Split (1)

train · 24.7k rows

dataset stringclasses 1 value	id stringlengths 1 5	messages listlengths 2 2
query-laysum	21834	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha inhibitors are beneficial for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for reducing the risk of joint damage, improving physical function and improving the quality of life. This review is an update of the 2014 Cochrane Review of the treatment of RA with certolizumab pegol.\nObjectives\nTo assess the clinical benefits and harms of certolizumab pegol (CZP) in people with RA who have not responded well to conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL: Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 9), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Knowledge, reference lists of articles, clinicaltrials.gov and ICTRP of WHO. The searches were updated from 2014 (date of the last search for the previous version) to 26 September 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials that compared certolizumab pegol with any other agent, including placebo or methotrexate (MTX), in adults with active RA, regardless of current or prior treatment with conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), such as MTX.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently checked search results, extracted data and assessed trial quality. We resolved disagreements by discussion or referral to a third review author.\nMain results\nWe included 14 trials in this update, three more than previously. Twelve trials (5422 participants) included measures of benefit. We pooled 11 of them, two more than previously. Thirteen trials included information on harms, (5273 participants). The duration of follow-up varied from 12 to 52 weeks and the range of doses of certolizumab pegol varied from 50 to 400 mg given subcutaneously. In Phase III trials, the comparator was placebo plus MTX in seven trials and placebo in five. In the two Phase II trials the comparator was only placebo.\nThe approved dose of certolizumab pegol, 200 mg every other week, produced clinically important improvements at 24 weeks for the following outcomes:\n- American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50% improvement (pain, function and other symptoms of RA): 25% absolute improvement (95% confidence interval (CI) 20% to 33%); number need to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 4 (95% CI 3 to 5); risk ratio (RR) 3.80 (95% CI 2.42 to 5.95), 1445 participants, 5 studies.\n- The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ): -12% absolute improvement (95% CI -9% to -14%); NNTB of 8 (95% CI 7 to 11); mean difference (MD) - 0.35 (95% CI -0.43 to -0.26; 1268 participants, 4 studies) (scale 0 to 3; lower scores mean better function).\n- Proportion of participants achieving remission (Disease Activity Score (DAS) < 2.6) absolute improvement 10% (95% CI 8% to 16%); NNTB of 8 (95% CI 6 to 12); risk ratio (RR) 2.94 (95% CI 1.64 to 5.28), 2420 participants, six studies.\n- Radiological changes: erosion score (ES) absolute improvement -0.29% (95% CI -0.42% to -0.17%); NNTB of 6 (95% CI 4 to 10); MD -0.67 (95% CI -0.96 to -0.38); 714 participants, two studies (scale 0 to 230), but not a clinically important difference.\n-Serious adverse events (SAEs) were statistically but not clinically significantly more frequent for certolizumab pegol (200 mg every other week) with an absolute rate difference of 3% (95% CI 1% to 4%); number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) of 33 (95% CI 25 to 100); Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.47 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.91); 3927 participants, nine studies.\nThere was a clinically significant increase in all withdrawals in the placebo groups (for all doses and at all follow-ups) with an absolute rate difference of -29% (95% CI -16% to -42%), NNTH of 3 (95% CI 2 to 6), RR 0.47 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.56); and there was a clinically significant increase in withdrawals due to adverse events in the certolizumab groups (for all doses and at all follow-ups) with an absolute rate difference of 2% (95% CI 0% to 3%); NNTH of 58 (95% CI 28 to 329); Peto OR 1.45 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.94) 5236 participants Twelve studies.\nWe judged the quality of evidence to be high for ACR50, DAS remission, SAEs and withdrawals due to adverse events, and moderate for HAQ and radiological changes, due to concerns about attrition bias. For all withdrawals we judged the quality of evidence to be moderate, due to inconsistency.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results and conclusions did not change from the previous review. There is a moderate to high certainty of evidence from randomised controlled trials that certolizumab pegol, alone or combined with methotrexate, is beneficial in the treatment of RA for improved ACR50 and health-related quality of life, an increased chance of remission of RA, and reduced joint damage as seen on x-ray. Fewer people stopped taking their treatment, but most of these who did stopped due to serious adverse events. Adverse events were more frequent with active treatment. We found a clinically but not statistically significant risk of serious adverse events.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"ACR50 (standard: a 50% improvement in the number of tender or swollen joints and other outcomes such as pain and disability)\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "- 25 more people out of 100 experienced improvements in the symptoms of their rheumatoid arthritis after six months with certolizumab pegol (absolute improvement 25%).\n- 36 people out of 100 who took certolizumab pegol experienced improvements compared to nine people out of 100 who took a placebo (a fake injection).\nWe rate the quality of evidence for ACR50 as high." } ]
query-laysum	21835	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with advanced ovarian or gastrointestinal cancer may develop malignant bowel obstruction (MBO). They are able to tolerate limited, if any, oral or enteral (via a tube directly into the gut) nutrition. Parenteral nutrition (PN) is the provision of macronutrients, micronutrients, electrolytes and fluid infused as an intravenous solution and provides a method for these people to receive nutrients. There are clinical and ethical arguments for and against the administration of PN to people receiving palliative care.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of home parenteral nutrition (HPN) in improving survival and quality of life in people with inoperable MBO.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), BNI, CINAHL, Web of Science and NHS Economic Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment up to January 2018, ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/) and in the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/). In addition, we handsearched included studies and used the ‘Similar articles’ feature on PubMed for included articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included any studies with more than five participants investigating HPN in people over 16 years of age with inoperable MBO.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted the data and assessed risk of bias for each study. We entered data into Review Manager 5 and used GRADEpro to assess the quality of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 13 studies with a total of 721 participants in the review. The studies were observational, 12 studies had only one relevant treatment arm and no control and for the one study with a control arm, very few details were given. The risk of bias was high and the certainty of evidence was graded as very low for all outcomes. Due to heterogeneity of data, meta-analysis was not performed and therefore the data were synthesised via a narrative summary.\nThe evidence for benefit derived from PN was very low for survival and quality of life. All the studies measured overall survival and 636 (88%) of participants were deceased at the end of the study. However there were varying definitions of overall survival that yielded median survival intervals between 15 to 155 days (range three to 1278 days). Three studies used validated measures of quality of life. The results from assessment of quality of life were equivocal; one study reported improvements up until three months and two studies reported approximately similar numbers of participants with improvements and deterioration. Different quality of life scales were used in each of the studies and quality of life was measured at different time points. Due to the very low certainty of the evidence, we are very uncertain about the adverse events related to PN use. Adverse events were measured by nine studies and data for individual participants could be extracted from eight studies. This revealed that 32 of 260 (12%) patients developed a central venous catheter infection or were hospitalised because of complications related to PN.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are very uncertain whether HPN improves survival or quality of life in people with MBO as the certainty of evidence was very low for both outcomes. As the evidence base is limited and at high risk of bias, further higher-quality prospective studies are required.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is it important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "PN in people with blockage of the bowel due to advanced, inoperable cancer is controversial. Treatments are largely limited to best supportive care and there are arguments for and against artificial feeding in this situation. There is some evidence that it may lengthen survival, but the treatment can be burdensome and risky for individuals where quality of life is a priority." } ]
query-laysum	21836	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nNon-transfusion dependent beta thalassaemia is a subset of inherited haemoglobin disorders characterised by reduced production of the beta globin chain of the haemoglobin molecule leading to anaemia of varying severity. Although blood transfusion is not a necessity for survival, it is required when episodes of chronic anaemia occur. This chronic anaemia can impair growth and affect quality of life. People with non-transfusion dependent beta thalassaemia suffer from iron overload due to their body's increased capability of absorbing iron from food sources. Iron overload becomes more pronounced in those requiring blood transfusion. People with a higher foetal haemoglobin level have been found to require fewer blood transfusions. Hydroxyurea has been used to increase foetal haemoglobin level; however, its efficacy in reducing transfusion, chronic anaemia complications and its safety need to be established.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness, safety and appropriate dose regimen of hydroxyurea in people with non-transfusion dependent beta thalassaemia (haemoglobin E combined with beta thalassaemia and beta thalassaemia intermedia).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of relevant journals. We also searched ongoing trials registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.\nDate of last search: 30 April 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of hydroxyurea in people with non-transfusion dependent beta thalassaemia comparing hydroxyurea with placebo or standard treatment or comparing different doses of hydroxyurea.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently applied the inclusion criteria in order to select trials for inclusion. Both authors assessed the risk of bias of trials and extracted the data. A third author verified these assessments.\nMain results\nNo trials comparing hydroxyurea with placebo or standard care were found. However, we included one randomised controlled trial (n = 61) comparing 20 mg/kg/day with 10 mg/kg/day of hydroxyurea for 24 weeks.\nBoth haemoglobin and foetal haemoglobin levels were lower at 24 weeks in the 20 mg group compared with the 10 mg group, mean difference -2.39 (95% confidence interval - 2.8 to -1.98) and mean difference -1.5 (95% confidence interval -1.83 to -1.17), respectively. Major adverse effects were significantly more common in the 20 mg group, for neutropenia risk ratio 9.93 (95% confidence interval 1.34 to 73.97) and for thrombocytopenia risk ratio 3.68 (95% confidence interval 1.13 to 12.07). No difference was reported for minor adverse effects (gastrointestinal disturbances and raised liver enzymes). The effect of hydroxyurea on transfusion frequency was not reported.\nThe overall quality for the outcomes reported was graded as very low mainly because the outcomes were derived from only one small study with an unclear method of allocation concealment.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no evidence from randomised controlled trials to show whether hydroxyurea has any effect compared with controls on the need for blood transfusion. Administration of 10 mg/kg/day compared to 20 mg/kg/day of hydroxyurea resulted in higher haemoglobin levels and seems safer with fewer adverse effects. It has not been reported whether hydroxyurea is capable of reducing the need for blood transfusion. Large well-designed randomised controlled trials with sufficient duration of follow up are recommended.\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 30 April 2016." } ]
query-laysum	21837	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPeyronie's disease is a condition that results in the development of penile plaques that can lead to penile curvature, pain, and erectile dysfunction, making sexual activity difficult. A number of non-surgical interventions exist to improve this condition, which include topical and injection agents as well as mechanical methods; however, their effectiveness remains uncertain. We performed this review to determine the effects of these non-surgical treatments.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of non-surgical therapies compared to placebo or no treatment in individuals with Peyronie's disease.\nSearch methods\nWe performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to 23 September 2022. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status.\nSelection criteria\nWe included trials in which men with Peyronie's disease were randomized to undergo non-surgical therapies versus placebo or no treatment for penile curvature and sexual function.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo of four review authors, working in pairs, independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies. Primary outcomes were: patient-reported ability to have intercourse, quality of life, and treatment-related adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were: degree of penile curvature, discontinuation from treatment (for any reason), subjective patient-reported change in penile curvature, and improvement in penile pain. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model. We rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) according to the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nOur search identified 1288 relevant references of which we included 18 records corresponding to 14 unique randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 1810 men. These informed 10 distinct comparisons with relevant outcome data that were mostly extracted from single trials. In this abstract, we focus only on the most clinically relevant comparisons for the three primary outcomes and also include the outcome of degree penile curvature.\nInjectional collagenase (short-term): We found no short-term evidence on injectional collagenase for patients' self-reported ability to have intercourse and treatment-related adverse effects compared to placebo injection. Injectional collagenase may result in little to no difference in quality of life (scale 0 to 20 with lower scores indicating better quality of life; mean difference (MD) 1.8 lower, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.58 to -0.02; 1 study, 134 participants; low CoE) and there may be little to no effect on the degree of penile curvature (MD 10.90 degrees less, 95% CI -16.24 to -5.56; 1 study, 136 participants; low CoE).\nInjectional collagenase (long-term): We also found no long-term evidence on injectional collagenase for patients' self-reported ability to have intercourse compared to placebo injection. It likely results in little to no effect on quality of life (MD 1.00 lower, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.40; 1 study, 612 participants; moderate CoE). Treatment-related adverse effects are likely increased (risk ratio (RR) 2.32, 95% CI 1.98 to 2.72; 1 study, 832 participants; moderate CoE). Injectional collagenase likely results in little to no change in the degree of penile curvature (MD 6.90 degrees less, 95% CI -9.64 to -4.14; 1 study, 612 participants; moderate CoE).\nInjectional verapamil (short-term): We are very uncertain how injectional verapamil may affect patients' self-reported ability to have intercourse compared to placebo injection short-term (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 114.70; 1 study, 14 participants; very low CoE). We found no evidence for the outcome of quality of life. We are very uncertain how injectional verapamil may affect treatment-related adverse effects (RR not estimable; 1 study, 14 participants; very low CoE). Similarly, we are very uncertain how injectional verapamil may affect degree of penile curvature (MD -1.86, 95% CI -10.39 to 6.67; 1 study, 14 participants; very low CoE). We found no long-term data for any outcome.\nExtracorporeal shock wave treatment (ESWT) (short-term): We are very uncertain how ESWT affects patients' self-reported ability to have intercourse short-term (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.60; 1 study, 26 participants; very low CoE). ESWT may result in little to no difference in quality of life (MD 3.10, 95% CI 1.57 to 4.64; 2 studies, 130 participants; low CoE). We are very uncertain if ESWT has an effect on treatment-related adverse effects (RR 2.73, 95% CI 0.74 to 10.14; 3 studies, 166 participants; very low CoE). ESWT may result in little to no difference in the degree of penile curvature compared to placebo (RR -2.84, 95% -7.35 to 1.67; 3 studies, 166 participants; low CoE). We found no long-term data for any outcome.\nPenile traction therapy (short-term): We found no evidence for whether penile traction compared to no treatment affects patients' self-reported ability to have intercourse. We are very uncertain how traction therapy may affect quality of life (MD 1.50 lower, 95% CI -3.42 to 0.42; 1 study, 90 participants; very low CoE). We are also very uncertain how traction therapy may affect treatment-related adverse effects (RR not estimable; 1 study, 90 participants; very low CoE) and how it affects the degree of curvature (MD 7.40 degrees less, 95% CI -11.18 to -3.62; 1 study, 89 participants; very low CoE). We found no long-term data for any outcome.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is little evidence supporting the effectiveness of most non-surgical treatments for Peyronie’s disease. Existing trials are mostly of poor methodological quality and/or fail to address patient-centered outcomes. Injectional collagenase appears to have some effectiveness; however, many individuals may not experience the improvement as clinically relevant, and this comes with the risk of increased adverse events. There is a critical need for better non-surgical treatment options for men with Peyronie’s disease.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Injectional verapamil (short-term)\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We are very uncertain how injectional verapamil may affect patients' self-reported ability to have intercourse. We found no evidence for the outcome of quality of life. We are very uncertain how injectional verapamil may affect treatment-related side effects. Similarly, we are very uncertain how injectional verapamil may affect the degree of penile curvature.\nWe found no long-term data for any outcome." } ]
query-laysum	21838	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPeritonsillar abscess is a common infection presenting as a collection of pus in the peritonsillar area. The condition is characterised by a severe sore throat, difficulty in swallowing and pain on swallowing, fever and malaise, and trismus. Needle aspiration and incision and drainage are the two main treatment modalities currently used in the treatment of this condition. The effectiveness of one versus the other has not been clearly demonstrated and remains an area of debate.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and risks of needle aspiration versus incision and drainage for the treatment of peritonsillar abscess in older children (eight years of age or older), adolescents and adults.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 7); 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 25 August 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing needle aspiration with incision and drainage.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were recurrence rate (proportion of patients needing repeat intervention) and adverse effects associated with the intervention. Secondary outcomes were time to resumption of normal diet, complications of the disease process and symptom scores. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.\nMain results\nWe included 11 studies (674 participants). The risk of bias was high or unclear in all of the included studies. All studies compared needle aspiration to incision and drainage.\nAll but one of the 11 studies reported on the primary outcome of recurrence. When we pooled data from the 10 studies the recurrence rate was higher in the needle aspiration group compared with incision and drainage: risk ratio (RR) 3.74 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.63 to 8.59; 612 participants). We detected moderate heterogeneity in this analysis (I2 = 48%). In interpreting the pooled result it is important to note that the evidence for this outcome was of very low quality.\nNone of the other outcomes (adverse effects of the intervention, time to resumption of normal diet, complications of the disease process and symptom scores) were consistently measured across all studies.\nOnly three studies reported on adverse effects/events associated with the intervention and only one such event in a single patient was reported (post-procedure bleeding following incision and drainage: 1/28, 3.6%) (very low-quality evidence).\nTime to resumption of normal diet was compared in two studies; neither found an obvious difference between needle aspiration and incision and drainage (very low-quality evidence).\nOnly three studies stated that they would report complications of the disease process. In these three studies, the only complication reported was admission to hospital for dehydration in two patients who underwent incision and drainage (2/13, 6.7%).\nSymptom scores were measured in four studies; three evaluated pain using different scales and one other symptoms. The data could not be pooled in a meta-analysis. Two studies evaluating procedural pain reported this to be lower in the needle aspiration groups. One study found comparable rates of pain resolution at five days post-intervention between groups. The quality of the evidence for symptom scores was very low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough a number of studies have sought to evaluate whether or not needle aspiration or incision and drainage is more effective in patients with peritonsillar abscess, there is no high-quality evidence to allow a firm conclusion to be drawn and the answer remains uncertain. Very low-quality evidence suggests that incision and drainage may be associated with a lower chance of recurrence than needle aspiration. There is some very low-quality evidence to suggest that needle aspiration is less painful.\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": "Ten studies reported on the recurrence of peritonsillar abscess (our main outcome). Most of them did not clearly define 'recurrence' and they varied in the timing of its assessment, however we were able to combine (pool) the data from these studies. When we pooled the data the recurrence rate was higher in the needle aspiration group compared with incision and drainage. It is important to note that the evidence for this outcome was of very low quality. Some studies found that patients had more pain when they had incision and drainage." } ]
query-laysum	21839	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCarotid artery stenosis is an important cause of stroke and transient ischemic attack. Correctly and rapidly identifying patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis is essential for adequate treatment with early cerebral revascularization. Doubts about the diagnostic value regarding the accuracy of duplex ultrasound (DUS) and the possibility of using DUS as the single diagnostic test before carotid revascularization are still debated.\nObjectives\nTo estimate the accuracy of DUS in individuals with symptomatic carotid stenosis verified by either digital subtraction angiography (DSA), computed tomography angiography (CTA), or magnetic resonance angiography (MRA).\nSearch methods\nWe searched CRDTAS, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), ISI Web of Science, HTA, DARE, and LILACS up to 15 February 2021. We handsearched the reference lists of all included studies and other relevant publications and contacted experts in the field to identify additional studies or unpublished data.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies assessing DUS accuracy against an acceptable reference standard (DSA, MRA, or CTA) in symptomatic patients. We considered the classification of carotid stenosis with DUS defined with validated duplex velocity criteria, and the NASCET criteria for carotid stenosis measures on DSA, MRA, and CTA. We excluded studies that included < 70% of symptomatic patients; the time between the index test and the reference standard was longer than four weeks or not described, or that presented no objective criteria to estimate carotid stenosis.\nData collection and analysis\nThe review authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 domain list. We extracted data with an effort to complete a 2 × 2 table (true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives) for each of the different categories of carotid stenosis and reference standards. We produced forest plots and summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plots to summarize the data. Where meta-analysis was possible, we used a bivariate meta-analysis model.\nMain results\nWe identified 25,087 unique studies, of which 22 were deemed eligible for inclusion (4957 carotid arteries). The risk of bias varied considerably across the studies, and studies were generally of moderate to low quality. We narratively described the results without meta-analysis in seven studies in which the criteria used to determine stenosis were too different from the duplex velocity criteria proposed in our protocol or studies that provided insufficient data to complete a 2 × 2 table for at least in one category of stenosis. Nine studies (2770 carotid arteries) presented DUS versus DSA results for 70% to 99% carotid artery stenosis, and two (685 carotid arteries) presented results from DUS versus CTA in this category. Seven studies presented results for occlusion with DSA as the reference standard and three with CTA as the reference standard. Five studies compared DUS versus DSA for 50% to 99% carotid artery stenosis. Only one study presented results from 50% to 69% carotid artery stenosis.\nFor DUS versus DSA, for < 50% carotid artery stenosis, the summary sensitivity was 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48 to 0.76) and the summary specificity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.99); for the 50% to 69% range, only one study was included and meta-analysis not performed; for the 50% to 99% range, the summary sensitivity was 0.97 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.98) and the summary specificity was 0.70 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.73); for the 70% to 99% range, the summary sensitivity was 0.85 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.91) and the summary specificity was 0.98 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.90); for occlusion, the summary sensitivity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97) and the summary specificity was 0.95 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.99).\nFor sensitivity analyses, excluding studies in which participants were selected based on the presence of occlusion on DUS had an impact on specificity: 0.98 (95% CI 0.97 to 0.99). For DUS versus CTA, we found two studies in the range of 70% to 99%; the sensitivity varied from 0.57 to 0.94 and the specificity varied from 0.87 to 0.98. For occlusion, the summary sensitivity was 0.95 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.99) and the summary specificity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.99). For DUS versus MRA, there was one study with results for 50% to 99% carotid artery stenosis, with a sensitivity of 0.88 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.98) and specificity of 0.60 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.95); in the 70% to 99% range, two studies were included, with sensitivity that varied from 0.54 to 0.99 and specificity that varied from 0.78 to 0.89. We could perform only a few of the proposed sensitivity analyses because of the small number of studies included.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review provides evidence that the diagnostic accuracy of DUS is high, especially at discriminating between the presence or absence of significant carotid artery stenosis (< 50% or 50% to 99%). This evidence, plus its less invasive nature, supports the early use of DUS for the detection of carotid artery stenosis. The accuracy for 70% to 99% carotid artery stenosis and occlusion is high. Clinicians should exercise caution when using DUS as the single preoperative diagnostic method, and the limitations should be considered. There was little evidence of the accuracy of DUS when compared with CTA or MRA. The results of this review should be interpreted with caution because they are based on studies of low methodological quality, mainly due to the patient selection method. Methodological problems in participant inclusion criteria from the studies discussed above apparently influenced an overestimated estimate of prevalence values. Most of the studies included failed to precisely describe inclusion criteria and previous testing. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should include direct comparisons of the various modalities of diagnostic tests (mainly DUS, CTA, and MRA) for carotid artery stenosis since DSA is no longer considered to be the best method for diagnosing carotid stenosis and less invasive tests are now used as reference standards in clinical practice. Also, for future studies, the participant inclusion criteria require careful attention.\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": "DUS is used in clinical practice as the first test to detect carotid artery stenosis, usually with the result confirmed by other more expensive and invasive tests, such as computed tomography angiography (CTA), magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), or digital subtraction angiography (DSA). The advantage of DUS is that it is less expensive and helps to reduce the time required to select patients for treatment. We included studies assessing the accuracy of DUS compared with DSA, MRA, or CTA in patients with recent stroke symptoms. We grouped the results from studies that used approximately the same method and threshold to assess accuracy in the following categories of carotid artery stenosis: < 50%, 50% to 99%, 50% to 69%, 70% to 99%, and occlusion (blockage of the vessel)." } ]
query-laysum	21840	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIron deficiency is an important micronutrient deficiency contributing to the global burden of disease, and particularly affects children, premenopausal women, and people in low-resource settings. Anaemia is a possible consequence of iron deficiency, although clinical and functional manifestations of anemia can occur without iron deficiency (e.g. from other nutritional deficiencies, inflammation, and parasitic infections). Direct nutritional interventions, such as large-scale food fortification, can improve micronutrient status, especially in vulnerable populations. Given the highly successful delivery of iodine through salt iodisation, fortifying salt with iodine and iron has been proposed as a method for preventing iron deficiency anaemia. Further investigation of the effect of double-fortified salt (i.e. with iron and iodine) on iron deficiency and related outcomes is warranted.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of double-fortified salt (DFS) compared to iodised salt (IS) on measures of iron and iodine status in all age groups.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, and two trial registries up to April 2021. We also searched relevant websites, reference lists, and contacted the authors of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nAll prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised controlled trials (cRCTs), and controlled before-after (CBA) studies, comparing DFS with IS on measures of iron and iodine status were eligible, irrespective of language or publication status. Study reports published as abstracts were also eligible.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors applied the study selection criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Two review authors rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. When necessary, we contacted study authors for additional information. We assessed RCTs, cRCTs and CBA studies using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) tool across the following domains: random sequence generation; allocation concealment; blinding of participants and personnel; blinding of outcome assessment; incomplete outcome data; selective reporting; and other potential sources of bias due to similar baseline characteristics, similar baseline outcome assessments, and declarations of conflicts of interest and funding sources. We also assessed cRCTs for recruitment bias, baseline imbalance, loss of clusters, incorrect analysis, and comparability with individually randomised studies. We assigned studies an overall risk of bias judgement (low risk, high risk, or unclear).\nMain results\nWe included 18 studies (7 RCTs, 7 cRCTs, 4 CBA studies), involving over 8800 individuals from five countries. One study did not contribute to analyses. All studies used IS as the comparator and measured and reported outcomes at study endpoint.\nWith regards to risk of bias, five RCTs had unclear risk of bias, with some concerns in random sequence generation and allocation concealment, while we assessed two RCTs to have a high risk of bias overall, whereby high risk was noted in at least one or more domain(s). Of the seven cRCTs, we assessed six at high risk of bias overall, with one or more domain(s) judged as high risk and one cRCT had an unclear risk of bias with concerns around allocation and blinding. The four CBA studies had high or unclear risk of bias for most domains.\nThe RCT evidence suggested that, compared to IS, DFS may slightly improve haemoglobin concentration (mean difference (MD) 0.43 g/dL, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.63; 13 studies, 4564 participants; low-certainty evidence), but DFS may reduce urinary iodine concentration compared to IS (MD −96.86 μg/L, 95% CI −164.99 to −28.73; 7 studies, 1594 participants; low-certainty evidence), although both salts increased mean urinary iodine concentration above the cut-off deficiency. For CBA studies, we found DFS made no difference in haemoglobin concentration (MD 0.26 g/dL, 95% CI −0.10 to 0.63; 4 studies, 1397 participants) or urinary iodine concentration (MD −17.27 µg/L, 95% CI −49.27 to 14.73; 3 studies, 1127 participants). No studies measured blood pressure.\nFor secondary outcomes reported in RCTs, DFS may result in little to no difference in ferritin concentration (MD −3.94 µg/L, 95% CI −20.65 to 12.77; 5 studies, 1419 participants; low-certainty evidence) or transferrin receptor concentration (MD −4.68 mg/L, 95% CI −11.67 to 2.31; 5 studies, 1256 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to IS. However, DFS may reduce zinc protoporphyrin concentration (MD −27.26 µmol/mol, 95% CI −47.49 to −7.03; 3 studies, 921 participants; low-certainty evidence) and result in a slight increase in body iron stores (MD 1.77 mg/kg, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.74; 4 studies, 847 participants; low-certainty evidence). In terms of prevalence of anaemia, DFS may reduce the risk of anaemia by 21% (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94; P = 0.007; 8 studies, 2593 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Likewise, DFS may reduce the risk of iron deficiency anaemia by 65% (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.52; 5 studies, 1209 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nFour studies measured salt intake at endline, although only one study reported this for both groups. Two studies reported prevalence of goitre, while one CBA study measured and reported serum iron concentration. One study reported adverse effects. No studies measured hepcidin concentration.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur findings suggest DFS may have a small positive impact on haemoglobin concentration and the prevalence of anaemia compared to IS, particularly when considering efficacy studies. Future research should prioritise studies that incorporate robust study designs and outcome measures (e.g. anaemia, iron status measures) to better understand the effect of DFS provision to a free-living population (non-research population), where there could be an added cost to purchase double-fortified salt. Adequately measuring salt intake, both at baseline and endline, and adjusting for inflammation will be important to understanding the true effect on measures of iron status.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We have relatively low confidence in the evidence for the outcomes: haemoglobin, urinary iodine, ferritin, and transferrin receptor concentration, and prevalence of iron deficiency anaemia. Not all studies provided data about all outcomes of interest; studies delivered the intervention differently; and studies were small, both in number and size.\nFor the prevalence of anaemia, we are moderately confident in the evidence because studies used different ways of delivering the intervention.\nCare should be taken in interpreting our findings in relation to public health policy and programmes. Most studies were conducted in monitored research settings and double-fortified salt was provided without an added cost. We are unsure if the effect we observed would be the same in real-life (i.e. non-research population), where purchasing double-fortified salt could increase the cost. More studies looking at the effect of double-fortified salt within real-life settings are needed to understand the true effects of double-fortified salt with greater certainty. Given the changing guidelines for salt intake, future studies should measure salt intake to understand if double-fortified salt should be considered to prevent anaemia at the population level and how to integrate double-fortified salt into the supply chain." } ]
query-laysum	21841	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDelayed motor development may occur in children with Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, general developmental delay or children born preterm. It limits the child's exploration of the environment and can hinder cognitive and social-emotional development. Literature suggests that task-specific training, such as locomotor treadmill training, facilitates motor development.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of treadmill interventions on locomotor development in children with delayed ambulation or in pre-ambulatory children (or both), who are under six years of age and who are at risk for neuromotor delay.\nSearch methods\nIn May 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and a number of trials registers. We also searched the reference lists of relevant studies and systematic reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that evaluated the effect of treadmill intervention in the target population.\nData collection and analysis\nFour authors independently extracted the data. Outcome parameters were structured according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health model.\nMain results\nThis is an update of a Cochrane review from 2011, which included five trials. This update includes seven studies on treadmill intervention in 175 children: 104 were allocated to treadmill groups, and 71 were controls. The studies varied in population (children with Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, developmental delay or at moderate risk for neuromotor delay); comparison type (treadmill versus no treadmill; treadmill with versus without orthoses; high- versus low-intensity training); study duration, and assessed outcomes. Due to the diversity of the studies, only data from five studies were used in meta-analyses for five outcomes: age of independent walking onset, overall gross motor function, gross motor function related to standing and walking, and gait velocity. GRADE assessments of quality of the evidence ranged from high to very low.\nThe effects of treadmill intervention on independent walking onset compared to no treadmill intervention was population dependent, but showed no overall effect (mean difference (MD) -2.08, 95% confidence intervals (CI) -5.38 to 1.22, 2 studies, 58 children; moderate-quality evidence): 30 children with Down syndrome benefited from treadmill training (MD -4.00, 95% CI -6.96 to -1.04), but 28 children at moderate risk of developmental delay did not (MD -0.60, 95% CI -2.34 to 1.14). We found no evidence regarding walking onset in two studies that compared treadmill intervention with and without orthotics in 17 children (MD 0.10, 95% CI -5.96 to 6.16), and high- versus low-intensity treadmill interventions in 30 children with Down syndrome (MD -2.13, 95% -4.96 to 0.70).\nTreadmill intervention did not improve overall gross motor function (MD 0.88, 95% CI -4.54 to 6.30, 2 studies, 36 children; moderate-quality evidence) or gross motor skills related to standing (MD 5.41, 95% CI -1.64 to 12.43, 2 studies, 32 children; low-quality evidence), and had a negligible improvement in gross motor skills related to walking (MD 4.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 8.73, 2 studies, 32 children; low-quality evidence). It led to improved walking skills in 20 ambulatory children with developmental delay (MD 7.60, 95% CI 0.88 to 14.32, 1 study) and favourable gross motor skills in 12 children with cerebral palsy (MD 8.00, 95% CI 3.18 to 12.82). A study which compared treadmill intervention with and without orthotics in 17 children with Down syndrome suggested that adding orthotics might hinder overall gross motor progress (MD -8.40, 95% CI -14.55 to -2.25).\nOverall, treadmill intervention showed a very small increase in walking speed compared to no treadmill intervention (MD 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.37, 2 studies, 32 children; high-quality evidence). Treadmill intervention increased walking speed in 20 ambulatory children with developmental delay (MD 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.42), but not in 12 children with cerebral palsy (MD 0.18, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.45).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis update of the review from 2011 provides additional evidence of the efficacy of treadmill intervention for certain groups of children up to six years of age, but power to find significant results still remains limited. The current findings indicate that treadmill intervention may accelerate the development of independent walking in children with Down syndrome and may accelerate motor skill attainment in children with cerebral palsy and general developmental delay. Future research should first confirm these findings with larger and better designed studies, especially for infants with cerebral palsy and developmental delay. Once efficacy is established, research should examine the optimal dosage of treadmill intervention in these populations.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Use of statistics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Statistical analysis was only performed on similar outcomes across studies." } ]
query-laysum	21842	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPsychological therapies for parents of children and adolescents with chronic illness aim to improve parenting behavior and mental health, child functioning (behavior/disability, mental health, and medical symptoms), and family functioning.\nThis is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review (2012) which was first updated in 2015.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of psychological therapies for parents of children and adolescents with a chronic illness.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and trials registries for studies published up to July 2018.\nSelection criteria\nIncluded studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological interventions for parents of children and adolescents with a chronic illness. In this update we included studies with more than 20 participants per arm. In this update, we included interventions that combined psychological and pharmacological treatments. We included comparison groups that received either non-psychological treatment (e.g. psychoeducation), treatment as usual (e.g. standard medical care without added psychological therapy), or wait-list.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted study characteristics and outcomes post-treatment and at first available follow-up. Primary outcomes were parenting behavior and parent mental health. Secondary outcomes were child behavior/disability, child mental health, child medical symptoms, and family functioning. We pooled data using the standardized mean difference (SMD) and a random-effects model, and evaluated outcomes by medical condition and by therapy type. We assessed risk of bias per Cochrane guidance and quality of evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe added 21 new studies. We removed 23 studies from the previous update that no longer met our inclusion criteria. There are now 44 RCTs, including 4697 participants post-treatment. Studies included children with asthma (4), cancer (7), chronic pain (13), diabetes (15), inflammatory bowel disease (2), skin diseases (1), and traumatic brain injury (3). Therapy types included cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT; 21), family therapy (4), motivational interviewing (3), multisystemic therapy (4), and problem-solving therapy (PST; 12). We rated risk of bias as low or unclear for most domains, except selective reporting bias, which we rated high for 19 studies due to incomplete outcome reporting. Evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. We downgraded evidence due to high heterogeneity, imprecision, and publication bias.\nEvaluation of parent outcomes by medical condition\nPsychological therapies may improve parenting behavior (e.g. maladaptive or solicitous behaviors; lower scores are better) in children with cancer post-treatment and follow-up (SMD −0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.43 to −0.13; participants = 664; studies = 3; SMD −0.21, 95% CI −0.37 to −0.05; participants = 625; studies = 3; I2 = 0%, respectively, low-quality evidence), chronic pain post-treatment and follow-up (SMD −0.29, 95% CI −0.47 to −0.10; participants = 755; studies = 6; SMD −0.35, 95% CI −0.50 to −0.20; participants = 678; studies = 5, respectively, moderate-quality evidence), diabetes post-treatment (SMD −1.39, 95% CI −2.41 to −0.38; participants = 338; studies = 5, very low-quality evidence), and traumatic brain injury post-treatment (SMD −0.74, 95% CI −1.25 to −0.22; participants = 254; studies = 3, very low-quality evidence). For the remaining analyses data were insufficient to evaluate the effect of treatment.\nPsychological therapies may improve parent mental health (e.g. depression, anxiety, lower scores are better) in children with cancer post-treatment and follow-up (SMD −0.21, 95% CI −0.35 to −0.08; participants = 836, studies = 6, high-quality evidence; SMD −0.23, 95% CI −0.39 to −0.08; participants = 667; studies = 4, moderate-quality evidence, respectively), and chronic pain post-treatment and follow-up (SMD −0.24, 95% CI −0.42 to −0.06; participants = 490; studies = 3; SMD −0.20, 95% CI −0.38 to −0.02; participants = 482; studies = 3, respectively, low-quality evidence). Parent mental health did not improve in studies of children with diabetes post-treatment (SMD −0.24, 95% CI −0.90 to 0.42; participants = 211; studies = 3, very low-quality evidence). For the remaining analyses, data were insufficient to evaluate the effect of treatment on parent mental health.\nEvaluation of parent outcomes by psychological therapy type\nCBT may improve parenting behavior post-treatment (SMD −0.45, 95% CI −0.68 to −0.21; participants = 1040; studies = 9, low-quality evidence), and follow-up (SMD −0.26, 95% CI −0.42 to −0.11; participants = 743; studies = 6, moderate-quality evidence). We did not find evidence for a beneficial effect for CBT on parent mental health at post-treatment or follow-up (SMD −0.19, 95% CI −0.41 to 0.03; participants = 811; studies = 8; SMD −0.07, 95% CI −0.34 to 0.20; participants = 592; studies = 5; respectively, very low-quality evidence). PST may improve parenting behavior post-treatment and follow-up (SMD −0.39, 95% CI −0.64 to −0.13; participants = 947; studies = 7, low-quality evidence; SMD −0.54, 95% CI −0.94 to −0.14; participants = 852; studies = 6, very low-quality evidence, respectively), and parent mental health post-treatment and follow-up (SMD −0.30, 95% CI −0.45 to −0.15; participants = 891; studies = 6; SMD −0.21, 95% CI −0.35 to −0.07; participants = 800; studies = 5, respectively, moderate-quality evidence). For the remaining analyses, data were insufficient to evaluate the effect of treatment on parent outcomes.\nAdverse events\nWe could not evaluate treatment safety because most studies (32) did not report on whether adverse events occurred during the study period. In six studies, the authors reported that no adverse events occurred. The remaining six studies reported adverse events and none were attributed to psychological therapy. We rated the quality of evidence for adverse events as moderate.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPsychological therapy may improve parenting behavior among parents of children with cancer, chronic pain, diabetes, and traumatic brain injury. We also found beneficial effects of psychological therapy may also improve parent mental health among parents of children with cancer and chronic pain. CBT and PST may improve parenting behavior. PST may also improve parent mental health. However, the quality of evidence is generally low and there are insufficient data to evaluate most outcomes. Our findings could change as new studies are conducted.\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 rated the quality of the evidence from studies using four levels: very low, low, moderate, or high. Very low-quality evidence means that we are very uncertain about the results. High-quality evidence means that we are very confident in the results. There were not enough data to answer some parts of our review questions. There was sufficient evidence (low to moderate quality) to reach some conclusions about the effects of psychological therapy for parents of children with cancer and chronic pain and the effects of CBT and PST." } ]
query-laysum	21843	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nVenous thromboembolism (VTE), which comprises deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is the leading cause of preventable death in hospitalised people and the third most common cause of mortality in surgical patients. People undergoing bariatric surgery have the additional risk factor of being overweight. Although VTE prophylaxis in surgical patients is well established, the best way to prevent VTE in those undergoing bariatric surgery is less clear.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions (alone or in combination) on venous thromboembolism and other health outcomes in people undergoing bariatric surgery compared to the same pharmacological intervention administered at a different dose or frequency, the same pharmacological intervention or started at a different time point, another pharmacological intervention, no intervention or placebo.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 1 November 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in males and females of any age undergoing bariatric surgery comparing pharmacological interventions for VTE (alone or in combination) with the same pharmacological intervention administered at a different dose or frequency, the same pharmacological intervention started at a different time point, a different pharmacological intervention, no treatment or placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. VTE and 2. major bleeding. Our secondary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. VTE-related mortality, 3. PE, 4. DVT, 5. adverse effects and 6. quality of life. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included seven RCTs with 1045 participants. Data for meta-analysis were available from all participants.\nFour RCTs (597 participants) compared higher-dose heparin to standard-dose heparin: one of these studies (139 participants) used unfractionated heparin (UFH) and the other three (458 participants) used low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). One study compared heparin versus pentasaccharide (198 participants), and one study compared starting heparin before versus after bariatric surgery (100 participants). One study (150 participants) compared combined mechanical and pharmacological (enoxaparin) prophylaxis versus mechanical prophylaxis alone. The duration of the interventions ranged from seven to 15 days, and follow-up ranged from 10 to 180 days.\nHigher-dose heparin versus standard-dose heparin\nCompared to standard-dose heparin, higher-dose heparin may result in little or no difference in the risk of VTE (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.99; 4 studies, 597 participants) or major bleeding (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.96; I2 = 8%; 4 studies, 597 participants; low-certainty) in people undergoing bariatric surgery. The evidence on all-cause mortality, VTE-related mortality, PE, DVT and adverse events (thrombocytopenia) is uncertain (effect not estimable or very low-certainty evidence).\nHeparin versus pentasaccharide\nHeparin compared to a pentasaccharide after bariatric surgery may result in little or no difference in the risk of VTE (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.61; 1 study, 175 participants) or DVT (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.61; 1 study, 175 participants). The evidence on major bleeding, PE and mortality is uncertain (effect not estimable or very low-certainty evidence).\nHeparin started before versus after the surgical procedure\nStarting prophylaxis with heparin 12 hours before surgery versus after surgery may result in little or no difference in the risk of VTE (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.01; 1 study, 100 participants) or DVT (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.01; 1 study, 100 participants). The evidence on major bleeding, all-cause mortality and VTE-related mortality is uncertain (effect not estimable or very low-certainty evidence). We were unable to assess the effect of this intervention on PE or adverse effects, as the study did not measure these outcomes.\nCombined mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis versus mechanical prophylaxis alone\nCombining mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis (started 12 hours before surgery) may reduce VTE events in people undergoing bariatric surgery compared to mechanical prophylaxis alone (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.89; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 9; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty). We were unable to assess the effect of this intervention on major bleeding or morality (effect not estimable), or on PE or adverse events (not measured).\nNo studies measured quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nHigher-dose heparin may make little or no difference to venous thromboembolism or major bleeding in people undergoing bariatric surgery when compared to standard-dose heparin.\nHeparin may make little or no difference to venous thromboembolism in people undergoing bariatric surgery when compared to pentasaccharide. There are inadequate data to draw conclusions about the effects of heparin compared to pentasaccharide on major bleeding.\nStarting prophylaxis with heparin 12 hours before bariatric surgery may make little or no difference to venous thromboembolism in people undergoing bariatric surgery when compared to starting heparin after bariatric surgery. There are inadequate data to draw conclusions about the effects of heparin started before versus after surgery on major bleeding.\nCombining mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis (started 12 hours before surgery) may reduce VTE events in people undergoing bariatric surgery when compared to mechanical prophylaxis alone. No data are available relating to major bleeding.\nThe certainty of the evidence is limited by small sample sizes, few or no events, and risk of bias concerns. Future trials must be sufficiently large to enable analysis of relevant clinical outcomes, and should standardise the time of treatment and follow-up. They should also address the effect of direct oral anticoagulants and antiplatelets, preferably grouping them according to the type of intervention.\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 seven studies involving 1045 people who underwent bariatric surgery. The studies provided information about four different comparisons:\n1) heparin at a higher dose versus the same heparin at a standard dose; \n2) heparin versus a pentasaccharide; \n3) heparin started before versus after the surgical procedure; and\n4) combined mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis versus mechanical prophylaxis alone.\nFour studies provided information for the first comparison: one assessed unfractionated heparin (which is given by a medical professional and wears off quickly) and three assessed low-molecular-weight heparin (which patients can inject themselves and which lasts longer). There was one study for each of the other three comparisons.\nHeparin at a higher dose compared to a standard dose may make little or no difference to the risk of VTE or major bleeding in people undergoing bariatric surgery. The evidence on death, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis and the side effect thrombocytopenia (low blood platelet count) is uncertain.\nHeparin compared with pentasaccharide may make little or no difference to the risk of VTE or deep vein thrombosis in people undergoing bariatric surgery. The evidence on major bleeding, death, pulmonary embolism and side effects (thrombocytopenia, irregular heartbeat, rash and nausea and vomiting) is uncertain.\nHeparin before compared with after surgery may make little or no difference to the risk of VTE or deep vein thrombosis in people undergoing bariatric surgery. The evidence on major bleeding and death is uncertain. The study did not measure pulmonary embolism or harmful side effects.\nMechanical prophylaxis plus pharmacological prophylaxis compared to mechanical prophylaxis alone may decrease the risk of VTE and deep vein thrombosis in people undergoing bariatric surgery. The evidence on major bleeding and death is uncertain. The study did not measure pulmonary embolism or harmful side effects.\nNo studies measured the effect of any intervention on quality of life." } ]
query-laysum	21844	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nStress urinary incontinence constitutes a significant health and economic burden to society. Traditional suburethral slings are surgical operations used to treat women with symptoms of stress urinary incontinence.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of traditional suburethral sling procedures for treating stress urinary incontinence in women; and summarise the principal findings of relevant economic evaluations.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), as well as MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP); we handsearched journals and conference proceedings (searched 27 February 2017) and the reference lists of relevant articles. On 23 January 2019, we updated this search; as a result, several additional reports of studies are awaiting classification.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised or quasi-randomised trials that assessed traditional suburethral slings for treating stress or mixed urinary incontinence.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently extracted data from included trials and assessed risk of bias. When appropriate, a summary statistic was calculated: risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, odds ratio (OR) for continence and cure rates that were expected to be high, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. We adopted the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.\nMain results\nA total of 34 trials involving 3244 women were included. Traditional slings were compared with 10 other treatments and with each other.\nWe did not identify any trials comparing suburethral slings with no treatment or sham treatment, conservative management, anterior repair, or laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension. Most trials did not distinguish between women having surgery for primary or recurrent incontinence. One trial compared traditional slings with bladder neck needle suspension, and another trial compared traditional slings with single-incision slings. Both trials were too small to be informative.\nTraditional suburethral sling operation versus drugs\nOne small trial compared traditional suburethral sling operations with oxybutynin to treat women with mixed urinary incontinence. This trial did not report any of our GRADE-specific outcomes. It is uncertain whether surgery compared with oxybutynin leads to more women being dry (83% vs 0%; OR 195.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.91 to 3871.03) or having less urgency urinary incontinence (13% vs 43%; RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.94) because the quality of this evidence is very low.\nTraditional suburethral sling versus injectables\nOne small trial compared traditional slings with suburethral injectable treatment. The impact of surgery versus injectables is uncertain in terms of the number of continent women (100% were dry with a traditional sling versus 71% with the injectable after the first year; OR 11.57, 95% CI 0.56 to 239.74), the need for repeat surgery for urinary incontinence (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.36) or the occurrence of perioperative complications (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.29 to 8.49), as the quality of evidence is very low.\nTraditional suburethral sling versus open abdominal retropubic colposuspension\nEight trials compared slings with open abdominal retropubic colposuspension. Moderate-quality evidence shows that the traditional suburethral sling probably leads to more continent women in the medium term (one to five years) (69% vs 59% after colposuspension: OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.37). High-quality evidence shows that women were less likely to need repeat continence surgery after a traditional sling operation than after colposuspension (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.42). We found no evidence of a difference in perioperative complications between the two groups, but the CI was very wide and the quality of evidence was very low (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.86).\nTraditional suburethral sling operation versus mid-urethral slings\nFourteen trials compared traditional sling operations and mid-urethral sling operations. Depending on judgements about what constitutes a clinically important difference between interventions with regard to continence, traditional suburethral slings are probably no better, and may be less effective, than mid-urethral slings in terms of number of women continent in the medium term (one to five years) (67% vs 74%; OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.02; n = 458; moderate-quality evidence). One trial reported more continent women with the traditional sling after 10 years (51% vs 32%: OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.07 to 4.61). Mid-urethral slings may be associated with fewer perioperative complications (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.60; low-quality evidence).\nOne type of traditional sling operation versus another type of traditional sling operation\nNine trials compared one type of traditional sling operation with another. The different types of traditional slings, along with the number of different materials used, mean that trial results could not be pooled due to clinical heterogeneity. Complications were reported by two trials - one comparing non-absorbable Goretex with a rectus fascia sling, and the second comparing Pelvicol with a rectus fascial sling. The impact was uncertain due to the very low quality of evidence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow-quality evidence suggests that women may be more likely to be continent in the medium term (one to five years) after a traditional suburethral sling operation than after colposuspension. It is very uncertain whether there is a difference in urinary incontinence after a traditional suburethral sling compared with a mid-urethral sling in the medium term. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as long-term follow-up data were not available from most trials. Long-term follow-up of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing traditional slings with colposuspension and mid-urethral slings is essential. Evidence is insufficient to suggest whether traditional suburethral slings may be better or worse than other management techniques. This review is confined to RCTs and therefore may not identify all of the adverse effects that may be associated with these procedures.\nA brief economic commentary (BEC) identified three eligible economic evaluations, which are not directly comparable due to differences in methods, time horizons, and settings. End users of this review will need to assess the extent to which methods and results of identified economic evaluations may be applicable (or transferable) to their own setting.\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": "A traditional suburethral sling operation is one of the surgical options for treating women with SUI. Stress urinary incontinence is loss (leakage) of urine when coughing, laughing, sneezing, or exercising. It may be due to damage to the muscles that hold up the bladder neck or damage to their nerves, which often occurs during childbirth. When stress urinary incontinence occurs together with an urge to empty the bladder that is difficult to defer (urgency urinary incontinence (UUI)), this is known as mixed urinary incontinence (MUI). The traditional suburethral sling operation aims to hold up the bladder neck with a strip of material that may be biological (made from human or animal tissue) or made of non-absorbable synthetic plastic (mesh/tape)." } ]
query-laysum	21845	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCystic fibrosis is a genetically inherited, life-threatening condition that affects major organs. The management of cystic fibrosis involves a multi-faceted daily treatment regimen that includes airway clearance techniques, pancreatic enzymes and other medications. Previous studies have found that compliance with this intensive treatment is poor, especially among adolescents. Because of both the nature and consequences of the illness and the relentless demands of the treatment, many individuals with cystic fibrosis have a poor quality of life. Anecdotal reports suggest that singing may provide both appropriate exercise for the whole respiratory system and a means of emotional expression which may enhance quality of life. This is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of singing as an adjunct therapy to standard treatment on the quality of life, morbidity, respiratory muscle strength and pulmonary function of children and adults with cystic fibrosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Date of latest search: 07 January 2019.\nWe also searched major allied complementary data bases, and clinical trial registers. Additionally, we handsearched relevant conference proceedings and journals. Date of latest search: 28 March 2019.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials in which singing (as an adjunct intervention) is compared with either a control intervention (for example, playing computer games or doing craft activities) or no singing in people with cystic fibrosis.\nData collection and analysis\nResults of searches were reviewed against pre-determined criteria for inclusion. Only one eligible trial was available for analysis.\nMain results\nSince only one small study (n = 40) was included, no meta-analysis could be performed. The included randomised controlled study was of parallel design and undertaken at two paediatric hospitals in Australia. The study evaluated the effects of a singing program on the quality of life and respiratory muscle strength of hospitalised children with cystic fibrosis (mean age 11.6 years, 35% male). While the singing group received eight individual singing sessions, the control group participated in preferred recreational activities, such as playing computer games or watching movies. This study was limited by a small sample size (51 participants) and a high drop-out rate (21%).\nThere were no differences between the groups at either post-intervention or follow-up; although by the end of treatment there were some improvements in some of the domains of the quality of life questionnaire Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised (e.g. emotional, social and vitality domains) for both singing and control groups. For the respiratory muscle strength indices, maximal expiratory pressure at follow-up (six to eight weeks post-intervention) was higher in the singing group, mean difference 25.80 (95% confidence interval 5.94 to 45.66). There was no difference between groups for any of the other respiratory function parameters (maximal inspiratory pressure, spirometry) at either post-intervention or follow-up. No adverse effects were observed in the singing group; adverse events for the control group were not reported in the paper.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to determine the effects of singing on quality of life or on the respiratory parameters in people with cystic fibrosis. However, there is growing interest in non-medical treatments for cystic fibrosis and researchers may wish to investigate the impact of this inexpensive therapy on respiratory function and psychosocial well-being further in the future.\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: 07 January 2019." } ]
query-laysum	21846	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGlucocorticoids are the mainstay for the treatment of croup. The existing evidence demonstrates that glucocorticoids are effective in the treatment of croup in children. However, updating the evidence on their clinical relevance in croup is imperative. This is an update to a review first published in 1999, and updated in 2004, 2011, and 2018.\nObjectives\nTo investigate the effects and safety of glucocorticoids in the treatment of croup in children aged 18 years and below.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Library, which includes the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2022 Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 4 March 2022), Embase (Ovid) (1974 to 4 March 2022). We also searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov on 4 March 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children (aged 18 years and below) with croup. We assessed the effect of glucocorticoids compared to the following: placebo, any other pharmacologic agents, any other glucocorticoids, any combination of other glucocorticoids, given by different modes of administration, or given in different doses. The included studies must have assessed at least one of our primary outcomes (defined as the change in croup score or return visits, (re)admissions to the hospital or both) or secondary outcomes (defined as the length of stay in hospital or emergency departments, patient improvement, use of additional treatments, or adverse events).\nData collection and analysis\nReview authors independently extracted data, with another review author verified. We entered the data into Review Manager 5 for meta-analysis. Two review authors independently assessed studies for risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Two review authors assessed the certainty of the evidence for the primary outcomes using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nThis updated review includes 45 RCTs with a total of 5888 children, an increase of two RCTs with 1323 children since the last update. We also identified one ongoing study and one study awaiting classification. We assessed most studies (98%) as at high or unclear risk of bias.\nAny glucocorticoid compared to placebo\nCompared to placebo, glucocorticoids may result in greater reductions in croup score after two hours (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) −1.13 to −0.18; 7 RCTs, 426 children; low-certainty evidence); six hours (SMD −0.76, 95% CI −1.12 to −0.40; 11 RCTs, 959 children; low-certainty evidence); and 12 hours (SMD −1.03, 95% CI −1.53 to -0.53; 8 RCTs, 571 children; low-certainty evidence). The evidence for change in croup score after 24 hours is very uncertain (SMD −0.86, 95% CI −1.40 to −0.31; 8 RCTs, 351 children; very low-certainty evidence).\nOne glucocorticoid compared to another glucocorticoid\nThere was little to no difference between prednisolone and dexamethasone for reduction in croup score at two-hour post-baseline score (SMD 0.06, 95% CI −0.06 to 0.18; 1 RCT, 1231 children; high-certainty evidence). There was likely little to no difference between prednisolone and dexamethasone for reduction in croup score at six-hour post-baseline score (SMD 0.21, 95% CI −0.21 to 0.62; 1 RCT, 99 children; moderate-certainty evidence). However, dexamethasone probably reduced the return visits or (re)admissions for croup by almost half (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.11; 4 RCTs, 1537 children; moderate-certainty evidence), and showed a 28% reduction in the use of supplemental glucocorticoids as an additional treatment (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.97; 2 RCTs, 926 children).\nDexamethasone given in different doses\nCompared to 0.15 mg/kg, 0.60 mg/kg dexamethasone probably reduced the severity of croup as assessed by the croup scoring scale at 24-hour postbaseline score (SMD 0.63, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.10; 1 RCT, 72 children; moderate-certainty evidence); however, this was not the case at two hours (SMD −0.27, 95% CI −0.76 to 0.22; 2 RCTs, 861 children; high-certainty evidence). There was probably no reduction at six hours (SMD −0.45, 95% CI −1.26 to 0.35; 3 RCTs, 178 children; moderate-certainty evidence), and the evidence at 12 hours is very uncertain (SMD −0.60, 95% CI −4.39 to 3.19; 2 RCTs, 113 children; very low-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference between doses of dexamethasone in return visits or (re)admissions of children or both (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.17; 3 RCTs, 949 children; high-certainty evidence) or length of stay in the hospital or emergency department (mean difference 0.12, 95% CI −0.32 to 0.56; 2 RCTs, 892 children). The need for additional treatments, such as epinephrine (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.75; 2 RCTs, 885 children); intubation (risk difference 0.00, 95% CI −0.00 to 0.00; 2 RCTs, 861 children); or use of supplemental glucocorticoids (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.15; 2 RCTs, 617 children), also did not differ between doses of dexamethasone.\nThere were moderate to high levels of heterogeneity in the analyses for most comparisons. Adverse events were observed for some of the comparisons reported in the review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence that glucocorticoids reduce symptoms of croup at two hours, shorten hospital stays, and reduce the rate of return visits or (re)admissions has not changed in this update. A smaller dose of 0.15 mg/kg of dexamethasone may be as effective as the standard dose of 0.60 mg/kg. More RCTs are needed to strengthen the evidence for effectiveness of low-dose dexamethasone at 0.15 mg/kg to treat croup.\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 4 March 2022." } ]
query-laysum	21847	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nFear of dental pain is a major barrier to treatment for children who need dental care. The use of preoperative analgesics has the potential to reduce postoperative discomfort and intraoperative pain. We reviewed the available evidence to determine whether further research is warranted and to inform the development of prescribing guidelines. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2012.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of preoperative analgesics for intraoperative or postoperative pain relief (or both) in children and adolescents undergoing dental treatment without general anaesthesia or sedation.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 5 January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 5 January 2016), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 5 January 2016), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 5 January 2016) and the ISI Web of Science (1945 to 5 January 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials to 5 January 2016. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the searches of the electronic databases. We handsearched several specialist journals dating from 2000 to 2011.\nWe checked the reference lists of all eligible trials for additional studies. We contacted specialists in the field for any unpublished data.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled clinical trials of analgesics given before dental treatment versus placebo or no analgesics in children and adolescents up to 17 years of age. We excluded children and adolescents having dental treatment under sedation (including nitrous oxide/oxygen) or general anaesthesia.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors assessed titles and abstracts of the articles obtained from the searches for eligibility, undertook data extraction and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nWe included five trials in the review, with 190 participants in total. We did not identify any new studies for inclusion from the updated search in January 2016.\nThree trials were related to dental treatment, i.e. restorative and extraction treatments; two trials related to orthodontic treatment. We did not judge any of the included trials to be at low risk of bias.\nThree of the included trials compared paracetamol with placebo, only two of which provided data for analysis (presence or absence of parent-reported postoperative pain behaviour). Meta-analysis of the two trials gave arisk ratio (RR) for postoperative pain of 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 1.22; two trials, 100 participants; P = 0.31), which showed no evidence of a benefit in taking paracetamol preoperatively (52% reporting pain in the placebo group versus 42% in the paracetamol group). One of these trials was at unclear risk of bias, and the other was at high risk. The quality of the evidence is low. One study did not have any adverse events; the other two trials did not mention adverse events.\nFour of the included trials compared ibuprofen with placebo. Three of these trials provided useable data. One trial reported no statistical difference in postoperative pain experienced by the ibuprofen group and the control group for children undergoing dental treatment. We pooled the data from the other two trials, which included participants who were having orthodontic separator replacement without a general anaesthetic, to determine the effect of preoperative ibuprofen on the severity of postoperative pain. There was a statistically significant mean difference in severity of postoperative pain of -13.44 (95% CI -23.01 to -3.88; two trials, 85 participants; P = 0.006) on a visual analogue scale (0 to 100), which indicated a probable benefit for preoperative ibuprofen before this orthodontic procedure. However, both trials were at high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence is low. Only one of the trials reported adverse events (one participant from the ibuprofen group and one from the placebo group reporting a lip or cheek biting injury).\nAuthors' conclusions\nFrom the available evidence, we cannot determine whether or not preoperative analgesics are of benefit in paediatric dentistry for procedures under local anaesthetic. There is probably a benefit in using preoperative analgesics prior to orthodontic separator placement. The quality of the evidence is low. Further randomised clinical trials should be completed with appropriate sample sizes and well defined outcome measures.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Does giving children painkillers such as paracetamol and ibuprofen before dental treatment help reduce pain after the treatment?" } ]
query-laysum	21848	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMumps is an acute, viral illness transmitted by respiratory droplets and saliva. A number of studies published in China have suggested that acupuncture is beneficial for children with mumps but the literature reporting the benefits or harms of acupuncture for mumps has not been systematically reviewed.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for children with mumps.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1950 to November week 3, 2014), EMBASE (1974 to December 2014), CINAHL (1981 to December 2014), AMED (1985 to December 2014), the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (CBM) (1979 to November 2014), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (1979 to November 2014), Chinese Technology Periodical Database (CTPD) (1989 to November 2014) and Wanfang database (1982 to November 2014). We also handsearched a number of journals (from first issue to current issue).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing acupuncture with placebo acupuncture, no management, Chinese medication, Western medication or other treatments for mumps. Acupuncture included either traditional acupuncture or contemporary acupuncture, regardless of the source of stimulation (body, electro, scalp, fire, hand, fine needle, moxibustion).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data. We identified no trials for inclusion in this updated review.\nMain results\nNo study met our inclusion criteria.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe could not reach any conclusion about the efficacy and safety of acupuncture as we identified no trials for inclusion in this review. More high-quality research is needed.\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": "No trials met our inclusion criteria." } ]
query-laysum	21849	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMiscarriage, defined as the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks’ gestation, is common with approximately 25% of women experiencing a miscarriage in their lifetime, and 15% to 20% of pregnancies ending in a miscarriage. Progesterone has an important role in maintaining a pregnancy, and supplementation with different progestogens in early pregnancy has been attempted to rescue a pregnancy in women with early pregnancy bleeding (threatened miscarriage), and to prevent miscarriages in asymptomatic women who have a history of three or more previous miscarriages (recurrent miscarriage).\nObjectives\nTo estimate the relative effectiveness and safety profiles for the different progestogen treatments for threatened and recurrent miscarriage, and provide rankings of the available treatments according to their effectiveness, safety, and side-effect profile.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to 15 December 2020: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE(R), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness or safety of progestogen treatment for the prevention of miscarriage. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Randomised trials published only as abstracts were eligible if sufficient information could be retrieved. We excluded quasi- and non-randomised trials.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We performed pairwise meta-analyses and indirect comparisons, where possible, to determine the relative effects of all available treatments, but due to the limited number of included studies only direct or indirect comparisons were possible. We estimated the relative effects for the primary outcome of live birth and the secondary outcomes including miscarriage (< 24 weeks of gestation), preterm birth (< 37 weeks of gestation), stillbirth, ectopic pregnancy, congenital abnormalities, and adverse drug events. Relative effects for all outcomes are reported separately by the type of miscarriage (threatened and recurrent miscarriage). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nOur meta-analysis included seven randomised trials involving 5,682 women, and all provided data for meta-analysis. All trials were conducted in hospital settings. Across seven trials (14 treatment arms), the following treatments were used: three arms (21%) used vaginal micronized progesterone; three arms (21%) used dydrogesterone; one arm (7%) used oral micronized progesterone; one arm (7%) used 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone, and six arms (43%) used placebo.\nWomen with threatened miscarriage\nBased on the relative effects from the pairwise meta-analysis, vaginal micronized progesterone (two trials, 4090 women, risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.07, high-certainty evidence), and dydrogesterone (one trial, 406 women, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.07, moderate-certainty evidence) probably make little or no difference to the live birth rate when compared with placebo for women with threatened miscarriage. No data are available to assess the effectiveness of 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone or oral micronized progesterone for the outcome of live birth in women with threatened miscarriage.\nThe pre-specified subgroup analysis by number of previous miscarriages is only possible for vaginal micronized progesterone in women with threatened miscarriage. In women with no previous miscarriages and early pregnancy bleeding, there is probably little or no improvement in the live birth rate (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.04, high-certainty evidence) when treated with vaginal micronized progesterone compared to placebo. However, for women with one or more previous miscarriages and early pregnancy bleeding, vaginal micronized progesterone increases the live birth rate compared to placebo (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.15, high-certainty evidence).\nWomen with recurrent miscarriage\nBased on the results from one trial (826 women) vaginal micronized progesterone (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.15, high-certainty evidence) probably makes little or no difference to the live birth rate when compared with placebo for women with recurrent miscarriage. The evidence for dydrogesterone compared with placebo for women with recurrent miscarriage is of very low-certainty evidence, therefore the effects remain unclear. No data are available to assess the effectiveness of 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone or oral micronized progesterone for the outcome of live birth in women with recurrent miscarriage.\nAdditional outcomes\nAll progestogen treatments have a wide range of effects on the other pre-specified outcomes (miscarriage (< 24 weeks of gestation), preterm birth (< 37 weeks of gestation), stillbirth, ectopic pregnancy) in comparison to placebo for both threatened and recurrent miscarriage. Moderate- and low-certainty evidence with a wide range of effects suggests that there is probably no difference in congenital abnormalities and adverse drug events with vaginal micronized progesterone for threatened (congenital abnormalities RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.46, moderate-certainty evidence; adverse drug events RR 1.07 95% CI 0.81 to 1.39, moderate-certainty evidence) or recurrent miscarriage (congenital abnormalities 0.75, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.85, low-certainty evidence; adverse drug events RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.29, moderate-certainty evidence) compared with placebo. There are limited data and very low-certainty evidence on congenital abnormalities and adverse drug events for the other progestogens.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe overall available evidence suggests that progestogens probably make little or no difference to live birth rate for women with threatened or recurrent miscarriage. However, vaginal micronized progesterone may increase the live birth rate for women with a history of one or more previous miscarriages and early pregnancy bleeding, with likely no difference in adverse events. There is still uncertainty over the effectiveness and safety of alternative progestogen treatments for threatened and recurrent miscarriage.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the issue?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Miscarriage is the most common cause of early pregnancy loss in the first 24 weeks and one of the most common complications in early pregnancy. An estimated 15% to 20% of pregnancies will end in a miscarriage, with 25% of women experiencing a miscarriage in their lifetime. Women can be at risk of a miscarriage if they experience early pregnancy bleeding, or if they have a history of previous miscarriages." } ]
query-laysum	21850	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe term anchorage in orthodontic treatment refers to methods of controlling unwanted tooth movement. This is provided either by anchor sites within the mouth, such as the teeth and the palate, or from outside the mouth (headgear). Recently, new methods of providing anchorage have been developed using orthodontic implants which are surgically inserted into the bone in the mouth. This is termed surgical anchorage. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2007.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of surgical anchorage techniques compared to conventional anchorage in the prevention of unwanted tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment by evaluating the mesiodistal movement of upper first molar teeth. A secondary objective was to compare the effects of one type of surgical anchorage with another.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 28 October 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 28 October 2013) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 28 October 2013). We handsearched key international orthodontic and dental journals, and searched the trial database ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing and unpublished studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing surgical anchorage with conventional anchorage in orthodontic patients. Trials comparing two types of surgical anchorage were also included.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently and in duplicate extracted data and carried out risk of bias assessments. We contacted study authors to clarify aspects of study design and conduct, and to obtain unreported data.\nMain results\nFourteen new studies were added in this update resulting in a total of 15 studies reporting data from 561 randomised patients. The studies were conducted in Europe, India, China, South Korea and the USA. The age range of patients was commonly restricted to adolescents or young adults, however the participants of two studies were from a much wider age range (12 to 54 years). The distribution of males and females was similar in eight of the studies, with a predominance of female patients in seven studies.\nEight studies were assessed to be at high overall risk of bias; six studies at unclear risk of bias; one study at low risk of bias.\nTen studies with 407 randomised and 390 analysed patients compared surgical anchorage with conventional anchorage for the primary outcome of mesiodistal movement of upper first molars. We carried out a random-effects model meta-analysis for the seven studies that fully reported this outcome. There was strong evidence of an effect of surgical anchorage on this outcome. Compared with conventional anchorage, surgical anchorage was more effective in the reinforcement of anchorage by 1.68 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.27 mm to -1.09 mm; seven studies, 308 participants analysed) with moderate quality of evidence (one study at high overall risk of bias, five studies at unclear risk of bias, one study at low risk of bias). This result should be interpreted with some caution, however, as there was a substantial degree of heterogeneity for this comparison. There was no evidence of a difference in overall duration of treatment between surgical and conventional anchorage (-0.15 years; 95% CI -0.37 years to 0.07 years; three studies, 111 analysed patients) with low quality of evidence (one study at high overall risk of bias and two studies at unclear risk of bias). Information on patient-reported outcomes such as pain and acceptability was limited and inconclusive.\nWhen direct comparisons were made between two types of surgical anchorage, there was a lack of evidence to suggest that any one technique was better than another.\nNo included studies reported adverse effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate quality evidence that reinforcement of anchorage is more effective with surgical anchorage than conventional anchorage, and that results from mini-screw implants are particularly promising. While surgical anchorage is not associated with the inherent risks and compliance issues related to extraoral headgear, none of the included studies reported on harms of surgical or conventional anchorage.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "When surgically implanted anchorage devices were compared to conventional anchorage devices, they were better in providing stabilisation for preventing unwanted movement in teeth during orthodontic treatment. There was limited information on patient-reported outcomes such as pain and how acceptable the devices were found to be. No information was reported on adverse events." } ]
query-laysum	21851	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nFunctional abdominal pain is pain occurring in the abdomen that cannot be fully explained by another medical condition and is common in children. It has been hypothesised that the use of micro-organisms, such as probiotics and synbiotics (a mixture of probiotics and prebiotics), might change the composition of bacterial colonies in the bowel and reduce inflammation, as well as promote normal gut physiology and reduce functional symptoms.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics in the treatment of functional abdominal pain disorders in children.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and two clinical trials registers from inception to October 2021.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compare probiotic preparations (including synbiotics) to placebo, no treatment or any other interventional preparation in patients aged between 4 and 18 years of age with a diagnosis of functional abdominal pain disorder according to the Rome II, Rome III or Rome IV criteria.\nData collection and analysis\nThe primary outcomes were treatment success as defined by the primary studies, complete resolution of pain, improvement in the severity of pain and improvement in the frequency of pain. Secondary outcomes included serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, adverse events, school performance or change in school performance or attendance, social and psychological functioning or change in social and psychological functioning, and quality of life or change in quality life measured using any validated scoring tool. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% CI.\nMain results\nWe included 18 RCTs assessing the effectiveness of probiotics and synbiotics in reducing the severity and frequency of pain, involving a total of 1309 patients.\nProbiotics may achieve more treatment success when compared with placebo at the end of the treatment, with 50% success in the probiotic group versus 33% success in the placebo group (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.36; 554 participants; 6 studies; I2 = 70%; low-certainty evidence).\nIt is not clear whether probiotics are more effective than placebo for complete resolution of pain, with 42% success in the probiotic group versus 27% success in the placebo group (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.56; 460 participants; 6 studies; I2 = 70%; very low-certainty evidence). We judged the evidence to be of very low certainty due to high inconsistency and risk of bias.\nWe were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from our meta-analyses of the pain severity and pain frequency outcomes due to very high unexplained heterogeneity leading to very low-certainty evidence.\nNone of the included studies reported serious adverse events. Meta-analysis showed no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events between probiotics (1/275) and placebo (1/269) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.12). The results were identical for the total patients with any reported adverse event outcome. However, these results are of very low certainty due to imprecision from the very low numbers of events and risk of bias.\nSynbiotics may result in more treatment success at study end when compared with placebo, with 47% success in the probiotic group versus 35% success in the placebo group (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.74; 310 participants; 4 studies; I2 = 0%; low certainty). One study used Bifidobacterium coagulans/fructo-oligosaccharide, one used Bifidobacterium lactis/inulin, one used Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG/inulin and in one study this was not stated).\nSynbiotics may result in little difference in complete resolution of pain at study end when compared with placebo, with 52% success in the probiotic group versus 32% success in the placebo group (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.81; 131 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 18%; low-certainty evidence).\nWe were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from our meta-analyses of pain severity or frequency of pain due to very high unexplained heterogeneity leading to very low-certainty evidence.\nNone of the included studies reported serious adverse events. Meta-analysis showed little to no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events between synbiotics (8/155) and placebo (1/147) (RR 4.58, 95% CI 0.80 to 26.19), or in any reported adverse events (3/96 versus 1/93, RR 2.88, 95% CI 0.32 to 25.92). These results are of very low certainty due to imprecision from the very low numbers of events and risk of bias.\nThere were insufficient data to analyse by subgroups of specific functional abdominal pain syndrome (irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, abdominal migraine, functional abdominal pain - not otherwise specified) or by specific strain of probiotic.\nThere was insufficient evidence on school performance or change in school performance/attendance, social and psychological functioning, or quality of life to draw conclusions about the effects of probiotics or synbiotics on these outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results from this review demonstrate that probiotics and synbiotics may be more efficacious than placebo in achieving treatment success, but the evidence is of low certainty. The evidence demonstrates little to no difference between probiotics or synbiotics and placebo in complete resolution of pain. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions about the impact of probiotics or synbiotics on the frequency and severity of pain as the evidence was all of very low certainty due to significant unexplained heterogeneity or imprecision.\nThere were no reported cases of serious adverse events when using probiotics or synbiotics amongst the included studies, although a review of RCTs may not be the best context to assess long-term safety. The available evidence on adverse effects was of very low certainty and no conclusions could be made in this review. Safety will always be a priority in paediatric populations when considering any treatment. Reporting of all adverse events, adverse events needing withdrawal, serious adverse events and, particularly, long-term safety outcomes are vital to meaningfully move forward the evidence base in this field.\nFurther targeted and appropriately designed RCTs are needed to address the gaps in the evidence base. In particular, appropriate powering of studies to confirm the safety of specific strains not yet investigated and studies to investigate long-term follow-up of patients are both warranted.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are probiotics?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Probiotics are live bacteria and yeasts, promoted as having various health benefits. They are often referred to as 'good bacteria'. It is thought that these probiotics may help the natural balance of bacteria in the gut and may improve symptoms in certain illnesses. They can also be added to agents called prebiotics (foods that support the growth of these bacteria and yeasts) and when these are put together in a single preparation, this is a called a synbiotic." } ]
query-laysum	21852	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMost patients with oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal carcinoma are diagnosed at an advanced stage and require palliative intervention. Although there are many kinds of interventions, the optimal one for the palliation of dysphagia remains unclear. This review updates the previous version published in 2009.\nObjectives\nThe aim of this review was to systematically analyse and summarise the efficacy of different interventions used in the palliation of dysphagia in primary oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal carcinoma.\nSearch methods\nTo find new studies for this updated review, in January 2014 we searched, according to the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases model, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL; and major conference proceedings (up to January 2014).\nSelection criteria\nOnly randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in which patients with inoperable or unresectable primary oesophageal cancer underwent palliative treatment. Different interventions like rigid plastic intubation, self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) insertion, brachytherapy, external beam radiotherapy, chemotherapy, oesophageal bypass surgery, chemical and thermal ablation therapy, either head-to-head or in combination, were included. The primary outcome was dysphagia improvement. Secondary outcomes included recurrent dysphagia, technical success, procedure related mortality, 30-day mortality, adverse effects and quality of life.\nData collection and analysis\nData collection and analysis were performed in accordance with the methods of the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Review Group.\nMain results\nWe included 3684 patients from 53 studies. SEMS insertion was safer and more effective than plastic tube insertion. Thermal and chemical ablative therapy provided comparable dysphagia palliation but had an increased requirement for re-interventions and for adverse effects. Anti-reflux stents provided comparable dysphagia palliation to conventional metal stents. Some anti-reflux stents might have reduced gastro-oesophageal reflux and complications. Newly-designed double-layered nitinol (Niti-S) stents were preferable due to longer survival time and fewer complications compared to simple Niti-S stents. Brachytherapy might be a suitable alternative to SEMS in providing a survival advantage and possibly a better quality of life, and might provide better results when combined with argon plasma coagulation or external beam radiation therapy.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSelf-expanding metal stent insertion is safe, effective and quicker in palliating dysphagia compared to other modalities. However, high-dose intraluminal brachytherapy is a suitable alternative and might provide additional survival benefit with a better quality of life. Some anti-reflux stents and newly-designed stents lead to longer survival and fewer complications compared to conventional stents. Combinations of brachytherapy with self-expanding metal stent insertion or radiotherapy are preferable due to the reduced requirement for re-interventions. Rigid plastic tube insertion, dilatation alone or in combination with other modalities, and chemotherapy alone are not recommended for palliation of dysphagia due to a high incidence of delayed complications and recurrent dysphagia.\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 review included randomised controlled studies comparing the use of different interventions to improve dysphagia among patients with inoperable or unresectable primary oesophageal cancer. To find new studies for this updated review, in January 2014 we searched, according to the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases model, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL; and major conference proceedings (up to January 2014)." } ]
query-laysum	21853	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is the second update of a Cochrane Review (Issue 4, 2006). Pain and distress from needle-related procedures are common during childhood and can be reduced through use of psychological interventions (cognitive or behavioral strategies, or both). Our first review update (Issue 10, 2013) showed efficacy of distraction and hypnosis for needle-related pain and distress in children and adolescents.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy of psychological interventions for needle-related procedural pain and distress in children and adolescents.\nSearch methods\nWe searched six electronic databases for relevant trials: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; PsycINFO; Embase; Web of Science (ISI Web of Knowledge); and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We sent requests for additional studies to pediatric pain and child health electronic listservs. We also searched registries for relevant completed trials: clinicaltrials.gov; and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int.trialsearch). We conducted searches up to September 2017 to identify records published since the last review update in 2013.\nSelection criteria\nWe included peer-reviewed published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with at least five participants per study arm, comparing a psychological intervention with a control or comparison group. Trials involved children aged two to 19 years undergoing any needle-related medical procedure.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors extracted data and assessed risks of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We examined pain and distress assessed by child self-report, observer global report, and behavioral measurement (primary outcomes). We also examined any reported physiological outcomes and adverse events (secondary outcomes). We used meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of identified psychological interventions relative to a comparator (i.e. no treatment, other active treatment, treatment as usual, or waitlist) for each outcome separately. We used Review Manager 5 software to compute standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 59 trials (20 new for this update) with 5550 participants. Needle procedures primarily included venipuncture, intravenous insertion, and vaccine injections. Studies included children aged two to 19 years, with few trials focused on adolescents. The most common psychological interventions were distraction (n = 32), combined cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT; n = 18), and hypnosis (n = 8). Preparation/information (n = 4), breathing (n = 4), suggestion (n = 3), and memory alteration (n = 1) were also included. Control groups were often 'standard care', which varied across studies. Across all studies, 'Risk of bias' scores indicated several domains at high or unclear risk, most notably allocation concealment, blinding of participants and outcome assessment, and selective reporting. We downgraded the quality of evidence largely due to serious study limitations, inconsistency, and imprecision.\nVery low- to low-quality evidence supported the efficacy of distraction for self-reported pain (n = 30, 2802 participants; SMD −0.56, 95% CI −0.78 to −0.33) and distress (n = 4, 426 participants; SMD −0.82, 95% CI −1.45 to −0.18), observer-reported pain (n = 11, 1512 participants; SMD −0.62, 95% CI −1.00 to −0.23) and distress (n = 5, 1067 participants; SMD −0.72, 95% CI −1.41 to −0.03), and behavioral distress (n = 7, 500 participants; SMD −0.44, 95% CI −0.84 to −0.04). Distraction was not efficacious for behavioral pain (n = 4, 309 participants; SMD −0.33, 95% CI −0.69 to 0.03). Very low-quality evidence indicated hypnosis was efficacious for reducing self-reported pain (n = 5, 176 participants; SMD −1.40, 95% CI −2.32 to −0.48) and distress (n = 5, 176 participants; SMD −2.53, 95% CI −3.93 to −1.12), and behavioral distress (n = 6, 193 participants; SMD −1.15, 95% CI −1.76 to −0.53), but not behavioral pain (n = 2, 69 participants; SMD −0.38, 95% CI −1.57 to 0.81). No studies assessed hypnosis for observer-reported pain and only one study assessed observer-reported distress. Very low- to low-quality evidence supported the efficacy of combined CBT for observer-reported pain (n = 4, 385 participants; SMD −0.52, 95% CI −0.73 to −0.30) and behavioral distress (n = 11, 1105 participants; SMD −0.40, 95% CI −0.67 to −0.14), but not self-reported pain (n = 14, 1359 participants; SMD −0.27, 95% CI −0.58 to 0.03), self-reported distress (n = 6, 234 participants; SMD −0.26, 95% CI −0.56 to 0.04), observer-reported distress (n = 6, 765 participants; SMD 0.08, 95% CI −0.34 to 0.50), or behavioral pain (n = 2, 95 participants; SMD −0.65, 95% CI −2.36 to 1.06). Very low-quality evidence showed efficacy of breathing interventions for self-reported pain (n = 4, 298 participants; SMD −1.04, 95% CI −1.86 to −0.22), but there were too few studies for meta-analysis of other outcomes. Very low-quality evidence revealed no effect for preparation/information (n = 4, 313 participants) or suggestion (n = 3, 218 participants) for any pain or distress outcome. Given only a single trial, we could draw no conclusions about memory alteration. Adverse events of respiratory difficulties were only reported in one breathing intervention.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe identified evidence supporting the efficacy of distraction, hypnosis, combined CBT, and breathing interventions for reducing children’s needle-related pain or distress, or both. Support for the efficacy of combined CBT and breathing interventions is new from our last review update due to the availability of new evidence. The quality of trials and overall evidence remains low to very low, underscoring the need for improved methodological rigor and trial reporting. Despite low-quality evidence, the potential benefits of reduced pain or distress or both support the evidence in favor of using these interventions in 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": "Psychological strategies affect how children think or what they do before, during, or after a needle. They can be used by children or with support from parents or medical staff, like nurses, psychologists, or child life specialists. The information applies to children aged from two to 19 years who are healthy or ill, undergoing all types of needle procedures at the hospital, in a clinic, or at school." } ]
query-laysum	21854	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nErythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are commonly used to treat anaemia in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, their use has been associated with cardiovascular events. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2014.\nObjectives\nTo compare the efficacy and safety of ESAs (epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, darbepoetin alfa, methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta, and biosimilar ESAs against each other, placebo, or no treatment) to treat anaemia in adults with CKD.\nSearch methods\nIn this update, we searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 29 April 2022 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included a comparison of an ESA (epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, darbepoetin alfa, methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta, a biosimilar epoetin or a biosimilar darbepoetin alfa) with another ESA, placebo or no treatment in adults with CKD were considered for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo independent authors screened the search results and extracted data. Data synthesis was performed using random-effects pairwise meta-analysis (expressed as odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI)) and network meta-analysis. We assessed for heterogeneity and inconsistency within meta-analyses using standard techniques and planned subgroup and meta-regression to explore sources of heterogeneity or inconsistency. We assessed certainty in treatment estimates for the primary outcomes (preventing blood transfusions and death (any cause)) using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.\nMain results\nSixty-two new studies (9237 participants) were included in this update, so the review now includes 117 studies with 25,237 participants. Most studies were at high or unclear risk of bias in most methodological domains. Overall, results remain similar in this update compared to our previous review in 2014.\nFor preventing blood transfusion, epoetin alfa (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.61; low certainty evidence) and epoetin beta (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.47; low certainty evidence) may be superior to placebo, and darbepoetin alfa was probably superior to placebo (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.67; moderate certainty evidence). Methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.02; very low certainty evidence), a biosimilar epoetin (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.03; very low certainty evidence) and a biosimilar darbepoetin alfa (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.91; very low certainty evidence) had uncertain effects on preventing blood transfusion compared to placebo. The comparative effects of ESAs compared with another ESA on preventing blood transfusions were uncertain, in low to very low certainty evidence.\nEffects on death (any cause) were uncertain for epoetin alfa (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.22; low certainty evidence), epoetin beta (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.20; low certainty evidence), methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.71; very low certainty evidence), a biosimilar epoetin (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.36; low certainty evidence) and a biosimilar darbepoetin alfa (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.51 to 5.23; very low certainty evidence) compared to placebo. There was probably no difference between darbepoetin alfa and placebo on the odds of death (any cause) (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21; moderate certainty evidence). The comparative effects of ESAs compared with another ESA on death (any cause) were uncertain in low to very low certainty evidence.\nEpoetin beta probably increased the odds of hypertension when compared to placebo (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.17 to 4.00; moderate certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, epoetin alfa (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.59; very low certainty evidence), darbepoetin alfa (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.14; low certainty evidence) and methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.74; low certainty evidence) may increase the odds of hypertension, but a biosimilar epoetin (OR 1.88, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.67; low certainty evidence) and biosimilar darbepoetin alfa (OR 1.98, 95% CI 0.84 to 4.66; low certainty evidence) had uncertain effects on hypertension. The comparative effects of all ESAs compared with another ESA, placebo or no treatment on cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, vascular access thrombosis, kidney failure, and breathlessness were uncertain. Network analysis for fatigue was not possible due to sparse data.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe comparative effects of different ESAs on blood transfusions, death (any cause and cardiovascular), major cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, stroke, vascular access thrombosis, kidney failure, fatigue and breathlessness were uncertain.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the issue?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "A low red blood cell count (anaemia) is common in people with chronic kidney disease and may cause symptoms such as tiredness or breathlessness, as well as increase the need for a blood transfusion. Epoetin drugs are injectable medications (into the skin or bloodstream) that are used to treat anaemia in people with chronic kidney disease. However, whether epoetin drugs have different benefits and harms when compared to each other is not known because research studies are not available. One way to compare different drugs when a clinical trial has been done is to use a technique called network meta-analysis." } ]
query-laysum	21855	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nManagement of rotator cuff disease may include use of electrotherapy modalities (also known as electrophysical agents), which aim to reduce pain and improve function via an increase in energy (electrical, sound, light, or thermal) into the body. Examples include therapeutic ultrasound, low-level laser therapy (LLLT), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), and pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF). These modalities are usually delivered as components of a physical therapy intervention. This review is one of a series of reviews that form an update of the Cochrane review, 'Physiotherapy interventions for shoulder pain'.\nObjectives\nTo synthesise available evidence regarding the benefits and harms of electrotherapy modalities for the treatment of people with rotator cuff disease.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2015), Ovid EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2015), CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost, January 1937 to March 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP clinical trials registries up to March 2015, unrestricted by language, and reviewed the reference lists of review articles and retrieved trials, to identify potentially relevant trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials, including adults with rotator cuff disease (e.g. subacromial impingement syndrome, rotator cuff tendinitis, calcific tendinitis), and comparing any electrotherapy modality with placebo, no intervention, a different electrotherapy modality or any other intervention (e.g. glucocorticoid injection). Trials investigating whether electrotherapy modalities were more effective than placebo or no treatment, or were an effective addition to another physical therapy intervention (e.g. manual therapy or exercise) were the main comparisons of interest. Main outcomes of interest were overall pain, function, pain on motion, patient-reported global assessment of treatment success, quality of life and the number of participants experiencing adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted the data, performed a risk of bias assessment and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 47 trials (2388 participants). Most trials (n = 43) included participants with rotator cuff disease without calcification (four trials included people with calcific tendinitis). Sixteen (34%) trials investigated the effect of an electrotherapy modality delivered in isolation. Only 23% were rated at low risk of allocation bias, and 49% were rated at low risk of both performance and detection bias (for self-reported outcomes). The trials were heterogeneous in terms of population, intervention and comparator, so none of the data could be combined in a meta-analysis.\nIn one trial (61 participants; low quality evidence), pulsed therapeutic ultrasound (three to five times a week for six weeks) was compared with placebo (inactive ultrasound therapy) for calcific tendinitis. At six weeks, the mean reduction in overall pain with placebo was -6.3 points on a 52-point scale, and -14.9 points with ultrasound (MD -8.60 points, 95% CI -13.48 to -3.72 points; absolute risk difference 17%, 7% to 26% more). Mean improvement in function with placebo was 3.7 points on a 100-point scale, and 17.8 points with ultrasound (mean difference (MD) 14.10 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.39 to 22.81 points; absolute risk difference 14%, 5% to 23% more). Ninety-one per cent (29/32) of participants reported treatment success with ultrasound compared with 52% (15/29) of participants receiving placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.75, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.53; absolute risk difference 39%, 18% to 60% more). Mean improvement in quality of life with placebo was 0.40 points on a 10-point scale, and 2.60 points with ultrasound (MD 2.20 points, 95% CI 0.91 points to 3.49 points; absolute risk difference 22%, 9% to 35% more). Between-group differences were not important at nine months. No participant reported adverse events.\nTherapeutic ultrasound produced no clinically important additional benefits when combined with other physical therapy interventions (eight clinically heterogeneous trials, low quality evidence). We are uncertain whether there are differences in patient-important outcomes between ultrasound and other active interventions (manual therapy, acupuncture, glucocorticoid injection, glucocorticoid injection plus oral tolmetin sodium, or exercise) because the quality of evidence is very low. Two placebo-controlled trials reported results favouring LLLT up to three weeks (low quality evidence), however combining LLLT with other physical therapy interventions produced few additional benefits (10 clinically heterogeneous trials, low quality evidence). We are uncertain whether transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is more or less effective than glucocorticoid injection with respect to pain, function, global treatment success and active range of motion because of the very low quality evidence from a single trial. In other single, small trials, no clinically important benefits of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF), microcurrent electrical stimulation (MENS), acetic acid iontophoresis and microwave diathermy were observed (low or very low quality evidence).\nNo adverse events of therapeutic ultrasound, LLLT, TENS or microwave diathermy were reported by any participants. Adverse events were not measured in any trials investigating the effects of PEMF, MENS or acetic acid iontophoresis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on low quality evidence, therapeutic ultrasound may have short-term benefits over placebo in people with calcific tendinitis, and LLLT may have short-term benefits over placebo in people with rotator cuff disease. Further high quality placebo-controlled trials are needed to confirm these results. In contrast, based on low quality evidence, PEMF may not provide clinically relevant benefits over placebo, and therapeutic ultrasound, LLLT and PEMF may not provide additional benefits when combined with other physical therapy interventions. We are uncertain whether TENS is superior to placebo, and whether any electrotherapy modality provides benefits over other active interventions (e.g. glucocorticoid injection) because of the very low quality of the evidence. Practitioners should communicate the uncertainty of these effects and consider other approaches or combinations of treatment. Further trials of electrotherapy modalities for rotator cuff disease should be based upon a strong rationale and consideration of whether or not they would alter the conclusions of this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Low-quality evidence suggests that therapeutic ultrasound may improve overall pain, function, global treatment success and quality of life more than placebo at short-term (six weeks) in people with calcific tendinitis, that LLLT may improve overall pain and function more than placebo at short-term (up to three weeks), that therapeutic ultrasound and LLLT may produce no clinically important additional benefits in pain and function when combined with other physical therapy interventions alone, and that PEMF may produce no clinically important benefits in pain and function when compared with placebo. Further high quality research is likely to change our confidence in the effect estimates.\nWe are uncertain whether TENS improves pain and function more than placebo, whether therapeutic ultrasound improves pain and function more than other active interventions (manual therapy, acupuncture, glucocorticoid injection, glucocorticoid injection plus oral tolmetin sodium, or exercise), or whether LLLT improves pain and function more than oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) and glucocorticoid injection, because of the very low quality of the evidence." } ]
query-laysum	21856	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPatellar tendinopathy is an overuse condition that commonly affects athletes. Surgery is usually offered if medical and physical therapies fail to treat it effectively. There is variation in the type of surgery performed for the condition.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of surgery for patellar tendinopathy in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases, to 17 July 2018: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Library, OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, clinical trial registries (www.ClinicalTrials.gov) and the WHO trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/).\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared surgical techniques (open or arthroscopic) with non-operative treatment (including placebo surgery, exercise or other non-surgical modalities) in adults with patellar tendinopathy.\nMajor outcomes assessed were knee pain, function, quality of life, participant global assessment of success, withdrawal rate, proportion with adverse events and proportion with tendon rupture.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial characteristics and outcome data, assessed the risk of bias and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nTwo trials (92 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Participants in both trials were followed for 12 months. Neither trial compared surgery to placebo surgery. One trial (40 randomised participants) compared open surgical excision with eccentric exercises, and the other compared arthroscopic surgery with sclerosing injections (52 randomised participants). Due to the nature of the interventions, neither the participants or the investigators were blinded to the group allocation, resulting in the potential for performance and detection bias. Some outcomes were selectively not recorded, leading to reporting bias. Overall, the certainty of the evidence from these studies was low for all outcomes due to the potential for bias, and imprecision due to small sample sizes.\nCompared with eccentric exercises, low-certainty evidence indicates that open surgical excision provides no clinically important benefits with respect to knee pain, function or global assessment of success. At 12 months, mean knee pain — measured by pain with standing jump on a 10-point scale (lower scores indicating less pain) — was 1.7 points (standard deviation (SD) 1.6) in the eccentric training group and 1.3 (SD 0.8) in the surgical group (one trial, 40 participants). This equates to an absolute pain reduction of 4% (ranging from 4% worse to 12% better, the minimal clinically important difference being 15%) and a relative reduction in pain of 10% better (ranging from 30% better to 10% worse) in the treatment group. At 12 months, function on the zero- to 100-point Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment (VISA) scale was 65.7 (SD 23.8) in the eccentric training group and 72.9 (SD 11.7) in the surgical group (one trial, 40 participants). This equates to an absolute change of 7% better function (ranging from 4% worse to 19% better) and relative change of 25% better (ranging from 15% worse to 65% better, the minimal clinically important difference being 13%). Participant global assessment of success was measured by the number of people with no pain at 12 months: 7/20 participants in the eccentric training group reported no pain, compared with 5/20 in the open surgical group (risk ratio (RR) 0.71 (95% CI 0.27 to 1.88); one trial, 40 participants). There were no withdrawals, but five out of 20 people from the eccentric exercise group crossed over to open surgical excision. Quality of life, adverse events and tendon ruptures were not measured.\nCompared with sclerosing injection, low-certainty evidence indicates that arthroscopic surgery may provide a reduction in pain and improvement in participant global assessment of success, however further studies are likely to change these results. At 12 months, mean pain with activities, measured on a 100-point scale (lower scores indicating less pain), was 41.1 (SD 28.5) in the sclerosing injection group and 12.8 (SD 19.3) in the arthroscopic surgery group (one trial, 52 participants). This equates to an absolute pain reduction of 28% better (ranging from 15% to 42% better, the minimal clinically important difference being 15%), and a relative change of 41% better (ranging from 21% to 61% better). At 12 months, the mean participant global assessment of success, measured by satisfaction on a 100-point scale (scale zero to 100, higher scores indicating greater satisfaction), was 52.9 (SD 32.6) in the sclerosing injection group and 86.8 (SD 20.8) in the arthroscopic surgery group (one trial, 52 participants). This equates to an absolute improvement of 34% (ranging from 19% to 49%). In both groups, one participant (4%) withdrew from the study. Functional outcome scores, including the VISA score, were not reported. Quality-of-life assessment, adverse events, and specifically the proportion with a tendon rupture, were not reported.\nWe did not perform subgroup analysis to assess differences in outcome between arthroscopic or open surgical excision, as we did not identify more than one study with a common comparator.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain if surgery is beneficial over other therapeutic interventions, namely eccentric exercises or injectables. Low-certainty evidence shows that surgery for patellar tendinopathy may not provide clinically important benefits over eccentric exercise in terms of pain, function or participant-reported treatment success, but may provide clinically meaningful pain reduction and treatment success when compared with sclerosing injections. However, further research is likely to change these results. The evidence was downgraded two levels due to the small sample sizes and susceptibility to bias. We are uncertain if there are additional risks associated with surgery as study authors failed to report adverse events. Surgery seems to be embedded in clinical practice for late-stage patella tendinopathy, due to exhaustion of other therapeutic methods rather than evidence of benefit.\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": "Patella tendinopathy is a painful condition that commonly affects jumping athletes who train a lot, for example those who play volleyball and basketball. Many people with the condition are unable to continue their chosen sport at the same level of competition or intensity of training. There are many treatments for the condition, the most common of which is a particular type of exercise called eccentric exercise (where the tendon is under tension while the muscle lengthens).\nOther treatments for patella tendinopathy include oral and topical analgesia (pain-relief medication taken orally or applied to the skin), various injectables (e.g. corticosteroids) and surgery. Surgery is used if other treatments fail, and is the treatment assessed in this review." } ]
query-laysum	21857	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe cause of ankle osteoarthritis (OA) is usually trauma. Patients are relatively young, since ankle trauma occurs at a relatively young age. Several conservative treatment options are available, evidence of the benefits and harms of these options are lacking.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of any conservative treatment for ankle OA in adults in order to provide a synthesis of the evidence as a base for future treatment guidelines.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, issue 9), MEDLINE (Ovid) (1946 up to 11 September 2014), EMBASE (1947 to September 2014), PsycINFO (1806 to September 2014), CINAHL (1985 to September 2014), PEDro (all years till September 2014), AMED until September 2014, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, The Dutch Register. To identify potentially relevant studies we screened reference lists in retrieved review articles and trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomised or controlled clinical trials investigating any non-surgical intervention for ankle OA for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nNo other RCT concerning any other conservative treatment besides the use of hyaluronic acid (HA) for ankle OA was identified. Six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included.\nA total of 240 participants diagnosed with ankle OA were included in this review. The primary analysis included three RCTs (109 participants) which compared HA to placebo. One study compared HA to exercise therapy, one compared HA combined with exercise therapy to an intra-articular injection of botulinum toxin and one compared four different dosages of HA.\nPrimary analysis: a pooled analysis of two trials (45 participants) found that the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS) total score (measuring pain and physical function) was reduced by 12% (95% CI −24% to −1%) at six months (mean difference (MD) −12.53 (95% CI −23.84 to −1.22) on a scale of 0 to 100; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 4 (95% CI 2 to 205); this evidence was graded as low quality, due to limitations in study design (unclear risk of selection bias for two studies and unclear risk for attrition bias for one study) and imprecision of results: a small population size (45 participants). It is not known if a mean difference of 12.53 points on a 100 point scale is clinically relevant. No minimal important clinical difference is known for this score. Pain and function outcomes were not reported separately. Radiographic joint structure changes were not investigated. For the mean quality of life at six months (two trials; 45 participants) no meta-analysis could be performed due to missing data. No serious adverse events (SAEs) were noted and no participants withdrew because of an adverse event. There were a few adverse events (AEs) 5/63 (8%) in the HA group and 2/46 (4%) in the placebo group. The Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) to have an adverse event was 2.34 higher compared to the control group (95% CI 0.45 to 12.11). This evidence is inconclusive because of a wide CI and a small number of events.\nFor comparing HA to exercise therapy (30 participants) the results for pain on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS 0 to 10) at 12 months are inconclusive (MD 0.70, 95% CI −2.54 to 1.14). The American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society score (AOFAS score) was 13.10 points (MD) higher in favour of HA (95% CI 2.97 to 23.23) on a scale of 0 to 100. The evidence was graded as low. No adverse events were found. Radiographic structure changes were not measured; no participants withdrew due to AEs; no SAEs were found.\nFor the comparison of HA injection combined with exercise therapy to an intra-articular injection of botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) (75 participants), the outcome of the AOS pain score of the affected joint at six months is inconclusive (MD 0.10, 95% CI −0.42 to 0.62). The physical function (the AOS disability score) at six months is inconclusive (MD 0.20, 95% CI −0.34 to 0.74). The same number of AEs were found in both groups; HA 2/37 (5.9%), BoNT-A 2/38 (5.8%) (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.15 to 6.91). Radiographic changes were not examined, no SAEs were found and no participants withdrew because of an AE. The evidence was graded as low.\nThe RCT comparing four different dosing schedules for HA (26 participants) showed the best median decrease in pain on walking VAS (on a scale of 0 to 100) for 3 x 1 ml at 27 weeks with a median decrease of 30. Physical function, radiographic changes and quality of life were not measured.Twenty-seven percent of all participants had AEs, most of them in the 2ml group (57% in this group). No participants withdrew due to an AE and no SAEs were noted.\nOverall the quality of the evidence showed some serious limitations. The evidence was graded low for the primary analysis comparing HA to placebo. This was based on a limitation in design and implementation: sample sizes were small (45 to 92 participants) and and imprecision in results: there was an unclear risk of bias for several items concerning the three studies used in the meta analysis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently, there is insufficient data to create a synthesis of the evidence as a base for future guidelines for ankle OA. Since the aetiology of ankle OA is different, guidelines that are currently used for hip and knee OA may not be applicable for ankle OA. Simple analgesics as recommended for hip and knee OA seem however a reasonable first step to treat ankle OA. It is unclear if there is a benefit or harm for HA as treatment for ankle OA compared to placebo at six months based on a low quality of evidence. Inconclusive results were found comparing HA to other treatments. HA can be conditionally recommended if patients have an inadequate response to simple analgesics. It remains unclear which patients (age, grade of ankle OA) benefit the most from HA injections and which dosage schedule should be used.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Number of people experiencing any serious adverse events (109 people)\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "- No patient in either group experienced a serious adverse event." } ]
query-laysum	21858	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAmphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) refer to a group of synthetic stimulants including amphetamine, methamphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA) and related substances. ATS are highly addictive and prolonged use may result in a series of mental and physical symptoms including anxiety, confusion, insomnia, mood disturbances, cognitive impairments, paranoia, hallucinations and delusion.\nCurrently there is no widely accepted treatment for ATS-use disorder. However, cognitive-behavioural treatment (CBT) is the first-choice treatment. The effectiveness of CBT for other substance-use disorders (e.g. alcohol-, opioid- and cocaine-use disorders) has been well documented and as such this basic treatment approach has been applied to the ATS-use disorder.\nObjectives\nTo investigate the efficacy of cognitive-behavioural treatment for people with ATS-use disorder for reducing ATS use compared to other types of psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, 12-step facilitation, no intervention or treatment as usual.\nSearch methods\nWe identified randomised controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCTs comparing CBT for ATS-use disorders with other types of psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, 12 step facilitation or no intervention. We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase and five other databases up to July 2018. In addition, we examined reference lists of eligible studies and other systematic reviews. We contacted experts in the field.\nSelection criteria\nEligibility criteria consisted of RCTs and quasi-RCTs comparing CBT versus other types of interventions with adult ATS users (aged 18 years or older) diagnosed by any explicit diagnostic system. Primary outcomes included abstinence rate and other indicators of drug-using behaviours.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nOnly two studies met the eligibility criteria. Both studies were at low risk of selection bias and reporting bias. In one study, almost half of participants in the intervention group dropped out and this study was at high risk of attrition bias. The studies compared a single session of brief CBT or a web-based CBT to a waiting-list control (total sample size across studies of 129). Results were mixed across the studies. For the single-session brief CBT study, two out of five measures of drug use produced significant results, percentage of abstinent days in 90 days (odds ratio (OR) 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 2.11) and dependence symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) –0.59, 95% CI –1.16 to –0.02). Little confidence could be placed in the results from this study give the small sample size (25 participants per group) and corresponding large CIs around the observed effects. For the web-based CBT, there was no significant difference across different outcomes. Neither study reported adverse effects. The meta-analytic mean across these two trials for drug use was not significant (SMD –0.28, 95% CI –0.69 to 0.14). In summary, overall quality of evidence was low and there was insufficient evidence to conclude that CBT is effective, or ineffective, at treating ATS use.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently, there is not enough evidence to establish the efficacy of CBT for ATS-use disorders because of a paucity of high-quality research in this area.\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": "ATS are a group of synthetic stimulants and their use has been widespread globally. These types of drugs are highly addictive and prolonged use may result in a series of mental and physical symptoms including anxiety, confusion, insomnia (difficulty sleeping), mood disturbances, cognitive impairments (difficulty thinking and understanding), paranoia (irrational feeling that people are 'out to get you'), hallucinations (where someone experiences something that does not exist outside their own mind) and delusion (a mistaken belief).\nCurrently there is no widely accepted treatment for ATS-use disorder. However, CBT is often the first choice of treatment. It is a psychological treatment (talking therapy) approach to modify distorted thoughts and beliefs, and maladaptive behaviours (things that people do to stop them from adjusting to situations). The effectiveness of CBT for other substance-use disorders (e.g. alcohol-, opioid- and cocaine-use disorders) has been well documented and as such this basic treatment approach has been applied to the ATS-use disorder. These types of therapies are expected to prevent relapse and decrease drug use." } ]
query-laysum	21859	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2007. Traditionally, after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery postoperative oral intake is withheld until the return of bowel function. There has been concern that early oral intake would result in vomiting and severe paralytic ileus with subsequent aspiration pneumonia, wound dehiscence, and anastomotic leakage. However, evidence-based clinical studies suggest that there may be benefits from early postoperative oral intake.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of early versus delayed (traditional) initiation of oral intake of food and fluids after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL), and the citation lists of relevant publications. The most recent search was conducted 1 April 2014. We also searched a registry for ongoing trials (www.clinicaltrials.gov) on 13 May 2014.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible that compared the effect of early versus delayed initiation of oral intake of food and fluids after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery. Early feeding was defined as oral intake of fluids or food within 24 hours post-surgery regardless of the return of bowel function. Delayed feeding was defined as oral intake after 24 hours post-surgery and only after signs of postoperative ileus resolution.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors selected studies, assessed study quality and extracted the data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We examined continuous data using the mean difference (MD) and a 95% CI. We tested for heterogeneity between the results of different studies using a forest plot of the meta-analysis, the statistical tests of homogeneity of 2 x 2 tables and the I² value. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods.\nMain results\nRates of developing postoperative ileus were comparable between study groups (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.29, P = 0.14, 3 RCTs, 279 women, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). When we considered the rates of nausea or vomiting or both, there was no evidence of a difference between the study groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.67, P = 0.90, 4 RCTs, 484 women, I² = 73%, moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the study groups in abdominal distension (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.47, 2 RCTs, 301 women, I² = 0%) or a need for postoperative nasogastric tube placement (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.80, 1 RCT, 195 women).\nEarly feeding was associated with shorter time to the presence of bowel sound (MD -0.32 days, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.03, P = 0.03, 2 RCTs, 338 women, I² = 52%, moderate-quality evidence) and faster onset of flatus (MD -0.21 days, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.01, P = 0.04, 3 RCTs, 444 women, I² = 23%, moderate-quality evidence). In addition, women in the early feeding group resumed a solid diet sooner (MD -1.47 days, 95% CI -2.26 to -0.68, P = 0.0003, 2 RCTs, 301 women, I² = 92%, moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in time to the first passage of stool between the two study groups (MD -0.25 days, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.09, P = 0.15, 2 RCTs, 249 women, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). Hospital stay was shorter in the early feeding group (MD -0.92 days, 95% CI -1.53 to -0.31, P = 0.003, 4 RCTs, 484 women, I² = 68%, moderate-quality evidence). Infectious complications were less common in the early feeding group (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.73, P = 0.02, 2 RCTs, 183 women, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence). In one study, the satisfaction score was significantly higher in the early feeding group (MD 11.10, 95% CI 6.68 to 15.52, P < 0.00001, 143 women, moderate-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nEarly postoperative feeding after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery for either benign or malignant conditions appeared to be safe without increased gastrointestinal morbidities or other postoperative complications. The benefits of this approach include faster recovery of bowel function, lower rates of infectious complications, shorter hospital stay, and higher satisfaction.\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 risks and benefits of eating food early, versus delaying food for at least 24 hours after abdominal gynaecologic surgery?" } ]
query-laysum	21860	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nUrinary incontinence can affect 40% to 60% of people admitted to hospital after a stroke, with 25% still having problems when discharged from hospital and 15% remaining incontinent after one year.\nThis is an update of a review published in 2005 and updated in 2008.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions for treating urinary incontinence after stroke in adults at least one-month post-stroke.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence and Cochrane Stroke Specialised Registers (searched 30 October 2017 and 1 November 2017 respectively), which contain trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearched journals and conference proceedings.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently undertook data extraction, risk of bias assessment and implemented GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 20 trials (reporting 21 comparisons) with 1338 participants. Data for prespecified outcomes were not available except where reported below.\nIntervention versus no intervention/usual care\nBehavioural interventions: Low-quality evidence suggests behavioural interventions may reduce the mean number of incontinent episodes in 24 hours (mean difference (MD) –1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) –2.74 to 0.74; 1 trial; 18 participants; P = 0.26). Further, low-quality evidence from two trials suggests that behavioural interventions may make little or no difference to quality of life (SMD -0.99, 95% CI -2.83 to 0.86; 55 participants).\nSpecialised professional input interventions: One trial of moderate-quality suggested structured assessment and management by continence nurse practitioners probably made little or no difference to the number of people continent three months after treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.02; 121 participants; equivalent to an increase from 354 to 453 per 1000, 95% CI 287 to 715).\nComplementary therapy: Five trials assessed complementary therapy using traditional acupuncture, electroacupuncture and ginger-salt-partitioned moxibustion plus routine acupuncture. Low-quality evidence from five trials suggested that complementary therapy may increase the number of participants continent after treatment; participants in the treatment group were three times more likely to be continent (RR 2.82, 95% CI 1.57 to 5.07; 524 participants; equivalent to an increase from 193 to 544 per 1000, 95% CI 303 to 978). Adverse events were reported narratively in one study of electroacupuncture, reporting on bruising and postacupuncture abdominal pain in the intervention group.\nPhysical therapy: Two trials reporting three comparisons suggest that physical therapy using transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) may reduce the mean number of incontinent episodes in 24 hours (MD –4.76, 95% CI –8.10 to –1.41; 142 participants; low-quality evidence). One trial of TENS reporting two comparisons found that the intervention probably improves overall functional ability (MD 8.97, 95% CI 1.27 to 16.68; 81 participants; moderate-quality evidence).\nIntervention versus placebo\nPhysical therapy: One trial of physical therapy suggests TPTNS may make little or no difference to the number of participants continent after treatment (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.04; 54 participants) or number of incontinent episodes (MD –1.10, 95% CI –3.99 to 1.79; 39 participants). One trial suggested improvement in the TPTNS group at 26-weeks (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.004 to 0.41) but there was no evidence of a difference in perceived bladder condition at six weeks (OR 2.33, 95% CI 0.63 to 8.65) or 12 weeks (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.29 to 5.17). Data from one trial provided no evidence that TPTNS made a difference to quality of life measured with the ICIQLUTSqol (MD 3.90, 95% CI –4.25 to 12.05; 30 participants). Minor adverse events, such as minor skin irritation and ankle cramping, were reported in one study.\nPharmacotherapy interventions: There was no evidence from one study that oestrogen therapy made a difference to the mean number of incontinent episodes per week in mild incontinence (paired samples, MD –1.71, 95% CI –3.51 to 0.09) or severe incontinence (paired samples, MD –6.40, 95% CI –9.47 to –3.33). One study reported no adverse events.\nSpecific intervention versus another intervention\nBehavioural interventions: One trial comparing a behavioural intervention (timed voiding) with a pharmacotherapy intervention (oxybutynin) contained no useable data.\nComplementary therapy: One trial comparing different acupuncture needles and depth of needle insertion to assess the effect on incontinence reported that, after four courses of treatment, 78.1% participants in the elongated needle group had no incontinent episodes versus 40% in the filiform needle group (57 participants). This trial was assessed as unclear or high for all types of bias apart from incomplete outcome data.\nCombined intervention versus single intervention\nOne trial compared a combined intervention (sensory motor biofeedback plus timed prompted voiding) against a single intervention (timed voiding). The combined intervention may make little or no difference to the number of participants continent after treatment (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.06 to 5.21; 23 participants; equivalent to a decrease from 167 to 92 per 1000, 95% CI 10 to 868) or to the number of incontinent episodes (MD 2.20, 95% CI 0.12 to 4.28; 23 participants).\nSpecific intervention versus attention control\nPhysical therapy interventions: One study found TPTNS may make little or no difference to the number of participants continent after treatment compared to an attention control group undertaking stretching exercises (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.72; 24 participants; equivalent to an increase from 250 to 333 per 1000, 95% CI 95 to 1000).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to guide continence care of adults in the rehabilitative phase after stroke. As few trials tested the same intervention, conclusions are drawn from few, usually small, trials. CIs were wide, making it difficult to ascertain if there were clinically important differences. Only four trials had adequate allocation concealment and many were limited by poor reporting, making it impossible to judge the extent to which they were prone to bias. More appropriately powered, multicentre trials of interventions are required to provide robust evidence for interventions to improve urinary incontinence after stroke.\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 behavioural interventions may reduce the mean number of incontinent episodes in 24 hours but may make little or no difference to quality of life. However, intervention from a continence nurse practitioner probably made little or no difference to the number of people continent three months after treatment. Complementary therapies such as acupuncture may increase the number of participants continent after treatment. Physical therapies, such as transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, may reduce the average number of incontinent episodes in 24 hours and probably improves functional ability." } ]
query-laysum	21861	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPatients with kidney failure require vascular access to receive maintenance haemodialysis (HD), which can be achieved by an arteriovenous fistula or a central venous catheter (CVC). CVC use is related to frequent complications such as venous stenosis and infection. Venous stenosis occurs mainly due to trauma caused by the entrance of the catheter into the venous lumen and repeated contact with the vein wall. A biofilm, a colony of irreversible adherent and self-sufficient micro-organisms embedded in a self-produced matrix of exopolysaccharides, is associated with the development of infections in patients with indwelling catheters. Despite its clinical relevance, the treatment of catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) in patients receiving maintenance HD remains controversial, especially regarding catheter management. Antibiotic lock solutions may sterilise the catheter, treat the infection and prevent unnecessary catheter procedures. However, such treatment may also lead to antibiotic resistance or even clinical worsening in certain more virulent pathogens. Catheter removal and delayed replacement may remove the source of infection, improving infectious outcomes, but this approach may also increase vascular access stenosis, thrombosis or both, or even central vein access failure. Catheter guidewire exchange attempts to remove the source of infection while maintaining access to the same vein and, therefore, may improve clinical outcomes and preserve central veins for future access.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of different interventions for CRBSI treatment in patients receiving maintenance HD through a permanent CVC, such as systemic antibiotics alone or systemic antibiotics combined with either lock solutions or catheter guidewire exchange or catheter replacement.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 21 December 2021 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating the management of CRBSI in permanent CVCs in people receiving maintenance HD.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed their risk of bias, and performed data extraction. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) or hazard ratios (HR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe identified two RCTs and one quasi-RCT that enrolled 760 participants addressing the treatment of CRBSIs in people (children and adults) receiving maintenance HD through CVC. No two studies compared the same interventions. The quasi-RCT compared two different lock solutions (tissue plasminogen activator (TPA) and heparin) with concurrent systemic antibiotics. One RCT compared systemic antibiotics alone and in association with an ethanol lock solution, and the other compared systemic antibiotics with different catheter management strategies (guidewire exchange versus removal and replacement). The overall certainty of the evidence was downgraded due to the small number of participants, high risk of bias in many domains, especially randomisation, allocation, and other sources of bias, and missing outcome data. It is uncertain whether an ethanol lock solution used with concurrent systemic antibiotics improved CRBSI eradication compared to systemic antibiotics alone (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.23) because the certainty of this evidence is very low. There were no reported differences between the effects of TPA and heparin lock solutions on cure rates (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.15) or between catheter guidewire exchange versus catheter removal with delayed replacement, expressed as catheter infection-free survival (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.79). To date, no results are available comparing other interventions.\nOutcomes such as venous stenosis and/or thrombosis, antibiotic resistance, death, and adverse events were not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently, there is no available high certainty evidence to support one treatment over another for CRBSIs. The benefit of using ethanol lock treatment in combination with systemic antibiotics compared to systemic antibiotics alone for CRBSIs in patients receiving maintenance HD remains uncertain due to the very low certainty of the evidence. Hence, further RCTs to identify the benefits and harms of CRBSI treatment options are needed. Future studies should unify CRBSI and cure definitions and improve methodological design.\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": "Further randomised studies to identify the benefits and harms of catheter-related bloodstream infection treatments are needed." } ]
query-laysum	21862	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute bronchiolitis is one of the most frequent causes of emergency department visits and hospitalisation in children up to three years of age. There is no specific treatment for bronchiolitis except for supportive treatment, which includes ensuring adequate hydration and oxygen supplementation. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) aims to widen the lungs' peripheral airways, enabling deflation of overdistended lungs in bronchiolitis. Increased airway pressure also prevents the collapse of poorly supported peripheral small airways during expiration. Observational studies report that CPAP is beneficial for children with acute bronchiolitis. This is an update of a review first published in 2015 and updated in 2019.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of CPAP compared to no CPAP or sham CPAP in infants and children up to three years of age with acute bronchiolitis.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted searches of CENTRAL (2021, Issue 7), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to August 2021), Embase (1974 to August 2021), CINAHL (1981 to August 2021), and LILACS (1982 to August 2021) in August 2021. We also searched the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for completed and ongoing trials on 26 October 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cross-over RCTs, and cluster-RCTs evaluating the effect of CPAP in children with acute bronchiolitis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data using a structured pro forma, analysed data, and performed meta-analyses. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess risk of bias in the included studies. We created a summary of the findings table employing GRADEpro GDT software.\nMain results\nWe included three studies with a total of 122 children (62/60 in intervention/control arms) aged up to 12 months investigating nasal CPAP compared with supportive (or 'standard') therapy. We included one new trial (72 children) in the 2019 update that contributed data to the assessment of respiratory rate and the need for mechanical ventilation for this update. We did not identify any new trials for inclusion in the current update. The included studies were single-centre trials conducted in France, the UK, and India. Two studies were parallel-group RCTs, and one study was a cross-over RCT. The evidence provided by the included studies was of low certainty; we made an assessment of high risk of bias for blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting, and confidence intervals were wide.\nThe effect of CPAP on the need for mechanical ventilation in children with acute bronchiolitis was uncertain due to risk of bias and imprecision around the effect estimate (risk difference −0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.09 to 0.08; 3 RCTs, 122 children; low certainty evidence). None of the trials measured time to recovery. Limited, low certainty evidence indicated that CPAP decreased respiratory rate (decreased respiratory rate is better) (mean difference (MD) −3.81, 95% CI −5.78 to −1.84; 2 RCTs, 91 children; low certainty evidence). Only one trial measured change in arterial oxygen saturation (increased oxygen saturation is better), and the results were imprecise (MD −1.70%, 95% CI −3.76 to 0.36; 1 RCT, 19 children; low certainty evidence). The effect of CPAP on change in arterial partial carbon dioxide pressure (pCO₂) (decrease in pCO₂ is better) was imprecise (MD −2.62 mmHg, 95% CI −5.29 to 0.05; 2 RCTs, 50 children; low certainty evidence). Duration of hospital stay was similar in both the CPAP and supportive care groups (MD 0.07 days, 95% CI −0.36 to 0.50; 2 RCTs, 50 children; low certainty evidence). Two studies did not report pneumothorax, but pneumothorax did not occur in one study. No studies reported occurrences of deaths. Several outcomes (change in partial oxygen pressure, hospital admission rate (from the emergency department to hospital), duration of emergency department stay, and need for intensive care unit admission) were not reported in the included studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe use of CPAP did not reduce the need for mechanical ventilation in children with bronchiolitis, although the evidence was of low certainty. Limited, low certainty evidence suggests that breathing improved (a decreased respiratory rate) in children with bronchiolitis who received CPAP; this finding is unchanged from the 2015 review and 2019 update. Due to the limited available evidence, the effect of CPAP in children with acute bronchiolitis is uncertain for our other outcomes. Larger, adequately powered trials are needed to evaluate the effect of CPAP for children with acute bronchiolitis.\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": "One study was funded by a university hospital; one reported that no funding was received; and the third study did not mention the funding source." } ]
query-laysum	21863	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nChildhood cancer survivors are at a higher risk of developing health conditions such as osteoporosis, and cardiovascular disease than their peers. Health-promoting behaviour, such as consuming a healthy diet, could lessen the impact of these chronic issues, yet the prevalence rate of health-protecting behaviour amongst survivors of childhood cancer is similar to that of the general population. Targeted nutritional interventions may prevent or reduce the incidence of these chronic diseases.\nObjectives\nThe primary aim of this review was to assess the efficacy of a range of nutritional interventions designed to improve the nutritional intake of childhood cancer survivors, as compared to a control group of childhood cancer survivors who did not receive the intervention. Secondary objectives were to assess metabolic and cardiovascular risk factors, measures of weight and body fat distribution, behavioural change, changes in knowledge regarding disease risk and nutritional intake, participants' views of the intervention, measures of health status and quality of life, measures of harm associated with the process or outcomes of the intervention, and cost-effectiveness of the intervention\nSearch methods\nWe searched the electronic databases of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2013, Issue 3), MEDLINE/PubMed (from 1945 to April 2013), and Embase/Ovid (from 1980 to April 2013). We ran the search again in August 2015; we have not yet fully assessed these results, but we have identified one ongoing trial. We conducted additional searching of ongoing trial registers - the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number register and the National Institutes of Health register (both screened in the first half of 2013) - reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, and conference proceedings of the International Society for Paediatric Oncology and the International Conference on Long-Term Complications of Treatment of Children and Adolescents for Cancer (both 2008 to 2012).\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effects of a nutritional intervention with a control group which did not receive the intervention in this review. Participants were childhood cancer survivors of any age, diagnosed with any type of cancer when less than 18 years of age. Participating childhood cancer survivors had completed their treatment with curative intent prior to the intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected and extracted data from each identified study, using a standardised form. We assessed the validity of each identified study using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used the GRADE criteria to assess the quality of each trial.\nMain results\nThree RCTs were eligible for review. A total of 616 participants were included in the analysis. One study included participants who had been treated for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) (275 participants). Two studies included participants who had all forms of paediatric malignancies (266 and 75 participants). All participants were less than 21 years of age at study entry. The follow-up ranged from one month to 36 months from the initial assessment. All intended outcomes were not evaluated by each included study. All studies looked at different interventions, and so we were unable to pool results. We could not rule out the presence of bias in any of the studies.\nThere was no clear evidence of a difference in calcium intake at one month between those who received the single, half-day, group-based education that focused on bone health, and those who received standard care (mean difference (MD) 111.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) -258.97 to 482.17; P = 0.56, low quality evidence). A regression analysis, adjusting for baseline calcium intake and changes in knowledge and self-efficacy, showed a significantly greater calcium intake for the intervention as compared with the control group at the one-month follow-up (beta coefficient 4.92, 95% CI 0.33 to 9.52; P = 0.04). There was statistically significant higher, self-reported milk consumption (MD 0.43, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.79; P = 0.02, low quality evidence), number of days on calcium supplementation (MD 11.42, 95% CI 7.11 to 15.73; P < 0.00001, low quality evidence), and use of any calcium supplementation (risk ratio (RR) 3.35, 95% CI 1.86 to 6.04; P < 0.0001, low quality evidence), with those who received this single, face-to-face, group-based, health behaviour session.\nThere was no clear evidence of a difference in bone density Z-scores measured with a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scan at 36 months follow-up (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.16; P = 0.64, moderate quality evidence) between those who received calcium and vitamin D supplementation combined with nutrition education and those who received nutrition education alone. There was also no clear evidence of a difference in bone mineral density between the intervention and the control group at the 12-month (median difference -0.17, P = 0.99) and 24-month follow-up (median difference -0.04, P = 0.54).\nA single multi-component health behaviour change intervention, focusing on general healthy eating principles, with two telephone follow-ups brought about a 0.17 lower score on the four-point Likert scale of self-reported junk food intake compared with the control group (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.01; P = 0.04, low quality evidence); this result was statistically significant. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups in the self-reported use of nutrition as a health protective behaviour (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.14; P = 0.60, low quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to a paucity of studies, and the heterogeneity of the studies included in this review, we are unable to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of nutritional interventions for use with childhood cancer survivors. Although there is low quality evidence for the improvement in health behaviours using health behaviour change interventions, there remains no evidence as to whether this translates into an improvement in dietary intake. There was also no evidence that the studies reduced the risk of cardiovascular and metabolic disorders in childhood cancer survivors, although no evidence of effect is not the same as evidence of no effect. This review highlights the need for further well designed trials to be implemented in this population.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study Characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The three studies included 616 participants who had completed their therapy for childhood cancer. All of the participants were less than 21 years of age at study entry. The interventions ranged from the promotion of health behaviours to vitamin and mineral supplementation. The follow-up ranged from one month to 36 months from the initial assessment." } ]
query-laysum	21864	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTaking regular exercise, whether cardiovascular-type exercise or resistance exercise, may help people to give up smoking, particularly by reducing cigarette withdrawal symptoms and cravings, and by helping to manage weight gain.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness of exercise-based interventions alone, or combined with a smoking cessation programme, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared with a smoking cessation intervention alone or other non-exercise intervention.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register for studies, using the term 'exercise' or 'physical activity' in the title, abstract or keywords. The date of the most recent search was May 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials that compared an exercise programme alone, or an exercise programme as an adjunct to a cessation programme, with a cessation programme alone or another non-exercise control group. Trials were required to recruit smokers wishing to quit or recent quitters, to assess abstinence as an outcome and have follow-up of at least six months.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking cessation was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available, on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for smoking cessation for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison, as either smoking cessation or relapse prevention. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models.\nMain results\nWe identified 24 eligible trials with a total of 7279 adult participants randomised. Two studies focused on relapse prevention among smokers who had recently stopped smoking, and the remaining 22 studies were concerned with smoking cessation for smokers who wished to quit. Eleven studies were with women only and one with men only. Most studies recruited fairly inactive people. Most of the trials employed supervised, group-based cardiovascular-type exercise supplemented by a home-based exercise programme and combined with a multi-session cognitive behavioural smoking cessation programme. The comparator in most cases was a multi-session cognitive behavioural smoking cessation programme alone. Overall, we judged two studies to be at low risk of bias, 11 at high risk of bias, and 11 at unclear risk of bias.\nAmong the 21 studies analysed, we found low-certainty evidence, limited by potential publication bias and by imprecision, comparing the effect of exercise plus smoking cessation support with smoking cessation support alone on smoking cessation outcomes (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.22; I2 = 0%; 6607 participants). We excluded one study from this analysis as smoking abstinence rates for the study groups were not reported. There was no evidence of subgroup differences according to the type of exercise promoted; the subgroups considered were: cardiovascular-type exercise alone (17 studies), resistance training alone (one study), combined cardiovascular-type and resistance exercise (one study) and type of exercise not specified (two studies). The results were not significantly altered when we excluded trials with high risk of bias, or those with special populations, or those where smoking cessation intervention support was not matched between the intervention and control arms. Among the two relapse prevention studies, we found very low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, that adding exercise to relapse prevention did not improve long-term abstinence compared with relapse prevention alone (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.47; I2 = 0%; 453 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no evidence that adding exercise to smoking cessation support improves abstinence compared with support alone, but the evidence is insufficient to assess whether there is a modest benefit. Estimates of treatment effect were of low or very low certainty, because of concerns about bias in the trials, imprecision and publication bias. Consequently, future trials may change these conclusions.\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 24 studies with a total of 7279 people. Two studies focused on helping those who had recently stopped smoking and the rest of the studies included current smokers who wished to quit. All the studies were conducted with adults. Eleven studies were with women only and one with men only. Most studies recruited fairly inactive people. Most studies offered supervised and group-based, aerobic-type exercise. The evidence is up-to-date to May 2019." } ]
query-laysum	21866	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHistorically, students with intellectual disability were not expected to learn to read, and thus were excluded from reading instruction. Over the past decades, societal expectations for this group of learners have changed in that children and adolescents with intellectual disability are now expected to be provided with, and benefit from, literacy instruction. This shift in societal expectations has also led to an increase in research examining effective interventions for increasing beginning reading skills for students with intellectual disability.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of interventions for teaching beginning reading skills to children and adolescents with intellectual disability.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases up to October 2019: CENTRAL; MEDLINE, including Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase, 13 other databases, and two trials registers. We contacted authors of included studies, examined reference lists, and used Google Scholar to search for additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (including trials that use quasi-random methods of allocation such as date of birth), involving children and adolescents with intellectual disability (defined as an intelligence quotient (IQ) two standard deviations or more below the population mean) between the ages of 4 and 21 years, that evaluated the efficacy of a beginning reading intervention compared to a control intervention, including no treatment control, wait-list control, treatment as usual, attention control, or alternate non-reading instruction control.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles and abstracts yielded by the search against the inclusion criteria, and extracted data from each trial using a piloted data extraction form to collect information about the population, intervention, randomization methods, blinding, sample size, outcome measures, follow-up duration, attrition and handling of missing data, and methods of analysis. When data were missing, one review author contacted the study authors to request additional information. Two review authors assessed the risk of bias of each included study and rated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach (a systematic method for rating the certainty of evidence in meta-analyses). We conducted random-effect meta-analyses, with inverse-variance weighting to combine effect sizes for each of our primary and secondary outcomes. We presented effect sizes as standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).\nMain results\nWe identified seven studies involving 352 children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities that met the inclusion criteria. All studies provided the intervention in school settings. Four studies were conducted in the USA, one in Canada, and two in the UK. Three studies were funded by grants from the US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences; one study by the Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network and the Nova Scotia Health Research Foundation; and three studies did not indicate a funding source.\nWe identified some concerns with risk of bias, mainly due to the difficulty of blinding of participants and personnel, and the lack of blinding of outcome assessors.\nMeta-analyses of the data demonstrated small-to-moderate effects of beginning reading interventions delivered to children and adolescents with intellectual disability across four dependent variables. We found medium effect sizes in favor of the beginning reading interventions for the primary outcomes of phonologic awareness (SMD 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.86; 4 studies, 178 participants; moderate-quality evidence), word reading (SMD 0.54, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.03; 5 studies, 220 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and decoding (SMD 0.40, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.67; 5 studies, 230 participants; low-quality evidence). The studies reported no adverse events. We also found a moderate effect for the secondary outcomes of oral reading fluency (SMD 0.65, 95% CI –0.12 to 1.42; 2 studies, 84 participants; low-quality evidence) and language skills (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.54; 3 studies, 222 participants; moderate-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nResults from this review provide evidence that beginning reading interventions that include elements of phonologic awareness, letter sound instruction, and decoding, delivered to children and adolescents with intellectual disability, are associated with small-to-moderate improvements in phonologic awareness, word reading, decoding, expressive and receptive language, and oral reading fluency. These findings are aligned with previously conducted studies that examined the effects of reading interventions for people without intellectual disability.\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 show that beginning reading interventions are moderately effective for improving phonologic awareness, word reading, decoding skills, oral reading fluency, and language skills in children and adolescents with intellectual disability. The quality of the evidence was low and moderate across the five outcomes we analyzed. No study reported side effects of treatment." } ]
query-laysum	21867	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIn order to overcome the low effectiveness of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and the high incidence of multiple births, metabolomics is proposed as a non-invasive method to assess oocyte quality, embryo viability, and endometrial receptivity, and facilitate a targeted subfertility treatment.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of metabolomic assessment of oocyte quality, embryo viability, and endometrial receptivity for improving live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates in women undergoing ART, compared to conventional methods of assessment.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trial registers (Feburary 2018). We also examined the reference lists of primary studies and review articles, citation lists of relevant publications, and abstracts of major scientific meetings.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) on metabolomic assessment of oocyte quality, embryo viability, and endometrial receptivity in women undergoing ART.\nData collection and analysis\nPairs of review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted the data. The primary outcomes were rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (composite outcome) and miscarriage. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, multiple and ectopic pregnancy, cycle cancellation, and foetal abnormalities. We combined data to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods.\nMain results\nWe included four trials with a total of 924 women, with a mean age of 33 years. All assessed the role of metabolomic investigation of embryo viability. We found no RCTs that addressed the metabolomic assessment of oocyte quality or endometrial receptivity.\nWe found low-quality evidence of little or no difference between metabolomic and non-metabolomic assessment of embryos for rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.35, I² = 0%; four RCTs; N = 924), live birth alone (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.44, I² = 0%; three RCTs; N = 597), or miscarriage (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.82; I² = 0%; three RCTs; N = 869). A sensitivity analysis excluding studies at high risk of bias did not change the interpretation of the results for live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.25, I² = 0%; two RCTs; N = 744). Our findings suggested that if the rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy was 36% in the non-metabolomic group, it would be between 32% and 45% with the use of metabolomics.\nWe found low-quality evidence of little or no difference between groups in rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.45; I²= 44%; four trials; N = 924) or multiple pregnancy (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.19; I² = 0%; two RCTs, N = 180). Rates of cycle cancellation were higher in the metabolomics group (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.69; I² = 51%; two RCTs; N = 744, low quality evidence). There was very low-quality evidence of little or no difference between groups in rates of ectopic pregnancy rates (OR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 74.07; one RCT; N = 417), and foetal abnormality (no events; one RCT; N = 125). Data were lacking on other adverse effects. A sensitivity analysis excluding studies at high risk of bias did not change the interpretation of the results for clinical pregnancy (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.38; I² = 40%; two RCTs; N = 744).\nThe overall quality of the evidence ranged from very low to low. Limitations included serious risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods, attrition bias, selective reporting, and other biases), imprecision, and inconsistency across trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAccording to current trials in women undergoing ART, there is no evidence to show that metabolomic assessment of embryos before implantation has any meaningful effect on rates of live birth, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy or foetal abnormalities. The existing evidence varied from very low to low-quality. Data on other adverse events were sparse, so we could not reach conclusions on these. At the moment, there is no evidence to support or refute the use of this technique for subfertile women undergoing ART. Robust evidence is needed from further RCTs, which study the effects on live birth and miscarriage rates for the metabolomic assessment of embryo viability. Well designed and executed trials are also needed to study the effects on oocyte quality and endometrial receptivity, since none are currently available.\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 four randomised controlled trials, with a total of 924 women, that compared metabolomic profile assessment with morphology assessment of embryos. The women were an average age of 33 years old. All studies were conducted between 2011 and 2013; length of follow-up was not specified in any of them. The evidence is current to 26 Feburary 2018." } ]
query-laysum	21868	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with coronary heart disease (CHD) often require prolonged absences from work to convalesce after acute disease events like myocardial infarctions (MI) or revascularisation procedures such as coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Reduced functional capacity and anxiety due to CHD may further delay or prevent return to work.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of person- and work-directed interventions aimed at enhancing return to work in patients with coronary heart disease compared to usual care or no intervention.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, NIOSHTIC, NIOSHTIC-2, HSELINE, CISDOC, and LILACS through 11 October 2018. We also searched the US National Library of Medicine registry, clinicaltrials.gov, to identify ongoing studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining return to work among people with CHD who were provided either an intervention or usual care. Selected studies included only people treated for MI or who had undergone either a CABG or PCI. At least 80% of the study population should have been working prior to the CHD and not at the time of the trial, or study authors had to have considered a return-to-work subgroup. We included studies in all languages. Two review authors independently selected the studies and consulted a third review author to resolve disagreements.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors extracted data and independently assessed the risk of bias. We conducted meta-analyses of rates of return to work and time until return to work. We considered the secondary outcomes, health-related quality of life and adverse events among studies where at least 80% of study participants were eligible to return to work.\nMain results\nWe found 39 RCTs (including one cluster- and four three-armed RCTs). We included the return-to-work results of 34 studies in the meta-analyses.\nPerson-directed, psychological counselling versus usual care\nWe included 11 studies considering return to work following psychological interventions among a subgroup of 615 participants in the meta-analysis. Most interventions used some form of counselling to address participants' disease-related anxieties and provided information on the causes and course of CHD to dispel misconceptions. We do not know if these interventions increase return to work up to six months (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.40; six studies; very low-certainty evidence) or at six to 12 months (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.63; seven studies; very low-certainty evidence). We also do not know if psychological interventions shorten the time until return to work. Psychological interventions may have little or no effect on the proportion of participants working between one and five years (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.34; three studies; low-certainty evidence).\nPerson-directed, work-directed counselling versus usual care\nFour studies examined work-directed counselling. These counselling interventions included advising patients when to return to work based on treadmill testing or extended counselling to include co-workers' fears and misconceptions regarding CHD. Work-directed counselling may result in little to no difference in the mean difference (MD) in days until return to work (MD −7.52 days, 95% CI −20.07 to 5.03 days; four studies; low-certainty evidence). Work-directed counselling probably results in little to no difference in cardiac deaths (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.39; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence).\nPerson-directed, physical conditioning interventions versus usual care\nNine studies examined the impact of exercise programmes. Compared to usual care, we do not know if physical interventions increase return to work up to six months (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.41; four studies; very low-certainty evidence). Physical conditioning interventions may result in little to no difference in return-to-work rates at six to 12 months (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.20; five studies; low-certainty evidence), and may also result in little to no difference on the rates of patients working after one year (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; two studies; low-certainty evidence). Physical conditioning interventions may result in little to no difference in the time needed to return to work (MD −7.86 days, 95% CI −29.46 to 13.74 days; four studies; low-certainty evidence). Physical conditioning interventions probably do not increase cardiac death rates (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.80; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence).\nPerson-directed, combined interventions versus usual care\nWe included 13 studies considering return to work following combined interventions in the meta-analysis. Combined cardiac rehabilitation programmes may have increased return to work up to six months (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.98; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5; four studies; low-certainty evidence), and may have little to no difference on return-to-work rates at six to 12 months' follow-up (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13; 10 studies; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if combined interventions increased the proportions of participants working between one and five years (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.37; six studies; very low-certainty evidence) or at five years (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.38; four studies; very low-certainty evidence). Combined interventions probably shortened the time needed until return to work (MD −40.77, 95% CI −67.19 to −14.35; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Combining interventions probably results in little to no difference in reinfarctions (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.40; three studies; moderate-certainty evidence).\nWork-directed, interventions\nWe found no studies exclusively examining strictly work-directed interventions at the workplace.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCombined interventions may increase return to work up to six months and probably reduce the time away from work. Otherwise, we found no evidence of either a beneficial or harmful effect of person-directed interventions. The certainty of the evidence for the various interventions and outcomes ranged from very low to moderate. Return to work was typically a secondary outcome of the studies, and as such, the results pertaining to return to work were often poorly reported. Adhering to RCT reporting guidelines could greatly improve the evidence of future research. A research gap exists regarding controlled trials of work-directed interventions, health-related quality of life within the return-to-work process, and adverse effects.\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": "People recovering from a heart attack or from a procedure to improve heart disease may have problems returning to work. These procedures could be a bypass (a surgical procedure to bypass narrowed coronary arteries, also called coronary artery bypass graft or CABG) or a nonsurgical intervention, including implanting stents (called percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI)), for example. Physical weakness and emotional problems resulting from heart disease may result in long absences from work or lead to disability retirement. Conditions at work may also make it difficult for patients to return to work. This can have a lasting impact on their quality of life. We looked at programmes that made it easier for people to return to work, for example by modifying their working conditions, or addressing the anxiety that often accompanies heart disease by educating patients on heart health, helping them to exercise or applying a combination of counselling and exercise to help them become healthy enough to return to work." } ]
query-laysum	21869	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMany women experience fear of childbirth (FOC). While fears about childbirth may be normal during pregnancy, some women experience high to severe FOC. At the extreme end of the fear spectrum is tocophobia, which is considered a specific condition that may cause distress, affect well-being during pregnancy and impede the transition to parenthood. Various interventions have been trialled, which support women to reduce and manage high to severe FOC, including tocophobia.\nObjectives\nTo investigate the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for reducing fear of childbirth (FOC) compared with standard maternity care in pregnant women with high to severe FOC, including tocophobia.\nSearch methods\nIn July 2020, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies. We contacted researchers of trials which were registered and appeared to be ongoing.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised clinical trials which recruited pregnant women with high or severe FOC (as defined by the individual trial), for treatment intended to reduce FOC. Two review authors independently screened and selected titles and abstracts for inclusion. We excluded quasi-randomised and cross-over trials.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological approaches as recommended by Cochrane. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the studies for risk of bias. A third review author checked the data analysis for accuracy. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. The primary outcome was a reduction in FOC. Secondary outcomes were caesarean section, depression, birth preference for caesarean section or spontaneous vaginal delivery, and epidural use.\nMain results\nWe included seven trials with a total of 1357 participants. The interventions included psychoeducation, cognitive behavioural therapy, group discussion, peer education and art therapy.\nWe judged four studies as high or unclear risk of bias in terms of allocation concealment; we judged three studies as high risk in terms of incomplete outcome data; and in all studies, there was a high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to concerns about risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency. None of the studies reported data about women's anxiety.\nParticipating in non-pharmacological interventions may reduce levels of fear of childbirth, as measured by the Wijma Delivery Expectancy Questionnaire (W-DEQ), but the reduction may not be clinically meaningful (mean difference (MD) -7.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) -12.19 to -1.97; 7 studies, 828 women; low-certainty evidence). The W-DEQ tool is scored from 0 to 165 (higher score = greater fear).\nNon-pharmacological interventions probably reduce the number of women having a caesarean section (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89; 5 studies, 557 women; moderate-certainty evidence).\nThere may be little to no difference between non-pharmacological interventions and usual care in depression scores measured with the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) (MD 0.09, 95% CI -1.23 to 1.40; 2 studies, 399 women; low-certainty evidence). The EPDS tool is scored from 0 to 30 (higher score = greater depression).\nNon-pharmacological interventions probably lead to fewer women preferring a caesarean section (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.89; 3 studies, 276 women; moderate-certainty evidence).\nNon-pharmacological interventions may increase epidural use compared with usual care, but the 95% CI includes the possibility of a slight reduction in epidural use (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.48; 2 studies, 380 women; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe effect of non-pharmacological interventions for women with high to severe fear of childbirth in terms of reducing fear is uncertain. Fear of childbirth, as measured by W-DEQ, may be reduced but it is not certain if this represents a meaningful clinical reduction of fear. There may be little or no difference in depression, but there may be a reduction in caesarean section delivery. Future trials should recruit adequate numbers of women and measure birth satisfaction and anxiety.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We found seven studies that involved 1357 pregnant women with a high to severe fear of childbirth including tocophobia. The studies investigated different types of treatment, including:\n- psychoeducation (a structured form of education offered to people with mental health conditions);\n- cognitive behavioural therapy (a ‘talking therapy’ that aims to help identify and change underlying thought patterns);\n- group discussion;peer teaching from other pregnant women;\n- and art therapy.\nThe studies were conducted in five different countries (Australia, Iran, Sweden, Finland and Turkey).\nWe found that non-pharmacological treatments:\n- may reduce fear of childbirth when measured by a widely-used questionnaire, though the reduction may not represent a meaningful change in women's level of fear.\n- probably reduce the number of women who go on to have caesarean births (28% of women receiving non-drug treatments had caesarean sections, compared to 40% of women not receiving treatment for fear of childbirth).\n- may make little to no difference compared to standard maternity care in terms of women’s depression scores." } ]
query-laysum	21870	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAlopecia areata is an autoimmune disease leading to nonscarring hair loss on the scalp or body. There are different treatments including immunosuppressants, hair growth stimulants, and contact immunotherapy.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of the treatments for alopecia areata (AA), alopecia totalis (AT), and alopecia universalis (AU) in children and adults.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP were searched up to July 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated classical immunosuppressants, biologics, small molecule inhibitors, contact immunotherapy, hair growth stimulants, and other therapies in paediatric and adult populations with AA.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard procedures expected by Cochrane including assessment of risks of bias using RoB2 and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The primary outcomes were short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (between 12 and 26 weeks of follow-up), and incidence of serious adverse events. The secondary outcomes were long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (greater than 26 weeks of follow-up) and health-related quality of life. We could not perform a network meta-analysis as very few trials compared the same treatments. We presented direct comparisons and made a narrative description of the findings.\nMain results\nWe included 63 studies that tested 47 different treatments in 4817 randomised participants. All trials used a parallel-group design except one that used a cross-over design. The mean sample size was 78 participants. All trials recruited outpatients from dermatology clinics. Participants were between 2 and 74 years old. The trials included patients with AA (n = 25), AT (n = 1), AU (n = 1), mixed cases (n = 31), and unclear types of alopecia (n = 4).\nThirty-three out of 63 studies (52.3%) reported the proportion of participants achieving short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (between 12 and 26 weeks). Forty-seven studies (74.6%) reported serious adverse events and only one study (1.5%) reported health-related quality of life. Five studies (7.9%) reported the proportion of participants with long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (greater than 26 weeks).\nAmongst the variety of interventions found, we prioritised some groups of interventions for their relevance to clinical practice: systemic therapies (classical immunosuppressants, biologics, and small molecule inhibitors), and local therapies (intralesional corticosteroids, topical small molecule inhibitors, contact immunotherapy, hair growth stimulants and cryotherapy).\nConsidering only the prioritised interventions, 14 studies from 12 comparisons reported short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% and 22 studies from 10 comparisons reported serious adverse events (18 reported zero events and 4 reported at least one). One study (1 comparison) reported quality of life, and two studies (1 comparison) reported long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75%.\nFor the main outcome of short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75%, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of oral prednisolone or cyclosporine versus placebo (RR 4.68, 95% CI 0.57 to 38.27; 79 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), intralesional betamethasone or triamcinolone versus placebo (RR 13.84, 95% CI 0.87 to 219.76; 231 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), oral ruxolitinib versus oral tofacitinib (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.52; 80 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), diphencyprone or squaric acid dibutil ester versus placebo (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71; 99 participants; 1 study; very-low-certainty evidence), diphencyprone or squaric acid dibutyl ester versus topical minoxidil (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71; 99 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), diphencyprone plus topical minoxidil versus diphencyprone (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.44; 30 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), topical minoxidil 1% and 2% versus placebo (RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.96; 202 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and cryotherapy versus fractional CO2 laser (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.86; 80 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests oral betamethasone may increase short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% compared to prednisolone or azathioprine (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.88; 80 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between subcutaneous dupilumab and placebo in short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (RR 3.59, 95% CI 0.19 to 66.22; 60 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) as well as between topical ruxolitinib and placebo (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 100.89; 78 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). However, baricitinib results in an increase in short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% when compared to placebo (RR 7.54, 95% CI 3.90 to 14.58; 1200 participants; 2 studies; high-certainty evidence).\nFor the incidence of serious adverse events, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of topical ruxolitinib versus placebo (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.94; 78 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Baricitinib and apremilast may result in little to no difference in the incidence of serious adverse events versus placebo (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.60; 1224 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). The same result is observed for subcutaneous dupilumab compared to placebo (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.07 to 36.11; 60 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).\nFor health-related quality of life, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of oral cyclosporine compared to placebo (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.07; very low-certainty evidence).\nBaricitinib results in an increase in long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% compared to placebo (RR 8.49, 95% CI 4.70 to 15.34; 1200 participants; 2 studies; high-certainty evidence).\nRegarding the risk of bias, the most relevant issues were the lack of details about randomisation and allocation concealment, the limited efforts to keep patients and assessors unaware of the assigned intervention, and losses to follow-up.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found that treatment with baricitinib results in an increase in short- and long-term hair regrowth compared to placebo. Although we found inconclusive results for the risk of serious adverse effects with baricitinib, the reported small incidence of serious adverse events in the baricitinib arm should be balanced with the expected benefits. We also found that the impact of other treatments on hair regrowth is very uncertain. Evidence for health-related quality of life is still scant.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why did we do this Cochrane Review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Due to the broad landscape of treatments for alopecia areata, we wanted to know the potential benefits and harms of the available treatments and to see if some of them work better than others." } ]
query-laysum	21871	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 1, 2002 and previously updated in 2004 and 2007.\nBenign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) is a syndrome characterised by short-lived episodes of vertigo in association with rapid changes in head position. It is a common cause of vertigo presenting to primary care and specialist otolaryngology clinics. Current treatment approaches include rehabilitative exercises and physical manoeuvres, including the Epley manoeuvre.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of the Epley manoeuvre for posterior canal BPPV.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; CENTRAL; PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 23 January 2014.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of the Epley manoeuvre versus placebo, no treatment or other active treatment for adults diagnosed with posterior canal BPPV (including a positive Dix-Hallpike test). The primary outcome of interest was complete resolution of vertigo symptoms. Secondary outcomes were conversion of a 'positive' Dix-Hallpike test to a 'negative' Dix-Hallpike test and adverse effects of treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nWe included 11 trials in the review with a total of 745 patients.\nFive studies compared the efficacy of the Epley manoeuvre against a sham manoeuvre, three against other particle repositioning manoeuvres (Semont, Brandt-Daroff and Gans) and three against a control (no treatment, medication only, postural restriction). Patients were treated in hospital otolaryngology departments in eight studies and family practices in two studies. All patients were adults aged 18 to 90 years old, with a sex ratio of 1:1.5 male to female.\nThere was a low risk of overall bias in the studies included. All studies were randomised with six applying sealed envelope or external allocation techniques. Eight of the trials blinded the assessors to the participants' treatment group and data on all outcomes for all participants were reported in eight of the 11 studies.\nComplete resolution of vertigo\nComplete resolution of vertigo occurred significantly more often in the Epley treatment group when compared to a sham manoeuvre or control (odds ratio (OR) 4.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.62 to 7.44; five studies, 273 participants); the proportion of patients resolving increased from 21% to 56%. None of the trials comparing Epley versus other particle repositioning manoeuvres reported vertigo resolution as an outcome.\nConversion of Dix-Hallpike positional test result from positive to negative\nConversion from a positive to a negative Dix-Hallpike test significantly favoured the Epley treatment group when compared to a sham manoeuvre or control (OR 9.62, 95% CI 6.0 to 15.42; eight studies, 507 participants). There was no difference when comparing the Epley with the Semont manoeuvre (two studies, 117 participants) or the Epley with the Gans manoeuvre (one study, 58 participants). In one study a single Epley treatment was more effective than a week of three times daily Brandt-Daroff exercises (OR 12.38, 95% CI 4.32 to 35.47; 81 participants).\nAdverse effects\nAdverse effects were infrequently reported. There were no serious adverse effects of treatment. Rates of nausea during the repositioning manoeuvre varied from 16.7% to 32%. Some patients were unable to tolerate the manoeuvres because of cervical spine problems.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is evidence that the Epley manoeuvre is a safe, effective treatment for posterior canal BPPV, based on the results of 11, mostly small, randomised controlled trials with relatively short follow-up. There is a high recurrence rate of BPPV after treatment (36%). Outcomes for Epley manoeuvre treatment are comparable to treatment with Semont and Gans manoeuvres, but superior to Brandt-Daroff exercises.\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": "For resolution of vertigo the Epley manoeuvre was significantly more effective than a sham manoeuvre or control. None of the trials that compared Epley versus other particle repositioning manoeuvres reported vertigo resolution as an outcome.\nWhen studies looked at the conversion from a positive to a negative Dix-Hallpike test (a test to diagnose BPPV) in the patients, the results significantly favoured the Epley treatment group when compared to a sham manoeuvre or control. There was no difference when Epley was compared with the Semont or Gans manoeuvre. In one study a single Epley treatment was more effective than a week of three times daily Brandt-Daroff exercises.\nAdverse effects were not often reported. There were no serious adverse effects of treatment. Rates of nausea during the repositioning manoeuvre varied from 16.7% to 32%. Some patients were unable to tolerate the manoeuvres because of cervical spine (neck) problems.\nThe review of trials found that the Epley manoeuvre is safe and effective in the short term. Other specific sequences of physical movements, the Semont and Gans manoeuvres, have similar results." } ]
query-laysum	21872	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a form of diabetes occurring during pregnancy which can result in short- and long-term adverse outcomes for women and babies. With an increasing prevalence worldwide, there is a need to assess strategies, including dietary advice interventions, that might prevent GDM.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of dietary advice interventions for preventing GDM and associated adverse health outcomes for women and their babies.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (3 January 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the effects of dietary advice interventions compared with no intervention (standard care), or to different dietary advice interventions. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 11 trials involving 2786 women and their babies, with an overall unclear to moderate risk of bias. Six trials compared dietary advice interventions with standard care; four compared low glycaemic index (GI) with moderate- to high-GI dietary advice; one compared specific (high-fibre focused) with standard dietary advice.\nDietary advice interventions versus standard care (six trials)\nConsidering primary outcomes, a trend towards a reduction in GDM was observed for women receiving dietary advice compared with standard care (average risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 1.04; five trials, 1279 women; Tau² = 0.20; I² = 56%; P = 0.07; GRADE: very low-quality evidence); subgroup analysis suggested a greater treatment effect for overweight and obese women receiving dietary advice. While no clear difference was observed for pre-eclampsia (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.46; two trials, 282 women; GRADE: low-quality evidence) a reduction in pregnancy-induced hypertension was observed for women receiving dietary advice (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.88; two trials, 282 women; GRADE: low-quality evidence). One trial reported on perinatal mortality, and no deaths were observed (GRADE: very low-quality evidence). None of the trials reported on large-for-gestational age or neonatal mortality and morbidity.\nFor secondary outcomes, no clear differences were seen for caesarean section (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.24; four trials, 1194 women; Tau² = 0.02; I² = 36%; GRADE: low-quality evidence) or perineal trauma (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.23 to 3.08; one trial, 759 women; GRADE: very low-quality evidence). Women who received dietary advice gained less weight during pregnancy (mean difference (MD) -4.70 kg, 95% CI -8.07 to -1.34; five trials, 1336 women; Tau² = 13.64; I² = 96%; GRADE: low-quality evidence); the result should be interpreted with some caution due to considerable heterogeneity. No clear differences were seen for the majority of secondary outcomes reported, including childhood/adulthood adiposity (skin-fold thickness at six months) (MD -0.10 mm, 95% CI -0.71 to 0.51; one trial, 132 children; GRADE: low-quality evidence). Women receiving dietary advice had a lower well-being score between 14 and 28 weeks, more weight loss at three months, and were less likely to have glucose intolerance (one trial).\nThe trials did not report on other secondary outcomes, particularly those related to long-term health and health service use and costs. We were not able to assess the following outcomes using GRADE: postnatal depression; maternal type 2 diabetes; neonatal hypoglycaemia; childhood/adulthood type 2 diabetes; and neurosensory disability.\nLow-GI dietary advice versus moderate- to high-GI dietary advice (four trials)\nConsidering primary outcomes, no clear differences were shown in the risks of GDM (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.31; four trials, 912 women; GRADE: low-quality evidence) or large-for-gestational age (average RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.86; three trials, 777 babies; Tau² = 0.61; P = 0.07; I² = 62%; GRADE: very low-quality evidence) between the low-GI and moderate- to high-GI dietary advice groups. The trials did not report on: hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; perinatal mortality; neonatal mortality and morbidity.\nNo clear differences were shown for caesarean birth (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.04; two trials, 201 women; GRADE: very low-quality evidence) and gestational weight gain (MD -1.23 kg, 95% CI -4.08 to 1.61; four trials, 787 women; Tau² = 7.31; I² = 90%; GRADE: very low-quality evidence), or for other reported secondary outcomes.\nThe trials did not report the majority of secondary outcomes including those related to long-term health and health service use and costs. We were not able to assess the following outcomes using GRADE: perineal trauma; postnatal depression; maternal type 2 diabetes; neonatal hypoglycaemia; childhood/adulthood adiposity; type 2 diabetes; and neurosensory disability.\nHigh-fibre dietary advice versus standard dietary advice (one trial)\nThe one trial in this comparison reported on two secondary outcomes. No clear difference between the high-fibre and standard dietary advice groups observed for mean blood glucose (following an oral glucose tolerance test at 35 weeks), and birthweight.\nAuthors' conclusions\nVery low-quality evidence from five trials suggests a possible reduction in GDM risk for women receiving dietary advice versus standard care, and low-quality evidence from four trials suggests no clear difference for women receiving low- versus moderate- to high-GI dietary advice. A possible reduction in pregnancy-induced hypertension for women receiving dietary advice was observed and no clear differences were seen for other reported primary outcomes. There were few outcome data for secondary outcomes.\nFor outcomes assessed using GRADE, evidence was considered to be low to very low quality, with downgrading based on study limitations (risk of bias), imprecision, and inconsistency.\nMore high-quality evidence is needed to determine the effects of dietary advice interventions in pregnancy. Future trials should be designed to monitor adherence, women's views and preferences, and powered to evaluate effects on short- and long-term outcomes; there is a need for such trials to collect and report on core outcomes for GDM research. We have identified five ongoing studies and four are awaiting classification. We will consider these in the next review update.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the issue?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Can dietary advice for pregnant women prevent the development of diabetes in pregnancy, known as gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), which can cause health complications for women and their babies?" } ]
query-laysum	21873	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSmall cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a very fast growing form of cancer and is characterised by early metastasis. As a result, chemotherapy is the mainstay of treatment. A number of different platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and non-platinum-based chemotherapy regimens have been used for the treatment of SCLC, with varying results. This review was conducted to analyse the data from these studies in order to compare their effectiveness.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness of platinum chemotherapy regimens compared with non-platinum chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of SCLC with respect to survival, tumour response, toxicity and quality of life.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the biomedical literature databases CENTRAL (TheCochrane Library 2014, Issue 7), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from 1966 to August 2014. In addition, we handsearched reference lists from relevant resources.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials involving patients with pathologically confirmed SCLC (including both limited-stage disease and extensive-stage disease) and the use of a platinum-based chemotherapy regimen in at least one treatment arm and a non-platinum-based chemotherapy regimen in a separate arm.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. Two authors independently assessed search results. We assessed included studies for methodological quality and recorded the following outcome data: survival, tumour response, toxicity and quality of life. We combined the results of the survival, tumour response and toxicity data in a meta-analysis. Quality-of-life data were analysed individually.\nMain results\nA total of 32 studies involving 6075 patients with SCLC were included in this systematic review. The majority of studies were multi-centre randomised controlled trials conducted throughout Europe, North America and Asia with the earliest study publishing data in 1981 and the latest in 2014. The duration of studies ranged from 12 to 72 months with a median of 32 months. The median age of patients in the vast majority of studies was between 60 and 65 years of age. Eighteen studies presented data on extensive-stage disease. Nine studies presented data on limited-stage disease. Eleven studies did not present data based on the disease stage. These data were analysed separately in subgroup analyses. Sixteen (50%) studies were of good quality with a low risk of bias and the data from these studies were analysed separately in a heterogeneity analysis.\nThere was no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in terms of survival at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. There was also no statistically significant difference in terms of overall tumour response. However, platinum-based treatment regimens did have a significantly higher rate of complete response. Platinum-based chemotherapy regimens had significantly higher rates of nausea and vomiting and thrombocytopenia toxicity. Four trials presented quality-of-life data, but, due to the different systems used to measure quality of life this data could not be combined in a meta-analysis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPlatinum-based chemotherapy regimens did not offer a statistically significant benefit in survival or overall tumour response compared with non-platinum-based regimens. However, platinum-based chemotherapy regimens did increase complete response rates, at the cost of higher adverse events including nausea and vomiting, anaemia and thrombocytopenia toxicity. These data suggest non-platinum chemotherapy regimens have a more advantageous risk-benefit profile. This systematic review highlights the lack of quality-of-life data in trials involving chemotherapy treatment for SCLC. With poor long-term survival associated with both treatment groups, the issue of the quality of the survival period takes on even more significance. It would be beneficial for future trials in this area to include a quality-of-life assessment.\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 for studies up to 1st August 2014. A total of 32 studies were part of this review and included 6,075 patients in total. The studies were carried out in many different countries throughout Europe, Asia and North America. The studies were conducted between 1981 and 2014." } ]
query-laysum	21874	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nUrgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD), defined as initiation of PD within two weeks of catheter insertion, has been emerging as an alternative mode of dialysis initiation for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) requiring urgent dialysis without established permanent dialysis access. Recently, several small studies have reported comparable patient outcomes between urgent-start and conventional-start PD.\nObjectives\nTo examine the benefits and harms of urgent-start PD compared with conventional-start PD in adults and children with CKD requiring long-term kidney replacement therapy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 25 May 2020 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nFor non-randomised controlled trials, MEDLINE (OVID) (1946 to 27 June 2019), EMBASE (OVID) (1980 to 27 June 2019), Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov (up to 27 June 2019) were searched.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs comparing the outcomes of urgent-start PD (within 2 weeks of catheter insertion) and conventional-start PD ( ≥ 2 weeks of catheter insertion) treatment in children and adults CKD patients requiring long-term dialysis were included. Studies without a control group were excluded.\nData collection and analysis\nData were extracted and quality of studies were examined by two independent authors. The authors contacted investigators for additional information. Summary estimates of effect were examined using random-effects model and results were presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as appropriate for the data. The certainty of evidence for individual outcome was assessed using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nA total of 16 studies (2953 participants) were included in this review, which included one multicentre RCT (122 participants) and 15 non-RCTs (2831 participants): 13 cohort studies (2671 participants) and 2 case-control studies (160 participants). The review included unadjusted data for analyses due to paucity of studies reporting adjusted data.\nIn low certainty evidence, urgent-start PD may increase dialysate leak (1 RCT, 122 participants: RR 3.90, 95% CI 1.56 to 9.78) compared with conventional-start PD which translated into an absolute number of 210 more leaks per 1000 (95% CI 40 to 635).\nIn very low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether urgent-start PD increases catheter blockage (4 cohort studies, 1214 participants: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.43; 2 case-control studies, 160 participants: RR 1.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 6.13), catheter malposition (6 cohort studies, 1353 participants: RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.32; 1 case-control study, 104 participants: RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.64 to 13.96), and PD dialysate flow problems (3 cohort studies, 937 participants: RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.34 to 6.14) compared to conventional-start PD.\nIn very low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether urgent-start PD increases exit-site infection (2 cohort studies, 337 participants: RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.24 to 8.61; 1 case-control study, 104 participants RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.50), exit-site bleeding (1 RCT, 122 participants: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.03 to 16.81; 1 cohort study, 27 participants: RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.32), peritonitis (7 cohort studies, 1497 participants: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.46; 2 case-control studies, 160 participants: RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.12 to 9.51), catheter readjustment (2 cohort studies, 739 participants: RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.02), or reduces technique survival (1 RCT, 122 participants: RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.20; 8 cohort studies, 1668 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.07; 2 case-control studies, 160 participants: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.06).\nIn very low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether urgent-start PD compared with conventional-start PD increased death (any cause) (1 RCT, 122 participants: RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.53; 7 cohort studies, 1509 participants: RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.3; 1 case-control study, 104 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.02; very low certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on tunnel tract infection.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn patients with CKD who require dialysis urgently without ready-to-use dialysis access in place, urgent-start PD may increase the risk of dialysate leak and has uncertain effects on catheter blockage, malposition or readjustment, PD dialysate flow problems, infectious complications, exit-site bleeding, technique survival, and patient survival compared with conventional-start PD.\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 conducted a systematic review to examine the complications and outcomes of patients with chronic kidney disease who started peritoneal dialysis urgently within two weeks of insertion of peritoneal dialysis catheter." } ]
query-laysum	21875	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPain after caesarean sections (CS) can affect the well-being of the mother and her ability with her newborn. Conventional pain-relieving strategies are often underused because of concerns about the adverse maternal and neonatal effects. Complementary alternative therapies (CAM) may offer an alternative for post-CS pain.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of CAM for post-caesarean pain.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, LILACS, PEDro, CAMbase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (6 September 2019), and checked the reference lists of retrieved articles.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), including quasi-RCTs and cluster-RCTs, comparing CAM, alone or associated with other forms of pain relief, versus other treatments or placebo or no treatment, for the treatment of post-CS pain.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed study selection, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 37 studies (3076 women) which investigated eight different CAM therapies for post-CS pain relief. There is substantial heterogeneity among the trials. We downgraded the certainty of evidence due to small numbers of women participating in the trials and to risk of bias related to lack of blinding and inadequate reporting of randomisation processes. None of the trials reported pain at six weeks after discharge.\nPrimary outcomes were pain and adverse effects, reported per intervention below. Secondary outcomes included vital signs, rescue analgesic requirement at six weeks after discharge; all of which were poorly reported, not reported, or we are uncertain as to the effect\nAcupuncture or acupressure\nWe are very uncertain if acupuncture or acupressure (versus no treatment) or acupuncture or acupressure plus analgesia (versus placebo plus analgesia) has any effect on pain because the quality of evidence is very low. Acupuncture or acupressure plus analgesia (versus analgesia) may reduce pain at 12 hours (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.64 to 0.07; 2 studies; 130 women; low-certainty evidence) and 24 hours (SMD -0.63, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.26; 2 studies; 130 women; low-certainty evidence).\nIt is uncertain whether acupuncture or acupressure (versus no treatment) or acupuncture or acupressure plus analgesia (versus analgesia) has any effect on the risk of adverse effects because the quality of evidence is very low.\nAromatherapy\nAromatherapy plus analgesia may reduce pain when compared with placebo plus analgesia at 12 hours (mean difference (MD) -2.63 visual analogue scale (VAS), 95% CI -3.48 to -1.77; 3 studies; 360 women; low-certainty evidence) and 24 hours (MD -3.38 VAS, 95% CI -3.85 to -2.91; 1 study; 200 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if aromatherapy plus analgesia has any effect on adverse effects (anxiety) compared with placebo plus analgesia.\nElectromagnetic therapy\nElectromagnetic therapy may reduce pain compared with placebo plus analgesia at 12 hours (MD -8.00, 95% CI -11.65 to -4.35; 1 study; 72 women; low-certainty evidence) and 24 hours (MD -13.00 VAS, 95% CI -17.13 to -8.87; 1 study; 72 women; low-certainty evidence).\nMassage\nWe identified six studies (651 women), five of which were quasi-RCTs, comparing massage (foot and hand) plus analgesia versus analgesia. All the evidence relating to pain, adverse effects (anxiety), vital signs and rescue analgesic requirement was very low-certainty.\nMusic\nMusic plus analgesia may reduce pain when compared with placebo plus analgesia at one hour (SMD -0.84, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.46; 2 studies; 115 women; low-certainty evidence), 24 hours (MD -1.79, 95% CI -2.67 to -0.91; 1 study; 38 women; low-certainty evidence), and also when compared with analgesia at one hour (MD -2.11, 95% CI -3.11 to -1.10; 1 study; 38 women; low-certainty evidence) and at 24 hours (MD -2.69, 95% CI -3.67 to -1.70; 1 study; 38 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether music plus analgesia has any effect on adverse effects (anxiety), when compared with placebo plus analgesia because the quality of evidence is very low.\nReiki\nWe are uncertain if Reiki plus analgesia compared with analgesia alone has any effect on pain, adverse effects, vital signs or rescue analgesic requirement because the quality of evidence is very low (one study, 90 women).\nRelaxation\nRelaxation may reduce pain compared with standard care at 24 hours (MD -0.53 VAS, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.01; 1 study; 60 women; low-certainty evidence).\nTranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulation\nTENS (versus no treatment) may reduce pain at one hour (MD -2.26, 95% CI -3.35 to -1.17; 1 study; 40 women; low-certainty evidence). TENS plus analgesia (versus placebo plus analgesia) may reduce pain at one hour (SMD -1.10 VAS, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.82; 3 studies; 238 women; low-certainty evidence) and at 24 hours (MD -0.70 VAS, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.53; 1 study; 108 women; low-certainty evidence).\nTENS plus analgesia (versus placebo plus analgesia) may reduce heart rate (MD -7.00 bpm, 95% CI -7.63 to -6.37; 108 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) and respiratory rate (MD -1.10 brpm, 95% CI -1.26 to -0.94; 108 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).\nWe are uncertain if TENS plus analgesia (versus analgesia) has any effect on pain at six hours or 24 hours, or vital signs because the quality of evidence is very low (two studies, 92 women).\nAuthors' conclusions\nSome CAM therapies may help reduce post-CS pain for up to 24 hours. The evidence on adverse events is too uncertain to make any judgements on safety and we have no evidence about the longer-term effects on pain.\nSince pain control is the most relevant outcome for post-CS women and their clinicians, it is important that future studies of CAM for post-CS pain measure pain as a primary outcome, preferably as the proportion of participants with at least moderate (30%) or substantial (50%) pain relief. Measuring pain as a dichotomous variable would improve the certainty of evidence and it is easy to understand for non-specialists. Future trials also need to be large enough to detect effects on clinical outcomes; measure other important outcomes as listed lin this review, and use validated scales.\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": "Pain after caesarean sections (CS) can affect the well-being of the mother and her interaction with her baby. To manage pain relief during this period, most women receive analgesic drugs. However, these medications can potentially cause side effects in the mother and her baby. Complementary and alternative therapies (CAM) may be a safe way of reducing pain after a CS without adverse effects." } ]
query-laysum	21876	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMany women, and other females, with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) develop resistance to conventional chemotherapy drugs. Drugs that inhibit angiogenesis (development of new blood vessels), essential for tumour growth, control cancer growth by denying blood supply to tumour nodules.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effectiveness and toxicities of angiogenesis inhibitors for treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).\nSearch methods\nWe identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase (from 1990 to 30 September 2022). We searched clinical trials registers and contacted investigators of completed and ongoing trials for further information.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs comparing angiogenesis inhibitors with standard chemotherapy, other types of anti-cancer treatment, other angiogenesis inhibitors with or without other treatments, or placebo/no treatment in a maintenance setting, in women with EOC.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), quality of life (QoL), adverse events (grade 3 and above) and hypertension (grade 2 and above).\nMain results\nWe identified 50 studies (14,836 participants) for inclusion (including five studies from the previous version of this review): 13 solely in females with newly-diagnosed EOC and 37 in females with recurrent EOC (nine studies in platinum-sensitive EOC; 19 in platinum-resistant EOC; nine with studies with mixed or unclear platinum sensitivity). The main results are presented below.\nNewly-diagnosed EOC\nBevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), given with chemotherapy and continued as maintenance, likely results in little to no difference in OS compared to chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio (HR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.07; 2 studies, 2776 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence is very uncertain for PFS (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.05; 2 studies, 2746 participants; very low-certainty evidence), although the combination results in a slight reduction in global QoL (mean difference (MD) -6.4, 95% CI -8.86 to -3.94; 1 study, 890 participants; high-certainty evidence). The combination likely increases any adverse event (grade ≥ 3) (risk ratio (RR) 1.16, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.26; 1 study, 1485 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may result in a large increase in hypertension (grade ≥ 2) (RR 4.27, 95% CI 3.25 to 5.60; 2 studies, 2707 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nTyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) to block VEGF receptors (VEGF-R), given with chemotherapy and continued as maintenance, likely result in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.17; 2 studies, 1451 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and likely increase PFS slightly (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.00; 2 studies, 2466 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The combination likely reduces QoL slightly (MD -1.86, 95% CI -3.46 to -0.26; 1 study, 1340 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but it increases any adverse event (grade ≥ 3) slightly (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.55; 1 study, 188 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may result in a large increase in hypertension (grade ≥ 3) (RR 6.49, 95% CI 2.02 to 20.87; 1 study, 1352 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nRecurrent EOC (platinum-sensitive)\nModerate-certainty evidence from three studies (with 1564 participants) indicates that bevacizumab with chemotherapy, and continued as maintenance, likely results in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.02), but likely improves PFS (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.63) compared to chemotherapy alone. The combination may result in little to no difference in QoL (MD 0.8, 95% CI -2.11 to 3.71; 1 study, 486 participants; low-certainty evidence), but it increases the rate of any adverse event (grade ≥ 3) slightly (RR 1.11, 1.07 to 1.16; 3 studies, 1538 participants; high-certainty evidence). Hypertension (grade ≥ 3) was more common in arms with bevacizumab (RR 5.82, 95% CI 3.84 to 8.83; 3 studies, 1538 participants).\nTKIs with chemotherapy may result in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.11; 1 study, 282 participants; low-certainty evidence), likely increase PFS (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.72; 1 study, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may have little to no effect on QoL (MD 6.1, 95% CI -0.96 to 13.16; 1 study, 146 participants; low-certainty evidence). Hypertension (grade ≥ 3) was more common with TKIs (RR 3.32, 95% CI 1.21 to 9.10).\nRecurrent EOC (platinum-resistant)\nBevacizumab with chemotherapy and continued as maintenance increases OS (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.88; 5 studies, 778 participants; high-certainty evidence) and likely results in a large increase in PFS (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.58; 5 studies, 778 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The combination may result in a large increase in hypertension (grade ≥ 2) (RR 3.11, 95% CI 1.83 to 5.27; 2 studies, 436 participants; low-certainty evidence). The rate of bowel fistula/perforation (grade ≥ 2) may be slightly higher with bevacizumab (RR 6.89, 95% CI 0.86 to 55.09; 2 studies, 436 participants).\nEvidence from eight studies suggest TKIs with chemotherapy likely result in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.08; 940 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), with low-certainty evidence that it may increase PFS (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89; 940 participants), and may result in little to no meaningful difference in QoL (MD ranged from -0.19 at 6 weeks to -3.40 at 4 months). The combination increases any adverse event (grade ≥ 3) slightly (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.49; 3 studies, 402 participants; high-certainty evidence). The effect on bowel fistula/perforation rates is uncertain (RR 2.74, 95% CI 0.77 to 9.75; 5 studies, 557 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nBevacizumab likely improves both OS and PFS in platinum-resistant relapsed EOC. In platinum-sensitive relapsed disease, bevacizumab and TKIs probably improve PFS, but may or may not improve OS. The results for TKIs in platinum-resistant relapsed EOC are similar. The effects on OS or PFS in newly-diagnosed EOC are less certain, with a decrease in QoL and increase in adverse events. Overall adverse events and QoL data were more variably reported than were PFS data.\nThere appears to be a role for anti-angiogenesis treatment, but given the additional treatment burden and economic costs of maintenance treatments, benefits and risks of anti-angiogenesis treatments should be carefully considered.\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": "Newly-diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC)\nThe effects of bevacizumab and TKI anti-angiogenesis treatment in women with newly diagnosed EOC are uncertain.\nThese treatments may have a minimal effect on how long women survive or disease re-growth (progression), with a decrease in quality of life and an increase in serious side effects.\nPlatinum-sensitive EOC\nBevacizumab and TKIs probably delay progression, but may or may not improve how long women live.\nPlatinum-resistant EOC\nBevacizumab probably improves how long women live and probably results in a large delay in progression.\nTKIs probably delay disease progression, but may or may not improve how long women live.\nThere appears to be a role for anti-angiogenesis treatment, but additional treatment burden and financial costs of maintenance treatment of anti-angiogenesis treatments should be carefully considered." } ]
query-laysum	21877	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSalivary gland dysfunction is an 'umbrella' term for the presence of either xerostomia (subjective sensation of dryness), or salivary gland hypofunction (reduction in saliva production). It is a predictable side effect of radiotherapy to the head and neck region, and is associated with a significant impairment of quality of life. A wide range of pharmacological interventions, with varying mechanisms of action, have been used for the prevention of radiation-induced salivary gland dysfunction.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for the prevention of radiation-induced salivary gland dysfunction.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 14 September 2016); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library (searched 14 September 2016); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 14 September 2016); Embase Ovid (1980 to 14 September 2016); CINAHL EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; 1937 to 14 September 2016); LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database; 1982 to 14 September 2016); Zetoc Conference Proceedings (1993 to 14 September 2016); and OpenGrey (1997 to 14 September 2016). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials, irrespective of their language of publication or publication status. Trials included participants of all ages, ethnic origin and gender, scheduled to receive radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region. Participants could be outpatients or inpatients. We included trials comparing any pharmacological agent regimen, prescribed prophylactically for salivary gland dysfunction prior to or during radiotherapy, with placebo, no intervention or an alternative pharmacological intervention. Comparisons of radiation techniques were excluded.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 39 studies that randomised 3520 participants; the number of participants analysed varied by outcome and time point. The studies were ordered into 14 separate comparisons with meta-analysis only being possible in three of those.\nWe found low-quality evidence to show that amifostine, when compared to a placebo or no treatment control, might reduce the risk of moderate to severe xerostomia (grade 2 or higher on a 0 to 4 scale) at the end of radiotherapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.67; P = 0.001, 3 studies, 119 participants), and up to three months after radiotherapy (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.92; P = 0.01, 5 studies, 687 participants), but there is insufficient evidence that the effect is sustained up to 12 months after radiotherapy (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.23; P = 0.21, 7 studies, 682 participants). We found very low-quality evidence that amifostine increased unstimulated salivary flow rate up to 12 months after radiotherapy, both in terms of mg of saliva per 5 minutes (mean difference (MD) 0.32, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.55; P = 0.006, 1 study, 27 participants), and incidence of producing greater than 0.1 g of saliva over 5 minutes (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.86; P = 0.004, 1 study, 175 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence to show a difference when looking at stimulated salivary flow rates. There was insufficient (very low-quality) evidence to show that amifostine compromised the effects of cancer treatment when looking at survival measures. There was some very low-quality evidence of a small benefit for amifostine in terms of quality of life (10-point scale) at 12 months after radiotherapy (MD 0.70, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.20; P = 0.006, 1 study, 180 participants), but insufficient evidence at the end of and up to three months postradiotherapy. A further study showed no evidence of a difference at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months postradiotherapy. There was low-quality evidence that amifostine is associated with increases in: vomiting (RR 4.90, 95% CI 2.87 to 8.38; P < 0.00001, 5 studies, 601 participants); hypotension (RR 9.20, 95% CI 2.84 to 29.83; P = 0.0002, 3 studies, 376 participants); nausea (RR 2.60, 95% CI 1.81 to 3.74; P < 0.00001, 4 studies, 556 participants); and allergic response (RR 7.51, 95% CI 1.40 to 40.39; P = 0.02, 3 studies, 524 participants).\nWe found insufficient evidence (that was of very low quality) to determine whether or not pilocarpine performed better or worse than a placebo or no treatment control for the outcomes: xerostomia, salivary flow rate, survival, and quality of life. There was some low-quality evidence that pilocarpine was associated with an increase in sweating (RR 2.98, 95% CI 1.43 to 6.22; P = 0.004, 5 studies, 389 participants).\nWe found insufficient evidence to determine whether or not palifermin performed better or worse than placebo for: xerostomia (low quality); survival (moderate quality); and any adverse effects.\nThere was also insufficient evidence to determine the effects of the following interventions: biperiden plus pilocarpine, Chinese medicines, bethanechol, artificial saliva, selenium, antiseptic mouthrinse, antimicrobial lozenge, polaprezinc, azulene rinse, and Venalot Depot (coumarin plus troxerutin).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is some low-quality evidence to suggest that amifostine prevents the feeling of dry mouth in people receiving radiotherapy to the head and neck (with or without chemotherapy) in the short- (end of radiotherapy) to medium-term (three months postradiotherapy). However, it is less clear whether or not this effect is sustained to 12 months postradiotherapy. The benefits of amifostine should be weighed against its high cost and side effects. There was insufficient evidence to show that any other intervention is beneficial.\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 in this review is current up to 14 September 2016. 39 studies were included with a total of 3520 participants. Participants were male and female, all ages and ethnic origins, out patients or in patients, who were scheduled to have radiation therapy with or without chemotherapy to the head and neck.\nDrugs included were any prescribed to prevent salivary gland problems and given before or during radiotherapy. Information was collected from the end of radiotherapy except for that about adverse effects. Different techniques for giving radiation treatment that might reduce damage were not included.\nThe main outcomes measured were participant's own assessment of dry mouth and the measurement of salivary flow. Secondary outcomes measured included adverse or unwanted effects such as sweating, crying, watery discharge from the nose, diarrhoea and nausea." } ]
query-laysum	21878	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHepatitis is a viral infection of the liver. It is mainly transmitted between people through contact with infected blood, frequently from mother to baby in-utero. Hepatitis B poses significant risk to the fetus and up to 85% of infants infected by their mothers at birth develop chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) is a purified solution of human immunoglobulin that could be administered to the mother, newborn, or both. HBIG offers protection against HBV infection when administered to pregnant women who test positive for hepatitis B envelope antigen (HBeAg) or hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), or both. When HBIG is administered to pregnant women, the antibodies passively diffuse across the placenta to the child. This materno-fetal diffusion is maximal during the third trimester of pregnancy. Up to 1% to 9% infants born to HBV-carrying mothers still have HBV infection despite the newborn receiving HBIG plus active HBV vaccine in the immediate neonatal period. This suggests that additional intervention such as HBIG administration to the mother during the antenatal period could be beneficial to reduce the transmission rate in utero.\nObjectives\nTo determine the benefits and harms of hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) administration to pregnant women during their third trimester of pregnancy for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of hepatitis B virus infection.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), SCOPUS, African Journals OnLine, and INDEX MEDICUS up to June 2016. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and portal of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) in December 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised clinical trials comparing HBIG versus placebo or no intervention in pregnant women with HBV.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors extracted data independently. We analysed dichotomous outcome data using risk ratio (RR) and continuous outcome data using mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For meta-analyses, we used a fixed-effect model and a random-effects model, along with an assessment of heterogeneity. If there were statistically significant discrepancies in the results, we reported the more conservative point estimate. If the two estimates were equal, we used the estimate with the widest CI as our main result. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group suggested bias risk domains and risk of random errors using Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nAll 36 included trials originated from China and were at overall high risk of bias. The trials included 6044 pregnant women who were HBsAg, HBeAg, or hepatitis B virus DNA (HBV-DNA) positive. Only seven trials reported inclusion of HBeAg-positive mothers. All 36 trials compared HBIG versus no intervention. None of the trials used placebo.\nMost of the trials assessed HBIG 100 IU (two trials) and HBIG 200 IU (31 trials). The timing of administration of HBIG varied; 30 trials administered three doses of HBIG 200 IU at 28, 32, and 36 weeks of pregnancy. None of the trials reported all-cause mortality or other serious adverse events in the mothers or babies. Serological signs of hepatitis B infection of the newborns were reported as HBsAg, HBeAg, and HBV-DNA positive results at end of follow-up. Twenty-nine trials reported HBsAg status in newborns (median 1.2 months of follow-up after birth; range 0 to 12 months); seven trials reported HBeAg status (median 1.1 months of follow-up after birth; range 0 to 12 months); and 16 trials reported HBV-DNA status (median 1.2 months of follow-up; range 0 to 12 months). HBIG reduced mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HBsAg when compared with no intervention (179/2769 (6%) with HBIG versus 537/2541 (21%) with no intervention; RR 0.30, TSA-adjusted CI 0.20 to 0.52; I2 = 36%; 29 trials; 5310 participants; very low quality evidence). HBV-DNA reduced MTCT of HBsAg (104/1112 (9%) with HBV-DNA versus 382/1018 (38%) with no intervention; RR 0.25, TSA-adjusted CI 0.22 to 0.27; I2 = 84%; 16 trials; 2130 participants; low quality evidence). TSA supported both results. Meta-analysis showed that maternal HBIG did not decrease HBeAg in newborns compared with no intervention (184/889 (21%) with HBIG versus 232/875 (27%) with no intervention; RR 0.68, TSA-adjusted CI 0.04 to 6.37; I2 = 90%; 7 trials; 1764 participants; very low quality evidence). TSA could neither support nor refute this observation as data were too sparse. None of the trials reported adverse events of the immunoglobulins on the newborns, presence of local and systemic adverse events on the mothers, or cost-effectiveness of treatment.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to very low to low quality evidence found in this review, we are uncertain of the effect of benefit of antenatal HBIG administration to the HBV-infected mothers on newborn outcomes, such as HBsAg, HBV-DNA, and HBeAg compared with no intervention. The results of the effects of HBIG on HBsAg and HBeAg are surrogate outcomes (raising risk of indirectness), and we need to be critical while interpreting the findings. We found no data on newborn mortality or maternal mortality or both, or other serious adverse events. Well-designed randomised clinical trials are needed to determine the benefits and harms of HBIG versus placebo in prevention of MTCT of HBV.\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": "Four clinical trials were sponsored by a pharmaceutical company, or a group with a financial (or other) interest in the study results." } ]
query-laysum	21879	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHodgkin lymphoma (HL) is a B-cell lymphoma accounting for 10% to 15% of all lymphoma in industrialised countries. It has a bimodal age distribution with one peak around the age of 30 years and another after the age of 60 years. Although HL accounts for fewer than 1% of all neoplasms worldwide, it is considered to be one of the most common malignancies in young adults and, with cure rates of 90%, one of the most curable cancers worldwide. Current treatment options for HL comprise more- or less-intensified regimens of chemotherapy plus radiotherapy, depending on disease stage. [18F]-fluorodeoxy-D-glucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET, also called PET scanning) is an imaging tool that can be used to illustrate a tumour's metabolic activity, stage and progression. Therefore, it could be used as a standard interim procedure during HL treatment, to help distinguish between individuals who are good or poor early responders to therapy. Subsequent therapy could then be de-escalated in PET-negative individuals (good responders) or escalated in those who are PET-positive (poor responders). It is currently unknown whether such response-adapted therapeutic strategies are of benefit to individuals in terms of overall and progression-free survival, and the incidence of long-term adverse events (AEs).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interim [18F]-FDG-PET imaging treatment modification in individuals with HL.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; latest issue) and MEDLINE (from 1990 to September 2014) as well as conference proceedings (American Society of Hematology; American Society of Clinical Oncology; European Hematology Association; and International Symposium on Hodgkin Lymphoma) for studies. Two review authors independently screened search results.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing FDG-PET-adapted therapy with non-adapted treatment in individuals with previously untreated HL of all stages and ages.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. As none of the included studies provided HRs for OS, we described risk ratios (RRs) for this outcome and did not pool the data. As an effect measure we used hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS). We described RRs for the dichotomous data on AEs. We also calculated 95% confidence intervals (CIs).\nMain results\nOur search strategies led to 308 potentially relevant references. From these, we included three studies involving 1999 participants. We judged the overall potential risk of bias as moderate. The studies were reported as RCTs; blinding was not reported, but given the study design it is likely that there was no blinding. One study was published in abstract form only; hence, detailed assessment of the risk of bias was not possible.\nTwo trials compared standard treatment (chemotherapy plus radiotherapy) with PET-adapted therapy (chemotherapy only) in individuals with early-stage HL and negative PET scans. The study design of the third trial was more complex. Participants with early-stage HL were divided into those with a favourable or unfavourable prognosis. They were then randomised to receive PET-adapted or standard treatment. Following a PET scan, participants were further divided into PET-positive and PET-negative groups. To date, data have been published for the PET-negative arms only, making it possible to perform a meta-analysis including all three trials.\nOf the 1999 participants included in the three trials only 1480 were analysed. The 519 excluded participants were either PET-positive, or were excluded because they did not match the inclusion criteria.\nOne study reported no deaths. The other two studies reported two deaths in participants receiving PET-adapted therapy and two in participants receiving standard therapy (very-low-quality evidence). Progression-free survival was shorter in participants with PET-adapted therapy (without radiotherapy) than in those receiving standard treatment with radiotherapy (HR 2.38; 95% CI 1.62 to 3.50; P value < 0.0001). This difference was also apparent in comparisons of participants receiving no additional radiotherapy (PET-adapted therapy) versus radiotherapy (standard therapy) (HR 1.86; 95% CI 1.07 to 3.23; P value = 0.03) and in those receiving chemotherapy but no radiotherapy (PET-adapted therapy) versus standard radiotherapy (HR 3.00; 95% CI 1.75 to 5.14; P value < 0.0001) (moderate-quality evidence). Short-term AEs only were assessed in one trial, which showed no evidence of a difference between the treatment arms (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.53; P value = 0.72) (very-low-quality evidence). No data on long-term AEs were reported in any of the trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nTo date, no robust data on OS, response rate, TRM, QoL, or short- and long-term AEs are available. However, this systematic review found moderate-quality evidence that PFS was shorter in individuals with early-stage HL and a negative PET scan receiving chemotherapy only (PET-adapted therapy) than in those receiving additional radiotherapy (standard therapy). More RCTs with longer follow ups may lead to more precise results for AEs, TRM and QoL, and could evaluate whether this PFS advantage will translate into an overall survival benefit.\nIt is still uncertain whether PET-positive individuals benefit from PET-based treatment adaptation and the effect of such an approach in those with advanced HL.\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 judged the quality of evidence for the outcomes of OS and adverse events as very low. We considered the quality of evidence for PFS to be moderate." } ]
query-laysum	21880	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nVirtual reality simulation uses computer-generated imagery to present a simulated training environment for learners. This review seeks to examine whether there is evidence to support the introduction of virtual reality surgical simulation into ear, nose and throat surgical training programmes.\nObjectives\n1. To assess whether surgeons undertaking virtual reality simulation-based training achieve surgical ('patient') outcomes that are at least as good as, or better than, those achieved through conventional training methods.\n2. To assess whether there is evidence from either the operating theatre, or from controlled (simulation centre-based) environments, that virtual reality-based surgical training leads to surgical skills that are comparable to, or better than, those achieved through conventional training.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group (CENTDG) Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the CENTDG Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 6); PubMed; EMBASE; ERIC; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 27 July 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials and controlled trials comparing virtual reality training and any other method of training in ear, nose or throat surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We evaluated both technical and non-technical aspects of skill competency.\nMain results\nWe included nine studies involving 210 participants. Out of these, four studies (involving 61 residents) assessed technical skills in the operating theatre (primary outcomes). Five studies (comprising 149 residents and medical students) assessed technical skills in controlled environments (secondary outcomes). The majority of the trials were at high risk of bias. We assessed the GRADE quality of evidence for most outcomes across studies as 'low'.\nOperating theatre environment (primary outcomes)\nIn the operating theatre, there were no studies that examined two of three primary outcomes: real world patient outcomes and acquisition of non-technical skills. The third primary outcome (technical skills in the operating theatre) was evaluated in two studies comparing virtual reality endoscopic sinus surgery training with conventional training. In one study, psychomotor skill (which relates to operative technique or the physical co-ordination associated with instrument handling) was assessed on a 10-point scale. A second study evaluated the procedural outcome of time-on-task. The virtual reality group performance was significantly better, with a better psychomotor score (mean difference (MD) 3.20, 95% CI 2.05 to 4.34; 10-point scale) and a shorter time taken to complete the operation (MD -5.50 minutes, 95% CI -9.97 to -1.03).\nControlled training environments (secondary outcomes)\nIn a controlled environment five studies evaluated the technical skills of surgical trainees (one study) and medical students (three studies). One study was excluded from the analysis.\nSurgical trainees: One study (80 participants) evaluated the technical performance of surgical trainees during temporal bone surgery, where the outcome was the quality of the final dissection. There was no difference in the end-product scores between virtual reality and cadaveric temporal bone training.\nMedical students: Two other studies (40 participants) evaluated technical skills achieved by medical students in the temporal bone laboratory. Learners' knowledge of the flow of the operative procedure (procedural score) was better after virtual reality than conventional training (SMD 1.11, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.79). There was also a significant difference in end-product score between the virtual reality and conventional training groups (SMD 2.60, 95% CI 1.71 to 3.49). One study (17 participants) revealed that medical students acquired anatomical knowledge (on a scale of 0 to 10) better during virtual reality than during conventional training (MD 4.3, 95% CI 2.05 to 6.55). No studies in a controlled training environment assessed non-technical skills.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is limited evidence to support the inclusion of virtual reality surgical simulation into surgical training programmes, on the basis that it can allow trainees to develop technical skills that are at least as good as those achieved through conventional training. Further investigations are required to determine whether virtual reality training is associated with better real world outcomes for patients and the development of non-technical skills. Virtual reality simulation may be considered as an additional learning tool for medical students.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "None of the studies evaluated whether training in virtual reality influences patient outcomes or non-technical skills. There is evidence to support the introduction of virtual reality into surgical training on the basis that the technical skills acquired by this method are as good as, or better than, those learnt through conventional training. Virtual reality can be added to the extensive range of activities that constitutes a comprehensive surgical training programme. Virtual reality simulation should also be considered as an additional learning tool for medical students." } ]
query-laysum	21881	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is the second update of the original Cochrane review published in 2013 (issue 6), which was updated in 2016 (issue 11). Pruritus occurs in patients with disparate underlying diseases and is caused by different pathologic mechanisms. In palliative care patients, pruritus is not the most prevalent but is a burdening symptom. It can cause considerable discomfort and negatively affect patients' quality of life.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of different pharmacological treatments compared with active control or placebo for preventing or treating pruritus in adult palliative care patients.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OVID) and Embase (OVID) up to 6 July 2022. In addition, we searched trial registries and checked the reference lists of all relevant studies, key textbooks, reviews and websites, and we contacted investigators and specialists in pruritus and palliative care regarding unpublished data.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of different pharmacological treatments, compared with a placebo, no treatment, or an alternative treatment, for preventing or treating pruritus in palliative care patients.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the identified titles and abstracts, performed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias and methodological quality. We summarised the results descriptively and quantitatively (meta-analyses) according to the different pharmacological interventions and the diseases associated with pruritus. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created 13 summary of findings tables.\nMain results\nIn total, we included 91 studies and 4652 participants in the review. We added 42 studies with 2839 participants for this update. Altogether, we included 51 different treatments for pruritus in four different patient groups.\nThe overall risk of bias profile was heterogeneous and ranged from high to low risk. The main reason for giving a high risk of bias rating was a small sample size (fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm). Seventy-nine of 91 studies (87%) had fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm. Eight (9%) studies had low risk of bias in the specified key domains; the remaining studies had an unclear risk of bias (70 studies, 77%) or a high risk of bias (13 studies, 14%).\nUsing GRADE criteria, we judged that the certainty of evidence for the primary outcome (i.e. pruritus) was high for kappa-opioid agonists compared to placebo and moderate for GABA-analogues compared to placebo. Certainty of evidence was low for naltrexone, fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids, topical capsaicin, ondansetron and zinc sulphate compared to placebo and gabapentin compared to pregabalin, and very low for cromolyn sodium, paroxetine, montelukast, flumecinol, and rifampicin compared to placebo. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence mainly due to serious study limitations regarding risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency.\nFor participants suffering from uraemic pruritus (UP; also known as chronic kidney disease (CKD)-associated pruritus (CKD-aP)), treatment with GABA-analogues compared to placebo likely resulted in a large reduction of pruritus (visual analogue scale (VAS) 0 to 10 cm): mean difference (MD) −5.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) −5.56 to −4.55; five RCTs, N = 297, certainty of evidence: moderate. Treatment with kappa-opioid receptor agonists (difelikefalin, nalbuphine, nalfurafine) compared to placebo reduced pruritus slightly (VAS 0 to 10 cm, MD −0.96, 95% CI −1.22 to −0.71; six RCTs, N = 1292, certainty of evidence: high); thus, this treatment was less effective than GABA-analogues. Treatment with montelukast compared to placebo may result in a reduction of pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (two studies, 87 participants): SMD −1.40, 95% CI −1.87 to -0.92; certainty of evidence: very low. Treatment with fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids compared to placebo may result in a large reduction of pruritus (four studies, 160 observations): SMD −1.60, 95% CI −1.97 to -1.22; certainty of evidence: low. Treatment with cromolyn sodium compared to placebo may result in a reduction of pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (VAS 0 to 10 cm, MD -3.27, 95% CI −5.91 to −0.63; two RCTs, N = 100, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with topical capsaicin compared with placebo may result in a large reduction of pruritus (two studies; 112 participants): SMD −1.06, 95% CI −1.55 to -0.57; certainty of evidence: low. Ondansetron, zinc sulphate and several other treatments may not reduce pruritus in participants suffering from UP.\nIn participants with cholestatic pruritus (CP), treatment with rifampicin compared to placebo may reduce pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (VAS: 0 to 100, MD −42.00, 95% CI −87.31 to 3.31; two RCTs, N = 42, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with flumecinol compared to placebo may reduce pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR > 1 favours treatment group; RR 2.32, 95% CI 0.54 to 10.1; two RCTs, N = 69, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with the opioid antagonist naltrexone compared to placebo may reduce pruritus (VAS: 0 to 10 cm, MD −2.42, 95% CI −3.90 to −0.94; two RCTs, N = 52, certainty of evidence: low). However, effects in participants with UP were inconclusive (percentage of difference −12.30%, 95% CI −25.82% to 1.22%, one RCT, N = 32).\nIn palliative care participants with pruritus of a different nature, the treatment with the drug paroxetine (one study), a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, compared to placebo may reduce pruritus slightly by 0.78 (numerical analogue scale from 0 to 10 points; 95% CI −1.19 to −0.37; one RCT, N = 48, certainty of evidence: low).\nMost adverse events were mild or moderate. Two interventions showed multiple major adverse events (naltrexone and nalfurafine).\nAuthors' conclusions\nDifferent interventions (GABA-analogues, kappa-opioid receptor agonists, cromolyn sodium, montelukast, fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids and topical capsaicin compared to placebo) were effective for uraemic pruritus. GABA-analogues had the largest effect on pruritus. Rifampin, naltrexone and flumecinol tended to be effective for cholestatic pruritus. However, therapies for patients with malignancies are still lacking. Due to the small sample sizes in most meta-analyses and the heterogeneous methodological quality of the included trials, the results should be interpreted cautiously in terms of generalisability.\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": "There were several limitations of the evidence. Most importantly, it is possible that people in the studies were aware of what treatment they were getting. Furthermore, the studies were done in different types of people and assessed different ways of delivering an intervention." } ]
query-laysum	21883	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nUrinary incontinence can affect 40% to 60% of people admitted to hospital after a stroke, with 25% still having problems when discharged from hospital and 15% remaining incontinent after one year.\nThis is an update of a review published in 2005 and updated in 2008.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions for treating urinary incontinence after stroke in adults at least one-month post-stroke.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence and Cochrane Stroke Specialised Registers (searched 30 October 2017 and 1 November 2017 respectively), which contain trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearched journals and conference proceedings.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently undertook data extraction, risk of bias assessment and implemented GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 20 trials (reporting 21 comparisons) with 1338 participants. Data for prespecified outcomes were not available except where reported below.\nIntervention versus no intervention/usual care\nBehavioural interventions: Low-quality evidence suggests behavioural interventions may reduce the mean number of incontinent episodes in 24 hours (mean difference (MD) –1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) –2.74 to 0.74; 1 trial; 18 participants; P = 0.26). Further, low-quality evidence from two trials suggests that behavioural interventions may make little or no difference to quality of life (SMD -0.99, 95% CI -2.83 to 0.86; 55 participants).\nSpecialised professional input interventions: One trial of moderate-quality suggested structured assessment and management by continence nurse practitioners probably made little or no difference to the number of people continent three months after treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.02; 121 participants; equivalent to an increase from 354 to 453 per 1000, 95% CI 287 to 715).\nComplementary therapy: Five trials assessed complementary therapy using traditional acupuncture, electroacupuncture and ginger-salt-partitioned moxibustion plus routine acupuncture. Low-quality evidence from five trials suggested that complementary therapy may increase the number of participants continent after treatment; participants in the treatment group were three times more likely to be continent (RR 2.82, 95% CI 1.57 to 5.07; 524 participants; equivalent to an increase from 193 to 544 per 1000, 95% CI 303 to 978). Adverse events were reported narratively in one study of electroacupuncture, reporting on bruising and postacupuncture abdominal pain in the intervention group.\nPhysical therapy: Two trials reporting three comparisons suggest that physical therapy using transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) may reduce the mean number of incontinent episodes in 24 hours (MD –4.76, 95% CI –8.10 to –1.41; 142 participants; low-quality evidence). One trial of TENS reporting two comparisons found that the intervention probably improves overall functional ability (MD 8.97, 95% CI 1.27 to 16.68; 81 participants; moderate-quality evidence).\nIntervention versus placebo\nPhysical therapy: One trial of physical therapy suggests TPTNS may make little or no difference to the number of participants continent after treatment (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.04; 54 participants) or number of incontinent episodes (MD –1.10, 95% CI –3.99 to 1.79; 39 participants). One trial suggested improvement in the TPTNS group at 26-weeks (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.004 to 0.41) but there was no evidence of a difference in perceived bladder condition at six weeks (OR 2.33, 95% CI 0.63 to 8.65) or 12 weeks (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.29 to 5.17). Data from one trial provided no evidence that TPTNS made a difference to quality of life measured with the ICIQLUTSqol (MD 3.90, 95% CI –4.25 to 12.05; 30 participants). Minor adverse events, such as minor skin irritation and ankle cramping, were reported in one study.\nPharmacotherapy interventions: There was no evidence from one study that oestrogen therapy made a difference to the mean number of incontinent episodes per week in mild incontinence (paired samples, MD –1.71, 95% CI –3.51 to 0.09) or severe incontinence (paired samples, MD –6.40, 95% CI –9.47 to –3.33). One study reported no adverse events.\nSpecific intervention versus another intervention\nBehavioural interventions: One trial comparing a behavioural intervention (timed voiding) with a pharmacotherapy intervention (oxybutynin) contained no useable data.\nComplementary therapy: One trial comparing different acupuncture needles and depth of needle insertion to assess the effect on incontinence reported that, after four courses of treatment, 78.1% participants in the elongated needle group had no incontinent episodes versus 40% in the filiform needle group (57 participants). This trial was assessed as unclear or high for all types of bias apart from incomplete outcome data.\nCombined intervention versus single intervention\nOne trial compared a combined intervention (sensory motor biofeedback plus timed prompted voiding) against a single intervention (timed voiding). The combined intervention may make little or no difference to the number of participants continent after treatment (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.06 to 5.21; 23 participants; equivalent to a decrease from 167 to 92 per 1000, 95% CI 10 to 868) or to the number of incontinent episodes (MD 2.20, 95% CI 0.12 to 4.28; 23 participants).\nSpecific intervention versus attention control\nPhysical therapy interventions: One study found TPTNS may make little or no difference to the number of participants continent after treatment compared to an attention control group undertaking stretching exercises (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.72; 24 participants; equivalent to an increase from 250 to 333 per 1000, 95% CI 95 to 1000).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to guide continence care of adults in the rehabilitative phase after stroke. As few trials tested the same intervention, conclusions are drawn from few, usually small, trials. CIs were wide, making it difficult to ascertain if there were clinically important differences. Only four trials had adequate allocation concealment and many were limited by poor reporting, making it impossible to judge the extent to which they were prone to bias. More appropriately powered, multicentre trials of interventions are required to provide robust evidence for interventions to improve urinary incontinence after stroke.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We identified 20 studies identifying 21 comparisons and involving 1338 people. These studies included a variety of behavioural therapies (e.g. pelvic floor muscle training), complementary therapies (e.g. manual acupuncture or electroacupuncture) and physical therapies (e.g. transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, TENS), as well as medicines (e.g. oxybutynin, oestrogen). One trial investigated the effect of assessment and treatment by a continence nurse practitioner. Control groups were generally 'usual care' or no treatment." } ]
query-laysum	21884	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCommunity-based primary-level workers (PWs) are an important strategy for addressing gaps in mental health service delivery in low- and middle-income countries.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of PW-led treatments for persons with mental health symptoms in LMICs, compared to usual care.\nSearch methods\nMEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP, reference lists (to 20 June 2019).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials of PW-led or collaborative-care interventions treating people with mental health symptoms or their carers in LMICs.\nPWs included: primary health professionals (PHPs), lay health workers (LHWs), community non-health professionals (CPs).\nData collection and analysis\nSeven conditions were identified apriori and analysed by disorder and PW examining recovery, prevalence, symptom change, quality-of-life (QOL), functioning, service use (SU), and adverse events (AEs).\nRisk ratios (RRs) were used for dichotomous outcomes; mean difference (MDs), standardised mean differences (SMDs), or mean change differences (MCDs) for continuous outcomes.\nFor SMDs, 0.20 to 0.49 represented small, 0.50 to 0.79 moderate, and ≥0.80 large clinical effects.\nAnalysis timepoints: T1 (<1 month), T2 (1-6 months), T3 ( >6 months) post-intervention.\nMain results\nDescription of studies\n95 trials (72 new since 2013) from 30 LMICs (25 trials from 13 LICs).\nRisk of bias\nMost common: detection bias, attrition bias (efficacy), insufficient protection against contamination.\nIntervention effects\nUnless indicated, comparisons were usual care at T2.\n“Probably”, “may”, or “uncertain” indicates \"moderate\", \"low,\" or \"very low\" certainty evidence.\nAdults with common mental disorders (CMDs)\nLHW-led interventions\na. may increase recovery (2 trials, 308 participants; RR 1.29, 95%CI 1.06 to 1.56);\nb. may reduce prevalence (2 trials, 479 participants; RR 0.42, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.96);\nc. may reduce symptoms (4 trials, 798 participants; SMD -0.59, 95%CI -1.01 to -0.16);\nd. may improve QOL (1 trial, 521 participants; SMD 0.51, 95%CI 0.34 to 0.69);\ne. may slightly reduce functional impairment (3 trials, 1399 participants; SMD -0.47, 95%CI -0.8 to -0.15);\nf. may reduce AEs (risk of suicide ideation/attempts);\ng. may have uncertain effects on SU.\nCollaborative-care\na. may increase recovery (5 trials, 804 participants; RR 2.26, 95%CI 1.50 to 3.43);\nb. may reduce prevalence although the actual effect range indicates it may have little-or-no effect (2 trials, 2820 participants; RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.32 to 1.01);\nc. may slightly reduce symptoms (6 trials, 4419 participants; SMD -0.35, 95%CI -0.63 to -0.08);\nd. may slightly improve QOL (6 trials, 2199 participants; SMD 0.34, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.53);\ne. probably has little-to-no effect on functional impairment (5 trials, 4216 participants; SMD -0.13, 95%CI -0.28 to 0.03);\nf. may reduce SU (referral to MH specialists);\ng. may have uncertain effects on AEs (death).\nWomen with perinatal depression (PND)\nLHW-led interventions\na. may increase recovery (4 trials, 1243 participants; RR 1.29, 95%CI 1.08 to 1.54);\nb. probably slightly reduce symptoms (5 trials, 1989 participants; SMD -0.26, 95%CI -0.37 to -0.14);\nc. may slightly reduce functional impairment (4 trials, 1856 participants; SMD -0.23, 95%CI -0.41 to -0.04);\nd. may have little-to-no effect on AEs (death);\ne. may have uncertain effects on SU.\nCollaborative-care\na. has uncertain effects on symptoms/QOL/SU/AEs.\nAdults with post-traumatic stress (PTS) or CMDs in humanitarian settings\nLHW-led interventions\na. may slightly reduce depression symptoms (5 trials, 1986 participants; SMD -0.36, 95%CI -0.56 to -0.15);\nb. probably slightly improve QOL (4 trials, 1918 participants; SMD -0.27, 95%CI -0.39 to -0.15);\nc. may have uncertain effects on symptoms (PTS)/functioning/SU/AEs.\nPHP-led interventions\na. may reduce PTS symptom prevalence (1 trial, 313 participants; RR 5.50, 95%CI 2.50 to 12.10) and depression prevalence (1 trial, 313 participants; RR 4.60, 95%CI 2.10 to 10.08);\nb. may have uncertain effects on symptoms/functioning/SU/AEs.\nAdults with harmful/hazardous alcohol or substance use\nLHW-led interventions\na. may increase recovery from harmful/hazardous alcohol use although the actual effect range indicates it may have little-or-no effect (4 trials, 872 participants; RR 1.28, 95%CI 0.94 to 1.74);\nb. may have little-to-no effect on the prevalence of methamphetamine use (1 trial, 882 participants; RR 1.01, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.13) and functional impairment (2 trials, 498 participants; SMD -0.14, 95%CI -0.32 to 0.03);\nc. probably slightly reduce risk of harmful/hazardous alcohol use (3 trials, 667 participants; SMD -0.22, 95%CI -0.32 to -0.11);\nd. may have uncertain effects on SU/AEs.\nPHP/CP-led interventions\na. probably have little-to-no effect on recovery from harmful/hazardous alcohol use (3 trials, 1075 participants; RR 0.93, 95%CI 0.77 to 1.12) or QOL (1 trial, 560 participants; MD 0.00, 95%CI -0.10 to 0.10);\nb. probably slightly reduce risk of harmful/hazardous alcohol and substance use (2 trials, 705 participants; SMD -0.20, 95%CI -0.35 to -0.05; moderate-certainty evidence);\nc. may have uncertain effects on prevalence (cannabis use)/SU/AEs.\nPW-led interventions for alcohol/substance dependence\na. may have uncertain effects.\nAdults with severe mental disorders\nComparisons were specialist-led care at T1.\nLHW-led interventions\na. may have little-to-no effect on caregiver burden (1 trial, 253 participants; MD -0.04, 95%CI -0.18 to 0.11);\nb. may have uncertain effects on symptoms/functioning/SU/AEs.\nPHP-led or collaborative-care\na. may reduce functional impairment (7 trials, 874 participants; SMD -1.13, 95%CI -1.78 to -0.47);\nb. may have uncertain effects on recovery/relapse/symptoms/QOL/SU.\nAdults with dementia and carers\nPHP/LHW-led carer interventions\na. may have little-to-no effect on the severity of behavioural symptoms in dementia patients (2 trials, 134 participants; SMD -0.26, 95%CI -0.60 to 0.08);\nb. may reduce carers' mental distress (2 trials, 134 participants; SMD -0.47, 95%CI -0.82 to -0.13);\nc. may have uncertain effects on QOL/functioning/SU/AEs.\nChildren with PTS or CMDs\nLHW-led interventions\na. may have little-to-no effect on PTS symptoms (3 trials, 1090 participants; MCD -1.34, 95%CI -2.83 to 0.14);\nb. probably have little-to-no effect on depression symptoms (3 trials, 1092 participants; MCD -0.61, 95%CI -1.23 to 0.02) or on functional impairment (3 trials, 1092 participants; MCD -0.81, 95%CI -1.48 to -0.13);\nc. may have little-or-no effect on AEs.\nCP-led interventions\na. may have little-to-no effect on depression symptoms (2 trials, 602 participants; SMD -0.19, 95%CI -0.57 to 0.19) or on AEs;\nb. may have uncertain effects on recovery/symptoms(PTS)/functioning.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPW-led interventions show promising benefits in improving outcomes for CMDs, PND, PTS, harmful alcohol/substance use, and dementia carers in LMICs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"2. Women with depression related to pregnancy and childbirth\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Treatments from lay health workers compared to usual care:\na. may increase recovery;\nb. probably slightly reduce symptoms of depression;\nc. may slightly improve day-to-day functioning;\nd. may have little to no effect on risk of death." } ]
query-laysum	21885	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPanic disorder is characterised by recurrent unexpected panic attacks consisting of a wave of intense fear that reaches a peak within a few minutes. Panic disorder is a common disorder, with an estimated lifetime prevalence of 1% to 5% in the general population and a 7% to 10% prevalence in primary care settings. Its aetiology is not fully understood and is probably heterogeneous.\nPanic disorder is treated with psychological and pharmacological interventions, often used in combination. Although benzodiazepines are frequently used in the treatment of panic disorder, guidelines recommend antidepressants, mainly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), as first-line treatment for panic disorder, particularly due to their lower incidence of dependence and withdrawal reaction when compared to benzodiazepines. Despite these recommendations, benzodiazepines are widely used in the treatment of panic disorder, probably because of their rapid onset of action.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and acceptability of benzodiazepines versus placebo in the treatment of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR Studies and References), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1950-), Embase (1974-), and PsycINFO (1967-) up to 29 May 2018. We handsearched reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews. We contacted experts in the field for supplemental data.\nSelection criteria\nAll double-blind (blinding of patients and personnel) controlled trials randomising adults with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia to benzodiazepine or placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently checked the eligibility of studies and extracted data using a standardised form. Data were then entered data into Review Manager 5 using a double-check procedure. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details, settings, and outcome measures in terms of efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability.\nMain results\nWe included 24 studies in the review with a total of 4233 participants, of which 2124 were randomised to benzodiazepines and 1475 to placebo. The remaining 634 participants were randomised to other active treatments in three-arm trials. We assessed the overall methodological quality of the included studies as poor. We rated all studies as at unclear risk of bias in at least three domains. In addition, we judged 20 of the 24 included studies as having a high risk of bias in at least one domain.\nTwo primary outcomes of efficacy and acceptability showed a possible advantage of benzodiazepines over placebo. The estimated risk ratio (RR) for a response to treatment was 1.65 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39 to 1.96) in favour of benzodiazepines, which corresponds to an estimated number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 4 (95% CI 3 to 7). The dropout rate was lower among participants treated with benzodiazepines (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.64); the estimated NNTB was 6 (95% CI 5 to 9). We rated the quality of the evidence as low for both primary outcomes. The possible advantage of benzodiazepine was also seen for remission (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.38 to 1.88) and the endpoint data for social functioning (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.53, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.42), both with low-quality evidence. We assessed the evidence for the other secondary outcomes as of very low quality. With the exception of the analyses of the change score data for depression (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.04) and social functioning (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.88 to 0.24), all secondary outcome analyses showed an effect in favour of benzodiazepines compared to placebo. However, the number of dropouts due to adverse effects was higher with benzodiazepines than with placebo (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.15; low-quality evidence). Furthermore, our analyses of adverse events showed that a higher proportion of participants experienced at least one adverse effect when treated with benzodiazepines (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.37; low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow-quality evidence shows a possible superiority of benzodiazepine over placebo in the short-term treatment of panic disorders. The validity of the included studies is questionable due to possible unmasking of allocated treatments, high dropout rates, and probable publication bias. Moreover, the included studies were only short-term studies and did not examine the long-term efficacy nor the risks of dependency and withdrawal symptoms. Due to these limitations, our results regarding the efficacy of benzodiazepines versus placebo provide only limited guidance for clinical practice. Furthermore, the clinician's choice is not between benzodiazepines and placebo, but between benzodiazepines and other agents, notably SSRIs, both in terms of efficacy and adverse effects. The choice of treatment should therefore be guided by the patient's preference and should balance benefits and harms from treatment in a long-term perspective.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What should happen next?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "High-quality long-term studies should be carried out to establish whether the benefits of treatment can be maintained and to put the benefits in context of withdrawal effects and the risk of dependency. However, it is unlikely that the general conclusions regarding the short-term efficacy and the dependency potential of benzodiazepines will change. Comparisons with other active treatment including psychotherapy, for example in multiple-treatment meta-analyses, may thus be more suitable to inform clinical practise." } ]
query-laysum	21886	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSevere bleeding and coagulopathy are serious clinical conditions that are associated with high mortality. Thromboelastography (TEG) and thromboelastometry (ROTEM) are increasingly used to guide transfusion strategy but their roles remain disputed. This review was first published in 2011 and updated in January 2016.\nObjectives\nWe assessed the benefits and harms of thromboelastography (TEG)-guided or thromboelastometry (ROTEM)-guided transfusion in adults and children with bleeding. We looked at various outcomes, such as overall mortality and bleeding events, conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses, examined the role of bias, and applied trial sequential analyses (TSAs) to examine the amount of evidence gathered so far.\nSearch methods\nIn this updated review we identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 1); MEDLINE; Embase; Science Citation Index Expanded; International Web of Science; CINAHL; LILACS; and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (up to 5 January 2016). We contacted trial authors, authors of previous reviews, and manufacturers in the field. The original search was run in October 2010.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all RCTs, irrespective of blinding or language, that compared transfusion guided by TEG or ROTEM to transfusion guided by clinical judgement, guided by standard laboratory tests, or a combination. We also included interventional algorithms including both TEG or ROTEM in combination with standard laboratory tests or other devices. The primary analysis included trials on TEG or ROTEM versus any comparator.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently abstracted data; we resolved any disagreements by discussion. We presented pooled estimates of the intervention effects on dichotomous outcomes as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Due to skewed data, meta-analysis was not provided for continuous outcome data. Our primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality. We performed subgroup and sensitivity analyses to assess the effect based on the presence of coagulopathy of a TEG- or ROTEM-guided algorithm, and in adults and children on various clinical and physiological outcomes. We assessed the risk of bias through assessment of trial methodological components and the risk of random error through TSA.\nMain results\nWe included eight new studies (617 participants) in this updated review. In total we included 17 studies (1493 participants). A total of 15 trials provided data for the meta-analyses. We judged only two trials as low risk of bias. The majority of studies included participants undergoing cardiac surgery.\nWe found six ongoing trials but were unable to retrieve any data from them. Compared with transfusion guided by any method, TEG or ROTEM seemed to reduce overall mortality (7.4% versus 3.9%; risk ratio (RR) 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.95; I2 = 0%, 8 studies, 717 participants, low quality of evidence) but only eight trials provided data on mortality, and two were zero event trials. Our analyses demonstrated a statistically significant effect of TEG or ROTEM compared to any comparison on the proportion of participants transfused with pooled red blood cells (PRBCs) (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.94; I2 = 0%, 10 studies, 832 participants, low quality of evidence), fresh frozen plasma (FFP) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.96; I2 = 86%, 8 studies, 761 participants, low quality of evidence), platelets (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.88; I2 = 0%, 10 studies, 832 participants, low quality of evidence), and overall haemostatic transfusion with FFP or platelets (low quality of evidence). Meta-analyses also showed fewer participants with dialysis-dependent renal failure.\nWe found no difference in the proportion needing surgical reinterventions (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.10; I2 = 0%, 9 studies, 887 participants, low quality of evidence) and excessive bleeding events or massive transfusion (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.77; I2 = 34%, 2 studies, 280 participants, low quality of evidence). The planned subgroup analyses failed to show any significant differences.\nWe graded the quality of evidence as low based on the high risk of bias in the studies, large heterogeneity, low number of events, imprecision, and indirectness. TSA indicates that only 54% of required information size has been reached so far in regards to mortality, while there may be evidence of benefit for transfusion outcomes. Overall, evaluated outcomes were consistent with a benefit in favour of a TEG- or ROTEM-guided transfusion in bleeding patients.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is growing evidence that application of TEG- or ROTEM-guided transfusion strategies may reduce the need for blood products, and improve morbidity in patients with bleeding. However, these results are primarily based on trials of elective cardiac surgery involving cardiopulmonary bypass, and the level of evidence remains low. Further evaluation of TEG- or ROTEM-guided transfusion in acute settings and other patient categories in low risk of bias studies is needed.\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": "Due to few events and many poorly designed trials, we consider our overall findings to be of low quality evidence in favour of TEG and ROTEM use in the management of bleeding patients." } ]
query-laysum	21887	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPortal hypertension commonly accompanies advanced liver disease and often gives rise to life-threatening complications, including bleeding (haemorrhage) from oesophageal and gastrointestinal varices. Variceal bleeding commonly occurs in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein obstruction. Therefore, prevention is important. Primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in adults is the established standard of care because of the results of numerous randomised clinical trials demonstrating the efficacy of non-selective beta-blockers or endoscopic variceal ligation in decreasing the incidence of variceal bleeding. In children, band ligation, beta-blockers, and sclerotherapy have been proposed as alternatives for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding. However, it is unknown whether those treatments are of benefit or harm when used for primary prophylaxis in children.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of sclerotherapy compared with sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase Elsevier, and two other registers in February 2019. We scrutinised the reference lists of the retrieved publications, and performed a manual search of the main paediatric gastroenterology and hepatology conference (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN) abstracts from January 2008 to December 2018. We searched four registries for ongoing clinical trials. There were no language or document type restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status assessing sclerotherapy versus sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodology to perform this systematic review. We used the intention-to-treat principle to analyse outcome data, and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence per outcome.\nMain results\nWe found only one randomised clinical trial that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The trial was at high risk of bias. The trial included 108 Brazilian children with median age of 4.3 years (range 11 months to 13 years). Fifty-six children were randomised to prophylactic sclerotherapy (ethanolamine oleate 2%) and 52 children to no intervention (control). Children were followed up for a median of 4.5 years. Eight children (six from the sclerotherapy group versus two from the control group) dropped out before the end of the trial. The follow-up was from 18 months to eight years. Mortality was 16% (9/56 children) in the sclerotherapy group versus 15% (8/52 children) in the control group (risk ration (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 2.50; very low-certainty evidence). Upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 21% (12/56) of the children in the sclerotherapy group versus 46% (24/52) in the control group (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.83; very low-certainty evidence). There were more children with congestive hypertensive gastropathy in the sclerotherapy group than in the control group (14% (8/56) versus 6% (3/52); RR 2.48, 95% CI 0.69 to 8.84; very low-certainty evidence). The incidence of gastric varices was similar between the sclerotherapy group and the control group (11% (6/56) versus 10% (5/52); RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.43; very low-certainty evidence). The incidence of bleeding from gastric varices was higher in the sclerotherapy group than in the control group (4% (3/56) versus 0% (0/52); RR 6.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 123.06; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not assess health-related quality of life. Oesophageal variceal bleeding occurred in 5% (3/56) of the children in the sclerotherapy group versus 40% (21/52) of the children in the control group (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.42; very low-certainty evidence). The most prevalent complications (defined as non-serious) were pain and fever after the procedure, which promptly resolved with analgesics. However, numerical data on the frequency of these adverse events and their occurrences in the two groups were lacking.\nNo funding information was provided.\nWe found no ongoing trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence, obtained from one randomised clinical trial at high risk of bias, is very uncertain on whether sclerotherapy has an influence on mortality and if it may decrease first upper gastrointestinal or oesophageal variceal bleeding in children. The evidence is very uncertain on whether sclerotherapy has an influence on congestive hypertensive gastropathy, incidence on gastric varices, and incidence of bleeding from gastric varices. Health-related quality of life was not measured. There were no serious events caused by sclerotherapy, and analysis of non-serious adverse events could not be performed due to lack of numerical data. The GRADE assessment of each outcome showed a very low-certainty evidence. The results of the trial need to be interpreted with caution.\nLarger randomised clinical trials, following the SPIRIT and CONSORT statements, assessing the benefits and harms of sclerotherapy compared with sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis are needed. The trials should include important clinical outcomes such as death, failure to control bleeding, and adverse events.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Aims\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We aimed to conduct a systematic review of randomised clinical trials assessing the benefits and harms of sclerotherapy versus sham (pretend treatment) or no intervention for the prevention of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis (blockage or narrowing of the portal vein (the blood vessel that takes blood to the liver from the intestines) by a blood clot). We searched for studies to February 2019. We planned to include trials no matter what outcome data they reported. We planned to include trials in children, up to 18 years old, with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis, irrespective of the cause, severity of disease, and duration of illness. Children should not yet have had gastrointestinal bleeding from oesophageal varices (primary prophylaxis)." } ]
query-laysum	21888	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nLoss of muscle mass and muscle weakness are common complications to cirrhosis and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Therefore, physical exercise may benefit people with cirrhosis.\nObjectives\nTo assess the beneficial and harmful effects of physical exercise versus sham exercise or no exercise for people with cirrhosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, and three other databases, including manual searches through reference lists, abstracts, and presentations at conferences and meetings, Google Scholar, and online trial registers in February 2018.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised clinical trials regardless of publication status or language. Inclusion criteria were cirrhosis irrespective of the aetiology or stage. Interventions were physical exercise compared with sham exercise or no intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently extracted data. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, both with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and I2 values as markers of imprecision and heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains and determined the credibility of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included six randomised clinical trials with 173 participants. All participants had Child-Pugh stage A or B cirrhosis. The intervention groups participated in eight to 14 weeks of physical exercise (aerobic: three trials; resistance: one trial; or aerobic plus resistance training: two trials). Control groups underwent sham exercise (supervised relaxation: one trial) or no intervention (five trials). None of the 89 participants allocated to exercise versus two of 84 participants in the control group died (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.73; moderate-quality evidence). The cause of death was acute-on-chronic liver disease for both participants. Nine participants in the exercise group and 13 in the control group experienced serious adverse events (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.94; low-quality evidence).\nPhysical exercise showed no beneficial or detrimental effect on health-related quality of life assessed by the Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire (MD 0.11, 95% CI –0.44 to 0.67; low-quality evidence). Likewise, physical exercise had no clear effect on physical fitness measured by peak exercise oxygen uptake (MD 0.3 mL/kg/minute, 95 % CI –2.74 to 3.35; low-quality evidence) and Six-Minute Walk Test (MD 56.06 min, 95% CI –9.14 to 121.26; very low-quality evidence). Physical exercise showed no clear effect on mid-thigh circumference (MD 1.76 cm, 95% CI –0.26 to 3.77; low-quality evidence), but showed an increase in mid-arm circumference (MD 2.61 cm, 95% CI 0.36 to 4.85; low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no clear beneficial or harmful effect of physical exercise on mortality, morbidity, or health-related quality of life. Further evidence is needed to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of physical exercise on clinical outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Physical exercise did not seem to affect mortality (death), side effects or quality of life." } ]
query-laysum	21889	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe prognosis and survival rate of women with breast cancer have significantly improved worldwide. Effective home-based multidimensional programmes for breast cancer survivors have gained an ever greater emphasis in survivorship care to maximise women’s quality of life for their successful transition to rehabilitation and normal life. It is important to summarise the best available evidence to evaluate the effects of home-based multidimensional survivorship programmes on quality of life in women within 10 years of the completion of surgery or adjuvant cancer therapy for breast cancer, or both.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of home-based, multidimensional survivorship (HBMS) programmes on maintaining or improving the quality of life in breast cancer survivors.\nSearch methods\nIn April 2016 we searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Specialised Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also screened reference lists of all identified studies and contacted study authors.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the effects of HBMS programmes in maintaining or improving quality of life in women with stages 0 to 3 breast cancer who completed primary cancer treatment (surgery or adjuvant cancer therapy, or both) up to 10 years earlier. We considered studies where the interventions included more than one of the following listed components: educational (such as information provision and self-management advice), physical (such as exercise training and resistance training) and psychological (such as counselling and cognitive therapies), to constitute a multidimensional programme. Interventions had to be allowed to be carried out at home.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed eligible studies for inclusion, and performed quality assessment and extracted relevant data of the included studies. Quality of life was the primary outcome of the review.\nMain results\nWe included 22 RCTs and four quasi-RCTs on 2272 participants. We categorised the intervention components into four groups: educational and psychological; educational and physical; physical and psychological; and educational, physical and psychological. Most of the studies used usual care (routine medical follow-up services) as the comparator. A few studies used a lower level or different type of intervention (e.g. stress management or exercise) or attention control as the comparator.\nWe used the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT B), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life C30 (EORTC C30), Quality of Life (QoL) Breast Cancer, and SF36 questionnaires to assess quality of life. HBMS programmes may increase breast cancer-specific quality of life and global quality of life immediately after the intervention, as measured by FACT-B and EORTC C30 (FACT-B: mean difference (MD) 4.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.33 to 6.78, 7 studies, 764 participants; EORTC: MD 4.38, 95% CI 0.11 to 8.64, 6 studies; 299 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life as measured by QoL-Breast Cancer or SF-36 (QoL-Breast Cancer: MD 0.42, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.85, 2 studies, 111 participants, very low-quality evidence; physical composite score SF36: MD 0.55, 95% CI -3.52 to 4.63, 2 studies, 308 participants, low-quality evidence).\nWe observed a similar pattern at one to three months after the intervention: FACT-B (MD 6.10, 95% CI 2.48 to 9.72, 2 studies, 426 participants), EORTC-C30 (MD 6.32, 95% CI 0.61 to 12.04, 2 studies; 172 participants) and QoL-Breast Cancer (MD 0.45, 95% CI -0.19 to 1.09, 1 study, 61 participants). At four to six months and 12 months, there was no evidence of a difference in quality of life between groups (four to six months: EORTC - MD 0.08, 95% CI -7.28 to 7.44, 2 studies; 117 participants; SF-36 - MD -1.05, 95% CI -5.60 to 3.51, 2 studies, 308 participants; 12 months: EORTC - MD 2.04, 95% CI -9.91 to 13.99, 1 study; 57 participants).\nFunctional status was incorporated into the quality of life subscale findings. HBMS programmes may decrease anxiety (MD of Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) -1.01, 95% CI -1.94 to -0.08, 5 studies, 253 participants, low-quality evidence) compared to control immediately after the intervention but the effect did not persist at four to six months. There was no evidence of improvements in depression immediately after HBMS (MD of HADS -1.36, 95% CI -2.94 to 0.22, 4 studies, 213 participants, low-quality evidence) or at follow-up. HBMS programmes may also decrease fatigue (MD -1.11, 95% CI -1.78 to -0.45, 3 studies, 127 participants; low-quality evidence) and insomnia (MD -1.81, 95% CI -3.34 to -0.27, 3 studies, 185 participants, low-quality evidence).\nNone of the included studies reported service needs and utilisation and cost of care, and therefore the effect of HBMS programmes on healthcare utilisation and cost is unknown. Due to the variations in assessment methods of adherence among the eight studies, we could not combine the results for meta-analysis. We synthesised the results narratively, with the reported adherence rates of 58% to 100%.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results of this systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that HBMS programmes in breast cancer survivors appear to have a short-term beneficial effect of improving breast cancer-specific quality of life and global quality of life as measured by FACT-B and EORTC-C30, respectively. In addition, HBMS programmes are associated with a reduction in anxiety, fatigue and insomnia immediately after the intervention. We assessed the quality of evidence across studies as moderate for some outcomes, meaning that we are fairly confident about the results, while we assessed other outcomes as being low-quality, meaning that we are uncertain about the result.\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 quality of evidence across studies for quality of life ranged from moderate to very low, meaning that in some cases we were fairly confident about the results (e.g. quality of life improvements) while in other cases we were uncertain about the results (e.g. reductions in fatigue, insomnia and anxiety)." } ]
query-laysum	21890	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPortal hypertension commonly accompanies advanced liver disease and often gives rise to life-threatening complications, including bleeding (haemorrhage) from oesophageal and gastrointestinal varices. Variceal bleeding commonly occurs in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein obstruction. Therefore, prevention is important. Primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in adults is the established standard of care because of the results of numerous randomised clinical trials demonstrating the efficacy of non-selective beta-blockers or endoscopic variceal ligation in decreasing the incidence of variceal bleeding. In children, band ligation, beta-blockers, and sclerotherapy have been proposed as alternatives for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding. However, it is unknown whether those treatments are of benefit or harm when used for primary prophylaxis in children.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of sclerotherapy compared with sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase Elsevier, and two other registers in February 2019. We scrutinised the reference lists of the retrieved publications, and performed a manual search of the main paediatric gastroenterology and hepatology conference (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN) abstracts from January 2008 to December 2018. We searched four registries for ongoing clinical trials. There were no language or document type restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status assessing sclerotherapy versus sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodology to perform this systematic review. We used the intention-to-treat principle to analyse outcome data, and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence per outcome.\nMain results\nWe found only one randomised clinical trial that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The trial was at high risk of bias. The trial included 108 Brazilian children with median age of 4.3 years (range 11 months to 13 years). Fifty-six children were randomised to prophylactic sclerotherapy (ethanolamine oleate 2%) and 52 children to no intervention (control). Children were followed up for a median of 4.5 years. Eight children (six from the sclerotherapy group versus two from the control group) dropped out before the end of the trial. The follow-up was from 18 months to eight years. Mortality was 16% (9/56 children) in the sclerotherapy group versus 15% (8/52 children) in the control group (risk ration (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 2.50; very low-certainty evidence). Upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 21% (12/56) of the children in the sclerotherapy group versus 46% (24/52) in the control group (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.83; very low-certainty evidence). There were more children with congestive hypertensive gastropathy in the sclerotherapy group than in the control group (14% (8/56) versus 6% (3/52); RR 2.48, 95% CI 0.69 to 8.84; very low-certainty evidence). The incidence of gastric varices was similar between the sclerotherapy group and the control group (11% (6/56) versus 10% (5/52); RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.43; very low-certainty evidence). The incidence of bleeding from gastric varices was higher in the sclerotherapy group than in the control group (4% (3/56) versus 0% (0/52); RR 6.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 123.06; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not assess health-related quality of life. Oesophageal variceal bleeding occurred in 5% (3/56) of the children in the sclerotherapy group versus 40% (21/52) of the children in the control group (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.42; very low-certainty evidence). The most prevalent complications (defined as non-serious) were pain and fever after the procedure, which promptly resolved with analgesics. However, numerical data on the frequency of these adverse events and their occurrences in the two groups were lacking.\nNo funding information was provided.\nWe found no ongoing trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence, obtained from one randomised clinical trial at high risk of bias, is very uncertain on whether sclerotherapy has an influence on mortality and if it may decrease first upper gastrointestinal or oesophageal variceal bleeding in children. The evidence is very uncertain on whether sclerotherapy has an influence on congestive hypertensive gastropathy, incidence on gastric varices, and incidence of bleeding from gastric varices. Health-related quality of life was not measured. There were no serious events caused by sclerotherapy, and analysis of non-serious adverse events could not be performed due to lack of numerical data. The GRADE assessment of each outcome showed a very low-certainty evidence. The results of the trial need to be interpreted with caution.\nLarger randomised clinical trials, following the SPIRIT and CONSORT statements, assessing the benefits and harms of sclerotherapy compared with sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis are needed. The trials should include important clinical outcomes such as death, failure to control bleeding, and adverse events.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Portal hypertension is an increase in the blood pressure within a system of veins (a type of blood vessel) called the portal venous system, which drains blood from the gastrointestinal tract and spleen into the liver. Portal hypertension commonly accompanies advanced liver disease and often gives rise to life-threatening complications, including bleeding from oesophageal (food pipe) and gastrointestinal varices (enlarged or swollen veins).\nNumerous randomised clinical trials (studies where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups) have demonstrated the effectiveness of treatments such as non-selective beta-blockers, endoscopic variceal ligation (tight tying of a ligature around the varice), and vascular obliteration by injecting a sclerosing agent (sclerotherapy) in decreasing the incidence of variceal haemorrhage (bleeding) of adults. Thus, treatment to prevent variceal haemorrhage in adults (called primary prophylaxis) has become the established standard of care. However, it is unknown whether these treatments are of benefit or cause harm when used in children." } ]
query-laysum	21891	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nInfective endocarditis is a severe infection arising in the lining of the chambers of the heart. It can be caused by fungi, but most often is caused by bacteria. Many dental procedures cause bacteraemia, which could lead to bacterial endocarditis in a small proportion of people. The incidence of bacterial endocarditis is low, but it has a high mortality rate.\nGuidelines in many countries have recommended that antibiotics be administered to people at high risk of endocarditis prior to invasive dental procedures. However, guidance by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales states that antibiotic prophylaxis against infective endocarditis is not recommended routinely for people undergoing dental procedures. This is an update of a review that we first conducted in 2004 and last updated in 2013.\nObjectives\nPrimary objective\nTo determine whether prophylactic antibiotic administration, compared to no antibiotic administration or placebo, before invasive dental procedures in people at risk or at high risk of bacterial endocarditis, influences mortality, serious illness or the incidence of endocarditis.\nSecondary objectives\nTo determine whether the effect of dental antibiotic prophylaxis differs in people with different cardiac conditions predisposing them to increased risk of endocarditis, and in people undergoing different high risk dental procedures.\nHarms\nHad we foundno evidence from randomised controlled trials or cohort studies on whether prophylactic antibiotics affected mortality or serious illness, and we had found evidence from these or case-control studies suggesting that prophylaxis with antibiotics reduced the incidence of endocarditis, then we would also have assessed whether the harms of prophylaxis with single antibiotic doses, such as with penicillin (amoxicillin 2 g or 3 g) before invasive dental procedures, compared with no antibiotic or placebo, equalled the benefits in prevention of endocarditis in people at high risk of this disease.\nSearch methods\nAn information specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 10 May 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies\nSelection criteria\nDue to the low incidence of bacterial endocarditis, we anticipated that few if any trials would be located. For this reason, we included cohort and case-control studies with suitably matched control or comparison groups. The intervention was antibiotic prophylaxis, compared to no antibiotic prophylaxis or placebo, before a dental procedure in people with an increased risk of bacterial endocarditis. Cohort studies would need to follow at-risk individuals and assess outcomes following any invasive dental procedures, grouping participants according to whether or not they had received prophylaxis. Case-control studies would need to match people who had developed endocarditis after undergoing an invasive dental procedure (and who were known to be at increased risk before undergoing the procedure) with those at similar risk who had not developed endocarditis.\nOur outcomes of interest were mortality or serious adverse events requiring hospital admission; development of endocarditis following any dental procedure in a defined time period; development of endocarditis due to other non-dental causes; any recorded adverse effects of the antibiotics; and the cost of antibiotic provision compared to that of caring for patients who developed endocarditis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened search records, selected studies for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in the included study and extracted data from the included study. As an author team, we judged the certainty of the evidence identified for the main comparison and key outcomes using GRADE criteria. We presented the main results in a summary of findings table.\nMain results\nOur new search did not find any new studies for inclusion since the last version of the review in 2013.\nNo randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) or cohort studies were included in the previous versions of the review, but one case-control study met the inclusion criteria. The trial authors collected information on 48 people who had contracted bacterial endocarditis over a specific two-year period and had undergone a medical or dental procedure with an indication for prophylaxis within the past 180 days. These people were matched to a similar group of people who had not contracted bacterial endocarditis. All study participants had undergone an invasive medical or dental procedure. The two groups were compared to establish whether those who had received preventive antibiotics (penicillin) were less likely to have developed endocarditis. The authors found no significant effect of penicillin prophylaxis on the incidence of endocarditis. No data on other outcomes were reported.\nThe level of certainty we have about the evidence is very low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere remains no clear evidence about whether antibiotic prophylaxis is effective or ineffective against bacterial endocarditis in at-risk people who are about to undergo an invasive dental procedure. We cannot determine whether the potential harms and costs of antibiotic administration outweigh any beneficial effect. Ethically, practitioners should discuss the potential benefits and harms of antibiotic prophylaxis with their patients before a decision is made about administration.\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": "There are no new studies to include in this updated review. Our original review included one study, based in the Netherlands, that compared the treatment of people at high risk of endocarditis who did or did not develop bacterial endocarditis. The authors collected information on 48 people who had contracted bacterial endocarditis over a specific two-year period and had undergone a medical or dental procedure with an indication for prophylaxis within the past 180 days. These people were matched to a similar group of people who had not contracted bacterial endocarditis. All study participants had undergone an invasive medical or dental procedure. The two groups were compared to establish whether those who had received preventive antibiotics were less likely to have developed endocarditis." } ]
query-laysum	21892	[ { "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: \"What is depression?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Depression is a common mental health condition which leads to low mood, inability to experience pleasure, sleep disruption, weight loss, fatigue or low energy, slower speech and movements, feeling worthless or excessively guilty, being unable to concentrate and having thoughts of committing suicide. To be diagnosed with depression, a person should experience five or more of these symptoms, including low mood or loss of sense of pleasure for at least two weeks." } ]
query-laysum	21893	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nNasal polyps frequently occur in people with cystic fibrosis. Sinus infections have been shown to be a factor in the development of serious chest complications in these people. Nasal polyps have been linked to a higher risk of lower respiratory tract infections with Pseudomonas aeruginosa . Topical nasal steroids are of proven efficacy for treating nasal polyposis in the non-cystic fibrosis population. There is no clear current evidence for the efficacy of topical steroids for nasal polyps in people with cystic fibrosis. This is an updated version of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of topical nasal steroids for treating symptomatic nasal polyps in people with cystic fibrosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.\nLatest search: 10 June 2015.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled comparing the effects of topical nasal steroids to placebo in people with nasal polyps with cystic fibrosis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed risk of bias in the included trial and extracted data.\nMain results\nOne single-centred trial (46 participants) was identified comparing a topical steroid (betamethasone) given as nasal drops to placebo. Treatment was given twice daily for six weeks; 22 participants received the active drug.\nSubjective symptom scores, change in polyp size, and side effects were assessed. There was no difference in nasal symptom scores between the treatment and placebo groups. Betamethasone was effective in reducing the size of polyps, but was associated with increased reports of mild side effects, nasal bleeding and discomfort.\nRisk of bias was high since over 50% of people enrolled did not complete the study. Follow-up of participants was short (six weeks) also reducing the significance of the results for clinical practice.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review suggests topical steroids for nasal polyposis in people with cystic fibrosis have no demonstrable effect on subjective nasal symptom scores. They have some effect in reducing the size of the polyps, but due to the small sample size, poor completion rates and lack of follow-up, the trial is at high risk of bias and evidence for efficacy is limited. Overall there is no clear evidence for using topical steroids in people with cystic fibrosis and nasal polyposis.\nA well-designed randomised controlled trial of adequate power and long-term follow-up is needed. Validated measures of symptoms and physical findings should be performed and quality of life issues addressed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Our search found one trial with 46 adult volunteers with cystic fibrosis which compared nasal drops containing a steroid (betamethasone) to identical drops containing no active treatment. Two drops were applied directly to polyps twice a day for six weeks. Volunteers were put into the different treatment groups at random and a total of 22 volunteers received the steroid drops and 24 received the dummy treatment." } ]
query-laysum	21894	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with dementia in nursing homes often experience pain, but often do not receive adequate pain therapy. The experience of pain has a significant impact on quality of life in people with dementia, and is associated with negative health outcomes. Untreated pain is also considered to be one of the causes of challenging behaviour, such as agitation or aggression, in this population. One approach to reducing pain in people with dementia in nursing homes is an algorithm-based pain management strategy, i.e. the use of a structured protocol that involves pain assessment and a series of predefined treatment steps consisting of various non-pharmacological and pharmacological pain management interventions.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of algorithm-based pain management interventions to reduce pain and challenging behaviour in people with dementia living in nursing homes.\nTo describe the components of the interventions and the content of the algorithms.\nSearch methods\nWe searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's meta-register the International Clinical Trials Registry Portal on 30 June 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials investigating the effects of algorithm-based pain management interventions for people with dementia living in nursing homes. All interventions had to include an initial pain assessment, a treatment algorithm (a treatment plan consisting of at least two different non-pharmacological or pharmacological treatment steps to reduce pain), and criteria to assess the success of each treatment step. The control groups could receive usual care or an active control intervention. Primary outcomes for this review were pain-related outcomes, e.g. the number of participants with pain (self- or proxy-rated), challenging behaviour (we used a broad definition that could also include agitation or behavioural and psychological symptoms assessed with any validated instrument), and serious adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected the articles for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of all included studies. We reported results narratively as there were too few studies for a meta-analysis. We used GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the results.\nMain results\nWe included three cluster-randomised controlled trials with a total of 808 participants (mean age 82 to 89 years). In two studies, participants had severe cognitive impairment and in one study mild to moderate impairment. The algorithms used in the studies varied in the number of treatment steps. The comparator was pain education for nursing staff in two studies and usual care in one study.\nWe judged the risk of detection bias to be high in one study. The risk of selection bias and performance bias was unclear in all studies.\nSelf-rated pain (i.e. pain rated by participants themselves) was reported in two studies. In one study, all residents in the nursing homes were included, but fewer than half of the participants experienced pain at baseline, and the mean values of self-rated and proxy-rated pain at baseline and follow-up in both study groups were below the threshold of pain that may require treatment. We considered the evidence from this study to be very low-certainty and therefore are uncertain whether the algorithm-based pain management intervention had an effect on self-rated pain intensity compared with pain education (MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.05, 170 participants; Verbal Descriptor Scale, range 0 to 3). In the other study, all participants had mild to moderate pain at baseline. Here, we found low-certainty evidence that an algorithm-based pain management intervention may have little to no effect on self-rated pain intensity compared with pain education (MD 0.4, 95% CI -0.58 to 1.38, 246 participants; Iowa Pain Thermometer, range 0 to 12).\nPain was rated by proxy in all three studies. Again, we considered the evidence from the study in which mean pain scores indicated no pain, or almost no pain, at baseline to be very low-certainty and were uncertain whether the algorithm-based pain management intervention had an effect on proxy-rated pain intensity compared with pain education. For participants with mild to moderate pain at baseline, we found low-certainty evidence that an algorithm-based pain management intervention may reduce proxy-rated pain intensity in comparison with usual care (MD -1.49, 95% CI -2.11 to -0.87, 1 study, 128 participants; Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia Scale-Chinese version, range 0 to 10), but may not be more effective than pain education (MD -0.2, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.39, 1 study, 383 participants; Iowa Pain Thermometer, range 0 to 12).\nFor challenging behaviour, we found very low-certainty evidence from one study in which mean pain scores indicated no pain, or almost no pain, at baseline. We were uncertain whether the algorithm-based pain management intervention had any more effect than education for nursing staff on challenging behaviour of participants (MD -0.21, 95% CI -1.88 to 1.46, 1 study, 170 participants; Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory-Chinese version, range 7 to 203).\nNone of the studies systematically assessed adverse effects or serious adverse effects and no study reported information about the occurrence of any adverse effect. None of the studies assessed any of the other outcomes of this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no clear evidence for a benefit of an algorithm-based pain management intervention in comparison with pain education for reducing pain intensity or challenging behaviour in people with dementia in nursing homes. We found that the intervention may reduce proxy-rated pain compared with usual care. However, the certainty of evidence is low because of the small number of studies, small sample sizes, methodological limitations, and the clinical heterogeneity of the study populations (e.g. pain level and cognitive status). The results should be interpreted with caution. Future studies should also focus on the implementation of algorithms and their impact in clinical practice.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the aim of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We were interested in how nurses can best manage pain in people with dementia living in nursing homes. Pain management involves measuring pain and providing pain treatment if necessary. We aimed to find out whether step-by-step guidance (an algorithm) for nurses on how to manage pain can reduce pain or behaviours that may indicate someone is in distress (such as hitting, shouting or wandering)." } ]
query-laysum	21895	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPartnering with consumers in the planning, delivery and evaluation of health services is an essential component of person-centred care. There are many ways to partner with consumers to improve health services, including formal group partnerships (such as committees, boards or steering groups). However, consumers' and health providers' views and experiences of formal group partnerships remain unclear.\nIn this qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), we focus specifically on formal group partnerships where health providers and consumers share decision-making about planning, delivering and/or evaluating health services. Formal group partnerships were selected because they are widely used throughout the world to improve person-centred care.\nFor the purposes of this QES, the term 'consumer' refers to a person who is a patient, carer or community member who brings their perspective to health service partnerships. 'Health provider' refers to a person with a health policy, management, administrative or clinical role who participates in formal partnerships in an advisory or representative capacity.\nThis QES was co-produced with a Stakeholder Panel of consumers and health providers. The QES was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane intervention review entitled Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation.\nObjectives\n1. To synthesise the views and experiences of consumers and health providers of formal partnership approaches that aimed to improve planning, delivery or evaluation of health services.\n2. To identify best practice principles for formal partnership approaches in health services by understanding consumers' and health providers' views and experiences.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL for studies published between January 2000 and October 2018. We also searched grey literature sources including websites of relevant research and policy organisations involved in promoting person-centred care.\nSelection criteria\nWe included qualitative studies that explored consumers' and health providers' perceptions and experiences of partnering in formal group formats to improve the planning, delivery or evaluation of health services.\nData collection and analysis\nFollowing completion of abstract and full-text screening, we used purposive sampling to select a sample of eligible studies that covered a range of pre-defined criteria, including rich data, range of countries and country income level, settings, participants, and types of partnership activities. A Framework Synthesis approach was used to synthesise the findings of the sample. We appraised the quality of each study using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skill Program) tool. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach.\nThe Stakeholder Panel was involved in each stage of the review from development of the protocol to development of the best practice principles.\nMain results\nWe found 182 studies that were eligible for inclusion. From this group, we selected 33 studies to include in the final synthesis. These studies came from a wide range of countries including 28 from high-income countries and five from low- or middle-income countries (LMICs).\nEach of the studies included the experiences and views of consumers and/or health providers of partnering in formal group formats. The results were divided into the following categories.\nContextual factors influencing partnerships: government policy, policy implementation processes and funding, as well as the organisational context of the health service, could facilitate or impede partnering (moderate level of confidence).\nConsumer recruitment: consumer recruitment occurred in different ways and consumers managed the recruitment process in a minority of studies only (high level of confidence). Recruiting a range of consumers who were reflective of the clinic's demographic population was considered desirable, particularly by health providers (high level of confidence). Some health providers perceived that individual consumers' experiences were not generalisable to the broader population whereas consumers perceived it could be problematic to aim to represent a broad range of community views (high level of confidence).\nPartnership dynamics and processes: positive interpersonal dynamics between health providers and consumers facilitated partnerships (high level of confidence). However, formal meeting formats and lack of clarity about the consumer role could constrain consumers’ involvement (high level of confidence). Health providers’ professional status, technical knowledge and use of jargon were intimidating for some consumers (high level of confidence) and consumers could feel their experiential knowledge was not valued (moderate level of confidence). Consumers could also become frustrated when health providers dominated the meeting agenda (moderate level of confidence) and when they experienced token involvement, such as a lack of decision-making power (high level of confidence)\nPerceived impacts on partnership participants: partnering could affect health provider and consumer participants in both positive and negative ways (high level of confidence).\nPerceived impacts on health service planning, delivery and evaluation: partnering was perceived to improve the person-centredness of health service culture (high level of confidence), improve the built environment of the health service (high level of confidence), improve health service design and delivery e.g. facilitate 'out of hours' services or treatment closer to home (high level of confidence), enhance community ownership of health services, particularly in LMICs (moderate level of confidence), and improve consumer involvement in strategic decision-making, under certain conditions (moderate level of confidence). There was limited evidence suggesting partnering may improve health service evaluation (very low level of confidence).\nBest practice principles for formal partnering to promote person-centred care were developed from these findings. The principles were developed collaboratively with the Stakeholder Panel and included leadership and health service culture; diversity; equity; mutual respect; shared vision and regular communication; shared agendas and decision-making; influence and sustainability.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSuccessful formal group partnerships with consumers require health providers to continually reflect and address power imbalances that may constrain consumers' participation. Such imbalances may be particularly acute in recruitment procedures, meeting structure and content and decision-making processes. Formal group partnerships were perceived to improve the physical environment of health services, the person-centredness of health service culture and health service design and delivery. Implementing the best practice principles may help to address power imbalances, strengthen formal partnering, improve the experiences of consumers and health providers and positively affect partnership outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Perceived impacts on health service planning, delivery and evaluation\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "people perceivedformal partnerships may improve health service culture and the physical environment of the health service. They also felt partnerships may improve health service design and delivery." } ]
query-laysum	21896	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of a Cochrane review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 2, 2002 and previously updated in 2004, 2007 and 2010.\nRadiotherapy, open surgery and endolaryngeal excision (with or without laser) are all accepted modalities of treatment for early-stage glottic cancer. Case series suggest that they confer a similar survival advantage, however radiotherapy and endolaryngeal surgery offer the advantage of voice preservation. There has been an observed trend away from open surgery in recent years, however equipoise remains between radiotherapy and endolaryngeal surgery as both treatment modalities offer laryngeal preservation with similar survival rates. Opinions on optimal therapy vary across disciplines and between countries.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effectiveness of open surgery, endolaryngeal excision (with or without laser) and radiotherapy in the management of early glottic laryngeal cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 8); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 18 September 2014.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing open surgery, endolaryngeal resection (with or without laser) and radiotherapy.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nWe identified only one randomised controlled trial, which compared open surgery and radiotherapy in 234 patients with early glottic laryngeal cancer. The overall risk of bias in this study was high.\nFor T1 tumours, the five-year survival was 91.7% following radiotherapy and 100% following surgery and for T2 tumours, 88.8% following radiotherapy and 97.4% following surgery. There were no significant differences in survival between the two groups.\nFor T1 tumours, the five-year disease-free survival rate was 71.1% following radiotherapy and 100.0% following surgery, and for the T2 tumours, 60.1% following radiotherapy and 78.7% following surgery. Only the latter comparison was statistically significant (P value = 0.036), but statistical significance would not have been achieved with a two-sided test.\nData were not available on side effects, quality of life, voice outcomes or cost.\nWe identified no randomised controlled trials that included endolaryngeal surgery. A number of trials comparing endolaryngeal resection and radiotherapy have terminated early because of difficulty recruiting participants. One randomised controlled trial is still ongoing.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is only one randomised controlled trial comparing open surgery and radiotherapy but its interpretation is limited because of concerns about the adequacy of treatment regimens and deficiencies in the reporting of the study design and analysis.\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 results of this trial showed that there was no significant difference in survival between patients treated with radiotherapy or open surgery.\nFurther data from trials comparing radiotherapy and endolaryngeal surgery are needed to determine the best way of treating early laryngeal cancer, however a number of studies have been abandoned because of difficulties in recruiting participants. One trial is still ongoing.\nWe found that there is not enough evidence to show which form of treatment might be better for people with early-stage larynx cancer." } ]
query-laysum	21897	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMigraine occurs in around 15% of adults and is ranked as the seventh most disabling disease amongst all diseases globally. Despite the available treatments many people suffer prolonged and frequent attacks which have a major impact on their quality of life. Chronic migraine is defined as 15 or more days of headache per month, at least eight of those days being migraine. People with episodic migraine have fewer than 15 headache days per month. Botulinum toxin type A has been licensed in some countries for chronic migraine treatment, due to the results of just two trials.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of botulinum toxins versus placebo or active treatment for the prevention or reduction in frequency of chronic or episodic migraine in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE & MEDLINE in Process, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry (to December 2017). We examined reference lists and carried out citation searches on key publications. We sent correspondence to major manufacturers of botulinum toxin.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised, double-blind, controlled trials of botulinum toxin (any sero-type) injections into the head and neck for prophylaxis of chronic or episodic migraine in adults. Eligible comparators were placebo, alternative prophylactic agent or different dose of botulinum toxin.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials and extracted data. For continuous outcomes we used mean change data when available. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RRs). We used data from the 12-week post-treatment follow-up time point. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables.\nMain results\nDescription of trials\nWe found 90 articles describing 28 trials (4190 participants), which were eligible for inclusion. The longest treatment duration was three rounds of injections with three months between treatments, so we could not analyse long-term effects. For the primary analyses, we pooled data from both chronic and episodic participant populations. Where possible, we also separated data into chronic migraine, episodic migraine and ‘mixed group’ classification subgroups. Most trials (21 out of 28) were small (fewer than 50 participants per trial arm). The risk of bias for included trials was low or unclear across most domains, with some trials reporting a high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting.\nBotulinum toxin versus placebo\nTwenty-three trials compared botulinum toxin with placebo. Botulinum toxin may reduce the number of migraine days per month in the chronic migraine population by 3.1 days (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.7 to -1.4, 4 trials, 1497 participants, low-quality evidence). This was reduced to -2 days (95% CI -2.8 to -1.1, 2 trials, 1384 participants; moderate-quality evidence) when we removed small trials.\nA single trial of people with episodic migraine (N = 418) showed no difference between groups for this outcome measure (P = 0.49).\nIn the chronic migraine population, botulinum toxin reduces the number of headache days per month by 1.9 days (95% CI -2.7 to -1.0, 2 trials, 1384 participants, high-quality evidence). We did not find evidence of a difference in the number of migraine attacks for both chronic and episodic migraine participants (6 trials, N = 2004, P = 0.30, low-quality evidence). For the population of both chronic and episodic migraine participants a reduction in severity of migraine rated during clinical visits, on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS) of 3.3 cm (95% CI -4.2 to -2.5, very low-quality evidence) in favour of botulinum toxin treatment came from four small trials (N = 209); better reporting of this outcome measure from the additional eight trials that recorded it may have improved our confidence in the pooled estimate. Global assessment and quality-of-life measures were poorly reported and it was not possible to carry out statistical analysis of these outcome measures. Analysis of adverse events showed an increase in the risk ratio with treatment with botulinum toxin over placebo 30% (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.47, moderate-quality evidence). For every 100 participants 60 experienced an adverse event in the botulinum toxin group compared with 47 in the placebo group.\nBotulinum toxin versus other prophylactic agent\nThree trials studied comparisons with alternative oral prophylactic medications. Meta-analyses were not possible for number of migraine days, number of headache days or number of migraine attacks due to insufficient data, but individually trials reported no differences between groups for a variety of efficacy measures in the population of both chronic and episodic migraine participants. The global impression of disease measured using Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scores were reported from two trials that showed no difference between groups. Compared with oral treatments, botulinum toxin showed no between-group difference in the risk of adverse events (2 trials, N = 114, very low-quality evidence). The relative risk reduction (RRR) for withdrawing from botulinum toxin due to adverse events compared with the alternative prophylactic agent was 72% (P = 0.02, 2 trials, N = 119).\nDosing trials\nThere were insufficient data available for the comparison of different doses.\nQuality of the evidence\nThe quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE methods was varied but mostly very low; the quality of the evidence for the placebo and active control comparisons was low and very low, respectively for the primary outcome measure. Small trial size, high risk of bias and unexplained heterogeneity were common reasons for downgrading the quality of the evidence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn chronic migraine, botulinum toxin type A may reduce the number of migraine days per month by 2 days compared with placebo treatment. Non-serious adverse events were probably experienced by 60/100 participants in the treated group compared with 47/100 in the placebo group. For people with episodic migraine, we remain uncertain whether or not this treatment is effective because the quality of this limited evidence is very low. Better reporting of outcome measures in published trials would provide a more complete evidence base on which to draw conclusions.\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": "We found 28 clinical trials involving 4190 participants. Their average age was 42 years and eight in 10 were female. It is likely that we found all relevant trials published before December 2017. Trials were short, the longest lasting nine months. Around half the participants had chronic migraine symptoms and half episodic. Trial doses ranged from 6 to 300 units. The dose recommended for chronic migraine in the UK and USA is 155-195 units. Sixteen trials, involving 8 in 10 participants, were funded by botulinum toxin manufacturers." } ]
query-laysum	21898	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nA number of conditions compromise the passage of food along the digestive tract. Nasogastric tube (NGT) feeding is a classic, time-proven technique, although its prolonged use can lead to complications such as lesions to the nasal wing, chronic sinusitis, gastro-oesophageal reflux, and aspiration pneumonia. Another method of infusion, percutaneous endoscopy gastrostomy (PEG), is generally used when there is a need for enteral nutrition for a longer time period. There is a high demand for PEG in patients with swallowing disorders, although there is no consistent evidence about its effectiveness and safety as compared to NGT.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PEG compared with NGT for adults with swallowing disturbances.\nSearch methods\nWe searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS from inception to January 2014, and contacted the main authors in the subject area. There was no language restriction in the search.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include randomised controlled trials comparing PEG versus NGT for adults with swallowing disturbances or dysphagia and indications for nutritional support, with any underlying diseases. The primary outcome was intervention failure (e.g. feeding interruption, blocking or leakage of the tube, no adherence to treatment).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. For dichotomous and continuous variables, we used risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD), respectively with the random-effects statistical model and 95% confidence interval (CI). We assumed statistical heterogeneity when I² > 50%.\nMain results\nWe included 11 randomised controlled studies with 735 participants which produced 16 meta-analyses of outcome data. Meta-analysis indicated that the primary outcome of intervention failure, occurred in lower proportion of participants with PEG compared to NGT (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.59, eight studies, 408 participants, low quality evidence) and this difference was statistically significant. For this outcome, we also subgrouped the studies by endoscopic gastrostomy technique into pull, and push and not reported. We observed a significant difference favouring PEG in the pull subgroup (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.35, three studies, 90 participants). Thepush subgroup contained only one clinical trial and the result favoured PEG (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.74, one study, 33 participants) techniques. We found no statistically significant difference in cases where the technique was not reported (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.44, four studies, 285 participants).\nThere was no statistically significant difference between the groups for meta-analyses of the secondary outcomes of mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.28, 644 participants, nine studies, very low quality evidence), overall reports of any adverse event at any follow-up time point (ITT analysis, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.34), 597 participants, 6 studies, moderate quality evidence), specific adverse events including pneumonia (aspiration) (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.06, 645 participants, seven studies, low quality evidence), or for the meta- analyses of the secondary outcome of nutritional status including weight change from baseline, and mid-arm circumference at endpoint, although there was evidence in favour of PEG for meta-analyses of mid-arm circumference change from baseline (MD 1.16, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.31, 115 participants, two studies), and levels of serum albumin were higher in the PEG group (MD 6.03, 95% CI 2.31 to 9.74, 107 participants).\nFor meta-analyses of the secondary outcomes of time on enteral nutrition, there was no statistically significant difference (MD 14.48, 95% CI -2.74 to 31.71; 119 participants, two studies). For meta-analyses of quality of life measures (EuroQol) outcomes in two studies with 133 participants, for inconvenience (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.29), discomfort (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.29), altered body image (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.18; P = 0.001) and social activities (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.18) the intervention favoured PEG, that is, fewer participants found the intervention of PEG to be inconvenient, uncomfortable or interfered with social activities. However, there were no significant differences between the groups for pain, ease of learning to use, or the secondary outcome of length of hospital stay (two studies, 381 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nPEG was associated with a lower probability of intervention failure, suggesting the endoscopic procedure may be more effective and safe compared with NGT. There is no significant difference in mortality rates between comparison groups, or in adverse events, including pneumonia related to aspiration. Future studies should include details of participant demographics including underlying disease, age and gender, and the gastrostomy technique.\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 obtained updated evidence for this review from 11 randomised controlled studies comparing a nasogastric tube with PEG in a total of 735 patients. Seven studies measured treatment failure i.e. feeding interruption, blocking or leakage of the feeding tube in 408 patients randomised to either a nasal gastric tube or PEG." } ]
query-laysum	21899	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMalabsorption and deficiency of fat-soluble vitamins K may occur in cystic fibrosis, a genetic disorder affecting multiple organs. Vitamin K is known to play an important role in both blood coagulation and bone formation, hence the role of supplementation of vitamin K in this category needs to be reviewed. This is an updated version of the review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of vitamin K supplementation in people with cystic fibrosis and to investigate the hypotheses that vitamin K will decrease deficiency-related coagulopathy, increase bone mineral density, decrease risk of fractures and improve quality of life in people with CF. Also to determine the optimal dose and route of administration of vitamin K for people with CF (for both routine and therapeutic use).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.\nMost recent search: 12 August 2019.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of all preparations of vitamin K used as a supplement compared to either no supplementation (or placebo) at any dose or route and for any duration, in patients with cystic fibrosis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened papers, extracted trial details and assessed their risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nThree trials (total 70 participants, aged 8 to 46 years) assessed as having a moderate risk of bias were included. One trial compared vitamin K to placebo, a second to no supplementation and the third compared two doses of vitamin K. No trial in either comparison reported our primary outcomes of coagulation and quality of life or the secondary outcomes of nutritional parameters and adverse events.\nVitamin K versus control\nTwo trials compared vitamin K to control, but data were not available for analysis. One 12-month trial (n = 38) compared 10 mg vitamin K daily or placebo in a parallel design and one trial (n = 18) was of cross-over design with no washout period and compared 5 mg vitamin K/week for four-weeks to no supplementation for four-weeks. Only the 12-month trial reported on the primary outcome of bone formation; we are very uncertain whether vitamin K supplementation has any effect on bone mineral density at the femoral hip or lumbar spine (very low-quality evidence). Both trials reported an increase in serum vitamin K levels and a decrease in undercarboxylated osteocalcin levels. The cross-over trial also reported that levels of proteins induced by vitamin K absence (PIVKA) showed a decrease and a return to normal following supplementation, but due to the very low-quality evidence we are not certain that this is due to the intervention.\nHigh-dose versus low-dose vitamin K\nOne parallel trial (n = 14) compared 1 mg vitamin K/day to 5 mg vitamin K/day for four weeks. The trial did report that there did not appear to be any difference in serum undercarboxylated osteocalcin or vitamin K levels (very low-quality evidence). While the trial reported that serum vitamin K levels improved with supplementation, there was no difference between the high-dose and low-dose groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is very low-quality evidence of any effect of vitamin K in people with cystic fibrosis. While there is no evidence of harm, until better evidence is available the ongoing recommendations by national CF guidelines should be followed.\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 to see whether supplementing vitamin K in people with cystic fibrosis counteracts the effects of deficiency on blood clotting, bone strength and quality of life in people with cystic fibrosis. We tried to determine the best dose needed to prevent this deficiency. This is an update of an earlier review." } ]
query-laysum	21900	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe standard method of diagnosing HIV in infants and children less than 18 months is with a nucleic acid amplification test reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction test (NAT RT-PCR) detecting viral ribonucleic acid (RNA). Laboratory testing using the RT-PCR platform for HIV infection is limited by poor access, logistical support, and delays in relaying test results and initiating therapy in low-resource settings. The use of rapid diagnostic tests at or near the point-of-care (POC) can increase access to early diagnosis of HIV infection in infants and children less than 18 months of age and timely initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART).\nObjectives\nTo summarize the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care nucleic acid-based testing (POC NAT) to detect HIV-1/HIV-2 infection in infants and children aged 18 months or less exposed to HIV infection.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (until 2 February 2021), MEDLINE and Embase (until 1 February 2021), and LILACS and Web of Science (until 2 February 2021) with no language or publication status restriction. We also searched conference websites and clinical trial registries, tracked reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews, and consulted experts for potentially eligible studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe defined POC tests as rapid diagnostic tests conducted at or near the patient site. We included any primary study that compared the results of a POC NAT to a reference standard of laboratory NAT RT-PCR or total nucleic acid testing to detect the presence or absence of HIV infection denoted by HIV viral nucleic acids in infants and children aged 18 months or less who were exposed to HIV-1/HIV-2 infection. We included cross-sectional, prospective, and retrospective study designs and those that provided sufficient data to create the 2 × 2 table to calculate sensitivity and specificity. We excluded diagnostic case control studies with healthy controls.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted information on study characteristics using a pretested standardized data extraction form. We used the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) tool to assess the risk of bias and applicability concerns of the included studies. Two review authors independently selected and assessed the included studies, resolving any disagreements by consensus. The unit of analysis was the participant. We first conducted preliminary exploratory analyses by plotting estimates of sensitivity and specificity from each study on forest plots and in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) space. For the overall meta-analyses, we pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity using the bivariate meta-analysis model at a common threshold (presence or absence of infection).\nMain results\nWe identified a total of 12 studies (15 evaluations, 15,120 participants). All studies were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. The ages of included infants and children in the evaluations were as follows: at birth (n = 6), ≤ 12 months (n = 3), ≤ 18 months (n = 5), and ≤ 24 months (n = 1). Ten evaluations were field evaluations of the POC NAT test at the point of care, and five were laboratory evaluations of the POC NAT tests.The POC NAT tests evaluated included Alere q HIV-1/2 Detect qualitative test (recently renamed m-PIMA q HIV-1/2 Detect qualitative test) (n = 6), Xpert HIV-1 qualitative test (n = 6), and SAMBA HIV-1 qualitative test (n = 3).\nPOC NAT pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval (CI)) against laboratory reference standard tests were 98.6% (96.1 to 99.5) (15 evaluations, 1728 participants) and 99.9% (99.7 to 99.9) (15 evaluations, 13,392 participants) in infants and children ≤ 18 months.\nRisk of bias in the included studies was mostly low or unclear due to poor reporting. Five evaluations had some concerns for applicability for the index test, as they were POC tests evaluated in a laboratory setting, but there was no difference detected between settings in sensitivity (−1.3% (95% CI −4.1 to 1.5)); and specificity results were similar.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor the diagnosis of HIV-1/HIV-2 infection, we found the sensitivity and specificity of POC NAT tests to be high in infants and children aged 18 months or less who were exposed to HIV infection.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the implications of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "In theory, for a population of 1000 children aged 18 months or less where 100 have HIV infection, 100 children will be positive with the molecular point-of-care test, of which one will not have the infection (false-positive result), and 900 will be negative with the molecular point-of-care test, of which one will indeed have the infection (false-negative result)." } ]
query-laysum	21901	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nClinicians typically select the antibiotics used to treat pulmonary infections in people with cystic fibrosis based on the results of antimicrobial susceptibility testing performed on bacteria traditionally grown in a planktonic mode (grown in a liquid). However, there is considerable evidence to suggest that Pseudomonas aeruginosa actually grows in a biofilm (or slime layer) in the airways of people with cystic fibrosis with chronic pulmonary infections. Therefore, choosing antibiotics based on biofilm rather than conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing could potentially improve response to treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in people with cystic fibrosis. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review.\nObjectives\nTo compare biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing-driven therapy to conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing-driven therapy in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in people with cystic fibrosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. Most recent search: 07 April 2020.\nWe also searched two ongoing trials registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Most recent searches: 07 April 2020 and 05 September 2017.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antibiotic therapy based on biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing compared to antibiotic therapy based on conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa pulmonary infection in people with cystic fibrosis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected RCTs, assessed their risk of bias and extracted data from eligible trials. Additionally, the review authors contacted the trial investigators to obtain further information. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nThe searches identified two multicentre, double-blind RCTs eligible for inclusion in the review with a total of 78 participants (adults and children); one RCT was undertaken in people who were clinically stable, the second was in people experiencing pulmonary exacerbations. Both RCTs prospectively assessed whether the use of biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing improved microbiological and clinical outcomes in participants with cystic fibrosis who were infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The primary outcome was the change in sputum Pseudomonas aeruginosa density from the beginning to the end of antibiotic therapy.\nAlthough the intervention was shown to be safe, the data from these two RCTs did not provide evidence that biofilm susceptibility testing was superior to conventional susceptibility testing either in terms of microbiological or lung function outcomes. One of the trials also measured risk and time to subsequent exacerbation as well as quality of life measures and did not demonstrate any difference between groups in these outcomes. Both RCTs had an overall low risk of bias and the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria was deemed to be moderate to high for the outcomes selected.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe current evidence is insufficient to recommend choosing antibiotics based on biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing rather than conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa pulmonary infections in people with cystic fibrosis. Biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing may be more appropriate in the development of newer, more effective formulations of drugs which can then be tested in clinical trials.\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 two trials, one run in the USA (in people who were clinically stable) and one run in Canada (in people who were having an exacerbation or respiratory flare up). A total of 78 people from these trials gave sputum samples. Bacteria from these samples were grown in either a liquid (34 samples) or biofilm (44 samples) with an equal chance of being grown in either one. Neither the people taking part or their clinicians knew before or during the trial which method had been used for the sample from each person. A mixture of adults and children took part in the trials, with the average age being around 20 to 30 years. There were an equal number of men and women in both trials. Around half the people in the trials had two copies of the delta F508 gene and there were almost equal number of these in each group. Average lung function in both groups was similar." } ]
query-laysum	21902	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute liver failure is a rare and serious disease. Acute liver failure may be paracetamol-induced or non-paracetamol-induced. Acute liver failure not caused by paracetamol (acetaminophen) has a poor prognosis with limited treatment options. N-acetylcysteine has been successful in treating paracetamol-induced acute liver failure and reduces the risk of needing to undergo liver transplantation. Recent randomised clinical trials have explored whether the benefit can be extrapolated to treat non-paracetamol-related acute liver failure. The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) 2011 guideline suggested that N-acetylcysteine could improve spontaneous survival when given during early encephalopathy stages for patients with non-paracetamol-related acute liver failure.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of N-acetylcysteine compared with placebo or no N-acetylcysteine, as an adjunct to usual care, in people with non-paracetamol-related acute liver failure.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (searched 25 June 2020), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 6) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 25 June 2020), Embase Ovid (1974 to 25 June 2020), Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS) (1982 to 25 June 2020), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 25 June 2020), and Conference Proceedings Citation Index – Science (1990 to 25 June 2020).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised clinical trials that compared N-acetylcysteine at any dose or route with placebo or no intervention in participants with non-paracetamol-induced acute liver failure.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We conducted meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We quantified statistical heterogeneity by calculating I2. We assessed bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and determined the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included two randomised clinical trials: one with 183 adults and one with 174 children (birth through age 17 years). We classified both trials at overall high risk of bias. One unregistered study in adults is awaiting classification while we are awaiting responses from study authors for details on trial methodology (e.g. randomisation processes).\nWe did not meta-analyse all-cause mortality because of significant clinical heterogeneity in the two trials. For all-cause mortality at 21 days between adults receiving N-acetylcysteine versus placebo, there was inconclusive evidence of effect (N-acetylcysteine 24/81 (29.6%) versus placebo 31/92 (33.7%); RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.37; low certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was low due to risk of bias and imprecision. Similarly, for all-cause mortality at one year between children receiving N-acetylcysteine versus placebo, there was inconclusive evidence of effect (25/92 (27.2%) versus 17/92 (18.5%); RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.53; low certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence due to very serious imprecision.\nWe did not meta-analyse serious adverse events and liver transplantation at one year due to incomplete reporting and clinical heterogeneity. For liver transplantation at 21 days in the trial with adults, there was inconclusive evidence of effect (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.06; low certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to serious risk of bias and imprecision. For liver transplantation at one year in the trial with children, there was inconclusive evidence of effect (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.81; low certainty of evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to very serious imprecision.\nThere was inconclusive evidence of effect on serious adverse events in the trial with children (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.51; low certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to very serious imprecision.\nWe did not meta-analyse non-serious adverse events due to clinical heterogeneity. There was inconclusive evidence of effect on non-serious adverse events in adults (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.45; 173 participants; low certainty of evidence) and children (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.16; 184 participants; low certainty of evidence). None of the trials reported outcomes of proportion of participants with resolution of encephalopathy and coagulopathy or health-related quality of life.\nThe National Institute of Health in the United States funded both trials through grants. One of the trials received additional funding from two hospital foundations' grants. Pharmaceutical companies provided the study drug and matching placebo, but they did not have input into study design nor involvement in analysis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe available evidence is inconclusive regarding the effect of N-acetylcysteine compared with placebo or no N-acetylcysteine, as an adjunct to usual care, on mortality or transplant rate in non-paracetamol-induced acute liver failure. Current evidence does not support the guideline suggestion to use N-acetylcysteine in adults with non-paracetamol-related acute liver failure, nor the rising use observed in clinical practice. The uncertainty based on current scanty evidence warrants additional randomised clinical trials with non-paracetamol-related acute liver failure evaluating N-acetylcysteine versus placebo, as well as investigations to identify predictors of response and the optimal N-acetylcysteine dose and duration.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Trial funding sources\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The two randomised clinical trials included were both primarily funded by grants from the National Institute of Health, a US government agency. Pharmaceutical companies provided the study drug, but they did not take part in the rest of the study." } ]
query-laysum	21903	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEpidural analgesia is often used for pain relief during labour and childbirth, and involves administration of local anaesthetics (LA) into the epidural space resulting in sensory blockade of the abdomen, pelvis, and perineum. Epidural opioids are often co-administered to improve analgesia. Administration of epidural medications can be accomplished by basal infusion (BI) or automated mandatory bolus (AMB). With BI, medications are administered continuously, while AMB involves injecting medications at set time intervals. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) on top of AMB or BI enables patients to initiate additional boluses of epidural medications.\nThe superior method of delivering epidural medications would result in lower incidence of pain requiring anaesthesiologist intervention (breakthrough pain). Also, it should be associated with lower incidence of epidural-related adverse effects including caesarean delivery, instrumental delivery (use of forceps or vacuum devices), prolonged duration of labour analgesia, and LA consumption. However, clear evidence of the superiority of one technique over the other is lacking. Also, differences in the initiation of epidural analgesia such as combined spinal-epidural (CSE) (medications given into the intrathecal space in addition to the epidural space) compared to epidural only, and medications used (types and doses of LA or opioids) may not have been accounted for in previous reviews.\nOur prior systematic review suggested that AMB reduces the incidence of breakthrough pain compared to BI with no significant difference in the incidence of caesarean delivery or instrumental delivery, duration of labour analgesia, and LA consumption. However, several studies comparing AMB and BI have been performed since then, and inclusion of their data may improve the precision of our effect estimates.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of AMB versus BI for maintaining labour epidural analgesia in women at term.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, Wiley Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, (National Library of Medicine), Embase(Elseiver), Web of Science (Clarivate), the WHO-ICTRP (World Health Organization) and ClinicalTrials.gov (National Library of Medicine) on 31 December 2022. Additionally, we screened the reference lists of relevant trials and reviews for eligible citations, and we contacted authors of included studies to identify unpublished research and ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled studies that compared bolus dosing AMB with continuous BI during epidural analgesia. We excluded studies of women in preterm labour, with multiple pregnancies, with fetal malposition, intrathecal catheters, those that did not use automated delivery of medications, and those where AMB and BI were combined.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodology for systematic review and meta-analysis described by Cochrane. Primary outcomes included: incidence of breakthrough pain requiring anaesthesiologist intervention; incidence of caesarean delivery; and incidence of instrumental delivery. Secondly, we assessed the duration of labour; hourly LA consumption in bupivacaine equivalents, maternal satisfaction after fetal delivery, and neonatal Apgar scores.\nThe following subgroup analyses were chosen a priori: epidural alone versus CSE technique; regimens that used PCEA versus those that did not; and nulliparous versus combination of nulli- and multi-parous women.\nWe used the GRADE system to assess the certainty of evidence associated with our outcome measures.\nMain results\nWe included 18 studies of 4590 women, of which 13 enrolled healthy nulliparous women and five included healthy nulli- and multiparous women. All studies excluded women with preterm or complicated pregnancies. Techniques used to initiate epidural analgesia differed between the studies: seven used combined spinal epidural, 10 used epidural, and one used dural puncture epidural (DPE). There was also variation in analgesics used. Eight studies utilised ropivacaine with fentanyl, three used ropivacaine with sufentanil, two utilised levobupivacaine with sufentanil, one used levobupivacaine with fentanyl, and four utilised bupivacaine with fentanyl. Most of the studies were assessed to have low risk of randomisation, blinding, attrition, and reporting biases, except for allocation concealment where eight studies were assessed to have uncertain risk and three with high risk.\nOur results showed that AMB was associated with lower incidence of breakthrough pain compared to BI (risk ratio (RR) 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.91; I2 = 57%) (16 studies, 1528 participants), and lower hourly LA consumption in bupivacaine equivalents (mean difference (MD) -0.84 mg/h; 95% CI -1.29 to -0.38, I2 = 87%) (16 studies, 1642 participants), both with moderate certainty. AMB was associated with an estimated reduction in breakthrough pain incidence of 29.1% (incidence 202 per 1000, 95% CI 157 to 259), and was therefore considered clinically significant.\nThe incidence of caesarean delivery (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.06; I2 = 0%) (16 studies, 1735 participants) and instrumental delivery (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; I2 = 0%) (17 studies, 4550 participants) were not significantly, both with moderate certainty. There was no significant difference in duration of labour analgesia (MD -8.81 min; 95% CI -19.38 to 1.77; I2 = 50%) (17 studies, 4544 participants) with moderate certainty. Due to differences in the methods and timing of outcome measurements, we did not pool data for maternal satisfaction and Apgar scores. Results reported narratively suggest AMB may be associated with increased maternal satisfaction (eight studies reported increased satisfaction and six reported no difference), and all studies showed no difference in Apgar scores.\nWIth the exception of epidural alone versus CSE which found significant subgroup differences in LA consumption between AMB and BI, no significant differences were detected in the remaining subgroup analyses.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, AMB is associated with lower incidence of breakthrough pain, reduced LA consumption, and may improve maternal satisfaction. There were no significant differences between AMB and BI in the incidence of caesarean delivery, instrumental delivery, duration of labour analgesia, and Apgar scores. Larger studies assessing the incidence of caesarean and instrumental delivery are required.\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 AMB with BI for labour epidural pain relief. We compared and summarised the results of these studies, and rated our confidence in the evidence based on factors such as study methods and sizes." } ]
query-laysum	21904	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcne scarring is a frequent complication of acne and resulting scars may negatively impact on an affected person's psychosocial and physical well-being. Although a wide range of interventions have been proposed, there is a lack of high-quality evidence on treatments for acne scars to better inform patients and their healthcare providers about the most effective and safe methods of managing this condition. This review aimed to examine treatments for atrophic and hypertrophic acne scars, but we have concentrated on facial atrophic scarring.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions for treating acne scars.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to November 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 10), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched five trials registers, and checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews for further references to randomised controlled trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which allocated participants (whether split-face or parallel arms) to any active intervention (or a combination) for treating acne scars. We excluded studies dealing only or mostly with keloid scars.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently extracted data from each of the studies included in this review and evaluated the risks of bias. We resolved disagreements by discussion and arbitration supported by a method expert as required. Our primary outcomes were participant-reported scar improvement and any adverse effects serious enough to cause participants to withdraw from the study.\nMain results\nWe included 24 trials with 789 adult participants aged 18 years or older. Twenty trials enrolled men and women, three trials enrolled only women and one trial enrolled only men. We judged eight studies to be at low risk of bias for both sequence generation and allocation concealment. With regard to blinding we judged 17 studies to be at high risk of performance bias, because the participants and dermatologists were not blinded to the treatments administered or received; however, we judged all 24 trials to be at a low risk of detection bias for outcome assessment. We evaluated 14 comparisons of seven interventions and four combinations of interventions. Nine studies provided no usable data on our outcomes and did not contribute further to this review's results.\nFor our outcome 'Participant-reported scar improvement' in one study fractional laser was more effective in producing scar improvement than non-fractional non-ablative laser at week 24 (risk ratio (RR) 4.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 12.84; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); fractional laser showed comparable scar improvement to fractional radiofrequency in one study at week eight (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.68; n = 40; very low-quality evidence) and was comparable to combined chemical peeling with skin needling in a different study at week 48 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.67; n = 26; very low-quality evidence). In a further study chemical peeling showed comparable scar improvement to combined chemical peeling with skin needling at week 32 (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.75; n = 20; very low-quality evidence). Chemical peeling in one study showed comparable scar improvement to skin needling at week four (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; n = 27; very low-quality evidence). In another study, injectable fillers provided better scar improvement compared to placebo at week 24 (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.59; n = 147 moderate-quality evidence).\nFor our outcome ‘Serious adverse effects’ in one study chemical peeling was not tolerable in 7/43 (16%) participants (RR 5.45, 95% CI 0.33 to 90.14; n = 58; very low-quality evidence).\nFor our secondary outcome ‘Participant-reported short-term adverse events’, all participants reported pain in the following studies: in one study comparing fractional laser to non-fractional non-ablative laser (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); in another study comparing fractional laser to combined peeling plus needling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; n = 25; very low-quality evidence); in a study comparing chemical peeling plus needling to chemical peeling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.20; n = 20; very low-quality evidence); in a study comparing chemical peeling to skin needling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.15; n = 27; very low-quality evidence); and also in a study comparing injectable filler and placebo (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.10 to 11.10; n = 147; low-quality evidence).\nFor our outcome ‘Investigator-assessed short-term adverse events’, fractional laser (6/32) was associated with a reduced risk of hyperpigmentation than non-fractional non-ablative laser (10/32) in one study (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.45; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); chemical peeling was associated with increased risk of hyperpigmentation (6/12) compared to skin needling (0/15) in one study (RR 16.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 258.36; n = 27; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in the reported adverse events with injectable filler (17/97) compared to placebo (13/50) (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.27; n = 147; low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is a lack of high-quality evidence about the effects of different interventions for treating acne scars because of poor methodology, underpowered studies, lack of standardised improvement assessments, and different baseline variables.\nThere is moderate-quality evidence that injectable filler might be effective for treating atrophic acne scars; however, no studies have assessed long-term effects, the longest follow-up being 48 weeks in one study only. Other studies included active comparators, but in the absence of studies that establish efficacy compared to placebo or sham interventions, it is possible that finding no evidence of difference between two active treatments could mean that neither approach works. The results of this review do not provide support for the first-line use of any intervention in the treatment of acne scars.\nAlthough our aim was to identify important gaps for further primary research, it might be that placebo and or sham trials are needed to establish whether any of the active treatments produce meaningful patient benefits over the long term.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Which treatments are effective for acne scars?" } ]
query-laysum	21905	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSince 1879, the year of the first documented medical telephone consultation, the ability to consult by telephone has become an integral part of modern patient-centred healthcare systems. Nowadays, up to a quarter of all care consultations are conducted by telephone. Studies have quantified the impact of medical telephone consultation on clinicians' workload and detected the need for quality improvement. While doctors routinely receive training in communication and consultation skills, this does not necessarily include the specificities of telephone communication and consultation. Several studies assessed the short-term effect of interventions aimed at improving clinicians' telephone consultation skills, but there is no systematic review reporting patient-oriented outcomes or outcomes of interest to clinicians.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of training interventions for clinicians' telephone consultation skills and patient outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other electronic databases and two trial registers up to 19 May 2016, and we handsearched references, checked citations and contacted study authors to identify additional studies and data.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating training interventions compared with any control intervention, including no intervention, for improving clinicians' telephone consultation skills with patients and their impact on patient outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of eligible studies using standard Cochrane and EPOC guidance and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We contacted study authors where additional information was needed. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for data analysis.\nMain results\nWe identified one very small controlled before-after study performed in 1989: this study used a validated tool to assess the effects of a training intervention on paediatric residents' history-taking and case management skills. It reported no difference compared to no intervention, but authors did not report any quantitative analyses and could not supply additional data. We rated this study as being at high risk of bias. Based on GRADE, we assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low, and consequently it is uncertain whether this intervention improves clinicians' telephone skills.\nWe did not find any study assessing the effect of training interventions for improving clinicians' telephone communication skills on patient primary outcomes (health outcomes measured by validated tools or biomedical markers or patient behaviours, patient morbidity or mortality, patient satisfaction, urgency assessment accuracy or adverse events).\nAuthors' conclusions\nTelephone consultation skills are part of a wider set of remote consulting skills whose importance is growing as more and more medical care is delivered from a distance with the support of information technology. Nevertheless, no evidence specifically coming from telephone consultation studies is available, and the training of clinicians at the moment has to be guided by studies and models based on face-to-face communication, which do not consider the differences between these two communicative dimensions. There is an urgent need for more research assessing the effect of different training interventions on clinicians' telephone consultation skills and their effect on patient outcomes.\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": "One very small study reported no difference between a training intervention and no intervention on paediatric residents' telephone skills, but the certainty of the evidence was very low, so it is uncertain if this intervention makes any difference in clinicians' telephone communication skills.\nWe did not find any study assessing the effect of training intervention for improving clinicians telephone communication skills on patient outcomes.\nThere is no evidence to inform clinician training in telephone communication skills, so currently it has to be guided by studies and models based on face-to-face communication that do not consider the differences between these two communicative dimensions." } ]
query-laysum	21906	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPelvic, hip, and long bone fractures can result in significant bleeding at the time of injury, with further blood loss if they are treated with surgical fixation. People undergoing surgery are therefore at risk of requiring a blood transfusion and may be at risk of peri-operative anaemia. Pharmacological interventions for blood conservation may reduce the risk of requiring an allogeneic blood transfusion and associated complications.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of different pharmacological interventions for reducing blood loss in definitive surgical fixation of the hip, pelvic, and long bones.\nSearch methods\nWe used a predefined search strategy to search CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Transfusion Evidence Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) from inception to 7 April 2022, without restrictions on language, year, or publication status.\nWe handsearched reference lists of included trials to identify further relevant trials. We contacted authors of ongoing trials to acquire any unpublished data.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people who underwent trauma (non-elective) surgery for definitive fixation of hip, pelvic, and long bone (pelvis, tibia, femur, humerus, radius, ulna and clavicle) fractures only. There were no restrictions on gender, ethnicity, or age.\nWe excluded planned (elective) procedures (e.g. scheduled total hip arthroplasty), and studies published since 2010 that had not been prospectively registered.\nEligible interventions included: antifibrinolytics (tranexamic acid, aprotinin, epsilon-aminocaproic acid), desmopressin, factor VIIa and XIII, fibrinogen, fibrin sealants, and non-fibrin sealants.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We did not perform a network meta-analysis due to lack of data.\nMain results\nWe included 13 RCTs (929 participants), published between 2005 and 2021. Three trials did not report any of our predefined outcomes and so were not included in quantitative analyses (all were tranexamic acid versus placebo).\nWe identified three comparisons of interest: intravenous tranexamic acid versus placebo; topical tranexamic acid versus placebo; and recombinant factor VIIa versus placebo. We rated the certainty of evidence as very low to low across all outcomes.\nComparison 1. Intravenous tranexamic acid versus placebo\nIntravenous tranexamic acid compared to placebo may reduce the risk of requiring an allogeneic blood transfusion up to 30 days (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.69; 6 RCTs, 457 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) 0.38, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.77; 2 RCTs, 147 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nIt may result in little to no difference in risk of participants experiencing myocardial infarction (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI −0.03 to 0.03; 2 RCTs, 199 participants; low-certainty evidence), and cerebrovascular accident/stroke (RD 0.00, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.02; 3 RCTs, 324 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nWe are uncertain if there is a difference between groups for risk of deep vein thrombosis (Peto OR 2.15, 95% CI 0.22 to 21.35; 4 RCTs, 329 participants, very low-certainty evidence), pulmonary embolism (Peto OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.07 to 17.66; 4 RCTs, 329 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and suspected serious drug reactions (RD 0.00, 95% CI −0.03 to 0.03; 2 RCTs, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nNo data were available for number of red blood cell units transfused, reoperation, or acute transfusion reaction.\nWe downgraded the certainty of the evidence for imprecision (wide confidence intervals around the estimate and small sample size, particularly for rare events), and risk of bias (unclear or high risk methods of blinding and allocation concealment in the assessment of subjective measures), and upgraded the evidence for transfusion requirement for a large effect.\nComparison 2. Topical tranexamic acid versus placebo\nWe are uncertain if there is a difference between topical tranexamic acid and placebo for risk of requiring an allogeneic blood transfusion (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.22; 2 RCTs, 101 participants), all-cause mortality (RD 0.00, 95% CI −0.10 to 0.10; 1 RCT, 36 participants), risk of participants experiencing myocardial infarction (Peto OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.00 to 7.62; 1 RCT, 36 participants), cerebrovascular accident/stroke (RD 0.00, 95% CI −0.06 to 0.06; 1 RCT, 65 participants); and deep vein thrombosis (Peto OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.07 to 17.77; 2 RCTs, 101 participants).\nAll outcomes reported were very low-certainty evidence.\nNo data were available for number of red blood cell units transfused, reoperation, incidence of pulmonary embolism, acute transfusion reaction, or suspected serious drug reactions.\nWe downgraded the certainty of the evidence for imprecision (wide confidence intervals around the estimate and small sample size, particularly for rare events), inconsistency (moderate heterogeneity), and risk of bias (unclear or high risk methods of blinding and allocation concealment in the assessment of subjective measures, and high risk of attrition and reporting biases in one trial).\nComparison 3. Recombinant factor VIIa versus placebo\nOnly one RCT of 48 participants reported data for recombinant factor VIIa versus placebo, so we have not presented the results here.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe cannot draw conclusions from the current evidence due to lack of data. Most published studies included in our analyses assessed the use of tranexamic acid (compared to placebo, or using different routes of administration).\nWe identified 27 prospectively registered ongoing RCTs (total target recruitment of 4177 participants by end of 2023). The ongoing trials create six new comparisons: tranexamic acid (tablet + injection) versus placebo; intravenous tranexamic acid versus oral tranexamic acid; topical tranexamic acid versus oral tranexamic acid; different intravenous tranexamic acid dosing regimes; topical tranexamic acid versus topical fibrin glue; and fibrinogen (injection) versus placebo.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched for studies that investigated using medicines to prevent blood loss in this kind of surgery." } ]
query-laysum	21907	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute high altitude illness is defined as a group of cerebral and pulmonary syndromes that can occur during travel to high altitudes. It is more common above 2500 metres, but can be seen at lower elevations, especially in susceptible people. Acute high altitude illness includes a wide spectrum of syndromes defined under the terms 'acute mountain sickness' (AMS), 'high altitude cerebral oedema' and 'high altitude pulmonary oedema'. There are several interventions available to treat this condition, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological; however, there is a great uncertainty regarding their benefits and harms.\nObjectives\nTo assess the clinical effectiveness, and safety of interventions (non-pharmacological and pharmacological), as monotherapy or in any combination, for treating acute high altitude illness.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, ISI Web of Science, CINAHL, Wanfang database and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing studies on 10 August 2017. We did not apply any language restriction.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for individuals suffering from acute high altitude illness: acute mountain sickness, high altitude pulmonary oedema or high altitude cerebral oedema.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the eligibility of study reports, the risk of bias for each and performed the data extraction. We resolved disagreements through discussion with a third author. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 13 studies enrolling a total of 468 participants. We identified two ongoing studies. All studies included adults, and two studies included both teenagers and adults. The 13 studies took place in high altitude areas, mostly in the European Alps. Twelve studies included participants with acute mountain sickness, and one study included participants with high altitude pulmonary oedema. Follow-up was usually less than one day. We downgraded the quality of the evidence in most cases due to risk of bias and imprecision. We report results for the main comparisons as follows.\nNon-pharmacological interventions (3 studies, 124 participants)\nAll-cause mortality and complete relief of AMS symptoms were not reported in the three included trials. One study in 64 participants found that a simulated descent of 193 millibars versus 20 millibars may reduce the average of symptoms to 2.5 vs 3.1 units after 12 hours of treatment (clinical score ranged from 0 to 11 ‒ worse; reduction of 0.6 points on average with the intervention; low quality of evidence). In addition, no complications were found with use of hyperbaric chambers versus supplementary oxygen (one study; 29 participants; low-quality evidence).\nPharmacological interventions (11 trials, 375 participants)\nAll-cause mortality was not reported in the 11 included trials. One trial found a greater proportion of participants with complete relief of AMS symptoms after 12 and 16 hours when dexamethasone was administered in comparison with placebo (47.1% versus 0%, respectively; one study; 35 participants; low quality of evidence). Likewise, when acetazolamide was compared with placebo, the effects on symptom severity was uncertain (standardized mean difference (SMD) −1.15, 95% CI −2.56 to 0.27; 2 studies, 25 participants; low-quality evidence). One trial of dexamethasone in comparison with placebo in 35 participants found a reduction in symptom severity (difference on change in the AMS score: 3.7 units reported by authors; moderate quality of evidence). The effects from two additional trials comparing gabapentin with placebo and magnesium with placebo on symptom severity at the end of treatment were uncertain. For gabapentin versus placebo: mean visual analogue scale (VAS) score of 2.92 versus 4.75, respectively; 24 participants; low quality of evidence. For magnesium versus placebo: mean scores of 9 and 10.3 units, respectively; 25 participants; low quality of evidence). The trials did not find adverse events from either treatment (low quality of evidence). One trial comparing magnesium sulphate versus placebo found that flushing was a frequent event in the magnesium sulphate arm (percentage of flushing: 75% versus 7.7%, respectively; one study; 25 participants; low quality of evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is limited available evidence to determine the effects of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions in treating acute high altitude illness. Low-quality evidence suggests that dexamethasone and acetazolamide might reduce AMS score compared to placebo. However, the clinical benefits and harms related to these potential interventions remain unclear. Overall, the evidence is of limited practical significance in the clinical field. High-quality research in this field is needed, since most trials were poorly conducted and reported.\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 13 studies with a total of 468 participants. Most studies included participants with mild or moderate forms of mountain sickness, and only one study included the severe neurological (disorder of the nervous system) form. Follow-up was usually less than one day. We also identified two ongoing studies." } ]
query-laysum	21908	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied. However, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco: nicotine withdrawal can produce short-term low mood that antidepressants may relieve; and some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction.\nObjectives\nTo assess the evidence for the efficacy, harms, and tolerability of medications with antidepressant properties in assisting long-term tobacco smoking cessation in people who smoke cigarettes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, most recently on 29 April 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people who smoked, comparing antidepressant medications with placebo or no pharmacological treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used differently. We excluded trials with fewer than six months of follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length for our analyses of harms.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods.\nOur primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months' follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Our secondary outcomes were harms and tolerance outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), psychiatric AEs, seizures, overdoses, suicide attempts, death by suicide, all-cause mortality, and trial dropouts due to treatment. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate.\nMain results\nWe included a total of 124 studies (48,832 participants) in this review, with 10 new studies added to this update version. Most studies recruited adults from the community or from smoking cessation clinics; four studies focused on adolescents (with participants between 12 and 21 years old). We judged 34 studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not change clinical interpretation of the results.\nThere was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased smoking cessation rates when compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.49 to 1.72; I2 = 16%; 50 studies, 18,577 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that a combination of bupropion and varenicline may have resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I2 = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence to establish whether a combination of bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; I2 = 43%; 15 studies, 4117 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nThere was moderate-certainty evidence that participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs than those taking placebo or no pharmacological treatment. However, results were imprecise and the CI also encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 23 studies, 10,958 participants). Results were also imprecise when comparing SAEs between people randomised to a combination of bupropion and NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.26 to 8.89; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 657 participants) and randomised to bupropion plus varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.42; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1268 participants). In both cases, we judged evidence to be of low certainty.\nThere was high-certainty evidence that bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to AEs than placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.65; I2 = 2%; 25 studies, 12,346 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence that bupropion combined with NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 737 participants) or bupropion combined with varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.45; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1230 participants) had an impact on the number of dropouts due to treatment. In both cases, imprecision was substantial (we judged the evidence to be of low certainty for both comparisons).\nBupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.80; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7564 participants), and to combination NRT (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; I2 = 0%; 2 studies; 720 participants). However, there was no clear evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and single-form NRT (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.13; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 7613 participants). We also found evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I2 = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), and some evidence that bupropion resulted in superior quit rates to nortriptyline (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants), although this result was subject to imprecision.\nFindings were sparse and inconsistent as to whether antidepressants, primarily bupropion and nortriptyline, had a particular benefit for people with current or previous depression.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is high-certainty evidence that bupropion can aid long-term smoking cessation. However, bupropion may increase SAEs (moderate-certainty evidence when compared to placebo/no pharmacological treatment). There is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with people receiving placebo or no pharmacological treatment. Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo, although bupropion may be more effective. Evidence also suggests that bupropion may be as successful as single-form NRT in helping people to quit smoking, but less effective than combination NRT and varenicline. In most cases, a paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions regarding harms and tolerability.\nFurther studies investigating the efficacy of bupropion versus placebo are unlikely to change our interpretation of the effect, providing no clear justification for pursuing bupropion for smoking cessation over other licensed smoking cessation treatments; namely, NRT and varenicline. However, it is important that future studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation measure and report on harms and tolerability.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"We were interested in finding out\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "- how many people stopped smoking for at least six months; and\n- how many people had unwanted effects." } ]
query-laysum	21909	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nChelation therapy is promoted and practiced around the world as a form of alternative medicine in the treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. It has been suggested as a safe, relatively inexpensive, non-surgical method of restoring blood flow in atherosclerotic vessels. However, there is currently limited high-quality, adequately-powered research informing evidence-based medicine on the topic, specifically regarding clinical outcomes. Due to this limited evidence, the benefit of chelation therapy remains controversial at present. This is an update of a review first published in 2002.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of ethylene diamine tetra-acetic acid (EDTA) chelation therapy versus placebo or no treatment on clinical outcomes among people with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials register to 6 August 2019. We searched the bibliographies of the studies retrieved by the literature searches for further trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies if they were randomised controlled trials of EDTA chelation therapy versus placebo or no treatment in participants with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The main outcome measures we considered include all-cause or cause-specific mortality, non-fatal cardiovascular events, direct or indirect measurement of disease severity, and subjective measures of improvement or adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality using standard Cochrane procedures. A third author considered any unresolved issues, and we discussed any discrepancies until a consensus was reached. We contacted study authors for additional information.\nMain results\nWe included five studies with a total of 1993 randomised participants. Three studies enrolled participants with peripheral vascular disease and two studies included participants with coronary artery disease, one of which specifically recruited people who had had a myocardial infarction. The number of participants in each study varied widely (from 10 to 1708 participants), but all studies compared EDTA chelation to a placebo. Risk of bias for the included studies was generally moderate to low, but one study had high risk of bias because the study investigators broke their randomisation code halfway through the study and rolled the placebo participants over to active treatment. Certainty of the evidence, as assessed by GRADE, was generally low to very low, which was mostly due to a paucity of data in each outcome's meta-analysis. This limited our ability to draw any strong conclusions. We also had concerns about one study's risk of bias regarding blinding and outcome assessment that may have biased the results.\nTwo studies with coronary artery disease participants reported no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality between chelation therapy and placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.28; 1792 participants; low-certainty). One study with coronary artery disease participants reported no evidence of a difference in coronary heart disease deaths between chelation therapy and placebo (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.48; 1708 participants; very low-certainty). Two studies with coronary artery disease participants reported no evidence of a difference in myocardial infarction (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.14; 1792 participants; moderate-certainty), angina (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.67; 1792 participants; very low-certainty), and coronary revascularisation (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.25; 1792 participants). Two studies (one with coronary artery disease participants and one with peripheral vascular disease participants) reported no evidence of a difference in stroke (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.92; 1867 participants; low-certainty). Ankle-brachial pressure index (ABPI; also known as ankle brachial index) was measured in three studies, all including participants with peripheral vascular disease; two studies found no evidence of a difference in the treatment groups after three months after treatment (mean difference (MD) 0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.06; 181 participants; low-certainty). A third study reported an improvement in ABPI in the EDTA chelation group, but this study was at high risk of bias. Meta-analysis of maximum and pain-free walking distances three months after treatment included participants with peripheral vascular disease and showed no evidence of a difference between the treatment groups (MD -31.46, 95% CI -87.63 to 24.71; 165 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty). Quality of life outcomes were reported by two studies that included participants with coronary artery disease, but we were unable to pool the data due to different methods of reporting and varied criteria. However, there did not appear to be any major differences between the treatment groups. None of the included studies reported on vascular deaths. Overall, there was no evidence of major or minor adverse events associated with EDTA chelation treatment.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of chelation therapy in improving clinical outcomes of people with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. More high-quality, randomised controlled trials are needed that assess the effects of chelation therapy on longevity and quality of life among people with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.\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": "Atherosclerosis is caused by fatty deposits that cause a narrowing of people's arteries and restrict blood flow. People with blocked arteries are more likely to have strokes, heart attacks, and narrow blood vessels in their feet. Chelation therapy involves infusions into the bloodstream of substances believed to remove metals from the blood. This treatment is offered to people with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease as a way of breaking down the blockages in their blood vessels. Chelation therapy is practiced in several places around the world as an alternative form of medicine, but there is currently a lack of knowledge surrounding this treatment. More information is needed to understand if this treatment should be more widely recommended." } ]
query-laysum	21910	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death globally. Traditionally, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes are offered to individuals after cardiac events to aid recovery and prevent further cardiac illness. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes have been introduced in an attempt to widen access and participation. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009 and 2015.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effect of home-based and supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, exercise-capacity, health-related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with heart disease.\nSearch methods\nWe updated searches from the previous Cochrane Review by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) on 21 September 2016. We also searched two clinical trials registers as well as previous systematic reviews and reference lists of included studies. No language restrictions were applied.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials, including parallel group, cross-over or quasi-randomised designs) that compared centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (e.g. hospital, gymnasium, sports centre) with home-based programmes in adults with myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure or who had undergone revascularisation.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened all identified references for inclusion based on pre-defined inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or by involving a third review author. Two authors independently extracted outcome data and study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE principles and a Summary of findings table was created.\nMain results\nWe included six new studies (624 participants) for this update, which now includes a total of 23 trials that randomised a total of 2890 participants undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. Participants had an acute myocardial infarction, revascularisation or heart failure. A number of studies provided insufficient detail to enable assessment of potential risk of bias, in particular, details of generation and concealment of random allocation sequencing and blinding of outcome assessment were poorly reported.\nNo evidence of a difference was seen between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in clinical primary outcomes up to 12 months of follow up: total mortality (relative risk (RR) = 1.19, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.16; participants = 1505; studies = 11/comparisons = 13; very low quality evidence), exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.13, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.02; participants = 2255; studies = 22/comparisons = 26; low quality evidence), or health-related quality of life up to 24 months (not estimable). Trials were generally of short duration, with only three studies reporting outcomes beyond 12 months (exercise capacity: SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.23; participants = 1074; studies = 3; moderate quality evidence). However, there was evidence of marginally higher levels of programme completion (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.08; participants = 2615; studies = 22/comparisons = 26; low quality evidence) by home-based participants.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis update supports previous conclusions that home- and centre-based forms of cardiac rehabilitation seem to be similarly effective in improving clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes in patients after myocardial infarction or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This finding supports the continued expansion of evidence-based, home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes. The choice of participating in a more traditional and supervised centre-based programme or a home-based programme may reflect local availability and consider the preference of the individual patient. Further data are needed to determine whether the effects of home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation reported in the included short-term trials can be confirmed in the longer term and need to consider adequately powered non-inferiority or equivalence study designs.\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": "Poor reporting made it difficult to assess methodological quality of the included studies and their risk of bias. Evidence quality ranged from very low (total mortality), to moderate (exercise capacity over 12 months and health-related quality of life). The main reasons for the low assessment of quality was poor reporting in the included studies." } ]
query-laysum	21911	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe introduction of point-of-care devices for the management of patients on oral anticoagulation allows self-testing by the patient at home. Patients who self-test can either adjust their medication according to a pre-determined dose-INR (international normalized ratio) schedule (self-management), or they can call a clinic to be told the appropriate dose adjustment (self-monitoring). Increasing evidence suggests self-testing of oral anticoagulant therapy is equal to or better than standard monitoring. This is an updated version of the original review published in 2010.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects on thrombotic events, major haemorrhages, and all-cause mortality of self-monitoring or self-management of oral anticoagulant therapy compared to standard monitoring.\nSearch methods\nFor this review update, we re-ran the searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), 2015, Issue 6, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to June week 4 2015), Embase (Ovid, 1980 to 2015 week 27) on 1 July 2015. We checked bibliographies and contacted manufacturers and authors of relevant studies. We did not apply any language restrictions .\nSelection criteria\nOutcomes analysed were thromboembolic events, mortality, major haemorrhage, minor haemorrhage, tests in therapeutic range, frequency of testing, and feasibility of self-monitoring and self-management.\nData collection and analysis\nReview authors independently extracted data and we used a fixed-effect model with the Mantzel-Haenzel method to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and Peto’s method to verify the results for uncommon outcomes. We examined heterogeneity amongst studies with the Chi2 and I2 statistics and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of evidence.\nMain results\nWe identified 28 randomised trials including 8950 participants (newly incorporated in this update: 10 trials including 4227 participants). The overall quality of the evidence was generally low to moderate. Pooled estimates showed a reduction in thromboembolic events (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.75; participants = 7594; studies = 18; moderate quality of evidence). Both, trials of self-management or self-monitoring showed reductions in thromboembolic events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70; participants = 3497; studies = 11) and (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.97; participants = 4097; studies = 7), respectively; the quality of evidence for both interventions was moderate. No reduction in all-cause mortality was found (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; participants = 6358; studies = 11; moderate quality of evidence). While self-management caused a reduction in all-cause mortality (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.84; participants = 3058; studies = 8); self-monitoring did not (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.15; participants = 3300; studies = 3); the quality of evidence for both interventions was moderate. In 20 trials (8018 participants) self-monitoring or self-management did not reduce major haemorrhage (RR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.12; moderate quality of evidence). There was no significant difference found for minor haemorrhage (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.41; participants = 5365; studies = 13). The quality of evidence was graded as low because of serious risk of bias and substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 82%).\nAuthors' conclusions\nParticipants who self-monitor or self-manage can improve the quality of their oral anticoagulation therapy. Thromboembolic events were reduced, for both those self-monitoring or self-managing oral anticoagulation therapy. A reduction in all-cause mortality was observed in trials of self-management but not in self-monitoring, with no effects on major haemorrhage.\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 is an update of the original review published in 2010. We performed a new search and found 10 new studies (with 4227 participants) to add to the original review, which changed some of the findings." } ]
query-laysum	21912	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPuerarin, a form of herbal medicine, is widely used in the treatment of ischaemic stroke in China.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of puerarin in people with ischaemic stroke.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register and the Chinese Stroke Trials Register (last searched August 2015). In addition, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1948 to August 2015), EMBASE (1980 to August 2015), AMED (the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, 1985 to August 2015) and the China Biological Medicine Database (CBM-disc 1979 to August 2015). We searched reference lists, relevant clinical trials and research registers and contacted pharmaceutical companies and researchers in an effort to identify further published and unpublished studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials comparing puerarin with placebo or open control (no placebo) in people with ischaemic stroke.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted the data.\nMain results\nWe included 20 RCTs with 1574 participants in this updated review. All trials were published in Chinese language journals. We included 14 trials that we had excluded in the previous version of the review after we added a new outcome in this update. Time windows within which the participants were randomised ranged from 4.5 hours to 10 days. Ischaemic stroke was confirmed by computerised tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in 18 trials. Meta-analysis of two trials with 164 participants showed that treatment with puerarin did not reduce death or dependency at final follow-up (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.36). One trial with 83 participants reported that the mean value of the Barthel Index in the puerarin group was below that in the control group. Meta-analysis of 16 trials with 1305 participants showed that puerarin reduced the proportion of participants without improvement of neurological deficit at the end of follow-up (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.55). None of the included trials reported serious adverse effects.The quality of evidence was low due to incomplete reporting of the methods and short-term follow-up.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is not enough evidence to evaluate the effect of puerarin on survival or dependency in people with ischaemic stroke. High quality and large-scale RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed to assess its efficacy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "To assess the effects of puerarin in people with ischaemic stroke." } ]
query-laysum	21913	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCystic fibrosis (CF) is an inherited life-limiting disorder. Over time persistent infection and inflammation within the lungs contribute to severe airway damage and loss of respiratory function. Chest physiotherapy, or airway clearance techniques (ACTs), are integral in removing airway secretions and initiated shortly after CF diagnosis. Conventional chest physiotherapy (CCPT) generally requires assistance, while alternative ACTs can be self-administered, facilitating independence and flexibility. This is an updated review.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness (in terms of respiratory function, respiratory exacerbations, exercise capacity) and acceptability (in terms of individual preference, adherence, quality of life) of CCPT for people with CF compared to alternative ACTs.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was 26 June 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (including cross-over design) lasting at least seven days and comparing CCPT with alternative ACTs in people with CF.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. pulmonary function tests and 2. number of respiratory exacerbations per year. Our secondary outcomes were 3. quality of life, 4. adherence to therapy, 5. cost–benefit analysis, 6. objective change in exercise capacity, 7. additional lung function tests, 8. ventilation scanning, 9. blood oxygen levels, 10. nutritional status, 11. mortality, 12. mucus transport rate and 13. mucus wet or dry weight.\nWe reported outcomes as short-term (seven to 20 days), medium-term (more than 20 days to up to one year) and long-term (over one year).\nMain results\nWe included 21 studies (778 participants) comprising seven short-term, eight medium-term and six long-term studies. Studies were conducted in the USA (10), Canada (five), Australia (two), the UK (two), Denmark (one) and Italy (one) with a median of 23 participants per study (range 13 to 166). Participant ages ranged from newborns to 45 years; most studies only recruited children and young people. Sixteen studies reported the sex of participants (375 males; 296 females).\nMost studies compared modifications of CCPT with a single comparator, but two studies compared three interventions and another compared four interventions. The interventions varied in the duration of treatments, times per day and periods of comparison making meta-analysis challenging. All evidence was very low certainty.\nNineteen studies reported the primary outcomes forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)and forced vital capacity (FVC), and found no difference in change from baseline in FEV1 % predicted or rate of decline between groups for either measure. Most studies suggested equivalence between CCPT and alternative ACTs, including positive expiratory pressure (PEP), extrapulmonary mechanical percussion, active cycle of breathing technique (ACBT), oscillating PEP devices (O-PEP), autogenic drainage (AD) and exercise. Where single studies suggested superiority of one ACT, these findings were not corroborated in similar studies; pooled data generally concluded that effects of CCPT were comparable to those of alternative ACTs.\nCCPT versus PEP\nWe are uncertain whether CCPT improves lung function or has an impact on the number of respiratory exacerbations per year compared with PEP (both very low-certainty evidence). There were no analysable data for our secondary outcomes, but many studies provided favourable narrative reports on the independence achieved with PEP mask therapy.\nCCPT versus extrapulmonary mechanical percussion\nWe are uncertain whether CCPT improves lung function compared with extrapulmonary mechanical percussions (very low-certainty evidence). The annual rate of decline in average forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of FVC (FEF25–75) was greater with high-frequency chest compression compared to CCPT in medium- to long-term studies, but there was no difference in any other outcome.\nCCPT versus ACBT\nWe are uncertain whether CCPT improves lung function compared to ACBT (very low-certainty evidence). Annual decline in FEF25–75 was worse in participants using the FET component of ACBT only (mean difference (MD) 6.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 11.45; 1 study, 63 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One short-term study reported that directed coughing was as effective as CCPT for all lung function outcomes, but with no analysable data. One study found no difference in hospital admissions and days in hospital for exacerbations.\nCCPT versus O-PEP\nWe are uncertain whether CCPT improves lung function compared to O-PEP devices (Flutter device and intrapulmonary percussive ventilation); however, only one study provided analysable data (very low-certainty evidence). No study reported data for number of exacerbations. There was no difference in results for number of days in hospital for an exacerbation, number of hospital admissions and number of days of intravenous antibiotics; this was also true for other secondary outcomes.\nCCPT versus AD\nWe are uncertain whether CCPT improves lung function compared to AD (very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported the number of exacerbations per year; however, one study reported more hospital admissions for exacerbations in the CCPT group (MD 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.42; 33 participants). One study provided a narrative report of a preference for AD.\nCCPT versus exercise\nWe are uncertain whether CCPT improves lung function compared to exercise (very low-certainty evidence). Analysis of original data from one study demonstrated a higher FEV1 % predicted (MD 7.05, 95% CI 3.15 to 10.95; P = 0.0004), FVC (MD 7.83, 95% CI 2.48 to 13.18; P = 0.004) and FEF25–75 (MD 7.05, 95% CI 3.15 to 10.95; P = 0.0004) in the CCPT group; however, the study reported no difference between groups (likely because the original analysis accounted for baseline differences).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain whether CCPT has a more positive impact on respiratory function, respiratory exacerbations, individual preference, adherence, quality of life, exercise capacity and other outcomes when compared to alternative ACTs as the certainty of the evidence is very low.\nThere was no advantage in respiratory function of CCPT over alternative ACTs, but this may reflect insufficient evidence rather than real equivalence. Narrative reports indicated that participants prefer self-administered ACTs. This review is limited by a paucity of well-designed, adequately powered, long-term studies. This review cannot yet recommend any single ACT above others; physiotherapists and people with CF may wish to try different ACTs until they find an ACT that suits them best.\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 21 studies with 778 people with CF aged from newborn to 45 years and with all levels of disease severity. The number of people included in each study ranged from 13 to 166. There were more females than males included in all but two studies." } ]
query-laysum	21914	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nInsufficient bone volume is a common problem encountered in the rehabilitation of the edentulous posterior maxillae with implant-supported prostheses. Bone volume is limited by the presence of the maxillary sinus together with loss of alveolar bone height. Sinus lift procedures increase bone volume by augmenting the sinus cavity with autogenous bone or commercially available biomaterials, or both. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2010.\nObjectives\nTo assess the beneficial or harmful effects of bone augmentation compared to no augmentation when undertaking a sinus lift procedure. Secondly, to compare the benefits and harms of different maxillary sinus lift techniques for dental implant rehabilitation.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 17 January 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 12), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 17 January 2014) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 17 January 2014). There were no language or date restrictions on the searches of the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of different techniques and materials for augmenting the maxillary sinus for rehabilitation with dental implants that report the outcome of implant success or failure at least to four months after initial loading.\nData collection and analysis\nScreening of eligible studies, assessment of the risk of bias of the trials, and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Authors were contacted for any missing information. Results were expressed using fixed-effect models as there were either less than four studies or we used Peto odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data when there were zero cells in either the treatment or control or both arms and the number of trials was small. The statistical unit of the analysis was the patient.\nMain results\nEighteen RCTs out of 64 potentially eligible study reports met the inclusion criteria. They compared undertaking a sinus lift with not doing so, and the use of different sinus lift techniques. There were 650 patients providing data for the outcomes evaluated. Five studies were assessed as low risk of bias, 11 were assessed as high risk of bias, and in two the risk was unclear.\nSinus lift versus no sinus lift \nFour trials of moderate quality (three trials at low and one at high risk of bias) with 102 participants evaluated short implants (5 to 8.5 mm long) as an alternative to sinus lift in bone with residual height between 4 and 9 mm. One year after loading there was insufficient evidence to claim differences between the two procedures for prosthesis failure (OR (Peto) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 2.68; three trials) or implant failure (OR (Peto) 0.44, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.99; four trials). There was however an increase in complications at treated sites when undertaking the sinus lift (OR (Peto) 4.77, 95% CI 1.79 to 12.71, P value = 0.002; four trials).\nDifferent sinus lift techniques \nFourteen trials with 548 participants compared different sinus lift techniques. Only three comparisons included more than one trial (two trials for each). These were bone graft versus no bone graft, autogenous bone versus bone substitute, bone graft with or without platelet-rich plasma (PRP). There was insufficient evidence to claim a benefit for any of these techniques for the primary outcomes of prosthesis and implant failure. For the other reported outcomes, in a single study at high risk of bias, only bone gain was greater for the bone graft site than the site without a graft six months after augmentation, however this was not significant at 18 or 30 months.\nThe other comparisons with single studies were rotary versus piezosurgery to open a lateral sinus window, two different bone substitutes, use or not of a membrane to seal the lateral window, one- versus two-stage lateral sinus lift, two-stage granular bone versus one-stage autogenous bone blocks, and crestal versus lateral sinus lift; two trials compared three different crestal sinus lifting techniques: rotatory versus hand malleting (patients preferred rotatory instruments over hand malleting) and hand versus electric malleting. There was no evidence of a benefit for any sinus lift procedure compared to any other for the primary outcomes prosthesis or implant failure.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate quality evidence which is insufficient to determine whether sinus lift procedures in bone with residual height between 4 and 9 mm are more or less successful than placing short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) in reducing prosthesis or implant failure up to one year after loading. However, there are more complications at sites treated with sinus lift procedures. Many trials compared different sinus lift procedures and none of these indicated that one procedure reduced prosthetic or implant failures when compared to the other. Based on low quality evidence, patients may prefer rotary instruments over hand malleting for crestal sinus lift.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "There is not enough evidence to show whether sinus lift techniques are more or less successful in reducing the number of failures of dental prostheses (artificial teeth) or dental implants when compared to simply using short implants, up to one year after loading.\nHowever, there is limited evidence that there are fewer complications when short implants are used without surgical lifts. Complications include sinusitis, infection and bleeding, and when bone grafts are taken from the patient complications can also include nerve injury, problems with walking and infection." } ]
query-laysum	21915	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe recommended management for neonates with a possible serious bacterial infection (PSBI) is hospitalisation and treatment with intravenous antibiotics, such as ampicillin plus gentamicin. However, hospitalisation is often not feasible for neonates in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Therefore, alternative options for the management of neonatal PSBI in LMICs needs to be evaluated.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of community-based antibiotics for neonatal PSBI in LMICs on neonatal mortality and to assess whether the effects of community-based antibiotics for neonatal PSBI differ according to the antibiotic regimen administered.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2018, Issue 3), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 16 April 2018), Embase (1980 to 16 April 2018), and CINAHL (1982 to 16 April 2018). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised, quasi-randomised and cluster-randomised trials. For the first comparison, we included trials that compared antibiotics which were initiated and completed in the community to the standard hospital referral for neonatal PSBI in LMICs. For the second comparison, we included trials that compared simplified antibiotic regimens which relied more on oral antibiotics than intravenous antibiotics to the standard regimen of seven to 10 days of injectable penicillin/ampicillin with an injectable aminoglycoside delivered in the community to treat neonatal PSBI.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Group. The primary outcomes were all-cause neonatal mortality and sepsis-specific neonatal mortality. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.\nMain results\nFor the first comparison, five studies met the inclusion criteria. Community-based antibiotic delivery for neonatal PSBI reduced neonatal mortality when compared to hospital referral only (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 0.99; 5 studies, n = 125,134; low-quality evidence). There was, however, a high level of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 87%) likely, due to the heterogenous nature of the study settings as well as the fact that four of the studies provided various co-interventions in conjunction with community-based antibiotics. Community-based antibiotic delivery for neonatal PSBI showed a possible effect on reducing sepsis-specific neonatal mortality (typical RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.00; 2 studies, n = 40,233; low-quality evidence).\nFor the second comparison, five studies met the inclusion criteria. Using a simplified antibiotic approach resulted in similar rates of neonatal mortality when compared to the standard regimen of seven days of injectable procaine benzylpenicillin and injectable procaine benzylpenicillin and injectable gentamicin delivered in community-settings for neonatal PSBI (typical RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.50; 3 studies, n = 3476; moderate-quality evidence). In subgroup analysis, the simplified antibiotic regimen of seven days of oral amoxicillin and injectable gentamicin showed no difference in neonatal mortality (typical RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.51; 3 studies, n = 2001; moderate-quality evidence). Two days of injectable benzylpenicillin and injectable gentamicin followed by five days of oral amoxicillin showed no difference in neonatal mortality (typical RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.65; 3 studies, n = 2036; low-quality evidence). Two days of injectable gentamicin and oral amoxicillin followed by five days of oral amoxicillin showed no difference in neonatal mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.85; 1 study, n = 893; moderate-quality evidence). For fast breathing alone, seven days of oral amoxicillin resulted in no difference in neonatal mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.91; 1 study, n = 1406; low-quality evidence). None of the studies in the second comparison reported the effect of a simplified antibiotic regimen on sepsis-specific neonatal mortality.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow-quality data demonstrated that community-based antibiotics reduced neonatal mortality when compared to the standard hospital referral for neonatal PSBI in resource-limited settings. The use of co-interventions, however, prevent disentanglement of the contribution from community-based antibiotics. Moderate-quality evidence showed that simplified, community-based treatment of PSBI using regimens which rely on the combination of oral and injectable antibiotics did not result in increased neonatal mortality when compared to the standard treatment of using only injectable antibiotics. Overall, the evidence suggests that simplified, community-based antibiotics may be efficacious to treat neonatal PSBI when hospitalisation is not feasible. However, implementation research is recommended to study the effectiveness and scale-up of simplified, community-based antibiotics in resource-limited settings.\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": "Given their fragility, newborns with a suspected, serious bacterial infection are advised to be admitted to a hospital and receive intravenous antibiotics. However, hospital admission is often not possible for families who live in countries with limited resources. Therefore, alternative methods of delivering antibiotics to sick newborns have been studied. Treating a newborn outside of the hospital relies on a community health worker with limited, but targeted training, to diagnose the infection, dispense medication, and follow-up the newborn's response, either at home or in a clinic. Also, antibiotics may be provided orally so that parents can administer at home, but oral antibiotics may be less potent than intravenous antibiotics." } ]
query-laysum	21916	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCorneal endothelial transplantation has become the gold standard for the treatment of corneal endothelial dysfunctions, replacing full thickness transplantation, known as penetrating keratoplasty. Corneal endothelial transplantation has been described using two different techniques: Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK). Both are still performed worldwide.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effectiveness and safety of Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) versus Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) for the treatment of corneal endothelial failure in people with Fuch’s endothelial dystropy (FED) and pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (PBK).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 7); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; LILACS BIREME; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The date of the search was 11 August 2017.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised paired, contralateral-eye studies in any setting where DMEK was compared with DSAEK to treat people with corneal endothelial failure.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the search results, assessed trial quality and extracted data using the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) measured in logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution (logMAR). Secondary outcomes were endothelial cell count, graft rejection, primary graft failure and graft dislocation. We graded the risk of bias of non-randomised studies (NRSs) using ROBINS-I.\nMain results\nWe did not identify any RCTs but found four non-randomised studies (NRSs) including 72 participants (144 eyes), who had received DSAEK in the first eye followed by DMEK in the fellow eye. All the studies included adult participants where there was evidence of FED and endothelial failure requiring a corneal transplant for the treatment of visual impairment. We did not find any studies that included PBK. The trials were published between 2011 and 2015, and we assessed them as high risk of bias due to potential unknown confounding factors since DSAEK preceded DMEK in all participants. Two studies reported results at 12 months, one at 6 months, and one between 6 and 24 months. At one year, using DMEK in cases of endothelial failure may result in better BCVA compared with DSAEK (mean difference (MD) -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.18 to -0.10 logMAR, 4 studies, 140 eyes, low-certainty evidence). None of the participants had severe visual loss (BCVA of 1.0 logMAR or more; very low-certainty evidence). Regarding endothelial cell count data (4 studies, 134 eyes) it is hard to draw any conclusions since two studies suggested no difference and the other two reported that DMEK provides a higher cell density at one year (very low-certainty evidence). No primary graft failure and only one graft rejection were recorded over four studies (144 eyes) (very low-certainty evidence). The most common complications reported were graft dislocations, which were recorded in one or two out of 100 participants with DSAEK but were more common using DMEK, although this difference could not be precisely estimated (risk ratio (RR) 5.40, 95% CI 1.51 to 19.3; 4 studies, 144 eyes, very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review included studies conducted on people with corneal endothelium failure due to FED for whom both DMEK and DSAEK can be considered, and found low-certainty evidence that DMEK provides some advantage in terms of final BCVA, at the cost of more graft dislocations needing 're-bubbling' (very low-certainty of evidence).\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 compare two different ways of doing corneal transplant surgery: Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK). Cochrane Review authors collected and analysed all relevant studies to answer this question and found four studies." } ]
query-laysum	21917	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTransurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is a well-established surgical method for treatment of men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). This has traditionally been provided as monopolar TURP (MTURP), but morbidity associated with MTURP has led to the introduction of other surgical techniques. In bipolar TURP (BTURP), energy is confined between electrodes at the site of the resectoscope, allowing the use of physiological irrigation medium. There remains uncertainty regarding differences between these surgical methods in terms of patient outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effects of bipolar and monopolar TURP.\nSearch methods\nA comprehensive systematic electronic literature search was carried out up to 19 March 2019 via CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, and WHO ICTRP. Handsearching of abstract proceedings of major urological conferences and of reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, and health technology assessment reports was undertaken to identify other potentially eligible studies. No language restrictions were applied.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared monopolar and bipolar TURP in men (> 18 years) for management of LUTS secondary to BPO.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo independent review authors screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed eligible RCTs for risk of bias. Statistical analyses were undertaken according to the statistical guidelines presented in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The quality of evidence (QoE) was rated according to the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nA total of 59 RCTs with 8924 participants were included. The mean age of included participants ranged from 59.0 to 74.1 years. Mean prostate volume ranged from 39 mL to 82.6 mL.\nPrimary outcomes\nBTURP probably results in little to no difference in urological symptoms, as measured by the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 12 months on a scale of 0 to 35, with higher scores reflecting worse symptoms (mean difference (MD) -0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.39 to -0.09; participants = 2531; RCTs = 16; I² = 0%; moderate certainty of evidence (CoE), downgraded for study limitations), compared to MTURP.\nBTURP probably results in little to no difference in bother, as measured by health-related quality of life (HRQoL) score at 12 months on a scale of 0 to 6, with higher scores reflecting greater bother (MD -0.12, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.02; participants = 2004; RCTs = 11; I² = 53%; moderate CoE, downgraded for study limitations), compared to MTURP.\nBTURP probably reduces transurethral resection (TUR) syndrome events slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.30; participants = 6745; RCTs = 44; I² = 0%; moderate CoE, downgraded for study limitations), compared to MTURP. This corresponds to 20 fewer TUR syndrome events per 1000 participants (95% CI 22 fewer to 17 fewer).\nSecondary outcomes\nBTURP may carry a similar risk of urinary incontinence at 12 months (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.06; participants = 751; RCTs = 4; I² = 0%; low CoE, downgraded for study limitations and imprecision), compared to MTURP. This corresponds to four fewer events of urinary incontinence per 1000 participants (95% CI five fewer to 16 more).\nBTURP probably slightly reduces blood transfusions (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.59; participants = 5727; RCTs = 38; I² = 0%; moderate CoE, downgraded for study limitations), compared to MTURP. This corresponds to 28 fewer events of blood transfusion per 1000 participants (95% CI 34 fewer to 20 fewer).\nBTURP may result in similar rates of re-TURP (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.40; participants = 652; RCTs = 6; I² = 0%; low CoE, downgraded for study limitations and imprecision). This corresponds to one more re-TURP per 1000 participants (95% CI 19 fewer to 48 more).\nErectile function as measured by the International Index of Erectile Function score (IIEF-5) at 12 months on a scale from 5 to 25, with higher scores reflecting better erectile function, appears to be similar (MD 0.88, 95% CI -0.56 to 2.32; RCTs = 3; I² = 68%; moderate CoE, downgraded for study limitations) for the two approaches.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBTURP and MTURP probably improve urological symptoms, both to a similar degree. BTURP probably reduces both TUR syndrome and postoperative blood transfusion slightly compared to MTURP. The impact of both procedures on erectile function is probably similar. The moderate certainty of evidence available for the primary outcomes of this review suggests that there is no need for further RCTs comparing BTURP and MTURP.\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": "How does surgery using bipolar technology compare with traditional monopolar technology for men with an enlarged prostate causing difficulty with urination?" } ]
query-laysum	21918	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDepressive disorders are the most common psychiatric comorbidity in people with epilepsy, affecting around one-third, with a significant negative impact on quality of life. There is concern that people may not be receiving appropriate treatment for their depression because of uncertainty regarding which antidepressant or class works best, and the perceived risk of exacerbating seizures. This review aimed to address these issues, and inform clinical practice and future research.\nThis is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 12, 2014.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants in treating depressive symptoms and the effect on seizure recurrence, in people with epilepsy and depression.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched CRS Web, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov (February 2021). We searched the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry in October 2019, but were unable to update it because it was inaccessible. There were no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), investigating children or adults with epilepsy, who were treated with an antidepressant and compared to placebo, comparative antidepressant, psychotherapy, or no treatment for depressive symptoms.\nData collection and analysis\nThe primary outcomes were changes in depression scores (proportion with a greater than 50% improvement, mean difference, and proportion who achieved complete remission) and change in seizure frequency (mean difference, proportion with a seizure recurrence, or episode of status epilepticus). Secondary outcomes included the number of participants who withdrew from the study and reasons for withdrawal, quality of life, cognitive functioning, and adverse events.\nTwo review authors independently extracted data for each included study. We then cross-checked the data extraction. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool for RCTs, and the ROBINS-I for NRSIs. We presented binary outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or 99% CIs for specific adverse events. We presented continuous outcomes as standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs, and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs.\nMain results\nWe included 10 studies in the review (four RCTs and six NRSIs), with 626 participants with epilepsy and depression, examining the effects of antidepressants. One RCT was a multi-centre study comparing an antidepressant with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). The other three RCTs were single-centre studies comparing an antidepressant with an active control, placebo, or no treatment. The NRSIs reported on outcomes mainly in participants with focal epilepsy before and after treatment for depression with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI); one NRSI compared SSRIs to CBT.\nWe rated one RCT at low risk of bias, three RCTs at unclear risk of bias, and all six NRSIs at serious risk of bias. We were unable to conduct any meta-analysis of RCT data due to heterogeneity of treatment comparisons. We judged the certainty of evidence to be moderate to very low across comparisons, because single studies contributed limited outcome data, and because of risk of bias, particularly for NRSIs, which did not adjust for confounding variables.\nMore than 50% improvement in depressive symptoms ranged from 43% to 82% in RCTs, and from 24% to 97% in NRSIs, depending on the antidepressant given. Venlafaxine improved depressive symptoms by more than 50% compared to no treatment (mean difference (MD) -7.59 (95% confidence interval (CI) -11.52 to -3.66; 1 study, 64 participants; low-certainty evidence); the results between other comparisons were inconclusive. Two studies comparing SSRIs to CBT reported inconclusive results for the proportion of participants who achieved complete remission of depressive symptoms.\nSeizure frequency data did not suggest an increased risk of seizures with antidepressants compared to control treatments or baseline. Two studies measured quality of life; antidepressants did not appear to improve quality of life over control. No studies reported on cognitive functioning.\nTwo RCTs and one NRSI reported comparative data on adverse events; antidepressants did not appear to increase the severity or number of adverse events compared to controls. The NSRIs reported higher rates of withdrawals due to adverse events than lack of efficacy. Reported adverse events for antidepressants included nausea, dizziness, sedation, headache, gastrointestinal disturbance, insomnia, and sexual dysfunction.\nAuthors' conclusions\nExisting evidence on the effectiveness of antidepressants in treating depressive symptoms associated with epilepsy is still very limited. Rates of response to antidepressants were highly variable. There is low certainty evidence from one small RCT (64 participants) that venlafaxine may improve depressive symptoms more than no treatment; this evidence is limited to treatment between 8 and 16 weeks, and does not inform longer-term effects. Moderate to low evidence suggests neither an increase nor exacerbation of seizures with SSRIs.\nThere are no available comparative data to inform the choice of antidepressant drug or classes of drug for efficacy or safety for treating people with epilepsy and depression.\nRCTs of antidepressants utilising interventions from other treatment classes besides SSRIs, in large samples of patients with epilepsy and depression, are needed to better inform treatment policy. Future studies should assess interventions across a longer treatment duration to account for delayed onset of action, sustainability of treatment responses, and to provide a better understanding of the impact on seizure control.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the studies\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We assessed the studies with regard to bias and quality. Overall, the quality of the evidence was rated as moderate to low for the clinical trials and low to very low for the non-randomised prospective cohort studies. Large, high quality trials of antidepressants are needed to examine how different classes of antidepressant compare, and what impact they are likely to have on seizure control." } ]
query-laysum	21919	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPeriodontitis is a bacterially-induced, chronic inflammatory disease that destroys the connective tissues and bone that support teeth. Active periodontal treatment aims to reduce the inflammatory response, primarily through eradication of bacterial deposits. Following completion of treatment and arrest of inflammation, supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) is employed to reduce the probability of re-infection and progression of the disease; to maintain teeth without pain, excessive mobility or persistent infection in the long term, and to prevent related oral diseases.\nAccording to the American Academy of Periodontology, SPT should include all components of a typical dental recall examination, and importantly should also include periodontal re-evaluation and risk assessment, supragingival and subgingival removal of bacterial plaque and calculus, and re-treatment of any sites showing recurrent or persistent disease. While the first four points might be expected to form part of the routine examination appointment for periodontally healthy patients, the inclusion of thorough periodontal evaluation, risk assessment and subsequent treatment - normally including mechanical debridement of any plaque or calculus deposits - differentiates SPT from routine care.\nSuccess of SPT has been reported in a number of long-term, retrospective studies. This review aimed to assess the evidence available from randomised controlled trials (RCTs).\nObjectives\nTo determine the effects of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) in the maintenance of the dentition of adults treated for periodontitis.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health’s Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health’s Trials Register (to 8 May 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 May 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 May 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating SPT versus monitoring only or alternative approaches to mechanical debridement; SPT alone versus SPT with adjunctive interventions; different approaches to or providers of SPT; and different time intervals for SPT delivery.\nWe excluded split-mouth studies where we considered there could be a risk of contamination.\nParticipants must have completed active periodontal therapy at least six months prior to randomisation and be enrolled in an SPT programme. Trials must have had a minimum follow-up period of 12 months.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened search results to identify studies for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in included studies and extracted study data. When possible, we calculated mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous variables. Two review authors assessed the quality of evidence for each comparison and outcome using GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nWe included four trials involving 307 participants aged 31 to 85 years, who had been previously treated for moderate to severe chronic periodontitis. Three studies compared adjuncts to mechanical debridement in SPT versus debridement only. The adjuncts were local antibiotics in two studies (one at high risk of bias and one at low risk) and photodynamic therapy in one study (at unclear risk of bias). One study at high risk of bias compared provision of SPT by a specialist versus general practitioner. We did not identify any RCTs evaluating the effects of SPT versus monitoring only, or of providing SPT at different time intervals, or that compared the effects of mechanical debridement using different approaches or technologies.\nNo included trials measured our primary outcome 'tooth loss'; however, studies evaluated signs of inflammation and potential periodontal disease progression, including bleeding on probing (BoP), clinical attachment level (CAL) and probing pocket depth (PPD).\nThere was no evidence of a difference between SPT delivered by a specialist versus a general practitioner for BoP or PPD at 12 months (very low-quality evidence). This study did not measure CAL or adverse events.\nDue to heterogeneous outcome reporting, it was not possible to combine data from the two studies comparing mechanical debridement with or without the use of adjunctive local antibiotics. Both studies found no evidence of a difference between groups at 12 months (low to very low-quality evidence). There were no adverse events in either study.\nThe use of adjunctive photodynamic therapy did not demonstrate evidence of benefit compared to mechanical debridement only (very low-quality evidence). Adverse events were not measured.\nThe quality of the evidence is low to very low for these comparisons. Future research is likely to change the findings, therefore the results should be interpreted with caution.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, there is insufficient evidence to determine the superiority of different protocols or adjunctive strategies to improve tooth maintenance during SPT. No trials evaluated SPT versus monitoring only. The evidence available for the comparisons evaluated is of low to very low quality, and hampered by dissimilarities in outcome reporting. More trials using uniform definitions and outcomes are required to address the objectives of this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "This review explored the effects of different SPT approaches in adults previously treated for periodontitis." } ]
query-laysum	21920	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHypertonic saline enhances mucociliary clearance and may lessen the destructive inflammatory process in the airways. This is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo investigate efficacy and tolerability of nebulised hypertonic saline treatment in people with cystic fibrosis (CF) compared to placebo or other treatments that enhance mucociliary clearance.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched ongoing trials databases.\nMost recent search: 25 April 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials assessing hypertonic saline compared to placebo or other mucolytic therapy, for any duration or dose regimen in people with CF (any age or disease severity).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently reviewed all identified trials and data, and assessed trial quality. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. For cross-over trials we stipulated a one-week washout period. We planned to use results from a paired analysis in the review, but this was only possible in one trial. For other cross-over trials, we chose to treat the trials as if they were parallel.\nMain results\nWe included 24 trials (1318 participants, aged one month to 56 years); we excluded 29 trials, two trials are ongoing and six are awaiting classification. We judged 15 of the 24 included trials to have a high risk of bias due to participants' ability to discern the taste of the solutions.\nHypertonic saline 3% to 7% versus placebo (stable disease)\nWe are uncertain whether the regular use of nebulised hypertonic saline in stable lung disease leads to an improvement in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) % predicted at four weeks, (mean difference (MD) 3.30%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 5.89; 4 trials, 246 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In preschool children we found no difference in lung clearance index (LCI) at four weeks, but a small improvement after 48 weeks of treatment with hypertonic saline compared to isotonic saline (MD -0.60, 95% CI -1.00 to -0.19; 2 trials, 192 participants). We are also uncertain whether hypertonic saline made a difference to mucociliary clearance, pulmonary exacerbations or adverse events compared to placebo.\nHypertonic saline versus control (acute exacerbation)\nTwo trials compared hypertonic saline to control, but only one provided data. There may be little or no difference in lung function measured by FEV1 % predicted after hypertonic saline compared to isotonic saline (MD 5.10%, 95% CI -14.67 to 24.87; 1 trial, 130 participants). Neither trial reported any deaths or measures of sputum clearance. There were no serious adverse events.\nHypertonic saline versus rhDNase\nThree trials compared a similar dose of hypertonic saline to recombinant deoxyribonuclease (rhDNase); two trials (61 participants) provided data for inclusion in the review. We are uncertain whether there was an effect of hypertonic saline on FEV1 % predicted after three weeks (MD 1.60%, 95% CI -7.96 to 11.16; 1 trial, 14 participants; very low-certainty evidence). At three months, rhDNase may lead to a greater increase in FEV1 % predicted than hypertonic saline (5 mL twice daily) at 12 weeks in participants with moderate to severe lung disease (MD 8.00%, 95% CI 2.00 to 14.00; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether adverse events differed between the two treatments. No deaths were reported.\nHypertonic saline versus amiloride\nOne trial (12 participants) compared hypertonic saline to amiloride but did not report on most of our outcomes. The trial found that there was no difference between treatments in measures of sputum clearance (very low-certainty evidence).\nHypertonic saline compared with sodium-2-mercaptoethane sulphonate (Mistabron®)\nOne trial (29 participants) compared hypertonic saline to sodium-2-mercaptoethane sulphonate. The trial did not measure our primary outcomes. There was no difference between treatments in any measures of sputum clearance, courses of antibiotics or adverse events (very low-certainty evidence).\nHypertonic saline versus mannitol\nOne trial (12 participants) compared hypertonic saline to mannitol, but did not report lung function at relevant time points for this review; there were no differences in sputum clearance, but mannitol was reported to be more 'irritating' (very low-certainty evidence).\nHypertonic saline versus xylitol\nTwo trials compared hypertonic saline to xylitol, but we are uncertain whether there is any difference in FEV1 % predicted or median time to exacerbation between groups (very low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes were reported in the review.\nHypertonic saline 7% versus hypertonic saline 3%\nWe are uncertain whether there was an improvement in FEV1 % predicted after treatment with 7% hypertonic saline compared with 3% (very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are very uncertain if regular use of nebulised hypertonic saline by adults and children over the age of 12 years with CF results in an improvement in lung function after four weeks (three trials; very low-certainty evidence); there was no difference seen at 48 weeks (one trial; low-certainty evidence). Hypertonic saline improved LCI modestly in children under the age of six years.\nEvidence from one small cross-over trial in children indicates that rhDNase may lead to better lung function than hypertonic saline at three months; qualifying this, we highlight that while the study did demonstrate that the improvement in FEV1 was greater with daily rhDNase, there were no differences seen in any of the secondary outcomes.\nHypertonic saline does appear to be an effective adjunct to physiotherapy during acute exacerbations of lung disease in adults. However, for the outcomes assessed, the certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to low at best, according to the GRADE criteria.\nThe role of hypertonic saline in conjunction with cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator therapy now needs to be considered, and future research needs to focus on this aspect.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Hypertonic saline 3% to 7% versus placebo\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We are not sure whether hypertonic saline leads to an improvement in lung function in stable disease after four weeks. Two trials showed that there may be a small improvement in lung function (measured using the lung clearance index) with hypertonic saline compared to placebo in preschool children. We are also unsure whether hypertonic saline makes a difference to clearing mucus from the lungs, exacerbations or side effects compared to placebo.\nDuring exacerbations, we found that there may be little or no difference in lung function after hypertonic saline compared to placebo. The trials did not report any serious side effects and there were no deaths.\nOne study compared 7% hypertonic saline with a lower concentration of hypertonic saline (3%); we are uncertain whether the higher concentration improved lung function." } ]
query-laysum	21921	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe World Health Organization (WHO) recommends artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) to treat uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Concerns about artemisinin resistance have led to global initiatives to develop new partner drugs to protect artemisinin derivatives in ACT. Pyronaridine-artesunate is a novel ACT.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy of pyronaridine-artesunate compared to alternative ACTs for treating people with uncomplicated P falciparum malaria, and to evaluate the safety of pyronaridine-artesunate and other pyronaridine treatments compared to alternative treatments.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; and LILACS. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the ISRCTN registry for ongoing or recently completed trials. The date of the last search was 27 October 2021.\nSelection criteria\nFor the efficacy analysis, we included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pyronaridine-artesunate for treating uncomplicated P falciparum malaria. For the safety analysis, we included RCTs that used pyronaridine alone or in combination with any other antimalarials. In addition to these analyses, we conducted a separate systematic review summarizing data on safety from non-randomized studies (NRS) of any patient receiving pyronaridine (NRS safety review).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted all data and assessed the certainty of the evidence. We meta-analysed data to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for treatment failures between comparisons, and for safety outcomes between and across comparisons.\nMain results\nWe included 10 relevant RCTs. Seven RCTs were co-funded by Shin Poong Pharmaceuticals, and three were funded by government agencies.\nEfficacy analysis (RCTs)\nFor the efficacy analysis, we identified five RCTs comprising 5711 participants. This included 4465 participants from 13 sites in Africa, and 1246 participants from five sites in Asia. The analysis included 541 children aged less than five years. Overall, pyronaridine-artesunate had a polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-adjusted treatment failure rate of less than 5%. We evaluated pyronaridine-artesunate versus the following.\n• Artemether-lumefantrine. Pyronaridine artesunate may perform better for PCR-adjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.31; 4 RCTs, 3068 participants, low-certainty evidence); for unadjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.58; 4 RCTs, 3149 participants, low-certainty evidence); and for unadjusted failures at day 42 (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.82; 4 RCTs, 3080 participants, low-certainty evidence). For PCR-adjusted failures at day 42, there may be little or no difference between groups (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 2575 participants, low-certainty evidence).\n• Artesunate-amodiaquine. Pyronaridine artesunate may perform better for PCR-adjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.77; 1 RCT, 1245 participants, low-certainty evidence); probably performs better for unadjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.81; 1 RCT, 1257 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); may make little or no difference for PCR-adjusted failures at day 42 (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.83; 1 RCT, 1091 participants, low-certainty evidence); and probably makes little or no difference for unadjusted failures at day 42 (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.23; 1 RCT, 1235 participants, moderate-certainty evidence).\n• Mefloquine plus artesunate. Pyronaridine artesunate may perform better for PCR-adjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.05; 1 RCT, 1117 participants, low-certainty evidence); probably performs better for unadjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.78; 1 RCT, 1120 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); may make little or no difference for unadjusted failures at day 42 (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.31; 1 RCT, 1059 participants, low-certainty evidence); but may lead to higher PCR-adjusted failures at day 42 (RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.57; 1 RCT, 1037 participants, low-certainty evidence).\nSafety analysis (RCTs)\nFor the RCT safety analysis, we identified eight RCTs, one of which was delineated by study site, comparing pyronaridine-artesunate to other antimalarials. Pyronaridine-artesunate was associated with raised liver enzymes compared to other antimalarials: alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (RR 3.59, 95% CI 1.76 to 7.33; 8 RCTS, 6669 participants, high-certainty evidence) and aspartate transaminase (AST) (RR 2.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 4.41; 8 RCTs, 6669 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). No such effect was demonstrated with bilirubin (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.18; 7 RCTs, 6384 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). There was one reported case in which raised ALT occurred with raised bilirubin. No study reported severe drug-induced liver injury. Electrocardiograph (ECG) abnormalities were less common with pyronaridine-artesunate compared to other antimalarials. We identified no other safety concerns.\nNRS safety review\nA review on safety in NRS allowed us to increase the population within which safety was assessed. We included seven studies with 9546 participants: five single-arm observational studies, one cohort event monitoring study, and one dose-escalation study. All studies provided data on adverse event frequency, with a small number of participants experiencing serious adverse events and adverse effects related to pyronaridine: serious adverse events average 0.37%; drug-related 9.0%. In two studies reporting elevations in liver enzymes, small percentages of participants (2.4% and 14.1% respectively) experienced increases in either ALT, AST, or bilirubin on day 7; however, these were small increases that returned to normal by day 42.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPyronaridine-artesunate was efficacious against uncomplicated P falciparum malaria; achieved a PCR-adjusted treatment failure rate of less than 5% at days 28 and 42; and may be at least as good as, or better than, other marketed ACTs.\nPyronaridine-artesunate increases the risk of episodes of abnormally raised ALT. The observational data did not signal an excess of clinically important adverse effects.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched for studies that had been published up to 27 October 2021." } ]
query-laysum	21922	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAdmission avoidance hospital at home provides active treatment by healthcare professionals in the patient's home for a condition that otherwise would require acute hospital inpatient care, and always for a limited time period. This is the third update of the original review.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness and cost of managing patients with admission avoidance hospital at home compared with inpatient hospital care.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, two other databases, and two trials registers on 2 March 2016. We checked the reference lists of eligible articles. We sought unpublished studies by contacting providers and researchers who were known to be involved in the field.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials recruiting participants aged 18 years and over. Studies comparing admission avoidance hospital at home with acute hospital inpatient care.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We performed meta-analysis for trials that compared similar interventions and reported comparable outcomes with sufficient data, requested individual patient data from trialists, and relied on published data when this was not available. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence for the most important outcomes.\nMain results\nWe included 16 randomised controlled trials with a total of 1814 participants; three trials recruited participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, two trials recruited participants recovering from a stroke, six trials recruited participants with an acute medical condition who were mainly elderly, and the remaining trials recruited participants with a mix of conditions. We assessed the majority of the included studies as at low risk of selection, detection, and attrition bias, and unclear for selective reporting and performance bias. Admission avoidance hospital at home probably makes little or no difference on mortality at six months' follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.99; P = 0.04; I2 = 0%; 912 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), little or no difference on the likelihood of being transferred (or readmitted) to hospital (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; P = 0.84; I2 = 28%; 834 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduce the likelihood of living in residential care at six months' follow-up (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.57; P < 0.0001; I2 = 78%; 727 participants; low-certainty evidence). Satisfaction with healthcare received may be improved with admission avoidance hospital at home (646 participants, low-certainty evidence); few studies reported the effect on caregivers. When the costs of informal care were excluded, admission avoidance hospital at home may be less expensive than admission to an acute hospital ward (287 participants, low-certainty evidence); there was variation in the reduction of hospital length of stay, estimates ranged from a mean difference of -8.09 days (95% CI -14.34 to -1.85) in a trial recruiting older people with varied health problems, to a mean increase of 15.90 days (95% CI 8.10 to 23.70) in a study that recruited patients recovering from a stroke.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAdmission avoidance hospital at home, with the option of transfer to hospital, may provide an effective alternative to inpatient care for a select group of elderly patients requiring hospital admission. However, the evidence is limited by the small randomised controlled trials included in the review, which adds a degree of imprecision to the results for the main outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "There continues to be more demand for acute hospital beds than there are beds. One way to reduce reliance on hospital beds is to provide people with acute health care at home, sometimes called 'hospital at home'. We systematically reviewed the literature on the effect of providing hospital at home services to avoid hospital admission for adults." } ]
query-laysum	21923	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nInfection with hepatitis B virus (HBV) can be symptomatic or asymptomatic. Apart from chronic HBV infection, the complications related to acute HBV infection are severe acute viral hepatitis and fulminant hepatitis characterised by liver failure. The optimal pharmacological treatment of acute HBV infection remains controversial.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions in the treatment of acute HBV infection through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available treatments according to their safety and efficacy. As it was not possible to assess whether the potential effect modifiers were similar across different comparisons, we did not perform the network meta-analysis and instead assessed the benefits and harms of different interventions using standard Cochrane methodological procedures.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and randomised clinical trials (RCTs) registers to August 2016 to identify RCTs on pharmacological interventions for acute HBV infection.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status in participants with acute HBV infection. We excluded trials if participants had previously undergone liver transplantation and had other coexisting viral diseases such as hepatitis C virus and HIV. We considered any of the various pharmacological interventions compared with each other or with placebo, or no intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nWe calculated the odds ratio (OR) and rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on available-participant analysis with Review Manager 5. We assessed risk of bias, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nSeven trials (597 participants) met our review inclusion criteria. All trials provided information for one or more outcomes; however, five participants were excluded from analysis by study authors. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Overall, all the evidence was low or very low quality evidence because of risk of bias (downgraded one level for risk of bias), small sample size (downgraded one level for imprecision), and wide CIs (downgraded one more level for imprecision in some comparisons). Of the seven trials, six were two-armed trials, while one trial was a three-armed trial. The comparisons included hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) versus placebo (one trial; 55 participants); interferon versus placebo (two trials; 200 participants); lamivudine versus placebo or no intervention (four trials; 316 participants); lamivudine versus entecavir (one trial; 90 participants); and entecavir versus no intervention (one trial; 131 participants). One trial included only people with acute HBV with hepatic encephalopathy (i.e. people with fulminant liver failure); one trial included only people with severe acute HBV, but it did not state whether any of the people also had fulminant HBV infection; three trials excluded fulminant HBV infection; and two trials did not report the severity of acute HBV infection. The mean or median follow-up period in the trials ranged from three to 12 months in the trials that provided this information.\nThere was no evidence of any differences in short-term mortality (less than one year) in any of the comparisons: HBIG versus placebo (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.54; participants = 55; 1 trial), lamivudine versus placebo or no intervention (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.99; participants = 250; 2 trials); lamivudine versus entecavir (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.13 to 11.65; participants = 90; 1 trial), or entecavir versus no intervention (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.12 to 9.47; participants = 131; 1 trial). The proportion of people who progressed to chronic HBV infection was higher in the lamivudine group than the placebo or no intervention group (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.77; participants = 285; 3 trials) and in the lamivudine group versus entecavir group (OR 3.64, 95% CI 1.31 to 10.13; participants = 90; 1 trial). There was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of people who progressed to chronic HBV infection between the entecavir and the no intervention groups (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.49; participants = 131; 1 trial). None of the trials reported progression to fulminant HBV infection. Three trials with 371 participants reported serious adverse events. There were no serious adverse events in any of the groups (no intervention: 0/183 (0%), interferon: 0/67 (0%), lamivudine: 0/100 (0%), and entecavir: 0/21 (0%)). The proportion of people with adverse events was higher in the interferon group than the placebo group (OR 348.16, 95% CI 45.39 to 2670.26; participants = 200; 2 trials). There was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of people with adverse events between the lamivudine group and the placebo or no intervention group (OR 1.42, 95% CI 0.34 to 5.94; participants = 35; 1 trial) or number of adverse events between the lamivudine group and the placebo or no intervention group (rate ratio 1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.91; participants = 35; 1 trial). One trial with 100 participants reported quality of life at one week. The scale used to report the health-related quality of life was not stated and lacked information on whether higher score meant better or worse, making it difficult to interpret the results. None of the trials reported quality of life beyond one week or other clinical outcomes such as mortality beyond one year, liver transplantation, cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, or hepatocellular carcinoma.\nTwo trials received funding from pharmaceutical companies; three trials were funded by parties without any vested interest in the results or did not receive any special funding; the source of funding was not available in the remaining two trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow or very low quality evidence suggests that progression to chronic HBV infection was higher in people receiving lamivudine compared with placebo, no intervention, or entecavir. Low quality evidence suggests that interferon may increase the adverse events after treatment for acute HBV infection. Based on a very low quality evidence, there is currently no evidence of benefit of any intervention in acute HBV infection. There is significant uncertainty in the results and further RCTs 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 identified seven RCTs. Trial authors included 592 (out of 597 randomised) participants in analyses. The trials included people with acute HBV infection of varying severity. The main interventions included hepatitis B immunoglobulin (a vaccine), interferon (protein secreted in response to viral infection), and lamivudine and entecavir (medicines) which are considered to have antiviral effects and were compared with placebo or no intervention. The trials' average follow-up period ranged from three months to one year in the six trials that reported this information.\nTwo trials received funding from pharmaceutical companies; three trials were funded by parties without any vested interest in the results or did not receive any special funding; two trials did not report the funding source." } ]
query-laysum	21924	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nConvalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.\nSearch methods\nTo identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity.\nWe excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methodology.\nTo assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.\nMain results\nIn this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed.\nIndividuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease\n29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text.\nConvalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone\nConvalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI −2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nConvalescent plasma versus standard plasma\nWe are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes.\nConvalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin\nConvalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes.\nIndividuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease\nWe identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma.\nConvalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone\nWe are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes.\nConvalescent plasma versus standard plasma\nWe are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes.\nThis is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have very-low to low certainty evidence for most primary outcomes and moderate certainty for hospital admission or death. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"People with mild COVID-19\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "• Convalescent plasma may result in no difference todeaths from any causeup to 28 days after treatment. About 22 in 1000 people given placebo or standard care died, compared to 9 in 1000 people given convalescent plasma (2 studies, 536 people)." } ]
query-laysum	21925	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with fragile X syndrome (FXS) have an intellectual dysfunction that can range from very mild to severe. Symptoms can include speech and language delays and behavioural difficulties such as aggression or self injurious behaviours, emotional lability, and anxiety-related problems (for example obsessive-compulsive symptoms and perseverative behaviours). In some cases, affected people may have an additional diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or an autism spectrum disorder.\nObjectives\nTo review the efficacy and safety of L-acetylcarnitine in improving the psychological, intellectual, and social performance of people with FXS.\nSearch methods\nIn May 2015 we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and two other databases. We also searched three trials registers, four theses databases, and the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the efficacy of L-acetylcarnitine, at any dose, in people of any age diagnosed with FXS compared with placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nFor each trial, two review authors independently extracted data on the children included and interventions compared, and assessed the risk of bias of the studies across the following domains: randomisation sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding (of participants, personnel, and outcome assessors), incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other potential sources of bias.\nMain results\nWe found only two RCTs that compared oral L-acetylcarnitine (LAC) with oral placebo in children with FXS. The studies included a total of 83 participants, all of them male, who were treated and followed for one year. The age of participants at the start of treatment ranged from 6 to 13 years, with a mean age of 9 years. Neither study provided information on randomisation, allocation concealment procedures, or blinding of outcome assessment, and we received no responses from the authors we emailed for clarification. We therefore rated studies as being at unclear risk of bias on these domains. We judged both studies to be at low risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting, but to be at high risk of other bias, as at least one study was funded by a drug company, and in both studies people working for the company were part of the research team.\nWe used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate the quality of the available evidence. Overall, the quality of the evidence was low due to the imprecision of results and high risk of other bias.\nRegarding the primary outcome of psychological and learning capabilities, both studies assessed the effect of interventions on children's verbal and non-verbal intellectual functioning using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Revised. The authors did not provide detailed data on those results but said that they found no important differences between treatment and placebo.\nBoth studies evaluated the impact of the treatment on hyperactive behaviour using the Conners' Abbreviated Parent-Teacher Questionnaire. In one study, teachers' assessments of the children found no clear evidence of a difference (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.08 to 6.08, n = 51; low-quality evidence). The other study stated that there were no differences between treated and untreated participants, but did not provide detailed data for inclusion in the meta-analysis.\nParents' assessments favoured LAC in one study (MD -0.57, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.19, n = 17; low-quality evidence), but not in the other (MD -2.80, 95% CI -7.61 to 2.01, n = 51; low-quality evidence), though changes were not large enough to be considered clinically relevant.\nRegarding social skills, one study reported no clear evidence of a difference in Vineland Adaptive Behavior composite scores (MD 8.20, 95% CI -0.02 to 16.42, n = 51; low-quality evidence), yet results in the socialisation domain favoured LAC (MD 11.30, 95% CI 2.52 to 20.08, n = 51; low-quality evidence).\nBoth studies assessed the safety of the active treatment and recorded no side effects. Neither of the included studies assessed the secondary outcome of caregiver burden.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow-quality evidence from two small trials showed that when compared to placebo, LAC may not improve intellectual functioning or hyperactive behaviour in children with FXS.\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 scientific literature for all randomised trials published up to May 2015 and found only two trials to include in the review. The trials recruited a total of 83 boys (6 to 13 years of age) who were treated for a maximum of one year." } ]
query-laysum	21926	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSelf-harm (SH; intentional self-poisoning or self-injury) is common, often repeated, and associated with suicide. This is an update of a broader Cochrane review first published in 1998, previously updated in 1999, and now split into three separate reviews. This review focuses on psychosocial interventions in adults who engage in self-harm.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of specific psychosocial treatments versus treatment as usual, enhanced usual care or other forms of psychological therapy, in adults following SH.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group (CCDAN) trials coordinator searched the CCDAN Clinical Trials Register (to 29 April 2015). This register includes relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from: the Cochrane Library (all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), and PsycINFO (1967 to date).\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs comparing psychosocial treatments with treatment as usual (TAU), enhanced usual care (EUC) or alternative treatments in adults with a recent (within six months) episode of SH resulting in presentation to clinical services.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures.\nMain results\nWe included 55 trials, with a total of 17,699 participants. Eighteen trials investigated cognitive-behavioural-based psychotherapy (CBT-based psychotherapy; comprising cognitive-behavioural, problem-solving therapy or both). Nine investigated interventions for multiple repetition of SH/probable personality disorder, comprising emotion-regulation group-based psychotherapy, mentalisation, and dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT). Four investigated case management, and 11 examined remote contact interventions (postcards, emergency cards, telephone contact). Most other interventions were evaluated in only single small trials of moderate to very low quality.\nThere was a significant treatment effect for CBT-based psychotherapy compared to TAU at final follow-up in terms of fewer participants repeating SH (odds ratio (OR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.88; number of studies k = 17; N = 2665; GRADE: low quality evidence), but with no reduction in frequency of SH (mean difference (MD) -0.21, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.26; k = 6; N = 594; GRADE: low quality).\nFor interventions typically delivered to individuals with a history of multiple episodes of SH/probable personality disorder, group-based emotion-regulation psychotherapy and mentalisation were associated with significantly reduced repetition when compared to TAU: group-based emotion-regulation psychotherapy (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.88; k = 2; N = 83; GRADE: low quality), mentalisation (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.73; k = 1; N = 134; GRADE: moderate quality). Compared with TAU, dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) showed a significant reduction in frequency of SH at final follow-up (MD -18.82, 95% CI -36.68 to -0.95; k = 3; N = 292; GRADE: low quality) but not in the proportion of individuals repeating SH (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.59, k = 3; N = 247; GRADE: low quality). Compared with an alternative form of psychological therapy, DBT-oriented therapy was also associated with a significant treatment effect for repetition of SH at final follow-up (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.49; k = 1; N = 24; GRADE: low quality). However, neither DBT vs 'treatment by expert' (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.95; k = 1; N = 97; GRADE: very low quality) nor prolonged exposure DBT vs standard exposure DBT (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.08 to 5.68; k = 1; N =18; GRADE: low quality) were associated with a significant reduction in repetition of SH.\nCase management was not associated with a significant reduction in repetition of SH at post intervention compared to either TAU or enhanced usual care (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.30; k = 4; N = 1608; GRADE: moderate quality). Continuity of care by the same therapist vs a different therapist was also not associated with a significant treatment effect for repetition (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.10; k = 1; N = 136; GRADE: very low quality). None of the following remote contact interventions were associated with fewer participants repeating SH compared with TAU: adherence enhancement (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.02; k = 1; N = 391; GRADE: low quality), mixed multimodal interventions (comprising psychological therapy and remote contact-based interventions) (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.43; k = 1 study; N = 684; GRADE: low quality), including a culturally adapted form of this intervention (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.55; k = 1; N = 167; GRADE: low quality), postcards (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.23; k = 4; N = 3277; GRADE: very low quality), emergency cards (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.14; k = 2; N = 1039; GRADE: low quality), general practitioner's letter (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.44; k = 1; N = 1932; GRADE: moderate quality), telephone contact (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.32; k = 3; N = 840; GRADE: very low quality), and mobile telephone-based psychological therapy (OR not estimable due to zero cell counts; GRADE: low quality).\nNone of the following mixed interventions were associated with reduced repetition of SH compared to either alternative forms of psychological therapy: interpersonal problem-solving skills training, behaviour therapy, home-based problem-solving therapy, long-term psychotherapy; or to TAU: provision of information and support, treatment for alcohol misuse, intensive inpatient and community treatment, general hospital admission, or intensive outpatient treatment.\nWe had only limited evidence on whether the intervention had different effects in men and women. Data on adverse effects, other than planned outcomes relating to suicidal behaviour, were not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCBT-based psychological therapy can result in fewer individuals repeating SH; however, the quality of this evidence, assessed using GRADE criteria, ranged between moderate and low. Dialectical behaviour therapy for people with multiple episodes of SH/probable personality disorder may lead to a reduction in frequency of SH, but this finding is based on low quality evidence. Case management and remote contact interventions did not appear to have any benefits in terms of reducing repetition of SH. Other therapeutic approaches were mostly evaluated in single trials of moderate to very low quality such that the evidence relating to these interventions is inconclusive.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What does the evidence from the review tell us?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "There have now been a number of investigations of psychosocial treatments for SH in adults, with greater representation in recent years of low- and middle-income countries such as China, Iran, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.\nSome moderate quality evidence shows that cognitive-behavioural-based (CBT-based) psychotherapy (a psychotherapy intended to change unhelpful thinking, emotions and behaviour) may help prevent repetition of SH, although it did not reduce overall frequency of SH. There were encouraging results (from small trials of moderate to very low quality) for other interventions aimed at reducing the frequency of SH in people with probable personality disorder, including group-based emotion-regulation psychotherapy, mentalisation (a psychosocial therapy intended to increase a person’s understanding of their own and others' mental state), and dialectical behaviour therapies (DBT; psychosocial therapies intended to assist with identification of triggers that lead to reactive behaviours and to provide individuals with emotional coping skills to avoid these reactions). Whilst DBT was not associated with a significant reduction in repetition of SH at final follow-up as compared to usual treatment, there was evidence of low quality suggesting a reduction in frequency of SH.\nThere was no clear evidence supporting the effectiveness of prolonged exposure to DBT, case management, approaches to improve treatment adherence, mixed multimodal interventions (comprising both psychological therapy and remote contact-based interventions), remote contact interventions (postcards, emergency cards, and telephone contact), interpersonal problem-solving skills training, behaviour therapy, provision of information and support, treatment for alcohol misuse, home-based problem-solving therapy, intensive inpatient and community treatment, general hospital admission, intensive outpatient treatment, or long-term psychotherapy.\nWe had only limited evidence from a subset of the studies relating to whether the intervention had different effects in men and women. The trials did not report on side effects other than suicidal behaviour." } ]
query-laysum	21927	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTemporary interruption of cerebral blood flow during carotid endarterectomy can be avoided by using a shunt across the clamped section of the carotid artery. The shunt may improve the outcome. This is an update of a Cochrane review originally published in 1996 and previously updated in 2002, 2009, and 2014.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of routine versus selective or no shunting, and to assess the best method for selective shunting on death, stroke, and other complications in people undergoing carotid endarterectomy under general anaesthesia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched April 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2021), Embase (1980 to April 2021), and the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) (1980 to April 2021). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and handsearched relevant journals, conference proceedings, and reference lists.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised trials of routine shunting compared with no shunting or selective shunting, and trials that compared different shunting policies in people undergoing carotid endarterectomy.\nData collection and analysis\nThree independent review authors performed data extraction, selection, and analysis. A pooled Peto odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were computed for all outcomes of interest. Best and worse case scenarios were also calculated in case of unavailable data. Two authors independently assessed risk of bias, and quality of evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nNo new trials were found for this updated review. Thus, six trials involving 1270 participants are included in this latest review: three trials involving 686 participants compared routine shunting with no shunting, one trial involving 200 participants compared routine shunting with selective shunting, one trial involving 253 participants compared selective shunting with and without near-infrared refractory spectroscopy monitoring, and the other trial involving 131 participants compared shunting with a combination of electroencephalographic and carotid pressure measurement with shunting by carotid pressure measurement alone. Only three trials comparing routine shunting and no shunting were eligible for meta-analysis. Major findings of this comparison found that the routine shunting had less risk of stroke-related death within 30 days of surgery (best case) than no shunting (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.96, I2 not applicable, P = 0.05, low-quality evidence), the routine shunting group had a lower stroke rate within 24 hours of surgery (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.78, I2 = not applicable, P = 0.02, low-quality evidence), and ipsilateral stroke within 30 days of surgery (best case) (Peto OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.97, I2 = 52%, P = 0.04, low-quality evidence) than the no shunting group. No difference was found between the groups in terms of postoperative neurological deficit between selective shunting with and without near-infrared refractory spectroscopy monitoring. However, this analysis was inadequately powered to reliably detect the effect. There was no difference between the risk of ipsilateral stroke in participants selected for shunting with the combination of electroencephalographic and carotid pressure assessment compared with pressure assessment alone, although again the data were limited.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review concluded that the data available were too limited to either support or refute the use of routine or selective shunting in carotid endarterectomy when performed under general anaesthesia. Large-scale randomised trials of routine shunting versus selective shunting are required. No method of monitoring in selective shunting has been shown to produce better outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Six trials were analysed in this updated review, involving a total of 1270 participants. Three trials compared routine shunting with no shunting, one trial compared routine shunting versus selective shunting, and another two trials compared different methods of monitoring in selective shunting. We have not yet identified any trials that compared selective shunting with no shunting. All the included trials assessed shunting used in people undergoing endarterectomy under general anaesthetic. Overall, the participant ages ranged from 40 to 89 years and there were more male than female participants. Where reported, participants were followed up for no longer than 30 days." } ]
query-laysum	21928	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMen may need to undergo prostate surgery to treat prostate cancer or benign prostatic hyperplasia. After these surgeries, men may experience urinary incontinence (UI). Conservative treatments such as pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), electrical stimulation and lifestyle changes can be undertaken to help manage the symptoms of UI.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of conservative interventions for managing urinary incontinence after prostate surgery.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearched journals and conference proceedings (searched 22 April 2022). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of adult men (aged 18 or over) with UI following prostate surgery for treating prostate cancer or LUTS/BPO. We excluded cross-over and cluster-RCTs. We investigated the following key comparisons: PFMT plus biofeedback versus no treatment; sham treatment or verbal/written instructions; combinations of conservative treatments versus no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instructions; and electrical or magnetic stimulation versus no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instructions.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data using a pre-piloted form and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of outcomes and comparisons included in the summary of findings tables. We used an adapted version of GRADE to assess certainty in results where there was no single effect measurement available.\nMain results\nWe identified 25 studies including a total of 3079 participants. Twenty-three studies assessed men who had previously undergone radical prostatectomy or radical retropubic prostatectomy, while only one study assessed men who had undergone transurethral resection of the prostate. One study did not report on previous surgery. Most studies were at high risk of bias for at least one domain. The certainty of evidence assessed using GRADE was mixed.\nPFMT plus biofeedback versus no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instructions\nFour studies reported on this comparison. PFMT plus biofeedback may result in greater subjective cure of incontinence from 6 to 12 months (1 study; n = 102; low-certainty evidence). However, men undertaking PFMT and biofeedback may be less likely to be objectively cured at from 6 to 12 months (2 studies; n = 269; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether undertaking PFMT and biofeedback has an effect on surface or skin-related adverse events (1 study; n = 205; very low-certainty evidence) or muscle-related adverse events (1 study; n = 205; very low-certainty evidence). Condition-specific quality of life, participant adherence to the intervention and general quality of life were not reported by any study for this comparison.\nCombinations of conservative treatments versus no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instructions\nEleven studies assessed this comparison. Combinations of conservative treatments may lead to little difference in the number of men being subjectively cured or improved of incontinence between 6 and 12 months (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.19; 2 studies; n = 788; low-certainty evidence; in absolute terms: no treatment or sham arm: 307 per 1000 and intervention arm: 297 per 1000). Combinations of conservative treatments probably lead to little difference in condition-specific quality of life (MD -0.28, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.29; 2 studies; n = 788; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably little difference in general quality of life between 6 and 12 months (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.02; 2 studies; n = 742; moderate-certainty evidence). There is little difference between combinations of conservative treatments and control in terms of objective cure or improvement of incontinence between 6 and 12 months (MD 0.18, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.60; 2 studies; n = 565; high-certainty evidence). However, it is uncertain whether participant adherence to the intervention between 6 and 12 months is increased for those undertaking combinations of conservative treatments (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.78 to 5.56; 2 studies; n = 763; very low-certainty evidence; in absolute terms: no intervention or sham arm: 172 per 1000 and intervention arm: 358 per 1000). There is probably no difference between combinations and control in terms of the number of men experiencing surface or skin-related adverse events (2 studies; n = 853; moderate-certainty evidence), but it is uncertain whether combinations of treatments lead to more men experiencing muscle-related adverse events (RR 2.92, 95% CI 0.31 to 27.41; 2 studies; n = 136; very low-certainty evidence; in absolute terms: 0 per 1000 for both arms).\nElectrical or magnetic stimulation versus no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instructions\nWe did not identify any studies for this comparison that reported on our key outcomes of interest.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDespite a total of 25 trials, the value of conservative interventions for urinary incontinence following prostate surgery alone, or in combination, remains uncertain. Existing trials are typically small with methodological flaws. These issues are compounded by a lack of standardisation of the PFMT technique and marked variations in protocol concerning combinations of conservative treatments. Adverse events following conservative treatment are often poorly documented and incompletely described. Hence, there is a need for large, high-quality, adequately powered, randomised control trials with robust methodology to address this subject.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up to date is this evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The evidence is up to date to 22 April 2022." } ]
query-laysum	21929	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nVulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) is estimated to be the second most common form of infection after bacterial vaginosis. The ability of probiotics in maintaining and recovering the normal vaginal microbiota, and their potential ability to resist Candidas give rise to the concept of using probiotics for the treatment of VVC.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of probiotics for the treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis in non-pregnant women.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases to October 2017: Sexually Transmitted Infections Cochrane Review Group's Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and eight other databases. We searched in following international resources: World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, Web of Science and OpenGrey. We checked specialty journals, reference lists of published articles and conference proceedings. We collected information from pharmaceutical companies and experts in the field.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCT) using probiotics, alone or as adjuvants to conventional antifungal drugs, to treat VVC in non-pregnant women. Trials recruiting women with recurrent VVC, coinfection with other vulvovaginal infections, diabetes mellitus, immunosuppressive disorders or taking immunosuppressant medication were ineligible for inclusion. Probiotics were included if they were made from single or multiple species and in any preparation type/dosage/route of administration.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and quality and extracted data. We resolved any disagreements through consensus. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nTen RCTs (1656 participants) met our inclusion criteria, and pharmaceutical industry funded none of these trials. All trials used probiotics as adjuvant therapy to antifungal drugs. Probiotics increased the rate of short-term clinical cure (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.24, 695 participants, 5 studies, low quality evidence) and mycological cure (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.10, 969 participants, 7 studies, low quality evidence) and decreased relapse rate at one month (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.68, 388 participants, 3 studies, very low quality evidence). However, this effect did not translate into a higher frequency of long-term clinical cure (one month after treatment: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.33, 172 participants, 1 study, very low quality evidence; three months after treatment: RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70, 172 participants, one study, very low quality evidence) or mycological cure (one month after treatment: RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.71, 627 participants, 3 studies, very low quality evidence; three months after treatment: RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.35, 172 participants, one study, very low quality evidence). Probiotics use did not increase the frequency of serious (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.94; 440 participants, 2 studies, low quality evidence). We found no eligible RCTs for outcomes as time to first relapse, need for additional treatment at the end of therapy, patient satisfaction and cost effectiveness.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow and very low quality evidence shows that, compared with conventional treatment, the use of probiotics as an adjuvant therapy could increases the rate of short-term clinical and mycological cure and decrease the relapse rate at one month but this did not translate into a higher frequency of long-term clinical or mycological cure. Probiotics use does not seem to increase the frequency of serious or non-serious adverse events. There is a need for well-designed RCTs with standardized methodologies, longer follow-up and larger sample size.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The condition of VVC occurs because of an imbalance in the normal vaginal microorganism habitat (microbiota). It is characterized by a decrease of a type of bacteria called lactobacilli and a concomitant overgrowth of a fungus called Candida. Although treatments for VVC by conventional antifungal drugs are quite effective at providing clinical cure (no apparent vaginal symptoms), there is an increasing in resistance to the drugs and recurrence of VVC. Conventional antifungal drugs can also cause many side effects. Probiotics are microorganisms that are believed to provide health benefits when consumed. The ability of probiotics in maintaining and recovering the normal vaginal microbiota, and their potential ability to resist Candidas gives rise to the concept of using probiotics for the treatment of VVC. We wanted to find out whether using probiotics could be useful in treating VVC in non-pregnant women without high risk or side effects." } ]
query-laysum	21930	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAs a consequence of their condition, people with sickle cell disease are at high risk of developing an acute infection of the pulmonary parenchyma called community-acquired pneumonia. Many different bacteria can cause this infection and antibiotic treatment is generally needed to resolve it. There is no standardized approach to antibiotic therapy and treatment is likely to vary from country to country. Thus, there is a need to identify the efficacy and safety of different antibiotic treatment approaches for people with sickle cell disease suffering from community-acquired pneumonia. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy and safety of the antibiotic treatment approaches (monotherapy or combined) for people with sickle cell disease suffering from community-acquired pneumonia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched The Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register (01 September 2016), which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearching of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched LILACS (1982 to 01 September 2016), African Index Medicus (1982 to 20 October 2016) and WHO ICT Registry (20 October 2016).\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for published or unpublished randomized controlled trials.\nData collection and analysis\nWe intended to summarise data by standard Cochrane methodologies, but no eligible randomized controlled trials were identified.\nMain results\nWe were unable to find any randomized controlled trials on antibiotic treatment approaches for community-acquired pneumonia in people with sickle cell disease.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe updated review was unable to identify randomized controlled trials on efficacy and safety of the antibiotic treatment approaches for people with sickle cell disease suffering from community-acquired pneumonia. Randomized controlled trials are needed to establish the optimum antibiotic treatment for this condition. The trials regarding this issue should be structured and reported according to the CONSORT statement for improving the quality of reporting of efficacy and improved reports of harms in clinical research. Triallists should consider including the following outcomes in new trials: number of days to become afebrile; mortality; onset of pain crisis or complications of sickle cell disease following community-acquired pneumonia; diagnosis; hospitalization (admission rate and length of hospital stay); respiratory failure rate; and number of participants receiving a blood transfusion.\nThere are no trials included in the review and we have not identified any relevant trials up to September 2016. We therefore do not plan to update this review until new trials are published.\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 on the effect and safety of the antibiotic treatment approaches (one drug alone or combined drugs) for people with sickle cell disease with from community-acquired pneumonia. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review." } ]
query-laysum	21931	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute respiratory failure is a common life-threatening complication of acute onset neuromuscular diseases, and may exacerbate chronic hypoventilation in patients with neuromuscular disease or chest wall disorders. Standard management includes oxygen supplementation, physiotherapy, cough assistance, and, whenever needed, antibiotics and intermittent positive pressure ventilation. Non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) via nasal, buccal or full-face devices has become routine practice in many centres.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective of this review was to compare the efficacy of non-invasive ventilation with invasive ventilation in improving short-term survival in acute respiratory failure in people with neuromuscular disease and chest wall disorders. The secondary objectives were to compare the effects of NIV with those of invasive mechanical ventilation on improvement in arterial blood gas after 24 hours and lung function measurements after one month, incidence of barotrauma and ventilator-associated pneumonia, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit and length of hospital stay.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases on 11 September 2017: the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase. We also searched conference proceedings and clinical trials registries.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include randomised or quasi-randomised trials with or without blinding. We planned to include trials performed in children or adults with acute onset neuromuscular diseases or chronic neuromuscular disease or chest wall disorders presenting with acute respiratory failure that compared the benefits and risks of invasive ventilation versus NIV.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors reviewed searches and independently selected studies for assessment. We planned to follow standard Cochrane methodology for data collection and analysis.\nMain results\nWe did not identify any trials eligible for inclusion in the review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAcute respiratory failure is a life-threatening complication of acute onset neuromuscular disease and of chronic neuromuscular disease and chest wall disorders. We found no randomised trials on which to elaborate evidence-based practice for the use of non-invasive versus invasive mechanical ventilation. For researchers, there is a need to design and conduct new randomised trials to compare NIV with invasive ventilation in acute neuromuscular respiratory failure. These trials should anticipate variations in treatment responses according to disease condition (acute onset versus acute exacerbation on chronic neuromuscular diseases) and according to the presence or absence of bulbar dysfunction.\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 look at how the effects of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) compared to invasive ventilation in the treatment of respiratory failure in people with diseases affecting the nerves, muscles or the chest wall. The review set out to compare the two methods in terms of the effects on short-term survival, side effects, and the length of hospital stay." } ]
query-laysum	21932	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOne nutritional intervention advocated to prevent malnutrition among children is lipid-based nutrient supplements (LNS). LNS provide a range of vitamins and minerals, but unlike most other micronutrient supplements, LNS also provide energy, protein and essential fatty acids. Alternative recipes and formulations to LNS include fortified blended foods (FBF), which are foods fortified with vitamins and minerals, and micronutrient powders (MNP), which are a combination of vitamins and minerals,\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects and safety of preventive LNS given with complementary foods on health, nutrition and developmental outcomes of non-hospitalised infants and children six to 23 months of age, and whether or not they are more effective than other foods (including FBF or MNP).\nThis review did not assess the effects of LNS as supplementary foods or therapeutic foods in the management of moderate and severe acute malnutrition.\nSearch methods\nIn October 2018, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 21 other databases and two trials registers for relevant studies. We also checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews and contacted the authors of studies and other experts in the area for any ongoing and unpublished studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that evaluated the impact of LNS plus complementary foods given at point-of-use (for any dose, frequency, duration) to non-hospitalised infants and young children aged six to 23 months in stable or emergency settings and compared to no intervention, other supplementary foods (i.e. FBF), nutrition counselling or multiple micronutrient supplements or powders for point-of-use fortification of complementary foods.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened studies for relevance and, for those studies included in the review, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and rated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We carried out statistical analysis using Review Manager software. We used a random-effects meta-analysis for combining data as the interventions differed significantly. We set out the main findings of the review in 'Summary of findings' tables,.\nMain results\nOur search identified a total of 8124 records, from which we included 17 studies (54 papers) with 23,200 children in the review. The included studies reported on one or more of the pre-specified primary outcomes, and five studies included multiple comparison groups.\nOverall, the majority of trials were at low risk of bias for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting and other sources of bias, but at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel due to the nature of the intervention. Using the GRADE approach, we judged the quality of the evidence for most outcomes as low or moderate.\nLNS+complementary feeding compared with no intervention Thirteen studies compared LNS plus complementary feeding with no intervention. LNS plus complementary feeding reduced the prevalence of moderate stunting by 7% (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.98; nine studies, 13,372 participants; moderate-quality evidence), severe stunting by 15% (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98; five studies, 6151 participants; moderate-quality evidence), moderate wasting by 18% (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.91; eight studies; 13,172 participants; moderate-quality evidence), moderate underweight by 15% (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.91; eight studies, 13,073 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and anaemia by 21% (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.90; five studies, 2332 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no impact of LNS plus complementary feeding on severe wasting (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.46; three studies, 2329 participants) and severe underweight (RR 0.78, 95%CI 0.54 to 1.13; two studies, 1729 participants). Adverse effects did not differ between the groups (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.01; three studies, 3382 participants).\nLNS+complementary feeding compared with FBF Five studies compared LNS plus complementary feeding with other FBF, including corn soy blend and UNIMIX. We pooled four of the five studies in meta-analyses and found that, when compared to other FBF, LNS plus complementary feeding significantly reduced the prevalence of moderate stunting (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; three studies, 2828 participants; moderate-quality evidence), moderate wasting (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97; two studies, 2290 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and moderate underweight (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.91; two studies, 2280 participants; moderate-quality evidence). We found no difference between LNS plus complementary feeding and FBF for severe stunting (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.42; two studies, 729 participants; low-quality evidence), severe wasting (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.81; two studies, 735 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and severe underweight (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.25; one study, 173 participants; low-quality evidence).\nLNS+complementary feeding compared with MNP Four studies compared LNS plus complementary feeding with MNP. We pooled data from three of the four studies in meta-analyses and found that compared to MNP, LNS plus complementary feeding significantly reduced the prevalence of moderate underweight (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99; two studies, 2004 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and anaemia (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.68; two studies, 557 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no difference between LNS plus complementary feeding and MNP for moderate stunting (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.02; three studies, 2365 participants) and moderate wasting (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; two studies, 2004 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe findings of this review suggest that LNS plus complementary feeding compared to no intervention is effective at improving growth outcomes and anaemia without adverse effects among children aged six to 23 months in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) in Asia and Africa, and more effective if provided over a longer duration of time (over 12 months). Limited evidence also suggests that LNS plus complementary feeding is more effective than FBF and MNP at improving growth outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "This review includes 17 studies (from 54 reports) with 23,200 children. Four of the included studies were conducted in Malawi, three in Bangladesh, two in Ghana and one each in Burkina Faso, Haiti, Honduras, Chad, Congo, Kenya, Niger, Peru, Guatemala, and Indonesia. Four included studies enrolled pregnant women and provided LNS plus complementary feeding during pregnancy and post-partum, followed by infant supplementation starting at six months of age. The other studies provided LNS plus complementary feeding to children after six months of age. None of the included studies were conducted in emergency settings." } ]
query-laysum	21933	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nNausea and vomiting is a common and distressing presenting complaint in emergency departments (ED). The aetiology of nausea and vomiting in EDs is diverse and drugs are commonly prescribed. There is currently no consensus as to the optimum drug treatment of nausea and vomiting in the adult ED setting.\nObjectives\nTo provide evidence of the efficacy and safety of antiemetic medications in the management of nausea and vomiting in the adult ED setting.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (January 1966 to August 2014), EMBASE (OvidSP) (January 1980 to August 2014) and ISI Web of Science (January 1955 to August 2014). We also searched relevant clinical trial registries and conference proceedings.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of any drug in the treatment of nausea and vomiting in the treatment of adults in the ED. Study eligibility was not restricted by language or publication status.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias in included studies. We contacted authors of studies to obtain missing information if required.\nMain results\nWe included eight trials, involving 952 participants, of which 64% were women. Included trials were generally of adequate quality, with six trials at low risk of bias, and two trials at high risk of bias. Three trials with 518 participants compared five different drugs with placebo; all reported the primary outcome as mean change in visual analogue scale (VAS) (0 to 100) for nausea severity from baseline to 30 minutes. Trials did not routinely report other primary outcomes of the change in nausea VAS at 60 minutes or number of vomiting episodes. Differences in mean VAS change from baseline to 30 minutes between placebo and the drugs evaluated were: metoclopramide (three trials, 301 participants; mean difference (MD) -5.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -11.33 to 0.80), ondansetron (two trials, 250 participants; MD -4.32, 95% CI -11.20 to 2.56), prochlorperazine (one trial, 50 participants; MD -1.80, 95% CI -14.40 to 10.80), promethazine (one trial, 82 participants; MD -8.47, 95% CI -19.79 to 2.85) and droperidol (one trial, 48 participants; MD -15.8, 95% CI -26.98 to -4.62). The only statistically significant change in baseline VAS to 30 minutes was for droperidol, in a single trial of 48 participants. No other drug was statistically significantly superior to placebo. Other included trials evaluated a drug compared to \"active controls\" (alternative antiemetic). There was no convincing evidence of superiority of any particular drug compared to active control. All trials included in this review reported adverse events, but they were variably reported precluding meaningful pooling of results. Adverse events were generally mild, there were no reported serious adverse events. Overall, the quality of the evidence was low, mainly because there were not enough data.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn an ED population, there is no definite evidence to support the superiority of any one drug over any other drug, or the superiority of any drug over placebo. Participants receiving placebo often reported clinically significant improvement in nausea, implying general supportive treatment such as intravenous fluids may be sufficient for the majority of people. If a drug is considered necessary, choice of drug may be dictated by other considerations such as a person's preference, adverse-effect profile and cost. The review was limited by the paucity of clinical trials in this setting. Future research should include the use of placebo and consider focusing on specific diagnostic groups and controlling for factors such as intravenous fluid administered.\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 effects of medicines in the treatment of nausea and vomiting in adults in the emergency department." } ]
query-laysum	21934	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe effect of antibiotics with potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties are being investigated in clinical trials as treatment for COVID-19. The use of antibiotics follows the intention-to-treat the viral disease and not primarily to treat bacterial co-infections of individuals with COVID-19. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding effectiveness and safety of antibiotics as anti-viral treatments for COVID-19 based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotics compared to each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or any other active intervention with proven efficacy for treatment of COVID-19 outpatients and inpatients.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 14 June 2021.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs were included that compared antibiotics with each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or another proven intervention, for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, treated in the in- or outpatient settings.\nCo-interventions had to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing antibiotics to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy.\nData collection and analysis\nWe assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) for RCTs. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: 1. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as new need for intubation or death, clinical improvement defined as being discharged alive, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias; 2. to treat outpatients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as hospital admission or death, clinical improvement defined as symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias.\nMain results\nWe included 11 studies with 11,281 participants with an average age of 54 years investigating antibiotics compared to placebo, standard of care alone or another antibiotic. No study was found comparing antibiotics to an intervention with proven efficacy. All studies investigated azithromycin, two studies investigated other antibiotics compared to azithromycin. Seven studies investigated inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19 and four investigated mild COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings. Eight studies had an open-label design, two were blinded with a placebo control, and one did not report on blinding. We identified 19 ongoing and 15 studies awaiting classification pending publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies.\nOf the 30 study results contributing to primary outcomes by included studies, 17 were assessed as overall low risk and 13 as some concerns of bias. Only studies investigating azithromycin reported data eligible for the prioritised primary outcomes. Azithromycin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies.\nAzithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in inpatients\nWe are very certain that azithromycin has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 compared to standard of care alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.06; 8600 participants; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence). Azithromycin probably has little or no effect on clinical worsening or death at day 28 (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; 7311 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), on clinical improvement at day 28 (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11; 8172 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), on serious adverse events during the study period (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.40; 794 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiac arrhythmias during the study period (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.15; 7865 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard of care alone. Azithromycin may increase any adverse events slightly during the study period (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.57; 355 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence) compared to standard of care alone. No study reported quality of life up to 28 days.\nAzithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in outpatients\nAzithromycin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care alone on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 1.00 ; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.69; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.94 ; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.56; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), and on symptom resolution at day 14 (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 138 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether azithromycin increases or reduces serious adverse events compared to placebo or standard of care alone (0 participants experienced serious adverse events; 454 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported on adverse events, cardiac arrhythmias during the study period or quality of life up to 28 days.\nAzithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to any other antibiotics in inpatients and outpatients\nOne study compared azithromycin to lincomycin in inpatients, but did not report any primary outcome.\nAnother study compared azithromycin to clarithromycin in outpatients, but did not report any relevant outcome for this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are certain that risk of death in hospitalised COVID-19 patients is not reduced by treatment with azithromycin after 28 days. Further, based on moderate-certainty evidence, patients in the inpatient setting with moderate and severe disease probably do not benefit from azithromycin used as potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment for COVID-19 regarding clinical worsening or improvement. For the outpatient setting, there is currently low-certainty evidence that azithromycin may have no beneficial effect for COVID-19 individuals. There is no evidence from RCTs available for other antibiotics as antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment of COVID-19.\nWith accordance to the living approach of this review, we will continually update our search and include eligible trials to fill this evidence gap. However, in relation to the evidence for azithromycin and in the context of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotics should not be used for treatment of COVID-19 outside well-designed RCTs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Outpatients with mild COVID-19\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Compared to usual care alone or placebo azithromycin may make little or no difference to: \n• people dying in the 28 days after treatment (3 studies, 876 people);\n• whether the people's disease worsened in the 28 days after treatment (3 studies, 876 people) or\n• whether people's COVID-19 symptoms got better in the 14 days after treatment (1 study, 138 people).\nWe don't know whether azithromycin compared to usual care alone or placebo increases or decreases serious unwanted effects (2 studies, 454 participants).\nNo studies reported non-serious unwanted events, heart rhythm problems, or quality of life." } ]
query-laysum	21935	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOur March 2021 edition of this review showed thoracic imaging computed tomography (CT) to be sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19 pneumonia. This new edition is an update of the review.\nObjectives\nOur objectives were to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in people with suspected COVID-19; assess the rate of positive imaging in people who had an initial reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negative result and a positive RT-PCR result on follow-up; and evaluate the accuracy of thoracic imaging for screening COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals. The secondary objective was to assess threshold effects of index test positivity on accuracy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID-19 publications through to 17 February 2021. We did not apply any language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included diagnostic accuracy studies of all designs, except for case-control, that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19. Studies had to assess chest CT, chest X-ray, or ultrasound of the lungs for the diagnosis of COVID-19, use a reference standard that included RT-PCR, and report estimates of test accuracy or provide data from which we could compute estimates. We excluded studies that used imaging as part of the reference standard and studies that excluded participants with normal index test results.\nData collection and analysis\nThe review authors independently and in duplicate screened articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability concerns using QUADAS-2. We presented sensitivity and specificity per study on paired forest plots, and summarized pooled estimates in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate.\nMain results\nWe included 98 studies in this review. Of these, 94 were included for evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in the evaluation of people with suspected COVID-19. Eight studies were included for assessing the rate of positive imaging in individuals with initial RT-PCR negative results and positive RT-PCR results on follow-up, and 10 studies were included for evaluating the accuracy of thoracic imaging for imagining asymptomatic individuals.\nFor all 98 included studies, risk of bias was high or unclear in 52 (53%) studies with respect to participant selection, in 64 (65%) studies with respect to reference standard, in 46 (47%) studies with respect to index test, and in 48 (49%) studies with respect to flow and timing. Concerns about the applicability of the evidence to: participants were high or unclear in eight (8%) studies; index test were high or unclear in seven (7%) studies; and reference standard were high or unclear in seven (7%) studies.\nImaging in people with suspected COVID-19\nWe included 94 studies. Eighty-seven studies evaluated one imaging modality, and seven studies evaluated two imaging modalities. All studies used RT-PCR alone or in combination with other criteria (for example, clinical signs and symptoms, positive contacts) as the reference standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19.\nFor chest CT (69 studies, 28285 participants, 14,342 (51%) cases), sensitivities ranged from 45% to 100%, and specificities from 10% to 99%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 86.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83.6 to 89.6), and pooled specificity was 78.3% (95% CI 73.7 to 82.3). Definition for index test positivity was a source of heterogeneity for sensitivity, but not specificity. Reference standard was not a source of heterogeneity.\nFor chest X-ray (17 studies, 8529 participants, 5303 (62%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 44% to 94% and specificity from 24 to 93%. The pooled sensitivity of chest X-ray was 73.1% (95% CI 64.1 to 80.5), and pooled specificity was 73.3% (95% CI 61.9 to 82.2). Definition for index test positivity was not found to be a source of heterogeneity. Definition for index test positivity and reference standard were not found to be sources of heterogeneity.\nFor ultrasound of the lungs (15 studies, 2410 participants, 1158 (48%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 73% to 94% and the specificity ranged from 21% to 98%. The pooled sensitivity of ultrasound was 88.9% (95% CI 84.9 to 92.0), and the pooled specificity was 72.2% (95% CI 58.8 to 82.5). Definition for index test positivity and reference standard were not found to be sources of heterogeneity.\nIndirect comparisons of modalities evaluated across all 94 studies indicated that chest CT and ultrasound gave higher sensitivity estimates than X-ray (P = 0.0003 and P = 0.001, respectively). Chest CT and ultrasound gave similar sensitivities (P = 0.42). All modalities had similar specificities (CT versus X-ray P = 0.36; CT versus ultrasound P = 0.32; X-ray versus ultrasound P = 0.89).\nImaging in PCR-negative people who subsequently became positive\nFor rate of positive imaging in individuals with initial RT-PCR negative results, we included 8 studies (7 CT, 1 ultrasound) with a total of 198 participants suspected of having COVID-19, all of whom had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Most studies (7/8) evaluated CT. Of 177 participants with initially negative RT-PCR who had positive RT-PCR results on follow-up testing, 75.8% (95% CI 45.3 to 92.2) had positive CT findings.\nImaging in asymptomatic PCR-positive people\nFor imaging asymptomatic individuals, we included 10 studies (7 CT, 1 X-ray, 2 ultrasound) with a total of 3548 asymptomatic participants, of whom 364 (10%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. For chest CT (7 studies, 3134 participants, 315 (10%) cases), the pooled sensitivity was 55.7% (95% CI 35.4 to 74.3) and the pooled specificity was 91.1% (95% CI 82.6 to 95.7).\nAuthors' conclusions\nChest CT and ultrasound of the lungs are sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19. Chest X-ray is moderately sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19. Thus, chest CT and ultrasound may have more utility for ruling out COVID-19 than for differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. The uncertainty resulting from high or unclear risk of bias and the heterogeneity of included studies limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What does this mean?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The evidence suggests that chest CT and ultrasound are better at ruling out COVID-19 infection than distinguishing it from other respiratory problems. So, their usefulness may be limited to excluding COVID-19 infection rather than differentiating it from other causes of lung infection. In addition, chest CT imaging had poor sensitivity and high specificity for detecting asymptomatic individuals." } ]

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.