breathing exercise with inactive control, and two with asthma education control groups. Meta-analysis was possible for the primary outcome quality of life and the secondary outcomes asthma symptoms, hyperventilation symptoms, and some lung function variables. Assessment of risk of bias was impaired by incomplete reporting of methodological aspects of most of the included studies. We did not include adverse effects as an outcome in the review.\nBreathing exercises versus inactive control\nFor quality of life, measured by the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), meta-analysis showed improvement favouring the breathing exercises group at three months (MD 0.42, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.68; 4 studies, 974 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and at six months the OR was 1.34 for the proportion of people with at least 0.5 unit improvement in AQLQ, (95% CI 0.97 to 1.86; 1 study, 655 participants). For asthma symptoms, measured by the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), meta-analysis at up to three months was inconclusive, MD of -0.15 units (95% CI −2.32 to 2.02; 1 study, 115 participants; low-certainty evidence), and was similar over six months (MD −0.08 units, 95% CI −0.22 to 0.07; 1 study, 449 participants). For hyperventilation symptoms, measured by the Nijmegen Questionnaire (from four to six months), meta-analysis showed less symptoms with breathing exercises (MD −3.22, 95% CI −6.31 to −0.13; 2 studies, 118 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but this was not shown at six months (MD 0.63, 95% CI −0.90 to 2.17; 2 studies, 521 participants). Meta-analyses for forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) measured at up to three months was inconclusive, MD −0.10 L, (95% CI −0.32 to 0.12; 4 studies, 252 participants; very low-certainty evidence). However, for FEV1 % of predicted, an improvement was observed in favour of the breathing exercise group (MD 6.88%, 95% CI 5.03 to 8.73; five studies, 618 participants).\nBreathing exercises versus asthma education\nFor quality of life, one study measuring AQLQ was inconclusive up to three months (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.34; 1 study, 183 participants). When assessed from four to six months, the results favoured breathing exercises (MD 0.38, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.68; 1 study, 183 participants). Hyperventilation symptoms measured by the Nijmegen Questionnaire were inconclusive up to three months (MD −1.24, 95% CI −3.23 to 0.75; 1 study, 183 participants), but favoured breathing exercises from four to six months (MD −3.16, 95% CI −5.35 to −0.97; 1 study, 183 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nBreathing exercises may have some positive effects on quality of life, hyperventilation symptoms, and lung function. Due to some methodological differences among included studies and studies with poor methodology, the quality of evidence for the measured outcomes ranged from moderate to very low certainty according to GRADE criteria. In addition, further studies including full descriptions of treatment methods and outcome measurements are required.\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 how effective breathing exercises are for adults with asthma. We were most interested to know if breathing exercises improved people's quality of life (our primary outcome), and also if they helped improve asthma symptoms, hyperventilation (over-breathing), and lung function (our secondary outcomes)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2136 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTopical corticosteroids are the most frequently prescribed dermatological treatment and are often used by pregnant women with skin conditions. However, little is known about their safety in pregnancy.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of topical corticosteroids on pregnancy outcomes in pregnant women.\nSearch methods\nThis is an update of a review previously published in 2009. We updated our searches of the following databases to July 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of included studies, published reviews, articles that had cited the included studies, and one author's literature collection, for further references to relevant RCTs.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials and cohort studies of topical corticosteroids in pregnant women, as well as case-control studies comparing maternal exposure to topical corticosteroids between cases and controls when studies reported pre-specified outcomes. The primary outcomes included mode of delivery, major congenital abnormality, birth weight, and preterm delivery (delivery before 37 completed weeks gestation); the secondary outcomes included foetal death, minor congenital abnormality, and low Apgar score (less than seven at 5 min).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently applied selection criteria, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the included studies. A third author was available for resolving differences of opinion. A further author independently extracted data from included studies that were conducted by authors of this systematic review.\nMain results\nWe included 7 new observational studies in this update, bringing the total number to 14, including 5 cohort and 9 case-control studies, with 1,601,515 study subjects.\nMost studies found no causal associations between maternal exposure to topical corticosteroids of any potency and pregnancy outcomes when compared with no exposure. These outcomes included: mode of delivery (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.15, 1 cohort study, n = 9904, low quality evidence); congenital abnormalities, including orofacial cleft or cleft palate and hypospadias (where the urethral opening is on the underside of the penis) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.96, 2 cohort studies, n = 9512, low quality evidence; and odds ratio (OR) 1.07, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.60, 1 case-control study, n = 56,557); low birth weight (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.36; n = 59,419, 4 cohort studies; very low quality evidence); preterm delivery (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08, 4 cohort studies, n = 59,419, low quality evidence); foetal death (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.73, 4 cohort studies, n = 63,885, very low quality evidence); and low Apgar score (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.31, 1 cohort study, n = 9220, low quality evidence).\nWe conducted stratified analyses of mild or moderate potency, and potent or very potent topical corticosteroids, but we found no causal associations between maternal exposure to topical corticosteroid of any potency and congenital abnormality, orofacial clefts, preterm delivery, or low Apgar score. For low birth weight, although the meta-analysis based on study-level data was not significant for either mild to moderate corticosteroids (pooled RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.09, 3 cohort studies, n > 55,713) or potent to very potent corticosteroids (pooled RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.58, 4 cohort studies, n > 47,651), there were significant differences between the two subgroups (P = 0.04). The results from three of the individual studies in the meta-analysis indicated an increased risk of low birth weight in women who received potent to very potent topical corticosteroids. Maternal use of mild to moderate potency topical steroids was associated with a decreased risk of foetal death (pooled RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.77, 2 studies, n = 48,749; low quality evidence), but we did not observe this effect when potent to very potent topical corticosteroids were given during pregnancy (pooled RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.88, 3 studies, n = 37,086, low quality evidence).\nWe used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group approach to rate the overall quality of the evidence. Data from observational studies started at low quality. We further downgraded the evidence because of imprecision in low birth weight and inconsistency in foetal death. Lower quality evidence resulted in lower confidence in the estimate of effect for those outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis update adds more evidence showing no causal associations between maternal exposure to topical corticosteroids of all potencies and pregnancy outcomes including mode of delivery, congenital abnormalities, preterm delivery, foetal death, and low Apgar score, which is consistent with the previous version of this review. This update provides stratified analyses based on steroid potency; we found no association between maternal use of topical corticosteroids of any potency and an increase in adverse pregnancy outcomes, including mode of delivery, congenital abnormality, preterm delivery, foetal death, and low Apgar score. Similar to the previous version of the review, this update identified a probable association between low birth weight and maternal use of potent to very potent topical corticosteroids, especially when the cumulative dosage of topical corticosteroids throughout the pregnancy is very large, which warrants further investigation. The finding of a possible protective effect of mild to moderate topical corticosteroids on foetal death could also be examined.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The overall quality of evidence is low because all available studies were observational. The high quality study design of the randomised controlled trial that allocates participants to receive either topical corticosteroids or no treatment is not generally feasible in pregnant women due to ethical concerns about possible exposure of the foetus to an experimental treatment.\nWhere we further downgraded the quality of the evidence to 'very low', it was because we had detected variation in the results from the studies that we found, which means that we have low confidence in our estimates of the effects for our outcomes."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2137 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMore than 400,000 cases of oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer (OPSCC) are diagnosed every year worldwide and this is rising. Much of the increase has been attributed to human papillomavirus (HPV). HPV-positive OPSCC patients are often younger and have significantly improved survival relative to HPV-negative patients. Traditional management of OPSCC has been with radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy, as this was shown to have similar survival to open surgery but with significantly lower morbidity. Techniques have evolved, however, with the development of computerised planning and intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and of minimally invasive surgical techniques. Acute and late toxicities associated with chemoradiotherapy are a significant burden for OPSCC patients and with an ever-younger cohort, any strategies that could decrease treatment-associated morbidity should be investigated.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of de-intensified adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy in comparison to standard adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy in patients treated with minimally invasive transoral surgery (transoral robotic surgery or transoral laser microsurgery) for resectable HPV-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 26 April 2018.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with carcinoma of the oropharynx (as defined by the World Health Organization classification C09, C10). Cancers included were primary HPV-positive squamous cell tumours originating from the oropharyngeal mucosa. Tumours were classified as T1-4a with or without nodal spread and with no evidence of distant metastatic spread. The intervention was minimally invasive transoral surgery followed by de-intensified adjuvant therapy (either omission of chemotherapy or reduced-dose radiotherapy). The comparator was minimally invasive transoral surgery followed by standard concurrent chemoradiotherapy or standard-dose radiotherapy. The treatments received were of curative intent and patients had not undergone any prior intervention, other than diagnostic biopsy.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were overall survival (disease-related survival was to be studied where possible) and disease-free survival, measured at one, two, three and five years. Our secondary outcomes included assessment of swallowing ability and voice, measured at one, six, 12 and 24 months. We planned to use GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe did not identify any completed RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. However, three eligible studies are in progress:\nADEPT is a phase III trial comparing postoperative radiotherapy with or without cisplatin in HPV-positive T1-4a OPSCC patients. Included patients must have received minimally invasive surgery and demonstrated extra-capsular spread from disease in the neck.\nECOG-E3311 is a phase II trial of treatment for HPV-positive locally advanced OPSCC (stages III-IVa + IVb without distant metastasis). Patients are stratified after minimally invasive surgery. Medium-risk patients are randomised to either standard or reduced-dose radiotherapy.\nPATHOS is a phase III trial of treatment for HPV-positive OPSCC (T1-3, N0-2b). Patients are stratified after minimally invasive surgery. Medium-risk patients are randomised to either standard or reduced-dose radiotherapy. High-risk patients are randomised to radiotherapy with or without concurrent cisplatin.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review highlights the current lack of high-quality randomised controlled trials studying treatment de-escalation after minimally invasive surgery in patients with HPV-positive OPSCC. However, trials that will meet the inclusion criteria for this review are in progress with results expected between 2021 and 2023.\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": "Currently there is no high-quality evidence comparing these two treatments, however such trials are in progress."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2138 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIncontinence after prostatectomy for benign or malignant disease is a well-known and often a feared outcome. Although small degrees of incidental incontinence may go virtually unnoticed, larger degrees of incontinence can have a major impact on a man's quality of life.\nConceptually, post-prostatectomy incontinence may be caused by sphincter malfunction or bladder dysfunction, or both. Most men with post-prostatectomy incontinence (60% to 100%) have stress urinary incontinence, which is involuntary urinary leakage on effort or exertion, or on sneezing or coughing. This may be due to intrinsic sphincter deficiency and may be treated with surgery for optimal management of incontinence. Detrusor dysfunction is more common after surgery for benign prostatic disease.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effects of surgical treatment for urinary incontinence related to presumed sphincter deficiency after prostate surgery for:\n- men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) - transurethral resection of prostate (TURP), photo vaporisation of the prostate, laser enucleation of the prostate or open prostatectomy - and\n- men with prostate cancer - radical prostatectomy (retropubic, perineal, laparoscopic, or robotic).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, ClinicalTrials.gov, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 31 March 2014); MEDLINE (January 1966 to April 2014); EMBASE (January 1988 to April 2014); and LILACS (January 1982 to April 2014). We handsearched the reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings. We contacted investigators to locate studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised or quasi-randomised trials that include surgical treatments of urinary incontinence after prostate surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened the trials identified, appraised quality of papers, and extracted data.\nMain results\nOnly one study with 45 participants met the inclusion criteria. Men were divided in two sub-groups (minimal or total incontinence) and each group was randomised to artificial urethral sphincter (AUS) implantation or Macroplastique injection. Follow-up ranged from six to 120 months. In the trial as a whole, the men treated with AUS were more likely to be dry (18/20, 82%) than those who had the injectable treatment (11/23, 46%) (odds ratio (OR) 5.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28 to 25.10). However, this effect was only statistically significant for the men with more severe ('total') incontinence (OR 8.89, 95% CI 1.40 to 56.57) and the CIs were wide. There were more severe complications in the group undergoing AUS, and the costs were higher. AUS implantation was complicated in 5/22 (23%) men: the implant had to be removed from one man because of infection and in one man due to the erosion of the cuff, in one man the pump was changed due to mechanical failure, in one man there was migration to the intraperitoneal region, and one man experienced scrotal erosion. In the injectable group, 3/23 (13%) men had a complication: one man treated with Macroplastique injection had to be catheterised because of urinary retention and two men developed urinary tract infections.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence available at present was of very low quality because we identified only one small randomised clinical trial. Although the result was favourable for the implantation of AUS in the group with severe incontinence, this result should be considered with caution due to the small sample size and uncertain methodological quality of the study found.\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": "Urinary leakage (incontinence) after surgery to remove the prostate (prostatectomy) for benign or malignant disease is a well-known and often feared outcome. Although a small amount of incontinence may not cause a problem, larger degrees of incontinence can have a major impact on a man's quality of life. Improvement in urinary leakage may occur six to 12 months after the prostatic surgery, but for men with persistent bothersome leakage despite conservative therapy such as pelvic floor exercises, surgery may be offered."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2139 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHuman milk alone may provide inadequate amounts of protein to meet the growth requirements of preterm infants because of restrictions in the amount of fluid they can tolerate. It has become common practice to feed preterm infants with breast milk fortified with protein and other nutrients but there is debate about the optimal concentration of protein in commercially available fortifiers.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effects of different protein concentrations in human milk fortifier, fed to preterm infants, on growth and neurodevelopment.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search CENTRAL (2019, Issue 8), Ovid MEDLINE and CINAHL on 15 August 2019. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all published and unpublished randomised, quasi-randomised and cluster-randomised trials comparing two different concentrations of protein in human milk fortifier.\nWe included preterm infants (less than 37 weeks' gestational age). Participants may have been exclusively fed human milk or have been supplemented with formula.\nThe concentration of protein was classified as low (< 1g protein/100 mL expressed breast milk (EBM)), moderate (≥ 1g to < 1.4g protein/100 mL EBM) or high (≥ 1.4g protein/100 mL EBM). We excluded trials that compared two protein concentrations that fell within the same category.\nData collection and analysis\nWe undertook data collection and analyses using the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors independently evaluated trials. Primary outcomes included growth, neurodevelopmental outcome and mortality. Data were synthesised using risk ratios (RR), risk differences and mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe identified nine trials involving 861 infants. There is one trial awaiting classification, and nine ongoing trials. The trials were mostly conducted in infants born < 32 weeks' gestational age or < 1500 g birthweight, or both. All used a fortifier derived from bovine milk. Two trials fed infants exclusively with mother's own milk, three trials gave supplementary feeds with donor human milk and four trials supplemented with preterm infant formula. Overall, trials were small but generally at low or unclear risk of bias.\nHigh versus moderate protein concentration of human milk fortifier\nThere was moderate certainty evidence that a high protein concentration likely increased in-hospital weight gain compared to moderate concentration of human milk fortifier (MD 0.66 g/kg/day, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.82; trials = 6, participants = 606). The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of high versus moderate protein concentration on length gain (MD 0.01 cm/week, 95% CI –0.01 to 0.03; trials = 5, participants = 547; very low certainty evidence) and head circumference gain (MD 0.00 cm/week, 95% CI –0.01 to 0.02; trials = 5, participants = 549; very low certainty evidence).\nOnly one trial reported neonatal mortality, with no deaths in either group (participants = 45).\nModerate versus low protein concentration of human milk fortifier\nA moderate versus low protein concentration fortifier may increase weight gain (MD 2.08 g/kg/day, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.77; trials = 2, participants = 176; very low certainty evidence) with little to no effect on head circumference gain (MD 0.13 cm/week, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.26; I² = 85%; trials = 3, participants = 217; very low certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. There was low certainty evidence that a moderate protein concentration may increase length gain (MD 0.09 cm/week, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.14; trials = 3, participants = 217).\nOnly one trial reported mortality and found no difference between groups (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.17; participants = 112).\nNo trials reported long term growth or neurodevelopmental outcomes including cerebral palsy and developmental delay.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFeeding preterm infants with a human milk fortifier containing high amounts of protein (≥ 1.4g/100 mL EBM) compared with a fortifier containing moderate protein concentration (≥ 1 g to < 1.4 g/100 mL EBM) results in small increases in weight gain during the neonatal admission. There may also be small increases in weight and length gain when infants are fed a fortifier containing moderate versus low protein concentration (< 1 g protein/100 mL EBM). The certainty of this evidence is very low to moderate; therefore, results may change when the findings of ongoing studies are available. There is insufficient evidence to assess the impact of protein concentration on adverse effects or long term outcomes such as neurodevelopment. Further trials are needed to determine whether modest increases in weight gain observed with higher protein concentration fortifiers are associated with benefits or harms to long term growth and neurodevelopment.\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": "Breast milk is the best form of nutrition for preterm infants. However, as preterm infants often have difficulties tolerating large amounts of milk, they may not get the recommended amounts of protein from breast milk alone. It has become common clinical practice to fortify breast milk for preterm infants with additional nutrients with a product known as human milk fortifier. Over time the amount (concentration) of protein used in human milk fortifiers has increased, but there is debate about what the optimal protein concentration of human milk fortifier is."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2140 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time and relief of pain is now seen as important.\nWe designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions.\nAs the leading cause of morbidity in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (that is pain lasting three months or longer) can arise in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications (nociceptive, neuropathic, or idiopathic) from genetic conditions, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, as well as for other unknown reasons.\nAntidepressants have been used in adults for pain relief and pain management since the 1970s. The clinical impression from extended use over many years is that antidepressants are useful for some neuropathic pain symptoms, and that effects on pain relief are divorced and different from effects on depression; for example, the effects of tricyclic antidepressants on pain may occur at different, and often lower, doses than those on depression. Amitriptyline is one of the most commonly used drugs for treating neuropathic pain in the UK.\nObjectives\nTo assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of antidepressants used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, of any dose and any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing any antidepressant with placebo or an active comparator.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.\nMain results\nWe included four studies with a total of 272 participants (6 to 18 years of age) who had either chronic neuropathic pain, complex regional pain syndrome type 1, irritable bowel syndrome, functional abdominal pain, or functional dyspepsia. All of the studies were small. One study investigated amitriptyline versus gabapentin (34 participants), two studies investigated amitriptyline versus placebo (123 participants), and one study investigated citalopram versus placebo (115 participants). Due to a lack of available data we were unable to complete any quantitative analysis.\nRisk of bias for the four included studies varied, due to issues with randomisation and allocation concealment (low to unclear risk); blinding of participants, personnel, and outcome assessors (low to unclear risk); reporting of results (low to unclear risk); and size of the study populations (high risk). We judged the remaining domains, attrition and other potential sources of bias, as low risk of bias.\nPrimary outcomes\nNo studies reported our primary outcomes of participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater or 50% or greater, or Patient Global Impression of Change.\nSecondary outcomes\nAll studies measured adverse events, with very few reported (11 out of 272 participants). All but one adverse event occurred in the active treatment groups (amitriptyline, citalopram, and gabapentin). Adverse events in all studies, across active treatment and comparator groups, were considered to be a mild reaction, such as nausea, dizziness, drowsiness, tiredness, and abdominal discomfort (very low-quality evidence).\nThere were also very few withdrawals due to adverse events, again all but one from the active treatment groups (very low-quality evidence).\nNo serious adverse events were reported across any of the studies (very low-quality evidence).\nThere were few or no data for our remaining secondary outcomes.\nQuality of evidence\nFor the outcomes with available data, we downgraded the quality of the evidence by three levels to very low-quality due to too few data and the fact that the number of events was too small to be meaningful.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe identified only a small number of studies with small numbers of participants and insufficient data for analysis.\nAs we could undertake no meta-analysis, we are unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of antidepressants to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. Similarly, we could not comment on our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning; and quality of life.\nWe know from adult randomised controlled trials that some antidepressants, such as amitriptyline, can provide some pain relief in certain chronic non-cancer pain conditions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "No studies reported on pain relief of 30% or greater, or 50% or greater. Side effects were uncommon, and occurred only as mild reactions such as nausea, dizziness, drowsiness, tiredness, and abdominal discomfort (4 due to amitriptyline, 5 due to citalopram, 1 due to gabapentin, and 1 due to placebo). These 11 participants withdrew from the study due to these mild side effects. There were no serious side effects."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2141 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDespite evidence supporting the effectiveness of diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) in reducing the risk of sight loss, attendance for screening is consistently below recommended levels.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective of the review was to assess the effectiveness of quality improvement (QI) interventions that seek to increase attendance for DRS in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.\nSecondary objectives were:\nTo use validated taxonomies of QI intervention strategies and behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to code the description of interventions in the included studies and determine whether interventions that include particular QI strategies or component BCTs are more effective in increasing screening attendance;\nTo explore heterogeneity in effect size within and between studies to identify potential explanatory factors for variability in effect size;\nTo explore differential effects in subgroups to provide information on how equity of screening attendance could be improved;\nTo critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the resource use, costs and cost effectiveness.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ProQuest Family Health, OpenGrey, the ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that were designed to improve attendance for DRS or were evaluating general quality improvement (QI) strategies for diabetes care and reported the effect of the intervention on DRS attendance. We searched the resources on 13 February 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the searches.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs that compared any QI intervention to usual care or a more intensive (stepped) intervention versus a less intensive intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nWe coded the QI strategy using a modification of the taxonomy developed by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) and BCTs using the BCT Taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1). We used Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, and Social capital (PROGRESS) elements to describe the characteristics of participants in the included studies that could have an impact on equity of access to health services.\nTwo review authors independently extracted data. One review author entered the data into Review Manager 5 and a second review author checked them. Two review authors independently assessed risks of bias in the included studies and extracted data. We rated certainty of evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 66 RCTs conducted predominantly (62%) in the USA. Overall we judged the trials to be at low or unclear risk of bias. QI strategies were multifaceted and targeted patients, healthcare professionals or healthcare systems. Fifty-six studies (329,164 participants) compared intervention versus usual care (median duration of follow-up 12 months). Overall, DRS attendance increased by 12% (risk difference (RD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.14; low-certainty evidence) compared with usual care, with substantial heterogeneity in effect size. Both DRS-targeted (RD 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.22) and general QI interventions (RD 0.12, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.15) were effective, particularly where baseline DRS attendance was low. All BCT combinations were associated with significant improvements, particularly in those with poor attendance. We found higher effect estimates in subgroup analyses for the BCTs ‘goal setting (outcome)’ (RD 0.26, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.36) and ‘feedback on outcomes of behaviour’ (RD 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.29) in interventions targeting patients, and ‘restructuring the social environment’ (RD 0.19, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.26) and ‘credible source’ (RD 0.16, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.24) in interventions targeting healthcare professionals.\nTen studies (23,715 participants) compared a more intensive (stepped) intervention versus a less intensive intervention. In these studies DRS attendance increased by 5% (RD 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.09; moderate-certainty evidence).\nFourteen studies reporting any QI intervention compared to usual care included economic outcomes. However, only five of these were full economic evaluations. Overall, we found that there is insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions about the relative cost effectiveness of the interventions compared to each other or against usual care.\nWith the exception of gender and ethnicity, the characteristics of participants were poorly described in terms of PROGRESS elements. Seventeen studies (25.8%) were conducted in disadvantaged populations. No studies were carried out in low- or middle-income countries.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results of this review provide evidence that QI interventions targeting patients, healthcare professionals or the healthcare system are associated with meaningful improvements in DRS attendance compared to usual care. There was no statistically significant difference between interventions specifically aimed at DRS and those which were part of a general QI strategy for improving diabetes care. This is a significant finding, due to the additional benefits of general QI interventions in terms of improving glycaemic control, vascular risk management and screening for other microvascular complications. It is likely that further (but smaller) improvements in DRS attendance can also be achieved by increasing the intensity of a particular QI component or adding further components.\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": "The results of this review found evidence that interventions that target patients, healthcare professionals or the healthcare system are likely to be effective for improving attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening compared to usual care. We found benefits for interventions that were specifically aimed at diabetic retinopathy screening, as well as those which were part of a general strategy to improve diabetes care. This is important, since more general strategies are associated with additional benefits, such as improving blood glucose control and increasing the detection of other diabetes-related complications."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2142 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMénière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. A number of pharmacological interventions have been used in the management of this condition, including betahistine, diuretics, antiviral medications and corticosteroids. The underlying cause of Ménière's disease is unknown, as is the way in which these treatments may work. The efficacy of these different interventions at preventing vertigo attacks, and their associated symptoms, is currently unclear.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of systemic pharmacological interventions versus placebo or no treatment in people with Ménière's disease.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 14 September 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with definite or probable Ménière's disease comparing betahistine, diuretics, antihistamines, antivirals or systemic corticosteroids with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with follow-up of less than three months, or with a cross-over design (unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) change in hearing, 6) change in tinnitus and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 10 studies with a total of 848 participants. The studies evaluated the following interventions: betahistine, diuretics, antivirals and corticosteroids. We did not identify any evidence on antihistamines.\nBetahistine\nSeven RCTs (548 participants) addressed this comparison. However, we were unable to conduct any meta-analyses for our primary outcomes as not all outcomes were considered by every study, and studies that did report the same outcome used different time points for follow-up, or assessed the outcome using different methods. Therefore, we were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. Some data were available for each of our primary outcomes, but the evidence was low- or very low-certainty throughout. One study reported on the outcome 'improvement in vertigo' at 6 to ≤ 12 months, and another study reported this outcome at > 12 months. Four studies reported on the change in vertigo, but again all used different methods of assessment (vertigo frequency, or a global score of vertigo severity) or different time points. A single study reported on serious adverse events.\nDiuretics\nTwo RCTs addressed this comparison. One considered the use of isosorbide (220 participants), and the other used a combination of amiloride hydrochloride and hydrochlorothiazide (80 participants). Again, we were unable to conduct any meta-analyses for our primary outcomes, as only one study reported on the outcome 'improvement in vertigo' (at 6 to ≤ 12 months), one study reported on change in vertigo (at 3 to < 6 months) and neither study assessed serious adverse events. Therefore, we were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. The evidence was all very low-certainty.\nOther pharmacological interventions\nWe also identified one study that assessed antivirals (24 participants), and one study that assessed corticosteroids (16 participants). The evidence for these interventions was all very low-certainty. Again, serious adverse events were not considered by either study.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence for systemic pharmacological interventions for Ménière's disease is very uncertain. There are few RCTs that compare these interventions to placebo or no treatment, and the evidence that is currently available from these studies is of low or very low certainty. This means that we have very low confidence that the effects reported are accurate estimates of the true effect of these interventions. Consensus on the appropriate outcomes to measure in studies of Ménière's disease is needed (i.e. a core outcome set) in order to guide future studies in this area and enable meta-analyses of the results. This must include appropriate consideration of the potential harms of treatment, as well as the benefits.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This evidence is up-to-date to September 2022."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2143 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFulvestrant is a selective oestrogen receptor down-regulator (SERD), which by blocking proliferation of breast cancer cells, is an effective endocrine treatment for women with hormone-sensitive advanced breast cancer. The goal of such systemic therapy in this setting is to reduce symptoms, improve quality of life, and increase survival time.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of fulvestrant for hormone-sensitive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer in postmenopausal women, as compared to other standard endocrine agents.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov on 7 July 2015. We also searched major conference proceedings (American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium) and practice guidelines from major oncology groups (ASCO, European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and Cancer Care Ontario). We handsearched reference lists from relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included for analyses randomised controlled trials that enrolled postmenopausal women with hormone-sensitive advanced breast cancer (TNM classifications: stages IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC) or metastatic breast cancer (TNM classification: stage IV) with an intervention group treated with fulvestrant with or without other standard anticancer therapy.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data from trials identified in the searches, conducted 'Risk of bias' assessments of the included studies, and assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Outcome data extracted from these trials for our analyses and review included progression-free survival (PFS) or time to progression (TTP) or time to treatment failure, overall survival, clinical benefit rate, toxicity, and quality of life. We used the fixed-effect model for meta-analysis where possible.\nMain results\nWe included nine studies randomising 4514 women for meta-analysis and review. Overall results for the primary endpoint of PFS indicated that women receiving fulvestrant did at least as well as the control groups (hazard ratio (HR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.02; P = 0.18, I2= 56%, 4258 women, 9 studies, high-quality evidence). In the one high-quality study that tested fulvestrant at the currently approved and now standard dose of 500 mg against anastrozole, women treated with fulvestrant 500 mg did better than anastrozole, with a HR for TTP of 0.66 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.93; 205 women) and a HR for overall survival of 0.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.98; 205 women). There was no difference in PFS whether fulvestrant was used in combination with another endocrine therapy or in the first- or second-line setting, when compared to control treatments: for monotherapy HR 0.97 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.04) versus HR 0.87 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.99) for combination therapy when compared to control, and HR 0.93 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.03) in the first-line setting and HR 0.96 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.04) in the second-line setting.\nOverall, there was no difference between fulvestrant and control treatments in clinical benefit rate (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.10; P = 0.29, I2 = 24%, 4105 women, 9 studies, high-quality evidence) or overall survival (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.09, P = 0.62, I2 = 66%, 2480 women, 5 studies, high-quality evidence). There was no significant difference in vasomotor toxicity (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.18, 3544 women, 8 studies, high-quality evidence), arthralgia (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09, 3244 women, 7 studies, high-quality evidence), and gynaecological toxicities (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.57, 2848 women, 6 studies, high-quality evidence). Four studies reported quality of life, none of which reported a difference between the fulvestrant and control arms, though specific data were not presented.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor postmenopausal women with advanced hormone-sensitive breast cancer, fulvestrant is at least as effective and safe as the comparator endocrine therapies in the included studies. However, fulvestrant may be potentially more effective than current therapies when given at 500 mg, though this higher dosage was used in only one of the nine studies included in the review. We saw no advantage with combination therapy, and fulvestrant was equally as effective as control therapies in both the first- and second-line setting. Our review demonstrates that fulvestrant is a safe and effective systemic therapy and can be considered as a valid option in the sequence of treatments for postmenopausal women with hormone-sensitive advanced breast cancer.\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 fulvestrant was at least as effective as the other three standard endocrine therapies used in the treatment of advanced hormone-sensitive breast cancer and is possibly more effective at the new standard dose of 500 mg, rather than the lower dose of 250 mg, which was previously used and tested in all but one of the included studies. We also found that combining fulvestrant with an aromatase inhibitor did not improve effectiveness, and neither was effectiveness influenced by whether fulvestrant was used as the first treatment upon diagnosis of advanced disease or after another endocrine therapy. This was evident in the pooled data analysis for both survival time without progression of cancer and the rate of tumour shrinkage or stabilisation due to fulvestrant as compared with the other endocrine therapies. In addition, fulvestrant-treated women did not experience worse side effects than those receiving the comparator endocrine therapies, and quality of life was equivalent in both fulvestrant-treated women and women treated with the other endocrine therapies.\nFulvestrant can therefore be considered an effective and safe treatment for postmenopausal women with advanced hormone-sensitive breast cancer, when treatment with endocrine therapy is indicated."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2144 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGenital infections caused by Chlamydia trachomatis are the most prevalent bacterial sexually transmitted infection worldwide. Screening of sexually active young adults to detect and treat asymptomatic infections might reduce chlamydia transmission and prevent reproductive tract morbidity, particularly pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in women, which can cause tubal infertility and ectopic pregnancy.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects and safety of chlamydia screening versus standard care on chlamydia transmission and infection complications in pregnant and non-pregnant women and in men.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Infections Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL, DARE, PsycINFO and Web of Science electronic databases up to 14 February 2016, together with World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also handsearched conference proceedings, contacted trial authors and reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adult women (non-pregnant and pregnant) and men comparing a chlamydia screening intervention with usual care and reporting on a primary outcome (C. trachomatis prevalence, PID in women, epididymitis in men or incidence of preterm delivery). We included non-randomised controlled clinical trials if there were no RCTs for a primary outcome.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus or adjudication by a third reviewer. We described results in forest plots and conducted meta-analysis where appropriate using a fixed-effect model to estimate risk ratios (RR with 95% confidence intervals, CI) in intervention vs control groups. We conducted a pre-specified sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome, PID incidence, according to the risks of selection and detection bias.\nMain results\nWe included six trials involving 359,078 adult women and men. One trial was at low risk of bias in all six specific domains assessed. Two trials examined the effect of multiple rounds of chlamydia screening on C. trachomatis transmission. A cluster-controlled trial in women and men in the general population in the Netherlands found no change in chlamydia test positivity after three yearly invitations (intervention 4.1% vs control 4.3%, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.09, 1 trial, 317,304 participants at first screening invitation, low quality evidence). Uptake of the intervention was low (maximum 16%). A cluster-randomised trial in female sex workers in Peru found a reduction in chlamydia prevalence after four years (adjusted RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.98, 1 trial, 4465 participants, low quality evidence).\nFour RCTs examined the effect of chlamydia screening on PID in women 12 months after a single screening offer. In analysis of four trials according to the intention-to-treat principle, the risk of PID was lower in women in intervention than control groups, with little evidence of between-trial heterogeneity (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.94, I2 7%, 4 trials, 21,686 participants, moderate quality evidence). In a sensitivity analysis, the estimated effect of chlamydia screening in two RCTs at low risk of detection bias (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.17) was compatible with no effect and was lower than in two RCTs at high or unclear risk of detection bias (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.83).\nThe risk of epididymitis in men invited for screening, 12 months after a single screening offer, was 20% lower risk for epididymitis than in those not invited; the confidence interval was wide and compatible with no effect (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.42, 1 trial, 14,980 participants, very low quality evidence).\nWe found no RCTs of the effects of chlamydia screening in pregnancy and no trials that measured the harms of chlamydia screening.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence about the effects of screening on C. trachomatis transmission is of low quality because of directness and risk of bias. There is moderate quality evidence that detection and treatment of chlamydia infection can reduce the risk of PID in women at individual level. There is an absence of RCT evidence about the effects of chlamydia screening in pregnancy.\nFuture RCTs of chlamydia screening interventions should determine the effects of chlamydia screening in pregnancy, of repeated rounds of screening on the incidence of chlamydia-associated PID and chlamydia reinfection in general and high risk populations.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence is up to date as of February 2016. We found six trials involving 359,078 adult women and men in Denmark, the Netherlands, Peru, the UK and the United States. Two trials examined the effect of chlamydia screening on levels of chlamydia infection. In the Netherlands, investigators invited women and men aged 15 to 29 every year for three years to have a chlamydia test. In Peru, mobile teams visited 20 cities to offer women sex workers tests for chlamydia over a period of four years."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2145 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAn abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is the pathological enlargement of the aorta and can develop in both men and women. Progressive aneurysm enlargement can lead to rupture. The rupture of an AAA is frequently fatal and accounts for the death from haemorrhagic shock of at least 45 people per 100,000 population. The outcome of people with ruptured AAA varies among countries and healthcare systems, with mortality ranging from 53% to 90%. Definitive treatment for ruptured AAA includes open surgery or endovascular repair. The management of haemorrhagic shock is crucial for the person's outcome and aims to restore organ perfusion and systolic blood pressure above 100 mmHg through immediate and aggressive fluid replacement. This rapid fluid replacement is known as the normotensive resuscitation strategy. However, evidence suggests that infusing large volumes of cold fluid causes dilutional and hypothermic coagulopathy. The association of these factors may exacerbate bleeding, resulting in a 'lethal triad' of hypothermia, acidaemia, and coagulopathy. An alternative to the normotensive resuscitation strategy is the controlled (permissive) hypotension resuscitation strategy, with a target systolic blood pressure of 50 mmHg to 100 mmHg. The principle of controlled or hypotensive resuscitation has been used in some management protocols for endovascular repair of ruptured AAA. It may be beneficial in preventing blood loss by avoiding the clot disruption caused by the rapid increase in systolic blood pressure; avoiding dilution of clotting factors, platelets and fibrinogen; and by avoiding the temperature decrease that inhibits enzyme activity involved in platelet and clotting factor function. This is an update of a review first published in 2016.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effects of controlled (permissive) hypotension resuscitation and normotensive resuscitation strategies for people with ruptured AAA.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Specialised Register (August 2017), the Cochrane Register of Studies (CENTRAL (2017, Issue 7)) and EMBASE (August 2017). The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist also searched clinical trials databases (August 2017) for details of ongoing or unpublished studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe sought all published and unpublished randomised controlled trial (RCTs) that compared controlled hypotension and normotensive resuscitation strategies for the management of shock in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed identified studies for potential inclusion in the review. We used standard methodological procedures in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions.\nMain results\nWe identified no RCTs that met the inclusion criteria.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no RCTs that compared controlled hypotension and normotensive resuscitation strategies in the management of haemorrhagic shock in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm that assessed mortality, presence of coagulopathy, intensive care unit length of stay, and the presence of myocardial infarct and renal failure. High quality studies that evaluate the best strategy for managing haemorrhagic shock in ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms are required.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics and key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched for evidence that directly compared strategies to manage haemorrhagic shock and to restore normal blood pressure initially, and during surgery, in patients with ruptured AAA. Our searches up to August 2017, did not identify any randomised controlled trials (clinical studies where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups; one of which is the control group) meeting our criteria. Studies are needed to help emergency physicians, vascular surgeons, and anaesthesiologists choose the best option for treating haemorrhagic shock caused by ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2146 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCystic fibrosis (CF) is a life-limiting genetic disorder predominantly affecting the lungs and pancreas. Airway clearance techniques (ACTs) and exercise therapy are key components of physiotherapy, which is considered integral in managing CF; however, low adherence is well-documented. Poor physiotherapy adherence may lead to repeated respiratory infections, reduced exercise tolerance, breathlessness, reduced quality of life, malaise and reduced life expectancy, as well as increased use of pharmacology, healthcare access and hospital admission. Therefore, evidence-based strategies to inform clinical practice and improve adherence to physiotherapy may improve quality of life and reduce treatment burden.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions to enhance adherence to airway clearance treatment and exercise therapy in people with CF and their effects on health outcomes, such as pulmonary exacerbations, exercise capacity and health-related quality of life.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. Date of last search: 1 March 2023.\nWe also searched online trials registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Date of last search: 28 March 2023.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of parallel design assessing any intervention aimed at enhancing adherence to physiotherapy in people with CF versus no intervention, another intervention or usual care.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently checked search results for eligible studies and independently extracted data. We used standard procedures recommended by Cochrane and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE system.\nMain results\nTwo RCTs (77 participants with CF; age range 2 to 20 years; 44 (57%) males) met the inclusion criteria of this review. One study employed an intervention to improve adherence to exercise and the second an intervention to improve adherence to ACT. Both studies measured outcomes at baseline and at three months, but neither study formally assessed our primary outcome of adherence in terms of our planned outcome measures, and results were dependent on self-reported data.\nAdherence to ACTs\nOne RCT (43 participants) assessed using specifically-composed music alongside ACTs compared to self-selected or no music (usual care). The ACT process consisted of nebuliser inhalation treatment, ACTs and relaxation or antibiotic nebuliser treatment. We graded all evidence as very low certainty.\nThis study reported adherence to ACTs using the Morisky-Green questionnaire and also participants' perception of treatment time and enjoyment, which may influence adherence (outcome not reported specifically in this review). We are uncertain whether participants who received specifically-composed music may be more likely to adhere at six and 12 weeks compared to those who received usual care, risk ratio (RR) 1.75 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 2.86) and RR 1.56 (95% CI 1.01 to 2.40) respectively. There may not be any difference in adherence when comparing specifically-composed music to self-selected music at six weeks, RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.68) or 12 weeks, RR 1.52 (95% CI 0.97 to 2.38); or self-selected music to usual care at six weeks, RR 1.44 (95% CI 0.82 to 2.52) or 12 weeks, RR 1.03 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.86).\nThe music study also reported the number of respiratory infections requiring hospitalisation at 12 weeks, with no difference seen in the risk of hospitalisation between all groups.\nAdherence to exercise\nOne RCT (24 participants) compared the provision of a manual of aerobic exercises, recommended exercise prescription plus two-weekly follow-up phone calls to reinforce exercise practice over a period of three months to verbal instructions for aerobic exercise according to the CF centre's protocol. We graded all evidence as very low certainty.\nWe are uncertain whether an educational intervention leads to more participants in the intervention group undertaking increased regular physical activity at three months (self-report), RR 3.67 (95% CI 1.24 to 10.85), and there was no reported difference between groups in the number undertaking physical activity three times per week or undertaking at least 40 minutes of physical activity. No effect was seen on secondary outcome measures of spirometry, exercise capacity or any CF quality of life domains. This study did not report on the frequency of respiratory infections (hospitalised or not) or adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain whether a music-based motivational intervention may increase adherence to ACTs or affect the risk of hospitalisation for a respiratory infection. We are also uncertain whether an educational intervention increases adherence to exercise or reduces the frequency of respiratory infection-related hospital admission. However, these results are largely based on self-reported data and the impact of strategies to improve adherence to ACT and exercise in children and adolescents with stable CF remains inconclusive.\nGiven that adherence to ACT and exercise therapy are fundamental to the clinical management of people with CF, there is an urgent need for well-designed, large-scale clinical trials in this area, which should conform to the CONSORT statement for standards of reporting and use appropriate, validated outcome measures. Studies should also ensure full disclosure of data for all important clinical outcomes.\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 looked for high-quality studies of people with CF (aged seven years and upwards). We planned to include any strategy aimed at improving adherence to chest physiotherapy or exercise compared to no strategy, usual care, or another type of strategy."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2147 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nConduct problems are a range of disruptive behaviours in childhood that are associated with long-term adverse outcomes in adolescence and adulthood, including antisocial behaviour, substance misuse, and poor academic achievement. Children with conduct problems can vary according to age of onset, comorbidities, and environmental factors, and it has been suggested that certain groups of children may have different treatment outcomes. Therefore, it is important to assess the extent to which personalised interventions for different groups of children with conduct problems may affect outcomes. To our knowledge, this is the first review to systematically identify and appraise the effectiveness of personalised interventions, adapted, or developed, for prespecified subgroups of children with conduct problems.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether personalised interventions, adapted or developed for subgroups of children with conduct problems are effective in improving outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was 1 February 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), in any setting, in children (aged two to 12 years) with conduct problems and within a prespecified subgroup, comparing a personalised intervention with a non-personalised intervention, waitlist control, or treatment as usual. Personalised interventions included adaptations to standard practice, such as parent-training programmes; other recommended interventions for children with conduct problems; or interventions developed specifically to target subgroups of children with conduct problems. We excluded non-personalised and non-psychological interventions (e.g. pharmacological or dietary intervention). Prespecified subgroups of children with conduct problems, however defined, were eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. child conduct problems or disruptive behaviour and 2. adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 3. personalised treatment outcomes relevant to each subgroup, 4. parenting skills and knowledge, 5. family functioning, engagement and decreased dropout, and 6. educational outcomes. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe identified 13 RCTs (858 participants). Seven studies were conducted in the USA, five in Australia, and one in Germany. Eleven studies reported their source of funding, with five studies receiving grants from the National Institute of Mental Health. In total, 15 different funders supported the studies included in the review.\nWe separated subgroups of children with conduct problems into three broad categories: children with co-occurring conditions (e.g. emotional difficulties), parent characteristics (e.g. conflict between parents), or familial/environmental circumstances (e.g. rural families). All studies delivered a personalised intervention that was adapted or developed for a prespecified subgroup of children with conduct problems. We rated all trials at unclear or high risk of bias in most domains. Below, we report the results of improvement in child conduct problems and disruptive behaviour, personalised treatment outcomes, and parenting skills and knowledge for our main comparison: personalised versus non-personalised interventions.\nImprovement in child conduct problems and disruptive behaviour\nCompared with a non-personalised intervention, a personalised intervention may result in a slight improvement in child conduct problems or disruptive behaviour measured using the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI) Problem subscale in the short term (mean difference (MD) −3.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) −6.06 to −0.02; 6 studies, 278 participants; P = 0.05), but may have little to no effect on improving child conduct problems or disruptive behaviour measured by the ECBI Intensity subscale (MD −6.25, 95% CI −16.66 to 4.15; 6 studies, 278 participants; P = 0.24), or the Externalising subscale of the Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL) (MD −2.19, 95% CI −6.97 to 2.59; 3 studies, 189 participants, P = 0.37) in the short term. We graded the certainty of evidence as very low for all three outcomes, meaning any estimate of effect is very uncertain.\nPersonalised treatment outcomes, relevant to each subgroup\nAlthough six studies reported personalised treatment outcomes, relevant to each subgroup, we were unable to pool the data due to differences between the measures used in the studies and the heterogeneity this would produce in analysis. The results for this outcome were inconclusive.\nParenting skills and knowledge\nAlthough seven studies reported parenting skills and knowledge, we were unable to pool the data due to differences between the measures used in the studies and the heterogeneity this would produce in analysis. The results for this outcome were inconclusive.\nAdverse events\nNone of the trials reported monitoring adverse events.\nSummary of results\nIn summary, there is limited evidence that personalised intervention improves child conduct problems, personalised treatment outcomes, relevant to each subgroup, or parenting skills and knowledge compared with a non-personalised intervention.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is limited evidence for the effectiveness of personalised interventions for subgroups of children with conduct problems. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes was very low, meaning that we have very little confidence in the estimated effects and the true effects may be different to our findings, which will limit the relevance of our findings to clinical decisions. To overcome the limitations of the evidence, large-scale RCTs are needed to determine whether personalised interventions, adapted or developed, for subgroups of children with conduct problems are effective in improving outcomes. Consensus on the most appropriate measures to use in these studies is needed in order to facilitate cross-study comparisons. Persistent conduct problems predict a range of adverse long-term outcomes, so future research should investigate the medium- and long-term effects of personalised treatments. Studies are needed in low- and middle-income countries as well as studies recruiting children aged between nine and 12 years, as they were under-represented in the studies.\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 undertook an extensive search of 13 databases. We also searched reference lists of included studies and contacted subject experts.\nWe only selected studies known as 'randomised controlled trials (RCTs)'. In this type of study, participants are allocated to groups randomly. One group receives the intervention and the other receives a different treatment or no treatment at all. RCTs aim to reduce the risk of introducing bias in clinical studies.\nSubgroups of children with conduct problems were separated into three broad categories: children with co-occurring conditions (e.g. emotional difficulties), parent characteristics (e.g. conflict between parents) or familial/environmental circumstances (e.g. rural families).\nAll studies compared personalised interventions to non-personalised interventions.\nWe combined results from several studies that used the same measures to assess improvements in child conduct problems. Where this was not possible, we report studies individually."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2148 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by the novel betacoronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Most people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have mild disease with unspecific symptoms, but about 5% become critically ill with respiratory failure, septic shock and multiple organ failure. An unknown proportion of infected individuals never experience COVID-19 symptoms although they are infectious, that is, they remain asymptomatic. Those who develop the disease, go through a presymptomatic period during which they are infectious. Universal screening for SARS-CoV-2 infections to detect individuals who are infected before they present clinically, could therefore be an important measure to contain the spread of the disease.\nObjectives\nWe conducted a rapid review to assess (1) the effectiveness of universal screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no screening and (2) the accuracy of universal screening in people who have not presented to clinical care for symptoms of COVID-19.\nSearch methods\nAn information specialist searched Ovid MEDLINE and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) COVID-19 Research Articles Downloadable Database up to 26 May 2020. We searched Embase.com, the CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Covid-19 Study Register on 14 April 2020. We searched LitCovid to 4 April 2020. The World Health Organization (WHO) provided records from daily searches in Chinese databases and in PubMed up to 15 April 2020. We also searched three model repositories (Covid-Analytics, Models of Infectious Disease Agent Study [MIDAS], and Society for Medical Decision Making) on 8 April 2020.\nSelection criteria\nTrials, observational studies, or mathematical modelling studies assessing screening effectiveness or screening accuracy among general populations in which the prevalence of SARS-CoV2 is unknown.\nData collection and analysis\nAfter pilot testing review forms, one review author screened titles and abstracts. Two review authors independently screened the full text of studies and resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Abstracts excluded by a first review author were dually reviewed by a second review author prior to exclusion. One review author independently extracted data, which was checked by a second review author for completeness and accuracy. Two review authors independently rated the quality of included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool for diagnostic accuracy studies and a modified form designed originally for economic evaluations for modelling studies. We resolved differences by consensus. We synthesized the evidence in narrative and tabular formats. We rated the certainty of evidence for days to outbreak, transmission, cases missed and detected, diagnostic accuracy (i.e. true positives, false positives, true negatives, false negatives) using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 22 publications. Two modelling studies reported on effectiveness of universal screening. Twenty studies (17 cohort studies and 3 modelling studies) reported on screening test accuracy.\nEffectiveness of screening\nWe included two modelling studies. One study suggests that symptom screening at travel hubs, such as airports, may slightly slow but not stop the importation of infected cases (assuming 10 or 100 infected travellers per week reduced the delay in a local outbreak to 8 days or 1 day, respectively). We assessed risk of bias as minor or no concerns, and certainty of evidence was low, downgraded for very serious indirectness. The second modelling study provides very low-certainty evidence that screening of healthcare workers in emergency departments using laboratory tests may reduce transmission to patients and other healthcare workers (assuming a transmission constant of 1.2 new infections per 10,000 people, weekly screening reduced infections by 5.1% within 30 days). The certainty of evidence was very low, downgraded for high risk of bias (major concerns) and indirectness. No modelling studies reported on harms of screening.\nScreening test accuracy\nAll 17 cohort studies compared an index screening strategy to a reference reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. All but one study reported on the accuracy of single point-in-time screening and varied widely in prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, settings, and methods of measurement.\nWe assessed the overall risk of bias as unclear in 16 out of 17 studies, mainly due to limited information on the index test and reference standard. We rated one study as being at high risk of bias due to the inclusion of two separate populations with likely different prevalences. For several screening strategies, the estimates of sensitivity came from small samples.\nFor single point-in-time strategies, for symptom assessment, the sensitivity from 12 cohorts (524 people) ranged from 0.00 to 0.60 (very low-certainty evidence) and the specificity from 12 cohorts (16,165 people) ranged from 0.66 to 1.00 (low-certainty evidence). For screening using direct temperature measurement (3 cohorts, 822 people), international travel history (2 cohorts, 13,080 people), or exposure to known infected people (3 cohorts, 13,205 people) or suspected infected people (2 cohorts, 954 people), sensitivity ranged from 0.00 to 0.23 (very low- to low-certainty evidence) and specificity ranged from 0.90 to 1.00 (low- to moderate-certainty evidence). For symptom assessment plus direct temperature measurement (2 cohorts, 779 people), sensitivity ranged from 0.12 to 0.69 (very low-certainty evidence) and specificity from 0.90 to 1.00 (low-certainty evidence). For rapid PCR test (1 cohort, 21 people), sensitivity was 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.96; very low-certainty evidence) and specificity was 0.73 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.94; very low-certainty evidence). One cohort (76 people) reported on repeated screening with symptom assessment and demonstrates a sensitivity of 0.44 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.59; very low-certainty evidence) and specificity of 0.62 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.79; low-certainty evidence).\nThree modelling studies evaluated the accuracy of screening at airports. The main outcomes measured were cases missed or detected by entry or exit screening, or both, at airports. One study suggests very low sensitivity at 0.30 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.53), missing 70% of infected travellers. Another study described an unrealistic scenario to achieve a 90% detection rate, requiring 0% asymptomatic infections. The final study provides very uncertain evidence due to low methodological quality.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence base for the effectiveness of screening comes from two mathematical modelling studies and is limited by their assumptions. Low-certainty evidence suggests that screening at travel hubs may slightly slow the importation of infected cases. This review highlights the uncertainty and variation in accuracy of screening strategies. A high proportion of infected individuals may be missed and go on to infect others, and some healthy individuals may be falsely identified as positive, requiring confirmatory testing and potentially leading to the unnecessary isolation of these individuals. Further studies need to evaluate the utility of rapid laboratory tests, combined screening, and repeated screening. More research is also needed on reference standards with greater accuracy than RT-PCR.\nGiven the poor sensitivity of existing approaches, our findings point to the need for greater emphasis on other ways that may prevent transmission such as face coverings, physical distancing, quarantine, and adequate personal protective equipment for frontline workers.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Benefits and negative effects\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Two modelling studies reported on the benefits and negative effects of screening. One suggested that asking about symptoms at airports may slightly slow, but not stop, the importation of infected people.\nAnother model reported that weekly or biweekly screening of healthcare workers may reduce transmission to patients and other healthcare workers in emergency departments.\nNo studies reported on negative effects of screening."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2149 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nA large proportion of children younger than five years of age in high-income countries experience significant non-parental care. Centre-based day care services may influence the development of children and the economic situation of parents.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of centre-based day care without additional interventions (e.g. psychological or medical services, parent training) on the development and well-being of children and families in high-income countries (as defined by the World Bank 2011).\nSearch methods\nIn April 2014, we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) and eight other databases. We also searched two trials registers and the reference lists of relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of centre-based day care for children younger than five years of age. We excluded studies that involved co-interventions not directed toward children (e.g. parent programmes, home visits, teacher training). We included the following outcomes: child cognitive development (primary outcome), child psychosocial development, maternal and family outcomes and child long-term outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from the single included study. We contacted investigators to obtain missing information.\nMain results\nWe included in the review one trial, involving 120 families and 143 children. Risk of bias was high because of contamination between groups, as 63% of control group participants accessed day care services separate from those offered within the intervention. No evidence suggested that centre-based day care, rather than no treatment (care at home), improved or worsened children's cognitive ability (Griffiths Mental Development Scale, standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.69, 127 participants, 1 study, very low-quality evidence) or psychosocial development (parental report of abnormal development, risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% CI 0.25 to 5.78, 137 participants, 1 study, very low-quality evidence). No other measures of child intellectual or psychosocial development were reported in the included study. Moreover, no evidence indicated that centre-based day care, rather than no treatment (care at home), improved or worsened employment of parents, as measured by the number of mothers in full-time or part-time employment (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.48, 114 participants, 1 study, very low-quality evidence) and maternal hours per week in paid employment (SMD 0.20, 95% -0.15 to 0.55, 127 participants, 1 study, very low-quality evidence) or household income above £200 per week (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.29, 113 participants, 1 study, very low-quality evidence). This study did not report on long-term outcomes for children (high-school completion or income).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review includes one trial that provides inconclusive evidence as regards the effects of centre-based day care for children younger than five years of age and their families in high-income countries. Robust guidance for parents, policymakers and other stakeholders on the effects of day care cannot currently be offered on the basis of evidence from randomised controlled trials. Some trials included co-interventions that are unlikely to be found in normal day care centres. Effectiveness studies of centre-based day care without these co-interventions are few, and the need for such studies is significant. Comparisons might include home visits or alternative day care arrangements that provide special attention to children from low-income families while exploring possible mechanisms of effect.\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": "Currently very limited evidence is available on the effects of centre-based day care on the cognitive and psychosocial development of children, parental employment or household income, or on long-term outcomes for children."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2150 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMuscle soreness typically occurs after intense exercise, unaccustomed exercise or actions that involve eccentric contractions where the muscle lengthens while under tension. It peaks between 24 and 72 hours after the initial bout of exercise. Many people take antioxidant supplements or antioxidant-enriched foods before and after exercise in the belief that these will prevent or reduce muscle soreness after exercise.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects (benefits and harms) of antioxidant supplements and antioxidant-enriched foods for preventing and reducing the severity and duration of delayed onset muscle soreness following exercise.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, SPORTDiscus, trial registers, reference lists of articles and conference proceedings up to February 2017.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials investigating the effects of all forms of antioxidant supplementation including specific antioxidant supplements (e.g. tablets, powders, concentrates) and antioxidant-enriched foods or diets on preventing or reducing delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS). We excluded studies where antioxidant supplementation was combined with another supplement.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened search results, assessed risk of bias and extracted data from included trials using a pre-piloted form. Where appropriate, we pooled results of comparable trials, generally using the random-effects model. The outcomes selected for presentation in the 'Summary of findings' table were muscle soreness, collected at times up to 6 hours, 24, 48, 72 and 96 hours post-exercise, subjective recovery and adverse effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nFifty randomised, placebo-controlled trials were included, 12 of which used a cross-over design. Of the 1089 participants, 961 (88.2%) were male and 128 (11.8%) were female. The age range for participants was between 16 and 55 years and training status varied from sedentary to moderately trained. The trials were heterogeneous, including the timing (pre-exercise or post-exercise), frequency, dose, duration and type of antioxidant supplementation, and the type of preceding exercise. All studies used an antioxidant dosage higher than the recommended daily amount. The majority of trials (47) had design features that carried a high risk of bias due to selective reporting and poorly described allocation concealment, potentially limiting the reliability of their findings.\nWe tested only one comparison: antioxidant supplements versus control (placebo). No studies compared high-dose versus low-dose, where the low-dose supplementation was within normal or recommended levels for the antioxidant involved.\nPooled results for muscle soreness indicated a small difference in favour of antioxidant supplementation after DOMS-inducing exercise at all main follow-ups: up to 6 hours (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.56 to -0.04; 525 participants, 21 studies; low-quality evidence); at 24 hours (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.00; 936 participants, 41 studies; moderate-quality evidence); at 48 hours (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.07; 1047 participants, 45 studies; low-quality evidence); at 72 hours (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.00; 657 participants, 28 studies; moderate-quality evidence), and little difference at 96 hours (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.19; 436 participants, 17 studies; low-quality evidence). When we rescaled to a 0 to 10 cm scale in order to quantify the actual difference between groups, we found that the 95% CIs for all five follow-up times were all well below the minimal important difference of 1.4 cm: up to 6 hours (MD -0.52, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.08); at 24 hours (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.07); at 48 hours (MD -0.41, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.12); at 72 hours (MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.02); and at 96 hours (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.37). Thus, the effect sizes suggesting less muscle soreness with antioxidant supplementation were very unlikely to equate to meaningful or important differences in practice. Neither of our subgroup analyses to examine for differences in effect according to type of DOMS-inducing exercise (mechanical versus whole body aerobic) or according to funding source confirmed subgroup differences. Sensitivity analyses excluding cross-over trials showed that their inclusion had no important impact on results.\nNone of the 50 included trials measured subjective recovery (return to previous activities without signs or symptoms).\nThere is very little evidence regarding the potential adverse effects of taking antioxidant supplements as this outcome was reported in only nine trials (216 participants). From the studies that did report adverse effects, two of the nine trials found adverse effects. All six participants in the antioxidant group of one trial had diarrhoea and four of these also had mild indigestion; these are well-known side effects of the particular antioxidant used in this trial. One of 26 participants in a second trial had mild gastrointestinal distress.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate to low-quality evidence that high dose antioxidant supplementation does not result in a clinically relevant reduction of muscle soreness after exercise at up to 6 hours or at 24, 48, 72 and 96 hours after exercise. There is no evidence available on subjective recovery and only limited evidence on the adverse effects of taking antioxidant supplements. The findings of, and messages from, this review provide an opportunity for researchers and other stakeholders to come together and consider what are the priorities, and underlying justifications, for future research in this area.\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 February 2017 for studies that compared antioxidant supplementation with a control intervention such as a placebo (a dummy pill or drink that had no antioxidant) or no treatment. We found 50 studies, all of which compared antioxidant supplementation with a placebo. These reported results for a total of 1089 participants. Of these, nearly 9 out of 10 were male. The age range for participants was between 16 and 55 years and their training status varied from sedentary to moderately trained. The studies were very varied such as in the type and dosage of the antioxidant supplement and the type of exercises used to cause muscle soreness. All studies used an antioxidant dosage higher than the recommended daily amount."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2151 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGlaucoma is one of the leading largely preventable causes of blindness in the world. It is usually addressed first medically with topical intraocular pressure-lowering drops or by laser trabeculoplasty. In cases where such treatment fails, glaucoma-filtering surgery such as trabeculectomy, is commonly considered. Surgeons can differ in their technique when performing trabeculectomy, for example, the choice of the type of the conjunctival flap (fornix- or limbal-based). In a fornix-based flap, the surgical wound is performed at the corneal limbus; while in a limbal-based flap, the incision is further away. Many studies in the literature compare fornix- and limbal-based trabeculectomy with respect to outcomes and complications.\nObjectives\nTo assess the comparative effectiveness of fornix- versus limbal-based conjunctival flaps in trabeculectomy for adult glaucoma, with a specific focus on intraocular pressure (IOP) control and complication rates (adverse effects).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 23 March 2021. There were no restrictions to language or year of publication.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs comparing the benefits and complications of fornix- versus limbal-based trabeculectomy for glaucoma, irrespective of glaucoma type, publication status, and language. We excluded studies on children less than 18 years of age, since wound healing is different in this age group and the rate of bleb scarring postoperatively is high.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures as per Cochrane criteria.\nMain results\nWe did not identify any new eligible studies for this review update. As presented in the original review, we included six trials with a total of 361 participants. Two studies were conducted in the USA and one each in Germany, Greece, India, and Saudi Arabia. The participants of four trials had open-angle glaucoma; one study included participants with primary open-angle or primary closed-angle glaucoma, and one study did not specify the type of glaucoma. Three studies used a combined procedure (phacotrabeculectomy). Trabeculectomy with mitomycin C (MMC) was performed in four studies, and trabeculectomy with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was performed in only one study.\nNone of the included trials reported trabeculectomy failure at 24 months. Only one trial reported the failure rate of trabeculectomy as a late complication. Failure was higher among participants randomised to the limbal-based surgery: 1/50 eyes failed trabeculectomy in the fornix group compared with 3/50 in the limbal group (Peto odds ratio 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 2.61)); therefore we are very uncertain as to the relative effect of the two procedures on failure rate.\nFour studies including 252 participants provided measures of mean IOP at 12 months. In the fornix-based surgeries, mean IOP ranged from 12.5 to 15.5 mmHg and similar results were noted in limbal-based surgeries with mean IOP ranging from 11.7 to 15.1 mmHg without significant difference. Mean difference was 0.44 mmHg (95% CI −0.45 to 1.33; 247 eyes) and 0.86 mmHg, (95% CI −0.52 to 2.24; 139 eyes) at 12 and 24 months of follow-up, respectively. Neither of these pooled analyses showed a statistically significant difference in IOP between groups (moderate certainty evidence).\nOne trial reported number of anti-glaucoma medications at 24 months of follow-up with no difference noted between surgical groups. However, three trials reported the mean number of anti-glaucoma medications at 12 months of follow-up without significant difference in the mean number of postoperative IOP-lowering medications between the two surgical techniques. Mean difference was 0.02, (95% CI −0.15 to 0.19) at 12 months of follow-up (high certainty evidence).\nBecause of the small numbers of events and total participants, the risk of many reported adverse events was uncertain and those that were found to be statistically significant may have been due to chance.\nFor risk of bias assessment: although all six trials were randomised selection bias was mostly unclear, with unclear random sequence generation in four of the six studies and unclear allocation concealment in five of the six studies. Attrition bias was encountered in only one trial which also suffered from reporting bias. All other trials had an unclear risk of reporting bias as there was no access to study protocols. All included trials were judged to have high risk of detection bias due to lack of masking of the outcomes. Trabeculectomy is quite a standard procedure and unlikely to induce bias due to surgeon 'performance', hence performance bias was not evaluated.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe main result of this review was that there was uncertainty as to the difference between fornix- and limbal-based trabeculectomy surgeries due to the small number of events and confidence intervals that cross the null. This also applied to postoperative complications, but without any impact on long-term failure rate between the two surgical techniques.\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 six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 361 adults with any type of glaucoma. They were followed-up at least 24 months.\n- Failure rate at 24 months was not reported in any included studies, and one study reported \"late complications\" but did not specify a time period, which favoured the fornix-based treatment (our confidence in this evidence was low).\n- No difference was noted with respect to lowering eye pressure after 24 months (two studies) and after 12 months (four studies)(moderate confidence).\n- The number of medications needed to control eye pressure after surgery was also similar (high confidence).\n- Most of the studies reported that the complication rates after the operation were similar except in one complication which was narrowing in the anterior part of the eye after the procedure (more common in the limbal surgery group), but this did not affect the final outcome of the surgery."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2152 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nA septic abortion refers to any abortion (spontaneous or induced) complicated by upper genital tract infection including endometritis or parametritis. The mainstay of treatment of septic abortion is antibiotic therapy alone or in combination with evacuation of retained products of conception. Regimens including broad-spectrum antibiotics are routinely recommended for treatment. However, there is no consensus on the most effective antibiotics alone or in combination to treat septic abortion. This review aimed to bridge this gap in knowledge to inform policy and practice.\nObjectives\nTo review the effectiveness of various individual antibiotics or antibiotic regimens in the treatment of septic abortion.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and POPLINE using the following keywords: 'Abortion', 'septic abortion', 'Antibiotics', 'Infected abortion', 'postabortion infection'. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials on 19 April, 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered for inclusion randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs that compared antibiotic(s) to another antibiotic(s), irrespective of route of administration, dosage, and duration as well as studies comparing antibiotics alone with antibiotics in combination with other interventions such as dilation and curettage (D&C).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data from included trials. We resolved disagreements through consultation with a third author. One review author entered extracted data into Review Manager 5.3, and a second review author cross-checked the entry for accuracy.\nMain results\nWe included 3 small RCTs involving 233 women that were conducted over 3 decades ago.\nClindamycin did not differ significantly from penicillin plus chloramphenicol in reducing fever in all women (mean difference (MD) -12.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) -25.12 to 0.52; women = 77; studies = 1). The evidence for this was of moderate quality. \"Response to treatment was evaluated by the patient's 'fever index' expressed in degree-hour and defined as the total quantity of fever under the daily temperature curve with 99°F (37.2°C) as the baseline\".\nThere was no difference in duration of hospitalisation between clindamycin and penicillin plus chloramphenicol. The mean duration of hospital stay for women in each group was 5 days (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.54; women = 77; studies = 1).\nOne study evaluated the effect of penicillin plus chloramphenicol versus cephalothin plus kanamycin before and after D&C. Response to therapy was evaluated by \"the time from start of antibiotics until fever lysis and time from D&C until patients become afebrile\". Low-quality evidence suggested that the effect of penicillin plus chloramphenicol on fever did not differ from that of cephalothin plus kanamycin (MD -2.30, 95% CI -17.31 to 12.71; women = 56; studies = 1). There was no significant difference between penicillin plus chloramphenicol versus cephalothin plus kanamycin when D&C was performed during antibiotic therapy (MD -1.00, 95% CI -13.84 to 11.84; women = 56; studies = 1). The quality of evidence was low.\nA study with unclear risk of bias showed that the time for fever resolution (MD -5.03, 95% CI -5.77 to -4.29; women = 100; studies = 1) as well as time for resolution of leukocytosis (MD -4.88, 95% CI -5.98 to -3.78; women = 100; studies = 1) was significantly lower with tetracycline plus enzymes compared with intravenous penicillin G.\nTreatment failure and adverse events occurred infrequently, and the difference between groups was not statistically significant.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no strong evidence that intravenous clindamycin alone was better than penicillin plus chloramphenicol for treating women with septic abortion. Similarly, available evidence did not suggest that penicillin plus chloramphenicol was better than cephalothin plus kanamycin for the treatment of women with septic abortion. Tetracyline enzyme antibiotic appeared to be more effective than intravenous penicillin G in reducing the time to fever defervescence, but this evidence was provided by only one study at low risk of bias.\nThere is a need for high-quality RCTs providing reliable evidence for treatments of septic abortion with antibiotics that are currently in use. The three included studies were carried out over 30 years ago. There is also a need to include institutions in low-resource settings, such as sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and South Asia, with a high burden of abortion and health systems challenges.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Trial characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review included 3 small studies of 233 women with septic abortion. One study compared clindamycin alone to penicillin plus chloramphenicol; the second study compared penicillin plus chloramphenicol to cephalothin plus kanamycin; and the third study compared tetracycline enzyme-based antibiotic with intravenous penicillin G."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2153 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nProvision of assistive technology is a widely used intervention for people with rheumatoid arthritis. Assistive technology is any item used to increase or maintain functional ability in individuals with disabilities. It includes a wide range of products, from low-technology devices to technologically complex equipment. Yet, there are few systematic reviews on the effectiveness of assistive technology in this population.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits of assistive technology for adults with rheumatoid arthritis in terms of improving functional ability and reducing pain, and to assess potential adverse effects in terms of psychological discomfort, personal injury or material damage related to device use.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, ISI Web of Science, PEDro, and OTseeker (to October 2008). In addition, we scanned reference lists, sought grey literature, and had personally communicated with authors. We updated the literature searches in January 2009.\nSelection criteria\nIncluded study designs were randomised controlled trials, clinical controlled trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series where the effectiveness of assistive technology was evaluated. In addition, comparative observational studies were included if addressing adverse effects.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed study quality. Investigators were contacted to obtain missing information.\nMain results\nOnly one randomised controlled trial with 29 participants was included. The study compared the use of an eye drop device to a standard bottle in people with rheumatoid arthritis suffering from persistent dry eyes. The study was considered to have low quality of evidence. The proportions with observed difficulties when using the device to squeeze out drops and getting the drops in the eyes were 10% and 14%, respectively. This compared to 52% and 52% when using the standard bottle (P = 0.001; P = 0.003, respectively). The proportions of participants reporting difficulties with squeezing the bottle, controlling the number of drops, and aiming the drops when using the device were 40%, 44%, and 46% respectively, while using the standard bottle the proportions with difficulties were 72%, 84%, and 76% (P = 0.001; P = 0.003; P = 0.031, respectively).\nAuthors' conclusions\nOnly one trial met the inclusion criteria for this review. Thus, there is very limited evidence for the effect of assistive technology for adults with rheumatoid arthritis and, therefore, an urgent need for high-quality research addressing the effectiveness of commonly used interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Ability to squeeze out drops\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "- 27 people out of 100 were able to squeeze out drops more easily from an eye drop device than when using a regular eye drop bottle. (27% absolute improvement)\n- 35 people out of 100 had difficulty squeezing out drops from an eye drop device."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2154 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is the second update of a Cochrane Review originally published in 2009. Millions of workers worldwide are exposed to noise levels that increase their risk of hearing disorders. There is uncertainty about the effectiveness of hearing loss prevention interventions.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions for preventing occupational noise exposure or occupational hearing loss compared to no intervention or alternative interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the CENTRAL; PubMed; Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; and OSH UPDATE to 3 October 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCT), controlled before-after studies (CBA) and interrupted time-series (ITS) of non-clinical interventions under field conditions among workers to prevent or reduce noise exposure and hearing loss. We also collected uncontrolled case studies of engineering controls about the effect on noise exposure.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. We categorised interventions as engineering controls, administrative controls, personal hearing protection devices, and hearing surveillance.\nMain results\nWe included 29 studies. One study evaluated legislation to reduce noise exposure in a 12-year time-series analysis but there were no controlled studies on engineering controls for noise exposure. Eleven studies with 3725 participants evaluated effects of personal hearing protection devices and 17 studies with 84,028 participants evaluated effects of hearing loss prevention programmes (HLPPs).\nEffects on noise exposure\nEngineering interventions following legislation\nOne ITS study found that new legislation in the mining industry reduced the median personal noise exposure dose in underground coal mining by 27.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval (CI) −36.1 to −19.3 percentage points) immediately after the implementation of stricter legislation. This roughly translates to a 4.5 dB(A) decrease in noise level. The intervention was associated with a favourable but statistically non-significant downward trend in time of the noise dose of −2.1 percentage points per year (95% CI −4.9 to 0.7, 4 year follow-up, very low-quality evidence).\nEngineering intervention case studies\nWe found 12 studies that described 107 uncontrolled case studies of immediate reductions in noise levels of machinery ranging from 11.1 to 19.7 dB(A) as a result of purchasing new equipment, segregating noise sources or installing panels or curtains around sources. However, the studies lacked long-term follow-up and dose measurements of workers, and we did not use these studies for our conclusions.\nHearing protection devices\nIn general hearing protection devices reduced noise exposure on average by about 20 dB(A) in one RCT and three CBAs (57 participants, low-quality evidence). Two RCTs showed that, with instructions for insertion, the attenuation of noise by earplugs was 8.59 dB better (95% CI 6.92 dB to 10.25 dB) compared to no instruction (2 RCTs, 140 participants, moderate-quality evidence).\nAdministrative controls: information and noise exposure feedback\nOn-site training sessions did not have an effect on personal noise-exposure levels compared to information only in one cluster-RCT after four months' follow-up (mean difference (MD) 0.14 dB; 95% CI −2.66 to 2.38). Another arm of the same study found that personal noise exposure information had no effect on noise levels (MD 0.30 dB(A), 95% CI −2.31 to 2.91) compared to no such information (176 participants, low-quality evidence).\nEffects on hearing loss\nHearing protection devices\nIn two studies the authors compared the effect of different devices on temporary threshold shifts at short-term follow-up but reported insufficient data for analysis. In two CBA studies the authors found no difference in hearing loss from noise exposure above 89 dB(A) between muffs and earplugs at long-term follow-up (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.03 ), very low-quality evidence). Authors of another CBA study found that wearing hearing protection more often resulted in less hearing loss at very long-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence).\nCombination of interventions: hearing loss prevention programmes\nOne cluster-RCT found no difference in hearing loss at three- or 16-year follow-up between an intensive HLPP for agricultural students and audiometry only. One CBA study found no reduction of the rate of hearing loss (MD −0.82 dB per year (95% CI −1.86 to 0.22) for a HLPP that provided regular personal noise exposure information compared to a programme without this information.\nThere was very-low-quality evidence in four very long-term studies, that better use of hearing protection devices as part of a HLPP decreased the risk of hearing loss compared to less well used hearing protection in HLPPs (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.69). Other aspects of the HLPP such as training and education of workers or engineering controls did not show a similar effect.\nIn three long-term CBA studies, workers in a HLPP had a statistically non-significant 1.8 dB (95% CI −0.6 to 4.2) greater hearing loss at 4 kHz than non-exposed workers and the confidence interval includes the 4.2 dB which is the level of hearing loss resulting from 5 years of exposure to 85 dB(A). In addition, of three other CBA studies that could not be included in the meta-analysis, two showed an increased risk of hearing loss in spite of the protection of a HLPP compared to non-exposed workers and one CBA did not.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is very low-quality evidence that implementation of stricter legislation can reduce noise levels in workplaces. Controlled studies of other engineering control interventions in the field have not been conducted. There is moderate-quality evidence that training of proper insertion of earplugs significantly reduces noise exposure at short-term follow-up but long-term follow-up is still needed.\nThere is very low-quality evidence that the better use of hearing protection devices as part of HLPPs reduces the risk of hearing loss, whereas for other programme components of HLPPs we did not find such an effect. The absence of conclusive evidence should not be interpreted as evidence of lack of effectiveness. Rather, it means that further research is very likely to have an important impact.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Millions of workers are exposed to noise that can lead to hearing loss. The review authors were interested in the effect of any intervention to reduce noise or hearing loss at workplaces, such as engineering solutions, hearing protection or hearing loss prevention programmes."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2155 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAfter decades of decline since 2005, the global prevalence of undernourishment reverted and since 2015 has increased to levels seen in 2010 to 2011. The prevalence is highest in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), especially Africa and Asia. Food insecurity and associated undernutrition detrimentally affect health and socioeconomic development in the short and long term, for individuals, including children, and societies. Physical and economic access to food is crucial to ensure food security. Community-level interventions could be important to increase access to food in LMICs.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effects of community-level interventions that aim to improve access to nutritious food in LMICs, for both the whole community and for disadvantaged or at-risk individuals or groups within a community, such as infants, children and women; elderly, poor or unemployed people; or minority groups.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for relevant studies in 16 electronic databases, including trial registries, from 1980 to September 2019, and updated the searches in six key databases in February 2020. We applied no language or publication status limits.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised controlled trials (cRCTs) and prospective controlled studies (PCS). All population groups, adults and children, living in communities in LMICs exposed to community-level interventions aiming to improve food access were eligible for inclusion. We excluded studies that only included participants with specific diseases or conditions (e.g. severely malnourished children).\nEligible interventions were broadly categorised into those that improved buying power (e.g. create income-generation opportunities, cash transfer schemes); addressed food prices (e.g. vouchers and subsidies); addressed infrastructure and transport that affected physical access to food outlets; addressed the social environment and provided social support (e.g. social support from family, neighbours or government).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and full texts of potentially eligible records, against the inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or arbitration by a third author, if necessary.\nFor each included study, two authors independently extracted data and a third author arbitrated disagreements. However, the outcome data were extracted by one author and checked by a biostatistician.\nWe assessed risk of bias for all studies using the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) risk of bias tool for studies with a separate control group.\nWe conducted meta-analyses if there was a minimum of two studies for interventions within the same category, reporting the same outcome measure and these were sufficiently homogeneous. Where we were able to meta-analyse, we used the random-effects model to incorporate any existing heterogeneity. Where we were unable to conduct meta-analyses, we synthesised using vote counting based on effect direction.\nMain results\nWe included 59 studies, including 214 to 169,485 participants, and 300 to 124, 644 households, mostly from Africa and Latin America, addressing the following six intervention types (three studies assessed two different types of interventions).\nInterventions that improved buying power:\nUnconditional cash transfers (UCTs) (16 cRCTs, two RCTs, three PCSs): we found high-certainty evidence that UCTs improve food security and make little or no difference to cognitive function and development and low-certainty evidence that UCTs may increase dietary diversity and may reduce stunting. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of UCTs on the proportion of household expenditure on food, and on wasting. Regarding adverse outcomes, evidence from one trial indicates that UCTs reduce the proportion of infants who are overweight.\nConditional cash transfers (CCTs) (nine cRCTs, five PCSs): we found high-certainty evidence that CCTs result in little to no difference in the proportion of household expenditure on food and that they slightly improve cognitive function in children; moderate-certainty evidence that CCTs probably slightly improve dietary diversity and low-certainty evidence that they may make little to no difference to stunting or wasting. Evidence on adverse outcomes (two PCSs) shows that CCTs make no difference to the proportion of overweight children.\nIncome generation interventions (six cRCTs, 11 PCSs): we found moderate-certainty evidence that income generation interventions probably make little or no difference to stunting or wasting; and low-certainty evidence that they may result in little to no difference to food security or that they may improve dietary diversity in children, but not for households.\nInterventions that addressed food prices:\nFood vouchers (three cRCTs, one RCT): we found moderate-certainty evidence that food vouchers probably reduce stunting; and low-certainty evidence that that they may improve dietary diversity slightly, and may result in little to no difference in wasting.\nFood and nutrition subsidies (one cRCT, three PCSs): we found low-certainty evidence that food and nutrition subsidies may improve dietary diversity among school children. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects on household expenditure on healthy foods as a proportion of total expenditure on food (very low-certainty evidence).\nInterventions that addressed the social environment:\nSocial support interventions (one cRCT, one PCS): we found moderate-certainty evidence that community grants probably make little or no difference to wasting; low-certainty evidence that they may make little or no difference to stunting. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of village savings and loans on food security and dietary diversity.\nNone of the included studies addressed the intervention category of infrastructure changes. In addition, none of the studies reported on one of the primary outcomes of this review, namely prevalence of undernourishment.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe body of evidence indicates that UCTs can improve food security. Income generation interventions do not seem to make a difference for food security, but the evidence is unclear for the other interventions. CCTs, UCTs, interventions that help generate income, interventions that help minimise impact of food prices through food vouchers and subsidies can potentially improve dietary diversity. UCTs and food vouchers may have a potential impact on reducing stunting, but CCTs, income generation interventions or social environment interventions do not seem to make a difference on wasting or stunting. CCTs seem to positively impact cognitive function and development, but not UCTs, which may be due to school attendance, healthcare visits and other conditionalities associated with CCTs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Interventions that addressed food prices\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": ""
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2156 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nWeight loss, malnutrition and dehydration are common problems for people with dementia. Environmental modifications such as, change of routine, context or ambience at mealtimes, or behavioural modifications, such as education or training of people with dementia or caregivers, may be considered to try to improve food and fluid intake and nutritional status of people with dementia.\nObjectives\nPrimary: To assess the effects of environmental or behavioural modifications on food and fluid intake and nutritional status in people with dementia. Secondary: To assess the effects of environmental or behavioural modifications in connection with nutrition on mealtime behaviour, cognitive and functional outcomes and quality of life, in specific settings (i.e. home care, residential care and nursing home care) for different stages of dementia. To assess the adverse consequences or effects of the included interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Specialized Register of Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement (ALOIS), MEDLINE, Eembase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) portal/ICTRP on 17 January 2018. We scanned reference lists of other reviews and of included articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating interventions designed to modify the mealtime environment of people with dementia, to modify the mealtime behaviour of people with dementia or their caregivers, or both, with the intention of improving food and fluid intake. We included people with any common dementia subtype.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included trials. We assessed the quality of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included nine studies, investigating 1502 people. Three studies explicitly investigated participants with Alzheimer's disease; six did not specify the type of dementia. Five studies provided clear measures to identify the severity of dementia at baseline, and overall very mild to severe stages were covered. The interventions and outcome measures were diverse. The overall quality of evidence was mainly low to very low.\nOne study implemented environmental as well as behavioural modifications by providing additional food items between meals and personal encouragement to consume them. The control group received no intervention. Differences between groups were very small and the quality of the evidence from this study was very low, so we are very uncertain of any effect of this intervention.\nThe remaining eight studies implemented behavioural modifications.\nThree studies provided nutritional education and nutrition promotion programmes. Control groups did not receive these programmes. After 12 months, the intervention group showed slightly higher protein intake per day (mean difference (MD) 0.11 g/kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.23; n = 78, 1 study; low-quality evidence), but there was no clear evidence of a difference in nutritional status assessed with body mass index (BMI) (MD -0.26 kg/m² favouring control, 95% CI -0.70 to 0.19; n = 734, 2 studies; moderate-quality evidence), body weight (MD -1.60 kg favouring control, 95% CI -3.47 to 0.27; n = 656, 1 study; moderate-quality evidence), or score on Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) (MD -0.10 favouring control, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.47; n = 656, 1 study; low-quality evidence). After six months, the intervention group in one study had slightly lower BMI (MD -1.79 kg/m² favouring control, 95% CI -1.28 to -2.30; n = 52, 1 study; moderate-quality evidence) and body weight (MD -8.11 kg favouring control, 95% CI -2.06 to -12.56; n = 52, 1 study; moderate-quality evidence). This type of intervention may have a small positive effect on food intake, but little or no effect, or a negative effect, on nutritional status.\nTwo studies compared self-feeding skills training programmes. In one study, the control group received no training and in the other study the control group received a different self-feeding skills training programme. For both comparisons the quality of the evidence was very low and we are very uncertain whether these interventions have any effect.\nOne study investigated general training of nurses to impart knowledge on how to feed people with dementia and improve attitudes towards people with dementia. Again, the quality of the evidence was very low so that we cannot be certain of any effect.\nTwo studies investigated vocal or tactile positive feedback provided by caregivers while feeding participants. After three weeks, the intervention group showed an increase in calories consumed per meal (MD 200 kcal, 95% CI 119.81 to 280.19; n = 42, 1 study; low-quality evidence) and protein consumed per meal (MD 15g, 95% CI 7.74 to 22.26; n = 42, 1 study; low-quality evidence). This intervention may increase the intake of food and liquids slightly; nutritional status was not assessed.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to the quantity and quality of the evidence currently available, we cannot identify any specific environmental or behavioural modifications for improving food and fluid intake in people with dementia.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How we tried to answer the question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched for all the randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which were relevant to our question. In these trials, some people with dementia got an environmental or behavioural modification intended to improve their eating and drinking and were then compared with other people who had not had the intervention (the control group). Whether someone got the intervention or not was decided at random. We found nine RCTs to include in our review. In total, there were 1502 people in these trials. They had varying degrees of dementia, probably mostly due to Alzheimer's disease. Seven of the trials took place in care homes. In one trial, people were given extra snacks between meals and encouraged to eat them. In three trials, people with dementia were given education about diet and eating. In two trials, people with dementia were taught skills to help them to eat independently. In three trials, training was given to the carers responsible for helping people with dementia to eat."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2157 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) include reducing the global maternal mortality rate to less than 70 per 100,000 live births and ending preventable deaths of newborns and children under five years of age, in every country, by 2030. Maternal and perinatal death audit and review is widely recommended as an intervention to reduce maternal and perinatal mortality, and to improve quality of care, and could be key to attaining the SDGs. However, there is uncertainty over the most cost-effective way of auditing and reviewing deaths: community-based audit (verbal and social autopsy), facility-based audits (significant event analysis (SEA)) or a combination of both (confidential enquiry).\nObjectives\nTo assess the impact and cost-effectiveness of different types of death audits and reviews in reducing maternal, perinatal and child mortality.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following from inception to 16 January 2019: CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase OvidSP, and five other databases. We identified ongoing studies using ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and searched reference lists of included articles.\nSelection criteria\nCluster-randomised trials, cluster non-randomised trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies of any form of death audit or review that involved reviewing individual cases of maternal, perinatal or child deaths, identifying avoidable factors, and making recommendations. To be included in the review, a study needed to report at least one of the following outcomes: perinatal mortality rate; stillbirth rate; neonatal mortality rate; mortality rate in children under five years of age or maternal mortality rate.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group methodological procedures. Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We planned to perform a meta-analysis using a random-effects model but included studies were not homogeneous enough to make pooling their results meaningful.\nMain results\nWe included two cluster-randomised trials. Both introduced death review and audit as part of a multicomponent intervention, and compared this to current care. The QUARITE study (QUAlity of care, RIsk management, and TEchnology) concerned maternal death reviews in hospitals in West Africa, which had very high maternal and perinatal mortality rates. In contrast, the OPERA trial studied perinatal morbidity/mortality conferences (MMCs) in maternity units in France, which already had very low perinatal mortality rates at baseline.\nThe OPERA intervention in France started with an outreach visit to brief obstetricians, midwives and anaesthetists on the national guidelines on morbidity/mortality case management, and was followed by a series of perinatal MMCs. Half of the intervention units were randomised to receive additional support from a clinical psychologist during these meetings. The OPERA intervention may make little or no difference to overall perinatal mortality (low certainty evidence), however we are uncertain about the effect of the intervention on perinatal mortality related to suboptimal care (very low certainty evidence).The intervention probably reduces perinatal morbidity related to suboptimal care (unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.95; 165,353 births; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect of the intervention on stillbirth rate, neonatal mortality, mortality rate in children under five years of age, maternal mortality or adverse effects was not reported.\nThe QUARITE intervention in West Africa focused on training leaders of hospital obstetric teams using the ALARM (Advances in Labour And Risk Management) course, which included one day of training about conducting maternal death reviews. The leaders returned to their hospitals, established a multidisciplinary committee and started auditing maternal deaths, with the support of external facilitators. The intervention probably reduces inpatient maternal deaths (adjusted OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.98; 191,167 deliveries; moderate certainty evidence) and probably also reduces inpatient neonatal mortality within 24 hours following birth (adjusted OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.90; moderate certainty evidence). However, QUARITE probably makes little or no difference to the inpatient stillbirth rate (moderate certainty evidence) and may make little or no difference to the inpatient neonatal mortality rate after 24 hours, although the 95% confidence interval includes both benefit and harm (low certainty evidence). The QUARITE intervention probably increases the percent of women receiving high quality of care (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.35 - 2.57, moderate-certainty evidence). The effect of the intervention on perinatal mortality, mortality rate in children under five years of age, or adverse effects was not reported.\nWe did not find any studies that evaluated child death audit and review or community-based death reviews or costs.\nAuthors' conclusions\nA complex intervention including maternal death audit and review, as well as development of local leadership and training, probably reduces inpatient maternal mortality in low-income country district hospitals, and probably slightly improves quality of care. Perinatal death audit and review, as part of a complex intervention with training, probably improves quality of care, as measured by perinatal morbidity related to suboptimal care, in a high-income setting where mortality was already very low.\nThe WHO recommends that maternal and perinatal death reviews should be conducted in all hospitals globally. However, conducting death reviews in isolation may not be sufficient to achieve the reductions in mortality observed in the QUARITE trial. This review suggests that maternal death audit and review may need to be implemented as part of an intervention package which also includes elements such as training of a leading doctor and midwife in each hospital, annual recertification, and quarterly outreach visits by external facilitators to provide supervision and mentorship. The same may also apply to perinatal and child death reviews. More operational research is needed on the most cost-effective ways of implementing maternal, perinatal and paediatric death reviews in low- and middle-income countries.\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": "In a study from West African hospitals, where death rates among women and babies were high, reviewing deaths probably led to fewer deaths among pregnant women, new mothers and newborn babies. In French hospitals, where death rates among babies were low, it may have made little or no difference to death rates among newborn babies ."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2158 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nVesicoureteric reflux (VUR) results in urine passing retrograde up the ureter. Urinary tract infections (UTI) associated with VUR have been considered a cause of permanent renal parenchymal damage in children with VUR. Management has been directed at preventing UTI by antibiotic prophylaxis and/or surgical correction of VUR. This is an update of a review first published in 2004 and updated in 2007 and 2011.\nObjectives\nThe aim of this review was to evaluate the available evidence for both benefits and harms of the currently available treatment options for primary VUR: operative, non-operative or no intervention.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 3 May 2018 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 in any language comparing any treatment of VUR and any combination of therapies.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently determined study eligibility, assessed quality and extracted data. Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and continuous data as mean differences (MD) with 95% CI. Data were pooled using the random effects model.\nMain results\nThirty four studies involving 4001 children were included. Interventions included; long-term low-dose antibiotics, surgical reimplantation of ureters, endoscopic injection treatment, probiotics, cranberry products, circumcision, and oxybutynin. Interventions were used alone and in combinations. The quality of conduct and reporting of these studies was variable, with many studies omitting crucial methodological information used to assess the risk of bias. Only four of the 34 studies were considered at low risk of bias across all fields of study quality. The majority of studies had many areas of uncertainty in the risk of bias fields, reflecting missing detail rather than stated poor design.\nLow-dose antibiotic prophylaxis compared to no treatment/placebo may make little or no difference to the risk of repeat symptomatic UTI (9 studies, 1667 children: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.09; low certainty evidence) and febrile UTI (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.21; low certainty evidence) at one to two years. At one to three years, antibiotic prophylaxis made little or no difference to the risk of new or progressive renal damage on DMSA scan (8 studies, 1503 children: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.61; low certainty evidence). Adverse events were reported in four studies with little or no difference between treatment groups (1056 children: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08; ), but antibiotics increased the likelihood of bacterial drug resistance threefold (187 UTIs: RR 2.97, 95% CI 1.54 to 5.74; moderate certainty evidence).\nSeven studies compared long-term antibiotic prophylaxis alone with surgical reimplantation of ureters plus antibiotics, but only two reported the outcome febrile UTI (429 children). Surgery plus antibiotic treatment may reduce the risk of repeat febrile UTI by 57% (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.70; moderate certainty evidence). There was little or no difference in the risk of new kidney defects detected using intravenous pyelogram at 4 to 5 years (4 studies, 572 children, RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.49; moderate certainty evidence)\nFour studies compared endoscopic injection with antibiotics alone and three reported the outcome febrile UTI. This analysis showed little or no difference in the risk of febrile UTI with endoscopic injection compared to antibiotics (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.78; low certainty evidence). Four studies involving 425 children compared two different materials for endoscopic injection under the ureters (polydimethylsiloxane (Macroplastique) versus dextranomer/hyaluronic acid polymer (Deflux), glutaraldehyde cross-linked (GAX) collagen (GAX) 35 versus GAX 65 and Deflux versus polyacrylate polyalcohol copolymer (VANTRIS)) but only one study (255 children, low certainty evidence) had the outcome of febrile UTI and it reported no difference between the materials. All four studies reported rates of resolution of VUR, and the two studies comparing Macroplastique with Deflux showed that Macroplastique was probably superior to dextranomer/hyaluronic acid polymer (3 months: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.78; 12 months: RR 0.54 95% CI 0.35 to 0.83; low certainty evidence)\nTwo studies compared probiotic treatment with antibiotics and showed little or no difference in risk of repeat symptomatic UTI (RR 0.82 95% CI 0.56 to 1.21; low certainty evidence)\nSingle studies compared circumcision with antibiotics, cranberry products with no treatment, oxybutynin with placebo, two different surgical techniques and endoscopic injection with no treatment.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCompared with no treatment, the use of long-term, low-dose antibiotics may make little or no difference to the number of repeat symptomatic and febrile UTIs in children with VUR (low certainty evidence). Considerable variation in the study designs and subsequent findings prevented drawing firm conclusions on efficacy of antibiotic treatment.\nThe added benefit of surgical or endoscopic correction of VUR over antibiotic treatment alone remains unclear since few studies comparing the same treatment and with relevant clinical outcomes were available for analysis.\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": "A literature search identified all randomised studies comparing different treatment options in children with vesicoureteric reflux. Results along with study design details were extracted and compiled. Studies comparing similar treatments and outcomes had data pooled to obtain an estimate of effect on outcomes such as repeat urinary tract infection with illness, urinary tract infection with fever and kidney damage."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2159 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSexual dysfunction following stroke is common but often is poorly managed. As awareness of sexual dysfunction following stroke increases as an important issue, a clearer evidence base for interventions for sexual dysfunction is needed to optimise management.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to reduce sexual dysfunction following stroke, and to assess adverse events associated with interventions for sexual dysfunction following stroke.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted the search on 27 November 2019. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; from June 2014), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (from 1950); Embase (from 1980); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; from 1982); the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED; from 1985); PsycINFO (from 1806); the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro; from 1999); and 10 additional bibliographic databases and ongoing trial registers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared pharmacological treatments, mechanical devices, or complementary medicine interventions versus placebo. We also included other non-pharmacological interventions (such as education or therapy), which were compared against usual care or different forms of intervention (such as different intensities) for treating sexual dysfunction in stroke survivors.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed study quality. We determined the risk of bias for each study and performed a 'best evidence' synthesis using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe identified three RCTs with a total of 212 participants. We noted significant heterogeneity in interventions (one pharmacological, one physiotherapy-based, and one psycho-educational), and all RCTs were small and of 'low' or 'very low' quality. Based on these RCTs, data are insufficient to provide any reliable indication of benefit or risk to guide clinical practice in terms of the use of sertraline, specific pelvic floor muscle training, or individualised sexual rehabilitation.\nAuthors' conclusions\nUse of sertraline to treat premature ejaculation needs to be tested in further RCTs. The lack of benefit with structured sexual rehabilitation and pelvic floor physiotherapy should not be interpreted as proof of ineffectiveness. Well-designed, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials of long-term duration are needed to determine the effectiveness of various types of interventions for sexual dysfunction. It should be noted, however, that it may not be possible to double-blind trials of complex interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study funding sources\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The study that compared the medication (sertraline) to vitamin B12 did not describe any funding sources. The study that compared pelvic floor training to standard rehabilitation was funded through grants from the Association of Danish Physiotherapists Research Foundation, the Association of Danish Physiotherapists Practise Foundation, the Foundation of 12.12.1981, Lykkefeldts Grant, the Foundation of Lundbeck (UCSF), and the Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy Glostrup Hospital, University of Copenhagen. The study that compared a structured rehabilitation programme to written education alone was funded by the Victor Hurley Medical Research Grant-in-Aid and by the AFRM Ipsen Open Research Fellowship."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2160 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAchilles tendinopathy is a common condition, often with significant functional consequences. As a wide range of injection treatments are available, a review of randomised trials evaluating injection therapies to help inform treatment decisions is warranted.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects (benefits and harms) of injection therapies for people with Achilles tendinopathy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to 20 April 2015: the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus. We also searched trial registers (29 May 2014) and reference lists of articles to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating injection therapies in adults with an investigator-reported diagnosis of Achilles tendinopathy. We accepted comparison arms of placebo (sham) or no injection control, or other active treatment (such as physiotherapy, pharmaceuticals or surgery). Our primary outcomes were function, using measures such as the VISA-A (Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Achilles questionnaire), and adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. We assessed treatment effects using mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous variables and risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs for dichotomous variables. For follow-up data, we defined short-term as up to six weeks, medium-term as up to three months and longer-term as data beyond three months. We performed meta-analysis where appropriate.\nMain results\nWe included 18 studies (732 participants). Seven trials exclusively studied athletic populations. The mean ages of the participants in the individual trials ranged from 20 years to 50 years. Fifteen trials compared an injection therapy with a placebo injection or no injection control, four trials compared an injection therapy with active treatment, and one compared two different concentrations of the same injection. Thus no trials compared different injection therapies. Two studies had three trial arms and we included them twice in two different categories. Within these categories, we further subdivided injection therapies by mode of action (injury-causing versus direct repair agents).\nThe risk of bias was unclear (due to poor reporting) or high in six trials published between 1987 and 1994. Improved methodology and reporting for the subsequent trials published between 2004 and 2013 meant that these were at less risk of bias.\nGiven the very low quality evidence available from each of four small trials comparing different combinations of injection therapy versus active treatment and the single trial comparing two doses of one injection therapy, only the results of the first comparison (injection therapy versus control) are presented.\nThere is low quality evidence of a lack of significant or clinically important differences in VISA-A scores (0 to 100: best function) between injection therapy and control groups at six weeks (MD 0.79, 95% CI -4.56 to 6.14; 200 participants, five trials), three months (MD -0.94, 95% CI -6.34 to 4.46; 189 participants, five trials) or between six and 12 months (MD 0.14, 95% CI -6.54 to 6.82; 132 participants, three trials). Very low quality evidence from 13 trials showed little difference between the two groups in adverse events (14/243 versus 12/206; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.89), most of which were minor and short-lasting. The only major adverse event in the injection therapy group was an Achilles tendon rupture, which happened in a trial testing corticosteroid injections. There was very low quality evidence in favour of the injection therapy group in short-term (under three months) pain (219 participants, seven trials) and in the return to sports (335 participants, seven trials). There was very low quality evidence indicating little difference between groups in patient satisfaction with treatment (152 participants, four trials). There was insufficient evidence to conclude on subgroup differences based on mode of action given that only two trials tested injury-causing agents and the clear heterogeneity of the other 13 trials, which tested seven different therapies that act directly on the repair pathway.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to draw conclusions on the use, or to support the routine use, of injection therapies for treating Achilles tendinopathy. This review has highlighted a need for definitive research in the area of injection therapies for Achilles tendinopathy, including in older non-athletic populations. This review has shown that there is a consensus in the literature that placebo-controlled trials are considered the most appropriate trial design.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Most of the studies had some aspects that could undermine the reliability of their results. We decided the evidence was of low or very low quality for all outcomes. Thus, the findings remain uncertain and further research may provide evidence that could change our conclusions."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2161 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nLeading health authorities all recommend exclusive breastfeeding to six months' postpartum. While most women initiate breastfeeding, many discontinue due to difficulties encountered rather than maternal choice. One common breastfeeding difficulty is painful nipples. Research has identified poor infant positioning or latch as a common cause of painful nipples. While many different interventions designed to reduce nipple pain in breastfeeding women have been evaluated, it is unclear which intervention is the most effective treatment. An understanding of nipple pain and treatment options are needed to improve breastfeeding duration and exclusivity rates and to address systematically one of the most frequent difficulties encountered by breastfeeding women.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of all interventions in the resolution or reduction of nipple pain and the impact of the interventions on other outcomes such as nipple trauma, nipple infections, breast mastitis, breastfeeding duration, breastfeeding exclusivity, and maternal satisfaction.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2014) and scanned secondary references.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials designed to evaluate any intervention for treating nipple pain among breastfeeding women. Trials using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion. The following interventions were eligible for inclusion compared with each other or usual care (i.e. education only): pharmacological (e.g. antifungal creams); non-pharmacological topical treatments (e.g. lanolin); dressings (e.g. hydrogel dressings); nipple protection devices (e.g. breast shells), phototherapy, and expressed breast milk. Nipple pain in women who are feeding with expressed breast milk (i.e. women of infants in neonatal units) is associated with other methods of removing milk from the mother's breast such as manual expression and various types of breast pumps. Nipple pain and subsequent treatment is different in this unique maternal population and thus we excluded women solely feeding with expressed breast milk from this review.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, evaluated methodological quality, and checked data for accuracy. We sought additional information from several trial researchers.\nMain results\nWe included four trials of good methodological quality involving 656 women in the review. The four included trials evaluated five different interventions including glycerine pads, lanolin with breast shells, lanolin alone, expressed breast milk, and an all-purpose nipple ointment. All studies included education to position the infant at the breast correctly as part of routine postpartum care to both treatment and control groups.\nPooled data existed only for the comparison of lanolin versus usual care. We did not pool data for other outcomes due to either heterogeneity in outcome measures or differing interventions.\nThere was no evidence that glycerine gel dressings or breast shells with lanolin significantly improved nipple pain. One trial found no clear differences in nipple pain (at one to three days, four to five days, or six to seven days' post-treatment) between women who applied lanolin or nothing to their nipples. In contrast, the same trial found that women who applied expressed breast milk had significantly lower perceptions of nipple pain following four to five days of treatment than women who applied lanolin. However, this beneficial effect was not maintained after six to seven days of treatment. There were no group differences in nipple pain perceptions at any assessment between women who applied expressed breast milk and women who applied nothing. Women who applied an \"all-purpose nipple ointment\", in comparison to women who applied lanolin, had no improvement in nipple pain after seven days of treatment. There was insufficient evidence that glycerine gel dressings, lanolin with breast shells, lanolin alone, expressed breast milk, or all-purpose nipple ointment improved maternal perceptions of nipple pain.\nOverall, there was insufficient evidence to recommend any intervention for the treatment of nipple pain. However, one important finding was that regardless of the treatment used, for most women nipple pain reduced to mild levels after approximately seven to 10 days' postpartum. The provision of anticipatory guidance regarding usual time to pain reduction may be a useful strategy in assisting women to continue to breastfeed and to do so exclusively. The overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcome of nipple pain as assessed using GRADE was of low quality, mainly because single studies with few participants contributed data for analysis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was insufficient evidence that glycerine gel dressings, breast shells with lanolin, lanolin alone, or the all-purpose nipple ointment significantly improved maternal perceptions of nipple pain. The results from these four trials of good methodological quality suggested that applying nothing or just expressed breast milk may be equally or more beneficial in the short-term experience of nipple pain than the application of an ointment such as lanolin.\nThe quality of the evidence for this review did not lead to robust conclusions regarding the objectives assessed. We included only four trials, incorporating 656 women, in the review and all four trials compared varying interventions, participants, study outcome measures, and standards of usual care. The methodological quality of the included studies was good but the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcome of nipple pain was of low quality, mainly because single studies with few participants contributed data for analysis.\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 Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials database for clinical trials assessing methods (interventions) of improving nipple pain among breastfeeding women in September 2014. We also looked at healing and infection of nipples, length of breastfeeding, if infants only received breast milk, and if mothers were happy with treatment for nipple problems and breastfeeding in general. Interventions included drug treatments (against bacteria given by mouth, spray, ointment; against fungal infections), non-drug treatments (lanolin, petroleum jelly, peppermint oil, glycerine), dressings, nipple protectors (breast shields or shells), light treatment, or applying expressed breast milk. Interventions were compared with each other or usual care (control)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2162 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an updated version of the Cochrane Review first published in 2011, and most recently updated in 2019.\nEpilepsy is a chronic and disabling neurological disorder, affecting approximately 1% of the population. Up to 30% of people with epilepsy have seizures that are resistant to currently available antiepileptic drugs and require treatment with multiple antiepileptic drugs in combination. Felbamate is a second-generation antiepileptic drug that can be used as add-on therapy to standard antiepileptic drugs.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of felbamate versus placebo when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal-onset epilepsy.\nSearch methods\nFor the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 13 July 2021) on 15 July 2021. There were no language or time restrictions. We reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies to search for additional reports of relevant studies. We also contacted the manufacturers of felbamate and experts in the field for information about any unpublished or ongoing studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for randomised placebo-controlled add-on studies of people of any age with drug-resistant focal seizures. The studies could be double-blind, single-blind or unblinded and could be of parallel-group or cross-over design.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted information. In the case of disagreements, a third review author arbitrated. Review authors assessed the following outcomes: 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; absolute or percentage reduction in seizure frequency; treatment withdrawal; adverse effects; quality of life.\nMain results\nWe included four randomised controlled trials, representing a total of 236 participants, in the review. Two trials had parallel-group design, the third had a two-period cross-over design, and the fourth had a three-period cross-over design. We judged all four studies to be at an unclear risk of bias overall. Bias arose from the incomplete reporting of methodological details, the incomplete and selective reporting of outcome data, and from participants having unstable drug regimens during experimental treatment in one trial. Due to significant methodological heterogeneity, clinical heterogeneity and differences in outcome measures, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis of the extracted data.\nOnly one study reported the outcome of 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, whilst three studies reported percentage reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo. One study claimed an average seizure reduction of 35.8% with add-on felbamate whilst another study claimed a more modest reduction of 4.2%. Both studies reported that seizure frequency increased with add-on placebo and that there was a significant difference in seizure reduction between felbamate and placebo (P = 0.0005 and P = 0.018, respectively). The third study reported a 14% reduction in seizure frequency with add-on felbamate but stated that the difference between treatments was not significant. There were conflicting results regarding treatment withdrawal. One study reported a higher treatment withdrawal for placebo-randomised participants, whereas the other three studies reported higher treatment withdrawal rates for felbamate-randomised participants. Notably, the treatment withdrawal rates for felbamate treatment groups across all four studies remained reasonably low (less than 10%), suggesting that felbamate may be well tolerated. Felbamate-randomised participants most commonly withdrew from treatment due to adverse effects. The adverse effects consistently reported by all four studies were headache, dizziness and nausea. All three adverse effects were reported by 23% to 40% of felbamate-treated participants versus 3% to 15% of placebo-treated participants.\nWe assessed the evidence for all outcomes using GRADE and rated the evidence as very low certainty, meaning that we have little confidence in the findings reported. We mainly downgraded evidence for imprecision due to the narrative synthesis conducted and the low number of events. We stress that the true effect of felbamate could likely be significantly different from that reported in this current review update.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn view of the methodological deficiencies, the limited number of included studies and the differences in outcome measures, we have found no reliable evidence to support the use of felbamate as an add-on therapy in people with drug-resistant focal-onset epilepsy. A large-scale, randomised controlled trial conducted over a longer period of time is required to inform clinical practice.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Aim of the review\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review investigated whether felbamate is effective and tolerable for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, when used with other antiepileptic drugs (add-on therapy)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2163 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAs a retained placenta is a potential life-threatening obstetrical complication, effective and timely management is important. The estimated mortality rates from a retained placenta in developing countries range from 3% to 9%. One possible factor contributing to the high mortality rates is a delay in initiating manual removal of the placenta. Effective anaesthesia or analgesia during this procedure will provide adequate uterine relaxation and pain control, enabling it to be carried out effectively.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of general, regional, and local anaesthesia or analgesia during manual removal of a retained placenta.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 30 September 2019, and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised controlled trials, and cluster-randomised trials that compared different methods of preoperative or intraoperative anaesthetic or analgesic, administered during the manual removal of a retained placenta.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the study reports for inclusion, and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We followed standard Cochrane methodology.\nMain results\nWe identified only one randomised controlled trial (N = 30 women) that evaluated the effect of paracervical block on women undergoing manual removal of a retained placenta compared with intravenous pethidine and diazepam. The study was conducted in a hospital in Papua New Guinea. The study was at high risk of bias of performance bias and detection bias, low risk of attrition bias, and an unclear risk of selection bias, reporting bias, and other bias.\nThe included study did not measure this review's primary outcomes of pain intensity and adverse events.\nThe study reported that there were no women, in either group, who experienced an estimated postpartum blood loss of more than 500 mL.\nWe are uncertain about the providers' satisfaction with the procedure, defined as their perception of achieving good pain relief during the procedure (risk ratio (RR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 3.16, one study, 30 women; very low quality evidence).\nWe are also uncertain about the women's satisfaction with the procedure, defined as their perception of achieving good pain relief during the procedure (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.37; one study, 30 women; very low quality evidence).\nThe included study did not report on any of our other outcomes of interest.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence from one small study to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of anaesthesia or analgesia during the manual removal of a retained placenta.\nThe quality of the available evidence was very low. We downgraded based on issues of limitations in study design (risk of bias) and imprecision (single study with small sample size, few or no events, and wide confidence intervals).\nThere is a need for well-designed, multi-centre, randomised, controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different types of anaesthesia and analgesia during manual removal of a retained placenta. These studies could report on the important outcomes outlined in this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What evidence did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched for evidence to September 2019. We found one small, randomised controlled study that took place in a hospital in Papua New Guinea. The study involved 30 women who were undergoing the manual removal of a retained placenta. It compared an injection of the local anaesthetic, lidocaine, around the cervix (paracervical block) and intravenous medication pethidine and diazepam, for pain relief and relaxation.\nThis study did not report on pain intensity or adverse events.\nThe study did report that none of the women experienced a postpartum blood loss of more than 500 mL.\nWe are uncertain about the providers' satisfaction with the procedure (defined as their perception of good pain relief during the procedure), and the women's satisfaction with the procedure (defined as their perception of good pain relief during the procedure)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2164 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFasting during Ramadan is obligatory for adult Muslims, except those who have a medical illness. Many Muslims with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) choose to fast, which may increase their risks of hypoglycaemia and dehydration.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions for people with type 2 diabetes fasting during Ramadan.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov (29 June 2022) without language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted during Ramadan that evaluated all pharmacological or behavioural interventions in Muslims with T2DM.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors screened and selected records, assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently. Discrepancies were resolved by a third author. For meta-analyses we used a random-effects model, with risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes with their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 17 RCTs with 5359 participants, with a four-week study duration and at least four weeks of follow-up. All studies had at least one high-risk domain in the risk of bias assessment.\nFour trials compared dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors with sulphonylurea. DPP-4 inhibitors may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylureas (85/1237 versus 165/1258, RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.68; low-certainty evidence). Serious hypoglycaemia was similar between groups (no events were reported in two trials; 6/279 in the DPP-4 versus 4/278 in the sulphonylurea group was reported in one trial, RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.24; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of DPP-4 inhibitors on adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (141/1207 versus 157/1219, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.54) and HbA1c changes (MD -0.11%, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.36) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). No deaths were reported (moderate-certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and treatment satisfaction were not evaluated.\nTwo trials compared meglitinides with sulphonylurea. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on hypoglycaemia (14/133 versus 21/140, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.28) and HbA1c changes (MD 0.38%, 95% CI 0.35% to 0.41%) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). Death, serious hypoglycaemic events, adverse events, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated.\nOne trial compared sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors with sulphonylurea. SGLT-2 may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylurea (4/58 versus 13/52, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.79; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for serious hypoglycaemia (one event reported in both groups, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.97) and adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (20/58 versus 18/52, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.67) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). SGLT-2 inhibitors result in little or no difference in HbA1c (MD 0.27%, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.58; 1 trial, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Death, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated.\nThree trials compared glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) analogues with sulphonylurea. GLP-1 analogues may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylurea (20/291 versus 48/305, RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.74; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for serious hypoglycaemia (0/91 versus 1/91, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that GLP-1 analogues result in little to no difference in adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (78/244 versus 55/255, RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.61; very low-certainty evidence), treatment satisfaction (MD -0.18, 95% CI -3.18 to 2.82; very low-certainty evidence) or change in HbA1c (MD -0.04%, 95% CI -0.45% to 0.36%; 2 trials, 246 participants; low-certainty evidence). Death and HRQoL were not evaluated.\nTwo trials compared insulin analogues with biphasic insulin. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of insulin analogues on hypoglycaemia (47/256 versus 81/244, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.40) and serious hypoglycaemia (4/131 versus 3/132, RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.31 to 5.89) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). The evidence was very uncertain for the effect of insulin analogues on adverse effects other than hypoglycaemia (109/256 versus 114/244, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.56; very low-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (1/131 versus 0/132, RR 3.02, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.53; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c changes (MD 0.03%, 95% CI -0.17% to 0.23%; 1 trial, 245 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated.\nTwo trials compared telemedicine with usual care. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of telemedicine on hypoglycaemia compared with usual care (9/63 versus 23/58, RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.74; very low-certainty evidence), HRQoL (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.15; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c change (MD -0.84%, 95% CI -1.51% to -0.17%; very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, AEs other than hypoglycaemia and treatment satisfaction were not evaluated.\nTwo trials compared Ramadan-focused patient education with usual care. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of Ramadan-focused patient education on hypoglycaemia (49/213 versus 42/209, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.66; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c change (MD -0.40%, 95% CI -0.73% to -0.06%; very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, adverse events other than hypoglycaemia, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated.\nOne trial compared drug dosage reduction with usual care. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of drug dosage reduction on hypoglycaemia (19/452 versus 52/226, RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.30; very low-certainty evidence). No participants experienced adverse events other than hypoglycaemia during the study (very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, treatment satisfaction, HbA1c change and HRQoL were not evaluated.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no clear evidence of the benefits or harms of interventions for individuals with T2DM who fast during Ramadan. All results should be interpreted with caution due to concerns about risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency between studies, which give rise to low- to very low-certainty evidence. Major outcomes, such as mortality, health-related quality of life and severe hypoglycaemia, were rarely evaluated. Sufficiently powered studies that examine the effects of various interventions on these outcomes are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "For all the studies in this review, there are concerns about the methodological quality and the subsequent certainty of evidence. The number of participants in all interventions was small. For the reported outcomes, we have very little confidence in the certainty of the available evidence. Future studies may substantially change our findings."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2165 | [
{
"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: \"Conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The lack of reliable evidence means that we are uncertain whether one-incision arthroscopically assisted ACL techniques are any better (or worse) than two-incision techniques. Further research would help to answer this question but may not be a current priority."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2166 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are believed be at higher risk of problems with sexual function than age-matched peers. Problems with sexuality or sexual function associated with COPD may arise as a results of hormonal, physiological, or psychological problems, or as a result of changes in intimate relationships arising from the chronic nature of the condition.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for sexual dysfunction in people with COPD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group's Specialised Register on 8 July 2015 and conducted supplementary searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, four other databases, and two trials registers to July 2015, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We used no language or date restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs, and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effects of pharmacological, mechanical, psychological, or educational interventions to address problems with sexual well-being in people with COPD and their partners.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently reviewed search results against predetermined inclusion criteria. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for included studies. We contacted study authors for additional information.\nMain results\nWe included two studies involving a total of 48 participants. One of these studies (an RCT) investigated the effect of a pharmacological intervention (testosterone therapy) compared to a placebo over a four-month period. The other study (a quasi-RCT) compared one month of long-term oxygen therapy to a single 24-hour dose of oxygen therapy over a one-month period. Both studies only included men with moderate to very severe COPD (mean FEV1% across both studies 41%; standard deviation (SD) 11.7%) who were under the age of 74 (mean age across both studies 65 years; SD 7.1). We found low-quality evidence that testosterone therapy for men with COPD results in improvements in erectile function, but no evidence of effect regarding overall satisfaction with sexual function. There is insufficient data to draw conclusions regarding the possibility of adverse events arising from testosterone therapy for COPD or the effect of oxygen therapy on erectile dysfunction. Neither study provided additional data on sexual function, other than erectile function.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently insufficient evidence from clinical trials at present to inform the best way of providing interventions to improve sexual function and sexual satisfaction for people with COPD and their partners. Consequently, clinicians need to rely on clinical trials involving people without COPD and expert opinion in order to guide clinical practice in this area. Considerably more trials need to be conducted in this area of clinical practice.\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": "Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a general term referring to chronic bronchitis, emphysema, or both. People with COPD are thought to be at greater risk of having problems with sexual function than other people their age. These problems can include difficulties getting or maintaining an erection (for men), reduced sexual desire, difficulty achieving orgasm, discomfort during sex, anxiety about performance, or sex not being pleasurable. The aim of this review was to summarise studies that investigated the effects of drugs, physical aids, psychological interventions such as counselling, or educational interventions in order to improve the sexual function or sexual satisfaction of people with COPD and their partners."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2167 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSystematic reviews showed that systemic postnatal corticosteroids reduce the risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) in preterm infants. However, corticosteroids have also been associated with an increased risk of neurodevelopmental impairment. It is unknown whether these beneficial and adverse effects are modulated by differences in corticosteroid treatment regimens related to type of steroid, timing of treatment initiation, duration, pulse versus continuous delivery, and cumulative dose.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of different corticosteroid treatment regimens on mortality, pulmonary morbidity, and neurodevelopmental outcome in very low birth weight infants.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted searches in September 2022 of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and two trial registries, without date, language or publication- type limits. Other search methods included checking the reference lists of included studies for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs comparing two or more different treatment regimens of systemic postnatal corticosteroids in preterm infants at risk for BPD, as defined by the original trialists. The following comparisons of intervention were eligible: alternative corticosteroid (e.g. hydrocortisone) versus another corticosteroid (e.g. dexamethasone); lower (experimental arm) versus higher dosage (control arm); later (experimental arm) versus earlier (control arm) initiation of therapy; a pulse-dosage (experimental arm) versus continuous-dosage regimen (control arm); and individually-tailored regimens (experimental arm) based on the pulmonary response versus a standardized (predetermined administered to every infant) regimen (control arm). We excluded placebo-controlled and inhalation corticosteroid studies.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed eligibility and risk of bias of trials, and extracted data on study design, participant characteristics and the relevant outcomes. We asked the original investigators to verify if data extraction was correct and, if possible, to provide any missing data. We assessed the following primary outcome: the composite outcome mortality or BPD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA). Secondary outcomes were: the components of the composite outcome; in-hospital morbidities and pulmonary outcomes, and long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae. We analyzed data using Review Manager 5 and used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 16 studies in this review; of these, 15 were included in the quantitative synthesis. Two trials investigated multiple regimens, and were therefore included in more than one comparison. Only RCTs investigating dexamethasone were identified.\nEight studies enrolling a total of 306 participants investigated the cumulative dosage administered; these trials were categorized according to the cumulative dosage investigated, 'low' being < 2 mg/kg, 'moderate' being between 2 and 4 mg/kg, and 'high' > 4 mg/kg; three studies contrasted a high versus a moderate cumulative dose, and five studies a moderate versus a low cumulative dexamethasone dose. We graded the certainty of the evidence low to very low because of the small number of events, and the risk of selection, attrition and reporting bias. Overall analysis of the studies investigating a higher dose versus a lower dosage regimen showed no differences in the outcomes BPD, the composite outcome death or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA, or abnormal neurodevelopmental outcome in survivors assessed. Although there was no evidence of a subgroup difference for the higher versus lower dosage regimens comparisons (Chi2 = 2.91, df = 1 (P = 0.09), I2 = 65.7%), a larger effect was seen in the subgroup analysis of moderate-dosage regimens versus high-dosage regimens for the outcome cerebral palsy in survivors. In this subgroup analysis, there was an increased risk of cerebral palsy (RR 6.85, 95% CI 1.29 to 36.36; RD 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.37; P = 0.02; I² = 0%; NNTH 5, 95% CI 2.6 to 12.7; 2 studies, 74 infants). There was evidence of subgroup differences for higher versus lower dosage regimens comparisons for the combined outcomes death or cerebral palsy, and death and abnormal neurodevelopmental outcomes (Chi2 = 4.25, df = 1 (P = 0.04), I2 = 76.5%; and Chi2 = 7.11, df = 1 (P = 0.008), I2 = 85.9%, respectively). In the subgroup analysis comparing a high dosage regimen of dexamethasone versus a moderate cumulative-dosage regimen, there was an increased risk of death or cerebral palsy (RR 3.20, 95% CI 1.35 to 7.58; RD 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.41; P = 0.002; I² = 0%; NNTH 5, 95% CI 2.4 to 13.6; 2 studies, 84 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), and death or abnormal neurodevelopmental outcome (RR 3.41, 95% CI 1.44 to 8.07; RD 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.44; P = 0.0009; I² = 0%; NNTH 4, 95% CI 2.2 to 10.4; 2 studies, 84 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no differences in outcomes between a moderate- and a low-dosage regimen.\nFive studies enrolling 797 infants investigated early initiation of dexamethasone therapy versus a moderately early or delayed initiation, and showed no significant differences in the overall analyses for the primary outcomes. The two RCTs investigating a continuous versus a pulse dexamethasone regimen showed an increased risk of the combined outcome death or BPD when using the pulse therapy. Finally, three trials investigating a standard regimen versus a participant-individualized course of dexamethasone showed no difference in the primary outcome and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes.\nWe assessed the GRADE certainty of evidence for all comparisons discussed above as moderate to very low, because the validity of all comparisons is hampered by unclear or high risk of bias, small samples of randomized infants, heterogeneity in study population and design, non-protocolized use of ‘rescue’ corticosteroids and lack of long-term neurodevelopmental data in most studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effects of different corticosteroid regimens on the outcomes mortality, pulmonary morbidity, and long term neurodevelopmental impairment. Despite the fact that the studies investigating higher versus lower dosage regimens showed that higher-dosage regimens may reduce the incidence of death or neurodevelopmental impairment, we cannot conclude what the optimal type, dosage, or timing of initiation is for the prevention of BPD in preterm infants, based on current level of evidence. Further high quality trials would be needed to establish the optimal systemic postnatal corticosteroid dosage regimen.\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 electronic databases and found 16 studies investigating two or more different corticosteroid courses in preterm babies. The investigated courses differed in the total dose of the drug that was given, timing of start of the drug, and duration and schedule of therapy."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2168 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInhalation of the enzyme dornase alfa reduces sputum viscosity and improves clinical outcomes of people with cystic fibrosis. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether the timing of dornase alfa inhalation (in relation to airway clearance techniques or morning versus evening inhalation) has an impact on objective and subjective measures of clinical efficacy in people with cystic fibrosis.\nSearch methods\nRelevant randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials were identified from the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), clinical trial registries and international cystic fibrosis conference proceedings.\nDate of the most recent search: 12 October 2020.\nSelection criteria\nAny trial of dornase alfa in people with cystic fibrosis where timing of inhalation was the randomised element in the trial with either: inhalation before compared to after airway clearance techniques; or morning compared to evening inhalation.\nData collection and analysis\nBoth authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data with disagreements resolved by discussion. Relevant data were extracted and, where possible, meta-analysed. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe identified 115 trial reports representing 55 trials, of which five trials (providing data on 122 participants) met our inclusion criteria. All five trials used a cross-over design. Intervention periods ranged from two to eight weeks. Four trials (98 participants) compared dornase alfa inhalation before versus after airway clearance techniques. Inhalation after instead of before airway clearance did not significantly change forced expiratory volume at one second (very-low quality evidence). Similarly, forced vital capacity (low-quality evidence) and quality of life (very-low quality evidence) were not significantly affected; forced expiratory flow at 25% was significantly worse with dornase alfa inhalation after airway clearance, mean difference -0.17 litres (95% confidence interval -0.28 to -0.05), based on the pooled data from two small trials in children (7 to 19 years) with well-preserved lung function. All other secondary outcomes were statistically non-significant.\nIn one trial (25 participants), morning versus evening inhalation had no impact on lung function or symptoms (low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe current evidence derived from a small number of participants does not indicate that inhalation of dornase alfa after airway clearance techniques is more or less effective than the traditional recommendation to inhale nebulised dornase alfa 30 minutes prior to airway clearance techniques, for most outcomes. For children with well-preserved lung function, inhalation before airway clearance may be more beneficial for small airway function than inhalation after. However, this result relied on a measure with high variability and trials with variable follow-up. In the absence of strong evidence to indicate that one timing regimen is better than another, the timing of dornase alfa inhalation can be largely based on pragmatic reasons or individual preference with respect to the time of airway clearance and time of day. Further research is 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": "Inhaling the enzyme dornase alfa reduces the stickiness of sputum and improves clinical outcomes in people with cystic fibrosis. It is not certain whether it is better to inhale dornase alfa before or after clearing the airways with physical techniques. It is also not clear whether it is better to inhale it in the morning or in the evening."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2169 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nLong-term physical conditions affect 10% to 12% of children and adolescents worldwide. These individuals are at greater risk of developing psychological problems, particularly anxiety and depression, sometimes directly related to their illness or medical care (e.g. health-related anxiety). There is limited evidence regarding the effectiveness of psychological therapies for treating anxiety and depression in this population. Therapies designed for children and adolescents without medical issues may or may not be appropriate for use with those who have long-term physical conditions.\nObjectives\nThis review was undertaken to assess the effectiveness and acceptability of psychological therapies in comparison with controls (treatment-as-usual, waiting list, attention placebo, psychological placebo, or non-psychological treatment) for treating anxiety and depression in children and adolescents with long-term physical conditions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Ovid MEDLINE (1950- ), Embase (1974- ), PsycINFO (1967- ) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to 27 September 2018. An earlier search of these databases was conducted via the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMD-CTR) (all years to May 2016). In addition, we searched the Web of Science (Core Collection) (12 October 2018) and conducted a cited reference search for reports of all included trials. We handsearched relevant conference proceedings, reference lists of included articles, and grey literature.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised trials and cross-over trials of psychological therapies for treating anxiety or depression in children with long-term physical conditions were included.\nData collection and analysis\nAbstracts and complete articles were independently reviewed by two authors. Discrepancies were addressed by a third author. Odds ratio (OR) was used for comparing dichotomous data and standardised mean differences (SMD) for comparing continuous data. Meta-analysis was undertaken when treatments, participants, and the underlying clinical question were similar. Otherwise, narrative analysis of data was undertaken.\nMain results\nTwenty-eight RCTs and one cross-over trial with 1349 participants were included in the review. Most participants were recruited from community settings and hospital clinics in high-income countries. For the primary outcome of treatment efficacy, short-term depression (versus any control), there was low-quality evidence from 16 trials involving 1121 participants suggesting that psychological therapies may be more effective than control therapies (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.03; I2 = 79%). For the primary outcome of treatment efficacy, short-term anxiety (versus any control), there was inadequate evidence of moderate-quality from 13 studies involving 578 participants to determine whether psychological therapies were more effective than control conditions (SMD -0.26, CI -0.59 to 0.07, I2 = 72%). Planned sensitivity analyses could not be undertaken for risk of bias due to the small number of trials that rated high for each domain. Additional sensitivity analysis demonstrated that psychological interventions specifically designed to reduce anxiety or depression were more effective than psychological therapies designed to improve other symptoms or general coping. There was some suggestion from subgroup analyses that they type of intervention (Chi² = 14.75, df = 5 (P = 0.01), I² = 66.1%), the severity of depression (Chi² = 23.29, df = 4 (P = 0.0001), I² = 82.8%) and the type of long-term physical condition (Chi² = 10.55, df = 4 (P = 0.03), I² = 62.1%) may have an impact on the overall treatment effect.There was qualitative (reported), but not quantitative evidence confirming the acceptability of selected psychological therapies for anxiety and depression. There was low-quality evidence that psychological therapies were more effective than control conditions in improving quality of life (SMD 1.13, CI 0.44 to 1.82, I2 = 89%) and symptoms of long-term physical conditions (SMD -0.34, CI -0.6 to -0.06, I2 = 70%), but only in the short term. There was inadequate low-quality evidence to determine whether psychological therapies were more effective than control conditions at improving functioning in either the short term or long term. No trials of therapies for addressing health-related anxiety were identified and only two trials reported adverse effects; these were unrelated to psychological therapies. Overall, the evidence was of low to moderate quality, results were heterogeneous, and only one trial had an available protocol.\nAuthors' conclusions\nA limited number of trials of variable quality have been undertaken to assess whether psychological therapies are effective for treating anxiety and depression in children and adolescents with long-term physical conditions. According to the available evidence, therapies specifically designed to treat anxiety or depression (especially those based on principles of cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT)) may be more likely to work in children and adolescents who have mild to moderate levels of symptoms of these disorders, at least in the short term. There is a dearth of therapies specifically designed to treat health-related anxiety in this age group.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Which studies were included in the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched a number of databases to find all high-quality trials of psychological therapies for anxiety or depression in children and adolescents aged 18 years or less with long-term physical conditions and symptoms of anxiety or depression, published from 1970 to September 2018. We included twenty-nine studies with a total of 1349 people in the review and rated the overall quality of the studies as 'low to moderate'."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2170 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIndomethacin is used as standard therapy to close a patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) but is associated with reduced blood flow to several organs. Ibuprofen, another cyclo-oxygenase inhibitor, may be as effective as indomethacin with fewer adverse effects.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness and safety of ibuprofen compared with indomethacin, other cyclo-oxygenase inhibitor(s), placebo, or no intervention for closing a patent ductus arteriosus in preterm, low-birth-weight, or preterm and low-birth-weight infants.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 10), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 30 November 2017), Embase (1980 to 30 November 2017), and CINAHL (1982 to 30 November 2017). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of ibuprofen for the treatment of a PDA in preterm, low birth weight, or both preterm and low-birth-weight newborn infants.\nData collection and analysis\nData collection and analysis conformed to the methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 39 studies enrolling 2843 infants.\nIbuprofen (IV) versus placebo: IV Ibuprofen (3 doses) reduced the failure to close a PDA compared with placebo (typical relative risk (RR); 0.62 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.86); typical risk difference (RD); -0.18 (95% CI -0.30 to -0.06); NNTB 6 (95% CI 3 to 17); I2 = 65% for RR and I2 = 0% for RD; 2 studies, 206 infants; moderate-quality the evidence). One study reported decreased failure to close a PDA after single or three doses of oral ibuprofen compared with placebo (64 infants; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.62; RD -0.44, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.23; NNTB 2, 95% CI 2 to 4; I2 test not applicable).\nIbuprofen (IV or oral) compared with indomethacin (IV or oral): Twenty-four studies (1590 infants) comparing ibuprofen (IV or oral) with indomethacin (IV or oral) found no significant differences in failure rates for PDA closure (typical RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.24; typical RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.06; I2 = 0% for both RR and RD; moderate-quality evidence). A reduction in NEC (necrotising enterocolitis) was noted in the ibuprofen (IV or oral) group (18 studies, 1292 infants; typical RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.94; typical RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.01; NNTB 25, 95% CI 14 to 100; I2 = 0% for both RR and RD; moderate-quality evidence). There was a statistically significant reduction in the proportion of infants with oliguria in the ibuprofen group (6 studies, 576 infants; typical RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.54; typical RD -0.09, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.05; NNTB 11, 95% CI 7 to 20; I2 = 24% for RR and I2 = 69% for RD; moderate-quality evidence). The serum/plasma creatinine levels 72 hours after initiation of treatment were statistically significantly lower in the ibuprofen group (11 studies, 918 infants; MD -8.12 µmol/L, 95% CI -10.81 to -5.43). For this comparison, there was high between-study heterogeneity (I2 = 83%) and low-quality evidence.\nIbuprofen (oral) compared with indomethacin (IV or oral): Eight studies (272 infants) reported on failure rates for PDA closure in a subgroup of the above studies comparing oral ibuprofen with indomethacin (IV or oral). There was no significant difference between the groups (typical RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.27; typical RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.09; I2 = 0% for both RR and RD). The risk of NEC was reduced with oral ibuprofen compared with indomethacin (IV or oral) (7 studies, 249 infants; typical RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.73; typical RD -0.13, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.05; NNTB 8, 95% CI 5 to 20; I2 = 0% for both RR and RD). There was low-quality evidence for these two outcomes. There was a decreased risk of failure to close a PDA with oral ibuprofen compared with IV ibuprofen (5 studies, 406 infants; typical RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.56; typical RD -0.22, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.14; NNTB 5, 95% CI 3 to 7; moderate-quality evidence). There was a decreased risk of failure to close a PDA with high-dose versus standard-dose of IV ibuprofen (3 studies 190 infants; typical RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.61; typical RD - 0.26, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.15; NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 7); I2 = 4% for RR and 0% for RD); moderate-quality evidence).\nEarly versus expectant administration of IV ibuprofen, echocardiographically-guided IV ibuprofen treatment versus standard IV ibuprofen treatment, continuous infusion of ibuprofen versus intermittent boluses of ibuprofen, and rectal ibuprofen versus oral ibuprofen were studied in too few trials to allow for precise estimates of any clinical outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIbuprofen is as effective as indomethacin in closing a PDA. Ibuprofen reduces the risk of NEC and transient renal insufficiency. Therefore, of these two drugs, ibuprofen appears to be the drug of choice. The effectiveness of ibuprofen versus paracetamol is assessed in a separate review. Oro-gastric administration of ibuprofen appears as effective as IV administration. To make further recommendations, studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose ibuprofen, early versus expectant administration of ibuprofen, echocardiographically-guided versus standard IV ibuprofen, and continuous infusion versus intermittent boluses of ibuprofen. Studies are lacking evaluating the effect of ibuprofen on longer-term outcomes in infants with PDA.\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 ibuprofen compared with indomethacin, other cyclo-oxygenase inhibitors, placebo, or no intervention for closing a patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) safe and effective for improving the rate of ductal closure and other important clinical outcomes in preterm or low-birth-weight (or both) infants?"
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2171 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHepatic encephalopathy is a common complication of cirrhosis which results in poor brain functioning. The spectrum of changes associated with hepatic encephalopathy ranges from the clinically 'indiscernible' or minimal hepatic encephalopathy to the clinically 'obvious' or overt hepatic encephalopathy. Flumazenil is a synthetic benzodiazepine antagonist with high affinity for the central benzodiazepine recognition site. Flumazenil may benefit people with hepatic encephalopathy through an indirect negative allosteric modulatory effect on gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor function. The previous version of this review, which included 13 randomised clinical trials, found no effect of flumazenil on all-cause mortality, based on an analysis of 10 randomised clinical trials, but found a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy, based on an analysis of eight randomised clinical trials.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of flumazenil versus placebo or no intervention for people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and LILACS; meeting and conference proceedings; and bibliographies in May 2017.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised clinical trials regardless of publication status, blinding, or language in the analyses of benefits and harms, and observational studies in the assessment of harms.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors extracted data independently. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and I2 values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains; determined the quality of the evidence using GRADE; evaluated the risk of small-study effects in regression analyses; and conducted trial sequential, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses.\nMain results\nWe identified 14 eligible randomised clinical trials with 867 participants, the majority of whom had an acute episode of overt hepatic encephalopathy. In addition, we identified one ongoing randomised clinical trial. We were unable to gather outcome data from two randomised clinical trials with 25 participants. Thus, our analyses include 842 participants from 12 randomised clinical trials comparing flumazenil versus placebo. We classified one randomised clinical trial at low risk of bias in the overall assessment and the remaining randomised clinical trials at high risk of bias. The duration of follow-up ranged from a few minutes to two weeks, but it was less than one day in the majority of the trials.\nIn total, 32/433 (7.4%) participants allocated to flumazenil versus 38/409 (9.3%) participants allocated to placebo died (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.16; 11 randomised clinical trials; low quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis and the one randomised clinical trial assessed as low risk of bias (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.53) found no beneficial or harmful effects of flumazenil on all-cause mortality. The methods used to evaluate hepatic encephalopathy included several different clinical scales, electrophysiological variables, and psychometric tests. Flumazenil was associated with a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy when including all randomised clinical trials (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.80; 824 participants; nine randomised clinical trials; low quality evidence), or just the trial at low risk of bias (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.84; 527 participants). The Trial Sequential Analysis supported a beneficial effect of flumazenil on hepatic encephalopathy. The randomised clinical trials included little information about causes of death and little information on non-fatal serious adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found low quality evidence suggesting a short-term beneficial effect of flumazenil on hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis, but no evidence of an effect on all-cause mortality. Additional evidence from large, high quality randomised clinical trials is needed to evaluate the potential benefits and harms of flumazenil in people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The analyses showed no effect of flumazenil on all-cause mortality (deaths of any cause) compared with placebo. People who received flumazenil were more likely to recover from their hepatic encephalopathy than people given a placebo. We found little information about serious side effects."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2172 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIntra-uterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) are frequently used fertility treatments for couples with male subfertility. The use of these treatments has been subject of discussion. Knowledge on the effectiveness of fertility treatments for male subfertility with different grades of severity is limited. Possibly, couples are exposed to unnecessary or ineffective treatments on a large scale.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different fertility treatments (expectant management, timed intercourse (TI), IUI, IVF and ICSI) for couples whose subfertility appears to be due to abnormal sperm parameters.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for all publications that described randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the treatment for male subfertility. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the National Research Register from inception to 14 April 2015, and web-based trial registers from January 1985 to April 2015. We applied no language restrictions. We checked all references in the identified trials and background papers and contacted authors to identify relevant published and unpublished data.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs comparing different treatment options for male subfertility. These were expectant management, TI (with or without ovarian hyperstimulation (OH)), IUI (with or without OH), IVF and ICSI. We included only couples with abnormal sperm parameters.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected the studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. They resolved disagreements by discussion with the rest of the review authors. We performed statistical analyses in accordance with the guidelines for statistical analysis developed by The Cochrane Collaboration. The quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE methods. Primary outcomes were live birth and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) per couple randomised.\nMain results\nThe review included 10 RCTs (757 couples). The quality of the evidence was low or very low for all comparisons. The main limitations in the evidence were failure to describe study methods, serious imprecision and inconsistency.\nIUI versus TI (five RCTs)\nTwo RCTs compared IUI with TI in natural cycles. There were no data on live birth or OHSS. We found no evidence of a difference in pregnancy rates (2 RCTs, 62 couples: odds ratio (OR) 4.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 102, very low quality evidence; there were no events in one of the studies).\nThree RCTs compared IUI with TI both in cycles with OH. We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates (1 RCT, 81 couples: OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.59; low quality evidence) or pregnancy rates (3 RCTs, 202 couples: OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.07; I2 = 11%, very low quality evidence). One RCT reported data on OHSS. None of the 62 women had OHSS.\nOne RCT compared IUI in cycles with OH with TI in natural cycles. We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates (1 RCT, 44 couples: OR 3.14, 95% CI 0.12 to 81.35; very low quality evidence). Data on OHSS were not available.\nIUI in cycles with OH versus IUI in natural cycles (five RCTs)\nWe found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates (3 RCTs, 346 couples: OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.33; I2 = 0%, very low quality evidence) and pregnancy rates (4 RCTs, 399 couples: OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.82; I2 = 0%, very low quality evidence). There were no data on OHSS.\nIVF versus IUI in natural cycles or cycles with OH (two RCTs)\nWe found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates between IVF versus IUI in natural cycles (1 RCT, 53 couples: OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.35; low quality evidence) or IVF versus IUI in cycles with OH (2 RCTs, 86 couples: OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.45; I2 = 0%, very low quality evidence). One RCT reported data on OHSS. None of the women had OHSS.\nOverall, we found no evidence of a difference between any of the groups in rates of live birth, pregnancy or adverse events (multiple pregnancy, miscarriage). However, most of the evidence was very low quality.\nThere were no studies on IUI in natural cycles versus TI in stimulated cycles, IVF versus TI, ICSI versus TI, ICSI versus IUI (with OH) or ICSI versus IVF.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any difference in safety and effectiveness between different treatments for male subfertility. More research is needed.\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": "Intra-uterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) are frequently-used fertility treatments for couples with low male fertility (subfertility). In IUI, the man's sperm is prepared and placed in the womb (uterus). Thus, the sperm is close to the place where the embryo is made (conception site). IUI can be performed with or without ovarian hyperstimulation (OH). In an OH cycle, women receive drugs to stimulate the ovaries (the organs that produce the eggs (called oocytes)) to increase the number of available oocytes. The main side effects of these drugs are multiple pregnancy (production of two or more embryos (early stage in the development of a baby)) and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS; the ovaries produce too many eggs). In IVF and ICSI, the fertilisation (where the egg and sperm are together and produce an embryo) is outside the body. The oocytes are retrieved from the woman using an ultrasound-guided needle, piercing the vaginal wall to reach the ovaries. Through this needle, follicular fluid, which contains the oocyte, can be aspirated. It is common to remove between 10 and 15 oocytes. In IVF, the eggs are mixed with the sperm in a culture dish. In ICSI, sperm are injected directly into the oocytes to cause fertilisation. The fertilised oocytes are treated for two to six days in a medium that contains nutrients and are then placed in the uterus."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2173 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with schizophrenia have a range of different symptoms, including positive symptoms (hallucinations and delusions), negative symptoms (such as social withdrawal and lack of affect), and cognitive impairment. The standard medication for people with schizophrenia is antipsychotics. However, these medications may not be effective for all symptoms of schizophrenia, as cognitive and negative symptoms are usually hard to treat. Additional therapies or medications are available for the management of these symptoms. Modafinil, a wakefulness-promoting agent most frequently used in narcolepsy or shift work sleep disorder, is one intervention that is theorised to have an effect of these symptoms.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective of this review was to assess the effects of modafinil for people with schizophrenia or related disorders.\nSearch methods\nOn 27 April 2015, 24 May 2017, and 31 October 2019, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register of trials, which is based on regular searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, BIOSIS, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials. There are no language, time, document type, or publication status limitations for the inclusion of records in the register.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected all randomised controlled trials comparing modafinil with placebo or other treatments for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-spectrum disorders.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently extracted data from the included studies. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI. We used a random-effects model for the meta-analysis. We used GRADE to complete a 'Summary of findings' table and assessed risk of bias for the included studies.\nMain results\nEleven studies including a total of 422 participants contributed to data analyses. Most studies had a small population size (average 38 people per study) and were of short duration. We also detected a high risk of bias for selective outcome reporting in just under 50% of the trials. We therefore rated the overall methodological quality of the included studies as low. We considered seven main outcomes of interest: clinically important change in overall mental state, clinically important change in cognitive functioning, incidence of a clinically important adverse effect/event, clinically important change in global state, leaving the study early for any reason, clinically important change in quality of life, and hospital admission. All studies assessed the effects of adding modafinil to participants' usual antipsychotic treatment compared to adding placebo to usual antipsychotic treatment.\nSix studies found that adding modafinil to antipsychotic treatment may have little or no effect on overall mental state of people with schizophrenia, specifically the risk of worsening psychosis (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.98; participants = 209; studies = 6, low-quality evidence). Regarding the effect of modafinil on cognitive function, the trials did not report clinically important change data, but one study reported endpoint scores on the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB): in this study we found no clear difference in scores between modafinil and placebo treatment groups (MD −3.10, 95% CI −10.9 to 4.7; participants = 48; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). Only one study (N = 35) reported adverse effect/event data. In this study one serious adverse event occurred in each group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.42; participants = 35; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence).\nOne study measured change in global state using the Clinical Global Impression - Improvement Scale. This study found that adding modafinil to antipsychotic treatment may have little or no effect on global state (RR 6.36, 95% CI 0.94 to 43.07, participants = 21; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). Nine studies found that modafinil has no effect on numbers of participants leaving the study early (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.52 participants = 357; studies = 9, moderate-quality evidence). None of the trials reported clinically important change in quality of life, but one study did report quality of life using endpoint scores on the Quality of Life Inventory, finding no clear difference between treatment groups (MD −0.2, 95% CI −1.18 to 0.78; participants = 20; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). Finally, one study reported data for number of participants needing hospitalisation: one participant in each group was hospitalised (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.42; participants = 35; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to methodological issues, low sample size, and short duration of the clinical trials as well as high risk of bias for outcome reporting, most of the evidence available for this review is of very low or low quality. For results where quality is low or very low, we are uncertain or very uncertain if the effect estimates are true effects, limiting our conclusions. Specifically, we found that modafinil is no better or worse than placebo at preventing worsening of psychosis; however, we are uncertain about this result. We have more confidence that participants receiving modafinil are no more likely to leave a trial early than participants receiving placebo. However, we are very uncertain about the remaining equivocal results between modafinil and placebo for outcomes such as improvement in global state or cognitive function, incidence of adverse events, and changes in quality of life. More high-quality data are needed before firm conclusions regarding the effects of modafinil for people with schizophrenia or related disorders can be made.\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 adding modafinil to antipsychotic treatment effective and safe for people with schizophrenia?"
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2174 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nStudies suggest that overweight and obese breast cancer survivors are at increased risk of cancer recurrence and have higher all-cause mortality. Obesity has an impact on breast cancer survivor's quality of life (QOL) and increases the risk of longer-term morbidities such as type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease. Many cancer guidelines recommend survivors maintain a healthy weight but there is a lack of evidence regarding which weight loss method to recommend.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of different body weight loss approaches in breast cancer survivors who are overweight or obese (body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 kg/m2).\nSearch methods\nWe carried out a search in the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's (CBCG's) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 6), MEDLINE (2012 to June 2019), Embase (2015 to June 2019), the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and Clinicaltrials.gov on 17 June 2019. We also searched Mainland Chinese academic literature databases (CNKI), VIP, Wan Fang Data and SinoMed on 25 June 2019. We screened references in relevant manuscripts.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and randomised cross-over trials evaluating body weight management for overweight and obese breast cancer survivors (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2). The aim of the intervention had to be weight loss.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias for the included studies, and applied the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Dichotomous outcomes were analysed as proportions using the risk ratio (RR) as the measure of effect. Continuous data were analysed as means with the measure of effect being expressed as the mean differences (MDs) between treatment groups in change from baseline values with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), when all studies reported exactly the same outcomes on the same scale. If similar outcomes were reported on different scales the standardised mean difference (SMD) was used as the measure of effect. Quality of life data and relevant biomarkers were extracted where available.\nMain results\nWe included a total of 20 studies (containing 23 intervention-comparisons) and analysed 2028 randomised women. Participants in the experimental groups received weight loss interventions using the core element of dietary changes, either in isolation or in combination with other core elements such as 'diet and exercise', 'diet and psychosocial support' or 'diet, exercise and psychosocial support'. Participants in the controls groups either received usual care, written materials or placebo, or wait-list controls. The duration of interventions ranged from 0.5 months to 24 months. The duration of follow-up ranged from three months to 36 months.\nThere were no time-to-event data available for overall survival, breast cancer recurrence and disease-free survival. There was a relatively small amount of data available for breast cancer recurrence (281 participants from 4 intervention-comparisons with 14 recurrence events; RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 5.60; low-quality evidence) and the analysis was likely underpowered.\nOverall, we found low-quality evidence that weight loss interventions for overweight and obese breast cancer survivors resulted in a reduction in body weight (MD: -2.25 kg, 95% CI: -3.19 to -1.3 kg; 21 intervention-comparisons; 1751 women), body mass index (BMI) (MD: -1.08 kg/m2, 95% CI: -1.61 to -0.56 kg/m2; 17 intervention-comparisons; 1353 women), and waist circumference (MD:-1.73 cm, 95% CI: -3.17 to -0.29 cm; 13 intervention-comparisons; 1193 women), and improved overall quality of life (SMD: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.20 to 1.29; 10 intervention-comparisons; 867 women). No increase was seen in adverse events for women in the intervention groups compared to controls (RR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.17; 4 intervention-comparisons; 394 women; high-quality evidence). Subgroup analyses revealed that decreases in body weight, BMI and waist circumference were present in women regardless of their ethnicity and menopausal status.\nMultimodal weight loss interventions (which referred to 'diet, exercise and psychosocial support') appeared to result in greater reductions in body weight (MD: -2.88 kg, 95% CI: -3.98 to -1.77 kg; 13 intervention-comparisons; 1526 participants), BMI (MD: -1.44 kg/m2, 95% CI: -2.16 to -0.72 kg/m2; 11 studies; 1187 participants) and waist circumference (MD:-1.66 cm, 95% CI: -3.49 to -0.16 cm; 8 intervention-comparisons; 1021 participants) compared to dietary change alone, however the evidence was low quality.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWeight loss interventions, particularly multimodal interventions (incorporating diet, exercise and psychosocial support), in overweight or obese breast cancer survivors appear to result in decreases in body weight, BMI and waist circumference and improvement in overall quality of life. There was no increase in adverse events. There is a lack of data to determine the impact of weight loss interventions on survival or breast cancer recurrence. This review is based on studies with marked heterogeneity regarding weight loss interventions. Due to the methods used in included studies, there was a high risk of bias regarding blinding of participants and assessors.\nFurther research is required to determine the optimal weight loss intervention and assess the impact of weight loss on survival outcomes. Long-term follow-up in weight loss intervention studies is required to determine if weight changes are sustained beyond the intervention periods.\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 included evidence published up to June 2019."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2175 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of the 2009 Cochrane overview and network meta-analysis (NMA) of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of nine biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib, versus comparator (MTX, DMARD, placebo (PL), or a combination) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to methotrexate (MTX) or other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), i.e., MTX/DMARD incomplete responders (MTX/DMARD-IR).\nMethods\nWe searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (via The Cochrane Library Issue 6, June 2015), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and EMBASE (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Data extraction, risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated both direct estimates using standard meta-analysis and used Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for NMA estimates to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) which are reported in the abstract for the ease of interpretation.\nMain results\nThis update included 73 new RCTs for a total of 90 RCTs; 79 RCTs with 32,874 participants provided usable data. Few trials were at high risk of bias for blinding of assessors/participants (13% to 21%), selective reporting (4%) or major baseline imbalance (8%); a large number had unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation (68%) or allocation concealment (74%).\nBased on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in ACR50 versus comparator (RR 2.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.36 to 3.10); absolute benefit 24% more patients (95% CI 19% to 29%), number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 5 (4 to 6). NMA estimates for ACR50 in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 3.23 (95% credible interval (Crl) 2.75 to 3.79), non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 2.99; 95% Crl 2.36 to 3.74), and anakinra + MTX/DMARD (RR 2.37 (95% Crl 1.00 to 4.70) were similar to the direct estimates.\nBased on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a clinically and statistically important improvement in function measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (0 to 3 scale, higher = worse function) with a mean difference (MD) based on direct evidence of -0.25 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.22); absolute benefit of -8.3% (95% CI -9.3% to -7.3%), NNTB = 3 (95% CI 2 to 4). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -10.3% (95% Crl -14% to -6.7%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -7.3% (95% Crl -13.6% to -0.67%) were similar to respective direct estimates.\nBased on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically and statistically significantly greater proportion of participants achieving remission in RA (defined by disease activity score DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6) versus comparator (RR 2.81 (95% CI, 2.23 to 3.53); absolute benefit 18% more patients (95% CI 12% to 25%), NNTB = 6 (4 to 9)). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 17% (95% Crl 11% to 23%)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 19% (95% Crl 12% to 28%) were similar to respective direct estimates.\nBased on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologics + MTX/DMARDs versus comparator, MD -2.61 (95% CI -4.08 to -1.14). The absolute reduction was small, -0.58% (95% CI -0.91% to -0.25%) and we are unsure of the clinical relevance of this reduction. NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction -0.67% (95% Crl -1.4% to -0.12%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction, -0.68% (95% Crl -2.36% to 0.92%)) were similar to respective direct estimates.\nBased on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for imprecision), results for withdrawals due to adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase in withdrawals, RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.30). The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.24 (95% Crl 0.99 to 1.57)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.20 (95% Crl 0.87 to 1.67)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low for both imprecision and indirectness.\nBased on direct evidence of high quality, biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically significantly increased risk (statistically borderline significant) of serious adverse events on biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR [can be interpreted as RR due to low event rate] 1.12 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.27); absolute risk 1% (0% to 2%), As well, the NMA estimate for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.20 (95% Crl 1.01 to 1.43)) showed moderate quality evidence of an increase in the risk of serious adverse events. The other two NMA estimates were downgraded to low quality due to imprecision and indirectness and had wide confidence intervals resulting in uncertainty around the estimates: non-TNF biologics + MTX/DMARD: 1.07 (95% Crl 0.89 to 1.29) and anakinra: RR 1.06 (95% Crl 0.65 to 1.75).\nBased on direct evidence of low quality (downgraded for serious imprecision), results were inconclusive for cancer (Peto OR 1.07 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.68) for all biologic+MTX/DMARD combinations. The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.21 (95% Crl 0.63 to 2.38) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 0.99 (95% Crl 0.58 to 1.78)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low quality for both imprecision and indirectness.\nMain results text shows the results for tofacitinib and differences between medications.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased primarily on RCTs of 6 months' to 12 months' duration, there is moderate quality evidence that the use of biologic+MTX/DMARD in people with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to MTX or other DMARDs results in clinically important improvement in function and higher ACR50 and remission rates, and increased risk of serious adverse events than the comparator (MTX/DMARD/PL; high quality evidence). Radiographic progression is slowed but its clinical relevance is uncertain. Results were inconclusive for whether biologics + MTX/DMARDs are associated with an increased risk of cancer or withdrawals due to adverse events.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Best estimate of what happens to people with RA taking biologics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": ""
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2176 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTargeted therapies directed at specific driver oncogenes have improved outcomes for individuals with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Approximately 5% of lung adenocarcinomas, the most common histologic subtype of NSCLC, harbour rearrangements in the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene leading to constitutive activity of the ALK kinase. Crizotinib was the first tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) demonstrated to be effective in advanced NSCLC. Next-generation ALK TKIs have since been developed including ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib, ensartinib, and lorlatinib, and have been compared with crizotinib or chemotherapy in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These ALK-targeted therapies are currently used in clinical practice and are endorsed in multiple clinical oncology guidelines.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of ALK inhibitors given as monotherapy to treat advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted electronic searches in the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched conference proceedings from the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), and International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) World Conference on Lung Cancer, as well as the reference lists of retrieved articles. All searches were conducted from 2007 until 7 January 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs comparing ALK inhibitors with cytotoxic chemotherapy or another ALK inhibitor in individuals with incurable locally advanced or metastatic pathologically confirmed ALK-rearranged NSCLC.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted study characteristics and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for each included study. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events (AE); secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), OS at one year, overall response rate (ORR) by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours) criteria, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We performed a meta-analysis for all outcomes, where appropriate, using the fixed-effect model. We reported hazard ratios (HR) for PFS, OS, and a composite HRQoL of life outcome (time to deterioration), and risk ratios (RR) for AE, ORR, and one-year OS. We presented 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and used the I² statistic to investigate heterogeneity. We planned comparisons of 'ALK inhibitor versus chemotherapy' and 'next-generation ALK inhibitor versus crizotinib’ with subgroup analysis by type of ALK inhibitor, line of treatment, and baseline central nervous system involvement.\nMain results\nEleven studies (2874 participants) met our inclusion criteria: six studies compared an ALK inhibitor (crizotinib, ceritinib, and alectinib) to chemotherapy, and five studies compared a next-generation ALK inhibitor (alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib) to crizotinib. We assessed the evidence for most outcomes as of moderate to high certainty. Most studies were at low risk for selection, attrition, and reporting bias; however, no RCTs were blinded, resulting in a high risk of performance and detection bias for outcomes reliant on subjective measurement.\nALK inhibitor versus chemotherapy\nTreatment with ALK inhibitors resulted in a large increase in PFS compared to chemotherapy (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.52, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, high-certainty evidence). This was found regardless of line of treatment.\nALK inhibitors may result in no difference in overall AE rate when compared to chemotherapy (RR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.03, 5 RCTs, 1404 participants, low-certainty evidence).\nALK inhibitors slightly improved OS (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, high-certainty evidence), despite most included studies having a significant number of participants crossing over from chemotherapy to receive an ALK inhibitor after the study period.\nALK inhibitors likely increase ORR (RR 2.43, 95% CI 2.16 to 2.75, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) including in measurable baseline brain metastases (RR 4.88, 95% CI 2.18 to 10.95, 3 RCTs, 108 participants) when compared to chemotherapy. ALK inhibitors result in a large increase in the HRQoL measure, time to deterioration (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.60, 5 RCTs, 1504 participants, high-certainty evidence) when compared to chemotherapy.\nNext-generation ALK inhibitor versus crizotinib\nNext-generation ALK inhibitors resulted in a large increase in PFS (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.46, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, high-certainty evidence), particularly in participants with baseline brain metastases.\nNext-generation ALK inhibitors likely result in no difference in overall AE (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) when compared to crizotinib.\nNext-generation ALK inhibitors likely increase OS (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.90, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and slightly increase ORR (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.25, 5 RCTs, 1229 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) including a response in measurable brain metastases (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.7 to 3.54, 4 RCTs, 138 participants) when compared to crizotinib.\nStudies comparing ALK inhibitors were conducted exclusively or partly in the first-line setting.\nAuthors' conclusions\nNext-generation ALK inhibitors including alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib are the preferred first systemic treatment for individuals with advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC. Further trials are ongoing including investigation of first-line ensartinib. Next-generation inhibitors have not been compared to each other, and it is unknown which should be used first and what subsequent treatment sequence is optimal.\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 main medical databases and records of conferences up to 7 January 2021. We found 11 studies (2874 participants): six studies compared an ALK-targeted drug to chemotherapy, and five studies compared a newer ALK-targeted drug to crizotinib. The studies were conducted in people with advanced ALK-mutated NSCLC using these drugs as their first or later treatment. A total of five different ALK inhibitors were used across studies: alectinib, brigatinib, ceritinib, crizotinib, and lorlatinib."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2177 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMilk feedings can be given via nasogastric tube either intermittently, typically over 10 to 20 minutes every two or three hours, or continuously, using an infusion pump. Although the theoretical benefits and risks of each method have been proposed, their effects on clinically important outcomes remain uncertain.\nObjectives\nTo examine the evidence regarding the effectiveness of continuous versus intermittent bolus tube feeding of milk in preterm infants less than 1500 grams.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to run comprehensive searches in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 7) in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions; and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) on 17 July 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs and quasi-RCTs comparing continuous versus intermittent bolus nasogastric milk feeding in preterm infants less than 1500 grams.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed all trials for relevance and risk of bias. We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal to extract data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were: age at full enteral feedings; feeding intolerance; days to regain birth weight; rate of gain in weight, length and head circumference; and risk of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC).\nMain results\nWe included nine randomised trials (919 infants) in this updated Cochrane Review. One study is awaiting classification. Seven of the nine included trials reported data from infants with a maximum weight of between 1000 grams and 1400 grams. Two of the nine trials included infants weighing up to 1500 grams.\nType(s) of milk feeds varied, including human milk (either mother's own milk or pasteurised donor human milk), preterm formula, or mixed feeding regimens. In some instances, preterm formula was initially diluted. Earlier studies also used water to initiate feedings.\nWe judged six trials as unclear or high risk of bias for random sequence generation. We judged four trials as unclear for allocation concealment. We judged all trials as high risk of bias for blinding of care givers, and seven as unclear or high risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessors. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for imprecision, due to low numbers of participants in the trials, and/or wide 95% confidence intervals, and/or for risk of bias.\nContinuous compared to intermittent bolus (nasogastric and orogastric tube) milk feeding\nBabies receiving continuous feeding may reach full enteral feeding almost one day later than babies receiving intermittent feeding (mean difference (MD) 0.84 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 1.81; 7 studies, 628 infants; low-certainty evidence).\nIt is uncertain if there is any difference between continuous feeding and intermittent feeding in terms of number of days of feeding interruptions (MD -3.00 days, 95% CI -9.50 to 3.50; 1 study, 171 infants; very low-certainty evidence).\nIt is uncertain if continuous feeding has any effect on days to regain birth weight (MD -0.38 days, 95% CI -1.16 to 0.41; 6 studies, 610 infants; low-certainty evidence). The certainty of evidence is low and the 95% confidence interval is consistent with possible benefit and possible harm.\nIt is uncertain if continuous feeding has any effect on rate of gain in weight compared with intermittent feeding (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.09, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.46; 5 studies, 433 infants; very low-certainty evidence).\nContinuous feeding may result in little to no difference in rate of gain in length compared with intermittent feeding (MD 0.02 cm/week, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.08; 5 studies, 433 infants; low-certainty evidence).\nContinuous feeding may result in little to no difference in rate of gain in head circumference compared with intermittent feeding (MD 0.01 cm/week, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.05; 5 studies, 433 infants; low-certainty evidence).\nIt is uncertain if continuous feeding has any effect on the risk of NEC compared with intermittent feeding (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.11; 4 studies, 372 infants; low-certainty evidence). The certainty of evidence is low and the 95% confidence interval is consistent with possible benefit and possible harm.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough babies receiving continuous feeding may reach full enteral feeding slightly later than babies receiving intermittent feeding, the evidence is of low certainty. However, the clinical risks and benefits of continuous and intermittent nasogastric tube milk feeding cannot be reliably discerned from current available randomised trials. Further research is needed to determine if either feeding method is more appropriate for the initiation of feeds. A rigorous methodology should be adopted, defining feeding protocols and feeding intolerance consistently for all infants. Infants should be stratified according to birth weight and gestation, and possibly according to illness.\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": "Babies receiving continuous feeding may reach full enteral feeding slightly later than babies receiving intermittent feeding. Full enteral feeding is defined as the baby taking a specified volume of human or formula milk feeds by the required route. This promotes the development of the gastrointestinal system, reduces the risk of infection from intravenous catheters used to deliver parenteral nutrition, and may reduce the length of hospital stay.\nIt is uncertain if there is any difference between continuous feeding and intermittent feeding in terms of number of days to regain birth weight, days of feeding interruptions, and rate of gain in weight.\nContinuous feeding may result in little to no difference in rate of gain in length or head circumference compared with intermittent feeding.\nIt is uncertain if continuous feeding has any effect on the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (a common and serious intestinal disease among premature babies) compared with intermittent feeding."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2178 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSickle cell disease is one of the most common genetic disorders. Sickle cell crises in which irregular and dehydrated cells contribute to blocking of blood vessels are characterised by episodes of pain. Treatment is mainly supportive and symptomatic. In vitro studies with piracetam indicate that it has the potential for inhibition and a reversal of the process of sickling of erythrocytes. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of piracetam for reducing the incidence of painful sickle cell disease crises.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register which comprises of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.\nLast search of the Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 21 September 2015.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing orally administered piracetam to placebo or standard care in people, of all ages and both sexes, with sickle cell disease.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Trial authors were contacted for additional information. Adverse effects data were collected from the trials.\nMain results\nThree trials involving 169 participants were included in the review. A limited amount of data addressing some of the primary and some of the secondary outcomes were provided, but data were incomplete and based on un-validated assumptions used in the evaluation of outcomes. One trial reported a reduction in the number of pain crises and their severity with active intervention than placebo but presented no data to confirm these results. A second trial presented a monthly global pain score based on the number of sickle cell crises and severity of pain but included no separate data for these primary outcomes. Although there was no significant difference between the piracetam and placebo periods for the number of days of hospitalisation (P = 0.87) in one trial, inconsistencies in the criteria necessary for hospitalisation during sickle crises did not permit accurate conclusions to be drawn. Two of the trials reported participant satisfaction with piracetam but provided no details as to how this satisfaction had been assessed. There were no reports of toxicity or adverse effects with piracetam other than one participant who experienced dizziness.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe small number of included trials and their poor methodological quality provided insufficient reliable evidence to support the routine use of this medication for preventing the incidence of painful sickle cell disease crises.\nWe will continue to run searches to identify any potentially relevant trials; however, we do not plan to update other sections of the review until new trials are published.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The authors of the review identified three trials, two of which had a cross-over design. The quality of the trials was poor. There were wide differences in the people taking part, the drug dose and the outcomes measured. Three trials are included. They provide some weak and unreliable evidence that piracetam prevents painful sickle cell crises. This lack of reliable evidence illustrates some of the doubt and lack of support for the routine use of this treatment for reducing the incidence of painful sickle cell disease crises. The review authors conclude that future research should aim to provide evidence for people to make informed decisions about whether piracetam is of use. Further randomised controlled trials should be well-designed and reported according to the 'Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)' statement.\nWe will continue to run searches to identify any potentially relevant trials; however, we do not plan to update other sections of the review until new trials are published."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2179 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBell's palsy is an acute unilateral facial paralysis of unknown aetiology and should only be used as a diagnosis in the absence of any other pathology. As the proposed pathophysiology is swelling and entrapment of the nerve, some surgeons suggest surgical decompression of the nerve as a possible management option; this is ideally performed as soon as possible after onset. This is an update of a review first published in 2011, and last updated in 2013. This update includes evidence from one newly identified study.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of surgery in the early management of Bell's palsy.\nSearch methods\nOn 20 March 2020, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP. We handsearched selected conference abstracts for the original version of the review.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs involving any surgical intervention for Bell's palsy. Trials compared surgical interventions to no treatment, later treatment (beyond three months), sham treatment, other surgical treatments or medical treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was complete recovery of facial palsy at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were complete recovery at three and six months, synkinesis and contracture at 12 months, psychosocial outcomes at 12 months, and side effects and complications of treatment.\nMain results\nTwo trials with 65 participants met the inclusion criteria; one was newly identified at this update. The first study randomised 25 participants into surgical or non-surgical (no treatment) groups using statistical charts. One participant declined surgery, leaving 24 evaluable participants. The second study quasi-randomised 53 participants; however, only 41 were evaluable as 12 declined the intervention they were allocated. These 41 participants were then divided into early surgery, late surgery or non-surgical (no treatment) groups using alternation. There was no mention on how alternation was decided. Neither study mentioned if there was any attempt to conceal allocation. Neither participants nor outcome assessors were blinded to the interventions in either study. There were no losses to follow-up in the first study. The second study lost three participants to follow-up, and 17 did not contribute to the assessment of secondary outcomes. Both studies were at high risk of bias.\nSurgeons in both studies used a retro-auricular/transmastoid approach to decompress the facial nerve. For the outcome recovery of facial palsy at 12 months, the evidence was uncertain. The first study reported no differences between the surgical and no treatment groups. The second study fully reported numerical data, but included no statistical comparisons between groups for complete recovery. There was no evidence of a difference for the early surgery versus no treatment comparison (risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 11.11; P = 0.84; 33 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and for the early surgery versus late surgery comparison (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.03 to 6.60; P = 0.58; 26 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We considered the effects of surgery on facial nerve function at 12 months very uncertain (2 RCTs, 65 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nFurthermore, the second study reported adverse effects with a statistically significant decrease in lacrimal control in the surgical group within two to three months of denervation. Four participants in the second study had 35 dB to 50 dB of sensorineural hearing loss at 4000 Hz, and three had tinnitus. Because of the small numbers and trial design we also considered the adverse effects evidence very uncertain (2 RCTs, 65 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is very low-certainty evidence from RCTs or quasi-RCTs on surgery for the early management of Bell's palsy, and this is insufficient to decide whether surgical intervention is beneficial or harmful.\nFurther research into the role of surgical intervention is unlikely to be performed because spontaneous or medically supported recovery occurs in most cases.\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": "What are the effects of early surgery in the management of Bell's palsy, compared with no treatment, operations performed after three months, other types of surgery, sham (fake) treatment or treatment with medicines?"
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2180 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTuberculosis and malnutrition are linked in a complex relationship. Tuberculosis may cause undernutrition through increased metabolic demands and decreased intake, and nutritional deficiencies may worsen the disease, or delay recovery by depressing important immune functions. At present, there is no evidence-based nutritional guidance for adults and children being treated for tuberculosis.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of oral nutritional supplements in people being treated with antituberculous drug therapy for active tuberculosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Infectious Disease Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 1, 2016), MEDLINE (from 1946 to 4 February 2016), EMBASE (from 1980 to 4 February 2016), LILACS (from 1982 to 4 February 2016), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and the Indian Journal of Tuberculosis up to 4 February 2016, and checked the reference lists of all included studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials that compared any oral nutritional supplement given for at least four weeks with no nutritional intervention, placebo, or dietary advice only for people being treated for active tuberculosis. The primary outcomes of interest were all-cause death, and cure at six and 12 months.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, and extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included trials. We presented the results as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous variables, and mean differences (MD) for continuous variables, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where appropriate, we pooled data from trials with similar interventions and outcomes. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.\nMain results\nThirty-five trials, including 8283 participants, met the inclusion criteria of this review.\nMacronutrient supplementation\nSix trials assessed the provision of free food, or high-energy supplements. Only two trials measured total dietary intake, and in both trials the intervention increased calorie consumption compared to controls.\nThe available trials were too small to reliably prove or exclude clinically important benefits on mortality (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.20; four trials, 567 participants, very low quality evidence), cure (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.41; one trial, 102 participants, very low quality evidence), or treatment completion (data not pooled; two trials, 365 participants, very low quality evidence).\nSupplementation probably produces a modest increase in weight gain during treatment for active tuberculosis, although this was not seen consistently across all trials (data not pooled; five trials, 883 participants, moderate quality evidence). Two small studies provide some evidence that quality of life may also be improved but the trials were too small to have much confidence in the result (data not pooled; two trials, 134 participants, low quality evidence).\nMicronutrient supplementation\nSix trials assessed multi-micronutrient supplementation in doses up to 10 times the dietary reference intake, and 18 trials assessed single or dual micronutrient supplementation.\nRoutine multi-micronutrient supplementation may have little or no effect on mortality in HIV-negative people with tuberculosis (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.6; four trials, 1219 participants, low quality evidence), or HIV-positive people who are not taking antiretroviral therapy (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.23; three trials, 1429 participants, moderate quality evidence). There is insufficient evidence to know if supplementation improves cure (no trials), treatment completion (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.04; one trial, 302 participants, very low quality evidence), or the proportion of people who remain sputum positive during the first eight weeks (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.35; two trials, 1020 participants, very low quality evidence). However, supplementation may have little or no effect on weight gain during treatment (data not pooled; five trials, 2940 participants, low quality evidence), and no studies have assessed the effect on quality of life.\nPlasma levels of vitamin A appear to increase following initiation of tuberculosis treatment regardless of supplementation. In contrast, supplementation probably does improve plasma levels of zinc, vitamin D, vitamin E, and selenium, but this has not been shown to have clinically important benefits. Of note, despite multiple studies of vitamin D supplementation in different doses, statistically significant benefits on sputum conversion have not been demonstrated.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently insufficient research to know whether routinely providing free food, or energy supplements improves tuberculosis treatment outcomes, but it probably improves weight gain in some settings.\nAlthough blood levels of some vitamins may be low in people starting treatment for active tuberculosis, there is currently no reliable evidence that routinely supplementing above recommended daily amounts has clinical benefits.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Authors' conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Food or energy supplements may improve weight gain during recovery from tuberculosis in some settings, but there is currently no evidence that they improve tuberculosis treatment outcomes. There is also currently no reliable evidence that routinely supplementing above recommended daily amounts has clinical benefits."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2181 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAsthma patients who continue to experience symptoms despite taking regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) represent a management challenge. Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) and anti-leukotrienes (LTRA) are two treatment options that could be considered as add-on therapy to ICS.\nObjectives\nTo compare the safety and efficacy of adding LABA versus LTRA to the treatment regimen for children and adults with asthma who remain symptomatic in spite of regular treatment with ICS. We specifically wished to examine the relative impact of the two agents on asthma exacerbations, lung function, symptoms, quality of life, adverse health events and withdrawals.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register until December 2012. We consulted reference lists of all included studies and contacted pharmaceutical manufacturers to ask about other published or unpublished studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in adults or children with recurrent asthma that was treated with ICS along with a fixed dose of a LABA or an LTRA for a minimum of four weeks.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. We sought unpublished data and further details of study design when necessary.\nMain results\nWe included 18 RCTs (7208 participants), of which 16 recruited adults and adolescents (6872) and two recruited children six to 17 years of age (336) with asthma and significant reversibility to bronchodilator at baseline. Fourteen (79%) trials were of high methodological quality.\nThe risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids (primary outcome of the review) was significantly lower with the combination of LABA + ICS compared with LTRA + ICS—from 13% to 11% (eight studies, 5923 adults and 334 children; risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 0.99; high-quality evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) with LABA compared with LTRA to prevent one additional exacerbation over four to 102 weeks was 62 (95% CI 34 to 794). The choice of LTRA, the dose of ICS and the participants' age group did not significantly influence the magnitude of effect. Although results were inconclusive, the effect appeared stronger in trials that used a single device rather than two devices to administer ICS and LABA and in trials of less than 12 weeks' duration.\nThe addition of LABA to ICS was associated with a statistically greater improvement from baseline in lung function, as well as in symptoms, rescue medication use and quality of life, although the latter effects were modest. LTRA was superior in the prevention of exercise-induced bronchospasm. More participants were satisfied with the combination of LABA + ICS than LTRA + ICS (three studies, 1625 adults; RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.20; moderate-quality evidence). The overall risk of withdrawal was significantly lower with LABA + ICS than with LTRA + ICS (13 studies, 6652 adults and 308 children; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96; moderate-quality evidence). Although the risk of overall adverse events was equivalent between the two groups, the risk of serious adverse events (SAE) approached statistical significance in disfavour of LABA compared with LTRA (nine studies, 5658 adults and 630 children; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.79; P value 0.06; moderate-quality evidence), with no apparent impact of participants' age group.\nThe following adverse events were reported, but no significant differences were demonstrated between groups: headache (11 studies, N = 6538); cardiovascular events (five studies, N = 5163), osteopenia and osteoporosis (two studies, N = 2963), adverse events (10 studies, N = 5977 adults and 300 children). A significant difference in the risk of oral moniliasis was noted, but this represents a low occurrence rate.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn adults with asthma that is inadequately controlled by predominantly low-dose ICS with significant bronchodilator reversibility, the addition of LABA to ICS is modestly superior to the addition of LTRA in reducing oral corticosteroid–treated exacerbations, with an absolute reduction of two percentage points. Differences favouring LABA over LTRA as adjunct therapy were observed in lung function and, to a lesser extend, in rescue medication use, symptoms and quality of life. The lower overall withdrawal rate and the higher proportion of participants satisfied with their therapy indirectly favour the combination of LABA + ICS over LTRA + ICS. Evidence showed a slightly increased risk of SAE with LABA compared with LTRA, with an absolute increase of one percentage point. Our findings modestly support the use of a single inhaler for the delivery of both LABA and low- or medium-dose ICS. Because of the paucity of paediatric trials, we are unable to draw firm conclusions about the best adjunct therapy in children.\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": "What is the best add-on treatment in adults and children with asthma whose condition is inadequately controlled with ICS alone: LABA or LTRA?"
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2182 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe diagnosis of bronchiectasis is defined by abnormal dilation of the airways related to a pathological mechanism of progressive airway destruction that is due to a 'vicious cycle' of recurrent bacterial infection, inflammatory mediator release, airway damage, and subsequent further infection. Antibiotics are the main treatment option for reducing bacterial burden in people with exacerbations of bronchiectasis and for longer-term eradication, but their use is tempered against potential adverse effects and concerns regarding antibiotic resistance. The comparative effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety of different antibiotics have been highlighted as important issues, but currently little evidence is available to help resolve uncertainty on these questions.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the comparative effects of different antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis.\nSearch methods\nWe identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through searches of the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials and online trials registries, run 30 April 2018. We augmented these with searches of the reference lists of published studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs reported as full-text articles, those published as abstracts only, and unpublished data. We included adults and children (younger than 18 years) with a diagnosis of bronchiectasis by bronchography or high-resolution computed tomography who reported daily signs and symptoms, such as cough, sputum production, or haemoptysis, and those with recurrent episodes of chest infection; we included studies that compared one antibiotic versus another when they were administered by the same delivery method.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial selection, data extraction, and risk of bias. We assessed overall quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. We made efforts to collect missing data from trial authors. We have presented results with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as mean differences (MDs) or odds ratios (ORs).\nMain results\nFour randomised trials were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review - two studies with 83 adults comparing fluoroquinolones with β-lactams and two studies with 55 adults comparing aminoglycosides with polymyxins.\nNone of the included studies reported information on exacerbations - one of our primary outcomes. Included studies reported no serious adverse events - another of our primary outcomes - and no deaths. We graded this evidence as low or very low quality. Included studies did not report quality of life. Comparison between fluoroquinolones and β-lactams (amoxicillin) showed fewer treatment failures in the fluoroquinolone group than in the amoxicillin group (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.32; low-quality evidence) after 7 to 10 days of therapy. Researchers reported that Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection was eradicated in more participants treated with fluoroquinolones (Peto OR 20.09, 95% CI 2.83 to 142.59; low-quality evidence) but provided no evidence of differences in the numbers of participants showing improvement in sputum purulence (OR 2.35, 95% CI 0.96 to 5.72; very low-quality evidence). Study authors presented no evidence of benefit in relation to forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁). The two studies that compared polymyxins versus aminoglycosides described no clear differences between groups in the proportion of participants with P aeruginosa eradication (OR 1.40. 95% CI 0.36 to 5.35; very low-quality evidence) or improvement in sputum purulence (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.85; very low-quality evidence). The evidence for changes in FEV₁ was inconclusive. Two of three trials reported adverse events but did not report the proportion of participants experiencing one or more adverse events, so we were unable to interpret the information.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLimited low-quality evidence favours short-term oral fluoroquinolones over beta-lactam antibiotics for patients hospitalised with exacerbations. Very low-quality evidence suggests no benefit from inhaled aminoglycosides verus polymyxins. RCTs have presented no evidence comparing other modes of delivery for each of these comparisons, and no RCTs have included children. Overall, current evidence from a limited number of head-to-head trials in adults or children with bronchiectasis is insufficient to guide the selection of antibiotics for short-term or long-term therapy. More research on this topic is needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key message\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Fluoroquinolone antibiotics may be more successful than amoxicillin antibiotics in treating exacerbations, but this finding is based on low-quality evidence. More evidence from high-quality clinical trials of short-term and long-term treatment with antibiotics is needed if clear conclusions are to be reached on the benefits of one antibiotic over another for people with bronchiectasis."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2183 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFatigue is the most commonly reported symptom in people with advanced cancer. Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is pervasive and debilitating, and can greatly impact quality of life (QoL). CRF has a highly variable clinical presentation, likely due to a complex interaction of multiple factors. Corticosteroids are commonly used to improve CRF, but the benefits are unclear and there are significant adverse effects associated with long-term use. With the increasing survival of people with metastatic cancer, the long-term effects of medications are becoming increasingly relevant. Since the impact of CRF can be immensely debilitating and can negatively affect QoL, its treatment warrants further review.\nObjectives\nTo determine the benefits and harms of corticosteroids compared with placebo or an active comparator in adults with advanced cancer and CRF.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Science Citation Index (ISI Web of Science), LILACS, and two clinical trial registries from inception to 18 July 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials in adults aged ≥18 years. We included participants with advanced cancer who were suffering from CRF. We included trials that randomised participants to corticosteroids at any dose, by any route, administered for the relief of CRF; compared to placebo or an active comparator, including supportive care or non-pharmacological treatments.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently assessed titles identified by the search strategy; two review authors assessed risk of bias; and two extracted data. We extracted the primary outcome of participant-reported fatigue relief using validated scales and secondary outcomes of adverse events, serious adverse events and QoL. We calculated the risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between groups for dichotomous outcomes. We measured arithmetic mean and standard deviation, and reported the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI between groups for continuous outcomes. We used standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs when an outcome was measured with different instruments measuring the same construct. We used a random-effects model to meta-analyse the outcome data. We rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE and created two summary of findings tables.\nMain results\nWe included four studies with 297 enroled participants; data were available for only 239 participants. Three studies compared corticosteroid (equivalent ≤ 8 mg dexamethasone) to placebo. One study compared corticosteroid (dexamethasone 4 mg) to an active comparator (modafinil 100 mg). There were insufficient data to evaluate subgroups, such as dose and duration of treatment. One study had a high risk of performance and detection bias due to lack of blinding, and one study had a high risk of attrition bias. Otherwise, we assessed risks of bias as low or unclear.\nComparison 1: corticosteroids compared with placebo\nParticipant-reported fatigue relief\nThe was no clear difference between corticosteroids and placebo (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.14; 3 RCTs, 165 participants, very low-certainty evidence) for relief of fatigue at one week of the intervention. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence three times for study limitations due to unclear risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency.\nAdverse events\nThere was no clear difference in the occurrence of adverse events between groups, but the evidence is very uncertain (3 RCTs, 165 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nSerious adverse events\nThere was no clear difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between groups, but the evidence is very uncertain (2 RCTs, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nQuality of lIfe\nOne study reported QoL at one week using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) well-being, and found no clear difference in QoL between groups (MD -0.58, 95% CI -1.93 to 0.77). Another study measured QoL using the Quality of Life Questionnaire for Cancer Patients Treated with Anticancer Drugs (QoL-ACD), and found no clear difference between groups. There was no clear difference between groups for either study, but the evidence is very uncertain (2 RCTs, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nComparison 2: corticosteroids compared with active comparator (modafinil)\nParticipant-reported fatigue relief\nThere was improvement in fatigue from baseline to two weeks in both groups (modafinil MD 10.15, 95% CI 7.43 to 12.87; dexamethasone MD 9.21, 95% CI 6.73 to 11.69), however no clear difference between the two groups (MD -0.94, 95% CI -4.49 to 2.61; 1 RCT, 73 participants, very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence three times for very serious study limitations and imprecision.\nAdverse events\nThere was no clear difference in the occurrence of adverse events between groups, but the evidence is very uncertain (1 RCT, 73 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nSerious adverse events\nThere were no serious adverse events reported in either group (1 RCT, 73 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nQuality of lIfe\nOne study measured QoL at two weeks, using the ESAS-well-being. There was marked improvement in QoL from baseline in both groups (modafinil MD -2.43, 95% CI -2.88 to -1.98; dexamethasone MD -2.16, 95% CI -2.68 to -1.64), however no clear difference between the two groups (MD 0.27, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.93; 1 RCT, 73 participants, very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of systemic corticosteroids in adults with cancer and CRF.\nWe included four small studies that provided very low-certainty of evidence for the efficacy of corticosteroids in the management of CRF.\nFurther high-quality randomised controlled trials with larger sample sizes are required to determine the effectiveness of corticosteroids in this setting.\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 evidence is up to date to 18 July 2022."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2184 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHaemophilia is a bleeding disorder associated with haemorrhaging into joints and muscles. Exercise is often used to aid recovery after bleeds, and to improve joint function in the presence of arthropathy.\nObjectives\nOur objective was to systematically review the available evidence on the safety and effectiveness of exercise for people with haemophilia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register and electronic databases PubMed, OVID-Embase, and CINAHL. We hand searched abstracts from congresses of the World Federation of Hemophilia and the European Hematology Association, trial registries and the reference lists of relevant articles.\nDate of the last search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register: 14 December 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized or quasi-randomized controlled studies comparing any exercise intervention considered relevant in haemophilia management including supervised, unsupervised, aquatic, strengthening, aerobic or cardiovascular, stretching, proprioceptive and balance training exercise programs in males of any age with haemophilia A or B of any severity (those with co-morbidities were not excluded).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors reviewed the identified abstracts to determine their eligibility. For studies meeting the inclusion criteria, full articles were obtained. The two authors extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion. The authors contacted study investigators to obtain any missing data.\nMain results\nEight studies were included, which represented 233 males with all severities of haemophilia A and B, ranging in age from eight years to 49 years. Study duration ranged from four to 12 weeks. Exercise interventions varied greatly and included resistance exercises, isometric exercises, bicycle ergometry, treadmill walking and hydrotherapy; therefore, comparison between studies was difficult.\nNone of the studies measured or reported adverse effects from the interventions. None of the studies reported outcomes regarding bleed frequency, quality of life or aerobic activity. Overall risk of bias across all studies was assessed as unclear.\nVery few studies provided sufficient information for comparison. None of the studies reported data that favoured the control group. One study reported that six weeks of resistance training improved joint health status (Colorado score) compared to controls. The addition of pulsed electromagnetic fields also improved ankle scores compared to exercises alone, but this was not seen in the elbows or knees.\nTwo studies reported statistically significant improvements in pain intensity after exercise interventions compared to controls. Hydrotherapy exercises produced significant decreases in pain compared to controls and land-based exercise groups.\nTwo studies found improvement in joint motion in the exercise group compared to controls. One study compared land- and water-based exercises; there was no difference in the range of motion between the two groups; however, the water-based exercise group did show improvement over the control group.\nOne study, comparing joint traction and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation for the elbow to a control group, showed no differences in biceps girth or strength after 12 weeks of intervention.\nSome studies reported comparisons between interventions. In one study, treadmill training significantly improved balance in children compared to bicycle ergometry. Another study added partial weight bearing exercises to quadriceps exercises and showed improved walking tolerance.\nFour studies evaluated quadriceps or hamstring strength (or both). The addition of bicycle ergometry and exercises with weights was more effective than static exercises and treadmill walking for strengthening knee flexors and extensors. Partial weight-bearing exercises through range were more effective than static and short arc exercises for improving knee extensor strength. The addition of treadmill walking to ultrasound, stretching and strengthening exercises showed increased peak torque of knee flexors and extensors and decrease in knee effusion.\nThe results should be interpreted with caution due to the quality of evidence (GRADE) as outlined in the summary of findings tables, which demonstrates that all but one of the outcomes assessed were rated as low or very low due to the small sample sizes and potential bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThese results must be considered with caution. There is a lack of confidence in the results due to the small number of included studies and the inability to pool the results due to the heterogeneity of outcome measures. Most exercise interventions produced improvement in one or more of the measured outcomes including pain, range of motion, strength and walking tolerance. Hydrotherapy may be more effective than land exercises for pain relief in adults. Functional exercises such as treadmill walking and partial weight bearing exercises seem to be more effective than static or short arc exercises for improving muscle strength. These findings are consistent with the many non-controlled intervention reports in the haemophilia literature. No adverse effects were reported as a result of any of the interventions. However, some groups used prophylactic factor prior to exercise and other groups studied only subjects with moderate haemophilia. Therefore, the safety of these techniques for persons with severe haemophilia remains unclear.\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 the safety and usefulness of exercise for men with haemophilia."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2185 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Specific kinds of beds, overlays and mattresses are widely used with the aim of preventing and treating pressure ulcers.\nObjectives\nTo summarise evidence from Cochrane Reviews that assess the effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers and on increasing pressure ulcer healing in any setting and population.\nTo assess the relative effects of different types of beds, overlays and mattresses for reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers and increasing pressure ulcer healing in any setting and population.\nTo cumulatively rank the different treatment options of beds, overlays and mattresses in order of their effectiveness in pressure ulcer prevention and treatment.\nMethods\nIn July 2020, we searched the Cochrane Library. Cochrane Reviews reporting the effectiveness of beds, mattresses or overlays for preventing or treating pressure ulcers were eligible for inclusion in this overview. Two review authors independently screened search results and undertook data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the ROBIS tool. We summarised the reported evidence in an overview of reviews. Where possible, we included the randomised controlled trials from each included review in network meta-analyses. We assessed the relative effectiveness of beds, overlays and mattresses for preventing or treating pressure ulcers and their probabilities of being, comparably, the most effective treatment. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe include six Cochrane Reviews in this overview of reviews, all at low or unclear risk of bias.\nPressure ulcer prevention: four reviews (of 68 studies with 18,174 participants) report direct evidence for 27 pairwise comparisons between 12 types of support surface on the following outcomes: pressure ulcer incidence, time to pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort response, adverse event rates, health-related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Here we focus on outcomes with some evidence at a minimum of low certainty.\n(1) Pressure ulcer incidence: our overview includes direct evidence for 27 comparisons that mostly (19/27) have very low-certainty evidence concerning reduction of pressure ulcer risk. We included 40 studies (12,517 participants; 1298 participants with new ulcers) in a network meta-analysis involving 13 types of intervention. Data informing the network are sparse and this, together with the high risk of bias in most studies informing the network, means most network contrasts (64/78) yield evidence of very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with foam surfaces (reference treatment), reactive air surfaces (e.g. static air overlays) (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.75), alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (e.g. alternating pressure air mattresses, large-celled ripple mattresses) (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.93), and reactive gel surfaces (e.g. gel pads used on operating tables) (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.01) may reduce pressure ulcer incidence. The ranking of treatments in terms of effectiveness is also of very low certainty for all interventions. It is unclear which treatment is best for preventing ulceration.\n(2) Time to pressure ulcer incidence: four reviews had direct evidence on this outcome for seven comparisons. We included 10 studies (7211 participants; 699 participants with new ulcers) evaluating six interventions in a network meta-analysis. Again, data from most network contrasts (13/15) are of very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with foam surfaces (reference treatment), reactive air surfaces may reduce the hazard of developing new pressure ulcers (hazard ratio (HR) 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.05). The ranking of all support surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers in terms of time to healing is uncertain.\n(3) Cost-effectiveness: this overview includes direct evidence for three comparisons. For preventing pressure ulcers, alternating pressure air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces (moderate-certainty evidence).\nPressure ulcer treatment: two reviews (of 12 studies with 972 participants) report direct evidence for five comparisons on: complete pressure ulcer healing, time to complete pressure ulcer healing, patient comfort response, adverse event rates, and cost-effectiveness. Here we focus on outcomes with some evidence at a minimum of low certainty.\n(1) Complete pressure ulcer healing: our overview includes direct evidence for five comparisons. There is uncertainty about the relative effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on ulcer healing. The corresponding network meta-analysis (with four studies, 397 participants) had only three direct contrasts and a total of six network contrasts. Again, most network contrasts (5/6) have very low-certainty evidence. There was low-certainty evidence that more people with pressure ulcers may heal completely using reactive air surfaces than using foam surfaces (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.80). We are uncertain which surfaces have the highest probability of being the most effective (all very low-certainty evidence).\n(2) Time to complete pressure ulcer healing: this overview includes direct evidence for one comparison: people using reactive air surfaces may be more likely to have healed pressure ulcers compared with those using foam surfaces in long-term care settings (HR 2.66, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.17; low-certainty evidence).\n(3) Cost-effectiveness: this overview includes direct evidence for one comparison: compared with foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces may cost an extra 26 US dollars for every ulcer-free day in the first year of use in long-term care settings (low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nCompared with foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk and may increase complete ulcer healing. Compared with foam surfaces, alternating pressure air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk and are probably more cost-effective in preventing pressure ulcers. Compared with foam surfaces, reactive gel surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk, particularly for people in operating rooms and long-term care settings. There are uncertainties for the relative effectiveness of other support surfaces for preventing and treating pressure ulcers, and their efficacy ranking.\nMore high-quality research is required; for example, for the comparison of reactive air surfaces with alternating pressure air surfaces. Future studies should consider time-to-event outcomes and be designed to minimise any risk of bias.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Although the reviews we found used reliable methods, most of the studies in them were small and used methods likely to introduce errors in their results."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2186 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPlatelet transfusions are used in modern clinical practice to prevent and treat bleeding in people who are thrombocytopenic due to bone marrow failure. Although considerable advances have been made in platelet transfusion therapy in the last 40 years, some areas continue to provoke debate, especially concerning the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and updated in 2012 that addressed four separate questions: prophylactic versus therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy; prophylactic platelet transfusion threshold; prophylactic platelet transfusion dose; and platelet transfusions compared to alternative treatments. This review has now been split into four smaller reviews; this review compares different platelet transfusion doses.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether different doses of prophylactic platelet transfusions (platelet transfusions given to prevent bleeding) affect their efficacy and safety in preventing bleeding in people with haematological disorders undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy with or without haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).\nSearch methods\nWe searched for randomised controlled trials in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and ongoing trial databases to 23 July 2015.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials involving transfusions of platelet concentrates, prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given to prevent bleeding in people with malignant haematological disorders or undergoing HSCT that compared different platelet component doses (low dose 1.1 x 1011/m2 ± 25%, standard dose 2.2 x 1011/m2 ± 25%, high dose 4.4 x 1011/m2 ± 25%).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nWe included seven trials (1814 participants) in this review; six were conducted during one course of treatment (chemotherapy or HSCT).\nOverall the methodological quality of studies was low to moderate across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology. None of the included studies were at low risk of bias in every domain, and all the included studies had some threats to validity.\nFive studies reported the number of participants with at least one clinically significant bleeding episode within 30 days from the start of the study. There was no difference in the number of participants with a clinically significant bleeding episode between the low-dose and standard-dose groups (four studies; 1170 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.13; moderate-quality evidence); low-dose and high-dose groups (one study; 849 participants; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.11; moderate-quality evidence); or high-dose and standard-dose groups (two studies; 951 participants; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.11; moderate-quality evidence).\nThree studies reported the number of days with a clinically significant bleeding event per participant. There was no difference in the number of days of bleeding per participant between the low-dose and standard-dose groups (two studies; 230 participants; mean difference -0.17, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.17; low quality evidence). One study (855 participants) showed no difference in the number of days of bleeding per participant between high-dose and standard-dose groups, or between low-dose and high-dose groups (849 participants).\nThree studies reported the number of participants with severe or life-threatening bleeding. There was no difference in the number of participants with severe or life-threatening bleeding between a low-dose and a standard-dose platelet transfusion policy (three studies; 1059 participants; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.92; low-quality evidence); low-dose and high-dose groups (one study; 849 participants; RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.77; low-quality evidence); or high-dose and standard-dose groups (one study; 855 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.68; low-quality evidence).\nTwo studies reported the time to first bleeding episodes; we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Both studies (959 participants) individually found that the time to first bleeding episode was either the same, or longer, in the low-dose group compared to the standard-dose group. One study (855 participants) found that the time to the first bleeding episode was the same in the high-dose group compared to the standard-dose group.\nThree studies reported all-cause mortality within 30 days from the start of the study. There was no difference in all-cause mortality between treatment arms (low-dose versus standard-dose: three studies; 1070 participants; RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.70 to 5.93; low-quality evidence; low-dose versus high-dose: one study; 849 participants; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.54; low-quality evidence; and high-dose versus standard-dose: one study; 855 participants; RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.51 to 5.81; low-quality evidence).\nSix studies reported the number of platelet transfusions; we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Two studies (959 participants) out of three (1070 participants) found that a low-dose transfusion strategy led to more transfusion episodes than a standard-dose. One study (849 participants) found that a low-dose transfusion strategy led to more transfusion episodes than a high-dose strategy. One study (855 participants) out of three (1007 participants) found no difference in the number of platelet transfusions between the high-dose and standard-dose groups.\nOne study reported on transfusion reactions. This study's authors suggested that a high-dose platelet transfusion strategy may lead to a higher rate of transfusion-related adverse events.\nNone of the studies reported quality-of-life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn haematology patients who are thrombocytopenic due to myelosuppressive chemotherapy or HSCT, we found no evidence to suggest that a low-dose platelet transfusion policy is associated with an increased bleeding risk compared to a standard-dose or high-dose policy, or that a high-dose platelet transfusion policy is associated with a decreased risk of bleeding when compared to a standard-dose policy.\nA low-dose platelet transfusion strategy leads to an increased number of transfusion episodes compared to a standard-dose strategy. A high-dose platelet transfusion strategy does not decrease the number of transfusion episodes per participant compared to a standard-dose regimen, and it may increase the number of transfusion-related adverse events.\nFindings from this review would suggest a change from current practice, with low-dose platelet transfusions used for people receiving in-patient treatment for their haematological disorder and high-dose platelet transfusion strategies not being used routinely.\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 evidence for most of the findings was of low or moderate quality because the studies were at risk of bias or the estimates were imprecise."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2187 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTrabeculectomy is performed as a treatment for glaucoma to lower intraocular pressure (IOP). The surgical procedure involves creating a channel through the wall of the eye. However scarring during wound healing can block this channel which will lead to the operation failing. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents have been proposed to slow down healing response and scar formation.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of anti-VEGF therapies administered by subconjunctival injection for the outcome of trabeculectomy at 12 months follow-up and to examine the balance of benefit and harms when compared to any other anti-scarring agents or no additional anti-scarring agents.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2015, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to November 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (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 12 November 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of anti-VEGF therapies administered by subconjunctival injection compared to any other anti-scarring agents or no additional anti-scarring agents (no treatment or placebo) in trabeculectomy surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was successful trabeculectomy at 12 months after surgery which was defined as achieving a target IOP (usually no more than 21 mm Hg) without any additional intervention. Other outcomes included: qualified success (achieving target IOP with or without additional intervention), mean IOP and adverse events.\nMain results\nWe included five RCTs (175 participants, 177 eyes) that met the inclusion criteria in this review.\nOne trial conducted in Iran (37 participants, 37 eyes) compared anti-VEGF (bevacizumab 0.2 mg) versus control (sham injection) in people with refractory glaucoma. We judged this study to be at low risk of bias.The primary outcome of this review was not reported; mean IOP at three months was 15.1 mm Hg (standard deviation 1.0) in both anti-VEGF and control groups.\nFour trials compared anti-VEGF to mitomycin C (MMC) (138 particpants, 140 eyes). These studies were conducted in India, Iran, Turkey and the USA. The anti-VEGF agent used in these four trials was bevacizumab 2.5 mg (two trials), bevacizumab 1.25 mg three times and ranibizumab 0.5 mg. Two trials were at high risk of bias in two domains and one trial was at high risk of bias in four domains.\nOnly one of these trials reported the primary outcome of this review (42 participants, 42 eyes). Low quality evidence from this trial showed that people receiving bevacizumab 2.5 mg during primary trabeculectomy were less likely to achieve complete success at 12 months compared to people receiving MMC but the confidence interval (CI) was wide and compatible with increased chance of complete success for anti-VEGF (risk ratio (RR) 0.71, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.08), Assuming that approximately 81% of people receiving MMC achieve complete success, the anticipated success using anti-VEGF agents would be between 37.2% and 87.4%. The same trial suggested no evidence for any difference in qualified success between bevacizumab and MMC (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14, moderate quality evidence). Two trials of primary trabeculectomy provided data on mean IOP at 12 months; one trial of bevacizumab 2.5 mg and one trial of ranibizumab 0.5 mg. Mean IOP was 1.86 mm Hg higher (95% CI 0.15 to 3.57) in the anti-VEGF groups compared to the MMC groups (66 people, low quality evidence). Data were reported on wound leak, hypotony, shallow anterior chamber and endophthalmitis, but these events occurred rarely and currently there are not enough data available to detect any differences, if any, between the two treatments.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence is currently of low quality which is insufficient to refute or support anti-VEGF subconjunctival injection for control of wound healing in glaucoma surgery. The effect on IOP control of anti-VEGF agents in glaucoma patients undergoing trabeculectomy is still uncertain, compared to MMC.\nFurther RCTs of anti-VEGF subconjunctival injection in glaucoma surgery are required, particularly compared to sham treatment with at least 12 months follow-up.\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": "Five studies (conducted in India, Turkey, USA and two in Iran) with a total of 175 participants were included in this review. The effect of anti-VEGF agents on IOP control is uncertain.\nWe found one small study, comparing anti-VEGF with control, which did not provide data on the primary outcome: the proportion of complete successful trabeculectomies at 12 months after surgery.\nFour trials compared anti-VEGF to MMC, and two trials reported one or more outcomes of IOP control (complete success, qualified success, or mean IOP) at 12 months. There was low quality evidence compatible with decreased chance of complete success for anti-VEGF agents, suggesting that for patients using MMC with an 81.0% rate of complete success, the complete success rate using anti-VEGF agents would be between 37.2% and 87.4%. There was moderate quality evidence suggesting that for patients using MMC with a 95.2% qualified success rate, the qualified success rate using anti-VEGF agents would be between 82.9% and 100.0%, with no difference between anti-VEGF and MMC. Additionally, there was low quality evidence compatible with higher mean IOP for anti-VEGF agents between 0.15 mm Hg and 3.57 mm Hg, compared to MMC, and the effect was still uncertain.\nThe conclusion of this review is that there is still uncertainty of the effect on IOP control of the subconjunctival use of anti-VEGF in patients undergoing trabeculectomy, compared to the use of MMC."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2188 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is the most common cancer of the lymphatic system in Western countries. Several clinical and biological factors for CLL have been identified. However, it remains unclear which of the available prognostic models combining those factors can be used in clinical practice to predict long-term outcome in people newly-diagnosed with CLL.\nObjectives\nTo identify, describe and appraise all prognostic models developed to predict overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) or treatment-free survival (TFS) in newly-diagnosed (previously untreated) adults with CLL, and meta-analyse their predictive performances.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE (from January 1950 to June 2019 via Ovid), Embase (from 1974 to June 2019) and registries of ongoing trials (to 5 March 2020) for development and validation studies of prognostic models for untreated adults with CLL. In addition, we screened the reference lists and citation indices of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all prognostic models developed for CLL which predict OS, PFS, or TFS, provided they combined prognostic factors known before treatment initiation, and any studies that tested the performance of these models in individuals other than the ones included in model development (i.e. 'external model validation studies'). We included studies of adults with confirmed B-cell CLL who had not received treatment prior to the start of the study. We did not restrict the search based on study design.\nData collection and analysis\nWe developed a data extraction form to collect information based on the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS). Independent pairs of review authors screened references, extracted data and assessed risk of bias according to the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). For models that were externally validated at least three times, we aimed to perform a quantitative meta-analysis of their predictive performance, notably their calibration (proportion of people predicted to experience the outcome who do so) and discrimination (ability to differentiate between people with and without the event) using a random-effects model. When a model categorised individuals into risk categories, we pooled outcome frequencies per risk group (low, intermediate, high and very high). We did not apply GRADE as guidance is not yet available for reviews of prognostic models.\nMain results\nFrom 52 eligible studies, we identified 12 externally validated models: six were developed for OS, one for PFS and five for TFS. In general, reporting of the studies was poor, especially predictive performance measures for calibration and discrimination; but also basic information, such as eligibility criteria and the recruitment period of participants was often missing. We rated almost all studies at high or unclear risk of bias according to PROBAST. Overall, the applicability of the models and their validation studies was low or unclear; the most common reasons were inappropriate handling of missing data and serious reporting deficiencies concerning eligibility criteria, recruitment period, observation time and prediction performance measures.\nWe report the results for three models predicting OS, which had available data from more than three external validation studies:\nCLL International Prognostic Index (CLL-IPI)\nThis score includes five prognostic factors: age, clinical stage, IgHV mutational status, B2-microglobulin and TP53 status. Calibration: for the low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups, the pooled five-year survival per risk group from validation studies corresponded to the frequencies observed in the model development study. In the very high-risk group, predicted survival from CLL-IPI was lower than observed from external validation studies. Discrimination: the pooled c-statistic of seven external validation studies (3307 participants, 917 events) was 0.72 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 0.77). The 95% prediction interval (PI) of this model for the c-statistic, which describes the expected interval for the model's discriminative ability in a new external validation study, ranged from 0.59 to 0.83.\nBarcelona-Brno score\nAimed at simplifying the CLL-IPI, this score includes three prognostic factors: IgHV mutational status, del(17p) and del(11q). Calibration: for the low- and intermediate-risk group, the pooled survival per risk group corresponded to the frequencies observed in the model development study, although the score seems to overestimate survival for the high-risk group. Discrimination: the pooled c-statistic of four external validation studies (1755 participants, 416 events) was 0.64 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.67); 95% PI 0.59 to 0.68.\nMDACC 2007 index score\nThe authors presented two versions of this model including six prognostic factors to predict OS: age, B2-microglobulin, absolute lymphocyte count, gender, clinical stage and number of nodal groups. Only one validation study was available for the more comprehensive version of the model, a formula with a nomogram, while seven studies (5127 participants, 994 events) validated the simplified version of the model, the index score. Calibration: for the low- and intermediate-risk groups, the pooled survival per risk group corresponded to the frequencies observed in the model development study, although the score seems to overestimate survival for the high-risk group. Discrimination: the pooled c-statistic of the seven external validation studies for the index score was 0.65 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.70); 95% PI 0.51 to 0.77.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDespite the large number of published studies of prognostic models for OS, PFS or TFS for newly-diagnosed, untreated adults with CLL, only a minority of these (N = 12) have been externally validated for their respective primary outcome. Three models have undergone sufficient external validation to enable meta-analysis of the model's ability to predict survival outcomes. Lack of reporting prevented us from summarising calibration as recommended. Of the three models, the CLL-IPI shows the best discrimination, despite overestimation. However, performance of the models may change for individuals with CLL who receive improved treatment options, as the models included in this review were tested mostly on retrospective cohorts receiving a traditional treatment regimen. In conclusion, this review shows a clear need to improve the conducting and reporting of both prognostic model development and external validation studies. For prognostic models to be used as tools in clinical practice, the development of the models (and their subsequent validation studies) should adapt to include the latest therapy options to accurately predict performance. Adaptations should be timely.\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 identified 52 tools that were designed to predict what may happen to people newly-diagnosed with CLL. To find the best tools, we had to select the studies carefully. To apply these tools in clinical practice:\n- a tool has to be tested by different researchers to predict what may happen with individuals with CLL in different geographic locations using different groups of people (i.e. age, gender, stage) with CLL. In other words, we would not include a tool if it was only tested on the people who provided their data to create it;\n- the results of the tool should be consistent to prove that it works;\n- the tests of the tool have to provide enough information to show how well the tool works. For example, the tests have to include large groups of people and enough information about the type of CLL they have.\nWe found three tools that met these requirements: the CLL International Prognostic Index (CLL-IPI), the Barcelona-Brno score, and the MDACC 2007 index score.\nThe CLL-IPI did the best job at identifying people who would survive longer with CLL and people who would survive less long. However, we rated the quality of the CLL-IPI studies as low because they did not provide all the information necessary to know how accurate the tool was. The Barcelona-Brno score and the MDACC 2007 index score, tested on a smaller overall number of patients, showed lower discrimination between persons with a good as compared to a worse prognosis, and showed a similarly low quality of the studies."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2189 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) is commonly diagnosed in the neonatal population (DiPietro 1994), and generally causes few or no symptoms (Vandenplas 2009). Conversely, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) refers to GOR that causes troublesome symptoms with or without complications such as damage to the oesophagus (Vandenplas 2009). Currently there is no evidence to support the range of measures recommended to help alleviate acid reflux experienced by infants. Non-nutritive sucking (NNS) has been used as an intervention to modulate neonatal state behaviours through its pacifying effects such as decrease infant fussiness and crying during feeds (Boiron 2007; Pickler 2004).\nObjectives\nTo determine if NNS reduces GORD in preterm infants (less than 37 weeks' gestation) and low birth weight (less than 2500 g) infants, three months of age and less, with signs or symptoms suggestive of GORD, or infants with a diagnosis of GORD.\nSearch methods\nWe performed computerised searches of the electronic databases of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 9, 2013), MEDLINE (1966 to September 2013), CINAHL (1982 to September 2013), and EMBASE (1988 to September 2013). We applied no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nControlled trials using random or quasi-random allocation of preterm infants (less than 37 weeks' gestation) and low birth weight (less than 2500 g) infants three months of age and less with signs or symptoms suggestive of GORD, or infants with a diagnosis of GORD. We included studies reported only by abstracts, and cluster and cross-over randomised trials.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently reviewed and selected trials from searches, assessed and rated study quality and extracted relevant data. We identified two studies from the initial search. After further review, we excluded both studies.\nMain results\nWe identified no studies examining the effects of NNS for GORD in preterm and low birth weight infants\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of NNS for GORD. Adequately powered RCTs on the effect of NNS in preterm and low birth weight infants diagnosed with GORD are required.\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 scientific databases for clinical trials in preterm infants (born at less than 37 weeks' gestation) and low birth weight (less than 2500 g) at three months of age or less with signs or symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2190 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInhaled corticosteroids are well established for the long-term treatment of inflammatory respiratory diseases such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. They have been investigated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The anti-inflammatory action of inhaled corticosteroids might have the potential to reduce the risk of severe illness resulting from hyperinflammation in COVID-19.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether inhaled corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 7 October 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating inhaled corticosteroids for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, sex, or ethnicity.\nWe included the following interventions: any type or dose of inhaled corticosteroids. We included the following comparison: inhaled corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (with or without placebo).\nWe excluded studies examining nasal or topical steroids.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methodology. For risk of bias assessment, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the outcomes of mortality, admission to hospital or death, symptom resolution, time to symptom resolution, serious adverse events, adverse events, and infections.\nMain results\nInhaled corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (with/without placebo)\nPeople with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate-to-severe COVID-19\nWe found no studies that included people with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate-to-severe COVID-19.\nPeople with a confirmed diagnosis of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19\nWe included three RCTs allocating 3607 participants, of whom 2490 had confirmed mild COVID-19. We analysed a subset of the total number of participants recruited to the studies (2171, 52% female) as some trials had a platform design where not all participants were allocated to treatment groups simultaneously. The included studies were community-based, recruiting people who were able to use inhaler devices to deliver steroids and relied on remote assessment and self-reporting of outcomes. Most people were older than 50 years and had co-morbidities such as hypertension, lung disease, or diabetes. The studies were conducted in high-income countries prior to wide-scale vaccination programmes. A total of 1057 participants were analysed in the inhaled corticosteroid arm (budesonide: 860 participants; ciclesonide: 197 participants), and 1075 participants in the control arm. No studies included people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.\nWith respect to the following outcomes, inhaled corticosteroids compared to standard care:\n– may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (at up to day 30) (risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.67; 2132 participants; low-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this means that for every nine deaths per 1000 people not receiving inhaled corticosteroids, there were six deaths per 1000 people who did receive the intervention (95% CI 2 to 16 per 1000 people);\n– probably reduces admission to hospital or death (at up to 30 days) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.99; 2025 participants; moderate-certainty evidence);\n– probably increases resolution of all initial symptoms at day 14 (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.30; 1986 participants; moderate-certainty evidence);\n– may reduce the duration to symptom resolution (at up to day 30) (by −4.00 days, 95% CI −6.22 to −1.78 less than control group rate of 12 days; 139 participants; low-certainty evidence);\n– the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on serious adverse events (during study period) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.76; 1586 participants; very low-certainty evidence);\n– may result in little to no difference in adverse events (at up to day 30) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.31; 400 participants; low-certainty evidence);\n– may result in little to no difference in infections (during study period) (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.58; 400 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nAs studies did not report outcomes for subgroups (e.g. age, ethnicity, sex), we did not perform subgroup analyses.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn people with confirmed COVID-19 and mild symptoms who are able to use inhaler devices, we found moderate-certainty evidence that inhaled corticosteroids probably reduce the combined endpoint of admission to hospital or death and increase the resolution of all initial symptoms at day 14. Low-certainty evidence suggests that corticosteroids make little to no difference in all-cause mortality up to day 30 and may decrease the duration to symptom resolution. We do not know whether inhaled corticosteroids increase or decrease serious adverse events due to heterogeneity in the way they were reported across the studies. There is low-certainty evidence that inhaled corticosteroids may decrease infections.\nThe evidence we identified came from studies in high-income settings using budesonide and ciclesonide prior to vaccination roll-outs.\nWe identified a lack of evidence concerning quality of life assessments, serious adverse events, and people with asymptomatic infection or with moderate-to-severe COVID-19. The 10 ongoing and four completed, unpublished RCTs that we identified in trial registries address similar settings and research questions as in the current body of evidence. We expect to incorporate the findings of these studies in future versions of this review.\nWe monitor newly published results of RCTs on inhaled corticosteroids on a weekly basis and will update the review when the evidence or our certainty in the evidence changes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why are inhaled corticosteroids possible treatments for COVID-19?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "COVID-19 mainly affects the lungs and airways. When the immune system fights the virus, the lungs and airways become inflamed. This inflammation causes breathing difficulties, and the lungs cannot easily move oxygen into the blood and remove carbon dioxide from the blood."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2191 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nVentilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, complicating the medical course of approximately 10% of mechanically-ventilated patients, with an estimated attributable mortality of 13%. To treat VAP empirically, the American Thoracic Society currently recommends antibiotic therapy based on the patients' risk of colonisation by an organism with multidrug resistance. The selection of initial antibiotic therapy in VAP is important, as inappropriate initial antimicrobial treatment is associated with higher mortality and longer hospital stay in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.\nWhile guidelines exist for the antibiotic treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) from the American Thoracic Society and the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, there are many limitations in the quality of available evidence. This systematic review aimed to summarise the results of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compare empirical antibiotic regimens for VAP.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective of this review was to assess the effect of different empirical antimicrobial therapies on the survival and clinical cure of adult patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Secondary objectives included reporting the incidence of adverse events, new superinfections, length of hospital stay, and length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay associated with these therapies.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, CINAHL and Web of Science to December 2015; we searched ClinicalTrials.gov to September 2016.\nSelection criteria\nTwo review authors independently assessed RCTs comparing empirical antibiotic treatments of VAP in adult patients, where VAP was defined as new-onset pneumonia that developed more than 48 hours after endotracheal intubation. Physicians and researchers were not required to be blinded for inclusion in this review.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted study data. We pooled studies and analysed them in two ways. We examined monotherapy, or a single experimental antimicrobial drug, versus combination therapy, or multiple experimental antimicrobial drugs. We also examined carbapenem therapy versus non-carbapenem therapy.\nMain results\nWe included 12 studies with 3571 participants. All included studies examined the empiric use of one antimicrobial regimen versus another for the treatment of adults with VAP, but the particular drug regimens examined by each study varied. There was potential for bias because some studies did not report outcomes for all participants. All but one study reported sources of funding or author affiliations with pharmaceutical companies.\nWe found no statistical difference in all-cause mortality between monotherapy and combination therapy (N = 4; odds ratio (OR) monotherapy versus combination 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.30), clinical cure (N = 2; OR monotherapy versus combination 0.88, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.36), length of stay in ICU (mean difference (MD) 0.65, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.23) or adverse events (N = 2; OR monotherapy versus combination 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.26). We downgraded the quality of evidence for all-cause mortality, adverse events, and length of ICU stay to moderate for this comparison. We determined clinical cure for this comparison to be of very low-quality evidence.\nFor our second comparison of combination therapy with optional adjunctives only one meta-analysis could be performed due to a lack of trials comparing the same antibiotic regimens. Two studies compared tigecycline versus imipenem-cilastatin for clinical cure in the clinically evaluable population and there was a statistically significant increase in clinical cure for imipenem-cilastatin (N = 2; OR tigecycline versus imipenem-cilastatin 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.84). Of importance, this effect was due to a single study.\nWe found no statistical difference in all-cause mortality between carbapenem and non-carbapenem therapies (N = 1; OR carbapenem versus non-carbapenem 0.59, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.19) or adverse events (N = 3; OR carbapenem versus non-carbapenem 0.78, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.09), but we found that carbapenems are associated with a statistically significant increase in the clinical cure (N = 3; OR carbapenem versus non-carbapenem 1.53, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.12 for intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis and N = 2; OR carbapenem versus non-carbapenem 2.29, 95% CI 1.19 to 4.43 for clinically evaluable patients analysis). For this comparison we downgraded the quality of evidence for mortality, and clinical cure (ITT and clinically evaluable populations) to moderate. We determined the quality of evidence for adverse events to be low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe did not find a difference between monotherapy and combination therapy for the treatment of people with VAP. Since studies did not identify patients with increased risk for multidrug-resistant bacteria, these data may not be generalisable to all patient groups. However, this is the largest meta-analysis comparing monotherapy to multiple antibiotic therapies for VAP and contributes further evidence to the safety of using effective monotherapy for the empiric treatment of VAP.\nDue to lack of studies, we could not evaluate the best antibiotic choice for VAP, but carbapenems as a class may result in better clinical cure than other tested antibiotics.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We assessed evidence quality as moderate for most outcomes, and very low for clinical cure when single-antibiotic treatment was compared with multiple antibiotic therapy. We also found that evidence quality was low for adverse events when carbapenem was compared with non-carbapenem treatment."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2192 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGlaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible blindness. A number of minimally invasive surgical techniques have been introduced as a treatment to prevent glaucoma progressing. Among them, endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation (ECP) is a cyclodestructive procedure developed by Martin Uram in 1992.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of ECP in people with open angle glaucoma (OAG) and primary angle closure whose condition is inadequately controlled with drops.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 12 July 2018.\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ECP compared to other surgical treatments (other minimally invasive glaucoma device techniques, trabeculectomy), laser treatment or medical treatment. We also planned to include trials where these devices were combined with phacoemulsification compared to phacoemulsification alone.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors planned to independently extract data from reports of included studies using a data collection form and analyse data based on methods expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was proportion of participants who were drop-free (not using eye drops). Secondary outcomes included mean change in IOP; proportion of participants who achieved an IOP of 21 mmHg or less, 17 mmHg or less or 14 mmHg or less; and proportion of participants experiencing intra- and postoperative complications, We planned to measure all outcomes in the short-term (six to 18 months), medium-term (18 to 36 months), and long-term (36 months onwards).\nMain results\nWe found one ongoing study that met our inclusion criteria (ChiCTR-TRC-14004233). The study compares combined phacoemulsification with ECP to phacoemulsification alone in people with primary angle closure glaucoma. The primary outcome is intraocular pressure (IOP) and number of IOP-lowering drugs. A total of 50 people have been enrolled. The study started in February 2014 and the trialists have completed recruitment and are in the process of collecting data.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently no high-quality evidence for the effects of ECP for OAG and primary angle closure. Properly designed RCTs are needed to assess the medium and long-term efficacy and safety of this technique.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What were the main results of the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The Cochrane Review authors did not find any completed studies that could be included in this review."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2193 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPersistent depressive disorder (PDD) is defined as a depressive disorder with a minimum illness duration of two years, including four diagnostic subgroups (dysthymia, chronic major depression, recurrent major depression with incomplete remission between episodes, and double depression). Persistent forms of depression represent a substantial proportion of depressive disorders, with a lifetime prevalence ranging from 3% to 6% in the Western world. Growing evidence indicates that PDD responds well to several acute interventions, such as combined psychological and pharmacological treatments. Yet, given the high rates of relapse and recurrences of depression following response to acute treatment, long-term continuation and maintenance therapy are of great importance. To date, there has been no evidence synthesis available on continuation and maintenance treatments of PDDs.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of pharmacological and psychological (either alone or combined) continuation and maintenance treatments for persistent depressive disorder, in comparison with each other, placebo (drug/attention placebo/non-specific treatment control), and treatment as usual (TAU). Continuation treatments are defined as treatments given to currently remitted people (remission is defined as depressive symptoms dropping below case level) or to people who previously responded to an antidepressant treatment. Maintenance therapy is given during recovery (which is defined as remission lasting longer than six months).\nSearch methods\nWe searched Ovid MEDLINE (1950- ), Embase (1974- ), PsycINFO (1967- ) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to 28 September 2018. An earlier search of these databases was also conducted for RCTs via the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMD-CTR) (all years to 11 Dec 2015). In addition we searched grey literature resources as well as the international trial registers ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP to 28 September 2018. We screened reference lists of included studies and contacted the first author of all included studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs) in adults with formally diagnosed PDD, receiving pharmacological, psychological, or combined continuation and maintenance interventions.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies and extracted and analyzed data. The primary efficacy outcome was relapse/recurrence rate of depression. The primary acceptance outcome was dropout due to any reason other than relapse/recurrence. We performed random-effects meta-analyses using risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).\nMain results\nWe included 10 studies (seven RCTs, three NRCTs) involving 840 participants in this review, from which five studies investigated continuation treatments and five studies investigated maintenance treatments. Overall, the included studies were at low-to-moderate risk of bias. For the three NRCTs, the most common source of risk of bias was selection of reported results. For the seven RCTs, the most common sources of risk of bias was non-blinding of outcome assessment and other bias (especially conflict of interest due to pharmaceutical sponsoring).\nPharmacological continuation and maintenance therapies\nThe most common comparison was antidepressant medication versus tablet placebo (five studies). Participants taking antidepressant medication were probably less likely to relapse or to experience a recurrent episode compared to participants in the placebo group at the end of the intervention (13.9% versus 33.8%, RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.79; participants = 383; studies = 4; I² = 54%, moderate quality evidence). Overall dropout rates may be similar between participants in the medication and placebo group (23.0% versus 25.5%, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.11; RCTs = 4; participants = 386; I² = 64%, low quality evidence). However, sensitivity analyses showed that the primary outcome (rate of relapse/recurrence) showed no evidence of a difference between groups when only including studies with low risk of bias.\nNone of the studies compared pharmacological or psychological treatments versus TAU.\nPsychological continuation and maintenance therapies\nOne study compared psychological therapies versus attention placebo/non-specific control. One study compared psychotherapy with medication. The results of the studies including psychotherapy might indicate that continued or maintained psychotherapy could be a useful intervention compared to no treatment or antidepressant medication. However, the body of evidence for these comparisons was too small and uncertain to draw any high quality conclusions.\nCombined psychological and pharmacological continuation and maintenance therapies\nThree studies compared combined psychological and pharmacological therapies with pharmacological therapies alone. One study compared combined psychological and pharmacological therapies with psychotherapeutic therapies alone. However, the body of evidence for these comparisons was too small and uncertain to draw any high quality conclusions\nComparison of different antidepressant medications\nTwo studies reported data on the direct comparison of two antidepressants. However, the body of evidence for this comparison was too small and uncertain to draw any high quality conclusions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently, it is uncertain whether continued or maintained pharmacotherapy (or both) with the reviewed antidepressant agents is a robust treatment for preventing relapse and recurrence in people with PDD, due to moderate or high risk of bias as well as clinical heterogeneity in the analyzed studies.\nFor all other comparisons, the body of evidence was too small to draw any final conclusions, although continued or maintained psychotherapy might be effective compared to no treatment. There is need for more high quality trials of psychological interventions. Further studies should address health-related quality of life and adverse events more precisely, as well as assessing follow-up data.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Which studies does the review include?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched medical databases and other sources to find all relevant studies completed up to September 2018. The studies had to compare antidepressant treatment, psychological treatment, or a combination of both, with each other, with placebo, or with care as usual for preventing recurrence of depression in adults diagnosed with persistent depression. We included 10 studies involving 840 participants. Five studies compared antidepressant medicine with placebo.\nOne study compared psychological therapies versus attention placebo/non-specific control. One study compared psychotherapy with medication. Three studies compared combined psychological and pharmacological therapies with pharmacological therapies alone. One study compared combined psychological and pharmacological therapies with psychotherapeutic therapies alone.\nTwo studies compared two different antidepressants with each other.\nOverall, the included studies were at low-to-moderate risk of bias."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2194 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAnaemia is a condition in which the number of red blood cells is insufficient to meet physiologic needs; it is caused by many conditions, particularly iron deficiency. Traditionally, daily iron supplementation has been a standard practice for preventing and treating anaemia. However, its long-term use has been limited, as it has been associated with adverse side effects such as nausea, constipation, and teeth staining. Intermittent iron supplementation has been suggested as an effective and safer alternative to daily iron supplementation for preventing and reducing anaemia at the population level, especially in areas where this condition is highly prevalent.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of intermittent oral iron supplementation, alone or in combination with other nutrients, on anaemia and its associated impairments among menstruating women, compared with no intervention, a placebo, or daily supplementation.\nSearch methods\nIn February 2018, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases, and two trials registers. In March 2018, we also searched LILACS, IBECS and IMBIOMED. In addition, we examined reference lists, and contacted authors and known experts to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs with either individual or cluster randomisation. Participants were menstruating women; that is, women beyond menarche and prior to menopause who were not pregnant or lactating and did not have a known condition that impeded the presence of menstrual periods. The intervention was the use of iron supplements intermittently (one, two or three times a week on non-consecutive days) compared with placebo, no intervention, or the same supplements provided on a daily basis.\nData collection and analysis\nBoth review authors independently assessed the eligibility of studies against the inclusion criteria, extracted data from included studies, checked data entry for accuracy, assessed the risk of bias of the included studies, and rated the quality of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 25 studies involving 10,996 women. Study methods were not well described in many of the included studies and thus assessing risk of bias was difficult. The main limitations of the studies were lack of blinding and high attrition. Studies were mainly funded by international organisations, universities, and ministries of health within the countries. Approximately one third of the included studies did not provide a funding source.\nAlthough quality across studies was variable, the results consistently showed that intermittent iron supplementation (alone or with any other vitamins and minerals) compared with no intervention or a placebo, reduced the risk of having anaemia (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 0.87; 11 studies, 3135 participants; low-quality evidence), and improved the concentration of haemoglobin (mean difference (MD) 5.19 g/L, 95% CI 3.07 to 7.32; 15 studies, 2886 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and ferritin (MD 7.46 μg/L, 95% CI 5.02 to 9.90; 7 studies, 1067 participants; low-quality evidence). Intermittent regimens may also reduce the risk of having iron deficiency (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.04; 3 studies, 624 participants; low-quality evidence), but evidence was inconclusive regarding iron deficiency anaemia (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.16; 1 study, 97 participants; very low-quality evidence) and all-cause morbidity (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.52; 1 study, 119 participants; very low-quality evidence). Women in the control group were less likely to have any adverse side effects than those receiving intermittent iron supplements (RR 1.98, 95% CI 0.31 to 12.72; 3 studies, 630 participants; moderate-quality evidence).\nIn comparison with daily supplementation, results showed that intermittent supplementation (alone or with any other vitamins and minerals) produced similar effects to daily supplementation (alone or with any other vitamins and minerals) on anaemia (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29; 8 studies, 1749 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Intermittent supplementation may produce similar haemoglobin concentrations (MD 0.43 g/L, 95% CI −1.44 to 2.31; 10 studies, 2127 participants; low-quality evidence) but lower ferritin concentrations on average (MD −6.07 μg/L, 95% CI −10.66 to −1.48; 4 studies, 988 participants; low-quality evidence) compared to daily supplementation. Compared to daily regimens, intermittent regimens may also reduce the risk of having iron deficiency (RR 4.30, 95% CI 0.56 to 33.20; 1 study, 198 participants; very low-quality evidence). Women receiving iron supplements intermittently were less likely to have any adverse side effects than those receiving iron supplements daily (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.82; 6 studies, 1166 participants; moderate-quality evidence). No studies reported on the effect of intermittent regimens versus daily regimens on iron deficiency anaemia and all-cause morbidity.\nInformation on disease outcomes, adherence, economic productivity, and work performance was scarce, and evidence about the effects of intermittent supplementation on these outcomes unclear.\nOverall, whether the supplements were given once or twice weekly, for less or more than three months, contained less or more than 60 mg of elemental iron per week, or given to populations with different degrees of anaemia at baseline did not seem to affect the findings. Furthermore, the response did not differ in areas where malaria was frequent, although very few trials were conducted in these settings.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIntermittent iron supplementation may reduce anaemia and may improve iron stores among menstruating women in populations with different anaemia and malaria backgrounds. In comparison with daily supplementation, the provision of iron supplements intermittently is probably as effective in preventing or controlling anaemia. More information is needed on morbidity (including malaria outcomes), side effects, work performance, economic productivity, depression, and adherence to the intervention. The quality of this evidence base ranged from very low to moderate quality, suggesting that we are uncertain about these effects.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What evidence did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We reviewed the evidence in February 2018. We included 25 randomised controlled trials (a type of experiment in which participants are randomly assigned to one or more treatment groups) involving 10,996 women. We included studies examining the administration of intermittent iron supplements versus no intervention, a placebo (dummy pill) or the same supplements given on a daily basis. Most studies were implemented in school settings and were mainly funded by international organisations, universities, and ministries of health within the countries. Approximately one-third of the included studies did not provide a funding source.\nThe findings show that women receiving intermittent supplementation with iron alone, or in combination with folic acid or other nutrients, were less likely to be anaemic or iron deficient than those women who received no iron supplements or a placebo. They also had higher concentrations of haemoglobin and ferritin (a protein that carries iron) but reported more side effects.\nIn addition, the findings indicate that intermittent supplementation was as effective as daily supplementation in reducing the prevalence of anaemia and increasing haemoglobin concentrations, with fewer side effects. It may have reduced the risk of having iron deficiency also, but it had no effect on raising ferritin concentrations more than the daily dose.\nWe found scarce evidence on the effect of intermittent supplementation compared to placebo or daily supplementation on iron deficiency anaemia, all-cause morbidity, disease outcomes, adherence, economic productivity, and work performance."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2195 | [
{
"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: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Cancers of the bone marrow, lymphatic tissue and blood are considered as haematological malignancies. The most common types of haematological malignancies are lymphoma, leukaemia and myeloma but they also include myelodysplastic syndromes or myeloproliferative diseases. Within each type of disease there are various sub-divisions. There are several treatment options depending on the type and severity of the cancer. The most common therapies are chemotherapy, radiotherapy or a combination of both. In some cases, stem cell transplantation is offered (this is where either the patient's own bone marrow cells or cells of another person are implanted in the patient's body after aggressive chemotherapy). Those suffering from haematological cancers may have serious symptoms, and treatments often cause severe and distressing side effects.\nLiving with cancer and undergoing aggressive treatment often leads to physical or psychological health problems such as tiredness, anxiety or depression. Even after having completed the treatment some patients are still affected by their disease and search for alternative treatment options to help them coping with their disease."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2196 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of a review that was first published in 2002. Female sterilisation is the most popular contraceptive method worldwide. Several techniques exist for interrupting the patency of fallopian tubes, including cutting and tying the tubes, damaging the tube using electric current, applying clips or silicone rubber rings, and blocking the tubes with chemicals or tubal inserts.\nObjectives\nTo compare the different tubal occlusion techniques in terms of major and minor morbidity, failure rates (pregnancies), technical failures and difficulties, and women's and surgeons' satisfaction.\nSearch methods\nFor the original review published in 2002 we searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). For this 2015 update, we searched POPLINE, LILACS, PubMed and CENTRAL on 23 July 2015. We used the related articles feature of PubMed and searched reference lists of newly identified trials.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different techniques for tubal sterilisation, irrespective of the route of fallopian tube access or the method of anaesthesia.\nData collection and analysis\nFor the original review, two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. For this update, data extraction was performed by one author (TL) and checked by another (RK). We grouped trials according to the type of comparison evaluated. Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) or mean differences (MD) using fixed-effect methods, unless heterogeneity was high, in which case we used random-effects methods.\nMain results\nWe included 19 RCTs involving 13,209 women. Most studies concerned interval sterilisation; three RCTs involving 1632 women, concerned postpartum sterilisation. Comparisons included tubal rings versus clips (six RCTs, 4232 women); partial salpingectomy versus electrocoagulation (three RCTs, 2019 women); tubal rings versus electrocoagulation (two RCTs, 599 women); partial salpingectomy versus clips (four RCTs, 3627 women); clips versus electrocoagulation (two RCTs, 206 women); and Hulka versus Filshie clips (two RCTs, 2326 women). RCTs of clips versus electrocoagulation contributed no data to the review.\nOne year after sterilisation, failure rates were low (< 5/1000) for all methods.There were no deaths reported with any method, and major morbidity related to the occlusion technique was rare.\nMinor morbidity was higher with the tubal ring than the clip (Peto OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.78; participants = 842; studies = 2; I² = 0%; high-quality evidence), as were technical failures (Peto OR 3.93, 95% CI 2.43 to 6.35; participants = 3476; studies = 3; I² = 0%; high-quality evidence).\nMajor morbidity was significantly higher with the modified Pomeroy technique than electrocoagulation (Peto OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.13 to 7.25; participants = 1905; studies = 2; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence), as was postoperative pain (Peto OR 3.85, 95% CI 2.91 to 5.10; participants = 1905; studies = 2; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence).\nWhen tubal rings were compared with electrocoagulation, postoperative pain was reported significantly more frequently for tubal rings (OR 3.40, 95% CI 1.17 to 9.84; participants = 596; studies = 2; I² = 87%; low-quality evidence).\nWhen partial salpingectomy was compared with clips, there were no major morbidity events in either group (participants = 2198, studies = 1). The frequency of minor morbidity was low and not significantly different between groups (Peto OR 7.39, 95% CI 0.46 to 119.01; participants = 193; studies = 1, low-quality evidence). Although technical failure occurred more frequently with clips (Peto OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.40; participants = 2198; studies = 1; moderate-quality evidence); operative time was shorter with clips than partial salpingectomy (MD 4.26 minutes, 95% CI 3.65 to 4.86; participants = 2223; studies = 2; I² = 0%; high-quality evidence).\nWe found little evidence concerning women's or surgeon's satisfaction. No RCTs compared tubal microinserts (hysteroscopic sterilisation) or chemical inserts (quinacrine) to other methods.\nAuthors' conclusions\nTubal sterilisation by partial salpingectomy, electrocoagulation, or using clips or rings, is a safe and effective method of contraception. Failure rates at 12 months post-sterilisation and major morbidity are rare outcomes with any of these techniques. Minor complications and technical failures appear to be more common with rings than clips. Electrocoagulation may be associated with less postoperative pain than the modified Pomeroy or tubal ring methods. Further research should include RCTs (for effectiveness) and controlled observational studies (for adverse effects) on sterilisation by minimally-invasive methods, i.e. tubal inserts and quinacrine.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Findings\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We included 19 RCTs involving 13,209 women of childbearing age. The trials compared:\n- tubal rings versus clips (six RCTs, 4232 women);\n- partial salpingectomy versus electrocoagulation (three RCTs, 2019 women);\n- tubal rings versus electrocoagulation (two RCTs, 599 women);\n- partial salpingectomy versus clips (four RCTs, 3827 women);\n- clips versus electrocoagulation (two RCTs, 206 women); and\n- two types of clips, i.e. Hulka clips versus Filshie clips (two RCTs, 2326 women).\nWe found no RCTs that investigated sterilisation by chemicals or tubal inserts, so all the included studies involved an abdominal operation.\nThere were no deaths reported with any method, and major and minor morbidity were rare. Pregnancy rates were less than 5/1000 procedures one year after surgery. Complicationrates (problems after surgery/minor morbidity) were very low for all methods compared. Minor complications, including pain, and technical failures were more common with rings than clips. Major morbidity and postoperative pain were more common with partial salpingectomy than with electrocoagulation. Postoperative pain was reported twice as often by women sterilised by tubal rings than those sterilised by electrocoagulation.Technical failures were more common with clips than cutting and tying techniques, but operating time was shorter for clips.\nWe found little evidence concerning women's or surgeon's satisfaction."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2197 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nUrinary incontinence (UI) is the involuntary loss of urine and can be caused by several different conditions. The common types of UI are stress (SUI), urgency (UUI) and mixed (MUI). A wide range of interventions can be delivered to reduce the symptoms of UI in women. Conservative interventions are generally recommended as the first line of treatment.\nObjectives\nTo summarise Cochrane Reviews that assessed the effects of conservative interventions for treating UI in women.\nMethods\nWe searched the Cochrane Library to January 2021 (CDSR; 2021, Issue 1) and included any Cochrane Review that included studies with women aged 18 years or older with a clinical diagnosis of SUI, UUI or MUI, and investigating a conservative intervention aimed at improving or curing UI. We included reviews that compared a conservative intervention with 'control' (which included placebo, no treatment or usual care), another conservative intervention or another active, but non-conservative, intervention. A stakeholder group informed the selection and synthesis of evidence.\nTwo overview authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, extracted data and judged review quality, resolving disagreements through discussion. Primary outcomes of interest were patient-reported cure or improvement and condition-specific quality of life. We judged the risk of bias in included reviews using the ROBIS tool. We judged the certainty of evidence within the reviews based on the GRADE approach. Evidence relating to SUI, UUI or all types of UI combined (AUI) were synthesised separately. The AUI group included evidence relating to participants with MUI, as well as from studies that combined women with different diagnoses (i.e. SUI, UUI and MUI) and studies in which the type of UI was unclear.\nMain results\nWe included 29 relevant Cochrane Reviews. Seven focused on physical therapies; five on education, behavioural and lifestyle advice; one on mechanical devices; one on acupuncture and one on yoga. Fourteen focused on non-conservative interventions but had a comparison with a conservative intervention. No reviews synthesised evidence relating to psychological therapies. There were 112 unique trials (including 8975 women) that had primary outcome data included in at least one analysis.\nStress urinary incontinence (14 reviews)\nConservative intervention versus control: there was moderate or high certainty evidence that pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), PFMT plus biofeedback and cones were more beneficial than control for curing or improving UI. PFMT and intravaginal devices improved quality of life compared to control.\nOne conservative intervention versus another conservative intervention: for cure and improvement of UI, there was moderate or high certainty evidence that: continence pessary plus PFMT was more beneficial than continence pessary alone; PFMT plus educational intervention was more beneficial than cones; more-intensive PFMT was more beneficial than less-intensive PFMT; and PFMT plus an adherence strategy was more beneficial than PFMT alone. There was no moderate or high certainty evidence for quality of life.\nUrgency urinary incontinence (five reviews)\nConservative intervention versus control: there was moderate to high-certainty evidence demonstrating that PFMT plus feedback, PFMT plus biofeedback, electrical stimulation and bladder training were more beneficial than control for curing or improving UI. Women using electrical stimulation plus PFMT had higher quality of life than women in the control group.\nOne conservative intervention versus another conservative intervention: for cure or improvement, there was moderate certainty evidence that electrical stimulation was more effective than laseropuncture. There was high or moderate certainty evidence that PFMT resulted in higher quality of life than electrical stimulation and electrical stimulation plus PFMT resulted in better cure or improvement and higher quality of life than PFMT alone.\nAll types of urinary incontinence (13 reviews)\nConservative intervention versus control: there was moderate to high certainty evidence of better cure or improvement with PFMT, electrical stimulation, weight loss and cones compared to control. There was moderate certainty evidence of improved quality of life with PFMT compared to control.\nOne conservative intervention versus another conservative intervention: there was moderate or high certainty evidence of better cure or improvement for PFMT with bladder training than bladder training alone. Likewise, PFMT with more individual health professional supervision was more effective than less contact/supervision and more-intensive PFMT was more beneficial than less-intensive PFMT. There was moderate certainty evidence that PFMT plus bladder training resulted in higher quality of life than bladder training alone.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is high certainty that PFMT is more beneficial than control for all types of UI for outcomes of cure or improvement and quality of life. We are moderately certain that, if PFMT is more intense, more frequent, with individual supervision, with/without combined with behavioural interventions with/without an adherence strategy, effectiveness is improved. We are highly certain that, for cure or improvement, cones are more beneficial than control (but not PFMT) for women with SUI, electrical stimulation is beneficial for women with UUI, and weight loss results in more cure and improvement than control for women with AUI.\nMost evidence within the included Cochrane Reviews is of low certainty. It is important that future new and updated Cochrane Reviews develop questions that are more clinically useful, avoid multiple overlapping reviews and consult women with UI to further identify outcomes of importance.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this overview?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This overview is up-to-date to 18 January 2021."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2198 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFunctional dyspepsia (FD or non-ulcer dyspepsia) is defined as continuous or frequently recurring epigastric pain or discomfort for which no organic cause can be found. Acid suppressive therapy, including proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), has been proposed as a therapeutic option in FD, but its efficacy remains controversial. While PPIs are generally considered safe and well tolerated, they have been associated with adverse events, especially in the long term. For this reason, decisions on whether to initiate or continue PPI therapy should be made based on an appropriate clinical indication. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate whether PPI therapy provides symptomatic relief in FD.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors in the improvement of global symptoms of dyspepsia and quality of life compared to placebo, H2 receptor antagonists or prokinetics, in people with functional dyspepsia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched in the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Library (to May 2017), MEDLINE (OvidSP; to May 2017), Embase (OvidSP; to May 2017), and SIGLE grey literature (up to May 2017) and clinical trial registries; we handsearched abstracts from conferences up to May 2017. We screened non-systematic reviews, systematic reviews and guidelines to identify any additional trials. We contacted trialists to obtain missing information.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any PPI with placebo, H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) or prokinetics for the treatment of FD of at least two weeks' duration. Participants were adults (aged 16 years or greater) with an adequate diagnosis of FD (any validated criteria such as Rome I, II, III or Lancet Working Group).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed eligibility and trial quality, and extracted data. We collected data on dyspeptic symptoms, quality of life and number of overall adverse events. Specific adverse events were beyond the scope of this review.\nMain results\nWe identified 25 RCTs from 27 papers (with 8453 participants) studying the effect of PPIs versus placebo, H2RAs or prokinetics for improvement of global symptoms of dyspepsia and quality of life in people with FD. Low-dose PPIs had similar efficacy as standard-dose PPIs, therefore we combined these subgroups for the analysis. PPI was more effective than placebo at relieving overall dyspepsia symptoms in people with FD (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.94; participants = 6172; studies = 18; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 11; moderate quality evidence). PPIs may have little or no effect compared with H2RAs (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.04; participants = 740; studies = 2; low quality evidence), and may be slightly more effective than prokinetics (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99; participants = 1033; studies = 5; NNTB 16; low quality evidence) at relieving overall dyspepsia symptoms in people with FD. PPIs plus prokinetics have probably little or no effect compared with PPIs alone at relieving overall dyspepsia symptoms (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.08; participants = 407; studies = 2; moderate quality evidence).\nThere was no difference when subgrouped by Helicobacter pylori status, country of origin, or presence of reflux or Rome III subtypes. There were no differences in the number of adverse events observed between PPIs and any of the other treatments. There were fewer adverse events in the combination of PPI plus prokinetics compared to prokinetics alone (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.93; participants = 407; studies = 2; moderate quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is evidence that PPIs are effective for the treatment of FD, independent of the dose and duration of treatment compared with placebo. PPIs may be slightly more effective than prokinetics for the treatment of FD; however, the evidence is scarce. The trials evaluating PPIs versus prokinetics are difficult to interpret as they are at risk of bias. Although the effect of these drugs seems to be small, the drugs are well tolerated.\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 studies evaluating the effect of PPIs compared to placebo or PPIs combined with prokinetics versus prokinetics were in general of good quality. However, the studies that compared PPIs versus H2RAs and prokinetics had serious quality issues."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2199 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBotulinum toxin type A (BontA) is the most frequent treatment for facial wrinkles, but its effectiveness and safety have not previously been assessed in a Cochrane Review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of all commercially available botulinum toxin type A products for the treatment of any type of facial wrinkles.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to May 2020: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs with over 50 participants, comparing BontA versus placebo, other types of BontA, or fillers (hyaluronic acid), for treating facial wrinkles in adults.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were participant assessment of success and major adverse events (AEs) (eyelid ptosis, eyelid sensory disorder, strabismus). Secondary outcomes included physician assessment of success; proportion of participants with at least one AE and duration of treatment effect. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 65 RCTs, involving 14,919 randomised participants. Most participants were female, aged 18 to 65 years. All participants were outpatients (private office or day clinic). Study duration was between one week and one year. No studies were assessed as low risk of bias in all domains; the overall risk of bias was unclear for most studies.\nThe most common comparator was placebo (36 studies). An active control was used in 19 studies. There were eight dose-ranging studies of onabotulinumtoxinA, and a small number of studies compared against fillers. Treatment was given in one cycle (54 studies), two cycles (three studies), or three or more cycles (eight studies).\nThe treated regions were glabella (43 studies), crow's feet (seven studies), forehead (two studies), perioral (two studies), full face (one study), or more than two regions (nine studies). Most studies analysed moderate to severe wrinkles; mean duration of treatment was 20 weeks.\nThe following results summarise the main comparisons, based on studies of one treatment cycle for the glabella. AEs were collected over the duration of these studies (over four to 24 weeks).\nCompared to placebo, onabotulinumtoxinA-20 U probably has a higher success rate when assessed by participants (risk ratio (RR) 19.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.60 to 43.99; 575 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) or physicians (RR 17.10, 95% CI 10.07 to 29.05; 1339 participants; 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) at week four. Major AEs are probably higher with onabotulinumtoxinA-20 U (Peto OR 3.62, 95% CI 1.50 to 8.74; 1390 participants; 8 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), but there may be no difference in any AEs (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.45; 1388 participants; 8 studies; low-certainty evidence).\nCompared to placebo, abobotulinumtoxinA-50 U has a higher participant-assessed success rate at week four (RR 21.22, 95% CI 7.40 to 60.56; 915 participants; 6 studies; high-certainty evidence); and probably has a higher physician-assessed success rate (RR 14.93, 95% CI 8.09 to 27.55; 1059 participants; 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There are probably more major AEs with abobotulinumtoxinA-50 U (Peto OR 3.36, 95% CI 0.88 to 12.87; 1294 participants; 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Any AE may be more common with abobotulinumtoxinA-50 U (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.49; 1471 participants; 8 studies; low-certainty evidence).\nCompared to placebo, incobotulinumtoxinA-20 U probably has a higher participant-assessed success rate at week four (RR 66.57, 95% CI 13.50 to 328.28; 547 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and physician-assessed success rate (RR 134.62, 95% CI 19.05 to 951.45; 547 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Major AEs were not observed (547 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference between groups in any AEs (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.53; 547 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence).\nAbobotulinumtoxinA-50 U is no different to onabotulinumtoxinA-20 U in participant-assessed success rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.08, 388 participants, 1 study, high-certainty evidence) and physician-assessed success rate (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.06; 388 participants; 1 study; high-certainty evidence) at week four. Major AEs are probably more likely in the abobotulinumtoxinA-50 U group than the onabotulinumtoxinA-20 U group (Peto OR 2.65, 95% CI 0.77 to 9.09; 433 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably no difference in any AE (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.54; 492 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence).\nIncobotulinumtoxinA-24 U may be no different to onabotulinumtoxinA-24 U in physician-assessed success rate at week four (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.05; 381 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) (participant assessment was not measured). One participant reported ptosis with onabotulinumtoxinA, but we are uncertain of the risk of AEs (Peto OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.77; 381 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence).\nCompared to placebo, daxibotulinumtoxinA-40 U probably has a higher participant-assessed success rate (RR 21.10, 95% CI 11.31 to 39.34; 683 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and physician-assessed success rate (RR 23.40, 95% CI 12.56 to 43.61; 683 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) at week four. Major AEs were not observed (716 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be an increase in any AE with daxibotulinumtoxinA compared to placebo (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.40; 716 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence).\nMajor AEs reported were mainly ptosis; BontA is also known to carry a risk of strabismus or eyelid sensory disorders.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBontA treatment reduces wrinkles within four weeks of treatment, but probably increases risk of ptosis. We found several heterogeneous studies (different types or doses of BontA, number of cycles, and different facial regions) hindering meta-analyses. The certainty of the evidence for effectiveness outcomes was high, low or moderate; for AEs, very low to moderate. Future RCTs should compare the most common BontA (onabotulinumtoxinA, abobotulinumtoxinA, incobotulinumtoxinA, daxibotulinumtoxinA, prabotulinumtoxinA) and evaluate long-term outcomes. There is a lack of evidence about the effects of multiple cycles of BontA, frequency of major AEs, duration of effect, efficacy of recently-approved BontA and comparisons with other treatments.\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 current up to May 2020."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2200 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nExposure to light plays a crucial role in biological processes, influencing mood and alertness. Daytime workers may be exposed to insufficient or inappropriate light during daytime, leading to mood disturbances and decreases in levels of alertness.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of lighting interventions to improve alertness and mood in daytime workers.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, seven other databases; ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization trials portal up to January 2018.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and non-randomised controlled before-after trials (CBAs) that employed a cross-over or parallel-group design, focusing on any type of lighting interventions applied for daytime workers.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened references in two stages, extracted outcome data and assessed risk of bias. We used standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to pool data from different questionnaires and scales assessing the same outcome across different studies. We combined clinically homogeneous studies in a meta-analysis. We used the GRADE system to rate quality of evidence.\nMain results\nThe search yielded 2844 references. After screening titles and abstracts, we considered 34 full text articles for inclusion. We scrutinised reports against the eligibility criteria, resulting in the inclusion of five studies (three RCTs and two CBAs) with 282 participants altogether. These studies evaluated four types of comparisons: cool-white light, technically known as high correlated colour temperature (CCT) light versus standard illumination; different proportions of indirect and direct light; individually applied blue-enriched light versus no treatment; and individually applied morning bright light versus afternoon bright light for subsyndromal seasonal affective disorder.\nWe found no studies comparing one level of illuminance versus another.\nWe found two CBA studies (163 participants) comparing high CCT light with standard illumination. By pooling their results via meta-analysis we found that high CCT light may improve alertness (SMD −0.69, 95% CI −1.28 to −0.10; Columbia Jet Lag Scale and the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale) when compared to standard illumination. In one of the two CBA studies with 94 participants there was no difference in positive mood (mean difference (MD) 2.08, 95% CI −0.1 to 4.26) or negative mood (MD −0.45, 95% CI −1.84 to 0.94) assessed using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) scale. High CCT light may have fewer adverse events than standard lighting (one CBA; 94 participants). Both studies were sponsored by the industry. We graded the quality of evidence as very low.\nWe found no studies comparing light of a particular illuminance and light spectrum or CCT versus another combination of illuminance and light spectrum or CCT.\nWe found no studies comparing daylight versus artificial light.\nWe found one RCT (64 participants) comparing the effects of different proportions of direct and indirect light: 100% direct lighting, 70% direct lighting plus 30% indirect lighting, 30% direct lighting plus 70% indirect lighting and 100% indirect lighting. There was no substantial difference in mood, as assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory, or in adverse events, such as ocular, reading or concentration problems, in the short or medium term. We graded the quality of evidence as low.\nWe found two RCTs comparing individually administered light versus no treatment. According to one RCT with 25 participants, blue-enriched light individually applied for 30 minutes a day may enhance alertness (MD −3.30, 95% CI −6.28 to −0.32; Epworth Sleepiness Scale) and may improve mood (MD −4.8, 95% CI −9.46 to −0.14; Beck Depression Inventory). We graded the quality of evidence as very low. One RCT with 30 participants compared individually applied morning bright light versus afternoon bright light for subsyndromal seasonal affective disorder. There was no substantial difference in alertness levels (MD 7.00, 95% CI −10.18 to 24.18), seasonal affective disorder symptoms (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.81, 3.20; number of participants presenting with a decrease of at least 50% in SIGH-SAD scores) or frequency of adverse events (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.07). Among all participants, 57% had a reduction of at least 50% in their SIGH-SAD score. We graded the quality of evidence as low.\nPublication bias could not be assessed for any of these comparisons.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is very low-quality evidence based on two CBA studies that high CCT light may improve alertness, but not mood, in daytime workers. There is very low-quality evidence based on one CBA study that high CCT light may also cause less irritability, eye discomfort and headache than standard illumination. There is low-quality evidence based on one RCT that different proportions of direct and indirect light in the workplace do not affect alertness or mood. There is very low-quality evidence based on one RCT that individually applied blue-enriched light improves both alertness and mood. There is low-quality evidence based on one RCT that individually administered bright light during the afternoon is as effective as morning exposure for improving alertness and mood in subsyndromal seasonal affective disorder.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the aim of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The aim of this Cochrane Review was to find out if specific types of lighting can change levels of alertness and state of mood in daytime workers.\nWe collected and analysed five studies that addressed this question."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2201 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) is a common condition with 3% to 33% of people from different parts of the world suffering from GORD. There is considerable uncertainty about whether people with GORD should receive an operation or medical treatment for controlling the condition.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of laparoscopic fundoplication versus medical treatment for people with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group (UGPD) Trials Register (June 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 6, 2015), Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to June 2015), and EMBASE (1980 to June 2015) to identify randomised controlled trials. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered only randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing laparoscopic fundoplication with medical treatment in people with GORD irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status for inclusion in the review.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently identified trials and independently extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models with RevMan 5 based on available case analysis.\nMain results\nFour studies met the inclusion criteria for the review, and provided information on one or more outcomes for the review. A total of 1160 participants in the four RCTs were either randomly assigned to laparoscopic fundoplication (589 participants) or medical treatment with proton pump inhibitors (571 participants). All the trials included participants who had had reflux symptoms for at least six months and had received long-term acid suppressive therapy. All the trials included only participants who could undergo surgery if randomised to the surgery arm. All of the trials were at high risk of bias. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low. None of the trials reported long-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) or GORD-specific quality of life (QoL).\nThe difference between laparoscopic fundoplication and medical treatment was imprecise for overall short-term HRQOL (SMD 0.14, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.30; participants = 605; studies = 3), medium-term HRQOL (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.24; participants = 323; studies = 2), medium-term GORD-specific QoL (SMD 0.28, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.84; participants = 994; studies = 3), proportion of people with adverse events (surgery: 7/43 (adjusted proportion = 14.0%); medical: 0/40 (0.0%); RR 13.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 237.07; participants = 83; studies = 1), long-term dysphagia (surgery: 27/118 (adjusted proportion = 22.9%); medical: 28/110 (25.5%); RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.42; participants = 228; studies = 1), and long-term reflux symptoms (surgery: 29/118 (adjusted proportion = 24.6%); medical: 41/115 (35.7%); RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.03; participants = 233; studies = 1).\nThe short-term GORD-specific QoL was better in the laparoscopic fundoplication group than in the medical treatment group (SMD 0.58, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.70; participants = 1160; studies = 4).\nThe proportion of people with serious adverse events (surgery: 60/331 (adjusted proportion = 18.1%); medical: 38/306 (12.4%); RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.11; participants = 637; studies = 2), short-term dysphagia (surgery: 44/331 (adjusted proportion = 12.9%); medical: 11/306 (3.6%); RR 3.58, 95% CI 1.91 to 6.71; participants = 637; studies = 2), and medium-term dysphagia (surgery: 29/288 (adjusted proportion = 10.2%); medical: 5/266 (1.9%); RR 5.36, 95% CI 2.1 to 13.64; participants = 554; studies = 1) was higher in the laparoscopic fundoplication group than in the medical treatment group.\nThe proportion of people with heartburn at short term (surgery: 29/288 (adjusted proportion = 10.0%); medical: 59/266 (22.2%); RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.69; participants = 554; studies = 1), medium term (surgery: 12/288 (adjusted proportion = 4.2%); medical: 59/266 (22.2%); RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.34; participants = 554; studies = 1), long term (surgery: 46/111 (adjusted proportion = 41.2%); medical: 78/106 (73.6%); RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.72); participants = 217; studies = 1) and those with reflux symptoms at short-term (surgery: 6/288 (adjusted proportion = 2.0%); medical: 53/266 (19.9%); RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.24; participants = 554; studies = 1) and medium term (surgery: 6/288 (adjusted proportion = 2.1%); medical: 37/266 (13.9%); RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.35; participants = 554; studies = 1) was less in the laparoscopic fundoplication group than in the medical treatment group.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is considerable uncertainty in the balance of benefits versus harms of laparoscopic fundoplication compared to long-term medical treatment with proton pump inhibitors. Further RCTs of laparoscopic fundoplication versus medical management in patients with GORD should be conducted with outcome-assessor blinding and should include all participants in the analysis. Such trials should include long-term patient-orientated outcomes such as treatment-related adverse events (including severity), quality of life, and also report on the social and economic impact of the adverse events and symptoms.\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 evidence was low or very low. As a result, there is a lot of uncertainty regarding the results."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2202 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBeta-blockers are commonly used in the treatment of hypertension. We do not know whether the blood pressure (BP) lowering efficacy of beta-blockers varies across the day. This review focuses on the subclass of beta-blockers with partial agonist activity (BBPAA).\nObjectives\nTo assess the degree of variation in hourly BP lowering efficacy of BBPAA over a 24-hour period in adults with essential hypertension.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for relevant studies up to June 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register; CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 5; MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe sought to include all randomised and non-randomised trials that assessed the hourly effect of BBPAA by ambulatory monitoring, with a minimum follow-up of three weeks.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected the included trials and extracted the data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Outcomes included in the review were end-point hourly systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP) and heart rate (HR), measured using a 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) device.\nMain results\nFourteen non-randomised baseline controlled trials of BBPAA met our inclusion criteria, but only seven studies, involving 121 participants, reported hourly ambulatory BP data that could be included in the meta-analysis. Beta-blockers studied included acebutalol, pindolol and bopindolol. We judged most studies at high or unclear risk of bias for selection bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias. We judged the overall certainty of the evidence to be very low for all outcomes.\nWe analysed and presented data by each hour post-dose. Very low-certainty evidence showed that hourly mean reduction in BP and HR visually showed an attenuation over time. Over the 24-hour period, the magnitude of SBP lowering at each hour ranged from -3.68 mmHg to -17.74 mmHg (7 studies, 121 participants), DBP lowering at each hour ranged from -2.27 mmHg to -9.34 mmHg (7 studies, 121 participants), and HR lowering at each hour ranged from -0.29 beats/min to -10.29 beats/min (4 studies, 71 participants). When comparing between three 8-hourly time intervals that correspond to day, evening, and night time hours, BBPAA was less effective at lowering BP and HR at night, than during the day and evening. However, because we judged that these outcomes were supported by very low-certainty evidence, further research is likely to have an important impact on the estimate of effect and may change the conclusion.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to draw general conclusions about the degree of variation in hourly BP-lowering efficacy of BBPAA over a 24-hour period, in adults with essential hypertension. Very low-certainty evidence showed that BBPAA acebutalol, pindolol, and bopindolol lowered BP more during the day and evening than at night. However, the number of studies and participants included in this review was very small, further limiting the certainty of the evidence. We need further and larger trials, with accurate recording of time of drug intake, and with reporting of standard deviation of BP and HR at each hour.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Only a small number of eligible studies were identified, involving relatively few participants. We judged the majority of studies at high or unclear risk of bias. We judged the overall certainty of the evidence to be very low for all outcomes. Further research is likely to have important impact on the estimate of effect and may change the conclusion."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2203 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nRecurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (RVVC) affects up to 5% of women. No comprehensive systematic review of treatments for RVVC has been published.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective was to assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for RVVC. The secondary objective was to assess patient preference of treatment options.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted electronic searches of bibliographic databases, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL (search date 6 October 2021). We also handsearched reference lists of identified trials and contacted authors of identified trials, experts in RVVC, and manufacturers of products for vulvovaginal candidiasis.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials evaluating RVVC treatments for at least six months, in women with four or more symptomatic episodes of vulvovaginal candidiasis in the past year. We excluded women with immunosuppressive disorders or taking immunosuppressant medication. We included women with diabetes mellitus and pregnant women.\nDiagnosis of RVVC must have been confirmed by presence of symptoms and a positive culture and/or microscopy. We included all drug and non-drug therapies and partner treatment, assessing the following primary outcomes:\n• number of clinical recurrences per participant per year (recurrence defined as clinical signs and positive culture/microscopy);\n• proportion of participants with at least one clinical recurrence during the treatment and follow-up period; and\n• adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts to identify eligible trials. Duplicate data extraction was completed independently by two authors. We assessed risk of bias as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used the fixed-effects model for pooling and expressed the results as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where important statistical heterogeneity was present we either did not pool data (I2 > 70%) or used a random-effects model (I2 40-70%). We used the GRADE tool to assess overall certainty of the evidence for the pooled primary outcomes.\nMain results\nStudies: Twenty-three studies involving 2212 women aged 17 to 67 years met the inclusion criteria. Most studies excluded pregnant women and women with diabetes or immunosuppression. The predominant species found on culture at study entry was Candida albicans. Overall, the included studies were small (<100 participants). Six studies compared antifungal treatment with placebo (607 participants); four studies compared oral versus topical antifungals (543 participants); one study compared different oral antifungals (45 participants); two studies compared different dosing regimens for antifungals (100 participants); one study compared two different dosing regimens of the same topical agent (23 participants); one study compared short versus longer treatment duration (26 participants); two studies assessed the effect of partner treatment (98 participants); one study compared a complementary treatment (Lactobacillus vaginal tablets and probiotic oral tablets) with placebo (34 participants); three studies compared complementary medicine with antifungals (354 participants); two studies compared 'dermasilk' briefs with cotton briefs (130 participants); one study examined Lactobacillus vaccination versus heliotherapy versus ciclopyroxolamine (90 participants); one study compared CAM treatments to an antifungal treatment combined with CAM treatments (68 participants). We did not find any studies comparing different topical antifungals. Nine studies reported industry funding, three were funded by an independent source and eleven did not report their funding source.\nRisk of bias: Overall, the risk of bias was high or unclear due to insufficient blinding of allocation and participants and poor reporting.\nPrimary outcomes: Meta-analyses comparing drug treatments (oral and topical) with placebo or no treatment showed there may be a clinically relevant reduction in clinical recurrence at 6 months (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.63; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 2; participants = 607; studies = 6; I² = 82%; low-certainty evidence) and 12 months (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.89; NNTB = 6; participants = 585; studies = 6; I² = 21%; low-certainty evidence). No study reported on the number of clinical recurrences per participant per year.\nWe are very uncertain whether oral drug treatment compared to topical treatment increases the risk of clinical recurrence at 6 months (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.83 to 3.31; participants = 206; studies = 3; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence) and reduces the risk of clinical recurrence at 12 months (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.27; participants = 206; studies = 3; I² = 10%; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported on the number of clinical recurrences per participant per year.\nAdverse events were scarce across both treatment and control groups in both comparisons. The reporting of adverse events varied amongst studies, was generally of very low quality and could not be pooled. Overall the adverse event rate was low for both placebo and treatment arms and ranged from less than 5% to no side effects or complications.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn women with RVVC, treatment with oral or topical antifungals may reduce symptomatic clinical recurrences when compared to placebo or no treatment. We were unable to find clear differences between different treatment options (e.g. oral versus topical treatment, different doses and durations). These findings are not applicable to pregnant or immunocompromised women and women with diabetes as the studies did not include or report on them. More research is needed to determine the optimal medication, dose and frequency.\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": "Thrush of the vaginal/vulvar area is caused by Candida, a form of yeast that is commonly found in the vagina as part of normal flora without causing symptoms. For unknown reasons, Candida can start growing and cause symptoms of vulvovaginal candidiasis (commonly named thrush). Symptoms of vulvovaginal thrush include itching, swelling, and irritation of the vaginal and vulval areas. It is estimated that uncomplicated vulvovaginal thrush affects up to 75% of women at some time during their reproductive years. Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (RVVC) occurs when a woman has four or more fungal infections during a 12-month period. Up to 5% of women suffer from RVVC. Some doctors advise taking antifungals as a prevention, but there are no clear evidence-based guidelines."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2204 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe female genital tract is not exposed to seminal plasma during standard assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles. However, it is thought that the inflammatory reaction triggered by seminal plasma may be beneficial by inducing maternal tolerance to paternal antigens expressed by the products of conception, and may increase the chance of successful implantation and live birth.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of application of seminal plasma to the female genital tract prior to embryo transfer in ART cycles.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases from inception to October 2017: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We also searched trial registers for ongoing trials, including International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. Other sources searched were; Web of Knowledge, OpenGrey, LILACS, PubMed, Google Scholar, and the reference lists of relevant articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted among women undergoing ART, comparing any procedure that would expose the female genital tract to seminal plasma during the period starting five days before embryo transfer and ending two days after it versus no seminal plasma application.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We pooled data to calculate relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main outcomes using GRADE methods. Our primary outcomes were live birth rate and miscarriage rate. Secondary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, and the incidence of other adverse events.\nMain results\nWe included 11 RCTs (3215 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to low. The main limitations were risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of allocation concealment and other methods) and imprecision for the primary outcome of live birth rate.\nLive birth rates: Seminal plasma application made little or no difference in live birth rates (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.43; 948 participants; 3 studies; I2 = 0%). Low-quality evidence suggested that if the live birth rate following standard ART was 19%, it would be between 16% and 27% with seminal plasma application.\nMiscarriage rate: Seminal plasma application made little or no difference in miscarriage rates (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.79; 1209 participants; 4 studies; I2 = 0%). Low-quality evidence suggested that if the miscarriage rate following standard ART was 3.7%, the miscarriage rate following seminal plasma application would be between 2.1% and 6.6%.\nLive birth or ongoing pregnancy rates: Seminal plasma application made little or no difference in live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.49; 1178 participants; 4 studies; I2 = 4%, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate following standard ART was 19.5%, it would be between 18.5% and 29% with seminal plasma application.\nClinical pregnancy rates: We are uncertain whether seminal plasma application increases clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.31; 2768 participants; 10 studies; I2 = 0%). Very low-quality evidence suggested that if the clinical pregnancy rate following standard ART was 22.0%, it would be between 22.2% and 28.8% with seminal plasma application. This finding should be regarded with caution, as a post hoc sensitivity analysis restricted to studies at overall low risk of bias did not find a significant difference between the groups (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.39; 547 participants; 3 studies; I2 = 0%).\nMultiple pregnancy rate: Seminal plasma application may make little or no difference to multiple pregnancy rates (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.64; 1642 participants; 5 studies; I2 = 9%). Low-quality evidence suggested that if the multiple pregnancy rate following standard ART was 7%, the multiple pregnancy rate following seminal plasma application would be between 5% and 11.4%.\nEctopic pregnancy: There was insufficient evidence to determine whether seminal plasma application influenced the risk of ectopic pregnancy (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.20 to 12.78, 1521 participants; 5 studies; I2 = 0%) .\nInfectious complications or other adverse events: No data were available on these outcomes\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn women undergoing ART, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the seminal plasma and the standard ART group in rates of live birth (low-quality evidence) or miscarriage (low-quality evidence). There was low-quality evidence suggesting little or no difference between the groups in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (composite outcome). We found low-quality evidence that seminal plasma application may be associated with more clinical pregnancies than standard ART. There was low-quality evidence suggesting little or no difference between the groups in rates of multiple pregnancy. There was insufficient evidence to reach any conclusions about the risk of ectopic pregnancy, and no data were available on infectious complications or other adverse events.\nWe conclude that seminal plasma application is worth further investigation, focusing on live birth and miscarriage rates.\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": "This Cochrane review included 11 randomised controlled trials, in which women were randomly allocated to receive seminal plasma or not. These trials included a total of 3215 women undergoing ART. The evidence is current to October 2017."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2205 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSelf-harm (SH; intentional self-poisoning or self-injury) is common in children and adolescents, often repeated, and strongly associated with suicide. This is an update of a broader Cochrane review on psychosocial and pharmacological treatments for deliberate SH first published in 1998 and previously updated in 1999. We have now divided the review into three separate reviews; this review is focused on psychosocial and pharmacological interventions for SH in children and adolescents.\nObjectives\nTo identify all randomised controlled trials of psychosocial interventions, pharmacological agents, or natural products for SH in children and adolescents, and to conduct meta-analyses (where possible) to compare the effects of specific treatments with comparison types of treatment (e.g., treatment as usual (TAU), placebo, or alternative pharmacological treatment) for children and adolescents who SH.\nSearch methods\nFor this update the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group (CCDAN) Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the CCDAN Specialised Register (30 January 2015).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing psychosocial or pharmacological treatments with treatment as usual, alternative treatments, or placebo or alternative pharmacological treatment in children and adolescents (up to 18 years of age) with a recent (within six months) episode of SH resulting in presentation to clinical services.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo reviewers independently selected trials, extracted data, and appraised study quality, with consensus. For binary outcomes, we calculated odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). For continuous outcomes measured using the same scale we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI; for those measured using different scales we calculated the standard mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. Meta-analysis was only possible for two interventions: dialectical behaviour therapy for adolescents and group-based psychotherapy. For these analyses, we pooled data using a random-effects model.\nMain results\nWe included 11 trials, with a total of 1,126 participants. The majority of participants were female (mean = 80.6% in 10 trials reporting gender). All trials were of psychosocial interventions; there were none of pharmacological treatments. With the exception of dialectical behaviour therapy for adolescents (DBT-A) and group-based therapy, assessments of specific interventions were based on single trials. We downgraded the quality of evidence owing to risk of bias or imprecision for many outcomes.\nTherapeutic assessment appeared to increase adherence with subsequent treatment compared with TAU (i.e., standard assessment; n = 70; k = 1; OR = 5.12, 95% CI 1.70 to 15.39), but this had no apparent impact on repetition of SH at either 12 (n = 69; k = 1; OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.06; GRADE: low quality) or 24 months (n = 69; k = 1; OR = 0.69, 05% CI 0.23 to 2.14; GRADE: low quality evidence). These results are based on a single cluster randomised trial, which may overestimate the effectiveness of the intervention.\nFor patients with multiple episodes of SH or emerging personality problems, mentalisation therapy was associated with fewer adolescents scoring above the cut-off for repetition of SH based on the Risk-Taking and Self-Harm Inventory 12 months post-intervention (n = 71; k = 1; OR = 0.26, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78; GRADE: moderate quality). DBT-A was not associated with a reduction in the proportion of adolescents repeating SH when compared to either TAU or enhanced usual care (n = 104; k = 2; OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.12 to 4.40; GRADE: low quality). In the latter trial, however, the authors reported a significantly greater reduction over time in frequency of repeated SH in adolescents in the DBT condition, in whom there were also significantly greater reductions in depression, hopelessness, and suicidal ideation.\nWe found no significant treatment effects for group-based therapy on repetition of SH for individuals with multiple episodes of SH at either the six (n = 430; k = 2; OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.56 to 5.24; GRADE: low quality) or 12 month (n = 490; k = 3; OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.97; GRADE: low quality) assessments, although considerable heterogeneity was associated with both (I2 = 65% and 77% respectively). We also found no significant differences between the following treatments and TAU in terms of reduced repetition of SH: compliance enhancement (three month follow-up assessment: n = 63; k = 1; OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.15 to 3.08; GRADE: very low quality), CBT-based psychotherapy (six month follow-up assessment: n = 39; k = 1; OR = 1.88, 95% CI 0.30 to 11.73; GRADE: very low quality), home-based family intervention (six month follow-up assessment: n = 149; k = 1; OR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.51; GRADE: low quality), and provision of an emergency card (12 month follow-up assessment: n = 105, k = 1; OR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.04; GRADE: very low quality). No data on adverse effects, other than the planned outcomes relating to suicidal behaviour, were reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere are relatively few trials of interventions for children and adolescents who have engaged in SH, and only single trials contributed to all but two comparisons in this review. The quality of evidence according to GRADE criteria was mostly very low. There is little support for the effectiveness of group-based psychotherapy for adolescents with multiple episodes of SH based on the results of three trials, the evidence from which was of very low quality according to GRADE criteria. Results for therapeutic assessment, mentalisation, and dialectical behaviour therapy indicated that these approaches warrant further evaluation. Despite the scale of the problem of SH in children and adolescents there is a paucity of evidence of effective interventions. Further large-scale trials, with a range of outcome measures including adverse events, and investigation of therapeutic mechanisms underpinning these interventions, are required. It is increasingly apparent that development of new interventions should be done in collaboration with patients to ensure that these are likely to meet their needs. Use of an agreed set of outcome measures would assist evaluation and both comparison and meta-analysis of trials.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is this review important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Self-harm (SH), which includes intentional self-poisoning/overdose and self-injury, is a major problem in children and adolescents in many countries and is strongly linked to risk of future suicide. It is therefore important that effective treatments for SH patients are developed."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2206 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nResistant hypertension is highly prevalent among the general hypertensive population and the clinical management of this condition remains problematic. Different approaches, including a more intensified antihypertensive therapy, lifestyle modifications or both, have largely failed to improve patients' outcomes and to reduce cardiovascular and renal risk. As renal sympathetic hyperactivity is a major driver of resistant hypertension, in the last decade renal sympathetic ablation (renal denervation) has been proposed as a possible therapeutic alternative to treat this condition.\nObjectives\nWe sought to evaluate the short- and long-term effects of renal denervation in individuals with resistant hypertension on clinical end points, including fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events, all-cause mortality, hospital admissions, quality of life, blood pressure control, left ventricular hypertrophy, cardiovascular and metabolic profile and kidney function, as well as the potential adverse events related to the procedure.\nSearch methods\nFor this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to 3 November 2020: Cochrane Hypertension’s Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2020, Issue 11), Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid Embase. The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (via CENTRAL) and the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for ongoing trials. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared renal denervation to standard therapy or sham procedure to treat resistant hypertension, without language restriction.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently extracted data and assessed study risk of bias. We summarised treatment effects on available clinical outcomes and adverse events using random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed heterogeneity in estimated treatment effects using Chi² and I² statistics. We calculated summary treatment estimates as a mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes, and a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Certainty of evidence has been assessed using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe found 15 eligible studies (1416 participants). In four studies, renal denervation was compared to sham procedure; in the remaining studies, renal denervation was tested against standard or intensified antihypertensive therapy. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias for allocation concealment and blinding.\nWhen compared to control, there was low-certainty evidence that renal denervation had little or no effect on the risk of myocardial infarction (4 studies, 742 participants; RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.84), ischaemic stroke (5 studies, 892 participants; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.95), unstable angina (3 studies, 270 participants; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.89) or hospitalisation (3 studies, 743 participants; RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.11). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, renal denervation may reduce 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) systolic BP (9 studies, 1045 participants; MD -5.29 mmHg, 95% CI -10.46 to -0.13), ABPM diastolic BP (8 studies, 1004 participants; MD -3.75 mmHg, 95% CI -7.10 to -0.39) and office diastolic BP (8 studies, 1049 participants; MD -4.61 mmHg, 95% CI -8.23 to -0.99). Conversely, this procedure had little or no effect on office systolic BP (10 studies, 1090 participants; MD -5.92 mmHg, 95% CI -12.94 to 1.10). Moderate-certainty evidence suggested that renal denervation may not reduce serum creatinine (5 studies, 721 participants, MD 0.03 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.13) and may not increase the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or creatinine clearance (6 studies, 822 participants; MD -2.56 mL/min, 95% CI -7.53 to 2.42).\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn patients with resistant hypertension, there is low-certainty evidence that renal denervation does not improve major cardiovascular outomes and renal function. Conversely, moderate-certainty evidence exists that it may improve 24h ABPM and diastolic office-measured BP. Future trials measuring patient-centred instead of surrogate outcomes, with longer follow-up periods, larger sample size and more standardised procedural methods are necessary to clarify the utility of this procedure in this population.\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 compared renal denervation to other treatments or no treatment for who have resistant hypertension."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2207 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDespite advances in perioperative care, elective major vascular surgical procedures still carry a significant risk of morbidity and mortality. Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) is the temporary blocking of blood flow to vascular beds remote from those targeted by surgery. It has the potential to provide local tissue protection from further prolonged periods of ischaemia. However, the efficacy and safety of RIPC in people undergoing major vascular surgery remain unknown. This is an update of a review published in 2011.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of RIPC versus no RIPC in people undergoing elective major vascular and endovascular surgery.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov to 1 April 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials that evaluated the role of RIPC in reducing perioperative mortality and morbidities in people undergoing elective major vascular or endovascular surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nWe collected data on the characteristics of the trial, methodological quality, and the remote ischaemic preconditioning stimulus used. Our primary outcome was perioperative mortality, and secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, renal impairment, stroke, hospital stay, limb loss, and operating time or total anaesthetic time. We analysed the data using random-effects models. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) based on an intention-to-treat analysis. In addition, we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 14 trials which randomised a total of 1295 participants (age range: 64.5 to 76 years; 84% male; study periods ranged from 2003 to 2019). In general, the included studies were at low to unclear risk of bias for most risk of bias domains. The certainty of evidence of main outcomes was moderate due to imprecision of results, moderate heterogeneity, or possible publication bias.\nWe found that RIPC made no clear difference in perioperative mortality compared with no RIPC (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.59 to 3.40; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 965 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Similarly, we found no clear difference between the two groups for myocardial infarction (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.40; I2 = 7%; 11 studies, 1001 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), renal impairment (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.86; I2 = 40%; 12 studies, 1054 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), stroke (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.15; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 392 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), limb loss (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.05 to 10.61; I2 = 32%; 3 studies, 322 participants; low-certainty evidence), hospital stay (MD −0.94 day, 95% CI −1.95 to 0.07; I2 = 17%; 7 studies, 569 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and operating time or total anaesthetic time (MD 5.76 minutes, 95% CI −3.25 to 14.76; I2 = 44%; 10 studies, 803 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, compared with no RIPC, RIPC probably leads to little or no difference in perioperative mortality, myocardial infarction, renal impairment, stroke, hospital stay, and operating time, and may lead to little or no difference in limb loss in people undergoing elective major vascular and endovascular surgery. Adequately powered and designed randomised studies are needed, focusing in particular on the clinical endpoints and patient-centred outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is remote ischaemic preconditioning?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "As the population ages, more people will experience vascular disease or artery disease, narrowing due to the build-up of fatty deposits or balloon-like bulging of arteries. As an essential treatment strategy for severe artery disease, vascular surgery removes the deposits or repairs the bulge, but this carries an increased risk of death and complications. The high risk of surgery is mainly due to the obstruction and subsequent restoring of blood flow involved in the vascular surgery procedure, also known as 'ischaemia-reperfusion injury'. Several approaches have been used to reduce the surgery risk, but have obtained limited effect.\nThe temporary blockage (by a few minutes) of blood flow to an organ can reduce injury in that organ (local ischaemic preconditioning) but may also reduce damage in other organs (remote ischaemic preconditioning, RIPC). Generally, RIPC is performed by frequently inflating and deflating using a blood pressure cuff placed on the upper arm or leg. As a safe and easy method, the effect of RIPC has been proven to prevent organ damage for heart surgery in animal studies."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2208 | [
{
"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: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Very preterm (born more than eight weeks early) and very low birth weight (less than 1.5 kg) infants are at risk of developing necrotising enterocolitis, a severe condition where some lining of the infant's bowel becomes inflamed and dies. This condition is associated with death, serious infection, and long-term disability and developmental problems. One way to help prevent necrotising enterocolitis may be to add prebiotics (non-digestible sugar chains to support intestinal colonisation with healthy 'probiotic' bacteria) to milk feeds."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2209 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHypertension (high blood pressure) in pregnancy carries a high risk of maternal morbidity and mortality. Although antihypertensive drugs are commonly used, they have adverse effects on mothers and fetuses. Guided imagery is a non-pharmacological technique that has the potential to lower blood pressure among pregnant women with hypertension. Guided imagery is a mind-body therapy that involves the visualisation of various mental images to facilitate relaxation and reduction in blood pressure.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effect of guided imagery as a non-pharmacological treatment of hypertension in pregnancy and its influence on perinatal outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, and two trials registers (October 2018). We also searched relevant conference proceedings and journals, and scanned the reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We would have included RCTs using a cluster-randomised design, but none were identified. We excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over trials.\nWe sought intervention studies of various guided imagery techniques performed during pregnancy in comparison with no intervention or other non-pharmacological treatments for hypertension (e.g. quiet rest, music therapy, aromatherapy, relaxation therapy, acupuncture, acupressure, massage, device-guided slow breathing, hypnosis, physical exercise, and yoga).\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias for the included studies. We checked extracted data for accuracy, and resolved differences in assessments by discussion. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included two small trials (involving a total of 99 pregnant women) that compared guided imagery with quiet rest. The trials were conducted in Canada and the USA. We assessed both trials as at high risk of performance bias, and low risk of attrition bias; one trial was at low risk for selection, detection, and reporting bias, while the other was at unclear risk for the same domains.\nWe could not perform a meta-analysis because the two included studies reported different outcomes, and the frequency of the intervention was slightly different between the two studies. One study performed guided imagery for 15 minutes at least twice daily for four weeks, or until the baby was born (whichever came first). In the other study, the intervention included guided imagery, self-monitoring of blood pressure, and thermal biofeedback-assisted relaxation training for four total hours; the participants were instructed to practice the procedures twice daily and complete at least three relief relaxation breaks each day. The control groups were similar - one was quiet rest, and the other was quiet rest as bed rest.\nNone of our primary outcomes were reported in the included trials: severe hypertension (either systolic blood pressure of 160 mmHg or higher, or diastolic blood pressure of 110 mmHg or higher); severe pre-eclampsia, or perinatal death (stillbirths plus deaths in the first week of life). Only one of the secondary outcomes was measured.\nLow-certainty evidence from one trial (69 women) suggests that guided imagery may make little or no difference in the use of antihypertensive drugs (risk ratio 1.27, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 2.22).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to inform practice about the use of guided imagery for hypertension in pregnancy.\nThe available evidence for this review topic is sparse, and the effect of guided imagery for treating hypertension during pregnancy (compared with quiet rest) remains unclear. There was low-certainty evidence that guided imagery made little or no difference to the use of antihypertensive drugs, downgraded because of imprecision.\nThe two included trials did not report on any of the primary outcomes of this review. We did not identify any trials comparing guided imagery with no intervention, or with another non-pharmacological method for hypertension.\nLarge and well-designed RCTs are needed to identify the effects of guided imagery on hypertension during pregnancy and on other relevant outcomes associated with short-term and long-term maternal and neonatal health. Trials could also consider utilisation and costs of health service.\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": "High blood pressure during pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of the mother developing pre-eclampsia with proteinuria, eclampsia with seizures and liver and blood disorders, and kidney failure. The baby of a pregnant woman with high blood pressure is more likely to be born too soon, be too small, and may need neonatal intensive care. High blood pressure drugs are recommended for women with severe high blood pressure and pre-eclampsia because of the risk of life-threatening complications, but such drugs can have adverse effects for the mother (including headache, decreased mental alertness, and exercise intolerance). Such drugs can also cross the placenta and may affect the unborn baby, and are not generally recommended for pregnant women with mild to moderate high blood pressure, which is when other ways of managing blood pressure are sought.\nGuided imagery is a non-pharmacological technique that could potentially lower blood pressure among pregnant women with hypertension and improve pregnancy outcomes for the mother and her baby."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2210 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIn response to the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), governments have implemented a variety of measures to control the spread of the virus and the associated disease. Among these, have been measures to control the pandemic in primary and secondary school settings.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of measures implemented in the school setting to safely reopen schools, or keep schools open, or both, during the COVID-19 pandemic, with particular focus on the different types of measures implemented in school settings and the outcomes used to measure their impacts on transmission-related outcomes, healthcare utilisation outcomes, other health outcomes as well as societal, economic, and ecological outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and the Educational Resources Information Center, as well as COVID-19-specific databases, including the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease (indexing preprints) on 9 December 2020. We conducted backward-citation searches with existing reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered experimental (i.e. randomised controlled trials; RCTs), quasi-experimental, observational and modelling studies assessing the effects of measures implemented in the school setting to safely reopen schools, or keep schools open, or both, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Outcome categories were (i) transmission-related outcomes (e.g. number or proportion of cases); (ii) healthcare utilisation outcomes (e.g. number or proportion of hospitalisations); (iii) other health outcomes (e.g. physical, social and mental health); and (iv) societal, economic and ecological outcomes (e.g. costs, human resources and education). We considered studies that included any population at risk of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 and/or developing COVID-19 disease including students, teachers, other school staff, or members of the wider community.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. One review author extracted data and critically appraised each study. One additional review author validated the extracted data. To critically appraise included studies, we used the ROBINS-I tool for quasi-experimental and observational studies, the QUADAS-2 tool for observational screening studies, and a bespoke tool for modelling studies. We synthesised findings narratively. Three review authors made an initial assessment of the certainty of evidence with GRADE, and several review authors discussed and agreed on the ratings.\nMain results\nWe included 38 unique studies in the analysis, comprising 33 modelling studies, three observational studies, one quasi-experimental and one experimental study with modelling components.\nMeasures fell into four broad categories: (i) measures reducing the opportunity for contacts; (ii) measures making contacts safer; (iii) surveillance and response measures; and (iv) multicomponent measures. As comparators, we encountered the operation of schools with no measures in place, less intense measures in place, single versus multicomponent measures in place, or closure of schools.\nAcross all intervention categories and all study designs, very low- to low-certainty evidence ratings limit our confidence in the findings. Concerns with the quality of modelling studies related to potentially inappropriate assumptions about the model structure and input parameters, and an inadequate assessment of model uncertainty. Concerns with risk of bias in observational studies related to deviations from intended interventions or missing data. Across all categories, few studies reported on implementation or described how measures were implemented. Where we describe effects as 'positive', the direction of the point estimate of the effect favours the intervention(s); 'negative' effects do not favour the intervention.\nWe found 23 modelling studies assessing measures reducing the opportunity for contacts (i.e. alternating attendance, reduced class size). Most of these studies assessed transmission and healthcare utilisation outcomes, and all of these studies showed a reduction in transmission (e.g. a reduction in the number or proportion of cases, reproduction number) and healthcare utilisation (i.e. fewer hospitalisations) and mixed or negative effects on societal, economic and ecological outcomes (i.e. fewer number of days spent in school).\nWe identified 11 modelling studies and two observational studies assessing measures making contacts safer (i.e. mask wearing, cleaning, handwashing, ventilation). Five studies assessed the impact of combined measures to make contacts safer. They assessed transmission-related, healthcare utilisation, other health, and societal, economic and ecological outcomes. Most of these studies showed a reduction in transmission, and a reduction in hospitalisations; however, studies showed mixed or negative effects on societal, economic and ecological outcomes (i.e. fewer number of days spent in school).\nWe identified 13 modelling studies and one observational study assessing surveillance and response measures , including testing and isolation, and symptomatic screening and isolation. Twelve studies focused on mass testing and isolation measures, while two looked specifically at symptom-based screening and isolation. Outcomes included transmission, healthcare utilisation, other health, and societal, economic and ecological outcomes. Most of these studies showed effects in favour of the intervention in terms of reductions in transmission and hospitalisations, however some showed mixed or negative effects on societal, economic and ecological outcomes (e.g. fewer number of days spent in school).\nWe found three studies that reported outcomes relating to multicomponent measures , where it was not possible to disaggregate the effects of each individual intervention, including one modelling, one observational and one quasi-experimental study. These studies employed interventions, such as physical distancing, modification of school activities, testing, and exemption of high-risk students, using measures such as hand hygiene and mask wearing. Most of these studies showed a reduction in transmission, however some showed mixed or no effects.\nAs the majority of studies included in the review were modelling studies, there was a lack of empirical, real-world data, which meant that there were very little data on the actual implementation of interventions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur review suggests that a broad range of measures implemented in the school setting can have positive impacts on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, and on healthcare utilisation outcomes related to COVID-19. The certainty of the evidence for most intervention-outcome combinations is very low, and the true effects of these measures are likely to be substantially different from those reported here. Measures implemented in the school setting may limit the number or proportion of cases and deaths, and may delay the progression of the pandemic. However, they may also lead to negative unintended consequences, such as fewer days spent in school (beyond those intended by the intervention). Further, most studies assessed the effects of a combination of interventions, which could not be disentangled to estimate their specific effects. Studies assessing measures to reduce contacts and to make contacts safer consistently predicted positive effects on transmission and healthcare utilisation, but may reduce the number of days students spent at school. Studies assessing surveillance and response measures predicted reductions in hospitalisations and school days missed due to infection or quarantine, however, there was mixed evidence on resources needed for surveillance. Evidence on multicomponent measures was mixed, mostly due to comparators. The magnitude of effects depends on multiple factors. New studies published since the original search date might heavily influence the overall conclusions and interpretation of findings for this review.\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 looked at the impact of these types of measures in the school setting on the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19, the impact on the healthcare system (i.e. how many hospital beds are needed), as well as important social aspects (i.e. how often students attended school). The studies could focus on students, teachers and other school staff, as well as on families and the whole community. They could use real-life data (observational studies) or data from computer-generated simulations (modelling studies)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2211 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMultiple myeloma is a bone marrow-based hematological malignancy accounting for approximately two per cent of cancers. First-line treatment for transplant-ineligible individuals consists of multiple drug combinations of bortezomib (V), lenalidomide (R), or thalidomide (T). However, access to these medicines is restricted in many countries worldwide.\nObjectives\nTo assess and compare the effectiveness and safety of multiple drug combinations of V, R, and T for adults with newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma and to inform an application for the inclusion of these medicines into the World Health Organization's (WHO) list of essential medicines.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL and MEDLINE, conference proceedings and study registries on 14 February 2019 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multiple drug combinations of V, R and T for adults with newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs comparing combination therapies of V, R, and T, plus melphalan and prednisone (MP) or dexamethasone (D) for first-line treatment of adults with transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma. We excluded trials including adults with relapsed or refractory disease, trials comparing drug therapies to other types of therapy and trials including second-generation novel agents.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included trials. As effect measures we used hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and risk ratios (RRs) for adverse events. An HR or RR < 1 indicates an advantage for the intervention compared to the main comparator MP. Where available, we extracted quality of life (QoL) data (scores of standardised questionnaires). Results quoted are from network meta-analysis (NMA) unless stated.\nMain results\nWe included 25 studies (148 references) comprising 11,403 participants and 21 treatment regimens. Treatments were differentiated between restricted treatment duration (treatment with a pre-specified amount of cycles) and continuous therapy (treatment administered until disease progression, the person becomes intolerant to the drug, or treatment given for a prolonged period). Continuous therapies are indicated with a \"c\". Risk of bias was generally high across studies due to the open-label study design.\nOverall survival (OS)\nEvidence suggests that treatment with RD (HR 0.63 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.99), median OS 55.2 months (35.2 to 87.0)); TMP (HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.97), median OS: 46.4 months (35.9 to 60.0)); and VRDc (HR 0.49 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.92), median OS 71.0 months (37.8 to 133.8)) probably increases survival compared to median reported OS of 34.8 months with MP (moderate certainty). Treatment with VMP may result in a large increase in OS, compared to MP (HR 0.70 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.07), median OS 49.7 months (32.5 to 77.3)), low certainty).\nProgression-free survival (PFS)\nTreatment withRD (HR 0.65 (95% CI0.44 to 0.96), median PFS: 24.9 months (16.9 to 36.8)); TMP (HR 0.63 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.78), median PFS:25.7 months (20.8 to 32.4)); VMP (HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.90), median PFS: 28.9 months (18.0 to 46.3)); and VRDc (HR 0.34 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.58), median PFS: 47.6 months (27.9 to 81.0)) may result in a large increase in PFS (low certainty) compared to MP (median reported PFS: 16.2 months).\nAdverse events\nThe risk of polyneuropathies may be lower with RD compared to treatment with MP (RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.99), risk for RD: 0.5% (0.1 to 1.8), mean reported risk for MP: 0.9% (10 of 1074 patients affected), low certainty). However, the CIs are also compatible with no difference or an increase in neuropathies. Treatment with TMP (RR 4.44 (95% CI1.77 to 11.11), risk: 4.0% (1.6 to 10.0)) and VMP (RR 88.22 (95% CI 5.36 to 1451.11), risk: 79.4% (4.8 to 1306.0)) probably results in a large increase in polyneuropathies compared to MP (moderate certainty). No study reported the amount of participants with grade ≥ 3 polyneuropathies for treatment with VRDc.\nVMP probably increases the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to MP (RR 1.28 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.54), risk for VMP: 46.2% (38.3 to 55.6), mean risk for MP: 36.1% (177 of 490 patients affected), moderate certainty). RD, TMP, and VRDc were not connected to MP in the network and the risk of SAEs could not be compared.\nTreatment with RD (RR 4.18 (95% CI 2.13 to 8.20), NMA-risk: 38.5% (19.6 to 75.4)); and TMP (RR 4.10 (95% CI 2.40 to 7.01), risk: 37.7% (22.1 to 64.5)) results in a large increase of withdrawals from the trial due to adverse events (high certainty) compared to MP (mean reported risk: 9.2% (77 of 837 patients withdrew)). The risk is probably slightly increased with VMP (RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.81), risk: 9.75% (5.8 to 16.7), moderate certainty), while it is much increased with VRDc (RR 8.92 (95% CI 3.82 to 20.84), risk: 82.1% (35.1 to 191.7), high certainty) compared to MP.\nQuality of life\nQoL was reported in four studies for seven different treatment regimens (MP, MPc, RD, RMP, RMPc, TMP, TMPc) and was measured with four different tools. Assessment and reporting differed between studies and could not be meta-analysed. However, all studies reported an improvement of QoL after initiation of anti-myeloma treatment for all assessed treatment regimens.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on our four pre-selected comparisons of interest, continuous treatment with VRD had the largest survival benefit compared with MP, while RD and TMP also probably considerably increase survival. However, treatment combinations of V, R, and T also substantially increase the incidence of AEs, and lead to a higher risk of treatment discontinuation. Their effectiveness and safety profiles may best be analysed in further randomised head-to-head trials. Further trials should focus on consistent reporting of safety outcomes and should use a standardised instrument to evaluate QoL to ensure comparability of treatment-combinations.\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": ""
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2212 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGiven the substantial period of time adults spend in their workplaces each day, these provide an opportune setting for interventions addressing modifiable behavioural risk factors for chronic disease. Previous reviews of trials of workplace-based interventions suggest they can be effective in modifying a range of risk factors including diet, physical activity, obesity, risky alcohol use and tobacco use. However, such interventions are often poorly implemented in workplaces, limiting their impact on employee health. Identifying strategies that are effective in improving the implementation of workplace-based interventions has the potential to improve their effects on health outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of strategies for improving the implementation of workplace-based policies or practices targeting diet, physical activity, obesity, tobacco use and alcohol use.\nSecondary objectives were to assess the impact of such strategies on employee health behaviours, including dietary intake, physical activity, weight status, and alcohol and tobacco use; evaluate their cost-effectiveness; and identify any unintended adverse effects of implementation strategies on workplaces or workplace staff.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases on 31 August 2017: CENTRAL; MEDLINE; MEDLINE In Process; the Campbell Library; PsycINFO; Education Resource Information Center (ERIC); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); and Scopus. We also handsearched all publications between August 2012 and September 2017 in two speciality journals: Implementation Science and Journal of Translational Behavioral Medicine. We conducted searches up to September 2017 in Dissertations and Theses, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the US National Institutes of Health Registry. We screened the reference lists of included trials and contacted authors to identify other potentially relevant trials. We also consulted experts in the field to identify other relevant research.\nSelection criteria\nImplementation strategies were defined as strategies specifically employed to improve the implementation of health interventions into routine practice within specific settings. We included any trial with a parallel control group (randomised or non-randomised) and conducted at any scale that compared strategies to support implementation of workplace policies or practices targeting diet, physical activity, obesity, risky alcohol use or tobacco use versus no intervention (i.e. wait-list, usual practice or minimal support control) or another implementation strategy. Implementation strategies could include those identified by the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) taxonomy such as quality improvement initiatives and education and training, as well as other strategies. Implementation interventions could target policies or practices directly instituted in the workplace environment, as well as workplace-instituted efforts encouraging the use of external health promotion services (e.g. gym membership subsidies).\nData collection and analysis\nReview authors working in pairs independently performed citation screening, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment, resolving disagreements via consensus or a third reviewer. We narratively synthesised findings for all included trials by first describing trial characteristics, participants, interventions and outcomes. We then described the effect size of the outcome measure for policy or practice implementation. We performed meta-analysis of implementation outcomes for trials of comparable design and outcome.\nMain results\nWe included six trials, four of which took place in the USA. Four trials employed randomised controlled trial (RCT) designs. Trials were conducted in workplaces from the manufacturing, industrial and services-based sectors. The sample sizes of workplaces ranged from 12 to 114. Workplace policies and practices targeted included: healthy catering policies; point-of-purchase nutrition labelling; environmental supports for healthy eating and physical activity; tobacco control policies; weight management programmes; and adherence to guidelines for staff health promotion. All implementation interventions utilised multiple implementation strategies, the most common of which were educational meetings, tailored interventions and local consensus processes. Four trials compared an implementation strategy intervention with a no intervention control, one trial compared different implementation interventions, and one three-arm trial compared two implementation strategies with each other and a control. Four trials reported a single implementation outcome, whilst the other two reported multiple outcomes. Investigators assessed outcomes using surveys, audits and environmental observations. We judged most trials to be at high risk of performance and detection bias and at unclear risk of reporting and attrition bias.\nOf the five trials comparing implementation strategies with a no intervention control, pooled analysis was possible for three RCTs reporting continuous score-based measures of implementation outcomes. The meta-analysis found no difference in standardised effects (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.01, 95% CI −0.32 to 0.30; 164 participants; 3 studies; low certainty evidence), suggesting no benefit of implementation support in improving policy or practice implementation, relative to control. Findings for other continuous or dichotomous implementation outcomes reported across these five trials were mixed. For the two non-randomised trials examining comparative effectiveness, both reported improvements in implementation, favouring the more intensive implementation group (very low certainty evidence). Three trials examined the impact of implementation strategies on employee health behaviours, reporting mixed effects for diet and weight status (very low certainty evidence) and no effect for physical activity (very low certainty evidence) or tobacco use (low certainty evidence). One trial reported an increase in absolute workplace costs for health promotion in the implementation group (low certainty evidence). None of the included trials assessed adverse consequences. Limitations of the review included the small number of trials identified and the lack of consistent terminology applied in the implementation science field, which may have resulted in us overlooking potentially relevant trials in the search.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAvailable evidence regarding the effectiveness of implementation strategies for improving implementation of health-promoting policies and practices in the workplace setting is sparse and inconsistent. Low certainty evidence suggests that such strategies may make little or no difference on measures of implementation fidelity or different employee health behaviour outcomes. It is also unclear if such strategies are cost-effective or have potential unintended adverse consequences. The limited number of trials identified suggests implementation research in the workplace setting is in its infancy, warranting further research to guide evidence translation in this setting.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Search date\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence is current to 31 August 2017."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2213 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAnxiety disorders are a potentially disabling group of disorders that frequently co-occur with alcohol use disorders. Comorbid anxiety and alcohol use disorders are associated with poorer outcomes, and are difficult to treat with standard psychosocial interventions. In addition, improved understanding of the biological basis of the conditions has contributed to a growing interest in the use of medications for the treatment of people with both diagnoses.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of pharmacotherapy for treating anxiety in people with comorbid alcohol use disorders, specifically: to provide an estimate of the overall effects of medication in improving treatment response and reducing symptom severity in the treatment of anxiety disorders in people with comorbid alcohol use disorders; to determine whether specific medications are more effective and tolerable than other medications in the treatment of particular anxiety disorders; and to identify which factors (clinical, methodological) predict response to pharmacotherapy for anxiety disorders.\nSearch methods\nReview authors searched the specialized registers of The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group (CCDANCTR, to January 2014) and the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group (CDAG, to March 2013) for eligible trials. These registers contain reports of relevant randomized controlled trials (RCT) from: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). Review authors ran complementary searches on EMBASE, PubMed, PsycINFO and the Alcohol and Alcohol Problems Science Database (ETOH) (to August 2013). We located unpublished trials through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RePORTER service and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to August 2013). We screened reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nAll true RCTs of pharmacotherapy for treating anxiety disorders with comorbid alcohol use disorders. Trials assessing drugs administered for the treatment of drinking behaviour, such as naltrexone, disulfiram and acamprosate were not eligible for inclusion in this systematic review.\nData collection and analysis\nA systematic review is a standardised evaluation of all research studies that address a particular clinical issue.\nTwo review authors independently assessed RCTs for inclusion in the review, collated trial data and assessed trial quality. We contacted investigators to obtain missing data. We calculated categorical and continuous treatment effect estimates and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for treatment using a random-effects model with effect-size variability expressed using Chi2 and I2 heterogeneity statistics.\nMain results\nWe included five placebo-controlled pharmacotherapy RCTs (with 290 participants) in the review. Most of the trials provided little information on how randomization was performed or on whether both participants and study personnel were blinded to the intervention. Two of the three trials reporting superiority of medication compared with placebo on anxiety symptom outcomes were industry funded. We regarded one trial as being at high risk of bias due to selective reporting.\nStudy participants had Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) III- and DSM IV-diagnosed alcohol use disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder (two studies), social anxiety disorder (SAD; two studies) or generalized anxiety disorder (GAD; one study). Four trials assessed the efficacy of the selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs: sertraline, paroxetine); one RCT investigated the efficacy of buspirone, a 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) partial agonist. Treatment duration lasted between eight and 24 weeks. Overall, 70% of participants included in the review were male.\nThere was very low quality evidence for an effect of paroxetine on global clinical response to treatment, as assessed by the Clinical Global Impressions - Improvement scale (CGI-I). Global clinical response was observed in more than twice as many participants with paroxetine than with placebo (57.7% with paroxetine versus 25.8% with placebo; risk ratio (RR) 2.23, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.41; 2 trials, 57 participants). However, there was substantial uncertainty regarding the size of the effect of paroxetine due to the small number of studies providing data on clinically diverse patient samples. The second primary outcome measure was reduction of anxiety symptom severity. Although study investigators reported that buspirone (one trial) was superior to placebo in reducing the severity of anxiety symptoms over 12 weeks, no evidence of efficacy was observed for paroxetine (mean difference (MD) -14.70, 95% CI -33.00 to 3.60, 2 trials, 44 participants) and sertraline (one trial). Paroxetine appeared to be equally effective in reducing the severity of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms as the tricyclic antidepressant desipramine in one RCT. The maximal reduction in anxiety disorder symptom severity was achieved after six weeks with paroxetine (two RCTs) and 12 weeks with buspirone (one RCT), with maintenance of medication efficacy extending to 16 with paroxetine and 24 weeks with buspirone. There was no evidence of an effect for any of the medications tested on abstinence from alcohol use or depression symptoms. There was very low quality evidence that paroxetine was well tolerated, based on drop-out due to treatment-emergent adverse effects. Nevertheless, levels of treatment discontinuation were high, with 43.1% of the participants in the studies withdrawing from medication treatment. Certain adverse effects, such as sexual problems, were commonly reported after treatment with paroxetine and sertraline.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence-base for the effectiveness of medication in treating anxiety disorders and comorbid alcohol use disorders is currently inconclusive. There was a small amount of evidence for the efficacy of medication, but this was limited and of very low quality. The majority of the data for the efficacy and tolerability of medication were for SSRIs; there were insufficient data to establish differences in treatment efficacy between medication classes or patient subgroups. There was a small amount of very low quality evidence that medication was well tolerated. There was no evidence that alcohol use was responsive to medication.\nLarge, rigorously conducted RCTs would help supplement the small evidence-base for the efficacy and tolerability of pharmacotherapy for anxiety and comorbid alcohol use disorders. Further research on patient subgroups who may benefit from pharmacological treatment, as well as novel pharmacological interventions, is warranted.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Which studies were included in the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review found five RCTs in 290 adults (average age 37.4 years) with anxiety and alcohol use disorders. The evidence is current up to January 2014. Two trials looked at social anxiety disorder, two looked at post-traumatic stress disorder and one trial looked at generalized anxiety disorder. All of the included trials took place in the USA. Most of the study participants were male (70%), and were classified as having alcohol dependence (79%)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2214 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAsthma severity and control can be measured both subjectively and objectively. Sputum analysis for evaluation of percentage of sputum eosinophilia directly measures airway inflammation, and is one method of objectively monitoring asthma. Using sputum analysis to adjust or tailor asthma medications is potentially superior to traditional methods based on symptoms and spirometry.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy of tailoring asthma interventions based on sputum analysis in comparison to traditional methods (usually symptom-based with or without spirometry/peak flow) for asthma-related outcomes in children and adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, trials' registries, and reference lists of articles. The last search was conducted in February 2017.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled comparisons of adjustment of asthma therapy based on sputum eosinophils compared to traditional methods (primarily clinical symptoms and spirometry/peak flow).\nData collection and analysis\nResults of searches were reviewed against pre-determined criteria for inclusion. In this update, two reviewers selected relevant studies, independently assessed trial quality and extracted the data. We contacted authors for further information when relevant. We analysed data as 'treatment received' and performed sensitivity analyses.\nMain results\nThree new studies were added in this update, resulting in a total of six included studies (five in adults and one involving children/adolescents). These six studies were clinically and methodologically heterogeneous (use of medications, cut-off for percentage of sputum eosinophils and definition of asthma exacerbation). Of 374 participants randomised, 333 completed the trials. In the meta-analysis, there was a significant reduction in the occurrence of any exacerbations when treatment was based on sputum eosinophil counts, compared to that based on clinical symptoms with or without lung function; pooled odds ratio (OR) was 0.57 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 0.86). The risk of having one or more exacerbations over 16 months was 82% in the control arm and 62% (95% CI 49% to 74%) in the sputum strategy arm, resulting in a number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) of 6 (95% CI 4 to 13).\nThere were also differences between the groups in the rate of exacerbation (any exacerbation per year) and severity of exacerbations defined by requirement for use of oral corticosteroids and hospitalisations: the risk of one or more hospitalisations over 16 months was 24% in controls compared to 8% (95% CI 3% to 21%) in the sputum arm. Data for clinical symptoms, quality of life and spirometry were not significantly different between groups. The mean dose of inhaled corticosteroids per day was also similar in both groups. However sputum induction was not always possible. The included studies did not record any adverse events.\nOne study was not blinded and thus was considered to have a high risk of bias. However, when this study was removed in a sensitivity analysis, the difference between the groups for the primary outcome (exacerbations) remained statistically significant between groups. The GRADE quality of the evidence ranged from moderate (for the outcomes 'Occurrence of any exacerbation' and 'Hospitalisation' ) to low (for the outcome 'Mean dose of inhaled corticosteroids per person per day') due to the inconsistency in defining exacerbations and the small number of hospital admissions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn this updated review, tailoring asthma interventions based on sputum eosinophils is beneficial in reducing the frequency of asthma exacerbations in adults with asthma. Adults with frequent exacerbations and severe asthma may derive the greatest benefit from this additional monitoring test, although we were unable to confirm this through subgroup analysis. There is insufficient data available to assess tailoring asthma medications based on sputum eosinophilia in children.\nFurther robust RCTs need to be undertaken and these should include participants with different underlying asthma severities and endotypes.\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 studies that compared adjustment of asthma medicines by counting sputum eosinophils versus usual care. To be included, the studies has to decide who would be in which group by chance. The participants all had asthma, diagnosed according to asthma guidelines.\nThe most recent search for studies was undertaken in February 2017.\nThis updated review includes six studies involving 382 people with asthma (55 children/adolescents, 327 adults). The studies varied in several ways including study duration and follow-up, sputum eosinophil counts used for adjusting medication and the way the asthma attacks were defined. Studies were between 6 and 24 months long. The age spread of participants in the studies was 12 to 48 years."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2215 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSickle cell disease is the most common single gene disorder and the commonest haemoglobinopathy found with high prevalence in many populations across the world. Management of dental complications in people with sickle cell disease requires special consideration for three main reasons. Firstly, dental and oral tissues are affected by the blood disorder resulting in several oro-facial abnormalities. Secondly, living with a haemoglobinopathy and coping with its associated serious consequences may result in individuals neglecting their oral health care. Finally, the treatment of these oral complications must be adapted to the systemic condition and special needs of these individuals, in order not to exacerbate or deteriorate their general health.\nGuidelines for the treatment of dental complications in this population who require special care are unclear and even unavailable in many aspects. Hence this review was undertaken to provide a basis for clinical care by investigating and analysing the existing evidence in the literature for the treatment of dental complications in people with sickle cell disease. This is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo assess methods of treating dental complications in people with sickle cell disease.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Review Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books.\nDate of last search: 01 August 2019.\nAdditionally, we searched nine online databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Literature in the Health Sciences in Latin America and the Caribbean database, African Index Medicus, Index Medicus for South East Asia Region, Index Medicus for the Eastern Mediterranean Region, Indexing of Indian Medical Journals). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews and contacted haematologists, experts in fields of dentistry, organizations, pharmaceutical companies and researchers working in this field.\nDate of last search: 07 November 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for published or unpublished randomised controlled studies of treatments for dental complications in people with sickle cell disease.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors intended to independently extract data and assess the risk of bias of the included studies using standard Cochrane methodologies; however, no studies were identified for inclusion in the review.\nMain results\nNo randomised controlled studies were identified.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis Cochrane Review did not identify any randomised controlled studies assessing interventions for the treatment of dental complications in people with sickle cell disease. There is an important need for randomised controlled studies in this area, so as to identify the most effective and safe method for treating dental complications in people with sickle cell disease.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "No studies were identified, so we can not draw any conclusions or highlight any implications for practice. Studies are needed to establish the best treatment for dental problems in people with sickle cell disease.Quality of the evidence\nThere is no evidence from studies (where people are given one treatment or another completely at random) for any treatment for dental complications in people with sickle cell disease."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2216 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMechanical methods were the first methods developed to ripen the cervix and induce labour. During recent decades they have been substituted by pharmacological methods. Potential advantages of mechanical methods, compared with pharmacological methods may include reduction in side effects that could improve neonatal outcomes. This is an update of a review first published in 2001, last updated in 2012.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness and safety of mechanical methods for third trimester (> 24 weeks' gestation) induction of labour in comparison with prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) (vaginal and intracervical), low-dose misoprostol (oral and vaginal), amniotomy or oxytocin.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies (9 January 2018). We updated the search in March 2019 and added the search results to the awaiting classification section of the review.\nSelection criteria\nClinical trials comparing mechanical methods used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with pharmacological methods.\nMechanical methods include: (1) the introduction of a catheter through the cervix into the extra-amniotic space with balloon insufflation; (2) introduction of laminaria tents, or their synthetic equivalent (Dilapan), into the cervical canal; (3) use of a catheter to inject fluid into the extra-amniotic space (EASI).\nThis review includes the following comparisons: (1) specific mechanical methods (balloon catheter, laminaria tents or EASI) compared with prostaglandins (different types, different routes) or with oxytocin; (2) single balloon compared to a double balloon; (3) addition of prostaglandins or oxytocin to mechanical methods compared with prostaglandins or oxytocin alone.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nThis review includes a total of 112 trials, with 104 studies contributing data (22,055 women; 21 comparisons). Risk of bias of trials varied. Overall, the evidence was graded from very-low to moderate quality. All evidence was downgraded for lack of blinding and, for many comparisons, the effect estimates were too imprecise to make a valid judgement.\nBalloon versus vaginal PGE2: there may be little or no difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.26; 7 studies; 1685 women; low-quality evidence) and there probably is little or no difference in caesarean sections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 28 studies; 6619 women; moderate-quality evidence) between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal PGE2. A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.67; 6 studies; 1966 women; moderate-quality evidence), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.93; 8 studies; 2757 women; moderate-quality evidence) and may slightly reduce the risk of aneonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04; 3647 women; 12 studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.12; 4 studies; 1481 women) or five-minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.14; 4271 women; 14 studies) because the quality of the evidence was found to be very low and low, respectively.\nBalloon versus low-dose vaginal misoprostol: it is uncertain whether there is a difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal misoprostol (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.39; 340 women; 2 studies; low-quality evidence). A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 1322 women; 8 studies; moderate-quality evidence) but may increase the risk of a caesarean section (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.60; 1756 women; 12 studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.66; 381 women; 3 studies), serious maternal morbidity or death (no events; 4 studies, 464 women), both very low-quality evidence, and five-minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.97; 941 women; 7 studies) and NICU admissions (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.63; 1302 women; 9 studies) both low-quality evidence.\nBalloon versus low-dose oral misoprostol: a balloon catheter probably increases the risk of a vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.46; 782 women, 2 studies, and probably slightly increases the risk of a caesarean section (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32; 3178 women; 7 studies; both moderate-quality evidence) when compared to oral misoprostol. It is uncertain whether there is a difference in uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.38; 2033 women; 2 studies), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.06; 2627 women; 3 studies), both low-quality evidence, serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.52; 2627 women; 3 studies), very low-quality evidence, five-minute Apgar scores < 7 (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.32; 2693 women; 4 studies) and NICU admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.17; 2873 women; 5 studies) both low-quality evidence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow- to moderate-quality evidence shows mechanical induction with a balloon is probably as effective as induction of labour with vaginal PGE2. However, a balloon seems to have a more favourable safety profile. More research on this comparison does not seem warranted.\nModerate-quality evidence shows a balloon catheter may be slightly less effective as oral misoprostol, but it remains unclear if there is a difference in safety outcomes for the neonate. When compared to low-dose vaginal misoprostol, low-quality evidence shows a balloon may be less effective, but probably has a better safety profile.\nFuture research could be focused more on safety aspects for the neonate and maternal satisfaction.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What evidence did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "For this review we included a total of 112 randomised controlled trials involving 22,055 women who were scheduled for induction of labour for different indications. The data contributed to 21 different comparisons. Overall, the evidence was graded from very low to moderate quality. For many comparisons there were too few women in the trials to determine any clear differences in serious illness for mothers and babies.\nTwenty-eight trials (6619 women) showed mechanical induction with a balloon is as effective as vaginal PGE2 as there may be little or no difference in vaginal deliveries within 24 hours and there probably is little or no difference in caesarean sections between groups. However, a balloon appears to be safer for the neonate as it probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with an abnormal heart rate of the baby, serious illness or death of the baby and may slightly reduce the risk for a neonatal intensive care unit admission. It was unclear if there was a difference in serious illness or death of the mother or in the five-minute Apgar score less than seven.\nThirteen trials (1818 women) compared induction of labour with a balloon with vaginal misoprostol and showed a balloon probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with an abnormal heart rate of the baby, but may increase the risk of a caesarean section. It was unclear if there was a difference in vaginal deliveries within 24 hours, serious illness or death of the baby, serious illness or death of the mother, five-minute Apgar score less than seven or neonatal intensive care unit admissions.\nSeven trials (3178 women) showed a balloon may be less effective than oral misoprostol as a balloon probably increases the risk of a vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours and probably slightly increases the risk of a caesarean section. Data on safety are still unclear as it is uncertain whether there is a difference in uterine hyperstimulation with an abnormal heart rate of the baby, serious illness or death of the baby, serious illness or death of the mother, five-minute Apgar score less than seven or neonatal intensive care unit admissions."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2217 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nObservational studies suggest higher pregnancy rates after the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions, which are present in 10% to 15% of women seeking treatment for subfertility.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions suspected on ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or prior to intrauterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases from their inception to 16 April 2018; The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online, ; MEDLINE, Embase , CINAHL , and other electronic sources of trials including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature, and reference lists. We handsearched the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) conference abstracts and proceedings (from 1 January 2014 to 12 May 2018) and we contacted experts in the field.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for unexplained subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities.\nRandomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities prior to medically assisted reproduction.\nPrimary outcomes were live birth and hysteroscopy complications. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy and miscarriage.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.\nMain results\nTwo studies met the inclusion criteria.\n1. Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for unexplained subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities.\nIn women with otherwise unexplained subfertility and submucous fibroids, we were uncertain whether hysteroscopic myomectomy improved the clinical pregnancy rate compared to expectant management (odds ratio (OR) 2.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 6.17; P = 0.06, 94 women; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether hysteroscopic myomectomy improves the miscarriage rate compared to expectant management (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.00; P = 0.47, 94 women; very low-quality evidence). We found no data on live birth or hysteroscopy complication rates. We found no studies in women with endometrial polyps, intrauterine adhesions or uterine septum for this randomised comparison.\n2. Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities prior to medically assisted reproduction.\nThe hysteroscopic removal of polyps prior to IUI may have improved the clinical pregnancy rate compared to diagnostic hysteroscopy only: if 28% of women achieved a clinical pregnancy without polyp removal, the evidence suggested that 63% of women (95% CI 45% to 89%) achieved a clinical pregnancy after the hysteroscopic removal of the endometrial polyps (OR 4.41, 95% CI 2.45 to 7.96; P < 0.00001, 204 women; low-quality evidence). We found no data on live birth, hysteroscopy complication or miscarriage rates in women with endometrial polyps prior to IUI. We found no studies in women with submucous fibroids, intrauterine adhesions or uterine septum prior to IUI or in women with all types of suspected uterine cavity abnormalities prior to IVF/ICSI.\nAuthors' conclusions\nUncertainty remains concerning an important benefit with the hysteroscopic removal of submucous fibroids for improving the clinical pregnancy rates in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility. The available low-quality evidence suggests that the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps suspected on ultrasound in women prior to IUI may improve the clinical pregnancy rate compared to simple diagnostic hysteroscopy. More research is needed to measure the effectiveness of the hysteroscopic treatment of suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities in women with unexplained subfertility or prior to IUI, IVF or ICSI.\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": "Human life starts when a fertilised egg has successfully implanted in the inner layer of the cavity of the womb. It is believed that abnormalities originating from this site, such as polyps (abnormal growth of tissue), fibroids (non-cancerous growth), septa (upside-down, triangular-shaped piece of tissue which divides the womb) or adhesions (scar tissue that sticks the walls of the womb together), may disturb this event. The removal of these abnormalities by doing a hysteroscopy using a very small diameter inspecting device might therefore increase the chance of becoming pregnant either spontaneously or after specialised fertility treatment, such as insemination or in vitro fertilisation."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2218 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with liver cirrhosis who have had one episode of variceal bleeding are at risk for repeated episodes of bleeding. Endoscopic intervention and portosystemic shunts are used to prevent further bleeding, but there is no consensus as to which approach is preferable.\nObjectives\nTo compare the benefits and harms of shunts (surgical shunts (total shunt (TS), distal splenorenal shunt (DSRS), or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS)) versus endoscopic intervention (endoscopic sclerotherapy or banding, or both) with or without medical treatment (non-selective beta blockers or nitrates, or both) for prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with liver cirrhosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the CHBG Controlled Trials Register; CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; LILACS (Bireme); Science Citation Index - Expanded (Web of Science); and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (Web of Science); as well as conference proceedings and the references of trials identified until 22 June 2020. We contacted study investigators and industry researchers.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised clinical trials comparing shunts versus endoscopic interventions with or without medical treatment in people with cirrhosis who had recovered from a variceal haemorrhage.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. When possible, we collected data to allow intention-to-treat analysis. For each outcome, we estimated a meta-analysed estimate of treatment effect across trials (risk ratio for binary outcomes). We used random-effects model meta-analysis as our main analysis and as a means of presenting results. We reported differences in means for continuous outcomes without a meta-analytic estimate due to high variability in their assessment among all trials. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe identified 27 randomised trials with 1828 participants. Three trials assessed TSs, five assessed DSRSs, and 19 trials assessed TIPSs. The endoscopic intervention was sclerotherapy in 16 trials, band ligation in eight trials, and a combination of band ligation and either sclerotherapy or glue injection in three trials. In eight trials, endoscopy was combined with beta blockers (in one trial plus isosorbide mononitrate). We judged all trials to be at high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence for all the outcome review results as very low (i.e. the true effects of the results are likely to be substantially different from the results of estimated effects). The very low evidence grading is due to the overall high risk of bias for all trials, and to imprecision and publication bias for some outcomes. Therefore, we are very uncertain whether portosystemic shunts versus endoscopy interventions with or without medical treatment have effects on all-cause mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.13; 1828 participants; 27 trials), on rebleeding (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.50; 1769 participants; 26 trials), on mortality due to rebleeding (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76; 1779 participants; 26 trials), and on occurrence of hepatic encephalopathy, both acute (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.92; 1649 participants; 24 trials) and chronic (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.38 to 4.55; 956 participants; 13 trials). No data were available regarding health-related quality of life.\nAnalysing each modality of portosystemic shunts individually (i.e. TS, DSRS, and TIPS) versus endoscopic interventions with or without medical treatment, we are very uncertain if each type of shunt has effect on all-cause mortality: TS, RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.13; 164 participants; 3 trials; DSRS, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.33; 352 participants; 4 trials; and TIPS, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.31; 1312 participants; 19 trial; on rebleeding: TS, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.56; 127 participants; 2 trials; DSRS, RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.65; 330 participants; 5 trials; and TIPS, RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.55; 1312 participants; 19 trials; on mortality due to rebleeding: TS, RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.96; 164 participants; 3 trials; DSRS, RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.74; 352 participants; 5 trials; and TIPS, RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.04; 1263 participants; 18 trials; on acute hepatic encephalopathy: TS, RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.92; 115 participants; 2 trials; DSRS, RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.94 to 3.08; 287 participants; 4 trials, TIPS, RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.99; 1247 participants; 18 trials; and chronic hepatic encephalopathy: TS, Fisher's exact test P = 0.11; 69 participants; 1 trial; DSRS, RR 4.87, 95% CI 1.46 to 16.23; 170 participants; 2 trials; and TIPS, RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.93 to 3.80; 717 participants; 10 trials.\nThe proportion of participants with shunt occlusion or dysfunction was overall 37% (95% CI 33% to 40%). It was 3% (95% CI 0.8% to 10%) following TS, 7% (95% CI 3% to 13%) following DSRS, and 47.1% (95% CI 43% to 51%) following TIPS. Shunt dysfunction in trials utilising polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents was 17% (95% CI 11% to 24%).\nLength of inpatient hospital stay and cost were not comparable across trials.\nFunding was unclear in 16 trials; 11 trials were funded by government, local hospitals, or universities.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence on whether portosystemic shunts versus endoscopy interventions with or without medical treatment in people with cirrhosis and previous hypertensive portal bleeding have little or no effect on all-cause mortality is very uncertain. Evidence on whether portosystemic shunts may reduce bleeding and mortality due to bleeding while increasing hepatic encephalopathy is also very uncertain. We need properly conducted trials to assess effects of these interventions not only on assessed outcomes, but also on quality of life, costs, and length of hospital stay.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Evidence suggesting whether shunt treatments compared with endoscopic treatments with or without further medications alter the overall risk of death from any cause (all-cause mortality), reduce the risk of bleeding from varices, or reduce the risk of dying from bleeding varices (death due to variceal bleeding) was very uncertain.\nEvidence that people treated with shunts compared with endoscopic treatments with or without further medications are at increased risk of acute hepatic encephalopathy (brain dysfunction associated with liver disease) or chronic hepatic encephalopathy (brain dysfunction that occurs repeatedly or does not fully improve) was also very uncertain.\nWe could not conclude with certainty whether people treated with shunt stayed in hospital longer than people treated with endoscopy with or without further medications, or which treatment was more expensive, as we were not confident that combining the results from different studies would produce a meaningful result. No trials reported on the impact of treatments on patient quality of life."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2219 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPreterm birth remains the major risk factor for the development of intraventricular haemorrhage, an injury that occurs in 25% of very low birth weight infants. Intraventricular haemorrhage is thought to be venous in origin and intrinsic thromboses in the germinal matrix are likely to play a triggering role. Heparin activates antithrombin and promotes the inactivation of thrombin and other target proteinases. The administration of anticoagulants such as heparin may offset the increased risk of developing intraventricular haemorrhage and may also reduce the risk of developing parenchymal venous infarct, a condition known to complicate intraventricular haemorrhage.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether the prophylactic administration of heparin reduces the incidence of germinal matrix-intraventricular haemorrhage in very preterm neonates when compared to placebo, no treatment, or other anticoagulants.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2015), MEDLINE (1996 to 22 November 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 22 November 2015) and CINAHL (1982 to 22 November 2015), applying no language restrictions. We searched the abstracts of the major congresses in the field (Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand and Pediatric Academic Societies) from 2000 to 2015.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised controlled trials and cluster trials comparing the administration of early, i.e. within the first 24 hours of life, heparin in very preterm infants (gestational age < 32 weeks).\nData collection and analysis\nFor each of the included trials, two authors independently extracted data (e.g. number of participants, birth weight, gestational age, dose of heparin, mode of administration, and duration of therapy, etc.) and assessed the risk of bias (e.g. adequacy of randomisation, blinding, completeness of follow up). The primary outcomes considered in this review are intraventricular haemorrhage, severe intraventricular haemorrhage and neonatal mortality.\nMain results\nTwo randomised controlled trials enrolling a total of 155 infants met the inclusion criteria of this review. Both trials compared low-dose heparin to the same solution without heparin in very preterm newborns requiring umbilical catheterisation. No trials were identified that specifically studied the use of heparin in infants at risk of germinal matrix-intraventricular haemorrhage.\nWe found no differences in the rates of intraventricular haemorrhage (typical RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.41; typical RD −0.03, 95% CI −0.17 to 0.12; 2 studies, 155 infants; I² = 57% for RR and I² = 65% for RD), severe intraventricular haemorrhage (typical RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.23; typical RD 0.00, 95% CI −0.11 to 0.11; 2 studies, 155 infants; I² = 0% for RR and I² = 0% for RD) and neonatal mortality (typical RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.67; typical RD −0.04, 95% CI −0.14 to 0.06; 2 studies, 155 infants; I² = 28% for RR and I² = 50% for RD). We judged the quality of the evidence supporting these findings as very low (rates of intraventricular haemorrhage) and low (severe intraventricular haemorrhage and neonatal mortality) mainly because of limitations in the study designs and the imprecision of estimates. We found very few data on other relevant outcomes, such as bronchopulmonary dysplasia, pulmonary haemorrhage and patent ductus arteriosus; and no study assessing long-term outcomes (e.g. neurodevelopmental disability).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is very limited data on the effect of prophylactic administration of heparin on the incidence and severity of IVH in very preterm neonates. Both the identified trials used heparin in the context of maintaining umbilical line patency and not specifically as an agent to prevent germinal matrix-intraventricular haemorrhage. Given the imprecision of our estimates, the results of this systematic review are consistent with either a benefit or a detrimental effect of heparin and do not provide a definitive answer to the review question. Limited evidence is available on other clinically relevant outcomes.\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": "Heparin is a drug that modulates blood coagulation together with other factors. On the basis of an observational study in very preterm infants, it has been suggested that the administration of drugs that prevent clotting (anticoagulants) such as heparin may reduce the risk of intraventricular haemorrhage and progression of intraventricular haemorrhage, a frequent complication of preterm neonates. This systematic review synthesises the available evidence on the effectiveness of heparin in preventing intraventricular haemorrhage in very preterm neonates."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2220 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe primary manifestation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is respiratory insufficiency that can also be related to diffuse pulmonary microthrombosis and thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, or arterial thrombosis. People with COVID-19 who develop thromboembolism have a worse prognosis.\nAnticoagulants such as heparinoids (heparins or pentasaccharides), vitamin K antagonists and direct anticoagulants are used for the prevention and treatment of venous or arterial thromboembolism. Besides their anticoagulant properties, heparinoids have an additional anti-inflammatory potential. However, the benefit of anticoagulants for people with COVID-19 is still under debate.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention in people hospitalised with COVID-19.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and IBECS databases, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and medRxiv preprint database from their inception to 14 April 2021. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified, and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials.\nSelection criteria\nEligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cohort studies that compared prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention for the management of people hospitalised with COVID-19. We excluded studies without a comparator group and with a retrospective design (all previously included studies) as we were able to include better study designs. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and necessity for additional respiratory support. Secondary outcomes were mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, adverse events, length of hospital stay and quality of life.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used Cochrane RoB 1 to assess the risk of bias for RCTs, ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias for non-randomised studies (NRS) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We meta-analysed data when appropriate.\nMain results\nWe included seven studies (16,185 participants) with participants hospitalised with COVID-19, in either intensive care units, hospital wards or emergency departments. Studies were from Brazil (2), Iran (1), Italy (1), and the USA (1), and two involved more than country. The mean age of participants was 55 to 68 years and the follow-up period ranged from 15 to 90 days. The studies assessed the effects of heparinoids, direct anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists, and reported sparse data or did not report some of our outcomes of interest: necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life.\nHigher-dose versus lower-dose anticoagulants (4 RCTs, 4647 participants)\nHigher-dose anticoagulants result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16, 4489 participants; 4 RCTs) and increase minor bleeding (RR 3.28, 95% CI 1.75 to 6.14, 1196 participants; 3 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (high-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants probably reduce pulmonary embolism (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70, 4360 participants; 4 RCTs), and slightly increase major bleeding (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.80, 4400 participants; 4 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in deep vein thrombosis (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.03, 3422 participants; 4 RCTs), stroke (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.03, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), major adverse limb events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99, 1176 participants; 2 RCTs), myocardial infarction (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.55, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), atrial fibrillation (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.70, 562 participants; 1 study), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.24, 2789 participants; 2 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether higher-dose anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data).\nAnticoagulants versus no treatment (3 prospective NRS, 11,538 participants)\nAnticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence is very uncertain due to two study results being at critical and serious risk of bias (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.74, 8395 participants; 3 NRS; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, stroke, myocardial infarction and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data).\nOngoing studies\nWe found 62 ongoing studies in hospital settings (60 RCTs, 35,470 participants; 2 prospective NRS, 120 participants) in 20 different countries. Thirty-five ongoing studies plan to report mortality and 26 plan to report necessity for additional respiratory support. We expect 58 studies to be completed in December 2021, and four in July 2022. From 60 RCTs, 28 are comparing different doses of anticoagulants, 24 are comparing anticoagulants versus no anticoagulants, seven are comparing different types of anticoagulants, and one did not report detail of the comparator group.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhen compared to a lower-dose regimen, higher-dose anticoagulants result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality and increase minor bleeding in people hospitalised with COVID-19 up to 30 days. Higher-dose anticoagulants possibly reduce pulmonary embolism, slightly increase major bleeding, may result in little to no difference in hospitalisation time, and may result in little to no difference in deep vein thrombosis, stroke, major adverse limb events, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, or thrombocytopenia.\nCompared with no treatment, anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence comes from non-randomised studies and is very uncertain. It is unclear whether anticoagulants have any effect on the remaining outcomes compared to no anticoagulants (very low-certainty evidence or no data).\nAlthough we are very confident that new RCTs will not change the effects of different doses of anticoagulants on mortality and minor bleeding, high-quality RCTs are still needed, mainly for the other primary outcome (necessity for additional respiratory support), the comparison with no anticoagulation, when comparing the types of anticoagulants and giving anticoagulants for a prolonged period of time.\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 assessed blood thinners given to people hospitalised with COVID-19 to prevent blood clots. Studies could be of any design as long as they compared a blood thinner with another blood thinner, no treatment or a placebo. Studies could take place anywhere in the world and participants could be any age as long as they were in hospital with confirmed COVID-19 disease. We pooled the results when appropriate."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2221 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAs a result of the essential role of oestrogens in epiphyseal closure, aromatase inhibitors have been trialled as an intervention to improve height outcomes in male children and adolescents by inhibiting the conversion of testosterone to oestradiol.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of aromatase inhibitors in male children and adolescents with short stature.\nSearch methods\nTo identify relevant trials, we searched the Cochrane Library (2014, Issue 7), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the World Health Organization (WHO) ICTRP trial register from their inception until August 2014. In addition, we conducted citation searches and screened reference lists of included trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) if they compared use of an aromatase inhibitor with placebo in male children and adolescents with short stature.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance. Both authors carried out screening for inclusion, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment, with any disagreements resolved following discussion. We assessed trials for quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) instrument. We contacted study authors regarding missing information. Primary outcomes were final or near-final height, adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, cognitive outcomes, socioeconomic effects, laboratory measures, short-term growth parameters, and assessment of effects on bone health. Meta-analysis was not appropriate due to the substantial clinical heterogeneity between trials; we presented the findings of the review in narrative format.\nMain results\nWe included four RCTs involving 207 participants (84 on interventions) in the review. Trials included males with constitutional delay of growth and puberty (CDGP), idiopathic short stature (ISS), and growth hormone (GH) deficiency. Three of the trials had an overall low or unclear risk of bias for primary outcomes. Short-term growth outcomes, such as predicted adult height, improved in all trials. Just one trial reported the primary outcome of final and near-final height as an extension under non-randomised conditions. None of the trials assessed health-related quality of life. One publication provided detailed information regarding the incidence of adverse events. A significant proportion (45%) of prepubertal boys with ISS treated with letrozole developed mild morphological abnormalities of their vertebrae, compared with none in the placebo group.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAvailable evidence suggested that aromatase inhibitors improved short-term growth outcomes. There was no evidence to support an increase in final adult height, based on limited data, with only one of four trials publishing final height data under non-randomised conditions.\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": "Aromatase inhibitors are an orally available medicine used to prevent conversion of the male hormone, testosterone, to oestrogen. In both sexes, oestrogen causes closure of the growth plates (areas produce new bone growth and so lengthen bones) in long bones (e.g. thigh bone) when growth is complete at the end of puberty. Blocking this conversion in boys reduces oestrogen levels and can prolong the period of growth, and theoretically increase adult height. Oestrogen is important for female pubertal development, and thus, aromatase inhibitors are not suitable for use in teenage girls. Aromatase inhibitors are currently not approved to treat short stature but are rather used as an 'off-label' medicine (i.e. they are licensed to treat other illnesses)."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2222 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nStatins are lipid-lowering agents with pleiotropic actions. Experts have proposed that in addition to improving the dyslipidaemia associated with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), statins may also exert other beneficial metabolic and endocrine effects, such as reducing testosterone levels. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2011.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of statin therapy in women with PCOS who are not actively trying to conceive.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHLs, and four ongoing trials registers on 7 November 2022. We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings and the reference lists of relevant trials for any additional studies, and we contacted experts in the field for any further ongoing studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of statin therapy in women with PCOS not actively trying to conceive. Eligible comparisons were statin versus placebo or no treatment, statin plus another agent versus the other agent alone, and statin versus another agent. We performed statistical analysis using Review Manager 5, and we assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE methods.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodology. Our primary outcomes were resumption of menstrual regularity and resumption of spontaneous ovulation. Our secondary outcomes were clinical and physiological measures including hirsutism, acne severity, testosterone levels, and adverse events.\nMain results\nSix RCTs fulfilled the criteria for inclusion. They included 396 women with PCOS who received six weeks, three months, or six months of treatment; 374 women completed the studies. Three studies evaluated the effects of simvastatin and three studies evaluated the effects of atorvastatin. We summarised the results of the studies under the following comparisons.\nStatins versus placebo (3 RCTs)\nOne trial measured resumption of menstrual regularity as menstrual cycle length in days. We are uncertain if statins compared with placebo shorten the mean length of the menstrual cycle (mean difference (MD) −2.00 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) −24.86 to 20.86; 37 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported resumption of spontaneous ovulation, improvement in hirsutism, or improvement in acne.\nWe are uncertain if statins compared with placebo reduce testosterone levels after six weeks (MD 0.06, 95% CI −0.72 to 0.84; 1 RCT, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence), after 3 months (MD −0.53, 95% CI −1.61 to 0.54; 2 RCTs, 64 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or after 6 months (MD 0.10, 95% CI −0.43 to 0.63; 1 RCT, 28 participants; very low-certainty evidence)\nTwo studies recorded adverse events, and neither reported significant differences between the groups.\nStatins plus metformin versus metformin alone (1 RCT)\nThe single RCT included in this comparison measured resumption of menstrual regularity as the number of spontaneous menses per six months. We are uncertain if statins plus metformin compared with metformin improves resumption of menstrual regularity (MD 0.60 menses, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.12; 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report resumption of spontaneous ovulation.\nWe are uncertain if statins plus metformin compared with metformin alone improves hirsutism measured using the Ferriman-Gallwey score (MD −0.16, 95% CI −0.91 to 0.59; 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence), acne severity measured on a scale of 0 to 3 (MD −0.31, 95% CI −0.67 to 0.05; 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or testosterone levels (MD −0.03, 95% CI −0.37 to 0.31; 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported that no significant adverse events occurred.\nStatins plus oral contraceptive pill versus oral contraceptive pill alone (1 RCT)\nThe single RCT included in this comparison did not report resumption of menstrual regularity or spontaneous ovulation. We are uncertain if statins plus the oral contraceptive pill (OCP) improves hirsutism compared with OCP alone (MD −0.12, 95% CI −0.41 to 0.17; 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report improvement in acne severity. We are also uncertain if statins plus OCP compared with OCP alone reduces testosterone levels, because the certainty of the evidence was very low (MD −0.82, 95% CI −1.38 to −0.26; 48 participants). The study reported that no participants experienced significant side effects.\nStatins versus metformin (2 RCTs)\nWe are uncertain if statins improve menstrual regularity compared with metformin (number of spontaneous menses per six months) compared to metformin (MD 0.50 menses, 95% CI −0.05 to 1.05; 1 RCT, 61 participants, very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported resumption of spontaneous ovulation.\nWe are uncertain if statins compared with metformin reduce hirsutism measured using the Ferriman-Gallwey score (MD −0.26, 95% CI −0.97 to 0.45; 1 RCT, 61 participants; very low-certainty evidence), acne severity measured on a scale of 0 to 3 (MD −0.18, 95% CI −0.53 to 0.17; 1 RCT, 61 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or testosterone levels (MD −0.24, 95% CI −0.58 to 0.10; 1 RCT, 61 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nBoth trials reported that no significant adverse events had occurred.\nStatins versus oral contraceptive pill plus flutamide (1 RCT)\nAccording to the study report, no participants experienced any significant side effects. There were no available data for any other main outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence for all main outcomes of this review was of very low certainty. Due to the limited evidence, we are uncertain if statins compared with placebo, or statins plus metformin compared with metformin alone, improve resumption of menstrual regularity. The trial evaluating statin plus OCP versus OCP alone reported neither of our primary outcomes. No other studies reported resumption of spontaneous ovulation. We are uncertain if statins improve hirsutism, acne severity, or testosterone. All trials that measured adverse events reported no significant differences between the groups.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How can polycystic ovary syndrome be treated?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Statins are medicines that help lower the levels of 'bad' lipids (fats) in the blood to prevent heart disease; they may also prevent other metabolic conditions. High levels of male hormones (testosterone) is one of the most prominent features of PCOS. This is called androgen excess, and it is associated with several metabolic disorders such as insulin resistance, diabetes, and increased risk of heart disease. Therefore, reducing the level of male hormones could be beneficial for women with PCOS. Statins may interfere with male hormone production, but it is unclear whether they can directly reduce testosterone levels. Long-term use of statins may have risks. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the benefits and risks of statins in women with PCOS."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2223 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPreterm infants are born with low skeletal stores of calcium and phosphorus. Preterm human milk provides insufficient calcium and phosphorus to meet the estimated needs of preterm infants for adequate growth. Supplementation of human milk with calcium and phosphorus may improve growth and development of preterm infants.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether addition of calcium and phosphorus supplements to human milk leads to improved growth and bone metabolism of preterm infants without significant adverse effects.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 14 April 2016), Embase (1980 to 14 April 2016) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to 14 April 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases (11 May 2016) and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing supplementation of human milk with calcium and/or phosphorus versus no supplementation in hospitalised preterm infants were eligible for inclusion in this review.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors (JB, JW) independently extracted data and assessed trial quality using standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. We reported dichotomous data as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous data as mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of evidence.\nMain results\nThis is an update of a 2001 review that identified no eligible trials. One trial including 40 infants met the inclusion criteria for this review. Using GRADE criteria, we judged the quality of the evidence as low owing to risk of bias (inadequate reporting of methods of randomisation, allocation concealment and/or blinding) and imprecision (wide confidence intervals and data from a single small trial). We found no evidence of a difference between calcium and phosphorus supplementation versus no supplementation for neonatal growth outcomes (weight, length, head circumference) at any time point reported (two, four or six weeks postnatal age). At six weeks postnatal age, supplementation with calcium/phosphorus was associated with a decrease in serum alkaline phosphatase concentration (MD -56.85 IU/L, 95% CI -101.27 to -12.43; one randomised controlled trial (RCT); n = 40 infants). Investigators provided no data on growth at 12 to 18 months, neonatal fractures, feed intolerance, breastfeeding or any of the prespecified childhood outcomes for this review (fractures, growth, neurodevelopmental outcomes).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe identified one small trial including only 40 infants that compared supplementation of human milk with calcium and phosphorus versus no supplementation in hospitalised preterm infants. We judged the evidence to be of low quality and found no evidence of differences between groups for clinically important outcomes including growth and fractures. Although serum alkaline phosphatase concentration was reduced in the group receiving supplementation at six weeks postnatal age, this difference is unlikely to be of clinical significance. We conclude that evidence is insufficient to determine whether benefit or harm ensues when human milk is supplemented with calcium and/or phosphorus for the hospitalised preterm infant. We see no advantage of conducting further trials of this intervention because with the advent of multi-component human milk fortifier, supplementation of human milk with calcium and/or phosphorus alone is no longer common practice. Future trials should consider assessing effects of multi-component fortifiers with different mineral compositions on clinically important outcomes during the neonatal period and in later childhood.\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": "Calcium and phosphorus are essential for healthy bones and normal growth and development. When a baby is born preterm and does not receive enough calcium and phosphorus, bone fractures and poor growth can occur."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2224 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDiabetes is the leading cause of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) around the world. Blood pressure lowering and glucose control are used to reduce diabetes-associated disability including kidney failure. However there is a lack of an overall evidence summary of the optimal target range for blood glucose control to prevent kidney failure.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of intensive (HbA1c < 7% or fasting glucose levels < 120 mg/dL versus standard glycaemic control (HbA1c ≥ 7% or fasting glucose levels ≥ 120 mg/dL for preventing the onset and progression of kidney disease among adults with diabetes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register up to 31 March 2017 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\nRandomised controlled trials evaluating glucose-lowering interventions in which people (aged 14 year or older) with type 1 or 2 diabetes with and without kidney disease were randomly allocated to tight glucose control or less stringent blood glucose targets.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and risks of bias, extracted data and checked the processes for accuracy. Outcomes were mortality, cardiovascular complications, doubling of serum creatinine (SCr), ESKD and proteinuria. Confidence in the evidence was assessing using GRADE. 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.\nMain results\nFourteen studies involving 29,319 people with diabetes were included and 11 studies involving 29,141 people were included in our meta-analyses. Treatment duration was 56.7 months on average (range 6 months to 10 years). Studies included people with a range of kidney function. Incomplete reporting of key methodological details resulted in uncertain risks of bias in many studies. Using GRADE assessment, we had moderate confidence in the effects of glucose lowering strategies on ESKD, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and progressive protein leakage by kidney disease and low or very low confidence in effects of treatment on death related to cardiovascular complications and doubling of serum creatinine (SCr).\nFor the primary outcomes, tight glycaemic control may make little or no difference to doubling of SCr compared with standard control (4 studies, 26,874 participants: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.11; I2= 73%, low certainty evidence), development of ESKD (4 studies, 23,332 participants: RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.12; I2= 52%; low certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (9 studies, 29,094 participants: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.13; I2= 50%; moderate certainty evidence), cardiovascular mortality (6 studies, 23,673 participants: RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.92; I2= 85%; low certainty evidence), or sudden death (4 studies, 5913 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.57; I2= 85%; very low certainty evidence). People who received treatment to achieve tighter glycaemic control probably experienced lower risks of non-fatal myocardial infarction (5 studies, 25,596 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.99; I2= 46%, moderate certainty evidence), onset of microalbuminuria (4 studies, 19,846 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.93; I2= 61%, moderate certainty evidence), and progression of microalbuminuria (5 studies, 13,266 participants: RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.93; I2= 75%, moderate certainty evidence). In absolute terms, tight versus standard glucose control treatment in 1,000 adults would lead to between zero and two people avoiding non-fatal myocardial infarction, while seven adults would avoid experiencing new-onset albuminuria and two would avoid worsening albuminuria.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review suggests that people who receive intensive glycaemic control for treatment of diabetes had comparable risks of kidney failure, death and major cardiovascular events as people who received less stringent blood glucose control, while experiencing small clinical benefits on the onset and progression of microalbuminuria and myocardial infarction. The adverse effects of glycaemic management are uncertain. Based on absolute treatment effects, the clinical impact of targeting an HbA1c < 7% or blood glucose < 6.6 mmol/L is unclear and the potential harms of this treatment approach are largely unmeasured.\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": "Fourteen studies involving 29,319 people with at risk of diabetes complications were included and 11 studies involving 29,141 people were included in our analyses. Tighter blood glucose control generally didn't show any benefits for patients compared to less tight glucose control. There was no difference in the risks for patients on kidney failure, death, or heart disease complications. A very small number of patients (1 in every 1000 treated each year) might avoid a heart attack with more intense blood glucose management. Some patients would expect to have less protein leakage through kidney function although the clinical impact of this benefit is unclear in the long term. The potential problems with treatment, such as side effects and risks of very low blood glucose (hypoglycaemia) were not generally measured in the studies."
}
]
|
query-laysum | 2225 | [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSeveral anticonvulsant drugs are used in the management of neuropathic pain. Oxcarbazepine is an anticonvulsant drug closely related to carbamazepine. Oxcarbazepine has been reported to be efficacious in the treatment of neuropathic pain, but evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is conflicting. Oxcarbazepine is reportedly better tolerated than carbamazepine. This is the first update of a review published in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of oxcarbazepine for different types of neuropathic pain.\nSearch methods\nOn 21 November 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase. We searched the Chinese Biomedical Retrieval System (January 1978 to November 2016). We searched the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) databases and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials in January 2017, and we wrote to the companies who make oxcarbazepine and to pain experts requesting additional information.\nSelection criteria\nAll RCTs and randomised cross-over studies of oxcarbazepine for the treatment of people of any age or sex with any neuropathic pain were eligible. We planned to include trials of oxcarbazepine compared with placebo or any other intervention with a treatment duration of at least six weeks, regardless of administration route and dose.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nFive multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials with a total of 862 participants were eligible for inclusion in this updated review. Three trials involved participants with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) (n = 634), one included people with neuropathic pain due to radiculopathy (n = 145), and one, which was newly identified at this update, involved participants with peripheral neuropathic pain of mixed origin (polyneuropathy, peripheral nerve injury or postherpetic neuralgia) (n = 83). Some studies did not report all outcomes of interest. For painful DPN, compared to the baseline, the proportion of participants who reported at least a 50% or 30% reduction of pain scores after 16 weeks of treatment in the oxcarbazepine group versus the placebo group were: at least 50% reduction: 34.8% with oxcarbazepine versus 18.2% with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 3.39, number of people needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 6, 95% CI 3 to 41); and at least 30% reduction: 44.9% with oxcarbazepine versus 28.6% with placebo (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.44; NNTB 6, 95% CI 3 to 114; n = 146). Both results were based on data from a single trial, since two trials that found little or no benefit did not provide data that could be included in a meta-analysis. Although these trials were well designed, incomplete outcome data and possible unblinding of participants due to obvious adverse effects placed the results at a high risk of bias. There was also serious imprecision and a high risk of publication bias. The radiculopathy trial reported no benefit for the outcome 'at least 50% pain relief' from oxcarbazepine. In mixed neuropathies, 19.3% of people receiving oxcarbazepine versus 4.8% receiving placebo had at least 50% pain relief. These small trials had low event rates and provided, at best, low-quality evidence for any outcome. The proportion of people with 'improved' or 'very much improved' pain was 45.9% with oxcarbazepine versus 30.1% with placebo in DPN (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.88; n = 493; 2 trials; very-low-quality evidence) and 23.9% with oxcarbazepine versus 14.9% with placebo in radiculopathy (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.20; n = 145).\nWe found no trials in other types of neuropathic pain such as trigeminal neuralgia.\nTrial reports stated that most adverse effects were mild to moderate in severity. Based on moderate-quality evidence from the three DPN trials, serious adverse effects occurred in 8.3% with oxcarbazepine and 2.5% with placebo (RR 3.65, 95% CI 1.45 to 9.20; n = 634; moderate-quality evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful (serious adverse effect) outcome (NNTH) was 17 (95% CI 11 to 42). The RR for serious adverse effects in the radiculopathy trial was 3.13 (95% CI 0.65 to 14.98, n = 145). The fifth trial did not provide data.\nMore people withdrew because of adverse effects with oxcarbazepine than with placebo (DPN: 25.6% with oxcarbazepine versus 6.8% with placebo; RR 3.83, 95% CI 2.29 to 6.40; radiculopathy: 42.3% with oxcarbazepine versus 14.9% with placebo; RR 2.84, 95% CI 1.55 to 5.23; mixed neuropathic pain: 13.5% with oxcarbazepine versus 1.2% with placebo; RR 11.51, 95% CI 1.54 to 86.15).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review found little evidence to support the effectiveness of oxcarbazepine in painful diabetic neuropathy, neuropathic pain from radiculopathy and a mixture of neuropathies. Some very-low-quality evidence suggests efficacy but small trials, low event rates, heterogeneity in some measures and a high risk of publication bias means that we have very low confidence in the measures of effect. Adverse effects, serious adverse effects and adverse effects leading to discontinuation are probably more common with oxcarbazepine than placebo; however, the numbers of participants and event rates are low. More well-designed, multicentre RCTs investigating oxcarbazepine for various types of neuropathic pain are needed, and selective publication of studies or data should be avoided.\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": "What are the benefits and harms of oxcarbazepine in the treatment of pain caused by nerve damage?"
}
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.